Speaker 1: Welcome everybody. This is the Native Conservation Commission. Today is, it's our first meeting in October. Today's October 2nd or second meeting, October. Actually, just to remind people, we'll be on Wednesday, October 15th and that will be a fully remote meeting. Yes. Because the select board has it in their mind that they're more important than us. Impossible. And so impossible. We'll suck it up and go remote that night. And then the, I think town meeting starts the following week. Speaker 2: Yeah, we thought town meeting was gonna be starting that week, which is why we had originally scheduled it then. But,
Speaker 1: So with all that, let's go ahead and open the public hearings. First item in the agenda I have is a request for determination of applicability for 17 Milford dve. Do we have any representatives of 17 Milford F here on the call or here in the room? Speaker 2: Yes. The owner Richard Miller, is online. Speaker 1: Excellent. All right. Mr. Miller, thanks for joining us. I'm, Speaker 3: I'm here. Thank you. Sorry. Speaker 1: Great welcome. Lemme formally open this. So in accordance with the Wetlands Protection Act and natick's local Wetlands bylaw article 79, the NATA Conservation Commission hold a public meeting on a request for determination of applicability filed by Richard Miller for property located at 17 Milford F Map
four lot 71. The proposal is for an asphalt berm along the private roadway that borders the property to the north and west. And I dunno, but the rest of you, I had to look up exactly where Milford F is. It, it's up off of Winter Street up on the river school. Yes, there. So, Mr. Miller, thanks for joining us. If you wouldn't mind just kind of talking us through what you are looking at and what you would like to do. Speaker 3: We would like to pave a little berm around the perimeter of the property. Basically, it's a non-conforming road, which is in very poor condition. So there's a lot of breakage between the edge
of the road and our property. And we just wanted to be able to keep our property as clean as possible. So we wanted to put a berm in so we could plant grass right up to the edge of the berm. Strictly aesthetics, we up paving the driveway and it became very cost effective to do a berm at the same time. Speaker 1: Great. I hear there is an issue with non-conforming roads in Natick sometimes being in not the best shape. Speaker 2: Occasionally it happens Speaker 1: Living on one myself, so that's great. And, and so this, this berm would be done by the same paving company who's gonna do your driveway? Speaker 3: Yes. Asphalt engineering would be
doing the berm also? Yes. Speaker 1: Got it. Just looking at the, the map, I mean, so this is on the opposite side of this street from Yes. Speaker 2: So the buffer zone, if folks recall just last year we had an RDA from this homeowner and applicant. That's the plot plan that's in the project folder for the breezeway. The buffer zone cuts sort of right through the middle of that proposed breezeway. So yes, the proper property's on the opposite side of Lakeside Avenue from none such pond, which is why the driveway paving work is outside of the jurisdictional buffer zone.
Speaker 1: Okay. And then Mr. Miller, you would then be putting, just, I guess adding some topsoil or whatever to your yard just so that you can then plant grass and do what you want. Do with the Yes. Speaker 3: Just gr off to the top of the bur. Speaker 1: Okay. The bur would just be a standard Cape Cod. Yeah. Speaker 2: There a photo in the folder is just an example of what, what is proposed to be installed. Speaker 1: Alright. Any questions from the commission on this? Concerns? Anything like that? This is a request for determination of applicability. So it's only make a motion to close if there's no questions. Speaker 2: A motion closed. Speaker 1: Thank you, Jim. Is that seconded? Second. Second. Take Michael. Second on that.
Any further discussion, questions, discussion points on this? Hearing none. All those in favor of closing? Any opposed? No Determination. This would be a negative three. Determination, jurisdictional but not, but non impactful. So someone make a motion to issue a negative three determination on this. Thank you, Jeff. Is that seconded? Seconded. Thank you David. Any further discussion? All in favor. Alright, Mr. Miller, you have what you need from us. You'll get a letter from the office on this. Thanks for coming in. Let us know if you, you have. Thank you very much. Speaker 3: Good night. Thank you very much. Speaker 1: Bye. Alright, next item on the agenda is 1 97 Elliot Street. We have represented as a 1 97
Elliot Street here on the call. Speaker 2: Yes, the project engineer. Yep. Peter LaVoy is on the call. Speaker 1: Great. Hey Peter. So we did formally open this last last meeting, but we have not discussed in substance what is being proposed here. So if you would just start at the beginning, walk us through the, the proposed plans and we'll, we'll go from there. Speaker 4: Okay. I can share. Speaker 2: Oh, Peter, I, I'll, I'll make you co-host. I was also getting 'em pulled up on my end, but makes my life a little easier. If you do the sharing, you should be all set to share note, Peter. Speaker 4: Okay. Can everyone see that? Speaker 1: Yep. Speaker 4: Okay. So good evening. My name is Peter LaVoy.
