Speaker 1: Folks welcome. This is Speaker 2: Recording in Progress. Speaker 1: This is the NATO Conservation Commission. Today is April 17th. I was saying to Claire before people showed up that it feels like just yesterday that we were saying, wow, it's 2025 already, and now it's April 17th, 2025. So here we are. Happy spring. Happy Marathon Day. I think everyone here is running the marathon. Speaker 2: Really Speaker 1: Starting at least starting at fair. Alright, so let's start the public hearing. So first item on the agenda I've got is a request for determination of applicability for 12 Sun Sunshine Avenue. Do we have any representatives
of 12 Sunshine Avenue here on the call today? Speaker 2: Yes, Steven Carvallo. Speaker 1: Welcome. How are you? Speaker 2: Me, Jamie. Thank you. Good. How are you? Good. Speaker 1: Lemme go ahead and formally open this. So hold on one second. Now, of course my, that Sunshine Avenue. Alright. This is a request for determination of applicability. So in accordance with the Wetlands Protection Act and native local, we Speaker 2: Looks, Mr. Caval is here as well. Speaker 1: Great, thank you. In accordance with the Wetlands Protection Act and Natick local Wetlands bylaw article 79, the NA Conservation Commission hold a public meeting on a
request for determination of applicability filed by James Jordan for property located at 12 Sunshine Avenue Map 15 lot 1 36. The proposal is to construct a pure elevated 16 by 14 addition onto an existing single family home. So from the applicant's side, would someone just want to give us a brief voiceover of the project and what you would like to do there and any, you know, any details that you think would be relevant to this conversation? Speaker 2: You got it, James? Yep. Speaker 1: Does anyone wanna, Speaker 3: Oh, it seems like somebody might be having some technical issues.
I see as a screen blacked out, I'll just go ahead and give a quick overview until, until James gets back connected. The applicant is hoping to construct a 16 by 14 foot raised addition onto an existing single family home. The addition is proposed to be constructed on peers in some emails back and forth with the applicant. They are open to any sort of surfacing. I had suggested crushed donor gravel underneath the addition. They are right on the edge of the 200 foot riverfront area. This extends from the perennial stream that runs along constituent aqueduct,
the constituent aqueduct, and so, you know, 20 feet further away and they would've been fully outside of jurisdiction. So it's the, the raised edition within the outer, very outer section of the riparian zone. James, anything else you wanted to add? Speaker 2: I don't think James be connected. Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm not hearing him. Okay. But you can see the stream is here and I'll just do a quick measure out the perpendicular, Speaker 1: But it's a raised, raised pier where the, the 200 foot buffer zone. Speaker 4: Yeah, I, I, I don't know if you guys can hear me, Mike.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we can hear you now, James. Speaker 4: Freezing up, up and back and forth, but no, nothing, nothing really to add. Speaker 1: Okay. So Claire, the, so the, the, the proposed addition would be right on the edge of the, of, of the 200 foot line from from the water body? Yes. Speaker 3: So you can see as I'm measuring it out here, where the 200 foot, and this is not gonna be exact because this isn't the bank, this is the center line of the stream, but the addition is proposed to be constructed right here. Speaker 4: You can hear me now? Speaker 1: Yes, we can hear you.
Speaker 3: The addition would be constructed right here and the edge of it would just be inside the 200 foot river front area. Speaker 1: James, if you can hear us or if your colleague on the call, the, the backyard is relatively flat there, is it steeply sloped down towards the, down towards the water body? Speaker 2: It's sloped somewhat, but yeah, it's not totally level. It's a bit. Speaker 1: Okay. James, do you wanna offer anything on that? Speaker 3: Oh, his internet. I think it's quite, quite unstable, unfortunately. Yeah, fair. Speaker 1: Let's, let's Speaker 3: Here's the, oh, it's very pixelated,
but there's the US topo map. Yeah, so these are much wider contours. So it does slope gently down towards the stream, but it is not an extreme slope. Yeah, Speaker 1: You know, we're, we're basically familiar with the area and so, okay, this is a request for determination of applicability. Speaker 4: If, if you can hear, we Speaker 1: Can't, we can't hear you James. It's a bad connection. It's a bad connection. So why don't you Speaker 4: Basically edge, Speaker 1: Right, understood.
It's a bad connection. James, I think we have the information that we need here. Does the commission have any questions about this? This is a request for determination of applicability. Speaker 4: Let me see if I can log in on, on my phone. All right. Speaker 5: The only thing I would just comment on is just please add the, the 200 foot riverfront area to the map. Speaker 4: Yeah, so I mean the, it's the steep slope but then it levels out. Speaker 3: Okay. Just beyond the Speaker 1: Claire, I think we have the information that we need. Claire, can you work with the applicant just to pick,
you know, get the appropriate documentation around the, where the 200 foot line fits, you know, lies on the actual map? Yes, absolutely. So if we have that documentation, is there any further questions from the commission on this? This is a request for determination of applicability. So we would vote to close and then vote to issue a determination. Presumably a negative two determination? Yes, because it is resource area, the riverfront area. So would, if it's the pleasure of the board, would so make a motion to close. Motion Speaker 3: Close. Speaker 1: Thank you Jim. Is that seconded? Speaker 3: Seconded. Speaker 1: Thank you Jeff. Any further discussion on that? Do we have anyone on the line from our team here? Is David on the call?
Speaker 3: Yes, David and Chris are both on the Speaker 1: Line. Excellent. Hey David. Hey Chris. Sorry, Speaker 3: David and Chris are both on the, we're excellent. Hey Speaker 1: David. So I've got, I've got a motion to close those was made by Jim, seconded by Jeff. Is there any further discussion on that? All those of the room in favor of closing David? Yes. Chris? Speaker 3: I think we just lost Chris. Speaker 1: Okay. We just lost Chris. Let Chris, Speaker 3: No, Chris, we can't hear you for some reason you're not muted, but we can't hear you. Oh, this technology tonight. Do you wanna do a thumbs up? We got a thumbs up. We Speaker 1: Got a thumbs up. Okay. So, so, so the public hearing has been closed.
If someone make a motion to issue a negative two determination on this Speaker 3: So moved. I'm sorry, Speaker 1: I'll, I'll take Jeff and a Mike second if that's okay. That's fine Speaker 3: By me. Speaker 1: All right, excellent. Is there any further discussion on that all is in favor in the room, David? Speaker 3: Yes, Speaker 1: Chris, we got a thumbs up from DA from Chris as well. Alright gentlemen. So we have issued a determination, a negative two determination, which means that it's in the project is in the resource area as is so is jurisdictional for us, but we've determined that it, what you propose would not result in any negative impact on that resource area.
So you have what you need from us if you, Claire, will work with you to, there's a little bit of paperwork that we just need to, for the document, for the file. Then that's just to have the 200 foot line for the riverfront area shown on the line. So we just, just have that documentation. Besides that you have what you need and we're done here for this evening. Okay Speaker 3: Folks, I'll reach out on Tuesday next week with that documentation. Thank you so much. Great, Speaker 1: Thank you folks. Appreciate your time. Alright, next item of the agendas. I've got 16 Pauline Drive. Do we have any representatives?
Yes. When you come on up and join us at the table and we'll, we'll talk through this Speaker 3: Chris, we're still not hearing you. I see you waving. Speaker 1: Alright, lemme formally open this then in accordance with the Wetlands Protection Act in Nats local wetlands by Article 79, the Native Conservation Commission hold a public meeting on a request for determination of applicability filed by Sarah and Luke Kukla. Is that, did I get that right? Sure. Speaker 3: Okay, Speaker 1: Fair enough. Cola. Speaker 3: But yeah, either close enough. Speaker 1: Okay. For property located at 16, Pauline Drive map 37 lot 1 37. The proposal is to construct an expanded deck and expanded patio and a French drain system. So welcome. Thank you.
Why don't you just, you know, talk us through what you're thinking of and, and we'll go from there. Yep. Speaker 6: So there's an existing deck and patio. The existing deck is about 12 and a half feet wide and 15 and a half feet long. The proposal would be to remove that existing deck structure and keep, keep the width at 12 and a half, but extend it width the stairs about five feet. So it'd be probably total length about 2020 and a half feet. Adjacent to that is a, is a poured concrete patio area, which we would like to remove, excuse me, and then put down with a paver paved
with a paver stone patio area, that the footprint of that patio area would extend three feet out further where it is from where it is currently. And then also along with the extension of the deck and that patio, the, the patio would also extend under the area of the deck and the stairs. Speaker 1: Okay, sounds good. Topography of the backyard, relatively flat. Very Speaker 6: Flat. Yeah, very flat. Speaker 1: Yeah, Speaker 6: I mean, yeah, relatively flat. There's a lot of water pooling there. So yeah, with the French drain during melt melting in the wind in the spring or high high rain events, there's a lot of water pooling there.
