Speaker 1: All right, well I do have seven o'clock. We've got forum here, so I'd suggest we we get going here. So folks, welcome. This is the Native Conservation, native Conservation Commission. Today is April Fool's Day, fittingly enough. We're on a off, somewhat off cycle meeting here today 'cause of the select board meeting. Hence us doing this completely. We're doing this virtually here. Like to ask if everyone at home who's watching would just keep yourselves on mute until your particular agenda then pumps up just to make sure we don't have a whole lot of background noise, kids screaming, dogs barking or whatever.
And so with that, why don't we go ahead and open the, open the public meeting here. And the first item on the agenda that I've got is a abbreviated notice resource area delineation, we'll call it an RAD or five Glenwood Street. I'll go ahead and open the public meeting. So in accord with the Wetlands Protection Act, made it Focal Wetlands bylaw at the 79, the Native Conservation Commission hold a public hearing on an abbreviated notice of resource area delineation filed by Ang Wang at created land water engineering representing Marshon real estate, LLC for property located at five Glenwood Street. And that's 69 lot 43 B.
So Dechen, I see you here. Why don't you go ahead and just kind of introduce the project and we'll go from there. Speaker 2: Dechen, did you wanna share your screen or did you want me to pull the plans up? Speaker 3: And either way, let me see. I have a package. Probably just the plan is that it's an easier Right, Speaker 2: Okay. I've already got it open if you want me to go. Speaker 3: Okay. Yeah, no, why don't you share. So it's, it's very simple situation here. Speaker 4: Hit the meeting tools. Speaker 3: Yeah, so this is an existing single family house lot and you can see the hatch there is the house
and then there's like a 36 inch cover to the right of the, the property line, but it's buried, you know, off the property line. And that pipe is like extended way all the way to, to the farm, to the local farm near, near that area. So it shows as perennial stream on the US GS map, but the watershed is tiny, so it's much less than half a square mile. And also the,
the stream stats also show the flows much, much less than 0.01 CFS. And we actually witnessed the stream start become dry end of June and extended all the way to September. So since we only need four days, so we took four days of June and then we just let it go. The July was like we, we, we skipped the July because July was dry. So this is like the, the June 23rd,
which could be not the first day become dry. So we took almost consecutive four days to 23, 24, 25, 26. So it's all showed dry. And then we, we skipped it and then we did go to August was still dry. We, but we didn't realize it was in drought. But anyhow, we already have four days, so, so we were just trying to show this stream was dry for a couple months except for during the rainstorm they,
they have some flow and then they stop. So, so that's the most critical resource area. And then downstream we do have a BVW, which is also offside, bordering this intermittent stream. So, so we just flag the area that will impact, you know, having a buffer zone impact five Glenwood Street. So that's, that's basically what we have. And just to, I'll stop here for any questions. Speaker 1: So the way the law is written, we need to see four consecutive days.
Speaker 2: So Matt, the days do not have to be consecutive. Duchen did provide consecutive days, but the law itself is actually does allow for non-consecutive Speaker 1: Ah, fair. Okay. Yeah, Speaker 3: Right. It's much less stringent than what we Speaker 1: Talked about. Okay. Over four days. Yeah, Speaker 3: Yeah. Right. Speaker 1: And so, and what you're, what the evidence that you're providing to Shang is the four days for consecutive days are of no flow. Correct? Speaker 3: That's correct. There's no flowing water and it was not in drought, so it was actually, it was just
very in the summer, so was like in the early, early summer. So, and then, then I just say, well, let's see how long it will become dry. And we, we just skipped the July and until August we took, you know, couple more days and then they say, oh, that's enough. It's more than enough to, to show intermittent stream condition. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 3: Yeah. This will overcome the presumption for from the USGS presumed perennial stream. Speaker 1: Perennial. Right. Okay. Okay. Fair.
The, the source of the water in the drain pipe is from where? Speaker 2: So Matt, there's a number of sources. It is connected to the street drainage system in Glenwood Street, a small portion of Glen Street as well, I think. And then it is also an outlet for one of the ponds at Lookout Farm. Speaker 3: Right. The, their farm pond and all the way, probably around the way many streets are tied into it. So I, I mean I didn't really go into that detail, so, but I know the utmost upstream is the local
farm farm pond. During extreme case, they will overflow in the screen time in the summer they are totally dry. There's no direct connection is is go over there like in the rise of flow control structure. But most of the time I went there several times, there's no overflow. Technically it's all the flow from the watershed in between because they need to save the water for their irrigation for the farm.
They don't let the water go out until go up to a certain level. They cannot hold anymore and let it go. But so yeah, that's, that's basically the situation. The watershed, it is much smaller. I think it's a 0.14 if I remember right. So it's a, yeah, I Speaker 2: Can, I can run the stream stats if the commission is interested. It would only take a moment. But the, here's the farm pond, you can even see the small, a lot of these stream corridors don't necessarily still exist in the field. I do believe that this one is open along this section here
and it goes into a pipe under Edson Road goes along Glen Street, down Glenwood Street, there is some piping that connects from further up Glenwood Street. I do believe a little bit of Marston Lane drains down to this area and then outlets into this stream corridor before it meets up with the Charles River. The rest of Glen Street. Glen Street does have a number of, as folks likely know from driving down in a number of grade breaks throughout its length. So there isn't any one portion of Glen Street that drains to a huge single outlet, but a portion of it does certainly drain to this outlet.
Speaker 3: Right. Yeah, yeah. It's the, the, the watershed is, so almost everything is pointed to an intermittent stream condition from watershed size, from streams that flow. And the most important is the documented dry stream that no flowing conditions. So there's some kind of compensation water, but you can see it, it's clearly no flow condition for even for the early summer. So, so Speaker 1: It's, did did you go downstream from the delineated
resource area just to see after this property what the status of is of it is? I mean, is there, is there any kind of contiguous flow or any, any, you know, from, from the wetland down towards the Charles? Speaker 3: No, there, there's some places for the early summer they have, some places have a puddle, but it's technically, there's no continuous flowing water at the time when we took the photo. Speaker 1: And that includes, but that includes in between the delineated resource area and the Charles. Not just from the, from the, from the drain, from the, from the, the outlet, from the outfall to the, to the,
to what you've delineated. But past that, I'm curious, is there any continuous flow there? Speaker 3: Well, we didn't go all the way to the Charles River. We, because the whole thing was off the property line. Sure, I get that. Yeah. So that's a, it is a, it is a, was just, it is a good question, but I believe it was dry too. So, and this is where we were there delineate the wetlands in the, in the late summer, it's all dry. I just did really take photo in the Yeah, understood. Yeah, during that time because it obvious, so ju July was definitely dry, boom, dry
and then, and then August is boom dry, but the, they, they had turned into, they in the drought, so, but yeah, drought at the time we didn't know Speaker 2: Was declared on August 1st. Right. Speaker 1: Understood. Chris, Speaker 5: Claire, Claire, do we have any records of any wedded surface in those, those truncated lines down to the Charles? I mean is that data that we've come across historically? Speaker 2: So not necessarily. What I will note is that there are no other inlets to this particular stream corridor as it makes its way down
to the Charles, it's, it's obviously accepting surface runoff from the abutting properties, which are, are primarily vegetated in this area. And it does meet up, I know Dechen identified that small pocket of wetland a little bit further downstream. I was trying to get the layer to load on the GIS but it wasn't very happy with me. A large pocket of wetlands, the land sort of levels out in the homes at behind sort of water view lane off of Glen Street. It levels out quite a bit where that stream corridor is
and is a larger pocket of wetlands. Here's the 'cause the stream stats show the wetlands downstream as well, that sort of pattern. This is the stream stats for the property. So you can see that that is the sort of small watershed. There's a little bit of additional area that comes from street drainage in this sort of pocket here. But, but I would certainly agree that it is under a half square mine. Speaker 3: Yeah. Even we added, I probably can run that number for, for next time to, to discussion, but that, that confluence
between the two just street drainage is, is a, it says it's way below beyond the property line. If if we, if it there is any perennial stream toward Charles River, it won't be impacted. So Speaker 2: I, I did run the stream stats both above and below the confluence of the two corridors and much, it's still under a half square mile even below the confluence. Like I said, that really just picks up this small street drainage area here. Most of the cemetery is shedding in this direction towards this pocket of wetlands and stream corridor.
