Speaker 1: All right folks. Welcome. I think we're, I think we're live, we're, this is the Native Conservation Commission. Today is Thursday, June 18th. This is our last meeting of June. Our next meeting, we're in our summer schedule of one meeting per month. So our next meeting is on July 16th. So you won't be as entertained as you have been twice monthly with us. So let's go ahead and open the, the, the public meeting here. So the first item of the agenda I've got is a certificate of compliance request for 17 Upland Road. Do we have a representative of 17 Upland on the call? Yes.
Speaker 2: I believe we have a representative from the developer JBJ, as well as a representative from Goddard Consulting who did the invasive species management and mitigation planting. Speaker 1: Excellent. Alright. Welcome. Thanks for, thanks for coming. So let's just take a look at the file and see what we have in terms of documentation. There was an issue around the as-builts in terms of some pretty clear disagreements in terms of elevations, but my understanding is, is that those have been, have been resolved at this point in time. We do have a letter from Goddard Consulting here. So Goddard Consulting reports that the mitigation plan
for 17 upland has been taken care of. So we're good there. And this one, so the mitigation areas are anticipated to provide meaningful long-term habitat based on the successful completion of the approved work and the current condition of the restoration areas. It's the opinion of Goddard that all restoration work has been completed according to the approved plan. So that's good. And now let's take a look at any letters from engineering. You've got Cornerstone and Cornerstone Engineering. So dear Ms. Rendell, in accordance with the request for C certificate of compliance and special condition 34 C, please accept this letter as certification.
The work under file 2 3 3 8 dash 8 9 7 has been completed in substantial compliance with the approved plan. Speaker 2: And then the very first document in the file is the letter from the survey company noting the D discrepancy Speaker 1: Between, its from real map info. Speaker 2: Yes. Real map info. LLC signed and stamped by Todd Chapin, who's a professional land surveyor. Speaker 1: Okay. So the, so what this says from Rio Map info certifies that the elevation chart on the as-built are the result of an actual on the ground field survey performed under his direct charge and supervision using GPS.
The original design site plan by Cornerstone Engineering dated 10 14 22 was completed at another vertical data of unknown origin. That's always a problem when things like that happen. Realm map info LLC rep located several common found benchmarks and reference points and discovered a seven foot difference between the original and NAV D 88. As as e elevations real map info LC revised the the field asbuilt elevation data by adding seven feet to all measured points to match the proposed design benchmark data, which is common practice, I believe the asbuilt elevation shown are accurate to within professional standards.
Okay, good. So we've got the letter from the various engineers, all the, all the mitigation work is in compliance. We've got Cornerstone certifying that the work was completed as, as permitted and, and real map info aligning the, the, the vertical elevations there. So it looks like we're all squared away on site. Clear. Any comments that you have on it? Speaker 2: Not at all. The markers that were installed were not the town standard. The applicant chose to create iron survey caps that note the no disturb zone
that were installed at a roughly eight to 10 foot intervals all along. Speaker 1: And you've seen those? Yes. And you're comfortable with them? Speaker 2: Absolutely. Okay. They're elevated six inches above the ground, so they're very visible. Okay, Speaker 1: Good. Alright. Any questions from the commission on this? Speaker 3: I didn't see any mention about the storm water infrastructure in the road that was, that was supposed to be improved. So Speaker 2: They did, they just cleared the channel out of all the invasive species. Okay. And refresh the riff wrap that was in there, they didn't perform any changes to the actual infrastructure itself. Speaker 3: So that drain at the end of the road, wasn't there something that was
Speaker 2: No, that was the existing Caltech chamber that was installed at some point when the road was extended. The ownership of it was unknown at that time. So they improved the outlet structure to ensure there were no obstructions to the, the drainage. And Speaker 3: That's and that's been done? Speaker 2: Yes. I, I, I confirmed that and got photos on my, on my final site visit. Thank Speaker 1: You. Alright, any further questions about this? Any questions from the public about this? Alright, hearing none all is in favor of issuing the certificate of comp or someone make a motion. Sorry. Someone make a motion to issue the certificate
of compliance for 17 Upland, please. Motion Speaker 2: To Speaker 1: Issue. Thank you, Jim. Is that seconded? Second. Thank you George. Any further discussion on that folks? All is in favor in the room. Jeff? Speaker 2: Yes. Chris on as well. Speaker 1: Oh, and Chris? Sorry Chris didn't see you. Chris, don't worry about it. Yes. Excellent. Alright, so certificate of compliance has been issued for 17 upload. Well, let's keep going. Thank you. Speaker 3: Have a Speaker 1: Good night. Hey, thank you very much. Thanks guys. All right. Next item on the agenda I've got is notice of intent continuation for 24 Peterson. So we've opened it. We have not, at this point,
we've not received a DEP file number. Correct. Speaker 2: There, there was some issue with the filing fee. The riverfront multiplier was not applied appropriately. The applicant has provided revised fees to the town and as of Tuesday this week to the state as well. So we do expect there will be a file number issued prior to the next hearing. Alright. And we've got Peter LaVoy on the line. Speaker 1: Hey Peter. So, so let's go ahead and just kind of get a download description of the proposed project as it currently is and then we will, we'll take it from there. So, Peter, take it away please. Speaker 2: Peter, did you wanna share your screen or did you want me to pull the plans up?
Speaker 4: No, if you can let me share, I'll, I'll share. Speaker 2: Let me just change that setting. Peter, do you wanna go ahead and try to share? You should be able to, Speaker 4: Well, it's, it's not disabled. I mean, I can use your, if you wanted to, we can use, if you wanna do it, that's fine. Speaker 2: Let me get it pulled up so at least you can start your overview and then if I can switch it over to you, we can get that done. Speaker 4: Okay. Speaker 1: All right. Peter, why, why don't you start with existing and then get into proposed. Speaker 4: Okay. So good evening. My name's Peter Lahore. I work with d and l Design Group. I'm here representing our new generation custom homes.
We have an existing house at 24 Peterson Road. Peterson Road runs along the bottom of the page. It's basically a 1717, I mean 15,000 square foot lot. Basically the whole lot is cleared. It's all lawn except you have some trees along the back of the lot. We also have a drainage easement to the left of the lot or the south side of the lot from the, the road runoff gets collected at the intersection and then is discharged out to the back parcel.
So we do have buffer zone and we do have riverfront. So you can see the first blue beeline on the plan is the 50 foot from the wetland. And the second blue beeline that just kind of tips the deck is the a hundred foot buffer. Also, there is a line that goes across the lot right next to the deck that's the 200 foot offset from the stream. And then the a hundred foot offset is offsite on an adjacent parcel
right there close to the wetland. That is the wetland that was flagged. So if you look to the right, we would like to raise or remove the existing structure, remove the, the driveway so the structure in the deck would be removed, all the walks would be removed, and then we would like to reconstruct a new home roughly in the same location. It's just that it's a little bit deeper. And then we have a patio in the back of, of the, of the house driveway is basically in the same location,
just a little bit bigger. We are, we did do a stormwater management design, we did soil testing that was witnessed by the board of health as well. So the recharge would take the roof run off and it's able to handle a hundred year storm event. We did use snow 14 for our rainfall amount, so those are a little bit higher. So we are improving the lot by adding this additional recharge where there was none. And then we also, on the revised plan,
I show a restoration if you go to the, yeah, it's right there. So I show we we're proposing to restore roughly 870 square feet restoration area that would be within the riverfront to offset the 695 square feet of impervious that we would be adding within the riverfront area. So the small portion of the back of the house in, in the patio come out to roughly 695 square feet.
That would be in the riverfront area. And then that was a reasoning why we proposed to restore that, that 870 square feet, that would be within the first, which would be in the 50 foot buffer zone. So that 50 foot buffer zone is disturbed now it's lawn. So my client wanted to, you know, do something to give an offset for the impervious area that we would be putting into the riverfront. The lot was created prior to,
prior to the, the riverfront bylaw. That's basically, that's basically it. Just looking. Yeah. So, and also just to let the, the commission know that very minimal grading would be required. The backyard is it, it it grades to the, the slopes off to the back towards the wetland. Very gentle. And we are going to keep the same grade in the backyard. Most of the grading is outside of the riverfront and the buffer zone in the front yard. That's, that's basically what my proposal.
Speaker 2: Just a couple of notes for the commission in terms of 10.585 compliance. The project is proposing degraded area less than 10% of the total riverfront area on the lot. So total riverfront area is about 7,200 square feet. So the 695 is, is approximately 9.6% riverfront area. Peter, I, I didn't have a chance to get you this comment, but we do, we are gonna need a planting schedule for the mitigation area, you know, what species are proposed and the numbers and, and plant sizes.