So we'd like to kind of put in the French drain for the drains to all kind of connect and drain out to further past the, the edge of the yard and then it, so it's relatively flat and then it kind of slopes down from there into the woods. So just to mitigate again from water issues collecting around the house, just want to, to put in the drains as well. Speaker 3: So just to give the commission some context, turn off this quickly. So there's a small wetland area in the back here, all within the existing wooded area. So this is the existing patio that was being described.
The existing deck, the expanded deck and patio will essentially square off at this corner here. Speaker 1: Got it. That's pretty nice renderings in the, did you do those renderings yourself? No, no. Oh, husband out. I was gonna be impressed. I'm still impressed. But do we am, is there any plot plan that that shows kind of a top down view of this? I didn't, I didn't see, Speaker 3: We did not get a plot plan submitted with this project. No. Okay. Speaker 1: That, that shows the resource area or Speaker 3: Anything. I can make up a plan in the GIS system to be referenced in the determination. Speaker 1: If you could, that would be great. I mean, I'm curious, I mean, what is, you know, just from the, you know, from,
from these measurements or from GIS Claire, do you have an estimate as to how close this comes to the resource area? Speaker 3: Yes, I do because I went back and forth with Sarah, the wife of a couple of times. So the ex, and it's in my staff notes as well. So the existing patio and deck, the corners because of the shape of the wetland, the fact that the deck is further back than the patio, the closest corners are both 50 feet from the existing wetland boundary. The extension will be roughly three to eight feet closer depending on whether we're talking about the deck or the patio. So the proposed deck and the provost patio will be roughly 42
feet from the wetland boundary. At the end of this, if they had been slightly further, these would've been administratively approvable projects under the minor exemptions. Speaker 1: Okay. Did, did Claire speak with you about the erosion control, the desire for erosion control? Speaker 6: I, my wife did mention it though, yes. For the okay, for the need for the erosion control, yes. Speaker 1: Yeah. Okay, good. Questions from the commission on this concerns, Chris? David, any questions, concerns? Speaker 7: Nope. Speaker 1: Alright. Hearing none, someone make a motion to close Speaker 7: Motion. So moved. Speaker 1: All right. I'll take Jim making the motion.
I think that was David saying so moved. So we'll take that as a second, David, if that's all right? Yep. Great. Any further discussion on that? Those in the room? David? Yes, Chris, thumbs up. Oh, sorry bro, I was waiting to hear your, your radio voice, so I'll make a motion to issue a negative three determination on this then, if that's the pleasure of the board. Speaker 7: So Speaker 1: Moved. Thank you, Jeff. Is that seconded? Speaker 7: Second. Speaker 1: Thank you, Michael. Any further discussion on that? All is in favor in the room. David? Yes. Chris Speaker 3: Got thumbs up from Chris. Speaker 1: Thumbs up from Chris. All right. He'll, he'll fix his mic corner these days. Tonight's
Speaker 3: The night for technical. Speaker 1: So that, that is all you need from us. You know, basically it's, we're we are claiming jurisdiction because of the proximity to the wetlands, but the project you've proposed will not result in any negative impacts to it. So you'll get that documentation in the mail. Let us know if anything changes, if the footprint changes or, or if any part of the plan changes. And Claire, we'll be able to tell you if we have to revisit it, but as as proposed, you're good to go. Perfect. Cool. Thanks. Thank you very much. Speaker 7: Appreciate your time. Have a good one. Thank you. Speaker 1: All right. Oh, I just closed my window. Speaker 7: 85 cottage. Speaker 1: Yeah, Speaker 3: So we do, we've already opened this one.
We are reviewing the, this is Speaker 1: The order of conditions for that, Speaker 3: The amendment. Yes. So the, and I know Miles is on the call as well. So the, the plans were formalized and stamped as was discussed at the commission meeting on the third. The garage has been extended three feet from the originally approved footprint. The box that is showing is the full 10 feet, the seven feet originally approved plus the three feet and then the deck extension with a small set of stairs off of the back of the garage. Speaker 1: But then the, the retaining wall is in the place
that we originally approved, correct? Speaker 3: Yes, actually Speaker 8: That's correct. Speaker 1: That's correct. Miles, Speaker 8: Yes. The re retaining wall remained and we just added that passageway deck off the rear of the garage. Okay. Speaker 3: And Miles also provided the, the architectural plans, if the commission had any interest in that, Speaker 1: Just we can admire the beautiful house that it's gonna be when it's, thank you. When it's all done. Hopefully. Yeah, hopefully. Right. Okay. Conditions, Claire, any standard conditions? Any? Speaker 3: Yes. So we have a set of conditions. My recommendation is to add two conditions plus any
that the commission feels is also appropriate. The first condition is that all of the changes approved by the commission under this amendment are contingent on any necessary ZBA approvals of the amended project. Again, this was a front setback concern, so they may not need to issue an amended permit, but Miles has been working with peg waters on any necessary changes that may be needed or amendments that may be needed to that permit. The second amended condition would be that the extended deck is constructed on peers to minimize any disturbance. And then if there's any other additional, I did do all the calcs for the mitigation area,
square footage, and even with the additional garage space, they're still well over the required square footage of mitigation area. Speaker 1: Okay. Any other comments, questions, concerns on this? Speaker 9: I just had a question. The, the stairs going down, so the no fill has to be put in for those, those those go right to the existing. Speaker 3: That'll take it right down to the, the, I believe it's the 1 55, grade one 50, I can't remember which it is. It's only like two or three. 5 0 1, not one 50. Speaker 8: Yeah, that's correct. 5 0 1. Speaker 3: Yeah, so you can see this 5 0 1 0.8 here.
The deck is at 5 0 1 0.27 or is that, is that a spot grade under the deck? It's probably a spot grade under the deck. So there'll be three stairs of approximately six to eight inches to get up to the deck and into the garage. Okay, Speaker 1: And the deck, the, the deck extends like halfway back the garage or does it go across the entire back of the garage? Speaker 3: This does currently show the entire back of the Speaker 1: Garage. I think that's all right as a deck. Speaker 9: And it connects to the other deck, right? Is it? Speaker 3: Yes, they're, they're connected right here. Okay. Speaker 1: Okay. Any further discussion, further comments further other conditions we wanna discuss or are we good with them as as presented? Speaker 3: And I apologize, I just realized I was not sharing
my screen to the folks at home. Speaker 1: Alright, hearing none. So we, we would just simply need to vote to issue the, Speaker 3: We need to vote to close the public hearing and then issue the amended order of conditions. Speaker 1: Any further comments, discussion on this? So we need, alright, so make a motion to close the public hearing on the amended on the amendment to the order of conditions. Speaker 9: Motion to close. Speaker 1: Thank you, Jim has that. Seconded? Seconded. All right. Take David's on that. Any further discussion? Those in favor in the room David? Yes, Chris, Speaker 3: We lost Chris momentarily. I think David, Speaker 1: He's probably trying to log, log back in. Alright, we'll just go David. Oh, just David's thing.
So five zero I guess. 5 0 1. Yes. And then someone make a motion to issue the order of conditions, the amended order of conditions as discussed. Moved. Thank you David. Is that seconded? Second. Thank you Jeff. Any further discussion on that? Those in favor in the room, David? Yes. All right. That's it guys. Oh, this Chris, Speaker 3: Wait, we did get Chris back. Speaker 10: Yeah. Can you hear me now? Ah, Speaker 3: Yes we can. Speaker 10: I feel like I started all over from scratch Speaker 1: Be because Chris didn't vote on the vote to close.
Let's just have you as an abstention on this Chris, just for sounds good. Completeness 5 0 1 on to issue the amended order of conditions, right? Yes, that's it. Miles, you got what you need from us. Thank you for all your cooperation on this and keep us posted if anything changes. Speaker 3: Miles, I'll have that paperwork for you tomorrow. Speaker 1: Okay, thanks Claire. Alright, thanks. Thank you all. Next on the agenda. 1414 Leach lane. We have an or we closed the public hearing last time and we have an order of conditions to discuss. How you doing? Good, how are you? Pretty good. Excellent. Alright, Claire, you wanna walk us through the order conditions that you got? Speaker 3: Absolutely. There we go. Okay.