So based on the observational data provided and the stream stats review as well, the data does appear to support the, the intermittent stream status. Speaker 1: It does, it does. So then we have as that, as this is an rad though, we're also being asked to provide confirmation of the delineation there. Exactly. Yep. And so, so what I would suggest that we plan to do a site walk out there to go take a look at the delineation and just confirm the placement of flags and then we can reconvene and, and discuss what we saw.
I think that's, that's probably the most straightforward way to approach this. Any any thoughts on that? Would that make sense? Not make sense Speaker 6: That if I could just add one thing. I just, I have some field notes from 2020. Oh great. On the Sangha property there is a, there is a culvert on that property Yep. On that stream. If that makes any, you know, any difference in this conversation. I just, you know, I, I collect field notes when we go on these site visits
and I just, you know, there is a, there is a structure on that stream on the, at least what I'm looking at is the Ganga sa Ganga property Speaker 1: Where looking for that on it's, it's Speaker 2: Water view lane here. I'll pull it back up on the map Speaker 1: Folks. Yep, yep, yep, yep. Speaker 6: It's down downstream from the subject property Speaker 1: Off the cul-de-sac there. Speaker 6: Thank you Mike. And I have no idea what we were looking at that day, but you know, who knows? Yeah, Speaker 1: I, I remember, I remember that one. 'cause that's, you know, obvious, you know, they,
they had built a new house where they had, there was some yard work that was done back there and then I've got a clear mental picture of it. Speaker 2: Okay, that's good to know. I will see if I can get our drainage layer updated Speaker 1: And Speaker 6: At least that's the notes. I, I could be, I could have made terrible notes, but that's what Speaker 2: No, I, I would trust your notes over our, our historic drainage layer data any day. Yeah, for Speaker 1: Sure. Mike, so say one more time. What, what, what your, your, your cryptic chicken scratches said about that from those observations. Speaker 6: It was on October 1st, 2020 in that there was a culvert and you know, I called it regulated
because, you know, we've had these conversations about what happens with things that go through culverts, right. Because we've gotten beaten up about that Speaker 1: A few times Speaker 6: Conversation. So yeah, there it's, yeah, some, yeah, that probably is it right there. Speaker 3: So it, it probably drive right at that time in October. Speaker 6: I mean topographically, you know, I, I'm, I've had this conversation on other projects that flow directly into the Charles and I have a strict opinion on what I think is regulated. So I'll keep that to myself at this point.
But you know, the most important streams are the ones that we tend to kind of maybe not necessarily recognize their importance and especially so close to the Charles, these, these types of, these types of watersheds are, even though they're small, they're very important. Speaker 1: Yep. Speaker 6: And I know the regulation doesn't agree with me on that, but you know, I like to voice that opinion. Speaker 1: No, super important. So why don't we, why don't we plan to go take a walk out there and Speaker 2: Know Speaker 1: It's a holiday Speaker 2: On it, a holiday weekend this weekend?
We do have a little bit of extra time. Our next meeting is on the 23rd. So we have I one extra week then we would normally have, I don't know if folks are available the weekend of the 11th. Speaker 1: I am so personally I am gonna be heading out of town on the eighth to go see my son, see my son in Florence, then I'll be gone for two week. I'll be gone for the, but I leave on the eighth to come back on the 18th. The rest of the commission can certainly meet and, and, and do a site walk out there on Saturday. What is it? 2, 3, 4 11 if that worked for people. Speaker 2: I'm available the, the fourth if folks are available this
weekend and wanna get out there. I know that's a sort of short notice. I don't know if there's any additional re flagging that needs to be done. And, and like I said, I know it's a holiday weekend so other folks may not be available. Speaker 1: What do you guys think? Are people available Saturday? I could do Saturday. Speaker 5: Yeah, I could probably do Saturday too. Are we talking in the morning? Speaker 2: Yeah, Speaker 1: Yeah, I can do it at sunrise. Speaker 6: I can make it work. Speaker 1: So what if we said 8, 8 30 in the morning on Saturday? I could do that. Yeah. Jeff, could that work for you? You, yeah, yeah. Good play by Speaker 7: You could, I'm actually at town hall here
'cause I didn't read the virtual part, so I'm in the lobby holding the, I'm holding the port down for us here. Excellent. Speaker 2: I'm so sorry Jeff. Speaker 1: I said I'll Speaker 7: Be there in person. And then, then whenever Speaker 1: I was gonna say that it looked like you were at a library carroll of some kind, you know, back in, back in undergrad board in the lobby. I tried to send a reminder this afternoon too, so No, no, no worries, no worries at all. 8:30 AM we will be there. Ang are the, are the, is the resource area flagged and are the flags still up as far as you know? Yes, Speaker 3: Yes. I I'm sure if it was flag at back in the end
of last year, so it's a few months. I, I, I may try to go there a little bit early, so maybe eight o'clock just to make sure it didn't happen anything because my, my friends I should be pretty sturdy. They won't necessarily deal rip it off because this year was so bad. I, my, all my arthritis was all chewed out. I I've even put a but still didn't stop that. They were so high, so hungry. That's the only thing I, I, I wanna make sure. Got Speaker 1: It. Yeah. Okay, so, so it sounds like that that's the next step is that we'll do a site visit at
8:30 AM this Saturday. So day after tomorrow, day after day after tomorrow. And we'll do that and then we'll reconvene at our next meeting. And our next meeting is on April 23rd. April 23rd. So we'll reconvene here and talk about what we saw and we'll go from there. Speaker 3: So Saturday, right? Not, not Friday. Speaker 1: Saturday. Saturday, yes. Sorry, Saturday April two days later. April two, three a Saturday, April 4th. Yeah, 8:30 AM So I think we're in good shape here. Is there any questions from anyone in the public who have have about what we're talking about here?
Just to be clear, we're gonna go take a look at it and then we'll come back into public meeting and we'll talk about what we observe on the 23rd of April and then decide on further steps at that point. Alright. Alright, so with that, I'll make a motion then to continue this hearing until April 23rd. Please. So move, so move I'll take, I think it was Chris, it's Chris's motion with David as a second. Any further discussion on that? All is in favor, Jim? Yes. In favor. David? Yes. Jeff? Yes. Mike?
Yes. Chris? Yes. Matts yes. Okay. So we'll continue this until April 23rd. So Jang, thank you. We'll see you on Saturday. Thank you. Nice. If you could just let the applicant, if you, if you could let the applicant know we're gonna be out there. Speaker 3: Okay, yeah, we Speaker 1: Do. Then we'll go from there. Speaker 3: Yeah. Thank you. Speaker 1: Alright, excellent. Let's keep going then. Next item on the agenda is I've got a request for determination of applicability for five Lakewood Street. Lemme go ahead and formally open this. So in accordance with the Wetlands Protection Act in nas, local wetlands by up to 79, the NA Conservation Commission hold a public meeting on a request for determination of applicability filed
by Andrew Leonard of Urban Horticulture Design representing Jamie Trish for property, located at five Lakewood Road Map 34 lot 43. The proposal is for hardscaping and landscaping improvements within the 100 foot buffer zone. So, Mr. Leonard, I see you lurking around. If you wouldn't mind just introducing yourself and, and, and talking us through the project. Speaker 8: Absolutely. Hi, sorry, my name's Andrew Leonard. Oh, I'm Speaker 2: Sorry. I was just gonna say wood, are you planning to share your screen? I have the plans up if you want me to drive. I just need to make you co-host if you wanna share. Speaker 8: Oh, either way is fine with me. I, I have it ready to go, but if you have it, we, you know, feel free to share.
Speaker 2: I'll make you co-host. Sometimes people, it's easier for other folks to draw. Speaker 8: Sorry. So yes, I'm Andrew Leonard, landscape designer Urban Horticulture Design and I've been working with Jamie Trish for the landscape at five Lakewood. She's currently in Chicago, but we'll be moving here. They're renovating the house and so these are the plans for the landscape. It's shared. So I suppose I'll just sort of quickly run through the project a little bit, zooming in on the back. So as you can see we have the 100 foot buffer delineated here. This is cross-referenced both through a previous addition
that was added to the house that went through the conservation commission, as well as pulling the wetland edge from mass GIS. So all of the, the work that is within the 100 foot buffer happens up here at the top of the hill. So beginning in the back, this area sort of here is all hardscape. Currently I have a drawing showing that if you want to see, we're going to remove the existing hardscaped area here, come back within a blue stone and you know, do sort of more of a pervious style to this. Leave a a quarter inch joint with a chipstone, we'll do a stepping path out.