Speaker 4: Correct. Yeah, I figured that Speaker 2: That was all I had for the commission. Speaker 1: Okay. And the lot is, Peter, the lot like you said is is relatively flat and there's no regrading that's gonna be happening. Speaker 4: Yeah, so from, from where the existing house was on the, from the front of the house back is very flat. It's kinda like a, a drive under from the street. So there is some grading in the front yard, but the backyard is, is very, it's a gentle slope out towards, towards the back of that. And we're not changing the grade in the back.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So Matt, currently, the front of the existing house peaks at about 1 48. So the plan would actually be to cut that down a little bit because the primary grade along the front of the lot is 1 46. And so they would be matching that one 46th grade all along the front for the garage slab elevation. Speaker 1: Okay. Okay. And, and the house will have a full, full basement Peter? Speaker 4: That is correct, yes. Speaker 1: Okay. Were you planning on Oh no, sorry, IIII see the stockpile area out
in the front right of the house. Okay, good. Alright. Questions from the commission on this, George. Speaker 5: What's the reason for the, in the mitigation area for that small right triangle, Speaker 2: What are you referring Speaker 5: To? It looks like it's o it looks like there's nothing done there. Yeah. Speaker 2: Oh, in, in this area here? Yeah, that is where the existing tree line is. Speaker 5: Oh, okay. Existing tree, Speaker 2: They're proposing to restore within the existing lawn area. Speaker 5: Okay. So there is, there are trees there.
I mean there are only two trees shown. Speaker 2: Yeah. So there, there's a number of existing trees on the property. The erosion controls are proposed to be placed in such a manner that all of those trees will remain outside the limit of work. The commission does have our standard condition in regards to trees not approved for Speaker 5: Removal. Like a a, a very opportune place that was nothing on it. So just throw things on it. Yeah, Speaker 4: Well I, I felt, I felt that it was, it was lawn area that was in the 50 foot buffer zone. So I felt that it was closer to the wetlands
and restoring that area wouldn't affect, you know, it wouldn't affect the lot and it, and it would benefit, benefit the wetlands in the riverfront area. Yeah, Speaker 5: Well you had, you and you do have existing trees there, Speaker 4: Correct? Correct. And I didn't wanna disturb any of the existing trees. Sure. The development. And most of, i, I kind of also, Claire had mentioned there's a 36 inch tree that was in the back left corner and I had my, I had my recharge area close to it. So then I, I kind of rotated it away from it
to give it more of a buffer. So now it's like, I wanna say it's like 10 feet away from, from, not, not from the stump, but from the, the, the, I don't know the symbol, but it was, it's 10 feet away from that 36 inch tree. Speaker 1: So this is going under 5, 8 5 Speaker 2: Yes. Redevelopment because unfortunately we're in that piecemeal realm because of the existing lawn and and deck area. Speaker 1: But lawn, I mean lawn doesn't count as previous disturbance in, in and of itself. It
Speaker 2: Does not. How Yeah, I guess the commission, the commission does have more flex in this particular scenario. I do think under the performance standards available to us, we would likely end up with more restoration under 10.585. Speaker 1: But if it But fair, yes. I mean that, that's fair. But we, but we can't arbitrarily just say that this is a redevelopment if it doesn't meet the standards for a redevelopment. 'cause there's no, it's not degraded soils.
It's not pavement, it's not loss of top soil under 5 85 under, you know, which is what the, what the text of the law says. Speaker 2: Yes. And I had been, because I didn't have the riverfront line on the original plans that were submitted, I wasn't sure where that fell on the lot, which is why most of my notes from before this plan was submitted due reference 10.585. I was just actually about to pull up the mass mapper for this area, which we can use to pull up the aerials as well. Speaker 1: I mean, I don't, you know, the,
Speaker 2: That's it, that mostly comes down to what the commission is requiring in terms of Speaker 1: Alternatives. Speaker 2: Alternatives and what, how the permit would be conditioned at the end of it all. That's right. So, Speaker 1: You know, and I don't necessarily see there being any need to fundamentally change, you know, there's setbacks to deal with setbacks, side setbacks, there's front setbacks. But to comply with the letter of the law, which I think we have to do, I mean, I don't know that we have the room just to say that this is a redevelopment project versus, versus a new development in riverfront area. 'cause there's, I don't see any evidence
of any degraded area that would qualify it as a redevelopment. I just want you, you know, o obviously we, we went through this whole thing with five object. Yeah, we did. And I just want to be careful that we're not setting a precedent that lets us kind of arbitrarily choose and Yeah. So anyway, Peter, what do you got? Can I Speaker 4: Make a comment? Speaker 1: Of course. Speaker 4: Can I make a comment? So I I I, I read, I thought I read under that section 10.58 if there was an expansion or if that was the reasoning why proposing restoration
and recharge. Because it, it says you can, you can expand on an existing lot that's been in existence prior to the, the riverfront. You, if you, if, if you can do something to benefit the, the riverfront. So that's why I, I decided, and I kind of convinced my clients to do this restoration area. I mean, we could do more of a restoration area if you would like, but we're also restoring a lawn, which it would be better if it was, if it was wooded
and it was planted with plants. And we're also giving stormwater management Oh yeah. Recharged. That wasn't in that area either. So this, we are adding a, we are degrading some, but we are, but the, I think the overall is that it's gonna be beneficial to, to the wetlands. Yeah. Speaker 1: Peter, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not questioning that part of it. You know, I mean, what you've put in place, in my opinion is a reasonable plan for me, it's more of an administrative issue that
by calling this a re you know, I'm not sure that we can call this a redevelopment project in either case. We're in a position where we can ask for restoration, we can ask for recharge, we can ask for all that. And you've done a pretty nice job, in my opinion, up to now, to providing that. For me, it's simply just ma wanting to make sure that we're papering this, I mean, ultimately we're papering this appropriately so that, you know, 'cause it's, it's, you know, it's calling itself a redevelopment project, but in my opinion, it's not meeting the letter of the law of a redevelopment project. We can ask for basically the same things that
you're providing in the, in your offering in the plans already. There may be a little bit more just kind of narrative that might be required. Because if it's, if it's a new development, technically what you have to do is you've gotta argue that you, you've gotta show us that the plant, that the project needs to be designed as it's designed and there's no other alternatives to reduce the impact on the resour, on the riverfront area. That's the key. Yes. It's a so-called alternatives analysis. And if it's a read, if it's a new development project under 5 8 4,
then that's required. And that's the additional narrative that that, that you'd need to provide. 'cause 5 85, you don't, if it's a redevelopment, technically you don't have to do an alternatives analysis. But I don't think that it meets the letter of the law. It meets the, the requirements of a, of a redevelopment project. Speaker 2: And, and now having that plan that shows the riverfront area. I I do agree with you, Matt, Peter. What Matt is saying is that because there is no existing development within the riverfront area on the lot within the 200 foot line, there's, there's nothing within those 200 feet that qualifies as degraded as it's defined under the act, then this project
would not qualify as redevelopment because there is no existing degraded area within the riverfront, not just on the lot. So that's what Matt is trying to clarify, that this is still all under the riverfront area regulations. It's just a matter of whether or not it would be defined as new development or redevelopment under the regulatory standards. And so those notes that I wrote were written prior to having the plan that showed the, the extent of the riverfront area. So there, there was an assumption that it was redevelopment that I made. Speaker 1: So, so here's, I mean, I wanna give others an opportunity
to chime in if anyone disagrees, say so. You know what you got Michael, you're, you're, you're brewing over there. Speaker 3: Well, I I just think that it's, you know, it's the same conversation that we had with another project with regard to, you know, determining what, what section of chapter 1 31. We're gonna review this under. And I, and I would agree with you, Matt, you know, in, in terms of that analysis, I think also, you know, we're also putting stormwater structures in the river in the
riverfront that, you know, again, we're, you know, we're getting down to this kind of situation where yeah, there's things that are improving, but we're also creating more disturbance within the project. You know, that was one of my major arguments with the previous project in the riverfront is that they were using mitigation in an undeveloped area of the riverfront. Yeah. And, you know, you know, with storm water structures. So I, you know, I I think that there's, there's a number of things that I think I take a pause with on this is, is
that, you know, there's probably some things that need to be at least looked at, either move the structure out of the 200 foot, you know, an alternative analysis or, you know, whatever the, the commission is, is gonna kind of inform this process. But, you know, my perspective is, is we're looking to reduce impacts to the riverfront in Natick where previously there is no disturbance Speaker 1: As it's defined under the law.