I work with DNL Design Group and we are located in Milford, mass. I'm here tonight representing New Generation Custom Homes. The parcel is located at 1 97 Elliot Street. As you can see, Elliot Street runs along the bottom of the page and you have a 1.24 acre size lot that we're, we're proposing to develop. Currently the lot has an open field in the middle, in this location here.
And then we have a wooded area in the back here. And then there is a wooded area that runs parallel to Elliot Street. We did have the wetlands flagged and they were flagged by Applied Ecological Science by Russ Walden. He flagged a wetland in the back corner right here in the north corner. And then he also flagged a wetland that runs parallel to Elliot Street. In this location here within the wetland that runs parallel to Elliot Street, there is kind
of a manmade channel that runs through and goes to a culvert that's on the abutting lot. The lot slopes basically is a high point in this location here. It slopes towards the back wetland, the back corner of the lot, and the rest of the lot slopes down towards Elliot Street and towards that culvert that's located on the abutting property. I did do soil testing, I did soil testing here at the tree line in the middle of the lot and then in the back of the lot.
And groundwater was roughly two feet down. It was, and as you walked in the the field, it was kind of squishy, so I just wanted to bring that up 'cause I know one of the questions was regarding the replication area. And no soil testing was performed within the, that replication area. So I just, that's the reason why I bring up the, the groundwater. So what we would like to do is we would like to access Elliot Street at the narrowest point of the wetland,
which is in this location here. Come up to a proposed house, which is located in the center of the lot in the field. The proposed roof runoff would be collected and discharged into an underground basin in the, in the back right corner of the house. And then as well as in the front left corner of the house, the proposed driveway. After I had submitted, I did revise the, the dis design. I wanted to do a bituminous berm on both sides
of the driveway, so none of that runoff would go directly into the wetlands. So I created a low point kind of in the s middle of the driveway in this location here. And I put a catch, a shallow catch basin, which with a four foot sump that would then discharge into a small little four bay area and then you would have infiltration on both sides of that four bay. And then also did a little spillway in this location here. So basically the driveway slopes from Elliot Street down to
that catch basin and it slopes down from the house down to the catch basin. And then in the low point, the driveway is sloped towards that catch basin. So the north side of the driveway is kind of a little bit higher than than the south side. So that runoff will be forced into that catch basin. For this driveway, we are proposing an open bottom culvert in this location here to preserve the manmade channel and the, the wetland in that area.
So after the, the, the retaining walls in the culvert is installed, we would restore the manmade, the, the channel as well as the wetlands. So I do show temporary disturbance on both sides of the retaining wall that basically totals 130 square feet. And then you can see the hatched area where the culvert is that basically is 300 square feet of wetlands that would be disturbed. So I took that total disturbance of the 300 and did a rep
and proposed a replication area. And this location here, which is 700 square feet, so that's, that's two to one replication. So it's, I'm just trying to think. So also on my erosion control plan, which is another sheet, but I do show it on this one, I show my stockpile area of the material that would be removed from the crossing and stored in this area here in front of the house. And then I also show a stockpile area in the back for any loom that would be moved
around and stored in the back. And then they can spread it out after. Also part of my erosion control, I do propose waddles and sill fence all the way around the proposed work area. I show a construction entrance, I can go to my erosion control plane. So I show a construction entrance in this location here at right off of Elliot. Also show the two stockpile areas. And then I show the s sot fence and the waddles that go around that, that development.