So I'm just gonna hide these controls so that way folks can hopefully see as much of the screen as possible. Okay. So this is the order of conditions for 14 Leach Lane. 2 3 3 dash 9 2 3. Applicant and owner information representative information. Obviously I'll fill in date of issuance when it, it's issued existing conditions is the existing single family home with associated site features. The approved project is to demolish the existing home and site features, constructing a new single family home detached garage driveway walkways covered front porch
and storm water infiltration system. These are all of the approved plans and documents. Findings of fact. We are noting that this project is within the jurisdiction of the a hundred foot buffer zone bank and land underwater bodies and waterways for the intermittent stream corridor. Noting the OA that confirmed the status of the stream is intermittent. The project does not encroach on a 25 foot no disturb zone. No structures are proposed within the 40 foot no build zone. The erosion controls proposed establish a limit of work at the 25 no disturb limit. The proposed project does work to minimize the impervious area through the use of permeable pavers
and limits tree removals with only two trees requiring removal. Stormwater management is proposed in accordance with the town's local bylaw. Joe, did you have any questions or concerns about the conditions that I sent to you? Okay, great. I just hadn't heard back from you by email. So it is our standard conditions, I'm not gonna read them all. Just gonna scroll through to the ones that are specifically being placed on this project. Starting at condition 24, which is noting per the request of the abutter that we heard at the prior meeting, that there'll be no construction access from Caswell Street. The following stormwater management inspections are required.
The pre-bed and the pre-ex backfill inspections per our standard stormwater requirements, the construction of the overflow outlets for the stormwater infiltration system shall occur prior to the removal of the erosion control barriers. Once the site has been stabilized through the installation of seed SOD or other approved stabilization methods, the erosion controls may be removed to allow for the installation of the rip wrap flare as both shall include all stormwater management features, including overflow outlets, and then the requirement to install two replacement saplings, minimum two caliper inches to mitigate the removal of the two trees from the site species.
I know there was some discussion about river birch, but potentially changing out that species. So just noting that whatever species is chosen should be approved by staff. This is one of our standard conditions, but I did just wanna call it out that if there are trees that are demonstrably harmed by construction or die, as a result, they do need to also be replaced. And those are the only changes to the order of conditions. Garage placard markers. I did wanna ask the commission where they felt markers would be appropriate in this instance. I do think since our limit of work is the 25 foot, that would make sense, but also the stream sort of closer
to the stream could also be more appropriate if the commission felt. Speaker 1: Can you, can you just call up the site plan just so we can see visually kind of where that would fall in the yard? Are there any, can you talk through the landscaping plans as they currently? Speaker 11: No. Yeah, I don't, I don't necessarily have full landscape plans. The, the, the landscaping as of right now is just to keep the landscaping as it is for the undisturbed portion of the lot. And then, you know, I'm sure they'll plant some, you know, nice shrubs and and whatnot around the, the house like typical. But Speaker 3: We can condition approval of the landscaping generally as well, considering that the site does majority fall within the buffer zone.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I would, I would like us to have a bite at that apple, you know, when whereas those are planned, that would be a condition is that we'd like to review it for things like invasive species and other things just to make sure that it's appropriate for a buffer zone. Yeah, but Speaker 11: That, that's, that's fine. Speaker 3: So this is where the 25 foot line would fall in the yard. I will say, based on my prior visits to the site, the majority of this space in between that line and the existing stream corridor is vegetated. Currently, unfortunately, some invasive species, I think there's a decent amount of honeysuckle out there.
Okay. But also some mature trees as well. Speaker 1: So, so if the 25 foot line is right on the edge of where the vegetation starts and I think the placards would be, would be appropriate to put 'em on the 25 foot line there. Speaker 3: Do we wanna say along the limits of existing vegetated areas so in case it fluctuates a little bit? Speaker 1: Yes, because that's, you know, that, that's jurisdictional and we would like to keep that undisturbed just for, you know, for the integrity of that part of the land. I, I, Speaker 11: I will, I just would like to point out, I believe my, my recollection of the site is that there's long landscaping
with intermixed mulched landscape beds with various shrubs in trees all the way down to the bank of the river right now. So the, the, the, the extent of the existing yard as far as like the lawn goes, varies. You can see the, yeah, let's Speaker 1: Take a look at that and see Speaker 11: Yeah, yeah. Because when I did my all this out there, that's so yeah, it's tough to see through the threes. Yeah, I Speaker 3: Think if I go from this angle, hopefully, oh, it went too far. Of course Speaker 11: They, yeah, yeah, yeah.
There it is. Yeah, so you can see it, it's quite expansive. The lawn, it keeps on going like all the way down to the bank of the river. And then there's mixed in mulched landscape beds with, with either the mature trees that are there today mixed into the beds as, as well with some like more mature larger shrubs that, that line, there's like a, the, the, a gentle slope and then there's, there's like a mix of mulched and shrubs, but, but the, the landscape bed does not go continuous all
the way down to the property. There's breaks in that where it's then surrounded by lawn all the way down to the bank of the river right now. Speaker 1: Fair. So I think that Claire, what Claire's putting in here right now makes sense is that we would do a final prior to an order to a certificate of compliance, Speaker 3: I'll just come out and we can figure out where the markers should go in an appropriate manner. Speaker 11: Okay. That, that's, Speaker 1: Let's just leave it at that then. Speaker 3: Okay. And let me just throw in the landscaping plan. Applicant shall provide the proposed landscaping plan or planting schedule for review
and approval by the conservation agent prior to. Great. Speaker 1: Okay. Alright. Any other questions or additions for the, for the order of conditions for this? Alright, so we had, we remember we had closed the public hearing, so all we have to do is just vote to approve this order of conditions as discussed. Happy to entertain a motion to it if that's the pleasure of the board. So moved. It was Chris? Yes. Yep. Oh, we hear your voice. This is great. Alright. Chris made a motion to approve the order
of conditions as, as discussed. Is that seconded? Seconded. Thank you Jim. Any further discussion on that? Those in favor in the room Chris? Yes. David? Yes. Alright. You got your order of conditions. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate your time. I Speaker 3: Will say we're a half hour ahead of my predicted schedule right now. Speaker 1: We'll slow you down. We're just ripping through this. That was Leach Lane. Alright. Notice of intent for 29 Irving Road. This is, how are you gentlemen? Good, good, how are you? Yeah, doing good. Alright, so let's pick this up. We were talking about this last time.
Speaker 12: Yep. So we got updated storm water plan that shows the location of the storm water. We added the 25 foot and the 40 foot buffers. I on the plan to the further to the right there's also the impervious numbers that you were asking about. So there's a 3,173 foot square foot reduction of impervious on the site and about 1,780 square feet of that is in buffer zone. So in bur is dropping quite a bit on the storm water. It's, I saw the top of the stone,
or sorry, the bottom of the stone is at 1 47 and estimated ground water is at 1 43. So it's greater than two feet over the, over the groundwater. So it meets those requirements. All the downspouts are collecting everything that's coming off of the house and being redirected. And that fountain is coming out to put the storm water in. And we did add the soil stockpiling area to the back of the plan. But like Mark said that only be there for a day or two before it gets graded out into the rest of that slope.
Yep. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 12: And I think that address Speaker 3: And the silt fence note was added to the erosion control notes. Speaker 1: Alright. Any, it seems like they've addressed the concerns and stuff we talked about last time. Any further questions, discussions on this? I have none. Jeff. Michael. Good. All set. Chris David. All set. Alright, so this is a, this is a notice of intent under the local bylaw. So we can go ahead and similar to other notices of intent we can vote to close and then vote to issue an order
of conditions if that's the pleasure of the board. So let's make a motion to close please. We vote to close. I'll take David's move to close and then Jeff seconded. Sure. Excellent. Any further discussion on that? All in favor in the room David? Yes. Chris? Yes. Alright. Public hearing is closed order of conditions on this probably our standard order. I mean certainly our standard order of conditions. Any additional conditions that we want to consider for this. Speaker 3: So my recommendations, we're gonna be adding the stormwater inspection requirements marking the 25 foot since
it's essentially the rear property line anyway. And I was just because of the fact that it's a restoration planting on a slope, I was gonna recommend conditioning a one year survival requirement just to ensure that that slope stability is really assured. Speaker 1: So if the tree dies within a year, you gotta replace it Speaker 3: Work for you and that won't hold up your certificate of occupancy 'cause you'll have to close out the order of conditions anyway. So when you guys are done building all the sign-offs for the co will still happen. Yep. The year of survival will just have to happen before you close out this permit with the commission. Speaker 12: Yep. This is the, this is for the tree that's
inside the retaining wall or the Speaker 3: Planting the plantings along the slope. The whole for the whole Speaker 12: Slope. Yep. Okay. Speaker 1: Yep. And then the, the erosion control stuff. Straightforward, no problem. To really kind of have a good beefy, solid silk fence straw waddle. Yeah. Speaker 13: Especially considering the grading. Yes. Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly. Yeah, exactly. Alright, any further discussions on this conditions we want to impose? Hearing none someone make a motion to issue this order of conditions as we discussed. Speaker 12: So moved move. Speaker 1: Thank you Jeff. Is that seconded? Speaker 12: I thought David did. Seconded. Speaker 1: Thank you David. Any further discussion on that?