Speaker 3: Right. I think, yeah, no, Speaker 1: I, Speaker 3: That's my understanding of what our, I agree with you. What our what our, you know, purview is. Speaker 2: I'll, I'll let the engineer confirm this, but I, I would expect that at least one of the storm water systems likely has to be retained behind the house just for the grading. But I have been writing down all of these notes and Peter, I will type them up and get them to you following the hearing. Speaker 1: So here's my suggestion. I mean, because we don't have a DEP file number at this point in time. Claire, if you could work with Peter to, to just, just look at 5 84 as the appropriate place to file this and,
and the requirements that 5 84 has, then I think, you know, we could be in a position to pick this back up at our, at our next meeting in July, which we'd have to do anyway. Yep. You know, so I don't think in timeline perspective there's any real negative impact on this. Nope. So why don't we just proceed that way. You know, there needs to be some, you know, if 5 84 is the appropriate, so, so it's a new development versus a redevelopment under the Rivers Protection Act, then we can, you know, there's requirements that, that Yep. That's there a lot of, you know, in my opinion, Peter, a lot
of the mitigation that you've proposed already, you know, a stormwater device may need a stormwater storage device or infiltration device may need to move out of the, out of the 200 foot area, but it looks like you've got some room to do it. I think what's working in your favor is that it's not a big lot, you know, so there's not like, you know, it may be hard to move the house around to, to pull it com to pull the house completely out of the river, out of the riverfront area and still meet the zoning requirements and setbacks and all that other stuff, you know, so, you know, work with Claire to just refine this into, you know,
have this under 10.584 and then we can pick this up at our next meeting. And, you know, and again, I think a lot of the, a lot of the elements of the plan that you proposed right here will, will stick. So let's just proceed that way so that we have this properly, properly papered and we're not, we're not, we're not not complying with the law. Speaker 2: Absolutely. Speaker 1: Alright, Peter, does that make sense? Yeah, no, that makes sense. Cool. Alright, so let's go ahead and continue this to our July 16th meeting and we'll pick it up at our next one. So make a motion to continue it to July 16th if there's no further questions. So moved. Thank you Michael. Is that seconded? Yep. Thank you George. Any further discussion on that?
Those in the room? Chris? Yes. Jeff? Yes. Thanks guys. Thank you Peter. Appreciate your time and your patience on this. We'll get this done. Okay, thank you. Alright, good night. Alright, next item on the agenda. Lemme get my, I think we're just back to Speaker 2: 43 Cypress, Speaker 1: We're back to 43 Cyprus. Do we have representatives for 43? Cyrus here on the call. Speaker 2: I believe that Mike and Rick are both on the call. Speaker 1: Excellent gentlemen, welcome. Alright, so good evening. Yeah, good evening. So we had some questions at our last, our last meeting around some staging questions.
We had some clarifications around access over to over to, not Magnolia, Bayberry, Bayberry Bayberry, things like that. So if you guys wouldn't mind just kind of walking through what, where, where you're at right now, revisions, thoughts and all that so we can pick this up and, and move it forward. Speaker 2: And Mike, you're more than able to share your screen, Mike or Rick if you guys want to. Okay. I'm also happy to pull up any materials. Speaker 6: All right. So I'll share my screen. You guys, do you guys see the plans? Got Speaker 7: It. Yep. Speaker 6: Okay, good evening.
My name's Mike Dean with d and l Design Group here representing Morell Construction Incorporated. The applicant, Rick Morell is logged on as well. So the project, as you guys know, is 43 Cyprus. I think you're pretty familiar with the project at this point. Since the last meeting, we, since the last time we were in front of the commission, we have submitted revised information on several occasions. We have had several correspondences with Claire via email and through the portal following the last meeting, it was clear the commission wanted
to see more detailed information on the phase and and construction access for the larger equipment such as tree clearing equipment and other construction equipment. Since then, the applicant reviewed the project in depth with, with his excavation company and tree company and it was determined that secondary construction entrance is warranted. So let me just scroll through these plans here. So here is the erosion control plan, which has been revised. There's also been a phase in plan, which we'll get into quickly, you know, soon. But in this area here, this is Bayberry
And here's the secondary access point here, construction entrance and access point. The primary one is located here where it was always originally proposed up at Cypress. So we've determined that was, we certainly need that secondary access for the, for the larger equipment, the phase, and has been provided also by the applicant and the excavation company that has been thoroughly vetted. You can see throughout this plan, all the phases have been added. They're in highlighted areas. And then just jumping ahead to a couple other plans forward.
And here's a phasing plan which has been added, which have all been submitted back and forth through the portal and back through Claire. And she has reviewed reviewed materials. So in addition to the phasing being labeled throughout, and you can see the highlights, it's actually added right here in this area. That takes you a step, step by step or phase, phase by phase throughout the construction pro process. So then in addition to, no, so through the process just recently by adding the secondary access here,
and once again this is, this is the secondary access, this is the primary, this is just to get the larger equipment in and out. There was a concern about there's existing water lines in this area. So there was some concerns about the secondary access and the impacts of, of bringing the larger equipment in and out of this area over the water lines. And your typical water line, as most as you may know, is, you know, five feet deep due to frost protection in code. And you know, with five feet of cover, it's certainly is enough material to protect those.
The water lines that has been also reviewed by Bill, the town engineer met, met out on site with Rick and they went over this area and this access point. So I believe we have a handle on being comfortable with bringing the equipment in and out of this area without, without harming the, the existing water lines. And certainly we do not wanna harm the existing water lines. We then added some more information into the documents for some preliminary or for some test pits to be performed there in coordination
with the town and the DPW and we'll get hot elevations on those, those water lines. And that'll also show how deep the water lines are just to make sure, you know, the assumptions are not wrong. And then Speaker 1: If I was just gonna say, so that's just to verify that the five and a half foot standard clearance is actually being met and it's not two feet just by some, some weird chance. Speaker 6: Exactly. And then obviously if, if we find that assumption would be wrong, we would adjust then and regroup. But you know, I I, I would be, I would think
that these water lines are certainly below the frost line. You know, that's, that's what really drives that four feet, four feet depth minimum. And I think Bill even refers to the code in town being five and a half feet down. So, right. But, but we are gonna substantiate that before we start driving the vehicles over the water lines. Most recently, which was not, which has not been submitted back to the town officially just early this, a late this afternoon, there was a concern that came back from reviewing the most recent materials about the coordination of this secondary construction access
and the rip rep in this area. So the text is added here. I sent that back and forth to Claire and we certainly can add that in our final stages. But that basically, that basically says that this secondary access needs to remain through all construction until it's not needed anymore. The concern was, okay, we show a secondary access here, construction entrance, rip wrap, et cetera. And now, 'cause this is located in the same location as the proposed sewer line, which is in this area. So you know, once we install the sewer line in phase three, what happens to that construction entrance.
So it will have to be rebuilt and reestablished and it needs to remain until it's not needed anymore. So that's one thing that we have to add to the plan going forward. Once again, we really, there's probably been three or four we revisions since stuff first meeting and I, you know, we understood what the commission was, you know, really trying to achieve. I believe we worked through that, added more robust information on the plans and documents. And I appreciate Claire's time and working how Todd and along with us, and I believe we have a much better plan
in, in place than we originally did just to tighten everything up. And I think we're at a good, good spot. I'd turn that back over to the commission for any questions or if Claire, Speaker 1: So if you could, you know, thanks for your cooperation on this, really appreciate the efforts. Could you just give a quick voiceover for the phasing? I mean what's phase one, phase zero, phase 1, 2, 3. And so we can just kind of get your, your narrative around that. There Speaker 2: Is also just the commission is aware a written narrative, 43 cypress phasing letter. It's approximately the eighth
document in the Google Drive folder. Speaker 1: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 phasing. I see it. Okay, good. Yeah, Speaker 6: So on the phase plan and the process, once again, we took the document, we submitted, submitted it back through undercover letter and as well bringing it onto the plans here. But I can certainly run through it fairly quickly without spending too much time phase zero because there's really no work that's going to take place at that point that's installed all perimeter erosion controls per plan and have an inspection by the town
of Natick in a pre-construction meeting before any work. So you'll see around here in this location, this is all proposed erosion control. Phase zero, phase zero highlighted. And then once again, if you come down to the text, that's right on the plan phase zero right here, what I just read, number one, no phase zero install perimeter erosion control right here. Yeah. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 6: Phase one, phase one clearing and GRU cut the trees, limited disturbance install, stabilized construction entrance per plan, stump
and grab site install stockpile, you know, so phase three is grading, stripping the top and top soil and stockpiling beginning rough grading, I'm sorry, diversion. Diversion swes locations may vary to avoid concentrated flows as well as interfering with construction access. So those diversion ditches are typically, you know, they're, they're, they're a moving, they they change as the site changes. Once again, I'd like to remind the commission that we have that larger depression for this particular site,
which is a little unique as to being able to use that as a temporary sedimentation basin. And then you'll have the construction entrances shown here. You'll have this phase one stockpile areas, the stump grinding area, I think that was requested at the last meeting that we were at. And you know, diversion ditches, check dams, things of that nature. Coming back to here, phase phase three are the utilities starting to install the utilities. Once again, the utilities aren't necessarily highlighted on here, but you have the sewer that connects down on bayberry that comes up through the site along here.