There's currently a shed in this area. We're looking to remove that shed and replace that with a hot tub and surround. I know one of the questions was regarding, you know, some of the things around that base materials you can see up in the corner here, there's an elevation. So basically it's just sort of a small platform and some seat steps as well as a storage bin and a small screen to block the view from the neighbors. This would be a cedar left untreated so that it can patina. And as far as a base, at most we would do a crushed stone though once we move the
shed, we wanna see what that's sitting on and you know, reuse whatever's there. You know, there will, there won't be any sort of, you know, foundation or pad or anything poured current. We're considering a, a fire pit, a gas fire pit that we would run a line around and out to in this direction here, up between in this sort of light green area here against the house. Again, I know this question about how we can discuss the plants momentarily, but this was planned as a loie bed. The intention around this, the reason we sort
of landed on the IP is that they have dogs. We've considered some other plants and you know, again, we can sort of talk about these, but one of the main considerations in going with that, being a non-native is that it's a pretty tough plant. And knowing that their dogs will likely sort of make their way through those garden beds. We wanted something that can stand up to that. There's a roughly four foot tall fence that wraps around the edges with a gate. This will be this sort of hog wire. We might do a horizontal cedar slat along this edge
between the neighbors that's yet to be determined, but sort of that change would be the only sort of variation there. Along this edge we'll also add where there's a row of hemlock trees with logs in between 'em, like firewood logs. Those logs will be removed. We'll come back in with mountain laurel sweet fern and hay fern along this edge as sort of a mixed border. And then the other two areas, this lower area here, this currently is mostly asphalt. There's a little bit of a sort
of garden edge on either side. We're going to remove that asphalt again, come in with a a bluestone, the lo bed that'll be sort of completely encased in this area. It's outside of the buffer, but just so you know, sort of the, the scope of the project, there's an existing shower head here that will just, a cedar enclosure is going to be built around that, a freestanding sauna. And that is all going on in there. And then when we go, so this is these, these are the stairs up from the driveway here. And then in between those stairs and the wetland condition, this is currently a mix of sort
of landscape plants, you know, some rends hydrangeas, he callus. There's a row of es along here. And what we want to do is sort of renaturalize this area primarily with hay scented fern. And then in the sort of blue here, this would be a sweet fern added in as well. And I believe that is everything that we are doing within the a hundred foot boundary. Speaker 1: Great. Thanks. Very efficient. The, in you've, you've got another representation that shows kind of a comparison or an overlay of the existing hardscaping versus what's gonna be installed.
Do you have a calculation of how much new impervious is gonna be introduced versus what's existing? Speaker 8: Yes. So here is that drawing, just so you can see it visually. The, the existing area is rough, sort of taken from Google Earth. And let me hop over to The Word document. I'm not sure why it's not popping up. Sorry, I opened that in the PDF. So in the backyard area, this is the upper area currently there's roughly 1200 square feet and we're gonna reduce that to about 750 square feet,
mostly by introducing those beds that are up against the house. And so you can see this area here and this area here are currently hardscape. This is where the hot tub had been. So this whole area was decked in the past that's been removed by the people doing work currently. And so this will just be lawn and then beds here. And then the lower area, sorry, a little zoom bar just popped up in the way. And then, so the reduction in impervious surfaces will be roughly 460 square feet down in this area.
So currently down here there's sort of maybe a foot along either side that's not asphalt. The rest of this is just an asphalt continuation of the existing driveway. So all of that will be lifted and replaced with a patio. Again, you know, doing something like a quarter inch joint and chipstone in order to create a a purview surface. Speaker 1: Where does the, where does the, the spruce that's gonna be removed, where is that located on this plan? Roughly? So, Speaker 8: So that is, I don't have it drawn in here,
but that is right here upon return. It's actually a UI was wrong, I was just remembering back. So that's right about here actually. I can show you a picture of it as well. And then the stump is right beside it. Let me pull up those photographs. Speaker 1: Would the, would your clients consider or be open to the idea of, of replacing that tree somewhere else on the property? Speaker 8: I, I don't see why not. I did see sort of that reque that mention on the, you know, the request about adding in a native and personally, you know,
even adding something right in this area where we're already going to be working, you know, I don't, I don't think that will be an issue at all. Speaker 1: Just kind of grease the skids a little bit to, you know, just if, if we're native able to maintain tree cover. Speaker 8: Absolutely. And, and I saw in that, you know, it was looking for a shade tree, which I think it, and so that would open up the option to sort of any native shade tree that's gonna be working this upland, you know, wetland condition. Correct. Speaker 2: Yeah. Andrew, we can work together after issuance the condition language will allow it for you and I to sort of go back and forth to on an approved species. Speaker 8: Perfect. Speaker 2: If the commission is comfortable with that.
Yeah. Speaker 1: Other questions? It's a request for determination of applicability versus an NOI. Yeah, Speaker 9: I had a question Speaker 1: Please. Speaker 9: Yeah, the, the, the gas, is there a run or something all the way from the front of that? Speaker 8: Okay, so, right, so this isn't added in any of these drawings in the front. There're going to add a couple of propane tanks and there's actually gonna be a generator out here and those are going to run and meet this corner. So what we would do is tap off of that and run around into the, Speaker 9: Okay Speaker 1: Andrew, what's,
what's the general topography in this location? Is it relative? Can you put that photo back up with the tree just to, just to eyeball it? Speaker 8: Well just before I go back over, you can actually see in gray is the topography in here. These are one foot contour. So everything within, sorry I'm freezing here. Everything within that fenced backyard area is very flat once you get outside of it. Yeah, you can see that it's, it's a fairly steep hill down to the water's edge. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 8: And if I bring these up so you can see Yeah,
it's, it starts to slope down here and then once you get past here it's, it's, it's pretty steeped down. There's actually another from way a, a while back, an approval for stairs that were replaced along here. So there's a set of gran steps that lead down. I'm not sure I grabbed a photo of those, but I have more images if you want to see. Speaker 2: And Andrew, just because I had brought the this up, but I think I actually maybe see erosion controls in the pictures that you have. Are you guys proposing to have erosion controls? I think especially with the gas trenching, I think
that's probably a good idea just with the kinds of rains we're seeing. Speaker 8: Absolutely. So there is existing, so as I said, they're renovating inside so they, they've already added this and this was from last spring, but we, or last fall, but we were there recently. It's still in good condition. All we would need to do is add the batting on the hillside in. Speaker 1: We're Speaker 8: Gonna be frozen now, so this area here, we would just need to add the batting in out along this edge here. Speaker 2: Great. I'll make sure the condition language reflects. Speaker 1: Sure. Okay. Other questions from the commission?
Speaker 9: Yeah, I, I'm just curious about the lighting. You, you mentioned this landscape lighting. I, I think like along the ground area. Yes. Is there any overhead lighting or, or, or not? Speaker 8: So sorry, this is, I can pull it Speaker 2: Up too, Andrew if, if it's getting too locked on your end. Speaker 8: Yeah, you know what, let me stop share and just, and do that. So for lighting that I am looking to bring in, it would be just low path lighting along this edge and then out along here and then down along the path as well
as some additional within here. There are existing floodlights in a couple of places here and I believe the, I believe one floodlight will be added up in this area. Speaker 2: Oh Andrew, we're not seeing your cursor. 'cause I, to my screen that's being shared now. Okay. Speaker 8: You know what, let me, let me annotate. So lighting that I would be adding would be along basically these lines. And then just a little bit in here. There is existing floodlights roughly in this area.
