Speaker 1: Let's go ahead and get started. The basement, I got the thumbs up from. Speaker 2: We are all set. Speaker 1: Great. Welcome everybody. This is the Native Conservation Commission. Today is Thursday, May 21st. Sorry to be a couple minutes late. We're gonna go ahead and open the public meeting here. And so the first item on the agenda I've got is a certificate of compliance for two Arrow Path. We do have, we have a representative of two Arrow Path here. Speaker 2: We do have a representative online. I do believe I saw John Fredrico from GNH. Yes, there is John. Speaker 1: Great. Hey John, thank you for, for, for joining.
Is, is there a way to switch this monitors? Look. Got, Speaker 2: Let me see what I can mess around with. Speaker 1: Sorry to be picky, but Speaker 2: It's once John, do you wanna say something quickly so that it brings you I Speaker 3: Yeah, no, if everybody can we, Speaker 1: Oh, there you go. Great. Thanks John. Appreciate it. Alright, so Speaker 3: I do apologize, I just want to correct my audio here. One moment please. Speaker 1: Okay. So we've got a letter from the engineers from Gary and, and Helenan. So, dear commission members on behalf of the client Silva department requesting a certific of certificate of compliance for two arrow path,
DEP file number 2 3 3 dash 8 52 and the recorded order condition. So the site was inspected for compliance with the proposed construction activities approved by the commission. Based on our observations, the following items were minor field changes from what was previously approved from the commission have been reflected on the as-built plan. Included. Included with this request, a walkway was constructed in the front of the house with a portion within a hundred feet of the wetlands. A small retaining wall was constructed on the front of the house approximately 68 feet from the wetlands. The fitness grade elevations in some areas are higher than design. The deck on the rear of the house was constructed larger than is shown on the approved plan. The portion of the deck has constructed,
which falls within a hundred feet of the wetland, is approximately 130 square feet with the deck on the approved plan showed approximately 85 square feet within a hundred feet of the wet. And the deck is as shown on the approved plan, is approximately 92 feet from the wet wetland. The deck has constructed is approximately 91.3 feet from the wetland. Based on our review of the project, the asbuilt conditions are substantially compliant with those approved and the noted differences do not create unfavorable conditions. Claire, on your records, were any of these changes brought to our attention? Speaker 2: So they, they were noted on the asbuilt plan. Speaker 1: I I know that. Were they? Speaker 2: Yeah, the one,
the one clarification is all of these changes would be considered minor exempt because of their distance from the wetland resource area, but they were not discussed with staff, nor did they receive an administrative approval in advance of them being installed. Speaker 1: Okay. Do we know why that was the case? Speaker 2: I think it was likely just a failure of communication on the developer's part. Speaker 1: Okay. Do we have a representative of the developer on the call? I mean, we have you, sir, but do we have a developer, one of the developers on the call? I did Speaker 2: Not see Mike Ola or anyone from Silva on the call, but if someone is here, they're welcome to unmute.
Speaker 1: I don't know about you guys, but I, I would like to talk with them before we issue a certificate of compliance on this. Speaker 2: I do wanna clarify that there are current different owners. The, the house has been sold to new owners, but Silva is coming in for the COC because they were the applicant on the order of conditions. But I'm happy to make that. Speaker 1: Yeah, I I I'm not interested in, in, if someone comes in with plans that are different than what was approved without having talked with us about it, even if they were minor. Speaker 2: I can send an email to Mike and see if he can log on tonight. Maybe we can take this up again later in the agenda. Speaker 1: Let, let's continue this to later. Yep. I just, it it's, you know, if you wanna see,
certainly my hackles get up, you know, it's people going and making all kinds of changes, even if they're minor, you know, we're owed the courtesy of someone just coming and saying, Hey, we want to change the plans. And so let's let, let's drop this for now and if we pick it, you know, if someone from Silva wants to join us later, they can, we, we can talk with them later about it. So let's table this for now and move on to the next item on the agenda. Alright, notice of intent continuation for 56 Beaver Dam Road. We have a representative of there on the call here, Speaker 4: Union Mr. Chairman, Matt Morrow. Morrow Environmental Consulting here representing the applicant. Sir. Speaker 1: Welcome. Thank you for, for joining. Lemme just get this, this particular,
Speaker 2: We did open this hearing 'cause we continued it at a prior Speaker 1: Meeting. Right. But we have not heard any substantive discussion of No, Speaker 2: We have not of this year. So hold on. We were awaiting the zoning board of appeals process to start to determine if the footprint that was proposed would be approved. The project has received zoning board of appeals approval. Speaker 1: Okay. So we formally opened it and, and continued it. So why don't we go and let's get a presentation from the applicant's rep representative about what's going on. Speaker 2: Matt, did you want to share your screen or did you want me to pull up the materials? Speaker 4: I can share the screen if that's okay. Speaker 2: You should be all set to do so.
Speaker 4: Thank you so much. Wow. I was actually rapid fire on the screen share for a change. There we go. Can you guys see that okay? Speaker 2: Yes, we are seeing that. Speaker 4: Okay, so I'll try to make this, you know, as concise as possible so that you guys have time to ask questions. So 56 Beva Dam Road. We have, as I noted in my notice of intent narrative is an existing developed residential single family home lot project is for a raise and rebuild for the single family home with some associated site improvements in the 100 foot
buffer zone in the 200 foot riverfront that is associated with Beaver Dam Brook reason for the tear down rebuild and the site improvements is to allow for a DA accommodations for a minor child at the age of five who resides in the house. There are a lot of barriers currently in the house and it's really not usable for her, as is this tear down rebuild will create scenarios that are a DA compliant complete with interior and one exterior ramp. So lot pains.
9,628 square feet within the riverfront. There's a wetland to the rear of the lot right here that I delineated about a year ago. Fairly straightforward. What we're looking to do here is because of the redevelopment within the riverfront, we have approximately the pre and post development difference in impervious surface comes out to 963 square feet. There is a bluestone paver patio that is proposed in the rear yard on top of existing on
that is there because it is meant for access for her wheelchair. So she'd be able to enjoy the backyard. It is a, it is a, a purview surface and has to be maintained as such an order to ensure that it meets a a b or architectural access board codes. Those are the state codes. We have a total overage on impervious surface of, I believe it's 969 square feet. We are looking to do a greater than two to one mitigation that was proposed, which is in the back here, which would,
there's a planting pallet that is on the plan conservation seed mix on the bottom with native non cultivar shrubbery to be placed on top. That comes out to 1,950 square feet, which is actually a little bit greater than the two to one. This has received a DEP number with no comment. So I mean that, that's the Reader's Digest version. Speaker 2: And Matt and I had a little bit of a discussion before the hearing in regard to the staff comment on the patio and that he did address it in his statement tonight that, that the patio is intended to be pervious
and that there will be that maintenance plan. Okay. And also, oh, in the, Speaker 4: Excuse me for the dog, sorry. Speaker 2: I was gonna say in Matt's response to my staff comments, which is available as a PDF in the portal, they did note that because of the high groundwater on the site, they are asking for a waiver from the stormwater requirements. That is a process that is allowed under our bylaw. They are proposing rain gar or rain barrels at the corners of the structure.
But that is the only stormwater management currently proposed for the Speaker 1: Site. So this is, this is on a slab. Speaker 2: Yes. Matt, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it is gonna be a slab. The groundwater was 32 to 72 inches below surface grade across the site. Speaker 4: That is correct. I also would note we are seeking a waiver from the 25 foot zone where the plantings are because it's really the only spot on the lot we had to do it. And it's made to enhance the buffer both to the wetland and to the river front. What this will effectively do, because of the density of the planting and the fact that it'll be, you know, you can ask for memorial post if you'd like to add that condition,
it would be totally closed off to actually any intrusion because of the native planting. In other words, the whole area is gonna be re naturalized. Speaker 1: Got it. And because this is a proposed redevelopment, we, we we're not obligated to do an alternatives analysis for this. Speaker 2: No. Speaker 1: So has there been any conversation around driveway being more pervious than what's proposed here? Speaker 2: Yeah, so I, I I'll note that Natick has not had great success with types of pervious pavement. The largest installation
that was installed at the Primrose school was actually requested to be removed and replaced with an underground infiltration system, which was completed last year because the, the pavement wasn't functioning properly because of Speaker 1: On on North Main Street. Speaker 2: Exactly. Yep. So generally when we're doing driveways, they are paver driveways for permeability, but I'm just not sure how that would work with the A DAI was just gonna say the ada the site make that, that would be my only sort of note in that regard. Speaker 1: Yeah. Okay. Alright. This, Speaker 4: This particular house essentially is
made for the accommodation of the child. So the driveways, the, the, the way the entrance is the one level, even the way that the, everything enters from the garage out to the patio in the back, everything is geared towards accessibility. So that, that's why it's designed the way it's designed Speaker 1: Any, it doesn't look like it, but talk about any regrading of the site mat. Speaker 4: There, there isn't any regrading post, everything is being built on top of the slab. Everything's being built to existing grade. The grade in the backyard is fairly flat to begin with. So it, there's nothing that's gonna really be required
to do any wholesale grading changes for like the patio, for example, the shed over here in the corner is actually down here currently and is gonna be moved farther out and out of the no touch zone with a 25 foot zone. So you won't, you won't have anything within 25 feet of the wetland other than the naturalized area. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 5: Questions guys. Speaker 1: It's gonna be unique, unique circumstance and I think with the circumstances that are, that are presented looks to me like they're, you know, it's a thoughtful, a thoughtful approach that structurally is, you know,
gonna give the family what they need. There. Comments, concerns, Speaker 6: Is that, has that back boundary been identified? Speaker 2: No, I think that Matt, there there are some like small revisions that would be needed that I think maybe getting the, the demarcation marked out, getting the o and m for the patio. And that, I think you had noted that you had revise the shrub planting detail as well in your response. So I mean, if the commission is comfortable, those, those minor revisions could be added in advance of the next hearing where we could review conditions for the project. Speaker 1: Yeah, firstly, I mean I, I think
with those things buttoned up and documented, I'd be comfortable moving forward with this. Any thoughts on that? Speaker 6: My, my, yeah, Speaker 4: I mean I, I can take care of that with Claire. No problem, Mr. Chairman and, and commission that, that, that won't be an issue at all. Great, thanks. And I'd like to take the opportunity to just remark to the commission how thoughtful and interactive and helpful Claire has been with interpretations of the regulations of working on this. Speaker 1: Thanks. It is annual review season, so we'll, we'll note that appropriately. Speaker 4: Well then I did that just in time. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Perfect. Thank you Speaker 2: Mike, you were gonna Speaker 6: Yeah, my, my only comment is, you know, something that occasionally happens along DCR lands is, is around making sure that we're not doing mitigation on somebody else's property. You know, that came up on a, on a project I think two or three years ago where it things were proposed not on the subject property. Speaker 1: I think there's a little activity not on subject. Speaker 6: Yeah. So yeah, just making sure that that state line is identified clearly and accurately so we're not Speaker 2: Maybe make sure there's something in the pre-construction
site visit condition that notes the, the, the review of the property line and rear erosion control in particular. Speaker 6: Yeah, just, yeah, it just, I'd hate to be calculating mitigation on somebody else's Yeah. Speaker 4: Property. No, just, just to clarify for the purposes of Commissioner Downey's concern, Todd Chapin real map info did do a survey of the lot and marked everything else. So we do, we are well aware of where the property lines are. We'll be more than happy to make sure that that is reinforced and like accented, you know, with erosion control prior to work commencing.
Speaker 6: Appreciate that. Speaker 1: Okay. Any other questions? Hearing look, we should go ahead and close the public hearing then at our next meeting we can, I Speaker 2: Didn't know if you wanted to ask if there were any abutters person. Speaker 1: Oh yeah. Any abutters, you're sorry. Thank you. Speaker 2: If folks are online and are abutters for this project, feel free to use the raise hand function, which would be under the reactions on your toolbar or under the more button, depending on whether you're on your phone or not. Or you're also welcome to physically raise your hand and I'll be able to see you and, and announce. Speaker 1: Alright. Speaker 2: I'm not seeing anyone Speaker 1: Hearing Speaker 4: Not one of the things I would note
I do when I put out the abutter notification. I do give the public an option to email my office for A PDF copy of the plans and the notice of intent. I had no takers on this one. Speaker 1: Great. Thanks Matt. That's good outreach. Alright, hearing none, happy to entertain a motion to close the public hearing and then we would review conditions at our next meeting and deal with those in the first meeting in June. Motion. So move motion to close. All right. I'll take Jim's. Jim's motion. Chris, is that a second from you? Yes, please. Excellent. Thanks. Any further discussion on that? All those in the room? We got Chris online.
We have David online. Hey David? Yes, David Online full house Speaker 2: Tonight. Speaker 1: Excellent. So all all are in favor? None opposed. So Matt, thank you. We'll we will take this up at our next meeting and review the conditions, but otherwise we're on track here. Speaker 2: And Matt, I'll have adv advance conditions draft to you in advance for review. Speaker 4: Okay, thank you very much. Appreciate you your time everyone. Great. Speaker 1: Thanks Matt. Alright, next item in the agenda is 1 0 4 West Central, 1 0 4 West Central. Speaker 2: A number of folks here in the room. Speaker 1: Welcome folks. Speaker 2: Sorry Rick, I know you're in front. I tried to adjust your high enough so it would look like I was going behind.
Speaker 1: Welcome, welcome back. Good to see you in person, Sue. Hi. Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 1: Alright, Claire, would you give a, give a status report on that and then we'll we'll dive in? Speaker 2: Yes. So at after the last commission meeting, there was some additional materials submitted regarding the phase two inspection that occurred on the site. I had a couple of minor comments on the phase two inspection. Mostly the recognition that the site does fall within the town's aquifer protection district. So the report was updated, all of the levels that were
levels of contamination that were found on the site were below all reportable thresholds and cleanup thresholds for Speaker 1: DP. So there was, but there was trace, yes, Speaker 2: Yes. Low, low level contamination. And there is a recommendation from the LSP that did the phase two report who has also now been, been contracted to come on for the, the redevelopment of the site, per the letter in the commission's folder, that there is a concern there may be additional contamination under the slab where the floor drains were things that may have leaked around the pipes in that direct area. And so there is additional testing that'll happen once the building is demolished.