All right, all is in the room. David? Yes. Chris? Yes. Excellent. You've got your order of conditions. Thank you. Let us know if anything changes. If we come and find a definitely 42 story tower there, we're gonna want you to come talk to Speaker 12: Us. That's good. Speaker 1: Okay. Excellent. Speaker 3: Mark, I'll have that and stuff ready for you on Tuesday next week. Thank you. Speaker 1: Great. Appreciate your time gentlemen. Thank you. Alright, next item on the agenda. We've got a order of conditions for 11 Pleasant Street, AKA, the South Natick Dam. We, we did keep the public hearing open. You know, we've spent a lot of time talking about this,
getting questions answered. Had GZA others and Adrian here representing the project, we Speaker 3: Do have Adrian and Derek on the line virtually tonight. Speaker 1: Saw that. Claire, any any updates or things that since we last spoke that are germane to the conversation here tonight? Speaker 3: One very exciting thing, Adrian, if you want to announce the news. I was so excited when I saw the email, but we did receive yeah, this afternoon our 4 0 1 water quality certification. Great. Speaker 1: Wow. Which is fast. Fast. I mean that's Speaker 3: When are we fly? Speaker 14: Yeah, about four months. Speaker 3: Yeah, four months. Four
Speaker 1: Months. Is that fast Adrian, or no? It is. Speaker 14: Okay. Yes, they've been excellent. The, the dredge office has been reviewing permits very quickly recently and it's much appreciated. Speaker 1: Got it. Good, thanks. Alright Adrian, any updates from your side on this? Any besides the water quality permit, any, any, you know, late breaking news that we haven't heard yet about this? Speaker 14: No. Speaker 1: Okay. What I'd like to do is just hope you know, because we did not close the public hearing on this, just give any residents or anybody a chance to ask questions
or comment at this point just 'cause this is a significant project. Ms. Hilton, do you have any questions or any comments you wanna ask of the project? Okay. Alright. Hearing none then I think we'd be in a position to someone to make a motion to close the public hearing on this. Speaker 12: I I just had one quick Speaker 9: Question, question on that 4 0 1. Yes, Speaker 3: Absolutely. Jim. Speaker 9: Item number 16 on page six, it, it references this summer dates is there is a, there is a little note there. I don't know if the note means something or not, but I thought it would've said 2026 now
Speaker 14: I'm opening it right now to see, know it is valid until 2028. The permit is so, okay. Speaker 9: So it's no big deal. I just wanna make sure Yeah. That, that they have to fix something then do it now. Speaker 3: Oh. So that is essentially every year that we're doing work, those are the dates when we're allowed to do work. It, it's noting when the time of year restrictions allow us to do work. So I believe that that yeah, so that the Speaker 14: References that yeah, it references an email when we had, I was overly optimistic at one point in the
project and I, I cut a year off of the permitting schedule. Yeah, Speaker 9: That's what I was thinking. Yeah. So Speaker 14: By executive decision and thought maybe we could do it this summer instead of next summer. But yes, that, that condition number 16 does allow for work to occur between July 16th and August 31st of, of any year though it does reference 2025 Okay. For the life of the permit. I just wanted to check. Nope, I appreciate that. Okay. Speaker 1: Alright, so here we are. You know, this is, this is really the last public
permitting process Correct. For this project. And this has been quite a, quite a road for the, for this, for this initiative. You know, bill McDonald and I were chuckling that, you know, was a number of years ago when it was a room like this and he came in front of us to cut down all the trees on the dam. Yes. He's Speaker 3: Been sending us weekly day updates on how long it's been since he was first before the con com regarding the damage, you Speaker 1: Know, and we collectively kind of decided that some form of public process was appropriate for the project and there's been a long public process for this town meeting votes, advisory committees and all that.
And here we are at this point where we find us. So with that, so make a motion to close the public hearing on this. So moved. So moved. All right. I'll, I'll take Michael's here in the room and then, but I'll take David you as a second on that if that's all right. Speaker 15: It wasn't me but that's okay. It's Speaker 1: Chris. It was Chris. Sorry Chris, I'll take Michael's motion and Chris seconded it to close a public hearing on this, on this project. Is there any further discussion on this? Any comments? Any recollections, reflections, reminiscing that needs to happen. What year was Speaker 3: It? It was 2019. 2019 or 20 I think it was 2018
that we first got the yeah. Phase one inspection and then it was early 2019 when they came before the commission. Six years. Speaker 1: Amazing, huh? Time flies. Alright, so we had them had a motion made and seconded to close a public hearing. With no further ado all those in the room who are in favor of closing the public hearing. Chris? Yes. David? Yes. Alright, public hearing's closed. So let's talk about order of conditions. Yes. Speaker 3: So I developed a set of conditions. These have been reviewed by GZA as well as the town engineer and town administration.
I received some comments back from GZA as well as the town engineer. And those changes are reflected in this version two that folks see in the folder. Town administration did not have any comments so I'm just gonna run through, I will apologize. This one will take longer for us to run through than the other ones. 'cause there is a very substantial findings of fact for this particular project as a limited project. So the approved project summary is coming straight from what is written in the staff notes that have been provided over the last few meetings and coming straight essentially out
of the narrative from GZA. Folks can see some of the changes that were made to the conditions we have. We are referring to the full notice of intent filing from GZA as the approved documentation. It's a set of 204 pages. We call out each individual appendix and what it that references rather than calling out each individual document since they were all prepared by GZA and have similar dates associated with them. The findings of fact I am gonna read through. So it it is on the record. So the proposed project permitted under this order
of conditions, DEP number 2 3 3 dash nine 19 consists of the removal of the concrete spillway apron and fish ladder associated with the South Natick Dam on the Charles River. The site is located within an areas subject to the jurisdiction under the Natick Wetlands Protection Bylaw and State Wetlands Protection Act, including 100 foot buffer zone bank, 200 foot riverfront area, bordering land subject to flooding and land under water bodies and waterways. I will just note BVW is not called out in this section because BBW is being created by the project but is not currently present.
The project is being filed as an ecological restoration limited project three 10 CMR 10.534 with proposed project and with the proposed project as noted above of and subsequent river restoration, the removal of the South Natick dam spillway and fish ladder will remove an impediment and reconnect roughly 19.5 miles of the Charles River, including two cold water fisheries. The current high hazard Earth and dam slash spillway serves no purpose in terms of energy creation, industry or water supply. And the status of the dam is poor per the Massachusetts
Office of Dam safety standards. The proposed project will reduce the existing impoundment area in order to declassify the earth and embankment as a dam. The reduction of the impoundment area to a natural river corridor will not only reestablish floodplain and bordering vegetated wetlands surrounding the river channel, but will also reestablish wildlife habitat downstream of the existing dam through the passive release of sediment. The proposed project also includes long-term monitoring and management of sediment and invasive species to ensure that downstream resource areas and created resource areas within the existing impoundment achieve the goal of ecological restoration.
The proposed project meets all applicable interests of the act, noting that land containing shellfish is not applicable to this project to the maximum extent practicable with minimization proposed to ensure as little disturbance as possible to of access and staging areas. Tree removal has been minimized and coordinated with the Natick tree warden to prioritize removal of trees already identified as public safety risks through an arborist assessment, trees along the access path to remain will have additional protections to ensure minimal damage the access path. 12 inch wood chips and
Speaker 1: Say 12 inch deep wood Speaker 3: Chips. Yes, thank you. And staging areas stone dust slash gravel will be surfaced to minimize compaction of soil and roots of surrounding trees. Work is proposed during the traditional low flow periods to minimize disruptions and downstream water levels during the drawdown of the impoundment in water work will be protected through the creation of a boulder access road on the upstream side of the project area and a coffer dam on the downstream side of the project area. The work area will be continuously reduced throughout
to ensure debris and active areas of disturbance are contained and minimized. Bypass flow of the Charles River will be maintained throughout the project to minimize disruption to downstream water flow during the construction period. The project has received review and approval through a number of regulatory bodies slash agencies and additional approvals are still anticipated. Obviously this will be updated given the 4 0 1 issuance today. At the time of the issuance of this permit. The project has received two secretary certificate under the MEPA review process, noting the file number chapter 2 53 DAM safety permit, noting the file number
and added to that will be the 4 0 1 water quality certification. This project has filed for both the Section 4 0 1 water quality certification for dredge and fill, noting the file number, the pre-construction notification form with the US Army Corps of Engineers and the project notification form with the Massachusetts Historical Commission, noting that the section 1 0 6 consultation will be completed by the Army Corps. The project is also coordinating with MWRA to determine any permitting needs for the existing sewer main conduit that sits below hard bottom in the existing impoundment area, bolded at the bottom just to ensure it's red as the project is not set to start until 2026.