Drainage shown here. Drainage out in the roadway feeds back here. Water line is, is shown in this area here down the new roadway grading, let's see, we can come back here. Once again, it's right on the plan. Phase three of the utilities. Phase four is the roadway construction, remove construction entrance. Once the roadway is constructive, remove the construction entrance or once they stop the roadway construction, remove the entrance, fine grading installed by ous pavement Work to, you know, that's all the final gravel things
of that nature for the roadway. Stabilized side slopes, phase five, house lots, phase six is construction completion. So those are all added to the plans and highlighted. And like I said, a little bit more robust documents Speaker 1: In terms of the phasing. You know, one of the things that had been talked about at one point was phasing the tree removal so that the whole site's not stripped all at once. And I think what you're proposing, I mean, and I'm not saying that that's what we had required or, or you had agreed to at any point.
What you're proposing though is to do all of the tree removal all in one shot, get the equipment out there, get it all cleared, get it all ground up, and then get to work on the rest, you know, according to the rest of the project. Is that, is that correct? Speaker 8: Correct, Speaker 6: Yes, that is correct. That certainly the tree clearing is gonna, all the tree clearing is gonna take place at once and then they're gonna start the, the stump removal process. Okay. While they have the chipper and everything there. Speaker 1: Okay. Just wanted to clarify Speaker 6: That. The stump grinder, I'm sorry. The stump grinder. Right. Speaker 1: Alright, well let's dig in. Questions, comments. Speaker 5: What, George, is there a label on the
other, the, the new proposed entrance? I don't see anything referring to that as a part of phase one. Just nine? Yeah, that, Speaker 6: Yeah, well, nine. Nine, okay. Yeah, I'm sorry. So nine is the actual detail, which gets you to the erosion control detail sheet. This one's labeled phase one. Yes, sure. I could add a phase one there, but yes, it's Speaker 5: Not a phase. Just, just so it's for the record, it's there consistent that they go in at the same time? Speaker 6: Yes. Okay. Understood. Speaker 1: Other questions, Jim? Yeah,
Speaker 9: I was just curious about the demolition. Is that part of, obviously probably phase one, right? Picking the old house out and, and also that shed in slab foundation. That's back in apostle. Speaker 1: Yeah, technically, Speaker 6: Yeah. Yes, that'll be phase one after the, the erosion controls all installed and inspected. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 5: Japanese part. Japanese. Speaker 1: Alright. Other questions guys? One of the, one of the details, what's the thoughts about restoration of the temporary access off of Bayberry? I mean, that's a fairly steep slope
and you know, what's, what's the plans once that's decommissioned and removed? I'd like to, you know, see some, see some detail just about how that's gonna be restored back to, you know, existing condition or better than existing condition. Just when it's all, when it's all done. So that text is cut off. What is that So restored? Speaker 6: Yeah, actually that must be the view port. So that same, and I, that's my apologies, but let me just go up to the right here. That's documented. So that has been documented once again in ver verbiage
and cover letters and things of that nature. But then it's added to the plan and I'll zoom in there for that note restored two existing conditions prior to construction has been added to the plan there. That was one of the, you know, your concerns or the commission's concerns the first time we're in front of you. So that has been added and documented and certainly could be added into the permit as well. So it's almost, you know, three three areas that that's documented. Speaker 1: Yeah, it, it would certainly be in the order of, in the order of condition. So again, just to clarify, so that, that access road that's only needed for the tree removal part of the project
or is that gonna exist all the way through construction of the houses itself? I mean, are you gonna have, you know, lumber trucks going in and out of there as well? Or is that just for the tree removal equipment? Speaker 6: It, it's for the tree removal equipment and anything that really has to come in on a low boy. But, and it's even referenced in the town engineer's letter, I believe that, that the primary, the primary access up at Cyprus is going to be used for, you know, all the vehicles, you know, wheeled vehicles that, that can access here. The intent for this secondary access is for essentially
equipment that comes in on low boys, if I remember correctly. Is that correct, Rick? Correct, Speaker 1: Yes. Okay. And, and those low boys, they can, they can navigate that traffic circle right there. It's kind of tight and, you know, the rea I mean it's, it's possible that there could be some, I would, I would wanna see a condition that if there's any degradation or damage to that traffic circle that that's also restored as part of the process. Just 'cause I could see someone clipping it. I mean, I, I walk my dog down there all the time and it, it's, it's not, it's not a big throughway, you know, it's a fairly tight turn there.
So if we could just, you know, we'll ask for some assurances that any, any damage to that circle will be restored. Okay. Sounds Speaker 6: Good. Yeah. Yeah, that's fair. Speaker 1: Okay, other questions, comments? So we've got the phasing plan, we've got the access sorted it seems. What other ends would, loose ends do we need to tie up here guys? I, Michael comments? Speaker 3: No, I think excellent work. Thank you for, thank you for all your work, Claire on this as well as the applicant.
I think you guys did a a excellent job with, with what has been asked of you. I think, you know, from my site visit observations, I think there's just a couple of things that I observed is, you know, you do have some stands of Japanese knotweed. I think from a, from a conservation commission standpoint, we've always looked at that as an opportunity for either monitoring or, or, or mitigation in some way, shape or form. Where, Speaker 1: Where was the knotweed on site? I don't remember seeing that. Speaker 10: It essentially in the area where the retaining wall
for lot three is now proposed. Aha. Right. As you sort of approach the Speaker 1: Depression, the big depression. Okay, I missed that. And Speaker 10: I do think that a condition, a lot of that area is gonna be substantially regraded. Yeah. And so I do think that a, a monitoring requirement, I'm imagining that the commission is gonna be looking for some landscaping survival. Absolutely. So I think a similar timeline of, of Japanese knotweed monitoring, just to ensure that none of that is sort of rearing its ugly head again. Okay. Would be beneficial. Speaker 6: Okay. And if I could just, if I could just say if we remember correctly at the
beginning, after that sidewalk, we then had the wetlands consultant go about out to the site and there's also a blurb in her report saying that that not weed is to be removed, if I remember correctly. Speaker 3: Okay, great. I can include Speaker 1: That. Alright. Other things Jeff, Chris questions for you guys? I, I'm happy with that phasing plane. Okay. Speaker 11: I think that's a noticeable improvement. Speaker 1: Yeah, for sure. No, it just, it just puts dots I crosses t's gives us the level of detail that, that we needed. Alright guys. I mean, are we in a po George how
Speaker 5: Far back or towards the commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Natural Resources did the what not weed seemed to go, 'cause I'm just thinking of Speaker 1: It was in the middle of the lot. It wasn't Okay. It wasn't, it wasn't on the edge of DCR land. It was in there Speaker 5: Wouldn't be a problem about pieces. Bits ending up. Speaker 1: Not, not Speaker 5: The state Speaker 1: Slap, not where the knotweed that we saw Okay. Was it's, it it's kind of dead center to the site. It's right at the top of the, there's this big kind of thing
where I'm convinced a meteor struck at some point. Speaker 5: All meteor. Speaker 1: Yeah. No, yeah. I mean if, Speaker 3: If equipment could avoid tracking through that area so you're not spreading, Speaker 1: Not you're not spreading that Speaker 3: Rhizomes throughout the lot. That will become a, a little bit of a larger issue over time. But, you know, I'm not, I think as long as, you know, the wetland scientists has addressed it and, and we have some sort of ability to, to make sure that the Japanese knotweed doesn't either
increase or get to a different location on this site. Or both. Speaker 1: I mean maybe, maybe as, maybe as part of the initial clearing. 'cause I could imagine the clearing activity potentially tracking it. I mean may maybe going in and just scooping out that that's, Speaker 10: I I wrote down condition, pre-construction site visit flag, not weed and then, Speaker 3: Yeah. Or or snow fence or something. Speaker 1: Just something just so it doesn't spread everywhere. 'cause that'll, I Speaker 3: Would drive right through it if I was in a big piece of equipment. But that's, that's just me. Speaker 5: That's just me. And then you take it, take the equipment out one of those roads
Speaker 3: Of course, and then I go to the next property if Speaker 1: I see, make sure that's happen. If I see not way to my front yard, I know who Yeah. Speaker 5: Right next to where he walking his dog. We'll see. Not Speaker 1: My, my dog will dig it up and bring it home in my living room. Okay. So with all that, are we in a position to close the public hearing on this? Speaker 2: The only thing that I want to note, and this is, you know, for Rick and Mike, technically if we close the public hearing this evening, our next hearing will be further out than 21 days. Which the, the town stormwater bylaw follows similar
timelines as the Wetlands Protection Act in terms of permit issuance timelines. True. Are you all comfortable with it? With us getting conditions to you all in advance of the seven 16 and a and a vote Speaker 1: Within the 21 days Speaker 2: Within the 21 days, and then a vote for issuance on the 16th. Speaker 1: Would that work for you guys? Speaker 6: Yeah, I mean, it sounds, sounds reasonable to me. I I don't wanna speak for me Rick, but I don't see why it would be an issue. Speaker 2: Yes. Yeah. Sounds good to me. Okay. I just wanna get that all out on the record. Speaker 1: Okay. Yeah, we just wanna stay in compliance. Alright. Appreciate it. So with that, are we ready?