And so appropriate conditions can be drafted for, you know, reports being received prior to construction moving forward and all that jazz. And in discussion with, I have meant to forward this email to you, but I was trying to eat some dinner before the meeting happened. Mike Boudreaux did confirm that just because of the amount of fill at the back of the site, if we can explore, if it's possible to split the system to bring some of it up towards the front of the lot where the soil profile was better. I know Fred Schobel from DGT camp be here tonight, but I'll get that comment over to you guys tomorrow by email.
And so that is something that we could explore that way if there is additional contamination found, you guys have already shifted some of that system out of the path of where that contamination plume would be if that needs to be dealt with. Speaker 1: So is there, so the, the, the whole slab, the existing foundation, all of that is getting dug out. Speaker 2: Yes. The building is proposed to be demolished in full completely. Speaker 1: Right. And so is there any chance that what is found under this slab then becomes reportable and would then need some kind of remediation effort as part of the project? Speaker 2: Definitely a potential.
What I would note is if the plume was large enough, the, the monitoring walls are placed very close to the building, they are pretty close. So it is likely that if there is additional contamination is fairly localized and could likely be dealt with by removal and proper disposal. I cannot say that for a fact. I have not obviously been to the site, nor am I an LSP, but I would be surprised if the monitoring wells were picking up on such low levels if there was a, a substantial amount of contamination under the building. Not to say that that is not possible. Speaker 1: Yeah. Mean there's a variety of gl Yes, absolutely. As to why that could be the case. So can we should,
I mean I think we're required to, if once the slab is really is is removed that test some, you know, testing of the soil is done. Yep. And then if it become, and then we're, we're notified of the results of the testing and then if it's above reportable or or to a level where some kind of remediation is required that everything pauses until that happens. Right? Speaker 2: Yes. And, and obviously the board of health would be involved in that stuff as well, if there was any contamination that was located. Speaker 1: Chris, is that, is that consistent with your experience and Yeah. Appropriate? Yeah,
Speaker 7: And I, I mean it, they might need to chase that plume. Right. You know, if, if the levels were high enough they'd need to do subsequent testing until they reach the, reach the levels that are so appropriate. Speaker 1: Okay. Alright. And then what about this idea of shifting part of the recharge system, you know, part of the storm water system in the ground, shifting it so that it's, you know, all are part of it so that it's out of the contaminated area just to not have something that is
turbocharging kind of the recharge in, in, into the ground there. So, Speaker 2: Oh, did you get a text from Fred? Speaker 8: Yeah, I did get a text from Fred and I, I'm gonna read it to Speaker 1: You. Breaking news. Hey, Speaker 8: Breaking news. Okay. For capturing runoff into the front yard area, we could route a couple of the front downspouts into the area. But being on the uphill side of the basement, we would need to be 20 feet from the foundation and also 10 feet from the property line. Mm. Speaker 1: So then they're in the, in the street at that point, Speaker 8: The setback from the basement foundation to the property line is about 30 feet.
So we wouldn't have room for a system there without infringing on the setbacks. If the lower spot is acceptable for infiltration and doesn't have contaminants, then we would prefer it stay in the current location. Need me to hop on? So he must be some Speaker 1: He's he's watching. Yeah, Speaker 2: So I mean, I think if the commission is comfortable with it, condition language could be worded regarding the placement of the stormwater system as more of a, a, a field change rather than a an approved plan document. Obviously the system that is being provided currently is in compliance
with the town's requirements for storage and reductions in runoff. It is just this concern about is the soil in this location gonna be ideal for infiltration, especially given the fact that we are in the afer protection district. Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean the, it's, it's a previously developed, I don't wanna use the the word industrial, but it's a previously developed, previously disturbed site. It, it is not a pristine site no matter how we slice it. It would be nice to avoid as much as possible putting an infiltration system on top of, in a plume on top of a plume. Oh, Speaker 2: Well if there's a plume there that,
that is a whole different story. But I think Speaker 1: I have hesitated on the word plume on Speaker 2: Some, what we could condition some Speaker 1: Residual contamination is, Speaker 2: Is if the applicant is open to this and the engineer agrees is additional excavation to remove film material until natural material is reached to ensure that there's no minimized this would be impact, Speaker 1: This would be area that might be contaminated. I mean, to have them clean, you know, to require them to clean out just Speaker 2: Within the footprint of the, the infiltration system. Speaker 1: Oh, okay. Okay. I mean I'd, I'd be open to a discussion
around that, you know, and if there's an argument to not, you know, 'cause it is below reportable. Speaker 2: Well yes, but the removal of the film material also has to do with the drainage capability of the soil. Right. I mean, Speaker 1: Whatever has to happen technically anyway. Yes, Speaker 2: That's great. So if the commission was open to it, that that's another way to sort of discuss the, the soil quality in that area. Speaker 1: Okay. Are people comfortable kind of with where the conversation is going on this? Do they have a sample of that area? Speaker 2: That area has already been, that's where the monitoring wells are, are, are located. Oh. And Mr. Ola has signed on to the meeting.
Just we can, if we wanted to jump back to that. Speaker 1: Okay. You know, just to be clear, I mean in, in the letter from the LSP, you know, there's no evidence that's significant contamination occurred to soil or groundwater at the subject property of modified and repair operations such that release notification of MSS DEP is not required based on these results. No contaminants were detected in groundwater at or above mass DEP reportable levels. You know, it, it's a, it's a low amount and there's a lot of other stuff on that site as well. Okay. Well let's, I mean, I think with, you know, for me personally, I mean so long as the soil is sampled
underneath the slab and we know and we just convince ourselves that, you know, there's not a big slug of stuff under there and, and it's at a low level like we expect, as long as that's the case, then I'm comfortable moving forward if there's a, if there's an opportunity to move part of the infiltration system out of an area of, Speaker 2: Well if the commission is, is gonna be interested in hearing conditions live, Fred and I could talk about that offline between now and the next hearing. And then we can either write yeah. Condition language to reflect that or potentially see revised plans. Speaker 1: Yeah, why don't you do that. Okay. So we can, we can do that. Okay.
Speaker 6: Could I ask you a Chris a question about asbestos? How is that classified in, in, in this EPA soil testing? Speaker 1: It's not a groundwater contaminant. Speaker 2: No, it would be, but the health department does require asbestos testing for all demolitions of buildings of a certain age. Speaker 6: Just 'cause of the break work that was historically Yep. For many years. Still there Speaker 1: Old, old, old auto shots, all kinds of, all kinds of funky stuff went on. Speaker 7: They used to train it in cement as well. So it's like always Speaker 1: Yeah, right. Could be around the fun an eye,
but that would get scooped up under the board of health stuff, but, but it wouldn't be a groundwater issue. Speaker 2: But we can also include, you know, belt and suspender conditions in our permits about receiving copies of documentation and stuff Speaker 1: Like that. Yeah, for sure. Any, any other questions for the applicants? Are we, at this point, are we comfortable with the plans as proposed with this, with this discussion having, having taken place? Speaker 9: I, I just like to get the clarification on that wall that, is it being buried Speaker 2: Or is it, oh, no, so they, they did clarify. It's the, the level of ground at the top of the wall will be at grade.
So it will be the new surface driveway will be level with the top of the wall and then the bottom of the wall will be at the level of the lot adjacent next door. Okay. So the wall is gonna be retained as a wall as a structure. Right. It's not being covered over, it's not being buried over. Yes. Okay. Alright. That was just me being nitpicky about words as well. Okay. Clarity. Speaker 1: Other questions currently about the proposal concerns are we with, with what we've talked about? Would we be, you know, I'm, I'm gonna ask for public input, but are we comfortable with closing the public hearing
tonight and then having clear work with the LSP on the conditions that we would then talk about next, next time? Alright. Anybody from the public have any questions or comments on this? Speaker 2: I'm not seeing any raised hands. Speaker 1: Hearing none. I'd be happy to entertain a motion to close the public hearing on 1 0 4 West Central. Speaker 10: So moved. Speaker 1: Thank you, David. Is that seconded? Seconded. Thank you Jeff. Further discussion those in the room, David? Yes. Chris? Yes. All right. Public hearings closed. We'll pick up the conditions at our meeting next week and go from there. So meeting
Speaker 2: Two weeks, Speaker 1: Sorry, our next meeting. Mr. Speaker 10: Chairman, if I, for the record, Patrick Moynihan, counsel for the welcome. Thank you for the applicant. I'm just, in terms of procedure now, now that the, the hearing has been closed, is it my understanding that it will at the, at the next meeting that, that the order of conditions will be voted on and that would then allow us to move forward as far as the project is concerned Speaker 1: After the approve, you know, after the, the necessary kind of appeal dates?
Yes. You know, when all, you know those periods, but Right, right. Speaker 10: But in terms of the action of this board, Speaker 1: The Yeah, the intention is that Claire and, and your representative, your engineer will work together and, and draft an order of conditions. We would then vote the order of conditions and approve it, presumably next, next meeting. Okay, Speaker 2: Great. And Pat, a draft of that would be provided to the full team for review in advance. Speaker 1: Have a bite at that apple as well. Speaker 10: Okay. Yeah, fine. That's good. I mean this is, as I'm sure you know, this has been a long process and you have a last, you have a last stop and we're, Speaker 1: We're doing our best to drag it out. We're Speaker 10: More than happy. Yeah, and it has nothing to do with you.
It's, this has been in litigation for about five years, so we're happy that this is the, this is the end of the road in terms of the process. I think the, Speaker 1: The horizon is rapidly Speaker 10: Approaching. Yeah. Okay, great. So thank you very much. Speaker 1: We voted, we're closed. We'll pick it up next time. Yes. Speaker 2: I think we're good. Vote to continue for formality. I don't think we, Speaker 1: I don't think we need to need Speaker 2: It because we've closed the hearing. We'll address conditions at the following hearing on June we fourth. Alright. Do you expect us to be present? If you would like to be present, obviously you'll have the conditions in advance, so if you guys are comfortable with the conditions that are drafted and don't have any edits, then I can
just review with the commission. But if no one is present and the commission has any questions or edits, there isn't an opportunity to respond. So up to the applicant team and Speaker 1: Please, whatever you build, please make it what we approved. Speaker 10: No question. Yeah, and I can, and and just also for the record, I think the, the developer has a, has a history here in Natick in terms of whenever they deal with a contaminated site, they, they take no chances at all. I mean, if there's any possibility that there's any problems there, that all that material will be out of there. We Speaker 1: Have no, no doubt about the, the integrity of the developer in this project.
Great. So thank you very much. Appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you. Have a good night. Alright, next on the agenda 16 Peterson Road, please. Speaker 2: Oh, do we wanna jump back to two arrow path? Mike is here or we can keep going and get to that idea. Mike Speaker 1: Is here from Silva. Yes. Okay, great. No, let's, let's jump back to Arrow Path. Yeah. Alright, so go back to the certificate of compliance for Aero Path. I understand we have a representative of Silva here, is that right? Speaker 2: Yeah. Mr. Ola is on the line. Speaker 1: Great. Thanks for joining. I appreciate it. The reason we, we punted this a little bit down is, you know, there were a number of changes made to the plan, you know, to the approved plan that we're now being asked
to kind of retroactively approve. I'd like just to kind of hear the thought process behind that approach. Speaker 2: Mike, are you able to unmute? I'm giving him the little prompt to ask to unmute. I'm not getting a response. Mike Ola, are you able to unmute and join the discussion? Speaker 1: Alright, let's come back to it. Speaker 2: Okay. Speaker 1: Alright. All right. What did I say? 15 Peterson. 16 Speaker 2: Peterson, but Speaker 1: Yes, 16 Peterson. We have representatives of 16 Peterson here. Speaker 2: Yes, I do believe Speaker 1: That we, oh my god, I gotta formally open this as well. Speaker 2: It's not anybody in the room. You guys are both 46.
You guys are free for Jennings Pond. Speaker 1: Let me go ahead and just open it anyways. So, in accordance with the Wetlands Protection Act, Natick local wetlands bylaw article 79, the NA Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on a notice of intent filed by deci development group LLC for property located at 16 Peterson Road Map 15 lot 1 69 D. The proposal is to demolish the existing single family home and construct a new single family home with associated site features. Speaker 2: Oh, Matt, I am just pulling up my email chain between myself and the representative on this project. He has another hearing tonight and so that, I actually moved him later on the agenda at his request.
So either we maybe see if Mike is back or we move on to Cyprus. Speaker 1: Well, let's go to 43 Cypress then. So I, I formally opened it. I'm gonna and Speaker 2: We'll pause it. We will pause this until the, the representative is there on table. I'll send him an email quickly to let him know that we are, we are Speaker 1: Ready. Yes. Welcome gentlemen. How are you? Good to see you. Very good. Good to see you again. Alright, so whatever you build, make sure it's according to the plans. I'm gonna say that every time. Alright, so welcome back. We did a site visit last, last week, two weeks ago, something Speaker 2: Like that, two weeks ago now, I think. Speaker 1: Yeah. And would like to, you know, so in terms of process,
in terms of, you know, questions, we all got to lay eyes on it, get a general sense of sense of the layouts. I'd like to open it up for questions from the commission here, things that we observed, questions we have, timing, staging of, of the project, anything, anything like that. So open it up. What do you guys got Speaker 11: The sequence of how the site will unfold? Well, we intend to just go right at it all aspects. So as far as clearing and then start working on our road
and, you know, we have major storm, we have pretty big stormwater chamber system and going in and sewer water. So yeah, we, we intend to just, you know, and I, the word came to me that you guys were interested in how we're gonna phase this. And I, yes, me and me and Mike, my engineer, were like, we, I I intend to just build this up. So unless you have any thoughts or Mike, if you have anything to add, sorry, Mike Dean, my engineer, he's on the screen right there. Yeah. That, that's our, that's my intentions. Speaker 1: I think the, I can be so bold, you know, the nature
of the core, the, you know, the origin of the question is that, you know, anytime, anytime we see a site of any size, but a site that's, you know, a couple of acres or you know, being, being stripped and leveled and all that stuff, especially when it's a lot of it is kind of on a hillside, you know, we're super sensitive to making sure that the site is really buttoned up. Well, you know, we've had instances, several instances here in Natick and other projects, admittedly larger,
but where that we're kind of on hills on the side of hills and when everything is stripped out all at once, it, it can become a real problem in storm events. And so we, we'd want to really, that's where the question's coming from. Yeah. And we just want to kind of hear from you as to, you know, we, we've got, you know, words on plans and stuff like that around erosion control and, and tilt fences and all that stuff. But just kind of hear, you know, what your approach is gonna be. Things are on inspections, you know, post storm event inspections, and then all this stuff would be documented in a, in the order of conditions, in terms of requirements,
would there need to be any kind of temporary storm water features built? You know, sometimes for some of these projects they do temporary detention basins, things like that. So if you could just kind of talk through a little bit, kind of the mindset around that. Yeah, Speaker 11: We really didn't intend on any temporary stormwater systems. Mike, what are you, what are you thinking on that? Yeah, Speaker 12: Yeah. So we can, if I can share my screen, that would be great, Speaker 2: Mike. You should have the approve the authority to go ahead and do that. I tried to make sure that everybody who I knew was gonna be sharing had the, the permissions Speaker 11: Sharing. Yeah. Speaker 12: Okay. So you can, you can see my screen here? Yep. Speaker 11: Yep. Speaker 12: And the pointer. Yep. Yep. Okay.