This area. And I believe there is a plan to add one floodlight here and potentially just some LED lighting, you know, sort of within, you know, like the steps along this Speaker 9: Along the ground. Yeah. Is Speaker 8: It right? Yeah, I gotcha Like, like tread lighting. Speaker 9: Tread lighting. Okay. Yeah. Great. Thanks. Speaker 8: Sure. Speaker 2: Other questions? Speaker 6: I didn't see it in the notes Claire, but Yep. You know, under your expertise does the amount of disturbance trigger any type of storm water or anything like Speaker 2: That? No. So they, they are under the disturbance threshold
for the stormwater bylaw. Speaker 6: Okay. And then the other question I would have is just around kind of, you know, kind of some of the submission. Can we get a north arrow on the map? Can we get a legend with the map so I know what we're looking at? You know, there's a lot of, you know, I can understand where the property boundary is. I don't know what the red dash lines are. I don't, you know, you know, a legend would be helpful along with the purple and some of the other things. Andrew,
Speaker 8: Can Speaker 6: You provide that because that, because Speaker 2: Call out for that red buffer area of work intersecting with the buffer zone. But Andrew, would you be able to get over some, you know, quick add-ons to this plan sheet prior to to determination issuance? Speaker 8: Absolutely. And just as a note, if you scroll down a little bit, there's a scale bar on North Arrow. Speaker 5: Yeah, it's really tiny at the bottom. Speaker 8: Alright. Speaker 6: Out the bottom, Mike. Thank you. Yeah, I'm looking on it on a laptop so I apologize for that. Yeah, Speaker 5: It's hard to see. Speaker 6: Yeah, just some, some details 'cause some things, you know, like that green patchy area, I can't read what it says, but it says area to whatever,
but it looks like a wetland to me, you know, so Speaker 1: Yeah. On than that, you Speaker 6: Know, things like, things like that. Just so I'm not creating issues on my end when I'm, Speaker 1: Yep. Thank you. Other questions? So this is a request for determination of a applicability. So the process of you to vote to close invo issue of determination if it's the pleasure of the board. Does someone wanna make a motion? So moved. Chris, I'll take that as a motion to close. Is that seconded? Seconded. Thank you David. Any further discussion folks? Hearing none.
All those in favor please indicate by saying yes. Jim. Yes. David? Yes. Jeff? Yes. Mike? Speaker 6: Yes. Speaker 1: Chris? Yes. Matt? Yes as well. This is an RDA. So a determination, a negative three determination would be appropriate here. Wetlands resources, no riverfront area, which only make a motion to issue a negative three determination if that's your pleasures. So moved. Thank you David. Is that seconded? Seconded. Thank you Jeff. Any further discussion on that? All is in favor, Jim? Yes. David? Yes. Jeff? Yes. Mike?
Speaker 6: Yes. Speaker 1: Chris? Yep. Matty. Yes. So Andrew, as part of the, you know, asks here would be the tree replacement would be an updated map here just with a very clear, large, large font for old eyes legend, a please indications around additional, additional erosion control. Anything else that we forgot? Speaker 2: I think those are, that's all I've got written down. Speaker 1: That's all I've got too. All right Andrew, thank you. Let us know if anything changes, most importantly. Sure. But otherwise you've got, you'll, you'll get what you need from us and let us know if you have any questions. Speaker 8: Perfect, thank you. And just one question, should I email
that updated stuff to Claire? Yes. Speaker 2: Yeah, if you email that to me Andrew, I can upload it to the portal on the backend and get the issuance completed. Speaker 8: Okay, perfect. I will, I'll actually get that taken care of this week. Thank you so much for your time. Speaker 1: Thank thanks for your time Andrew. Appreciate it. Bye. Alright, I think that concludes our public hearings. We're gonna, and so we'll go into general business. The minutes will be discussed at our next meeting minutes from October 15th. Speaker 2: Yes, Jeff, if you didn't see my, my reminder email, you probably didn't see the note about minutes. I, the meeting was longer than I anticipated and I was not able to finish them up. Speaker 1: Alright, let's talk in general business discussion.
Let's talk about 2 73 West Central and we need to provide a comment letter to the planning board. Yep. Because this is an A for protection district thing here. So Claire, would you walk us through the draft and, and what we have in front of us right now and we will go from there. Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely. So the, the draft letter, I'm hoping folks had a chance to take a look at that plan. So the project does have wetlands jurisdiction on the property. It's a very small area of buffer zone. I have had some discussions, the engineering
division and myself with the applicant team to talk specifically about drainage and wetlands because of the limited jurisdiction and the fact that the majority of the area where the work is occurring is paved and proposed to remain being paved. The primary filing with the commission will likely be the major stormwater permit accompanied with an RDA for the, you know, essentially controlled D disturbance within existing degraded areas. So the generalized note just identifies the wetlands jurisdiction, noting that it will require a filing with the commission
that the site does fall within the protection district and that the project will trigger a stormwater management, a major stormwater permit under the stormwater bylaw. The plan set is fairly dense. It is definitely a big development that is being proposed on this particular lot. I was picking my husband up from the train this afternoon and we were talking about 219 units right next door to the train station. So this plan sheet I think is maybe the best to start on. You can see the layout of the existing building in sort of lighter gray underneath the proposed building, which will be a four-sided structure
with a courtyard in the middle. You can see the a hundred foot buffer zone is identified here along the back of the lot extending from that again, that wetland resource area that falls in between the train tracks and the properties along West Central Street. So again, just a reminder, not necessarily pristine wetland habitat but important nonetheless. And currently the site does not have any stormwater treatment. There is stormwater management systems catch basins in the parking lot and the like the applicant is proposing
three very large underground stormwater infiltration systems. The groundwater height in this area fully supports that there are also a number of water quality units proposed prior to water entering these infiltration structures. Currently. As designed, the project does meet the AFA protection District requirements for that 1.2% storage requirement. Here's the project that I was looking for. So the other thing that I did wanna talk about specifically 'cause it interacts with both of the commissions areas of jurisdiction, is that there is an existing outlet
folks can see in in gray writing, I'll zoom in even a little more. There is an 18 inch outfall pipe that outlets drainage from, from this property directly into that wetland resource area currently. So again, that that is not receiving any treatment under the current conditions. Under the finished conditions, this outfall will still exist, but it will essentially be serving as an overflow for the infiltration systems or will only be taking clean roof runoff. So directly from downspouts,
no interaction with the parking lot. The town engineer I do not believe has finished his full review. So there may be additional comments in the draining system from him. I have not had a chance to do a full review. I would like to get out to this site and take a look at this outfall. I have not been over in this corner of, of the wetland and so definitely potentially still some more notes to come. I know that Bill McDowell raised some strong concerns during our meeting about traffic. The traffic report provided to the planning board did not necessarily satisfy bill's concerns. I don't believe any revised materials have been provided yet. The, the planning board hearing just opened
on Wednesday last week. So I'm hoping that there will be some additional information about transportation impacts. But obviously that's a little bit outside of the commission's jurisdiction in this specific regard. But I think that the, you know, the underground infiltration, the existing outfall, the pavement folks can see is not changing too, too much at the back of the lot. It is expanding slightly in, I think this corner here, it expands slightly beyond existing, but it actually is pulled back slightly along this edge here and this area of asphalt will actually be re-vegetated.
So not necessarily no wetland impacts overall as there are certainly are wetlands impacts, but given the existing site development and the proposed site work, the RDA felt appropriate under my recommendations. But I did let the applicant know that, you know, those are just my recommendations, the commission may feel differently. So that is part of the reason we're we're doing this comment letter. Speaker 1: So the, the r the, sorry, the RDA, so you're recommending that the applicant files an RDA in addition to the stormwater management and erosion control process?
Speaker 2: Exactly. So technically, okay. So projects that are required to get orders of conditions for work within wetlands jurisdiction are exempt from having to get a separate stormwater permit. And that is applied, you know, lot by lot. If there's a project that extends greatly outside of the wetland jurisdiction like two 16 South Main Street or five Auburn Street, generally they're filing both permits because such a large portion of the stormwater infrastructure is outside of that wetland jurisdiction. But that is not reversed.
So projects that require major stormwater permits are not exempted under the State Wetlands Protection Act from having to file for these wetland impacts. There is a mapped resource area here under the State Wetlands Protection Act. So they do need to receive a permit under the State Wetlands Protection Act for that work. It was my thought based on the extent of the work within the wetlands jurisdiction that an RDA was more appropriate considering, you know, the potential impacts to wetlands. Based on my review so far, it seems like it will likely be a net improvement
to the resource area given the, the existing stormwater treatment and or lack thereof. But if the commission feels that a notice of intent would be more appropriate for the wetland buffer zone work, the applicant would file both the notice of intent and the major stormwater permit. Given the extent of the lot that falls outside and the lot disturbance that'll fall outside the buffer zone Speaker 1: Based upon existing conditions and proposed conditions. Is there gonna be a significant increase in outflow from that 16 inch pipe into the resource area? I mean, I, I get that it's being treated and the water quality is probably gonna be better,
but if the volume is substantially increased, that to me would trigger. So these, they are just an NLI Speaker 2: Overflows for the storm. So like I said, bill McDowell and I have not completed the full review of the proposed drainage impacts so that that may shift, but given that they are just overflows, so all of the parking lot runoff. Speaker 5: But you said roof runoff Speaker 1: Too, but you said roof runoff also? Yes, I, Speaker 2: I see, I, I was getting, so the majority of the runoff that is entering the stream through these processes right now is coming from the parking lot area. The roof area is, is similar to the parking lot areas.