Due to the remaining regulatory reviews and time of year restrictions along with the proposed two years of sediment monitoring and invasive species monitoring and management disorder of conditions as being issued for a period of five years. Ooh, going into our conditions, our standard conditions remain mostly the same. Starting at condition seven we start seeing some additions. So noting that tree removal work required for site access and equipment access may occur at any time following the issuance of this permit and the associated appeal period to ensure work can occur in compliance with time
of year restrictions associated with bat roosting as noted in the approved notice of intent documentation. So because most of the trees have been identified as public safety hazards, the hope is that we can get these trees potentially removed this year in advance of the work happening next year to avoid any delays in timing of us being able to initiate the construction period. Condition eight is also a new addition. The selected contractor shall schedule a meeting with appropriate representatives from the town of Natick with the conservation agent prior to any site work, including the installation of erosion controls
or drawdown of the impoundment levels to review method methods and means and ensure understanding of the order of condition requirements tree removal work may occur prior to this meeting in accordance with condition seven. We are striking condition 11 as there is no poured concrete planned for the project condition 15 is being added, which just notes that sediment monitoring shall be implemented per the approved sentiment monitoring plan and any additional requirements placed on the project as part of the water quality Section 4 0 1 approval. Continuing through our standard conditions,
just noting that construction access shall remain in stable condition as obviously the actual construction area is gonna be an active disturbance throughout the project. We are striking that as soon as possible during construction, all disturbed areas will be brought to final grade as the majority of the work is happening in the river. So there won't be a final grade noting because of the extent of wetlands jurisdiction on the site, we've noted that materials and equipment shall be stored in a manner and location which will minimize compaction of soils
and the concentration of runoff equipment, fuel storage, and refueling operations shall be situated in the areas identified for equipment access and staging on the approved plans. Striking condition 25 as there's no snow removal associated with this project. Condition 29 is a part of our standard but has been amended as a part of this project similar to the Lake Tut Path project, just noting that pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers are prohibited unless being applied as a part of one of the town's approved yearly operating plans or vegetation management plans
or as approved for invasive species management associated with this project. There is the caveat that should chemical management of invasive species be required, a treatment plan shall be submitted for review and approval per condition. 30 3G one get ready for us. Going through that one, we are striking the conditions related to a certificate of occupancy, a garage placard, and also the marking of the boundary as this is all town owned land and also the wetland boundaries will be shifting as the dam comes down. Condition 33 is the big one. So this, the Invasive Species management is critical as part
of this project qualifying as an ecological Restoration limited project, this language was developed and commented on by the folks who are reviewing the order of conditions and has been agreed upon as as acceptable to the town. So following the removal of the spillway apron and fish ladder, the town shall proceed with evasive species monitoring and management within the newly exposed wetland areas. Monitoring of newly exposed land shall begin within six weeks following the dam removal or within one week of the first signs of revegetation, whichever occurs. First, just as a reminder,
this work will be occurring in the sort of July August time period. So there will be a rather short period of time of of growing season left before winter really starts to hit. So we're just trying to make sure that that monitoring is initiating if that vegetation is reoccurring prior to winter setting in which we do expect it will. Monitoring shall be completed by town of Natick staff, a selected contractor or approved volunteers. Monitoring forms shall be developed and provided to the Conservation Commission prior to monitoring. Starting clear by who? Yes, By the town of Natick.
It'll most likely be me for the first four weeks of monitoring. So again, this is once monitoring has initiated either after that six weeks or the first week of revegetation, depending on the stability of newly exposed areas. Monitoring shall consist of reviewing the exposed areas from the former bank for signs of invasive plant growth, specifically focusing on Japanese knotweed and purple loose strife on a weekly basis. If soil stability is good and the exposed areas are dry enough to walk through without causing undue compaction, walkthroughs of the areas may also be performed as part of the initial monitoring. If soil stability is good
and growth of invasive species is observed, manual pulling of invasive plants shall occur during the initial four weeks of monitoring. Remove plant material shall be placed in a thick black trash bag and allowed to desiccate prior to disposal s trash throughout the duration of the winter. Months November through February. Monitoring may be reduced to once a month to ensure areas are stable and no immediate management is required at the onset of the growing season, March 15th or soil temps over 45 degrees, whichever occurs, first, monitoring of the areas shall resume on a weekly basis until June 15th.
Mechanical removal shall occur as needed and all removed. Plant material shall be placed. I'm not gonna say that sentence every time it's written or I will go soon. Insane condition F between June 15th and August 15th, monitoring may be reduced to twice monthly and pulling shall occur as necessary. I We do imagine during the heat of the summer, the growth of some of these plants will slow. So the monitoring will not need to be as frequent. All removed plant material shall be disposed of per the conditions condition. G, after the first 12 months of monitoring
and management following the removal of the spillway, a walkthrough shall occur with the conservation agent, town engineer and any other applicable staff or commission members to determine if any supplemental revegetation or chemical management of invasive species is required. So really focusing on that manual or mechanical management for the first year, given that most of the plants will be quite small, but ensuring that we're not letting things go too long, if additional vegetation is needed, the fall following the removal will be a good time to potentially apply seed mixes
for good growth the following spring. And then getting into details. So this is the condition that is referenced earlier as well. Chemical management may be necessary if stands of Japanese knot wheat have established in areas greater than 25 cumulative square feet. So that's 25 Speaker 1: Cumulative squares. So Speaker 3: That's throughout the stand, throughout the newly exposed areas. I'm Speaker 1: Wondering where the 25 number but 25 cumulative. Speaker 3: Yes. Makes sense. It's, I was trying to find that balance between, I don't want the stands to be able to get too large where then we need the chemical management, but not trying to jump the gun on applying herbicides when maybe they won't
be necessary have been identified and the, I know I haven't developed them yet, but my plan is that the monitoring forms would essentially have aerial images where folks can rough sketch where they're seeing these plants and then that's how we would be determining potential cumulative area. Should chemical management be determined to be necessary? A plan for application and contact information for the licensed applicator shall be provided for review and approval by the conservation office. Claire, Speaker 15: Quick question. Speaker 3: Absolutely David, Speaker 15: If, if the Japanese not worried, is there but less than the 25 cumulative square feet,
is it just a hand extraction or what, what what would we do? Speaker 3: Yeah, at that point, if it is under the 25 cumulative square feet and, and again we're looking at potentially, you know, hundreds of thousands of square feet of BVW being restored as part of this project, we will focus on the mechanical removal because all of that work can be done by volunteers. As soon as we tip into the chemical application, we have to hire that licensed professional. So just trying to ensure that we're being conscious of that potential cost in the future. Speaker 1: And I like the low threshold, I mean,
just so it doesn't get Speaker 3: Any well knowing that weed, if we let it get to any point, I feel like beyond that, again, we would need that chemical management. I think in order to be able to control it. Condition I two, if supplemental revegetation is determined to be necessary, the applicant shall apply New England wetland plants wet mix seed mix or approved equivalent to the identified areas to reestablish native plants in bear or underperforming areas. Condition H following the first 12 months of monitoring and management following the removal of the dam monitoring shall occur on a monthly basis
with removal occurring as needed. Monitoring of areas where supplemental vegetation has been installed shall be monitored on a weekly basis during the growing season. After 24 months of monitoring and management of formal report shall be provided to the conservation commission. Summarizing monitoring and management detailing any chemical management performed and providing information on the success of native revegetation. If invasive species are observed at less than 15% of the total vegetative community in the exposed areas, the management shall be considered successful. I just wanna pause, I know that was a lot and this is a big part of the project. Any questions, concerns, additions that we want to have
added into this particular language? Speaker 1: The one, one question I have is that, so we have a fairly low threshold for getting after knotweed using herbicides is 25 cumulative square feet. Yep. Across there. But then in condition in I 33 I if invasive species are observed at less than 15% of the total vegetative community, that seems like a fairly large amount. Speaker 3: Yeah. 15 was definitely, I think I will say it's an aggressive number. I Speaker 1: Do an aggressive number. Meaning that it's, that it's not much,
Speaker 3: No. As in that it's, it's a, a strong goal to be working towards 15% invasive vegetation would mean that, you know, 85% of the area has re-vegetated as native. So it would be a, Speaker 5: It would be about a little over an acre. 40, 49,000 square Speaker 1: Feet. But I'm just, I mean, but my, my but my point is that 15, you know, that, that seems like a lot when we're, when we're setting a very aggressive threshold for saying if we see knot weed more than 25 square feet Yep. In the entire area total.