Yeah, so I mean, as Rick had just said, you know, there was, and, and the, the chair just mentioned, you know, the question about phase and we did have that discussion and as Rick said, he's really looking to, you know, not really break up or phase the project. He feels that it's a fairly smaller project. So as we go through, and I know the chair just mentioned that there's a lot of, there's a lot of information on these plans. So obviously bringing that attention to the developer and the applicant and eventually his contractor, I think
that's a, that's, you know, that's a good thing, right? So if we, if we scroll through here, I can either just go through this whole thing or if the commission is familiar with the project and doesn't want to go over the project thoroughly, that's fine. Or at a high level, that's fine. But if, you know, if you scroll through, here's, here's the erosion control, and you did, one of the questions was about temporary, temporary measures during construction. So I would point to the erosion control plan that's part of the submittal.
And there is, once again, like I said, it's not jumping around, but we saw, saw that, let's just go through this quickly please. If the, if the commission doesn't mind, yeah, go for it. Go. Okay. All right. So once again, Mike Dean, DNL design group, it was nice meeting the commission members there the other night. Appreciate your time for taking time out to, to walk the site. So as we saw out there, we have 43 cypress shown here in the orange and 57 evergreen. That's, that's the project just slightly over four,
four acres, 4.02 acres I believe. So here's the existing conditions plan. What we have is the existing house at 47 evergreen shown here in the red, which we all saw and we all drove down this existing driveway. And what we have is this manmade depression that's fairly prominent on the site and in developing this, the program or the design over time, working with the planning board, we work to utilizing that depression. So certainly in, so certainly we're, by utilizing that, that has, that has helped out in more than one way drainage.
And it's also highlighted, and I'll go to the erosion control plan in a minute, which that can be used as temporary as a temporary settlement basin during construction, which is very prominent and will serve us well actually. So also in this proposal is to remove this house. I'm not sure if I said that remove this house, raise this existing house, which will actually remove this house out of the zone one. Once again, here's the zone one that's on the parcel of 47 and there's a shed existing shed here that's gonna be,
that's going to be removed as well. So there's your existing conditions. Yes, I do understand that it is sloping. The good thing is that we do have pure sands and gravels, which helps in during construction and erosion and control and erosion and sediment. So if we just move on, here's Evergreen Evergreen's down here. Cyprus is located here. So if we go to this layout, the proposal is for this proposed roadway and a hammerhead configuration here. Proposed water line, proposed sewer shown here going out to Bayberry, the proposed houses lot one lot,
one, lot two, lot three and lot four here. There's that existing house that'll be raised and it's clearly delineated the limit of work and the limit of clearing is shown. Standard catch basin catch base, deep sump catch basin to manhole connection shown here in the light blue. That's the proposed drainage. Also here is a hydrodynamic separator or a storm scepter, which was proposed and that was the location of that was requested to be in the roadway system by the town engineer working through the planning board. Also, there's a gate valve on here requested by the town engineer to be able to have the ability to shut
that, that drain line down if need be. Drains out in this direction here to an underground recharge system shown here. The outlet in this area, we've revised, we've since this original submittal, we've received comments from Claire or staff at the staff for the conservation commission and the town engineer. And we've modified some things through that process. One is implementing a three foot high wall along here, Which is right along that zone one, which will serve, it helps it aids in the proposed grading in this area,
minimizing some of the disturbance in clarin. And it also serves as a demarcation along that zone one, which is, is a concern from the town departments. Also recently we've just added demarcation along this zone line in the rear of lot four. That was a recent question. And once again, through this process we will be deeding, totally deeding this land versus the, there were some options out there. One of 'em, ev was even with an easement, but deed this to the town gives the,
gives the town control of their zone one, which I think is in line with DEP requests and require, I don't know about requirements, but that's certainly something DEP likes to see. Is the town or the community be in control of their zone ones. Let's see, proposed sewer also was, was something that, that took place throughout the entire process through the process of the planning board. Erosion control is proposed around the entire perimeter and none of the work is within the buffer zone of the edge of the water.
In this case, I'm sorry, this is the lake shown here and then the lake's further up north and there's the buffer zone. We move on to the grading plan. This has been revised recently. We then we also recently received some, a sketch from staff and we modified this grade and to mimic that, that that sketch that was sent to us modified some of these grades. That was also where we added the demarcation of zone one and lot four. Also this area here, when we pulled this head wall back, as I mentioned before, that was one of the requests
before it was located in this general area. So you can see we tighten things up there as well. And then this shows all the proposed grading. Once the build out is there, that depression is going to be a portion of that, the depression is going to be filled in to pad this site as this lot three. Now the actual lot itself is kind of shortened up due to the deed in this zone one out to the town under this proposal. And once again, the applicant also had a landscape architect submit this plan here,
which I'm not gonna really speak to as, I don't think you want me to, I'm not a landscape architect, but you can see there's the replanting across the entire site. Also restoration within the zone, one of the land that's going to be deeded some restoration in this area out near the shed and then along the roadway. And so here we, here we are with the erosion control. So this is all submitted, reviewed. This has been added, I don't believe I had erosion control in this area here for, for heading out to build that sewer line. But there's stockpile areas, stockpile areas,
and you can modify these check dams for your temporary measures during construction. But certainly that's pointed down to this depression, which will act, will, will actually serve well during construction. And obviously any erosion or silt that goes to that manmade depression will certainly be cleaned before they continue on construction entrance. Things of this nature are proposed and there's erosion control notes here, details. And then there's also, this is a pretty substantial page
that talks about the process, so to speak during construction, before construction post construction. And like I said, we worked through, we worked through this plan with during the planning board process s we feel that it's a pretty comprehensive plan put together by the, by a team, the applicant working with the town departments up to this point. So I don't know if that answers your questions, but certainly there's erosion control, there's a erosion control plan, O and m plan submitted, things of that nature. With that, I'd turn that back over to either Rick Brian or the commission.
Speaker 2: And just so you guys know, Laura signed on as well is is on virtually. And just a quick note, Mike, it looked like that landscaping plan was revised from the one that I had. Just make sure that that gets submitted to me as well. Speaker 1: Yeah, I didn't see that one in the plan, in the folder Speaker 2: Folder it, it addressed the staff comment regarding the Yeah. Footprint of the existing house, which is Yes, exactly. So just make sure that that gets submitted. Yeah, Speaker 1: I mean there's a, sorry, go ahead Mike. Speaker 12: Yes, and I apologize for that. We, I literally just put this in probably at four 30 or something when it came in. I just put it in in this present. And last here, Larry Green,
the landscape architects here, he can speak to that. I just rolled it in and as I was scrolling through, I just figured I'd pointed out. But yes, we took one of the, one of the co the second round of comments from staff was talking about this area where it's actually going to be restored where the existing house is. And one of the concerns is to make sure that that is not a lawn area. And we obviously Larry Green and the team saw that, heard that and he's recently revised his plan. But like I said, they can, Larry can speak to that. AK can speak to that. Speaker 1: So is there, just, just a quick question on that.
So in the, in the, the planting plan that we had, there was a whole lot of these, there was like, I don't know, 60 plus of the tailored junipers and, but I didn't see them cited on the plan and but now the, this, this plan is different here so we need just put some eyes on it, but it looks like there's over behind where the, where the depression is, is there going to be a a, a good bit of replanting on the downhill side of the, of the, the retaining wall? Speaker 13: Yes. So good evening LA So I get in touch that, so basically this is the updated plan kind of addressing the both rounds of comments.
Lemme step back. You know, so basically the intent of the landscape plan was to basically kind of create a planting plan that predominantly used native species. And in that layer we wanted to have a variety of seasonal bloom blooming cycles. We'll we'll also creating buffering screening. And then to your point specifically in the, in the zone one we wanted to have native plant these trees and shrubs that provide ecological value of visual character and plant diversity. So in there you'll you'll see like you recommended the shag bark hickory and then, and then for other shrubs we had like witch hazel, retro dole, winterberry, great laurel,
like maple leaf fiber, burnum, just a kind of good, good variety of plans for habitat and for buffer and screening. Speaker 1: Could you point out where, where the, where the 60 plus Taylor Junipers are going? Or are they just kind of scattered throughout? Speaker 13: They they're going basically on, if you're looking at this, the far right side a lot one that, that that buffer Speaker 1: That's, that's where they're mostly going screaming along Bay Area. Got it. Essentially. Okay. Okay. Speaker 13: And then basically the besides two or three species within the street tree layout, those are all predominantly native as well. I just mixed in a couple ornamental evergreens.
Speaker 1: Got it. And then there's a row of arbor ie blocking off the halls property on Evergreen. Yep, that too on the other side there. Okay. Speaker 13: Yep. And in the area we where we that the butter wanted screening, we, I did that with a mix of balson fur and hemlock between, Speaker 1: Okay. Okay, good. Mike, back to you on the, so, so there's gonna be a temporary access road down to Bayberry, is that right? Speaker 13: Yeah, Speaker 9: It's Speaker 12: Up right there. Yeah. So, so during the site walk, I know that question was asked, so by installing this sewer line here,
there will essentially be access that connects from the site to Bayberry to, so once you start construction there, so there will be a connection there. I believe the question was asked about the larger equipment coming down Cyprus, things of that nature. I think if there's anything that can't go down Cyprus, then if they can bring it this way, that's the way they'll bring it. But I really can't speak to all that. Maybe Rick has more about the operation and the equipment, but the, is that your question down in this area? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean basically, I mean it's it's a fairly steep slope though, right? I mean I know your guys' stuff can get all kinds of places, but, but it's a fairly steep slope to get up there and that the intention is that that would be restored back to previous condition. Correct. Speaker 11: Afterwards, as, as you, you probably know that's an easement that's made a property there that we're going over some of the, the turns to get into down to cypress are very tough. Yeah. So we are just trying to keep it open to if we need to use it then we gotta use it.
Okay. We don't wanna have to drive over people's lawns. We wanna limit traffic and Yep. You know what I'm talking about. Speaker 1: Yep. Okay. Speaker 9: In terms of sequencing though, I guess my, my thought of the question was like the first thing, are you gonna go in and take that house out of there in the shed get and just pull that all out, right? Or is it another and then the, the cutting down of all the trees and I think there was some comment, I think there's gonna be some kind of tree survey I think, is that right? Speaker 2: Oh, they, they did do a tree survey.
So the trees are identified on the plan in terms of the jurisdiction, the Speaker 9: Existing trees, Speaker 2: The existing trees, Speaker 9: Which is, it is a lot of them, right. I mean there's a lot of wood to come outta Speaker 2: It. Right. 118 trees for removal. It's somewhere in my nine notes. Speaker 1: And then, and then what's the, what's the replacement ratio? Speaker 2: The revised plan shows, oh actually Laurie, Larry, if you're still on, you're more than welcome to. Speaker 13: Yeah. So removal of 118 and we're coming back with 151. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 9: Yeah. But that's a, like I assume those trees, that's gonna be, that could be step one I guess correct. Of Speaker 1: The project how some trees go, right?
Speaker 9: Yep. And I mean and those, those are usually some pretty sizable trucks and, and that, that bayberry is just a circle too, right? Well Speaker 1: They, those would come down Cypress, right? Speaker 9: Those would come down Speaker 1: Cy, those, those, you know, the, the, that equipment. I mean that's, that's just done by, I mean is is it machines taken 'em out? Speaker 11: Yeah. I mean you definitely, yes. There's, there's not somebody cutting every tree with a Speaker 1: Saw Johnny Apple's not showing up with a, with an accident. But there's Speaker 9: Big trees that haul out there. I mean, you know, it's like Speaker 2: Logging, they ship most of it on site. Yeah. Speaker 11: All the stumps get ground Speaker 9: Up trees there,
Speaker 11: Right? Yeah. Some big trees. Speaker 9: Yeah. Speaker 2: Okay. I think one thing that I'd be looking for, I, I understand that a lot of this will be contractor dependent, but as part of the nip d application, understanding how the erosion is potentially gonna be managed along that bayberry access Yeah, for sure. Is gonna be really important. But I do understand that that's gonna be something you work out with the contractor, but I just know there'll be a condition about it. Speaker 1: Okay, so, so houses removed, trees come out, grading starts. Speaker 9: Yeah. Like that depression that we saw, the big depression, when's that get filled in? Is that like during lot three?