I expect the flows will be similar. There may be certain storm events where there is increased flow, which is why there may be a need for additional improvements to the outfall location if that is necessary. I do think a notice of intent would be appropriate. Okay. But based on what's currently proposed with no outfall improvements, the impacts are only to buffer zone and therefore I felt an RDA was the, the appropriate. But Bill mc, Speaker 1: We don't have to decide that now though. Yes. Okay. We do or we don't. Speaker 2: I'm sorry. I think I, I heard David speaking
and I didn't quite catch, Speaker 1: So I do, I'm just agreeing with Matt's question. Okay. So do we need to decide now about whether it's Speaker 2: Or not? No, we do not need to decide now. We're just providing preliminary comments to the planning board. So if that is a comment that we wanna add to the letter, I think that that would be a very appropriate, I think would be an appropriate place to do so. Speaker 1: Yeah, I Please Speaker 5: Go ahead. Can I ask a quick, I, I don't wanna go off on a tangent, but we had at one point identified a small forest or a a, a, you know, a, a area of impact
for the, the heat island surveys that we were doing. Yes. The study we were doing was, that was in that area, wasn't it? Right on, on the, the MBTA property. Speaker 2: So there were a number of areas that were identified as heat islands in Natick that stretch along the west central corridor is one of the identified heat areas. I'm just pulling up the, this is the heat watch project that happened. Chris, I believe you're, you're talking about the Sue ASCO grant project that you're Speaker 5: Working on? Yeah. And they had had a, like a, a small forest
or a tiny forest kind of idea, right? Speaker 2: Yeah. So that the tiny forest location was actually on the MBTA property adjacent to this lot and that opportunity would not be lost. Okay. Through this development. It's on the other side of the entrance. Right, okay. Speaker 5: The MBTA station. Speaker 2: But I just, that's sort of where I going with that. Curious. This is that stretch of West Central Street Speaker 5: We're Yeah, no, it's brutal about right now it's all hot, hot zone. Speaker 1: So Claire, in terms of, in terms of process here, I mean oftentimes, you know, we will provide a detailed, a fairly detailed set of comments to the planning board
for an A PD for a project in the A PD. But that's typically when we, when it's not jurisdictional under other laws. And so I mean in the sense that, you know, because this is gonna come in front of us for storm water because it's gonna come in front of us for some form of a wetlands filing, we will have plenty of opportunity, I think to have a bite at the apple. Absolutely. In terms of, in terms of groundwater protection, in terms of stormwater handling, in terms of the things that we would usually comment on in an A PD letter. Does that, does that resonate for you?
Speaker 2: Yes, certainly. I think that what I was trying to do through this process is I know that there have been some projects that have come through recently where maybe the coordination has not happened in the way the commission had hoped. And so I wanted to take this opportunity now if there were any items that we really saw major red flags about that we thought could potentially Speaker 1: Inform the planning board process. Speaker 2: Exactly. Exactly. So if the only, if the patient doesn't identify any of those for this specific site, I'm happy to just submit my sort of generic comment letter, Speaker 1: Michael. Speaker 6: I mean the only thing that I see is,
is one is the stockpile area. I would, you know, if this was in front of us, it would need to be outside of the a hundred foot. They got multiple stockpile areas within, you know, within inches of that resource area that that should be pulled out. And then just looking for better detail on the plans with regard to this vegetation strip that to the west. Like what is that? Is those, are those trees are the, what is going, I know there, is there a retaining wall there or that seems like they're proposing a retaining wall?
Is that the existing, what impact to that vegetation's gonna be? I mean, I think that any vegetation loss on this site is a net loss and like I would strongly argue to stay very firm with, with whatever replacement process, if that's two to one by the bylaw or something even more enhanced because anything, any vegetation lost along either 1 35 because of the new entrance or vegetation lost along that western boundary, either through direct, you know, cutting
or in removal of vegetation or potentially the installation of a retaining wall that inherently could re result in loss of, of either border, you know, boundary trees or boundary vegetation or potentially neighbor's vegetation. So those would be my only comments really. Speaker 1: I would yeah, I would totally agree with that. And I think that maybe a comment to them from a higher level. I mean we're, so we're gonna get our technical bite at the apple from stormwater and from and, and, and from whatever wetland's filing we decide, but from a more conceptual,
higher level conservation perspective, I agree with you completely, Mike. I mean, I think having a comment in there that really plea, you know, is a, is a plea for maximizing the vegetation plan for the site. Whatever they can do to, you know, include opportunities for planting shade trees. I mean for that matter I, you know, a project like this would be, you know, unless they're doing solar on the roof, doing a green roof would be awesome. Yeah, I was just gonna say the roof, you know. Yeah, yeah. Anything like that I think could, it could be an opportunity
for it to be, you know, a really nice example that Matt let's, let's encourage them to do the roof. I think that's absolutely, because Speaker 6: There is existing vegetation, it it is very small. There's that area in kind of the northeast corner to the building, the, the existing L shaped building, the kind of the top of the L and then you got these little kind of triangular pieces of, of vegetation, you know, having a calculus of, of what that is with, with regard to square footage and,
and not losing that square footage at at least maintaining the ability, you know, 'cause the, the way, the way the current proposal is, it doesn't look like there's any landscaping. No closed Speaker 1: What, what's that middle, middle area Speaker 7: On the drawing? Speaker 1: It's a Speaker 2: Courtyard. It's gonna be a courtyard so that there might be some, you know, planter beds or, or pots in there. But I likely know, you know, opportunities for any real landscaping. And I wanted realize I'm not sharing the letter as I'm editing it, Speaker 1: Or giant trees in the middle I think would be great surrounded by concrete.
Speaker 7: It, it's also, you know, I I've, I have spent a lot of time holding up that fence at the West NA Speaker 1: Station Speaker 7: And looking back at that property, it is, there are trees along that raised and like it's a raised and it slopes down from, you know, I guess from the, what would be the, the northwest to the southeast where it drains in, it is hard to believe that there will not be, you know, they're gonna be working and doing peeling back of that asphalt in the 25 foot area.
There is no doubt. There's a, there's a, the fence is broken up there, there was trees along that top, maybe junk trees, but there are trees nonetheless, you know, and that, and that resource area is in dire need of even some help. There's stuff this junk all in it. So I, they, they can't draw a line and say they're not gonna, that it's gonna be a clean lineup that they don't do anything. They're gonna be peeling all that stuff back. The, I can't see how it would be, we would give 'em an a an RDA on
Speaker 1: Let's, let's let, let, let's be vigilant to that, Jeff, you know, I mean as the plants continue to crystallize there, Speaker 6: We, even if we drew a line on the new no build zone, like is there a way to do a restoration? Is there a way to just help that, that system just a little bit. I, you know, especially in such a, an area that's a heat island and, you know, is there any, is there any wiggle room for them to consider, you know, the no build zone as, as an area that could be res re you know, restored? Speaker 1: We could, I mean if it's no build zone and we require an NOI, we can require that,
right? I mean, we, Speaker 5: It'd be nice to pry that. It'd be really nice to pry that out of this project Speaker 1: To, to pry that at 25 feet. Speaker 5: Yeah. Or any, any major change to the heat island effect Speaker 1: Area. Well, why don't we, why don't we, you know, let, let's make that a comment, Claire, around, I mean, you talked about the, you know, the heat island, the island impact, you know, the commission because of the proximity to the re you know, something around the proximity to the resource area that the commission, you know, requests
that the final footprints respect the 25 foot setback and does not encroach on that. Then you're, that kind of language there. Speaker 2: I just, to play a little bit of devil's advocate in this particular scenario, I, I do wanna note that there is existing impervious area within the 25 foot no disturb zone. So Speaker 5: On that west side, Speaker 2: Yeah, so I'm just pulling it up right here. So you guys can see the existing parking lot limits. So I don't, the commission has every right to enforce
that boundary, but previously the commission has taken into consideration when there are existing disturbance or encroachments, as I say, I, I have no issue if that, if the commission wants to really see that restored as part of this project. I think especially given the amount of development that's being proposed on the site, I did just wanna make that, Speaker 6: I mean, I would highlight the approach that MathWorks took Mm, yeah. When they did their, you know, the kind of the revisioning of my old brewery, the black label brewery. Mike
Speaker 1: Is still sad about Speaker 6: That. We'll call it Boston Scientific. I still consider it the Carling Brewery. But you know, they did a very thoughtful approach of peeling back things with, with respect to understanding that, you know, these resources are important to us. It's, you know, it isn't an aquifer area. You know, these are areas that are, you know, commonly are, you know, heat island effect with 200 apartments. You know, you're creating more problems for the folks that are living in that area, you know, for sure. I mean, this is about human health at the end of the day.