Someone wanna make a motion to close the public hearing motion Speaker 2: To close. Speaker 1: Take that from Jim. Is that seconded by anybody? That was Chris. Speaker 6: That's me. Yep. Speaker 1: Excellent. Okay. So motion made by Jim, seconded by Chris to close the public hearing. Any further discussion? Last, last bites at the apple, the plan would be that we would vote to close the public hearing tonight. Claire would draft an order of conditions that we would review and vote on at our next meeting. And then presumably if everyone's in agreement on that, we'd close this out for good. And you guys would have what you need from us at our next meeting. Alright. Motion is made by Jim, seconded
by Chris to close the public hearing. All those in favor of closing the public hearing, hearing in the room. Chris? Yes. Jeff? Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 1: Alright, that's closed. So we will pick this up with the order of conditions that we'll review and vote at our next meeting. Claire, there will be many opportunities for, for there to be back and forth Yep. On the order of conditions. So, so Rick, you and Mike will have an opportunity to review that, give feedback on it. We want to, ideally we'd like to go into the meeting next week with you guys having looked at it and everyone's comfortable with it so there's not, you know, just to move things along with that mindset.
Let's, let's, let's, we we're continued to July 16th. Oh, we, we haven't voted. No, we, we don't need to. We've closed the public hearing. Sorry, I'm getting ahead of myself. We close a public hearing. We'll pick this up on July 16th and talk about the order of conditions and then we should be in a position to close it out and, and be on our way. Issue Speaker 2: It. Yep. Speaker 1: Excellent. Alright. Speaker 6: Okay guys. Okay. Thank you for your time. Thanks. Yeah, Mike, Speaker 1: Thank you everybody. Thank you guys, appreciate your time. Thanks Speaker 6: Guys. Have a good night. Speaker 1: Alright, good. Next item on the agenda Speaker 2: Onto general Speaker 1: Business. Speaker 5: All if they have paperwork on the depth
of those water lines bay is how, you know, how Speaker 2: Is a new road compared to some of the other ones in town? I'm not saying that means the records are accurate, but it's more likely than some other areas of town. Well it's, Speaker 5: It's not necessarily just accuracy. Do they exist? Yeah, Speaker 2: Well they do exist 'cause they service the homes on Bayberry. Okay. Speaker 1: Alright. So Middlesex path bike area. Yes. Fill us in. What's going on there? Speaker 2: So folks might have seen, there's some photos in the Google Drive folder.
Yeah, I got a report a couple of weeks ago from Keep Natick beautiful with some concerns about this area. It was then very immediately echoed by a resident on Parker court, which is one of the short residential streets on the north side of 1 35. That vehicles had been driving down Parker Court up the hill across middle section like cars or trucks? Cars and, well I think it was a pickup truck that was, but not like town vehicles. These are, you know, Speaker 1: People, people Speaker 2: Up into this area.
So Morgan Griffiths, who's the transportation planner in town and I made a site visit out to this area the last time I was out here was like right after I started, I wanna say it was like December or January 21, 22. And the land disturbance and activity has increased dramatically since the last time I was out on this property. There were a couple of, you know, little jumps and, and divots that had been made. But if folks flip through the photos, there's a quite a substantial amount of earth moving packing feature construction. I mean that pit is like four feet deep
and there are large wooden structures keep native. Beautiful noted that they had seen previous evidence of them lighting some of those wooden structures on fire. Oh boy. And the other large, I say large, the other primary issue is that there were clearly materials on site that very closely matched some of the new fencing that had just been installed along the MBTA track. Oh boy. So I did visit the site with the MBTA staff as well. They did confirm that materials owned by the MBTA OLIS had been removed from the tracks and onto this property.
Some of it had been used in the jump features, some of it was just sitting in this pile. They are gonna be coordinating, retrieving those materials, but the rest of the issue is sort of not their problem. It was, it was really just materials for the MBTA. This is on Conservation Commission land. That's right. And I I I would love to, we had had such a great success with the town forest bike paths. If there is a method to create some sort of approved
features at this location, clearly there is a desire and an interest in the use here. What I have a major issue with is, is the public safety conflicts, the level of land disturbance that has occurred and the amount of ecological damage that it, that is likely to result disturbance. Speaker 1: What if we built a bike park there disturb, oh boy, Speaker 2: It's a possibility. Speaker 1: Fence it in kind of with clearly defined boundaries. Yep. Fence it in, build a bike park so that they can go, you know, ballistic out there and do what they want to do. But it's bounded somehow. I mean it's, you know, this is kind of, you know, this is the stuff that we battle all the time where kids are gonna do this
and it's just gonna be a cat and mouse game. I mean, the whole thing of a truck driving up there, I mean we should, you know, I I'd love to ask Natick PD to well I to get out there on their four wheel on their, on their gator. Yeah. Speaker 2: So I've already submitted to DC lows on asking them to increase patrols out there. Art Goodin and I are gonna go out there next week to discuss some kind of bollard situation for the end of the right of way. There does still usually need to be public works access to Middlesex path, but Speaker 1: But they can get to Middlesex path from either end. Exactly. Speaker 2: Yeah. So they don't need that as an access point. Right. So looking at some kind of bollard solution to prevent residential or,
or non-authorized vehicles. What, Speaker 1: What kind of jackass is driving their truck up, up that slope? Speaker 2: Teenagers, Speaker 5: These Speaker 1: All, all all s have a little bit of that in the Speaker 5: Nineties. These are probably, some of the kids are the ones that historically had the place set up before you go back 15 years on that. And that was as long as Speaker 1: Wild, as long as George, as long as I've been on the commission, which is, that's only second to you at this point. Which worries me daily. It's been there, you know, something's been going on there forever. And so that Speaker 5: Goes back to when Doug Speaker 2: Probably started.
Yeah. And I know that they, you know, we went through the effort of having it all removed about 10 years ago and sort of restoring it to square zero and then this is what we've seen now rebuilt. So if the, Speaker 1: I mean is there, is there a way that we could just, I mean, and I'm just, I'm just throwing this out there as something to talk about. I don't know Jeff. Jeff, you're not in that area. I mean, what do you, what do you think, man? What's your observation? What do you, what's, Speaker 12: You know, I, I haven't, I was very surprised Yeah. By this 'cause I haven't, you know, Parker court's very, you know, nearby and I haven't seen anything like
or heard anything or Jeffrey, Speaker 1: Your kids involved. I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm kidding man. I'm Speaker 2: Kidding. It seems like it has escalated following this winter. I mean a lot of these features have clearly been constructed for some time, but it seems like some of the, the access the fire lighting, the, the trash in my notes, I note that keeping it beautiful removed about 40 bike tubes that kids had thrown up into the trees. It seems like the sort of wanton destruction has maybe accelerated. What, Speaker 1: What if, what if we fence Speaker 12: It's clear. Well, are these, are these the, those motorized bikes
or Probably bicycles. Speaker 2: So we've gotten reports of both. So it seems like the primary users are just regular non-motorized or e-bikes. But there has been reports of access by dirt, bikes, cars and, and other, you know, Speaker 1: Well I think non-approved scooters. Let's, let's look into the Ballard situation. Yep. And then I would do camera. I I I would, I would think about cameras as well. Yeah. I I just Speaker 5: What about that kid that wanted to get into some types of electronic transmission? He wanted to put
Speaker 1: The wifi up in town Speaker 5: Forest. Yeah. Get him working here. Oh, that's give him a job to, you know, Speaker 1: Camera, the, the police. What, what we don't have is we, we don't have a policy around camera surveillance of conservation lands. Speaker 2: We do not Right though. I, I think that generally we are the landowners. If we were to install a camera, I would think it's well within our rights and likely it would be posted with a sign that says, you know, video surveillance Speaker 1: Is that just gonna invite kids climbing a tree and ripping it down. Speaker 2: I was gonna suggest a trail cam. So it's a little bit more subtle. Subtle.
We would still have to sign it. It obviously, but then at least those kinds of cameras are usually coming with antit tamper straps and things like that that make it slightly more difficult for a Speaker 3: Teenager. And we've done that with trash, you know, with issues with illegal dumping haven. Speaker 1: Mm. The con I don't think the Conservation Commission has in the been my time on the commission. We have not, I don't believe that we've posted, we've bless posted cameras as, as a, as an enforcement mechanism. I'm not, I'm not opposed to it at Speaker 2: All. Yeah. I just think Speaker 3: I consider this just as, as substantial Speaker 1: As dumping, as dump as you Oh,
a hundred percent. Totally agree with you. Speaker 2: Totally agree. I think the, the concern for me with fencing in this area is there's no real way for us to install a level of permanent fencing that is gonna deter the kids. Speaker 1: I think eight foot, eight foot chain link, Speaker 2: I think eight foot chain link might deter them for a little bit until somebody buys a pair of bolt cutters and is cut a hole in it. Speaker 1: Electrify it. Well, well, no, no, no Speaker 2: Need power Speaker 1: Unfortunately. I mean, what I, what I'm what I'm saying fence it and I totally agree with you and this is just, this is just brain dumping right now. But you know what, what I'm saying, fencing one option could be to fence off a bike park
where it just kind of bounds where, where we're okay with there being stuff going on and then deters people from building stuff outside and we can say, listen, you know, if if, if we see stuff going on outside of the fence lines Yeah. Then we shut it all down. Speaker 2: Well and I would still like to, I mean I think that the bike path process in town Forest set us up really nicely with the agreements that are in place. You know, we have maybe not the best contact information 'cause they are high schoolers, but we have contact information for the kids who are working in maintaining these trails.