Speaker 11: You know, we that as needed. So the, the goal here was try to balance it so we're, you know, cutting fills not crazy. We're not hauling a hundreds of trucks off site. Right. We are trying to balance the site so that depression is, is key in this development Speaker 1: That Speaker 11: Storage to me that answer your question? Speaker 9: You mean you gonna we Speaker 11: Are, we are filling some of that depression in. Speaker 9: Okay. And then you're gonna probably use some of that fill, is that what you're saying? No, Speaker 11: We have plenty on site. Speaker 9: Okay. Speaker 11: You the chambers alone generate a lot of material. Speaker 9: Okay, well that, that was my other question. That that that whole field there, does that go in, you know,
early in the process, the whole stormwater field there, the, like those are Caltech I assume? Yep. Speaker 11: Yeah, it goes in early in the process. So that'll be along with the road development in the, in that field? Yes. Okay. Well, Speaker 2: Oh that actually raises a question on my end. If the, if the stormwater system is going in first, are you guys then gonna be staking off that area to prevent equipment from moving over it? Yeah, of course. Yeah. Okay. So I mean when it comes to phasing that is like, we're not really necessarily getting at, you know, phase one, but it's if that area is gonna be put in first, that that area then can then be landscaped
and stabilized so that it's not exposed soils for the duration of the rest of construction. Correct. Yep. So things like that is what we're getting at when we're talking about phasing is right. How are we gonna be making sure that the site is, 'cause it's better for you guys if it's stabilized too. It's less to worry about in terms of erosion. So I think that was what we're trying to get at in terms of the, the phasing question, at least on my end. Yeah. Gotcha. Speaker 1: I would also, I would also suggest, I'd like for there to be particular care and maybe a, you know, extra erosion protection along the bayberry road side. 'cause that's a pretty steep slope down to the, you know, those houses down there.
Hmm. And then also on the, on the lake side. 'cause there's also a, not, not as steep a slope down there, but it goes straight down to the lake and just to, you know, if not double up, I mean something where it's, you know, 'cause I think you've got staked waddles right now. Speaker 11: Yeah, that's exactly what we, Mike and I talked about is just doubling things up as needed based on your, you know, the grading and steepness. Okay. You know this, we're conscious of this. Yeah. Speaker 1: How Speaker 14: Long do you propose the, in taking the trees out? How many days, Speaker 11: How many long, how many days
to take the trees out and stump it? I would say it's probably a week. Speaker 14: Okay. So you've got a week there and Speaker 11: Week and a week and a half. Speaker 14: As soon as they're all out. I mean you've got this, so the erosion control in there now before you go in and cut, you've got this proposed road you go in, you cut. And then I'm just wondering is there some way that say Claire can be informed of just how things are moving along in case for some reason
or other what looks like in theory very adequate erosion control. If it can really work that way when you get all the trees out, all the stumps down Speaker 2: The, the nip D permit requires report inspection reports for the erosion controls at certain intervals. It's the pretty standard after half inch storm or weekly basis, biweekly basis depending on the specifics. But essentially we can require copies of those be submitted to the commission whenever they're developed within a certain number of days of the report being generated. And we have a standard condition that notes any violations
of the erosion controls must be immediately reported to the, well, Speaker 14: I mean, you got a week this is gonna take place and you know, reports going back and forth. I hate to put this on your back, but it's, that's what I'm here for. It's almost like, you know, once they let you know they've got whatever amount of the road cut to get the equipment in to start the cutting, I think it's seven days we could have an awful lot of rain. We don't know. And that is, you know, that they, they predict, I guess Noah says we're not gonna get a lot
of hurricanes and things like that. It starts the first of next month, Speaker 2: Just so the commission knows. I do. When we do have large storm events that are occurring, at least during business hours, you, you will regularly see me driving around town reviewing project sites. I do it as much as my schedule allows during rain events. 'cause I do think it's important. Speaker 1: I also, I I walk my dog down that path. Speaker 2: Oh, there you Speaker 1: Go. By the lake. You know, I mean, it's, it's, it's, it's a, it's not a huge project. It's not a big project, you know, but it's, it's substantial. But it's, but it's very visible, you know, Speaker 11: In a sensitive, we understand that that's
Speaker 14: Slopes all around Speaker 1: It. Right. And so that's why, you know, it's just something, you know, there's gonna be a lot of eyeballs on it and that's why we're just kind of, and Speaker 14: That's, it's lot Four is the weirdest thing I've ever seen. What's that? What you call lot four is really weird. Just the way the road that, that you're cutting in there to address, to get to the various houses. And they, well actually not in this view here. If you look at it in the other view, it's sort of like all of a sudden, lot four in the road, everything gets squeezed down like that. Speaker 2: It was part of the attempt to reduce the pavement width on the site.
It does, it does lead to some funnier, it's a paper organizations, it's Speaker 1: A paper circle, George, but it's, but they're doing, they're doing this hammerhead just to re to, to reduce the impervious service. Speaker 11: It's quite a process to get to this point, you think? And we, I'm trying to create like a natural buffer at the end of that so it doesn't feel like it's a hammerhead, you know, it's more of a, a natural woodsy area driveway to come through to get to lot four house. Speaker 14: Just so long as the driveway's big enough for the fire apparatus. Speaker 11: No, that's, that's all. We beat that one up. I Speaker 2: Was gonna say Tanya, Tanya's a tough cookie when it comes
to the fire reviews. Alright. Speaker 1: Where, what other, what other questions? I mean, we've talked a lot about erosion control. We've got a sense of the sequencing of this. We talked about the planting plan, which we can review. It's about a 1.4, 1.3 to one tree remove tree replacement. What other questions do we have here? Speaker 6: So this doesn't trigger the two, two to one requirement. Speaker 2: So our bylaw requires one to one. It's if trees are damaged or removed during construction that were not approved. They have to be replaced two to one. Okay. Speaker 6: So I, I guess I, I guess my, where my, my sentiment is,
is, is kind of, I hear a lot of vagueness in this project, honestly, and I expect you guys are wonderfully great at what you do. But when I hear things as needed, when I hear, you know, we might use this road, we might use that. We're not sure. That creates a lot of ambiguity around a project that inherently re requires exactness. So logging equipment is not gonna get down. Cyrus, that's 100% not gonna happen. So how are the trees getting cut? You're not grinding the stumps in place,
you're stumping the lot. Correct. Why aren't we grinding in place? A hundred a hundred stumps. You're gonna grind. Yeah. For what purpose? We've done it before. For what purpose? Well, they put the chips in the truck and they take 'em away. And then you're gonna come in with what? Wom topsoil to cover that all up. Like I, I, I guess I'm trying to figure out what do you mean? What do you mean come in with loom? Well, when you grind a stump, you know, you still have, you have a divot, correct? Yeah. As you can see, Moses is getting re contoured, right?
Sure. So why wouldn't you pop the stumps? I guess, because you're gonna, you're gonna Oh, no, no. They are getting popped and then they get clown. Yes. Speaker 12: Yeah. Rick, I, yeah, excuse me, Rick. I think when you said wood chips and stuff, I don't think we're on the same page. I would say that they're, and I think Rick can speak to this, but I would say like, like the, the conservation member had just mentioned they're gonna caught 'em and then pop 'em. Yes. Speaker 6: Okay. So, and the stumps are gonna be trucked off or they're gonna be, you know, drum chipped or, you know, some sort of large scale
operation chipping operation that's gonna shred these. Correct? Yes. Okay. So, you know where I kind of disagree in terms of the project size. I think it's about the same size as South Main Street and you know, yes. It's not in terms of the intensity and the blasting and all that, but in terms of land disturbance, it's about the same. Yeah. I was referring to far, far fewer units Yeah. Going in. I mean, there's far fewer units, but in terms of disturbance and intensity of disturbance, the, the site is about the same. Yeah, fair. You know, so that's, you know,
where I stand firm and, and maybe, maybe a little bit firmer than, than some of my colleagues here is that I think we should demand a phased approach to this because we've demanded it on other projects of similar disturbance. Maybe not in terms of four houses, but in terms of the level of tree cutting and the level of grading and the sensitivity of the site. We have, we have always demanded a phased approach because we've had projects go sideways and other ways that demands us to now take that approach
to sometimes have a phased thought to this. So this is where, you know, I I, I look at what happened at Magnolia just north, north of this same soils, but we had a huge amount of erosion and issues there with Magnolia. You know, you have a site here that is inherently a forested site. It has a, a very thick layer of organic matter on top of this soil profile. And when that gets all turned up, whether the soils south sandy gravel is of no consequence,
you still have a high possibility of erosion because of that organic matter that's been developing in this forested condition for 80 to a hundred years. So, you know, I would just advocate to the committee or the commission to, you know, take an approach that we've taken in the past, which is when we're dealing with high levels of disturbance with building projects, a phased approach is something that we, we've typically asked for. What Speaker 1: Would a, what would a phased approach look like in this, in this case? Would it be a lot? By lot
Speaker 6: It would be, I want answers like what roads are we using? How, you know, the road coming off. If there's a road coming off of Bayberry, what is the engineered spec on that? How wide is it? What is the steepness? Are we, are we doing cut and fill? What? Like what is the engineering of that access? Speaker 2: I also see some opportunities, 'cause obviously you guys are gonna be looking to grade out the lots after the foundations are laid. It's, you know, I talked about the storm water system. It's also as the house is removed and the retaining wall is constructed, those areas can be roped off
and stabilized in the zone one that's then gonna be deeded to the town. I I do see a lot of opportunities, and again, I'm not talking about huge scale phasing, but this is, you know, where can we find the opportunities to stabilize and, you know, be done with areas to minimize the amount of time that there are exposed soils on the lot. I, I do agree with Mike about the details being needed for the access road off of Bayberry. I do understand that sometimes that comes with the contractor, but I think that there will be condition language surrounding before any work is approved to start, those details need
to be provided because it is a steep slope coming off of there. You know, looking at mass mapper, it's about a 15 foot elevation change down that short little strip. So getting big equipment up there without the appropriate compaction protection and things like that can result in erosion that's then gonna impact Bayberry road. So I, I do think there's some opportunities to get a bit more creative with how the site management is happening to ensure that the areas that can be stabilized and closed off and not impact construction are, are being completed in such a manner.
Speaker 6: What I'm trying to avoid is where we had a situation where somebody went out, dropped the date a blade on a D eight dozer and put in an access road and then we had impacts to vernal pools. We've had impacts to road systems, we've had impacts to abutting landowners. Yep. Makes sense. Based on that one singular decision. And I see an opportunity here that somebody with a D six or a D eight or whatever is gonna come out, drop a blade and pump on the road and then as needed comes into the conversation.
I'm just not co this, this as needed approach has bid us numerous times and I just don't want to go down that path again. So, Speaker 1: So can we give the applicant really clear marching orders in terms of what, what is needed here? And I think the detail on the road, on the access road from, well, Speaker 6: We asked for that at the site visit. I believe Speaker 2: It was also in my staff comments. Speaker 6: So, you know, that's the part that I'm, I'm confused here this evening is we've asked about details, specifically how you're gonna get into the site, what the road system looks like and how it's gonna be constructed.
How wide is it? What, what are we doing with, with the road coming? Where is it? Speaker 1: The road meaning the exit, the, the, how Speaker 6: Is the site gonna be developed? Right? And if it's, if it's gonna be off of Cypress, then great. If it's, if it's possible, if it's not possible, then this other alternative, you know, this is town owned land, mind you. So, you know, we have some cons, you know, some custody of that, you know, that we should be cognizant of. Yes, they're doing some things that are very beneficial to the, to this development in the neighborhood as well
as the, the town in general with the, the zone one. And I fully support all that, all these different conversations I've had for years or months or however long their process has been, you know. But for me it's, the devil's in the details and the reality is, is we asked for detail on that road and we got nothing. Speaker 1: So, so the ask is details on the ask access road. The ask is details on, you know, will the, will the tree removal equipment, will all of that come down? Cyprus, will it go in from Bayberry?
The, I'm just trying to make a list so that, so he he's got Speaker 6: That's a phone. That's a phone call. I was gonna say if that's a simple phone call to a logging company and I imagine you have one on speed dial for your work and they're gonna be able to tell you within 30 seconds can they get the equipment down cypress or they need to use Bayberry. Speaker 2: And the question from the staff comments was, can the applicant clarify exactly when access will occur from this point, meaning Bayberry road and what type of access would be needed, eg. Small equipment, dump truck, et cetera. So that was Okay, a question.
Speaker 1: I, so, so let's just highlight, let's highlight that. Yep. What else? I just wanna get it all on the table. So there's no, and there's opportunities. Speaker 6: I mean in the other, the other project we asked where the, where they're gonna be grinding the stumps, where's that equipment? You're gonna need a pad, you're gonna need a flat surface. You're gonna need, you know what, what I would call in my work a landing or a header or some sort of, some sort of area to process these stumps Speaker 1: Where the drum chipper or whatever is being used is to sit and all of that. Speaker 6: Okay. You know, and that, you know, 'cause that inherently is part of this phased concept is,
you know, where's, where's this equipment gonna be parked? Because I can tell you if I was a neighbor and had to listen to a drum chipper for a week and a half, I would lose my mind. Speaker 1: No, it's true. There's a lot of homes in there. Okay, what else? What other, what other, you know, let's just get it all on the table right here. And I think that Claire, if you can work with the applicant to get this, you know, to get this sequence clarified to, to your satisfaction,
Speaker 6: I think it's simple. They're simple questions. It's just, it's really about the road we're the chippers gonna be. And then inherently, you know, how are we gonna, how is this going to be constructed in terms of, you know, in terms of, you know, what road is gonna be, what road is going to be the major kind of infrastructure to start with Speaker 1: Kind of in that, because that, Speaker 6: That's gonna drive the rest of, of the project. Okay. Speaker 1: What else guys? I mean, what else do we need? Chris, David, you know, what, what other marching orders do we need? And, and Mike, if you can be available to provide feedback
to, you know, Claire and the applicant work this out, we can then come back, you know, when we, when we meet again, we can come back and have something Speaker 6: We can share with them the other Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 2: I can share the project that they're referring to. I, their volume of disturbance was very different. But in terms of the sort of locations and, you know, requests that Mike is making, I think it's a good example of, of what the Speaker 1: Looking this is 2 16, 2 18 we're talking about. Yes. Speaker 2: Essentially what we would be looking for in terms of documentation. Yeah, no blasting on this sites blast. You guys blast are clear on that at least.
And I do think that this is, I will absolutely reach out to you guys tomorrow to maybe set up a time to chat, but I can also just summarize in email what I think I'm absorbing from the commission tonight Sure. And get that to you guys asap so that you guys can turn something around. I think likely you guys have a lot of the information that they're looking for, it's just maybe not necessarily in the format that makes the most sense for this permitting process. Speaker 6: You could use the BMP, like the BMP narrative. Yep. That was used on two eight I think is, we're talking like two paragraphs.