And, and you know, I'm not trying to be on a soapbox tonight by any means. I try, I try to not only do that only once every meeting, once every other meeting, but I'll Speaker 5: Pick up the other side, the other meeting then Mike. Yeah. Speaker 1: But it's an opportunity. I mean, it's an opportunity to, to, to bring, to bring order and structure back. I mean, I don't think any of us were on the commission when this building was built, and so certainly didn't have an opportunity to provide input into it at that point, for that matter. What protection act may not even have been an effect at
that point in time, or at least certainly the bylaw, you know, so I, so let's, so Speaker 5: We're gonna see a lot more development along this route Speaker 2: In the next start with the new form based on 10, Speaker 5: 15 years I think. So Speaker 2: I think how's the commission feel about the language I've drafted? I can also send this out by email tomorrow and folks can shoot me an akay or if folks feel comfortable. Speaker 1: I think if, if we could go that way, I mean, I, I'd love to take a whack at it. Yeah, of course. And, and all of that. Speaker 2: Yeah, I will. This is in the Google Drive folder, so folks want to just have add it. I would suggest if folks can use in the,
the upper corner right here, you can go from editing mode to suggesting mode. It just helps me keep a little bit better track of who's doing what editing. But I'm happy to, you know, I can wait until, you know, Monday next week to submit this. If folks want through the end of the week to finish finalizing these edits. Claire, Speaker 10: One thing at the top of the letter right up at the top? Yeah. It says the project at two 70. Speaker 1: Oh, thank you, David. I was gonna go after that too. Yeah, Speaker 10: Just get rid of the word any Speaker 2: Thank you. It is a template letter, so it does say, does not, and I have to go through and delete the right words
and nearly sometimes in missed one. Speaker 1: Okay. But I like the idea of, of if, you know, pulling stuff back, and this is an if possible, I mean, I guarantee you they're counting every single parking spot on this site and factoring it into the design. All that being said, you know, let's, this is our chance to have a bite at this. So let's, let's, let's put that plea in there. Speaker 5: Was there anything on the design that showed those little island, those island tree things that were Speaker 1: The existing ones that'd Speaker 5: Be available? Well, I know there's existing ones. Yes, but they're useless. Oh yeah.
And they're absolutely, there's, you can't get a tree to grow sufficiently in one of those things. Mm. Speaker 2: So they, they do identify the existing trees on the site. I do not believe that a landscape plan has been provided as part of the planning board filing to date. Like I said, this is the plans that's currently available, Speaker 1: But that's something we can, we can look at as part of the, the storm water filing. Oh Speaker 2: Yes. We would absolutely be requiring that as part of the storm water filing. Speaker 1: Gotcha. Cool. So, so why don't you, you know, guys keep, keep staring at this, keep thinking about this. This is an opportunity for us to plug in here.
I don't see any for a project of this scale personally, I don't see any things of deep concern, like if, if we had really dug into 2 16, 2 18 prior to us getting it. I mean, the moment I think most of us saw 2 16, 2 18 and saw the site, we said, how in the holy, you know, would this fly? I don't see, personally, I don't see any kind of non-starters that would throw me into a hissy fit. I think there's a lot of opportunities to kind of introduce the principles that we all believe in and think are important into the design.
And this is what this letter is for. So let's, let's push on that. Provide your input to the letter. Claire, if you could give us, you know, give the team, you know, a 12 hour notice on Monday morning Yep. That says, Hey, I'm, I'm gonna send this out at five o'clock today. Please, you know, last chance to get your, to get your, your input in here just so that we don't hold things up. Right. But otherwise, I think we're in pretty good shape to get them a good comment letter. And then we will have our technical review opportunity as part of wetlands and stormwater. Speaker 5: So that's, that's when we can ask for them to remove all the parking and make them mandatorily use
public transportation only. Right. Speaker 1: Ab abs and, and four and total a Speaker 5: Total. So we get another bite of that Apple, I wouldn't mind. Speaker 1: Right. There'll be four parking spots just for EVs. Speaker 5: I'll even, and just to make it clear Speaker 2: For the record, it's April Fools and that's why we're so, wow. Speaker 9: Is there parking underneath too? Speaker 2: Underneath? I do believe that there's some parking proposed underneath, but I don't think it's underground. Jim. I think it's, it's first level parking because there's a small amount of retail along the front. But then I don't think the residential units start until the second floor.
Speaker 1: It Speaker 5: Just doesn't seem like, Speaker 6: Well, it would be a great application for Green Roof. I'll say that. Speaker 1: Absolutely. Yeah, for sure. Speaker 6: Yeah. I mean, I mean just Ko just that heat island effect would be so much dramatically reduced. Speaker 5: Certainly. Do you know, is the, is the German company Zenko still around? Speaker 1: Ko? Speaker 5: Ko? They did a lot of, I think they moved out of the US but early, early two thousands they were doing green roofs in a lot of Boston area. At least proposing Speaker 2: Them. It seems like they still exist. Cinco Group, KO Group, green Roof Systems, they still have websites.
Speaker 5: It German only, though it is Speaker 2: All in German, so I'm assuming that it's a German company. Yeah, Speaker 6: I mean, you could do what I forget, is it, is it the, it's one of the hospitals in Boston that's got the whole community farm up on top of the roof. I can't remember the, the, which hospital I've been to the hospital. I just can't remember if it's the Dana-Farber one or Mass General Jeannette Speaker 5: District. Yeah, that's Speaker 6: Cool. But there's a beautiful garden, you know, that's, that they produce food from on top of the roof and, and use it for the hospital purposes as well
as the c you know, a farther reach into the community. So Speaker 1: Fen, I mean, Fenway Park for that matter, grows produce that they sell in the park up on the roof of Fenway. You can do some beehives up there. I mean, you could do some pretty cool stuff, you know, and, you know, it's get our, get our planning board colleagues to be, you know, thinking in these, Speaker 5: That'd go a long way against that heat index. Speaker 1: Yeah. Right. But Speaker 5: For that area, that would be great. Speaker 1: Cool. Speaker 5: Claire, how do we know when this goes to the planning board? Speaker 2: So the, the hearing opened on Wednesday last week, the 25th. I can double check what the next hearing date is
and send that around to folks. Speaker 1: That'd be fun to lurk and kind of throw, throw eco ideas from the, from the balcony down onto the process Speaker 5: As a, as a non, as an observer. Speaker 1: Alright, so that's that. We're good there. And then, oh, okay. Now Route 27. Speaker 2: Yes, the fun stuff. So I do apologize to the commissioners who were there for missing the site visit a couple of weeks ago. I have a little bit of a, a family emergency that popped up and stole all of my brain power. But Matt and I did check in after the fact and there's a number of materials in the general business discussion folder.
I created a new folder for it 'cause it was a, a number of materials and I provided some notes to the commission in my agenda. But just to generally provide, I, I also pulled the excerpts from the minutes for the two hearings that the Route 27 project was discussed at. Unfortunately, this is pre COVID time, so we don't have any like Zoom recordings to go back to and get a little bit more detail on what the conversation is. So I know Pegasus is here. Randy, if you still have Pegasus streams from 2019
that are available, send me an email. I imagine you guys are not storing them for that long. But, so in going through the notice of intent, which I was finally able to locate Smile by Jamie, not beta or DOT. And so beta noted in the notice of intent, I have the, the narrative excerpts available for folks. But they, they did essentially assert that this corridor was a jurisdictional only under the town's local wetlands bylaw. And because DOT has exemptions for local bylaws
that they were not required to essentially get conservation convention approval for the work that was happening in this stream corridor. So this is the section of the narrative location two is the Running Brook corridor, you know, west side of North Main Street, opposite of Rutledge Road. They note the definition of what stream is in the Wetlands Protection Act. I was not the staff person at the time, so I can't speak entirely to what that review process or review from beta looked like.