We're getting after it with herbicides. So that is or or we can, if we can decide Speaker 3: It. Exactly. So that's the knotweed specifically this condition is referring in general to invasive species. Purple loose strife is the other one that we're expecting in sort of the highest percentage as we see Speaker 1: In every wetlands in indeed Speaker 3: We reduce Speaker 1: Massachusetts pretty much because Speaker 3: Purple loose strife does currently have a successful biological management strategy in the state. If there are pockets of purple loose strife, I am less concerned about that throughout the area and there are gonna be areas that are more difficult to access in terms of management. So
Speaker 1: Hot weed is the one we're gonna be really aggressive against. Exactly. Speaker 3: And, Speaker 1: And others we can tolerate. 'cause there's alternative management plans that we Speaker 3: And can be more easily managed through mechanical. In the years even following this plan I implementation obviously as an ecological restoration project, we're striving for a very strong native revegetation, which is where that number sort of came from. Chris Speaker 1: David, did I hear a question coming in? Maybe not. Okay. Nope. Speaker 3: Great. Speaker 5: My, my only comment is, is a couple of things. One is, is, is there hard Speaker 1: To hear you. Speaker 5: Sorry. My comment is the only thing that kind of comes
to mind is one is Japanese stilt grass and was that considered? And then the other piece that I've, I see lacking in this document is what about aquatic vegetation, invasive aquatic vegetation? Speaker 1: So any kind of, whatever mill, who knows milfoil chestnut, Speaker 5: You know, we have, you know, there's another dam being removed upstream, there's gonna be soil disturbance as we recognize. Yep. Is there gonna be water chestnut potentially or anything like any other, any other type of aquatic vegetation that we should be monitoring
to make sure that, you know, we're not ignoring something that's even more problematic than not weed Speaker 3: I can definitely add in, Speaker 1: I would add a condition to monitor. Let's monitor for the first two years. It'd be interesting to talk to Charles River Watershed or others about river, river wide invasive species, aquatic management or invasive species Speaker 5: Over Charles River. They've spent 30 years Right. Pulling chestnut AB Speaker 1: Absolutely. You know, down in Newton and usually Speaker 3: Successful.
Yeah. I was there when we were permitting that in Newton. Yeah. Speaker 5: Hugely successful work with the Charles River folk down there and the volunteers. And Speaker 1: So why don't we start with a monitoring requirement that includes invasive aquatic species so that we can pay attention to that and then be aware and then develop an appropriate management plan when and if it appears. Does that work for you, Mike? Yeah, Speaker 5: I I think it's just, you know, you know, we're, we're spending, we spent a lot of years looking at an ecosystem wide restoration that this dam removal project's gonna afford the community and,
and all the ecosystem benefits that, that, that removal is gonna have. And I, I feel that we'd miss the opportunity to also think about inside the water, you know, the, the water. Speaker 1: Yep. Nope. I think it's a great, great call. Speaker 5: And then the only other kind of piece, and, and this is just maybe because I like trees and I like bats, is just, is there any way that we can coordinate just a, another walkthrough before tree removal is done, just to make sure that we are not observing some sort of nesting
Speaker 1: Who would need to be part of that in your opinion? Speaker 5: You know, I don't know. I don't Speaker 3: Know. I was gonna say, I mean it would certainly be me and art and I can obviously make it open to you as well and we can, Speaker 5: Yeah. I don't know if I'm the right expert, but yeah, just, you know, I think just, you know, obviously there's been a walkthrough previously or if not many, more, many before that. I, I would just feel kind of conscientious if, if there would just be a final walkthrough before those trees are fell. And then the other piece is around kind of the, the staging.
And so we're using crushed stone and, and stone dust as a, as a way to protect zone, protect root zones. And what, I guess my question is, is that, is how is that gonna be removed and is there a better alternative that's less disturbing to root systems like matting? So using timber mats for access or, you know, 12 inches of wood chips. I'll be honest with you, with that type of equipment and,
and soil conditions like we've, we've had with wet soil conditions, that's not gonna, that's not gonna work. It's not enough from, from my forestry background, wood chip, 12 inches of wood chips with excavators and other heavy equipment ain't gonna, ain't gonna help. But maybe I'm, I, and I'm not an expert on that, but Speaker 1: You're an expert on forestry and trees, Mike give you something. Timber Speaker 5: Mat. Timber Speaker 1: Mat, Speaker 5: Timber max would be something I would strongly consider. You know, just like they use on power lines, it just Yep. It's kind of set it and forget it
Speaker 1: And then put, and then they're obviously, they obviously need to be pulled out at the end. Pulled Speaker 5: Out at the end. You're not excavating stone dust, which could potentially get into root systems. And Speaker 1: I don't know, Claire, what do you think? I mean, you know, we could, we could certainly put that condition there for matting. Speaker 3: Yeah. So I think that, I think what my recommendation was, and Adrian, feel free to jump in with any thoughts of yours as well. My thinking is that this, the selected contractor shall schedule a meeting. I'm wondering if we add language in there about discussing alternative methods of soil and tree protection. Obviously what we've put in the documentation already is
what's been reviewed by all the other additional regulatory agencies, but contractor methods and means offers a lot of flexibility. So we could add in language, allowing that flexibility to be determined in coordination with the contractor selected. Speaker 1: Adrian, your thoughts on this? Speaker 14: I am concerned particularly about changing the Woodchip trail along the top of the embankment because that recommendation actually did come from mass historical in Speaker 1: Terms of dis in terms of protecting, protecting any potential antiquities stuff. Yep.
Speaker 14: Yes. Avoiding ground disturbance. And so that has been carried through from their response to the project notification form where they made some recommendations of, of best management practices to incorporate into the project. Speaker 1: I mean, let's, let's think, so I, let's think about the equipment in hand though. I mean, my understanding is that, I mean, there would be a, you know, that there's not, I'm not gonna get any of the terminology correct, but there's not gonna be one of the biggest of the ex excavators doing this work. I mean, it'll be a modest, Speaker 14: Right?
It's gonna be driving along the existing clearing that's, you know, that trail's only so wide to begin with. Speaker 16: Yeah. And I know we, we think of these large pieces of equipment, but the reality of it is they're, they're low ground pressure machines. They have wide tracks. I understand by the time we put a layer of, Speaker 5: I understand the ground pressure piece with the excavator. The, the excavator isn't the question, it's the trucks that are getting the concrete from where you're, where you're destroying the spillway. Speaker 16: Yeah. Correct. In all likelihood, they're gonna have like a tracked dump truck,
like machine that'll, they'll be able to traverse out over the, out into the river really on the, on the, on the, the coffer dam on the upstream side. They'll be, they'll need to travel to that and then travel along the embankment. So you're not gonna see like a, you know, a 10 wheel dump truck that you, that you would see on the road. It'd be a, a non road, non road vehicle. Speaker 5: So they're going to fill up that tracked dump truck Yep. And then unload it, and then load it into another road dump truck. Speaker 16: Right. Where, where that hatched area is being pulled up.
Pulled up. Now it'll be staged there. Yes. And then from there, maybe they'll have two days worth of material there. And then on the third day they'll get a loader and they'll load it into trucks at Pleasant Street and away they go. Speaker 5: Okay, so that's a hundred percent fully baked. We're using tracked, we're using tracked dump trucks to drive along that wood chip embankment or that wood chip along the, the dam to a staging area where they're gonna offload the concrete that, so that's a hundred percent true. Speaker 16: Nothing's a hundred percent true.
We don't have a contractor yet, but that's, in my experience, and we brought a contractor out here and how they will go about it, that's what they said they would do. They can't, they won't be able to drive a, a dump truck over to that, to the spillway area there, and then it, it, they can't do it. Speaker 1: Could we, could we, I mean, you know, to Mike's, to Mike's point, would we be comfortable requiring that or you know, that or something of similar, whatever the appropriate term is kind of ground pressure. Speaker 16: Yeah. That's, that's reasonable and, and appropriate. And it, and it fits into the, what we're typing now,
we can require that low ground pressure equipment be used on the embankment. Yeah, that's, that's a good way to do it, Speaker 1: Mike. How, how would that sound to you? Speaker 5: That's fine. I would, I would just, the only place where I would say I have nothing against the historical folk. If the wood chips fail, what is the alternative? Speaker 1: Let's put more Speaker 5: Wood chips, Speaker 1: Let's Speaker 16: Put it, yeah. They need to maintain 12 inches. So if they, it get chewed up and it's down to six, they've gotta bring in more wood chips. Speaker 5: So you understand the chewed up part. The, the, the wood chips aren't getting chewed up, they're getting compacted into the soil,
right? Well, Speaker 16: Yeah, they'll get compressed or if they make a turn, you know, they, they happen to be turning the same place every time. And it, and it, it's getting pushed around a little bit. They'll need to restore it to maintain 12 inches. Speaker 1: What if we put a condition in here that it's, there's a, you know, I mean we could even say, you know, a daily inspection of the, of the, the, the pathway to ensure the 12 inches of wood chips is maintained. Speaker 5: Sure. I I just, I want to be clear with everybody in room, a Speaker 1: Hundred percent in this Speaker 5: Room and, and the audience, the wood chips are fine, but understand the wood chips, they don't disappear.
They don't, they migrate into the soil profile. Yep. Speaker 1: Understood. Because Speaker 5: They're getting compacted into the soil profile. It's not that they're being macerated or, or anything like that. They're being pushed into the soil profile. So if that's cool with everybody, it's fine. But with me, Speaker 1: So my, Speaker 5: If the historical society's concerned about impacts to soil, then matting is a hundred percent the best choice. You could use wood chips with mats on top of it, and you would be a hundred percent certain no soil.