Yeah, I'm, I'm not talking a, you know, some sort of, you know, master's thesis here. It's, it's a, it's a simple writing exercise from my perspective, but it does provide detail that, you know, when the road gets put in, how are we gonna make sure that that road doesn't blow up down into Bayberry, those types of things. Right. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 7: I'd like to, I'd like to add something. Speaker 1: Yeah. Chris, Speaker 7: I, I know that we're not talking about putting in engineering retention features for this site,
or at least that's not the, the design plan. But if they're going to use that depression as a, as a catchall for the site, I'd like to know some details on how they plan to deal with it. Not draining, you know, Speaker 2: Well Speaker 7: Chris, if that Speaker 2: Go ahead. The soils out there indicate that it will drain very well, but I think that making sure that there's something in the, the L-T-P-P-P and the o and m plan about inspections and things like that is definitely a good add. Speaker 7: Thank you. Speaker 1: Okay. Other asks?
Speaker 9: I I just had a question. Is there a septic system at that existing house right now? Yeah. Yes. Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 9: Okay. So that, that's, is that just gonna get filled in? Speaker 2: It'll be abandoned according to the board of health requirements. Abandoned. Speaker 9: Okay. Yeah. Speaker 2: Which is usually they open up the system, drain it, and then fill it with stoner sand Speaker 1: And then everything, all the new stuff is going on sewer. Speaker 9: Right. Speaker 1: Okay. Other, other, other things just to, so we can be clear, efficient. Alright, so Claire will reach out to kind
of provide bullet points and the stuff that, that's, that, that's needed and then we can nail that down. And Speaker 2: I will also just in anticipation of the next meeting, get some draft conditions ready if the commission feels like we're in an appropriate place to review those. Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. I don't see why not. Speaker 6: Just like where the drum chipper's gonna be. Yeah. You know, whatever that pad's gonna be. What is it gonna be? Constructed pad? Speaker 2: No, I think I've got everything, but like I said, I'll, I'll, I'll sum it all out as well and cc you so that way you can see what, make sure that I've got it all. Speaker 1: Okay. Chris, David, any any further questions?
Things to put on table? Just just Speaker 15: One clear, do we have, is there any kind of alert policy for neighbors abouts? And if so, do we have any comments back? Speaker 2: So the, there is abut notification required for this project. Abuts were notified. We did receive proof of a notification. I don't believe, I believe everybody else who is on the call here right now is for the Beaver management discussion or the remaining public hearings. But if anybody, Matt, I don't know if you wanted to open it up to public comment or if there was additional commission questions. Speaker 1: If, if there, yeah, I mean, are there any public comments on this project here?
Speaker 2: Again, if folks have joined it and didn't hear my earlier announcement, feel free to use the raise hand function in Zoom or just come off of, turn your camera on and, and physically raise your hand. I'm happy to call on you. I'm not seeing anyone. Okay. Speaker 1: Any further questions or comments or suggestions? We continue this to our first meeting in June, which is June, currently June 4th. Anything further on that? Yeah, Speaker 16: Yeah. At the, at the beginning it talked about the, you know, the kind of like the tire wash for vehicles leaving via Cyprus, but it's, if we are gonna use Bayberry, we'll have
to have the same level of, well you'd be hauling mud and dirt into Bayberry. Right? Right. So that's not reflected on the plan. Okay. Speaker 1: Show that. Speaker 16: And whether that would be on town property into Bayberry or on the applicant's property before getting into town property, right? Speaker 1: Like the tracking pad. Yeah. Correct. Speaker 16: Probably be on the applicant's property, not on the town property at the, Speaker 1: At the top of the hill. Speaker 2: It's actually, I mean I think that the rip wrap can be placed Speaker 16: All the way down.
Speaker 2: I think it'll, it's almost gonna have to be, Speaker 1: Yeah. Okay. Any, any other comments, suggestions? All right, let's continue this to June 4th please. Motion made someone. Thank you Jeff. Is that seconded? Second. Thank you George. Any further discussion on that? Those in the room? David? Yes. Chris? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you gentlemen. Thank you. Have a good night. Thanks. Thank you. Have a good night. Thanks everyone. Enjoy your evening. Alright, next item on the agenda I've got is, do we have two arrow path on the call? Speaker 2: Yes. Mr. Ola is still on, hoping he can come off
of mute, join the discussion. John from GNH is also still on the representative for 16 Peterson has joined the call now. He was hoping to get out of his meeting. Okay. Around eight 15. So right on time. Alright Mike, are you available to join the discussion? I did send a follow up email as well. Mr. Ola, can you please come off mute? Speaker 1: Zoom is so Speaker 2: Nice. Mike. Ola, are you available to join the discussion? Speaker 1: Call in all, let's move on. Okay. 16 Peterson please. Speaker 2: 16 Peterson. Speaker 1: Alright.
We did open it formally and then tabled it. Speaker 2: Yes. And we have Scott fine here representing the project. Speaker 1: Hey Scott, thanks for joining. Speaker 16: Yeah, thank you for your patience, I Speaker 1: Appreciate it. Yeah, no worries. Speaker 2: Oh and just one cop on my end. There's an error in my staff notes that Scott correctly pointed out to me. The note regarding the stormwater management materials. We are just missing the o and m plan because it's a single family home. The full hydro CAD report is not a required for the stormwater. Also given the very limited footprint expansion
and the addition of stormwater management where there is none, I think we can reasonably assume that the stormwater runoff will be reduced. Speaker 1: Alright, Scott, could you give us a voiceover on this project please? Speaker 17: Yeah, of course. For the record, Scott RA with Grady Consulting representing the applicant Joe Deci, who I believe is with us tonight. Yes. This project here is the raisin rebuild of a single family dwelling. The project is within a 200 foot riverfront of an unnamed stream and partially within a hundred foot buffer of a bordering vegetated wetland.
The site is fully developed all the way to the outer perimeters of the lot. It's developed with a house driveway, fenced in area lawn, et cetera. What we're proposing to do is to raise that dwelling and construct a new one in its place. It is subject to the administrative stormwater approval. So we, we made a site visit and we dug some test holes to confirm where groundwater is and to confirm the type of soil where we're able to put the, this drainage system. And what we're proposing here is a drainage system that's able to accommodate one inch of runoff
for the impervious coverage. There were some comments in the staff report that we are happy to address. I think a lot of them are pretty easy to address. One significant one I think here is, is the notion of the degraded area. So just to touch on that, at the existing degraded area. And that is the area which is developed within impervious surfaces. Within that 200 foot riverfront area, the existing area is 639. That proposed is 1051. So there's a net change in 412 square feet of degraded area. So we propose to mitigate that. It's not shown on this version of the plan,
but we will be providing a revised plan and to mitigate that, we'll be offsetting it with at, at a little greater than two to one ratio. So it'll be 850 square feet of mitigation and it'll be toward the rear of the site. And that location is where there's existing lawn. So the homeowner will be sacrificing some lawn here. He'll be proposing some ground cover and, and shrubbery in, in the back there there's also a tree that you can see that's right in the corner of the proposed house. That tree will need to be removed for this work and we propose to replicate that one-to-one
and that'll be back in the, in the rear of the site. Over over here, within that mitigation area, we have a silt sock around the perimeter of the property. There was a suggestion in the staff report to add a silt fence along the rear of the house just with concerns about the excavation for the basement. And that's a, a comment that we're happy to address. We're happy to add that in as well. So I'll leave it at that and happy to answer any questions. Speaker 1: Scott, is the mitigation area kind of what will be outside of the fence? I see that the fence is gonna be offset from the property line. Is that where the mitigation would go?
Speaker 17: Exactly, yes. Yes. So it'll be, it'll be between this, the lot line and, and that proposed fence. Speaker 1: Okay. Any fill coming in on site? Speaker 17: No. Nope. There won't be, won't be any fill here. There's very minor grade changes if, if any, just maybe for the, the driveway itself. But no, there there's, there's no proposed fill to be brought Speaker 1: In. Okay. And all, all roof runoff will be captured in the infiltration system that you're proposing on the left side of the, on the left side of the house. Speaker 17: Yep. Yep. Exactly. And, and just to touch on that, there was one comment that it needs to be 10 feet off the lot line. Yep. So it will be shifted to the right a little bit
and we'll be putting a, a poly barrier between that drainage system and the, and the house. Speaker 1: Okay. And I don't see a front a walk for the front door. Is that, is there going to be a walk there? Speaker 17: Yeah, that's that, that's a good question. Looks like we don't, we don't have one proposed here, but I I would imagine there will be, there will be some type of walk there. Speaker 2: Scott, I'd recommend just adding one. 'cause if you guys don't build it, it's a lot easier than if you do build it, but it's not on the plans. Speaker 1: Yes, Speaker 17: Sure. Yeah, I'll speak with the applicant. We will add that to the plan. Speaker 1: Is the applicant here a developer or is it a, is it a, a,
a homeowner That's to you Scott, Speaker 17: If he's on here. Speaker 18: Yeah, Joseph here. Everyone owner and developer of the property, I am the developer of the property. They'll be billing to sell. Speaker 1: Okay. Okay. Questions from the commission on this. And you need a stockpile soil on site. Speaker 17: Yep. That was a another comment within the staff report. So we will be adding that to the plan. We're proposing to do it in the rear here, behind the garage as well as an area up here between the, the house and the street. Speaker 1: Thank you. Can you make sure that it's appropriately
there's appropriate erosion control around any, any piles? Speaker 17: Certainly. Speaker 1: Okay. Other questions? Speaker 2: Pretty cut and dry project. Some pretty minor revisions, but generally a, a very well put together application. I, I will say that Scott did go through the effort of doing an alternatives analysis for this project. It's Speaker 1: Not technically needed though for Yeah, Speaker 2: They did. There was a little bit of back and forth between DEP and, and the applicant. I think it's all of the regions do riverfront area differently, so it's a little hard to approach it sometimes when you're working in a new region. So I think Scott was maybe working off
of some prior experience that, that Alicia has a different opinion on. Speaker 1: Okay. Alright. Questions? Anything further on this? This is a notice of intent. So we, we be, we'd be closing, Claire can draft the orders of conditions, order of conditions and we can review those at our next meeting. Speaker 2: Oh, we're gonna have a nice blast through a bunch of conditions of the next meeting. Speaker 1: Alright, hearing none someone make a motion to close then. So moved. Thank you George. Is that seconded? Seconded. Thank you Jim. Any further discussion on that? Those in the room? David? Yes. Chris? Yes. Alright. Public hearings closed. We'll pick this up at our next
meeting, we'll talk about conditions and we'll go from there, Scott. Okay. Speaker 2: Thank you for your Speaker 1: Time. Alright. Thank you all. Thank you very much. Speaker 2: Goodnight everyone. I did let Mr. Kila know that he had one additional opportunity to engage with the commission at this point in time before likely they would vote to continue this discussion to the next public hearing. Okay. Un unfortunately I am not seeing him on the call any longer. John, do you know if Mike is trying to rejoin because he was having audio issues? I believe he was. Okay, great.
Speaker 1: Alright. Should we pick up, should we talk about beavers? Speaker 2: Do you wanna do minute? I I just hesitate to leave the public hearing section. Speaker 1: Yeah, sure. Fair enough. Okay, Ms. Ood, I made a couple, Speaker 2: Couple of minor edits. Speaker 1: So these are the meetings, the, the minutes from Thursday, December four. Okay. Any further additions, edits on those? Thank you. So I'm gonna make a motion to approve those please. So, thank you Jeff. Is that seconded? Seconded. Thank you Michael. Any further discussion? Those in the room? Chris? Yes. David? Yes. All right. Minutes are approved. Can just do a quick
business side thing, you know, just to, just a quick, quick, yeah, I think I Speaker 2: Update since it does seem like there was an audio issue that is being a chance addressed. We'll give him a chance. Speaker 1: Absolutely. Had a good Trails day. Went out to pick pond. We're in the, about halfway through resetting all the bug bridges to Bradford Road. There's some places where the wide, and then this is pertinent to the beaver conversation, I think to a certain extent. And Speaker 2: Well, yes, there's, I have an update in that regard as well in terms of the Speaker 1: Water levels. So there's, there's a couple places where it's, you know, it's two feet deep, you know, the water is when, when, when we put those, when we opened that up originally 15 years ago or
whenever it was, I mean it was dry. Speaker 2: It will ideally be lower. I don't know if you saw the staff notes, but I was concerned about the water levels adjacent to the pump station. Yeah. Next to, and so DPW did go out assess they did d determine that it was a potential public safety emergency. So we did do a partial breach at that northern dam that has significantly, maybe not significantly, it has reduced the water levels and shifted water downstream in the system. Speaker 1: The northern dam, sorry, Speaker 2: It's north of Route nine. Speaker 1: Okay. The, the dam north of Route nine, Speaker 2: Right next to the furniture store. And the pump station got right because the, okay,
the emergency was in regard to the water levels compared to the sewer pump station. Speaker 1: Good. I I I got an email from, from a pick pond of butter as well. Speaker 2: Do you I've been in contact with two Huntington Street residents. Yes. And I've responded to both of them. Both of them confirmed today that the water levels have receded Speaker 1: The yards. Oh, good ex. Excellent. Yes. Excellent. Good. Yeah, no, that's, it's, you know, there's a natural variability to things that we have to contend with, Speaker 2: But we did with the timing of our breach was pretty impeccable. We breached Tuesday morning right before the, the dumping that came through on Tuesday night
that I think would've resulted in some flooding if we had not performed that breach, thankfully. Alright. Speaker 1: Do we have two arrow path on the call yet, Speaker 2: Mr. Ola? I am not seeing him on the line yet. I think if the commission would like, there's not anything technically preventing us from moving into a general business discussion. Yeah. Speaker 1: Let's get into a general business Okay. Discussion and see if he joins. And then otherwise we'll pick it up at our next meeting. Okay. Let's talk about beavers and all of that. So let's get a, Speaker 2: Oh, so I sort of already started the Speaker 1: Update. I was gonna say you started the update. Speaker 2: So yes, the, the Beaver dam has been breached.