But just in reviewing both state and our local wetlands layers, to me there are are clearly two upland wetlands systems that are contributing water to this stream corridor. It is also upstream of Lake Chit, which is certainly a jurisdictional resource area. So I, I would have certainly pushed back and, and probably looked for some additional information from beta about how they were coming to that determination. But it was not a jurisdictional stream corridor based on my interpretation, I would've considered it
jurisdictional. But because of that Speaker 1: Is that because of, is that because of the resource area that, that that small constructed wetlands up by Wilson? Speaker 2: Yeah, so there's, there's actually two wetland resource areas. There's one up here off the back of Vision Drive and then yes, the one on the, the Wilson School property. And both of those connected via the culverts and outfall at that head wall. Just street. So the, sorry, the brown pipes are the town drainage system in the roadway. So the brown circles are manhole covers.
The little squares are catch basin structures and the triangles are outfall location. So they're a little bit hidden, but you can see where some of those are located as well. Speaker 1: I think if I seen that, if I had seen that picture at that time. Speaker 2: And I, I, I, what I will note is that in the minutes from the commission, the very first line I think in the minutes refers to the fact that the commission feels it's, there you go. Commission feels it's jurisdictional. So again, what happened? What happened to that exactly, again, you don't, a get talked minutes are not super, super detailed,
but because of this as assertion that the stream was not jurisdictional, there's not a ton of information provided in either the notice of intent or the plan materials for the Route 27 project that talk about the, you know, runoff volumes, drainage volumes being directed to this area. I don't have a lot of that information to determine sort of where we started and now where we've ended up. It is clear to me and I, I think, you know, the narrative does talk about this in the narrative excerpt two, if you scroll down
to the location two section, it talks about the work that was done there were, based on the plans excerpts that I provided, there were new pipe connections created in this location. So maybe not huge amounts of new volume, but certainly in my opinion, a new discharge was created. So again, all of this work is done. These, you know, projects have all been closed out. You know, Alazar is the DOT contractor for the project is long gone.
So there isn't necessarily much to do with this information in this exact moment, but I think it will be very helpful in applying to the 9 27 project as it comes down the line. Speaker 6: Is that a constructed wetland north of Cognex, you know, or is that just So Speaker 2: As far as I have been able to research and I am still doing, a lot of these files are older, so I'm trying to do a lot of digging through some extraneous material. The cogn, it, it was constructed as a stormwater detention basin if I had to guess. But meets the, the age
delineation in the regulations where, because if, if I had to guess it's not been maintained as a water management system. They installed it and it's just done its thing for the last however many years they've been there, I believe at least 15. And so because it hasn't been maintained as a storm water management system, it does qualify as a jurisdictional wetland at this point in time. As I said, those areas appear on the state wetlands maps as well as our local maps. At least one of them does. Apologies, I've been looking at a lot of these wetland maps lately and I don't wanna get myself mixed up,
Speaker 7: But they, but it, it did say that they, they did install catch basins up there, new catch basins as part of the 27 work. Speaker 2: Yes. Yeah, there were, there were catch basins as well as new drain manholes and there was a new pipe. So let me just pull up the, the drainage plans are really dense and I, I, I only excerpt the pages that actually talked about the drainage construction. So if you go to page four of the plan set, that's where the actual stream corridor work is noted. Yeah. So this is the area that I can tell
where the most sort of new infrastructure was added. So I'm just gonna run my cursor over. So these two catch basins were new and added as part of the project. This new drain manhole was added and as was this drain manhole, which connected into existing drainage infrastructure in the roadway. You can see there's an existing catch basin in here, but this drain manhole was replaced. And then the drain manhole previ that was previously there connected into the, the primary
outfall pipe, that 36 inch pipe that was the original outfall pipe in this location. That connection was removed as part of the 27 project and this new pipe connection and head wall were constructed. Yeah, Speaker 7: But the, just to the north of it though, there were the two catch basins. When you climb that, when you climb the embankment that Speaker 2: Oh yes, right here. Speaker 7: Yeah. Tho those two right there, those two go back into the street, down the street and then come back in. Or do they, do they directly enter? Speaker 2: No. So those ones do they connect to this drain manhole.
Okay. And then go through this pipe system here. So you can see this piping was left in place, but there was also this, or I'm sorry, I think this piping was intended to be replaced by this 48 inch larger pipe structure. Hmm. Speaker 6: Could you go westerly on that map a little bit? Yes. Because there's clearly a wetland resource area as you know, this non stream, which Speaker 2: I guess is, so they, they identify it as bylaw only. Speaker 6: That that's re that's beyond ridiculous Speaker 2: On by Mike. I do not, I do not disagree with you. Certainly.
Speaker 10: Well, I, I sort of, I'm gonna come at this from a completely different direction please. All the things that we saw that day, the thing that upset me the most or or really gave me the hackles the most was a comment by one of the neighbors that this water, as it as it drains out, goes into lake. And she said, yeah, you know, 15 years ago that lake was really deep. Now it's really shallow because of all the stuff that's come through that stream and it's filling up the lake and that, that really threw me. And if that's, yeah,
Speaker 2: I think, I think Ed had mentioned that when he was before the commission as well, that that quite amount of, quite a large amount of sediment has built up at sort of that delta between the stream corridor and the lake. Speaker 10: And that's gonna keep happening. And I think that, Speaker 2: You know, that's being, and that's why I, my, my hope and Bill McDowell, the town engineer, or actually this will be later in announcements, but retired town engineer or soon to be retired town engineer. Oh no. He and I have been talking about how to essentially, not necessarily force DOT's hand,
but use the required drainage work for the 9 27 project as a way to leverage larger ecological restoration in this stream corridor. Because I think that even on the site walk with the DOT staff, it, it was clearly identified the, you know, the issues and the obstacles with the stream corridor that are contributing to these erosion and, and flooding issues that they're seeing out there. And if there are gonna be additional volumes directed in this area, from my personal opinion,
I don't see how that could be permitted under the Wetlands Protection Act without significant components of stream channel restoration in this area. Speaker 1: Agreed. So I think the, you know, one of the things that we need to do as part of the, not, you know, do we know for a fact that 9 27, the intersection, the bridge project is going to connect into this? I mean, I, I presume that it will. Speaker 2: So there there's not been any, I believe that that is the intended plan. I do not know if those drainage slash utility plans
have been finalized. Speaker 1: Okay. So I think as those get fine, so there's a few options here, but I think as those get finalized, that's, that's a great leverage point for us. But the first thing we need to do is we need to reclaim jurisdiction over this channel here. Yeah. And to make GD clear that this is our, you know, that we have jurisdiction over this. I don't remember the conversation. I wish I could go back to a Zoom recording I know about this. Just to know what that flow of the conversation, if we just got harangued and harassed and beaten down on it,
or if they had some compelling magic ace in the hole that we didn't know about, whatever. But I think we need to reclaim jurisdiction because then that'll open up a world of kind of potential. Because if they're proposing anything that's gonna increase volumes through that, if it's jurisdictional, then we've got all kinds of leverage points on that. So let's just keep that, keep that in mind. One question that I all, was it Speaker 6: Based on the exemption? Was it based on their exemption from, you know, during the construction that, you know, we just kind of acquiesced possibly? I I don't know. It
Speaker 1: It, it's possible, Mike, you know, it's possible. I don't know Speaker 7: What are the headwaters of it? Where where does this thing originate? Because what we saw, you know, it, it wasn't exactly raining that day and that water flow was consistent and was significant. So Speaker 2: It it, it does originate. And I, I do wanna correct my, my earlier statement, just the wetlands on the Wilson School property are shown on the DEP state maps that the cogs one is just shown on our local maps, but I, it's, we only need one. And so Jeff, that is the headwater. So the drainage map that I put together that shows,
and I'll just pull it back up again so that I can run my cursor along where that watershed boundary is. So you can see the full extent of what's draining to this area. So this is, I wanna say Gordon Road, it's a small cul-de-sac off of 27th. That's sort of the northern extent most of Behem is draining into the Weathersfield neighborhood, into Pickel Pond. So the watershed essentially comes right along that, the Behem property line, right. Sort of down along here where my cursor is. And then it jumps back along the backs of these properties.
And most of the vision drive complex drains along with the 9 27 complex and the Wilson Middle School all drained to this point. So it's primarily street drainage, Speaker 1: But it originates at a wells. I mean, I think it's absolutely jurisdictional and I'm a little flabbergasted that we got talked out of that at some point, or convinced or threatened with lawsuits or whatever. But it's let, let's in the next in as this project pro progresses, let's do that. The o you know, so reclaim that and then,
and then we can see what the landscape is in front of us in terms of, in terms of ecological restoration. I still like the idea of us that we talked about in the field. I like the idea of us commissioning or finding the resources or whatever a an engineer, you know, a, a wetland study, a re an engineering study of that. Whether that's part of, if if 9 27 plugs into this, then we can make that be part of their, you know, they gotta foot the bill for this, you know, because it's jurisdictional.