I I think that, I see this as sort of a multi-prong approach. We need to address the public safety issue from the, the residential streets into this area. The t is gonna be providing me with an update on their fencing plans. They, they do have plans to fully fence the tracks in Natick because of the high conflict points. So they're gonna get me an update on the timing of when that is gonna be progressing, which will hopefully reduce the safety concern of kids accessing the track corridors. And then I ideally develop a proposal
that we can formalize a use for this area, whatever it is, with appropriate restrictions and limitations. Because I think that not only does the sort of expansion of it concern me, it it is things like some of the trees out there are, you know, buried four feet up the trunk. And so I, I have concerns about, you know, allowing the level of land disturbance to continue at the rate that it has at putting those trees at risk. Speaker 1: I mean, I think, I think the key is, you know, there's clearly demand for an amenity like this, you know,
and this has been a place of traditional usage for a long time in that way. And so maybe we're at a place where we, you know, we, we come to some kind of compromise when, where there is an amenity that's put in place there that that could accommodate this demand that's out there, or else we're just gonna be fighting this kind of rear guard action forever. Yeah. Speaker 2: And I, I did have a little bit of a secondary thought that just came to me, which is that we are losing another sort of informal unpermitted use of the, the skate facility that's at Speaker 1: Multi purpose it south in South, that's right.
Speaker 2: As, as that project moves forward. So maybe there is also an opportunity to connect with those folks, maybe about this location, potentially serving, Speaker 1: I mean, it's serving Speaker 2: That similar need. Speaker 1: There will be some pushback. Speaker 2: Oh, absolutely. There, Speaker 1: There will be some pushback to, you know, I mean, outside of us convincing Natick PD to be out there constantly, which is not, you know, they're, they've got, they're stretched thin, they've got their resource limitations. And I don't know that that's a reasonable expectation. Speaker 2: I did let DC lows on know that I expect this activity to increase in the next few weeks as Sure.
Summer school lets out. Exactly. So I am hoping that at least over the next few weeks, their patrols are increased. I have also let the residents on Parker Court and Randall Court, who I have contact information for, know that if they are hearing or seeing anybody up in that area, especially after dark, they should call the non-emergency police line. But I'm not, because we don't really, we can't really respond after the fact. The police can really only get out there when they're out there. Speaker 5: But this could be a source of funding. This is conservation land. We can find them and we can find the kids split the fines
with the extra police that could also use it as a training. I, Speaker 1: I think you have a future as the new Secretary of the Treasury of the United States government. Alright, George, thank you for nothing. I'm kidding. Speaker 9: There's been similar complaints about Coolidge Hill. Speaker 2: Yeah. Coolidge Hill is under wreck and Parks ownership, not our ownership. And it is primarily dirt bikes on, on Coolidge Hill that we get motorized, motorized bikes. Yeah. The trails and forest. Here's a lot of those issues. I I've reported them to r the park and wrecks and I, I've informed the, the stewards that we have who,
who assist in that area. The same thing about calling the non-emergency police line when they, when they hear the vehicles out there. Because I, I don't even have enforcement capability on that parcel. 'cause it's not under conservation commissions of custody. Speaker 3: That's, I mean, I, I would like to see a, you know, some sort of outreach and communication strategy that with the kids that would align with the success we had in Town Forest Speaker 1: Because so far the Town Forest site seems to be doing all right. Because Speaker 3: I think the peer pressure, I Speaker 2: Saw a group of kids coming down Bacon Street yesterday that, that looked like they had been up there using it, having a grand old time. Yeah.
Speaker 3: I think the p you know, the peer group that, that did that in the Town Forest, I think was strong and, and had great support from, from others within their bike community, bicycle, you know, mountain bike community. And I think, you know, what I'm seeing here is that, you know, the intention may have been valid in terms of what they were doing. It would've been nice if they had asked permission first. I think what I'm seeing unfortunately here is that there's now an element that now is, is turning it into something different. Right. And I think that's
where I've become very concerned about, you know, activities that inherently go, you know, I, I won't say unnoticed or, or maybe ignored. They, they tend to snowball into something like, you know, larceny, which is basically what we have on our property right now from the, from Speaker 1: The, the olas Yeah. And MBTA stuff. Well, well it's larceny. It's fire burning. Yeah. It's, you know, it's vandalism. Yeah. You know, it's all those kinds of things. And so I I agree with you Mike. So, so let's do this, Claire, would you work
with Art on the Bullard's at the end of Yep. Speaker 2: And actually the, the student contact that I have for the town Forest bypass is my first contact to see if they know kind of who's involved. Exactly. Yeah. And I'm not, again, I know it's, nobody wants to be the snitch or the tattletale. The reality is we have, we have no way of punishing the kids who have been doing this because there's no way to prove who did it when they did it. But if we can at least open a door into a conversation of, Hey, we've worked with your peers at Town Forest to have this amazing successful, let's Speaker 1: Do this. Right.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Let's do it. Right. Exactly. And there's Speaker 3: Support and there's support not only financial, but other support for that. Claire, what's this shot of here? Speaker 2: This is going down to Parker Court. So some of the, the residents put these orange cones up at the end of Parker Court, but that's how they've been accessing, Speaker 1: That's how the cars have been driving up. Yeah. Perfect. Wow. Speaker 2: So Middlesex path, you can see Speaker 1: Strip, that's Middlesex path right in the middle there. Yeah. Speaker 2: Right. Cut through there. Oh Speaker 1: Boy. I mean that's, that's the kind of thing where I, you know, I want, I want the cops, I want, I want it blocked off. I Exactly.
Speaker 2: And that's why the, the safety issue is my priority getting, I want the vehicle tow out there about the larceny issue. Priority. Yeah. The land disturbance has now happened at this point. I wanna get it resolved or, or remediated as much as we can. But those are the two sort of primary, Speaker 1: I I think if there's something that, you know, something like that happens, that's when I want to a cruiser at either end of Middlesex path and, and the Gator going up that path to go Yeah. You know, get this thing towed. I don't have much patience for that. Alright, cool. That's good. So let's, let's, let's stay on top of this. I think this is a, this is an important one here. Alright. Let's talk about beavers. Absolutely. Yeah. Welcome. How are you? Fine, thank you. Why, why don't you come on up just so we can hear you. Sure.
I mean we can offer that, we could hear you friends from home. Oh sure, sure. Yeah. Sorry you had something to offer for that. Speaker 13: Can I offer from the public please on? First of all, wow, I didn't have an idea that this kind of activity's going on, but I think you're right to say that, you know, just the punishing thing is it's kind of mouse and you're gonna have the police murdering that forever and kids might find another place if they see that. That's so, so it, it ends up, I think that a good, maybe creating something that is fans that is actually done properly and then maybe also some grants
that may be totally looked at to, for do something like that. And that may be, you know, since it's high school or teenagers, it may become sort of a hangout place for teenagers. Yeah. Like that is properly done instead of this. Yeah. Is of course like totally agree. You know, somebody may get hurt or Yeah. Speaker 2: No issue with kids getting outside and, and being outside concerns about Speaker 1: I know. Why aren't, why aren't they in front of their screens like they should be, you know? Alright. Let's talk about Town Forest. So Claire, why don't you give us an update then we'd love to hear from you in terms of what you're seeing.
Speaker 2: Absolutely. So I met Simone and a few other of the Abutters out on yesterday Wednesday to review the water levels. Let me just share my screen so the folks at home can see the photos as well. These are the photos that are in the Google Drive folder, but here is the current status of the Beaver Dam at the upstream portion of Town Forest. I'm gonna flip really quickly so folks can see the photo from six four as well. But I would say there's, there's probably been a drop of about eight to 12 inches of, of water on the downstream side of the dam. Looks Speaker 1: Like it. Speaker 2: So just to jump really quickly through, so there,
there's the dam on six four. So you can see that, that there's clearly been a loss of water in that downstream section. It's a lot drier now. Speaker 1: It's that bag of hydraulic cement that we left there, you know, for the beavers to mess with. Speaker 2: And then we come to photos of, so this is where that original beaver dam was located. So just showing that the water levels in the upstream portion of the wetland are still within the sort of normal range. I don't think they would be hurt by a a, a slight lowering, especially with the, the deluge we got this evening. Sure. This is the photo of the culvert under Oak Street.