It does seem to have had a significant increase in the water levels downstream knowing that the drought condition has now been increased again, from a level one to a level two. I, I do still have some hesitations about weekly breaches just in a lot of the research that I was doing. It, it does seem like breaching doesn't necessarily have a guarantee to eliminate or limit the beaver activity in an area, but if we are going to breach, trying to breach in the most natural way possible, which would be mimicking a large storm event happening and over topping the dam versus regular small breaches.
So what I did propose in my staff notes was starting June 1st doing a monthly visit with the volunteers to assess the water levels and the delta between the sort of larger wetland and the little Jennings pond area to determine if a breach is necessary on a monthly basis until we get out of the drought period or the drought period, drought status changes. Okay. Speaker 1: Commission's, thoughts on that. Seems like a reasonable, reasonable cadence to check it out and see what's happening. And, and if, if we're,
Speaker 2: And June 1st was just a date that I think it doesn't have to be June 1st, it can be whatever date. Makes sense. Speaker 1: And I think, I mean, I think with the, with the regular visibility, Claire, you having regular visibility and if we see that the delta between upstream and downstream, you know, if it's being, you know, repaired quickly and the delta is kind of pretty constantly high between them, then we could consider going more frequently. Yep, exactly. At that point in time, because Speaker 2: We, we did have, I think we talked about at the previous meeting, having sort of a, a set of standards
or thresholds, those were laid out in the original order of conditions. Yep. I think it's, unfortunately some of the thresholds are a little bit, it requires me going out with a tape measure and dropping it down into the pipe system and things like that. So I think that the, the monthly visits is a good way to make sure that there is regular visibility with, with minimal effort. Yeah, Speaker 1: I it sounds like a reasonable approach to me. I'd like to hear from, I don't know if Simone's on the call, I'm sure. Oh, sorry. That's fine. Speaker 19: First of all, thank you for the update and I noticed that the water level went up, so I learned,
just learned that it was breached up north. Yeah. So, so, you know, that's, that's a good thing. Of course, you know, it means that we're looking always at the upstream versus the downstream. I wanna make sure that we are looking at the entire system. One thing that I wanted to, you know, a few things that I wanted to talk about without taking too much of your time. So it's interesting that we, we opened the course that we opened the meeting with the discussion on No, no intent on Beaver Dam Road and just a lot of beavers apparently. Speaker 1: Oh, there, there. Speaker 19: And which is, you know, it's interesting. First of all, I wanted to just say that thank you for,
for me and, and entertaining this, we resume this conversation, I think partial responsibility last time for having, you know, gone back to discussions about whether this is necessary, the beavers, all things that we had already discussed and decided and agreed upon last year that brought to the, actually led to the formation of the group that was piloting that work. So I think that we are, and it seems that we are in moving on to a phase to pass that the fact that there's the, the, the group is there, the, the, the bridge are necessary, whether they're up north
or at their, at the town of forest be beaver dam. It seems certain what remains to be discussed, and it seems that discussion is going that way, is some metrics and you mentioned before, and I have, you know, some say about that in a second. And we can discuss also this, this timeline. Another point I want to make first, because it's small and it can be, you know, close quickly, then we go to the bigger discussion is that one thing that we proposed in the the, in the, in the letter that I sent, is to establish an further, your own extra component to this will be an end of season report or,
or assessment of what's was done. Of course, every time we do breaches, there will be a report to Claire, but then at the end of the season, say for example, my idea would be to do something like we do a town meeting when there are, you know, members of com of committees or, or departments that come and report to town meeting something similar when the beavers, you know, the activity ends late November when we stop breaching, we taper it down, we stop it after that, the next meeting or the next, you know, within the, the next couple minutes or the commission, the group, maybe I for example,
in representation of the group could come here and give an annual report and so that the, the, the commission will know what's been done, what worked, what maybe eventually if there's anything needs to be worked on or improved and how we, we do it, that will create something for the record, give the opportunity to ask questions and put it on the record, the commission. And also over the years will create sort of historical timeline of what's been done. So I don't know if that's something that you would be, I think Speaker 1: It'd be very interesting. Yeah. Yeah. I think Speaker 19: It's a good idea. So can we, we decide to do that?
Like we have that, you know Yeah. Let's Speaker 1: Plan on that. Sure. Does that work for everybody? Speaker 2: The end of season reporting? Yep. Speaker 19: Yep. Yeah. And we, we can discuss the format and how would that like Yeah, I like it. I think it's, it's an idea in terms of metrics, you know, again, breaching up north, I don't know if you plan to do it every time. So Speaker 2: That is based on a public health and safety emergency level because of the infrastructure. So that is not, that location is not covered under the order of conditions that we have for town forest. Okay. That is based on an as needed due to the sewer pump station or the water levels compared to route nine.
Usually in that spot it's the, the sewer pump station. Speaker 19: And then there's the Route nine issue that I know the Department of Transportation be. Exactly. Yes. And so I assume that that's, you know, you know, for, you know, that's very much a concern, which should be, I would like also the same concern to be seen and would like to see the same concern to be, you know, seen for the what's happening downstream. Yeah. Speaker 2: So we did set standards for what the water levels needed to be in terms of upstream and downstream in the order of conditions for the, the breaching. Speaker 19: And what I would like to, to, you know, to suggest,
and I would like to hear your your opinions about that when we talk about metrics, because I was thinking about how can we discuss it, you know, what are levels of the ponds are very volatile in a sense, or at least very, you know, now they're very high. So if you go today, so this is perfect, even though they dropped by a couple of inches, but they went up by almost a foot after you breached and then there was the rainstorm. But then if there's no more breaches and maybe the, the heat will come back, we, in a drought level two drought, you'll see that the levels drop again. Maybe they rains again. So they go up and down again. So that's difficult to, to establish a,
like a objective one way that, you know, we were thinking and we discussed, we were thinking one objective measurement would be when the, a visual measurement or when the beaver dam is completely built from shore to shore and above, you know, and built above the water level of the upstream part or of the, of the dam. So when you can see the beaver dam, so it's not covered by the water and it's any touches from shore to shore. So that would mean that the, the entire passage, the entire
stream has been closed. There's a tiny bit of water trickling. But if you go, I mean, I don't know now they, well, Speaker 2: But the beavers are always gonna rebuild the dam from shore to shore. That that is their intention is to Speaker 19: Block the flow of water. I would say my, my my point was like when to start breaching. So we could go out there and assess it. For example, the beavers start to be active something around, somewhere around March and March and April they start building. But, but the Beaver dam is not fully built, so we don't need to do any breaching. Then they, they can keep building the water passes at some
point, late April, early May, the beaver dam is completely full, completely built, and the water doesn't pass anymore. If you hadn't done that breach and the rain, you would've seen already a lot of mud flat in that portion of Speaker 1: The concern I have around that, that that approach is that it turns into a human versus beaver metric of kind of, you know, when the beaver build, you know, it, it's not tied to, it's not tied directly to the downstream impacts, which is
what I think inspired this whole conversation a few years ago was the concerns around low water levels in little Jennings pond and exposed soil and smell and some aesthetic issues and all that, you know, and simply tying it to the, to the presence or not of a beaver dam just feels disconnected from that, from the impacts that we're trying to mitigate. And so I would rather, I would rather, you know, I mean if we're gonna get into building a, you know, a set of metrics
or, you know, indicators that we want to, then that'll trigger action. I'd rather have it be on the things that are kind of negatively impacting the downstream side. I mean, it's conceivable to me that it could be, that there could be situations where the beaver dam is fully intact, but the downstream impacts are, aren't there. I mean, you know, the, the, for example, the when, when DOT breaches the dam, if the beaver population in, in, in north of route nine goes away, gets under control
or whatever, and that dam becomes not at issue, the water levels may be higher Right. As, as you're seeing today or in the past couple Speaker 19: Days. Sure. But that's why what I'm saying, like, well first of all, I saw it differently. I, I thought that maybe that would be a way to give beaver more agents in the sense they will tell us we're ready now for you in a way that Right. So maybe that's right. It is the different way of, of looking at it, come and get it. 'cause again, they, they know that we're coming. We know that they're coming. So again, it's a dance and which we're fine with maintaining the dance again, if we see that there is also, you know, the visual part and,
and the autonomy of the, the group is that we're not just going out there, just, we Speaker 1: Just to toe to toe with the beaver. Just Speaker 19: To just for sport. Correct. Or just to mess with the beaver. If there's no need, for example, something like a, a bridge north happens. Okay. We don't have to go out for a few weeks maybe. Right. And so we can assess that again. We have demonstrated that we're not just going there and, and you know, and, and tearing things up, you know, and just going for what Speaker 1: If we, I mean, what if we do this? I mean, what if we, you know, June 1st or as soon as possible, you know, go out
and take a look at it and we set that date. Sure. Yeah. You, and then for the first, you know, for the fir we do, then we do say three visits every, you know, one every two weeks and to kind of see how quickly, you know, Speaker 19: That was my idea. Yes. To, to again to see what happens. Speaker 2: Well, not breaching just visits to determine if a breach is necessary. Yeah, Speaker 19: Correct. Speaker 1: And, and, and the first, but the outcome of the first visit could be that a breach is necessary. Yes, Speaker 2: Absolutely. Speaker 1: And, and then if a breach happens or not, then we go out two weeks later and see how quickly these guys rebuilt it and what, what the water delta looks like,
what downstream looks like, and maybe another breach will be necessary or maybe not. Speaker 19: I told you all the time, like the fir when I, when I went and collect the thing, I did a, a little test from the shore. I took away some and I kind of breached like this much probably. Yeah. And, and water was, was going through, of course the next day was completely built up. Yeah. It was back to like, oh yeah. If it never happened. Right. Of course. Right. Speaker 1: I mean, one of the times we breached the whole thing and it was, there was the Speaker 19: Next, depending on the time of the day, Speaker 1: The next morning. Speaker 19: Yeah. Depending on the time you do it, because they work at night. So, so usually if you do it in the morning,
at least you have the entire day for the water go through if you do in the evening. Speaker 2: And someone just to note, like, I think part of the, the concern here is you say you go out and you did a test breach and that you removed some material for water flow. But I never received a report of that. So like what we're trying to do here is balance to make Speaker 19: Sure that No, I mentioned the last time that when we, Speaker 2: But what I'm saying is per the protocol we established, I did not receive a report Speaker 19: Following the breach. Sure. That was just a small, just to see. Speaker 2: But any breaching is supposed to be reported because it's part of this arrangement that we've established. So I think that's what we're trying to establish is the appropriate protocol. Okay. Speaker 19: So I'll, I can put it on the on, on p if you want.
What I did and the date I sort of remember when it was. So Speaker 1: Let's do this. I mean let's, let's, let's set a date for Claire and you know, you and your team, you know, let us know when the date is and if we can join, we can join Absolutely. To go take a look at it and then if a breach is necessary, we do a breach and then go back two weeks later and take a look at it and see how it looks. Sure. And then see what the, see how much, what the downstream impact is, but just to have regular eyes on it and where the commission has regular eyes on it. Sure. Speaker 19: That's that's what we like. Exactly.
Speaker 1: So, so why don't we, why don't we start that way. We've Speaker 2: Got one additional member of the public who's Speaker 1: Looking to make some comment. That's great. So, so why don't we, why don't we think about that as a, as something on the table right now. Sure. But, but let's get other, other, other input. Yeah. Martha, what do you got? Speaker 20: What I got is, when we talk, I think this all boils down to the metrics. And so when you were just speaking about doing visual assessments, you mentioned stink and visual impact and the flats. I think I would like to see an acknowledgement from the conservation commission
of the impact on the wildlife that lives in Jennings Pond. That's really the big issue. And I feel like by so much concentration on the beavers and the impact of the beavers and the importance of the beavers, I don't have a problem with the dam staying there. This commission completely ignores the impact on the wildlife. And there's significant impact when the water's allowed to get down to a trickle. Like it has been several years. The, the swans leave, the fish are impacted, we get weeds growing. I mean, there's a huge impact,
ecological impact to that dam. Well, Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean that's, I think the reason, I think the reason we're at the table, Martha, is that we're, we're, we are paying attention to that and sensitive to that, you know, and, and that that's part of the, that's part of the conversation here. Right, Speaker 20: Right. But I, I would like that to be acknowledged by the commission because I hear you say sort of visual impact and the smell and stuff. I don't hear the same weight given to the wildlife. Speaker 2: I think what Matt was saying is that the visual impact and the aesthetics are, should not be the only reason
that we are going out and managing this system, I think was the statement Speaker 20: He was making. So when metrics, I just think there needs to be more than some tape measurement. There has to be like, if you're doing this in con you want public engagement and you want collaboration. And that's part of what that report you gave us, tore talked about with the public, that we need to come up with an agreed written metric. What is, what is, how bad does it get before the dam gets breached? What is the impact to wildlife? Just not the water level. What does the pond look like?
Either weeds growing in it, are the flats exposed? What is the impact? Yeah. Speaker 1: That, that, that's all part of what we're sorting out. Speaker 2: And I think that the visits are intended to establish what are the field conditions that make the most sense to set as metrics because current that Speaker 20: Collaboratively with the neighborhood. Speaker 2: That's what we were just saying is we're gonna be setting up visits with Simone and his approved team to establish that. Can, Speaker 20: Can we get that in writing from the town, what those metrics are all, all, Speaker 2: When they are established, I'm I they will absolutely be recorded and established as part of the order
of conditions for this site. Great. Speaker 20: Okay. Great. That's my question. Thank you. Speaker 1: Other questions? Alright, so why don't we do, why don't we proceed that way? You know, let's set it up. And so there's a visit out there, you know, as soon as can be scheduled to take a look at this. You know, there's no, there's no one metric or one set of metrics we can that defines it's a judgment Speaker 19: If you want me to tell you now, but if we can do my email, the Speaker 2: Scheduling, we'll have to set it up by email. Next week doesn't work for me. 'cause of the holiday week, where on a, a short week, maybe the holiday week. So that's why I suggested the first, 'cause it's the Monday following the holiday week Speaker 19: First or the third.