Speaker 16: Here's what we could do. We could put, you know, a filter fabric down and then the wood chips over the top. That would, that would allow, that would not, that would prevent the wood chips from pressing down into the soil. There would be a separation layer there. Correct. So again, I think that you put a tilt, the fabric layer down, you keep, you have 12 inches there. They're required to maintain 12 inches. If it gets compressed or moved about, they need to restore it to keep it at 12 inches. There we go. And they'll be required to use low ground pressure equipment. Speaker 1: There we go. Excellent. I,
I think we're there. So let's, let's, Speaker 16: That's all, that's all reasonable and it doesn't, you know, alter anything other permits we already have in hand. Speaker 1: That's great. That's good. Speaker 14: Derek, just on item nine B. Speaker 16: Okay. Speaker 14: It just says may Speaker 3: Not as required. Speaker 14: Oh, okay. I just, you've been on a lot more construction sites than I have, so Speaker 1: I think that's good though. I think we landed on a good solution or take, Speaker 5: You could take it out. I would just say make sure you have an alternative in place in case things,
Speaker 3: Well, in this way the permit language allows for the alternative as well and we won't forget it. Speaker 1: That's good. Excellent. Speaker 3: And Mike, just so you know, I also added in prior to the removal of any trees, a walkthrough with the conservation agent, Natick Tree Ward. And along with any appropriate contractors or commission members shall occur. We need an actual verb in that sentence to ensure no signs of bat roosting are identified. Speaker 5: Thank you. Speaker 3: Absolutely. Yeah, you once this project starts, if you're in south native guarantee, I'll probably be, be there too. Speaker 1: Excellent. It'll be fast. Alright, so we're now down.
We've gone through 35. Yes sir. Speaker 3: Let's scroll back down to where, Speaker 1: Let's go 37 D and E. Speaker 3: Oh, I'm sorry. I hadn't actually read 35, so I'm just gonna read that one quickly. In addition, just noting the separation and permitting between this project and the parks improvement project condition 36 and 37 remain the same except for the two additions to the certificate of compliance materials, which are the Invasive Species Management Report noted in the prior condition, as well as the compiled reports on sediment monitoring from the selected contractor and the town of Natick staff.
Condition 38 has been amended to match condition 30, condition 30. And we are striking the markers and garage placard and the striking of no new disturbance, only because the parks project is gonna be coming right on the heels of this project. So yes, that is the end of our order of conditions Speaker 1: Easy. Yeah, good stuff. That was a good, good points raised Mike on that. I think we landed in a good place. Any, any further? I mean that was very thorough. Any further questions, comments? There are no, there's no private land that's being uncovered. Speaker 3: So there, there is private land that's being uncovered.
The invasive species management work that the town is gonna be supporting will come in under a separate permit from this project because this project is only applying to the town owned land that is being impacted. So as mentioned before, we are, we've been working on determining if financial support can be provided. At the very least, the town is gonna be looking to try and provide native plant material to help support Revegetation in the newly exposed areas along private property. Speaker 9: Okay. So the town Natick
is responsible then for meeting this order of conditions, but also like the 4 0 1 lists a bunch of things too. Yes. Right. The more during the project, it seems like, but there were, seemed to be a few. Yes. Speaker 3: So the, the town of Natick will be responsible for meeting the conditions of all the regulatory permits we've received. So it'll be this, the 4 0 1 and the US Army Corps permit when it's issued. Speaker 9: So three different things. Yes, 4 0 1 Army and our own. Speaker 3: And as part of the US Army Corps, there's some mass historic requirements that apply as well. But it all falls under the Army Corps Army.
Speaker 9: Okay. Speaker 3: Adrian, did I get all those right? Speaker 14: Yes. I would just add also the chapter 2 53 DAM safety Yes. Permit. Speaker 3: Thank you. So that's Speaker 14: Through, can't forget about those guys. No, Speaker 3: We Speaker 9: Cannot. Does each one of them have their own certificate of compliance? Is that that at the end or Speaker 3: So? I know, yes. Yes. Speaker 9: Okay. They do. So three separate ones. Speaker 14: Yep. When we're done, we'll close each of them. So we will file, you know, we'll file with the office of DAM Safety to file that. It's not to change the classification of the dam. We'll file to close with the Army Corps.
We'll close with the mass DEP and then also the certificate of compliance with you all. Speaker 9: Okay. And, and I'm just curious, like on ours then, who's the, the PE that signs off on this? Is this Derek Speaker 3: S Derek is the stamped engineer on the set of plans. Eric? Speaker 9: Yeah, GZA. Okay. Speaker 3: And Jim, just so you know, that information is all included in the approved documents. It notes who the, the stamp is on the plans under Appendix C si stamped by Derek Shipper pe Speaker 9: Okay. Are
Speaker 14: There questions? Derek has a C in his name. Oh, SCH Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 9: But, but like the COC wouldn't be for a couple years, is that right? After the Right. So Speaker 3: We're, we're issuing a five-year order of conditions to give the time for the monitoring and maintenance. So we will not get a COC until those two years of monitoring and maintenance have occurred two years. Right. Yes. So we will at the earliest, potentially be seeing this for a certificate of appliance in in 2028. Speaker 9: 2028. Okay. Speaker 15: Claire, quick question. Have we ever had any monitoring of this stretch of river for
aquatic invasives? Do we have any data? Speaker 3: As far as I am aware, Speaker 1: I'm not aware of any, Speaker 3: No. Speaker 15: Okay. Speaker 1: But it'll be good to introduce that though. Speaker 3: And, and Charles River Watershed Association has already expressed an interest in partnering with the town on aspects of the project. This hasn't been formalized yet, but we're trying to see if we can get a time lapse camera set up at 33 Glen Street to get the whole impoundment lowering dam removal revegetation process captured in a time lapse. Speaker 1: Yeah. You know, one of, one of the things, at Speaker 3: The very least we've got Rich's drone. Speaker 15: Oh, nice. Speaker 1: Yeah.
One of the things, I mean, and, and maybe we, we, we could condition this, but I think appropriate notice of when the key steps are going to take place. I mean, when the initial opening of the gates happens. Oh, Speaker 3: Absolutely. I don't even know if I, we don't even need, I mean we can condition it if the commission would like to condition it, but I'm, I'm more than happy to commit to sending out those notifications. Okay. Speaker 1: Alright. I think we're fine then. Speaker 3: I've already got the abutters list ready to go. Speaker 1: Any further questions on this? Speaker 15: No. Speaker 1: Alright. Hearing none. Someone wanna make a motion to approve this order of conditions?
Speaker 15: So moved. Speaker 1: Thank you Chris. Is that seconded? Speaker 15: Seconded. Speaker 1: Thank you Jim. Further discussion? All is in favor in the room. David? Speaker 15: Yes. Speaker 1: Chris? Speaker 15: Yes. Speaker 1: That's it guys. Good job. Thank you Adrian. Derek, thank you all. Thank you. Thank you very much. Really appreciate your council on this. Look forward to doing more work with you. Speaker 15: Same here. Thank you. Alright, Speaker 1: Thanks. That's it. Next, move on. I think the last item on the agenda for today. Yes. Speaker 3: Our last two items are a continuation to our May 7th meeting. Okay.
Speaker 1: Would someone make a motion to continue two 16 to two 18 South Main Street for the notice of intent as well as the major storm water permit? Let's do 'em both. Would someone make a motion to continue those to May 7th please. Speaker 15: So moved. So Speaker 1: Moved. Thank you Michael. I'll take David as a second further discussion. Those in the room, Chris? Speaker 15: Yes. David? Speaker 1: Yes. Okay. Continue to May 7th. General business discussion. Mechanic street lot. No dig. Pollinator proposal. I think we talked about do. Speaker 3: Yes. So we talked about it in theory at the last meeting. I did ask Barb.