It's, it's a little hard to see the poison ivy has really come in quite nicely, but there is still water flowing through the flow level or device. The device is still functioning very well. But you can also see that compared to the six four visit, this water level has also lowered and is now sort of even with the bottom of the culvert pipe versus clearly over the bottom of the culvert pipe where it was previously. Water is also no longer flowing over the weir structure at the Jennings Pond outlet at Grove Terrace. So in reviewing the area with the abutters and knowing that we, we have a rather dry couple
of weeks projected ahead of us. I think there's one rainstorm coming up this weekend, but not too much else on the forecast. And also understanding that the drought level has, is we are still in a level three drought. Town of Natick has a mandatory water ban. So trying to be really cognizant of all of those aspects. It, it is my recommendation that the commission allow for a volunteer breach and I'm back, oh, let me share again so folks can see on the screens. It would be my recommendation to allow for a breach of this is about four feet out from the bank. This sort of little half moon here,
maybe four and a half feet. My recommendation would be to breach at at least a portion, if not all of this section here, Speaker 1: Knowing that it'll be back within 24 hours to Speaker 2: Some extent, knowing it'll be back within 24 hours. I think that given the, the deluge we have today, a a breach now would be appropriate to keep water moving through the system. Ideally get more water into Big Jennings Pond and into little Jennings Pond to keep the flow levelers at an appropriate depth and ideally get some additional water to prevent more exposed sediments in the big Jennings pond area. I don't think that a singular breach is gonna result in
enough water to start essentially a siphon effect at the weir structure where, where water is now coming out of the pond again and we end up back in the same position. But I, Simone and I plan to get out again next week before he leaves for an international trip to just assess the success of the breach if the commission agrees, Speaker 1: I think it makes sense Speaker 9: What you're saying. It will not go over the weir. Speaker 2: I I think it's very unlikely given how low the water is. There was probably about four inches down from the top of the weir board at the end of Jenning at that outlet. I don't think so. And so I, I think that lose given how,
given how slowly the water moves from little Jennings into Big Jennings through the flow leveler device, I think it'll result in a nice steady stream of water probably filling that system back up and allowing us to get back to a, a better balance while we continue to assess. Mike, I did, just because I do see you ling it now as well. I did reach out to Beaver Solutions about getting them out to assess what would be needed to happen in that area. They said right now is not a great time for them to do that because of how hot it's getting now. But when they come out in the fall to do their maintenance assessment, I'm gonna meet them out there.
So that's usually early September and we can get out there with our waiters and assess at a more Yeah. Ideally a more normal water level about what would be needed to get a flow level or device in that upstream section. Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah. I I I'm just thinking through, you know, is I'm not a beaver expert, I'm not a, you know, specialist in this subject matter. I wish I was subject matter. However, I think if there is, you know, if there's efforts going into breaching the dam, if there's a way to install a flow device in the dam,
which I have seen done in some specific cases, then you know, I I, you know, these are data points that I don't, you know, I don't, not sure if that's gonna work or if it's feasible, but if you are breaching the dam and you can put a device in there at the time of that breach and then they rebuild it and you now have a, a device in there that's allowing water to flow. So you're Speaker 2: Thinking about essentially just throwing like a little bit of corrugated PVC pipe, Speaker 3: Whatever. Yeah. Whatever, you know, I mean, 'cause all you need is something on each end
so they can't dam up the, the device you put in there Speaker 1: Like so, so not a full flown beaver deceiver with all the caging and stuff, but just, just try a 12 inch corrugated like Speaker 13: A mold view, deceive it Speaker 1: Underneath it. I I'll Speaker 3: Do some more research into somebody, somebody knows probably. But I'm just, I'm thinking the efforts are wonderful but you know, if we are just kind of running up against this 24 hour turnover period, which it seems like we are, you know, is there a way to, to maximize the effort that's being put in
with the volunteer labor force and, and finding a creative, if it's, I, I don't know if there's a permit, there's, I assume there's a permit required, Speaker 1: But Speaker 3: We Speaker 2: Probably need to amend our e Speaker 3: System Yeah. Whatever's needed. But, you know, talk to a, a beaver expert to see if that can be tried and, and with some sort of cage around each end. Speaker 1: I was just gonna say, I mean, what, what if there was like a, I'm thinking a, a 12 inch, maybe a eight inch kind of cor corrugated Speaker 3: PVC. There's think somebody has to have Speaker 1: With some metallic cage at either end of it. Yeah. Speaker 2: So it's, I think Speaker 1: And, and just put it down on the bottom. Yeah.
Speaker 2: The, the beaver deceivers are generally designed with the cages that large to keep the, essentially keep the beers from getting close enough to the inlet to sort of feel that water pole. So what I think that I would want to look into is, are there ways that we could essentially almost stretch the pipe back far enough into that larger wetland area? That's right. Where it's so far from the dam that we don't need quite as much distance from the inlet of the pipe to keep that sort
of anonymity of the system. Speaker 1: I mean, I mean if you put it 50 feet upstream kind of weighted down and then at 25 feet past the dam down on the bottom and it was kind of weighted down. Yeah. Speaker 13: That great to do that, huh? Is there enough grade to do to, Speaker 1: I think as long as, I mean it's, Speaker 13: I mean it has to be really tiny bit, just a tiny bit of slow. You Speaker 1: Need a little bit, right. Tiny, Speaker 2: I think I need to get my waiters on and sort of trek into that larger wetland to figure out where there's a stream corridor that we can maximize. Yeah. Speaker 13: I can tell you some of that Speaker 2: In the town forest
wetland between Speaker 13: Upstream from the upstream from there dam you mean? Speaker 2: Yeah. In that sort of large area, but that about Route nine. Yeah. Because Speaker 13: We went through there like, you know, and, and it's at some point it's like you go to here, Speaker 2: But the question is, is there muck that you're sinking into? That's the reason that that's happening. Speaker 13: I mean there, there's, there's branches and yeah, you can step on branches and all of a sudden you go through muck. Speaker 1: But I think that's, I think what we're hearing just, I mean let's let's explore these options and think about it. Yeah, I think what we're hearing right now is that, you know, are folks okay with a, with a, a breach now
to kind of start the process going when before you leave you and Claire go out and kind of, we can just assess it and see what it looks like, see how it's doing, and then let's strategize on whether there's some other approaches Speaker 3: System. Definitely. Yeah. Shallow Speaker 13: Kind of more like Mike was saying, Speaker 1: What'd you find Mike? Speaker 2: It's called the, Speaker 3: There's a Clemson, you know, there's so much information out there there, but Clems there Speaker 2: Is Clemson flow leveler. It's, instead of the cage being tall and wide, it's long. Oh. So it's like a, a long vertical cage with the pipe at one end
and then the edge of the cage on the other end. That's, I think this would be the sort of solution that we would need in this area. Definitely. Speaker 3: It's better than getting my excavator out and digging a chance. Well Speaker 2: That's, I think, I think anything is better than a permit. Speaker 13: That's fun. Right. For Speaker 2: You. Anything is better than a dredge permit. Speaker 1: I've been trying to work on my wife to let me buy an excavator. Speaker 3: I know Speaker 1: For absolutely no rational reason, but you know, just because it'd be fun and I'll Speaker 2: See if Beaver Solutions has any experience with these Speaker 3: Types of systems. I mean these are probably Western solutions would be my guess. 'cause of those, the way those streams are so much more lower flashy Yeah, lower radio, Speaker 1: Lower profile.
It's shallower wider. Speaker 2: But this is exactly the kind of scenario that we have at town four. We Speaker 3: Have a, let's fly a shallow, a beaver expert in there you go. Speaker 1: So Speaker 2: Then can we send some of our beavers back with Speaker 3: That's right. We could Speaker 1: Jeff, Chris, you guys Okay. With, with authorizing a breach and then we'll monitor it. Yeah, for sure. Jeff, you good doing? Yeah. Okay. Alright, so let's, let's just proceed that way. Yeah. So Claire, why don't you guys just coordinate? Speaker 13: Yeah. And like I say on, on our end, we can go, I mean we'll see, we, we thought about tomorrow or Saturday, depending on the, I mean the weather seems
to be fine and I have couple people that can, that are available. Great. Lynn is not available tomorrow, but I don't know Saturday. But we can definitely do one. And then the, the next one went Speaker 2: Through Thursday. Well, so then you and I'll get out next week to assess and then we'll figure out if, if another breach is needed to get back balance back to what we're Speaker 13: Looking at. And I said like, you know, I'm leaving and I'm coming back mid August. So Speaker 1: How long are you going for like four weeks Speaker 13: Snow, seven weeks almost. Oh, good for Speaker 1: You. Going vacation, Speaker 13: Homework. I work and vacation. Good for you. I go to Italy, so like I'm gonna work there and Excellent. And, and also excellent.
And so that, but I can actually, I, I was thinking about passing sort of the, the point, Speaker 2: The captain torch. Speaker 13: Yeah, sure. Whatever it's called. Two to one, one another of the, so there will be, I mean I can be on email, but I'm gonna be six hours, you know, difference and plus what I'm gonna do and, and so, and then I gonna come back and resume Speaker 2: It and so maybe whoever is gonna be taking that can join us on the site visit next week so that way we can all make sure we're good on the conversation and then communication piece. Speaker 1: Perfect. Alright. So we're good there. Alright, let's go.