I can't 'cause I'm out of about fourth maybe. Speaker 2: Oh, that's fine. Yes. We can figure something out. We'll forward. The Speaker 19: Third we'll email we'll do in by email. Speaker 14: Jim, do you have some Speaker 9: I was just curious. So up north of that dam Yes, there was a breach here. Speaker 2: I I was pull Speaker 9: Up the, I curious what happened, what happened to downstream then? Yeah. Speaker 2: At the other dam. So I'll just share my screen Speaker 19: Quickly. I didn't go to record, but I noticed that the, I mean there was also a big storm. I thought that all the water we saw was with the storm. Now the, the level of the pond is fairly high, is not the highest has been, but fairly high. Well, if you remain this way will be fine.
It's already started. It went down by I wanna say one and a half to two, two inches. I can really see. Because because Speaker 9: It's trickling down into little Jennings though, or what? Speaker 2: Well, no, this is in Jennings Pond. In Jennings Speaker 19: Pond. The Jennings, the big Jennings pond. I live in Jean Pigs Jennings Pond. Just to Speaker 2: Clarify, Jennings Pond is a manmade structure. The the pond did not exist for a long time. It was, it was developed because a weir was installed at the end of it to allow, I don't know if it was a tool allowed for the construction of Grove Road or if Grove Road was constructed because they made the pond instead of the stream.
But, so there's a weir outlet structure at the, the downstream end of big Jennings pond that provides some flow control and also establishes a high water level. Speaker 14: Okay. Speaker 9: George, Speaker 14: Just wondering what, what does fish and wildlife, or what do professional biologists, how do, how do they look at this whole situation of a beaver population? Yeah. And of where the water normally
goes or maybe normally went before. It's, it's, you know, you know, the smell and, and all of that. I can see the point, you gotta be careful worrying about swans because remember they, they're invaders, but I mean the fish population or something like that. It's how, how does, how do the real pros not saying anything against us or commission or any other groups, but how do the real pros handle this in, in the wild, shall we say? If I can in the wild. They don't, they don't.
Speaker 9: I was gonna say, Speaker 2: If I can note, and I think I've mentioned this before and I know it's in the materials that are in the drive, but beavers are keystone species in the state of Massachusetts, which means in the food web development, they, their presence in an ecosystem creates habitat and wildlife services for other species. That is why they are so critical in our state and why places like California are kind of desperate for them because of the role that they play in that ecosystem management. And so downstream in, in the little Jennings pond area
and the big Jennings pond area, they may see some impacts. I think what we're trying to do here is establish a protocol for maintaining healthy ecosystems, keeping water moving in a way that mimics natural systems while protecting wildlife across the board, Speaker 1: But also, but also recognizing that there's natural variability. Absolutely. In mother nature, their species come and go Speaker 2: And wetland's ability to dry out is part of the reason it is they are so important is because they, they are the sponges of nature. That ability to dry out and pull nutrients into the soil
and out of the water column. It is a key part of the importance of how they function and they will experience natural variability. But especially with the persistent drought, it is important to understand that that might be exacerbated. Speaker 1: I mean, we need to, we need to manage this holistically with, when Speaker 14: We start playing games like this, we run into, think of another organism. Turkey, I mean Speaker 1: Coyotes. Speaker 14: What was the Turkey like? You know, when shall we say the pilgrims landed? Right. And what hap what happened?
And then now we've got them back again and yeah, they, they can be a problem. Speaker 6: So if I could just add one small, it, it's just, it's maybe not necessarily germane to this, but I, I would appreciate the town reviewing holistically opportunities to increase storm water Speaker 1: Storage, Speaker 6: Storage, you know, so we, we have, we have Speaker 1: Works Beaver dam help. We, Speaker 2: We are doing a drainage master planning process right now. We're about halfway through it, but I'm hoping to give the commission an update once those Speaker 6: Materials opportunities are available. We have great opportunities abandoned many abandoned shops
along the Route nine corridor at this point. That could, you know, I would love to, not that I'm not a big fan of engineers, but we could, you know, engineer some additional storm water potential storage, you know, by removing that impervious Speaker 1: Bulldoze the Wendy's and which, which, which probably never Speaker 14: I sinking. That's one of the, Speaker 6: I don't wanna target, I don't want to target sorry, anybody specifically, but I, I do think there's opportunities to, to kind of look as Claire said, look, you know, look at a storm water kind of like we have the heat island report.
It would be nice to kind of see where its, it's a great one. Small, small opportunities, you know, 'cause adding 200 square feet of storage Yep. Can be a a, a huge, absolutely huge benefit. So, Speaker 1: So with, Speaker 16: We still can't, we can't put a beaver deceiver in that area. Speaker 6: Right. It's not enough. It's not, Speaker 2: No, it is not deep enough. That's, I mean, even with us removing that original beaver dam and, and the changes in the water levels out there, we need consistently four feet of depth minimum in order to actively, and I think we all saw when the water levels
did drop in little Jennings during the really significant drought, the beavers located the deceiver and dammed it up. And so part of the reason that this is important to maintain these water levels is to make sure that that system also remains fully Speaker 19: Functional. Sure. And so also transit George's, you know, question about the, the rest of the, you know, the wildlife and, and the system is that, you know, the beavers are a new addition, maybe the newest addition to this equation, which, you know, they're more or less welcome if they, if they cooperate with all of us and we coex they, they choose to coexist with all of us.
They, they're definitely welcome. But of course there needs to be a new strategy, like you said, this variability. So this is a new element. And so there'll be, there's a new strategy. If we don't, if we keep, remain, keep the old strategy and doing anything, then there will be an impact. And there has been impact. That's why we're doing this. Well, Speaker 1: But the other question that we need to keep in mind is what are we optimizing for? You know, I mean, are we optimizing for, you know, human occupation of this, of this land, the beavers have been here a lot longer than we have. Or are we optimizing for, you know, you know,
for beaver health and comfort and happiness, you know, I mean, I mean this Speaker 19: In the suburb. I would say that both, probably in the suburb, both. This Speaker 1: Is the fundamental question that we, you know, Speaker 19: In the wildlife, probably the be, I would say the beaver in, in Natick suburb. Speaker 1: We're, we're, what we're trying to do is find what Speaker 19: It's a balance. Speaker 1: Yeah. What we're trying to do is find what that Right. Well, Speaker 6: It isn't a balance. It it, there's no balance in that conversation. We have fragmented habitat, fragmented broken systems due to one singular situation. That's us.
Speaker 19: Sure. I mean, that's a much bigger Speaker 6: Conversation to deeper philosophical. It's, it's not a, it's not a deeper conversation, you know, so it's not about balance. It's, it's, it's not, because if we were in balance, we'd have a different conversation. Speaker 19: Sure. But I think that, that, you know, Speaker 6: The balance is to support the process of what's beneficial to us. That's the balance we're talking about right now. There's not, there's no conversation. The balance isn't about, you know, balancing ecosystem function and all that. 'cause if it was, we would leave the beaver alone.
Speaker 19: Well, I, I think as much as we can, because I don't, sure. Well, Speaker 6: That's not what I'm hearing. Right. Speaker 1: Let's, I, I think, Simone, what, you know, and we are not gonna solve this tonight. I think that, no, I think this Speaker 2: Is gonna be a continual annual discussion. I think that we, it is, Speaker 1: It's, Speaker 2: We own this, this property, and it's part of our, our management. Speaker 1: What, what I think you're hearing is that we'll set up a cadence of, of, you know, biweekly checks to see if, if there's a first one that, you know, if, if the first one requires, you know, it's the determination that a breach would be appropriate,
then we do it and we monitor it every two weeks and we'll see. And you know, and if every two weeks is too often or, you know, it's, it's plenty. Then maybe we go to once a month or whatever. And just, just see, I think you're hearing, hearing a willingness from us to, to, to work together and to Sure. Yes. To find a solution. We're not, you know, we're not prepared to come sit, you know, to give you guys, you know, license to go out and just at will, whatever you feel like it, Rachel. Speaker 19: No, we're not saying that. Right. You know, it's a, but of course, we we're also here, we would like
to hear also some degree of, in the spirit of cooperation of autonomy or of the group. That doesn't mean that we go out there whenever we want, whenever we want unchecked. But in the sense that we will want, we want to do this and come here one or two meetings every time there's, you know, they need to do one breach. What Speaker 1: Were, when we're, we, we, Speaker 19: Maybe at the beginning of the season, so sorry to interrupt, at the beginning of the season, we can establish that, but then after, and then there'll be an end of season report. But it wouldn't not be like, Speaker 1: I think what you, I think what you're hearing is
that we're, you know, at this point right now, we're not willing to give you autonomy to go do it when you want. Speaker 19: No, I'm not. I'm asking that. Speaker 1: What, what you're hearing is that we're willing to be, and as the regulator and as the property owner, we're willing to work with you and increase the frequency of checks and, and to see what happens at that point, and then reconvene in, in a few weeks time and see how it's going and if more frequent is necessary. I think you're hearing that we're open to that conversation. Sure. Speaker 19: That that sounds Speaker 1: Reasonable. And if that's plenty and it's, you know, then,
then maybe we dial it back a little bit. You know, this is a, an interactive and collaborative effort. Correct. Yeah. And you know, we're, we're willing to play a part in that. Sure. Speaker 6: That sounds, have we set up any mon, I thought we talked about setting up a monitoring device. Speaker 2: I don't, I haven't had any funding for it. But with the, the new approval for funding that Tom meeting wonderfully approved, I, I will be getting some additional operating budget that, that I do have Speaker 1: In the next fiscal year, Speaker 2: Starting July 1st. That, that I have quite a number of earmarked things, which, Speaker 1: To which for me, I mean that, that I think could be a,
a very influential metric. I agree. You know, would be water level on the other side of Oak Street, Speaker 2: Something that is electronically measured and doesn't rely on me having to, yeah. Speaker 1: Something that says when it drops from the street, you know, when it drops below X number of feet and there's a beaver dam present, then we breach it. Right. You know, and so once that's in place, I think we can have a very different conversation or Jeff Speaker 19: Tape. Yeah. Speaker 6: And that's the human animal or you know, human wildlife carrying capacity. Right. Conversation that we all studied in. Right. Exactly. Biology. So, you know. Okay.
Speaker 1: So I think we're in good shape now. Claire, you and Simone will work together to get a meeting set up. I'll share Speaker 2: The date with the commissioner when it share with Speaker 19: Us. Sure. Speaker 1: And we, and we go from there. Okay. Speaker 19: Okay. Cool. Thank you all. Speaker 1: Alright, thank you. I think we got everyone else. Any, any, Speaker 2: Anything else? Mr. Carola is back. Okay. To pick up the discussion regarding two Arrow path. Alright, Speaker 1: So Mr. Carole, can you hear us? Speaker 21: Yes, I can. Speaker 1: Excellent. You're back. Good. Thank, thanks for your persistence in doing this. The reason, the reason we wanted you to join is concern about the number of, of deviations from the plan that was approved
that weren't done in consultation with the commission. I mean, as you know, these, the location, the features, the details were gone over in great detail and agreed to in great detail. And now we're, we're, we're, we're presented with an engineering letter asking for a certificate of compliance where there was a significant number of changes made to that. We'd just like to understand what the rationale was for that and why we weren't consulted. Speaker 21: So obviously this happened several years ago. Fair. And we
Speaker 1: By your company Speaker 21: Though We did, correct. Yeah. Yep. And we did inform your board about the changes we made. And I'm pretty sure that Speaker 2: Mike, we addressed the changes that were made at two aero path, the retaining structure that was added without discussion prior. And there was an amendment issued to that permit. There were not any minor plan changes approved at two aero path. Speaker 21: Okay. This is, this is news to me. Speaker 1: Yeah. For a different house. And that, you know, that's why, you know, we get our hackles up when we in good faith, negotiate stuff
and you know, put a, a bit of faith into our negotiating partner in this that, you know, that they'll do the same for us. And when we get reports like this, it, you know, it runs counter to that. And you know, that's why we get ticked off on, on things like this. Yep. Speaker 21: Oh, I understand. I understand. But as I said, this happened quite a while ago. Speaker 1: It doesn't matter. And Speaker 21: I, I, I understand, but I thought that this was all iron out a long time ago, but perhaps it wasn't. Obviously. Well, Speaker 2: So Mike, as would be shown in our emails,
an as-built plan was submitted for this property. And I had several notes on it, but no certificate of compliance request, like the letter that was submitted here was submitted at the time construction was completed. So these items were not brought to my attention until this letter was submitted. And as I mentioned, there were some other changes that were made on other lots that were done without approval that were then addressed post the wall at two A. But there were no minor changes approved for this property. Speaker 21: So, and when was the letter, when was that sent to you?
Speaker 2: This, Speaker 21: Just recently, Speaker 2: This letter from John Frederico was submitted on, on May 12th I believe. Speaker 3: If I may jump in on that. I know when the original as-built plan was submitted, that was a part of a request for a certificate of occupancy. Yes. And these changes were noted in that letter to my understanding that was, well Speaker 2: I never received a letter, John. All I received was an as-built plan that that did not include any statement regarding changes. Speaker 3: I unfortunately wasn't involved with the project at the time, so I can't confirm that exactly. But to my knowledge, that letter was submitted along with the plan.
Okay. I can double check through our records, but I do know that these notes here, I did pull from that original letter to include with this. Speaker 1: So the, Speaker 2: And I have no doubt that that letter may have been drafted. And I'm pulling up the building permit now to see if that was submitted as part of the application. But what I'm saying is that that letter was not submitted to this office. Speaker 1: So what we have, what we have here, I mean, so there was a couple of instances where there was deviations to the plans and stuff that was put in the ground where after the fact we're notified about it. And that's simply not acceptable. Okay. And we can look at these particular items here.