Barb and I met out on site earlier this week to discuss it in more detail. I, based on Barb's notes, threw together just a quick document outlining exactly what font is hoping to do for the commission's, sort of formal approval. But they'll be starting with a, a small section of the strip between the parking lot and the existing trail with the hopes of expanding along the remainder of the strip if the, the project shows success. So it's a roughly 24 by eight foot strip. The plan is to cut down the existing vegetative stalks
to be put into a dumpster for disposal along with some invasive species. That font will be pulling from other sections of the trails, primarily garlic mustard, and then cardboard will be laid down on top of the remaining. It's mostly mug wart that's growing in this area. On top of the remaining mug wart, a layer of compost will be placed on top of the cardboard and then essentially punched straight through the cardboard. They will install the, the plugs. They are hoping to do one shrub as well if they can get one donated. And the plant list Barb will send to me
before they install anything for approval. They are working with the native plant trust to provide the plug material. And it, part of the reason why we're doing this in front of the commission tonight is that if the commission chooses to do so as part of our vote tonight, we can essentially issue a letter just stating our approval of this project and that the project will be installed on public land and then font will receive a 25% discount on the plant material that they're gonna be installing there. Great. So that is what they're hoping to do out there
and what they're looking for approval on tonight. Speaker 1: Any questions? Hearing none. Someone will make a motion to approve this proposal from friends of NA trails. So moved. Thank you Jeff. Is that seconded? Seconded. Thank you Jim. Any further discussion? Those in favor, Chris? Yes. David? Yes. Excellent. Good. Keep us posted. Speaker 3: Will do. Speaker 1: And then the last thing on the agenda or no wanna, oh, Speaker 3: And this is more of a notice for our next meeting. Folks may have seen the email that I sent out. It was earlier this week about the new guide
to Lake Management that's being released by the state. It's a review and comment period. I believe the comment period ends May 13th. So I will just, I was making the commission aware the materials have been forwarded to you. I'll have a draft letter ready for our next meeting if the commission would like to issue a letter of comment if the commission doesn't feel the need to comment on the plan. Don't think it's a problem one way or the other, but I just wanted to make the commission aware and provide the opportunity to provide comment on that updated guide. Perfect. Speaker 1: Other updates? Speaker 3: Yes. And I'm, I have a whole bunch to run through, most
of which are just updates, but some require a little bit of discussion. So just a reminder, and I did send out the, that link earlier today, but the bike trail initial build day at Town Forest is set for April 26th. So not this weekend, but the next weekend in the general business discussion folder is the NOI stamped or it will be there tomorrow when I get the updated plans from KZLA. They had one call out labeled wrong. The NOI plan set for the connector bridge is ready to go so that it will be in the commission's general business folder. It needs to go to Land
and Water Conservation fund for approval of the design it, which is really just making sure that we aren't proposing anything that is gonna throw the environment into haywire. And then I'm hoping to be able to file the notice of intent for the commission's second May meeting. Super. Speaker 1: That's exciting. Yes, very exciting. And and the idea though is that we would have that built this summer. That's wonderful. Wow. That's Speaker 3: Quick. Yeah. And the beauty of the floating boardwalk is that we are less limited by sort of low water flow periods so we can Speaker 1: Just Speaker 3: Build it essentially. Yes. Once we get the bid out and the construction done. And so the floating boardwalk can be directly procured
by the town through, they're on one of the state lists or something like that. And then I believe obviously it'll, it'll be part of the bid package. But some co eco contracting has expressed interest in the sort of land work. So the stair creation and the restoration plantings that would occur after the fact. Right. And I, I, I have a very good track record with Sunco working on prior slope restoration projects with them. So I would be very confident in the work that they do if they're selected. Speaker 1: And that's all to, but but Sunco, I mean Sunco is who is doing the, the,
the floating bridge in the, the floating walkway installation also, right? Speaker 3: No. So it would be the floating boardwalk company that does the installation Speaker 1: Of the floating boardwalk. Yes. But then Sunco could bid, you know, through an appropriate procurement process. Exactly. Would bid would bid the work. And we have, we have the, the, the resources available for that. Yes. Great. Speaker 3: And so all included in that quote price that I presented to the commission. Good. Speaker 1: Do we have just a, on a related note, do we have a date for us to continue working on the bridge, on the Speaker 3: Island bridge? I have any in the bill asking for his availability. Great. My hope once I get past May 3rd, which is the Earth Day
around Natick activities, Speaker 1: Open up a little bit. Yes. Speaker 3: Excellent. So that is the plan for that. Good constituent aqueduct. The ground penetrating radar work happened the first week of April Feldman feels great about the results that they got. So they're working on just compiling a report of those results. They do feel that they're gonna be able to locate the aqueduct for us. And it does appear that it's hopefully far enough off the existing trail that we will be able to get equipment in to do the geotech work that we need to do. So. Great. No formal information yet, but good vibes from Weston
and Sampson, the open space and recreation plan. Matt, I had sent you an email about this, but you were out and about. The state has changed the approved timeline for open space and recreation plans in Speaker 1: A good way. Speaker 3: Extending it from seven years to 10 years. Oh, perfect. So Natick, because our plan is currently approved, we have the option to extend our approval for an additional three years. So that would take us from 2027 to 2030. Martin Kessel from Open Space Advisory Committee, Doug Renick from Trails and Forest are both in favor of extending.
But I wanted to get the commission's thoughts as well before I actually submit the extension request to Melissa Cryan. Does anybody have any objections to us extending our approval for another three years? Speaker 1: I don't see a reason why. Good. Why not? Great. Speaker 3: Sounds good. And it lets me get through the dam removal before I have to worry about getting that plan updated. Speaker 1: I I think we should have clear work on that before Earth Day. There Speaker 3: We go. Yep. The the whole your survey. Excellent. And finally, this is an update that I just received today. I don't have a ton of information about it yet, but I had mentioned at some prior meetings
that Beaver Solutions had noted that there was some maintenance needs at the Oak Street. Beaver deceiver. Speaker 1: And I, I was, I was gonna bring that up. I was out there two days ago and took a look at it. Speaker 3: Water levels are very high, water levels are quite high. So Beaver Solutions was out yesterday and noted that the beavers are actively damning the cages. They've become what they refer to as Cage Smart. So they've realized that the pipes are there and that they are a source of water flow. Beaver solutions recommendation is that the beavers be trapped because these beavers are cage smart. But in theory, new beavers that move into the area would not be cage smart.
And they can make revisions to the cage set up after the trapping to ensure that they're better protected from future beavers. Speaker 1: We're watching evolution in real time, Speaker 3: Evolution in real time. And so per the notice of intent that the commission issued for Beaver Management in town Forest Beaver trapping is a last resort measure. I am waiting on the formal proposal from Beaver Solutions on what that would look like, but I just wanted to make the commission aware that that'll be coming up on an agenda, probably on our May 7th agenda. Speaker 1: Yeah, no, I, and I think we, you know, it, it needs to be properly heard in public forum Yep.
About that. 'cause that's not a, it's not a non-controversial step. Speaker 3: No. And it'll be, it'll be posted as one of the agenda items for, for our next meeting to discuss. Speaker 1: Yeah. Let's make sure people know about that so we can hear comments on that. Yep, absolutely. And the public Speaker 3: Knows about, I, I know that some of the abutters on Connecticut have already been reaching out about the high water levels that they've been seeing. Speaker 1: Yeah. I was out there on, I guess it was Monday I was out there looking at it and it was quite high. Yep. Speaker 3: You know, which is, and so Beaver Solutions is gonna be out on Wednesday next week, most likely to do some additional just sort of clearing in that area
to get water flowing a little bit more in the current moment until the trapping can be approved. Speaker 1: You know, it's interesting because the, you know, where the, where the initial Beaver Dam was back up by kind of where the path branches off to the middle, Speaker 3: It's fully underwater now. Is Speaker 1: Is is fully open. Yeah. You know, there's no Beaver dam there. Yep. But, but you can see around the cages though, they're starting to to, to gum it up. Yep. Speaker 3: So and so, like I said, that'll come in. We are, we are now officially out of Beaver Trapping season. It ends on April 15th. So there will need to be an approval process for that through the Board of Speaker 1: Health.
I was gonna say Board of health has to be involved. Okay. Yeah. Keep us posted on that. But it's, you know, let's have a, let's have an open discussion about that next. Yes, Speaker 3: Absolutely. I just, I wanted to give the commission that update so it didn't come as a shock when it appeared on the next agenda. Speaker 1: See it coming. Speaker 3: And that is all I have for folks Speaker 1: Town meeting. So Speaker 5: May 1st is not a meeting for us. Speaker 3: No. May 1st is not a meeting for us because of town meeting. Oh. Lucky us. So we, and that, this was the last thing, our next meeting is on May 7th. It is a Wednesday and it will be fully virtual because the select board has the, the meeting room on that night.
Speaker 1: Seventh. Speaker 5: Seventh. Speaker 3: And just as a reminder, town meeting technically starts on Tuesday next week, but won't officially start until Tuesday the 29th. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 5: And then when will we go back to a regular schedule? Speaker 3: We go back to the regular schedule. So, because May is a five Thursday month. Okay. We, we have the two weeks in between the meetings. So the, the second May meeting is the 24th I Speaker 1: Believe. 22nd. 22nd. Speaker 3: There you go. Speaker 1: Alright, thank you. Or 24th Saturday night. Yeah, Speaker 3: We'll do Saturday night.
The, the commission's full schedule is available on the website if folks are ever Yes. Sorry, I should have said that to begin with. Speaker 1: Okay. Anything else? Nope. Chris, David, anything from your side? Nope, we're good. All good. Alright. Someone make a motion to adjourn. So moved. All Thank David. Second from Jeff. Any further discussion? Those in favor? See you guys. See you. Thank you. See you. Thank you all.