Speaker 2: I'm happy to put together a request for quotes for the commission to review at their next meeting if that would be something that, well, Speaker 1: Should we, should we wait until we see the 9 27 plans? You know? 'cause if 9 27 is gonna plug into this and there's, you know, and, and we're claiming jurisdiction, you can say, listen guys, as part of this, you gotta tell us what the impact is gonna be. Therefore you gotta do a a a a, you know, a a hydrological study on this. And then we can go Speaker 2: From there. I'll check in with the town engineer and have something on the 23rd just as an agenda item to update you guys.
Speaker 1: Okay. Does that make sense guys? How easy? Yeah. How easy would it Speaker 6: Be to put some monitoring devices along that stream in, in, in a couple, like really three different locations? Is would that be a Speaker 2: Difficult in terms of access at, at one of the easiest streams in town to access it? Yeah. Get into the corridor. I, I think it's gonna be a, a a, a funding issue of, of how much do the monitors cost, is the town paying for it? Thankfully this kind of thing is exactly what the Wetlands Protection Act funding is intended to do. It's for the implementation of the Wetlands Protection Act.
And I think this would certainly be under that definition because Speaker 6: I'd like to get an assessment of scouring that's occurring there. You know, there's, you know, clearly, you know, I, I wouldn't disagree. There's, there's soil being scoured and you know, just because of the, the nature of that stream, I'd love to see just some data points to confirm what neighbors have observed and what just anybody walking that stream course can can see that it's a flashy stream. And it's scouring. Speaker 5: Are you talking about, are you talking about like an A DCP or something that shows velocity
or something that is more like a level troll water level meter? Speaker 6: I'd like to see, I would like to see, you know, a flow, I'd like to see a flow meter. So we're, we're kind of aligning flow with kind of imp you know, our surrounding watershed input. Right. And then I'd, I'd like to, if there's any way to calculate, you know, some way to calculate the scouring activity, you know, to see how much that stream bed bed is, is being, is being eroded at each each, you know,
kind of flashy event. Speaker 2: I think certainly we might not be able to get really specific data without them being out there to monitor, which I think we could include in the scope as a potential add-on and see what the cost looks like. But I, I would bet that there are sort of like ortho imagery and topography reviews that could at least give estimates of impact obviously over a longer period of time. But I'll, I will look into it more. I will keep something on the next agenda for an update on this. That's great. And if it makes sense based on
where the 9 27 plans are at, maybe have a scope of services for the commission to review, to go out for quotes. Speaker 6: That's great. Is this a name? Brooke? Does this actually have a real name or anything? So Speaker 2: It's always been referred to in town as Running Brook because it's not mapped by USGS. Okay. I have no way of knowing if that's just a local name or if that is, you know, an actual recognized name for the stream corridor. Speaker 6: All right. I'll, I'll try to pull up some aerial and, and other historical photographs of the Brook if, if they're available and, and it might give us some indication it was a low gradient
stream at one point. At at one point, right. And Speaker 10: Now it's a class four Speaker 6: Rapids and now Yeah, now it's a whitewater rafting river. Right. So yeah, the one Speaker 2: Thing I can check, Speaker 10: So you didn't see it, but there was a picture that the fellow took when it was in full class four mode. It, it rips down that channel. Speaker 1: I mean it's, it's a ton, a lot of volume. Speaker 2: So Mike, what I will say is that it armored does show up on stream stats. Speaker 1: Okay, interesting. Speaker 5: Is it armored along the whole whole length? Speaker 1: No, it's only the first 30 yards or so just
Speaker 2: Until there's gambians up until the homeowner constructed wall sections. And then after that it's just a natural eroded stream bank Speaker 1: Which just, it kind of goes out into a delta and then gets, re gets recre channelled through some crazy little concrete structure that no one knows what the deal of that is under Gonko. And then it's, we didn't walk down after the bridge, after the Gonko bridge. We didn't walk down all the way to the water. I'd like to do that sometime and just kind of see what the condition is there. Yeah. And, and, and take a look at the, at the delta
that's being spread out into the lake there 'cause as part of an ecological restoration, restoration was storing that. I mean something else we talked about Claire and I mentioned this to you is, you know, as part of all this, we could also be thinking about some kind of project at Mary Bunker just to restore, renovate Mary Bunker and have this be all part of it. It could be a really cool project, you know. Speaker 5: Yeah. You could do a math metric survey with that pretty quickly. Speaker 1: Oh absolutely. Yeah. Speaker 5: I got a single beam I'll, I'll loan it to the project. Speaker 1: Excellent. Speaker 9: Hey there was work going Speaker 2: On.
Cheer led bathometric study. That's exactly, Speaker 5: We just bringing in educational component and then everyone's happy. Speaker 1: Jim, what do you got? Yeah, there Speaker 9: Was work going on at around the 2 31 there, you know Right, right where the outflow is there, the, you know, there's three different pipes going out. I don't know what they were doing but there was I this just a couple of days ago. I just, I I, 'cause I get directed around it and I was like, hmm, I wonder what's going on there. Wonder if Speaker 1: It was Oh yeah, no, I, I've, I've seen, you know, 'cause right at the corner there by the, by the, by the dry cleaning place and then the pizza place, they've got iron,
they got steel plates in the road. Yeah. Speaker 2: I think they've been doing the assessment of the existing drainage structures to figure out what needs to be Speaker 1: They go where, where they're gonna plug in their 72 inch pipe that's gonna exactly quadruple the flow through that system. Speaker 2: Because one, one interesting thing that I noted on the route 27 plans is they have throughout all the plan sheets a number of test pit locations to confirm locations of structures littered across the plan Speaker 1: Sheets. I bet you that's what it is. I was, I was, I was wondering that too. That's a good, good call.
Speaker 9: Yeah. Speaker 1: Alright guys, so I think we've got a plan of attack here. Good stuff. Good, good conversation around it. Definitely. So we will meet on Saturday morning for the site visit over at five Lakewood Five five Lakewood right? Yes. Yes. Five Glenwood. Speaker 2: No, five Glenwood. Sorry we had five Blakewood also Speaker 1: Five Blakewood all set. Yes. Five Glenwood at 8:30 AM on Saturday. We'll meet at Jim's house for waffles at seven and he's gonna cook us breakfast. Yeah. Anything else we need to talk about tonight? Speaker 2: Just a few quick sort of general updates. We did finally hear back about the community
biodiversity grants. Natick was not awarded funding, which as I said, I'm maybe a little bit glad about 'cause I only would only have three months to spend it. And that's a very short period of time. MVP, we submitted those grants, the town submitted for the South Natick Parks construction and we also submitted with the regional CRWA application on the dam parks project. That project will be filing their notice of intent for our next conservation commission meeting. So that permitting is coming down the line. The RO pond floating boardwalk
construction bid is going out. Patriot stay. Speaker 1: Excellent. Alright. If Speaker 2: Anybody, again, the Speaker 1: Intent is to knock that out. The intent is to knock it out this summer, right? Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly. That's awesome. Ideally to the, i I believe the big close date would be May 15th. So I think we, I ideally we'd be concerning construction beginning of June. Speaker 1: I wanna get some guys out there with waders and to go see if we can connect the island now to the, to the other, to the Harwood roadside, you know, to do a either a a, a Hele bridge, something like that. And then we can do a loop around the around Pickle Pond. Speaker 2: Another grant item,
the Accelerating Climate Resiliency grant is coming out again and the expression of interest for that closes on Monday. I am hoping to submit an expression of interest for the Atlantic White Cedar Study that I've been hoping to get funding for. Oh cool. It's like a really great program for that specific project. So I'll keep the commission updated on that as I hear back. And last but not least, I sort of prefaced prefaced this earlier, but Bill McDowell is gonna be retiring this summer as from town engineer and it is official as of Friday last week that John de Giacomo, longtime assistant town engineer is gonna be
our future town engineer. So if you see Bill or John around town, feel free to give him congratulations. Bill McDowell is now being referred to as the Dwier town engineer. Speaker 1: So Dwier Town Engine. I love that. That's good. Very cool. Speaker 2: And that's all I have for folks. Speaker 1: Alright guys, anything else? Happy to entertain. Entertain a motion to adjourn? No adjourn. All right. I'll take Jeff out and Jeff's got a second on that. All is in favor wave. Bye-bye. And we'll see you guys on Saturday morning at eight.