Most of them, you know, I mean the, the finished grade elevations, I mean Claire, can you, can you, from the as-builts versus the, for the as-builts versus what was approved, what was the difference in the finished grade elevations? I mean that's, that for me is a key metric. You know, the small retaining wall, would we have approved it probably a walkway constructed in front of the house. Would we have approved it? Probably. Great elevations are super important in this particular project. And so I wanna understand if these are substantially
different than what was, I mean yes, the engineer said, you know, the as bill conditions are substantially compliant. However, you know, is it, Speaker 2: So in pulling up some of the materials from the original NOI filing and, and what I do wanna clarify with is I'm, I'm not a hundred percent sure the plan that I'm looking at from our old cases folder was the Right, the final approved plan, but Right. I generally, I think it's gonna be pretty in line, but I can confirm also top of concrete was approved. So top of concrete for the structure is what was approved. Correct. It's actually technically 0.5 0.05 elevation lower,
which is negligible site grading in terms of elevations just zooming in. Oh, too far. Speaker 3: I believe it was the southwestern corner of the approved yard that was about two feet higher than what the grade proposed. Right near the no disturbed buffer and the pins that are in ground. Speaker 2: Yeah. So I'm seeing the, the grading on the asbell is roughly sort of 2 36 down to 2 34 in the area that John just mentioned, which does mimic the grading.
I did. It just seems like the lines were pushed out a little further. Speaker 1: So they got a flatter yard out of it Speaker 2: Along the side of the house. Yes. Flat is maybe a little bit of an object. It is still sloped, but it is flatter. Yes. Speaker 1: Okay. So, you know, do we issue a certificate of compliance on this? You know, I mean to me, I, you know, I think probably we do, I want this kind of, you know, this in the record, you know, that this is, you know, this has been a problematic site and what this does, you know, in terms of our relationship
with Silva is that it, you know, makes us think twice about, you know, how we ma how we, you know, the oversight that we provide to projects and that if, if there's boundaries being pushed on these things, you know, that means the next time Silva's in front of us, we're gonna be, you know, putting the screws to it, you know, and just kind of making sure that everything is right and it's gonna ultimately cost them more time and effort and all that to comply. Because the Speaker 6: Wall Yeah. On that two x was not just a small wall. Speaker 1: No, that Speaker 2: Was a, that one was a substantial wall. Substantial. This one is Speaker 1: A short wall. The house, it, it's just, you know,
the track record on this project is suspect and I'm, you know, I'm not casting dispersions on any of you individually. It, it's just, it's, it is what it is. Mitigation plan. So, you know, seeing what we see right now, you know, I, I just wanna make sure that we capture this and then seeing what we see now is, is that the pleasure of the board to go ahead or is it the intention of the board to go ahead and issue a certificate of compliance for this? Speaker 6: Are there any of those too? So my, my only comment to the engineer and, and, and to the applicant or
or the builder would be that, you know, you know, I do agree that small changes, You know, can, can, you know, can get, you know, substantially compliant with, with the intent of the act. I guess where, where I have some trouble is, is what sometimes these small changes, especially when they're in areas that are, are proposed to act in a certain way, like snow storage areas. That's right. That are defined on plans and then grades change. You know, that, that now has potential to,
because the grade has been changed that, you know, is this now more impactful to a resource area? The engineer attest, no. You know, but, you know, these are the things that I think are difficult to assess, you know, with a piece of paper and you know, somebody saying in bullet point format, you know, here's all the different changes that happened, you know, but it was engineered this, it was engineered in a way that was supposed to be, you know, aligned with what was inherently the intent of the act as well
as the intent of this commission. So, you know, that that's, you know, I'm not gonna beat somebody up over this, but, you know, we had an issue on two A and, and that's didn't sit well with me at that point because of just the effort and time that was consumed and resources that were consumed for this project. Speaker 1: I mean, it was long negotiations and, and Speaker 2: I came in in the middle of 'em, Speaker 1: Lot, lots of protracted conversations here, you know, and it just, and it does not reflect well on the applicant. And, and you know, that, you know, their intentions are
how they, how they do business. With that being said is, is someone wanting to make a motion to issue the certificate of compliance for this project? Speaker 9: I'll make the motion to issue the CSC. Speaker 1: Is that seconded? I Speaker 9: Wasn't here though. I'll Speaker 1: Second it. Thank you George. George Speaker 2: Was Speaker 1: Alright. Any further discussion on this? No. All in favor of issuing a certificate of compliance with the cake here in the room. Chris? Yes, David? Yes. Alright, we're done. Message hope. Hopefully the message is landed. Hopefully you, you communicate that back to your colleagues,
you know, and it's, you know, this is something we're gonna be paying attention to closely moving forward. So thank you gentlemen. Understandable. Okay. Thank you Speaker 3: Judge. We do appreciate your time tonight. Speaker 1: Yeah, thank you sir. Thank you. Alright, with all that we approved minutes. We talked about beaver management, metal Speaker 2: Detecting. I just have an update that the gentleman is not on the call. Okay. Either I, I was able to meet with Caris today and so she believes that this actually applies to both the mesh court and the metal detecting though she's doing one more confirmation on the mesh core issue
because she's not quite sure if it's a zoning issue. Also Speaker 1: The mesh core Speaker 2: Mesh. The mesh core repeater. Speaker 1: Oh the repeater Speaker 2: That's, it's been a couple months, but in terms of metal detecting, it does seem like if the commission feels the activity is in line with the uses, the intended uses of town forest, we can develop a policy regarding that type of activity so that there's thresholds in regard to turning things over to the town if necessary and things like that. But it is at the commission's discretion. She doesn't have a strong legal opinion regarding the metal
Speaker 1: Detecting. Have we got any bridges with magnets? You know, we can, I nominate George Bain to chair the subcommittee, the metal detecting policy. George. George. Speaker 2: So I'm gonna wait for car's final confirmation, but what likely will happen is I, I'll have some, I don't draft policy documentation for the commission to review at a future meeting. Speaker 1: Okay, great. Thank you. And then, and that's true for mesh core as Speaker 2: Well. Mesh core, she's confirming about the zoning thing. Metal detecting has no issues with zoning. Okay. But it's, it's concerned about like a cell tower slash a zoning. It, Speaker 1: I'm still concerned about a 16-year-old kid climbing a
fricking tree actually 16 feet up and hanging a repeater. Speaker 2: The least of her concerns actually. Oh my goodness. Her concerns are about, because it's an unlicensed network. Yeah. How does that apply from a zoning perspective? Because there are exemptions that are built in for licensed small cell towers, but this is a bit of an unknown territory. So honestly glad I'm not the one who has to make those particular Speaker 1: Determinations. I nominated commissioner how to be the person who accompanies him off the tree. Only if you're wearing your Tyvek tick suit though. That's right. So yeah. Speaker 2: And then just a couple of other quick updates.
Matt went over Trails Day. I think it was a really successful day. And then we had a small group I pulled out. Unfortunately when I was leading the walk on Earth Day with Doug, I spotted a, a very early knotweed population along the access road at Pick Pond. And so I, I wonder why underestimating thought it would take me only an hour to get that stuff were out. Stuff pulled out the whole time. I I was, the whole time was sweating my butt off. I I actually originally thought it was a result of public works rolling in with stuff in the release. But it appears that the origin
for the growth is at the monitoring wells that are further in on the access road. I can't confirm that it's the folks who are doing the monitoring who may have brought it in. But I am just gonna reach out to them regarding, you know, washing of equipment and shoes before they access these areas. Because I am gonna go out every couple of months to keep on, on top of that in the hopes that in the next year or two it's just eliminated. 'cause it was a very small population and we were able to remove all of the above ground vegetation on trail stay. And, but I just, I really wanna keep on top of it 'cause it's something that we don't have in pick pond
broadly and I'd like to keep it that way if possible. Other update on pick pond that is a little bit more unhappy. We only received one bid response back on the floating boardwalk and, and it was for almost double what we had budgeted for instruction. Yeah. The, the thinking is the, the folks who did respond to the bid are the ones who attended the site visit and they did note that they're sort of looking for filler work right now. So it does seem like it could have been, hey, let's throw in a high bid and if we get it, we get it. But if we don't, it's not the end of the world.
However, because we're funded by a grant, we don't just have an extra $250,000 laying around no. To throw at this. So we are pivoting very rapidly and Kyle, the designer and I are working right now to split the project. So the landing platforms gangways and floating boardwalk is going to be rebid immediately in the hopes that we get a more reasonable response given the reduced scope. It reduces the access, it reduces the vegetation clearing, it reduces, and then following up at phase two,
doing the stairs and the vegetation work as a separate phase, either funded by a CPC application in the fall or That's a good idea. If we find a good scout we could potentially work with a scout troop on the box stairs. I, I think I would prefer a professional, but just for the length of the stairs, it's a lot of materials for an Eagle Scout to fundraise of for lot. But we have options. My goal is to maximize the reimbursement that we are getting from the state and get that floating boardwalk installed this summer. And Speaker 1: I think that the floating boardwalk will provide, I mean obviously the stairs and the access,
I mean it will still be completely, Speaker 2: It will be functional. Yes. It will not be as nice or as polished as the full design. Let's take a look at that. We'll still pursue the full design just in order to, 'cause we have a hard grant deadline for the funding of September 30th because it's federal funding and this is the end of the funding period. Speaker 1: Did you talk to Sunco? Speaker 2: We did talk to Sunco. Sunco was only interested in helic piles. They apparently were never going to bid if it was a floating boardwalk, which would've been great to know beforehand. Speaker 1: Could, Speaker 2: So they may bid on the reduced stair project at for phase two.
'cause that is a, a small project that is sort of right up their alley, but they, they do not have an interest in doing the floating boardwalk. Speaker 1: But, but our our whole design is based on the floating boardwalk. Exactly. Speaker 2: And we're not pivoting at this point. So I think I agree because we know the floating boardwalk materials costs have not increased. We know exactly what that quote is from Easy Doc. We are hoping that the reduced spec quote will sort of force the reduction in the bid cost and hopefully we can move forward. But it's, we're, we're pivoting as fast as we can. This thing will be rebid by,
it'll be advertised on June 3rd, so in a week and a half we're re-advertising to rebid. So that's pretty tight turnaround for procurement. The last update that I wanna give is, I know I am behind on getting the notes, summarizing the discussion around the veteran housing proposal. Okay. This bid stuff sort of threw me for a loop, but I will have that prepared and sent around before the next hearing. Speaker 1: So last last question on this is that I'm gonna be outta town on June 4th, I'm gonna be in Europe. Could we push it a week or I leave on Tuesday, Monday night that week. Speaker 2: Push it a week. We have open space the second Thursday
of June on the 11th. If we wanted to, we could push it to, to Wednesday the, the 10th. Speaker 1: I'm back Speaker 2: And do a virtual meeting or, and maybe even an in-person meeting if nobody has the room booked at, at the commission's discretion, obviously you guys available. It does also depend on applicant's availability. Speaker 1: Right. Would you, would you be it guys be available on the 10th? Speaker 9: Sure. Jim. I might be a little late. What do you That's all Bridge Club not Okay. Yeah, so, so that's it. Would that be Zoom? Is that what you're saying? A Zoom one? Speaker 2: If we do a Wednesday, it would most likely be a Zoom. Zoom
Speaker 1: Only. Okay. You guys be okay with that. Speaker 9: June 10th, what's, what's the date again? Speaker 2: June 10th, six 10. I'm sorry, I'm not talking at the mic, Chris. That would probably be more helpful. Speaker 9: I, I'm away from the seventh to the 16th. I think that'd be about, I think I'm around. Speaker 2: Okay. So we'll tentatively say around the 10th, but pending applicant availability, we do have to confirm with everyone who's been continued and, and scheduled for that hearing date. Speaker 1: Yeah, I appreciate it. And if, and if applicants aren't available, then we do it on the four of Jeff, you run the show, Speaker 2: It seems like it's gonna be a lot of reviewing conditions, so it should be Speaker 16: It's Milk Street I think is Speaker 1: Yeah,
Speaker 16: No thank Speaker 2: Hey, I will say no complaints from a lot of those projects. We've heard complaints about during construction and, and and development. And I know we're in a drought, so I do, I do take that with a grain of salt, but it seems like most of our drainage systems that we've permitted are our functioning as designed good. Speaker 16: But regarding, you know, the interconnection with the proposed veteran housing and Johnson School, I thought I read that the select board is considering as a, as a way to raise some money possibly leasing out the Johnson School
Speaker 1: For Veterans Housing. Speaker 16: No. To raise money for future use Speaker 2: For Speaker 16: Uses for Johnson schools. So Speaker 2: It's like how the East school right now is leased to the daycare program and to the YMCA in the summers. Yeah. Speaker 16: So that, that was, I just read that like last week, Speaker 2: A lease would not allow for any footprint changes or anything like that in theory. So that I will, I keep an eye on that. I did listen to that discussion as well. Speaker 16: I mean, but that would kind of freeze. That would freeze. Freeze the what we're going to, what the tile, although Speaker 2: In theory if the lease is for the building, it doesn't necessarily put a freeze on the, and as I mentioned during the, the discussion,
the alternatives analysis that would be required as part of the Article 97 process essentially is the next step in the veterans' housing proposal sort of vetting. So I, I don't see any issue with it moving into that stage because it will essentially determine if it's even a viable proposal under Article 97. Speaker 16: Yeah, it is. It is. Just whether, you know, again, shackling Yeah, Speaker 2: They signed, you know, a 10 year lease for the Johnson Speaker 16: To get that. Definitely. When, you know, when I read that, but you know, there's Speaker 1: A lot of moving Speaker 16: Parts, there's a lot of moving parts of Johnson School moving to, to go back instead of,
you know, going back to the, to the, the town citizens and saying we need to get more money out of it after going through this. You know, Speaker 1: If the select board ha I mean, you know, where, where our leverage points are is that if the select board decides they wanna lease out Johnson school, we have no no say in that matter, unless they're making storm water changes, there's no wetlands. Yeah. You know, so there's that. And so, so, so long as it's staying as is for now, whatever, you know, I mean for legally and, you know, in terms of our jurisdiction, you know, as far as I'm concerned, if we can find a way
to permanently protect the Johnson school site as open space as what it is with the footprint that it has, I Speaker 2: Think all, everyone's sort of in favor of that Speaker 1: Particular, and that's, that's, I just don't want, I don't want 'em selling property pieces of property off of it. I don't want to see big giant parking lots. I don't wanna see some big new building on it. You know, it's, that's, that's, that's my, my personal opinion. All right. We good? Yep. So make a motion to adjourn. So thank you Jeff. Seconded. Second. Thank you, Jim. Follow in favor. Alright, Chris and David. Thank you guys. Thank you. Have a good night guys.