You know, let's, let's, let's tackle this. We'll go from there, Claire. Other other updates, we'll move on to your agenda. Speaker 2: Was just, did you have anything else you wanted to Speaker 13: Share? No, I think that's, yeah, that I, I we'll do the same reporting like, you know, before and after I tell you who was there when we, you know, what time and all the, and I'll text you or email you that and same thing. Perfect. Speaker 1: Great. Speaker 13: Thank you. And as I said, I will, we'll add that I will start, as I said before, sort of a spreadsheet or something so that at the end, so that final report that we talked about will be included so we have a, at least a record of everything that's done Yep. For the season.
Speaker 1: Perfect. Great. Good. Excellent. Thank Speaker 13: You. Thank you. Alright, Speaker 1: Claire updates, start with the good one. Start Speaker 2: With the good one. We got a bid, an in budget bid for the split pick pond, boardwalk project. Holy. So the, the boardwalk and the landing platforms will be installed this year and the, the es the quote, the bid that we got will, after the reimbursement gets processed with the state, we will have some money left over to put out the second half of the project for rebid and ideally get that work done in the fall when maybe things
are a little bit less competitive, but yes, 2 67, 4 60, I'm getting at least two of those numbers wrong, but I know the first three are right. It was the quote that we got, which is very much in budget, which I'm very excited about. Brian Leblanc, who's our chief procurement officer, is doing all of the necessary homework and reference checks and things like that, but generally no red flags right off the bat. So if there aren't any red flags through the reference review process, we are gonna move forward with that contractor on the, the split project.
Fabulous. And just to share with the commission so that it maybe gives us a little bit of hope that this wasn't a total bust the first time around. The contractor that submitted the bid the first time around that was very, very high and out of our budget submitted the same bid cost for the split project. Hmm. Yeah, that's so I, I don't think it was ever really our fault. It was, it was, they were just thrown out a high number for the sake of throwing out a high number. Didn't they Speaker 1: Didn't, they didn't want it. They didn't want it. Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly. So very exciting news.
I'll be sure to keep the commission updated with timing of mobilization and things like that. But the disturbance is almost none with the split project because it's really just the landing platform, which is an open cribbing structure and then the floating boardwalk pieces get floated into place. So very little construction equipment access across the upland portions Speaker 1: Of the property. Very exciting. Speaker 2: So very excited about that. Alright, Speaker 1: What's the bad news? Speaker 2: It's not really bad news. It is just an update. I, I told the commission I was gonna keep folks sort of in the loop about the Route 27 drainage work and the running brook area.
Yeah. So the drainage work continues in route 27, increasing that pipe size. Again, there's no connections to new drainage sheds until 2028. So they're just replacing all the existing pipe that services 27 that drains to that area. I did finally get the numbers from GPI about what the impact of their proposed connection was going to be. And it was substantial. We're talking tens of thousands of additional cubic feet at peak rate and so
Speaker 1: That, that drainage ditch cannot handle that. Yes. Speaker 2: And, and so they are claiming based on the, the data and the models that they have run that because they are increasing the pipe size, the velocity of the water moving through that area will remain the same, but there will be more water coming through during the peak. Speaker 1: So it's a timing of the event. I, no matter how you slice it, it's a, it has to be permitted. Speaker 2: Exactly. And that is what I told them. I, the DOT staff tried to say, well, couldn't we just do it with an RDA? And I said, absolutely not.
That's the fricking notice of intent. So they are gonna be submitting something, I don't know the specific timeline on what they're submitting, but they, they are well aware. It's been documented now in several recorded meetings and on public record emails that a notice of intent needs to be filed Speaker 1: For that screen will be 14 feet deep. Yeah. A hundred per about six months after that. Right? A hundred percent. I mean, could this be leveraged to have some really interesting Speaker 2: Ecological restoration along that whole Speaker 1: Corridor, some work done on that corridor potentially that could com, you know, that water's gotta go somewhere. Speaker 2: And we did make that recommendation very heavily to DOT
that as they are considering the permit application that they will be filing, that they consider the carrots that could go along with this potential Speaker 1: Work. Let's do ev every, every evening when I drive by and they're digging in that road. Yeah. Yes. Speaker 2: It just for night. Yeah. I let Jeff and Matt know this, but they send me update emails every morning when they're doing work in that corridor with what the shift work was and if they needed to do any dewatering in the pipes in the roadway. So they are updating me, I literally have an email from Ryan CIO from McCourt every morning at eight 30 letting me know
what their, their schedule was the day before. I'm, Speaker 1: I'm glad they're cooperating with Speaker 2: That. So I'm very much trying to keep on top of this and certainly if, if anything even looks like it's being established as a new connection, I'll be, you know, Speaker 1: I've Speaker 3: Heard it's been advertised as a class four rapid. Speaker 1: I mean, honestly after Speaker 2: The storm we had today, it wouldn't surprise me if that was what was Speaker 1: Moving through there. I tried the peak as I was driving by, but I was, I, you know, I didn't wanna rear end the cop in front of me. Speaker 2: It's probably a good Speaker 1: Idea. But, but I, I tried to take a look, but you know the videos that they showed of the current conditions Yes. Speaker 2: A significant range forms showed
Speaker 1: Is that it's, it's it's full and it's ripping. Yeah, yeah. You know, and so to add the volume, I mean, because part of the whole drainage project is to remove the water that was pooled under route nine Speaker 2: And that that is water that they would be sending here. Right. Speaker 1: That's a lot. The whole design is intended to move that there. We can't have them dumping that. You know, I don't know what the treatment, I don't the Speaker 3: Other construction project with the, the other, the other development is that dumping it this direction as Speaker 1: Well. Which one? Speaker 3: The one at the liquor store. Speaker 2: Oh. Oh no, they're managing fully on site. Oh,
Speaker 1: Fully on site. Yep. That's fully on site. And Speaker 2: They're, they're overflow is out to the woods at the back. They're not overflowing into the street. Speaker 1: But, but, but if there's, Speaker 2: It's a good point as well that, Speaker 1: I mean we've seen no detail in terms of the treatment that, that water would be getting. Speaker 2: Exactly. And that is why I, I was very clear to them that a notice of intent needs to be provided has to, because we need teeth for enforcement. We need has to be, well because this, this is what happened with the Route 27 Snake Brook drainage issue is that there wasn't, there was a permit even in place for that one and it still fell apart. And so I wanna make sure that the expectations are being very clearly outlined
Right in terms of communication documentation, all of the above. Because Speaker 3: That, that infrastructure that's in place is inadequately sized. Yep. Speaker 1: For what's in there right now. Exactly. What's, what's in there Speaker 3: Right now that they just did. Right. What A decade. Not even a decade. Speaker 1: Not even, not even 10 years ago. Yeah. Alright, what else, Claire? That was it. That's it guys. Jim, how about the dam? Speaker 3: Oh, oh Speaker 1: Point. Well, we don't meet until July 16th. Thought Speaker 2: Something happen before. So we did Adrian Dunk, who's our GZA permitting coordinator, got off the phone with DEP four oh one this morning. We are cleared for impoundment drawdown
to start on July 1st. We're still waiting for all this to come in the paper documentation, but we, we've started sending out our notice to proceeds and things like that. So impoundment area drawdown will likely start on July 1st with the contractor mobilizing at the park on June 27th. And then the access road build out would start on July 16th. So Speaker 1: July 1st. Would you send us the details? I think it'd be great to go out there and watch this ceremony. Speaker 2: Absolutely. And the, well, July 1st isn't gonna be the most exciting, but, Speaker 1: But July 1st would be the day that they would open the gate. Yes. Right.
Speaker 2: But it's just gonna be a little bit at time to start. That's, it might not be the most Speaker 1: Exciting, but Yes. But, but symbolically Speaker 2: I will keep the commission very up to date. We are also working with CRWA to set up like a community engagement event that's gonna be on Thursday, July 23rd. In the evening, five to 8:00 PM There'll be crafts for kids and adults. There'll be some educational materials we'll be doing like little, taking little groups down to the, this will be at Shaw Park, walking little groups down to the DAM to see the progress that's been made. So I'll share all of those details with the commission as well.
We're also partnering with CRWA to host some office hours at the Bacon Free library. So likely staff, either myself, bill Sprat from Public Works, a member of the GZA staff. We're also looking to see if we can get some of the staff from the division of Ecological Restoration to potentially come down. Cool. That's good. To hold some office hours on Fridays at the bacon free library for folks to stop in and ask questions about what's going on. Speaker 1: Momentous, Speaker 2: Momentous, indeed Speaker 1: Momentous event. So. Alright. Anything else guys? Thanks. Nope. Happy entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved.
Thank you, George. Seconded. Seconded. Thank you Jim. All those in favor. See you Chris. See you Jeff. Thank you guys. See guys, Speaker 2: Have a good night guys.