Also, I show the catch basin once it's installed, it would be protected with a silt sack and a waddles to go around that. I guess that's, that's it for now. And I could a, I could answer any questions that the commission may, may want to ask me. Speaker 2: Matt, do you mind if I jump in briefly? Sure. So Peter, just as I mentioned in my email, I, I didn't have time to get full notes on the revised materials pulled together in advance of this evening. But just a couple of things that I noted. There was a comment that was provided about a, a narrative regarding
how the project meets the stream crossing standards. There wasn't a response from you to that comment. Okay. And I didn't, so I just, I know with the bullets sometimes it's easy to miss things, so I just wanted to call that out specifically as something that i, I would be looking for in advance of the next meeting. Speaker 4: Okay. Speaker 2: And then just one other large thing to add, you don't call out the elevations for the infiltration chambers in terms of, you know, top of stone inverts, bottom of stone, just to confirm
that there's the appropriate separation of groundwater. Speaker 4: Okay. Yeah. So basically those underground chambers are basically sitting on existing grade and then I'm filling, filling above them. But I, I'll, I'll add those elevations to the details. Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 1: So question for you. So you described when you were the, the existing site conditions, you described the uplands as being squishy. What did you Yeah, I Speaker 4: Mean, it is just that when I went out, when I had gone out there, it, it, it had rain previously,
so it does take a while for the, for the runoff to, to go into the ground. So that's the only reason why. And then there was a question regarding the replication area, how, you know, hydraulic, hydraulic hydraulically it would work and if, you know, because of groundwater and, and, and runoff, so the runoff, you know, the, the watershed areas aren't changing. The groundwater will basically deal with the supplying the plants with, you know, with the,
with the water that it needed. That's all that's, I mean, that it had just rained after I did the soil testing. So, you know, I just, and then I did notice that, you know, models were, were down at, at, at two feet, that's all. Speaker 2: And that if you look at, Speaker 4: Oh sorry, Speaker 2: The soil, Speaker 4: The soils, if you look at the soils maps, it says it's an a soil. But when I did my soil testing, I, it didn't, it was not confirmed that it was an a soil. It was, it was more like a, a C or a D soil. Speaker 2: And if you look at the soil testing notes from Mike Boreux in the file there, I think likely
as Peter noted, it had rained. So there was weeping above the redox amorphic features level. So there was weeping at 16 inches and then the redox features at at 24. So that would likely also contribute to the, Speaker 1: And then there's, and then there's four foot deep catch basin or deep sum catch basins Speaker 4: On the, no, the, the catch basin is a shallow catch basin driveway and the, the driveway is raised. I, the, the whole driveway elevation wise is raised. So this project's gonna require material to be brought into the, into the lot not removed. I'm,
Speaker 1: I'm Speaker 4: Sure that that driveway, Speaker 1: Yeah. Okay. Okay. Other, other questions? I've got a hundred, but Speaker 5: Just a curiosity question. Was there any thought about using the existing driveway over there and branching off of that Speaker 2: So that would, the abutting property owner would have to agree to that, right? Technically wetland crossings are allowed for driveways if there is not upland access to the property under the same ownership. So they are under the, their rights regulatorily to propose this. Okay. With the appropriate stream crossing standards
and wetlands replication met under the performance standards. Speaker 5: Okay. So, but Speaker 2: Apparently several people have assessed this property, the abutting owners have not seemed Speaker 5: Interested in that. I'm willing for that. Okay. I understand. Speaker 1: Other, other question, I mean, I, I I want to go walk it, I want to check it out. I want to, I want to assess the squishiness myself. Speaker 2: We also do not have a DEP file number on this project. So we do have to continue regardless. Speaker 1: David, anything from your side? I Speaker 5: Was gonna say the same thing about just the visit. Speaker 1: Yeah, let's go take a look at it. Michael, Jeff, anything at your, Speaker 6: I mean there, it's to the north of this
subject al it's all muck soil. So I I and we know how defined the soil survey is. So I imagine the squishiness is that muck soil Speaker 2: And the soil profiles from rust showed a dark material depleted matrix format. So the, yeah. Speaker 1: Okay, so why don't we do this? What, let's go just in the interest of efficiency and all that, let's, let's take a look at this. You know, I, I think we've got, we have a good intro of what the intentions are. Let's go walk Speaker 6: It. Could I get a stake of where the beginning of this
wetland fill is gonna start and where it's going to terminate? Please. Speaker 1: Yeah. So could we get that from you before we go out there and walk? Could you stake out the, you know, roughly the four corners of the house just so we can, or you know, on, on the center of mass of the house, stake out Speaker 2: The wetland disturbance area? Speaker 1: Yeah, the wetland crossing. Speaker 6: Yeah, the, the length and the width please. Yep. Speaker 4: Okay. Speaker 1: And then other kind of key features, you know, so wetland disturbance, wetland replication area,
you know, roughly, it doesn't have to be super precise, but just so we can kind of see and Speaker 2: Make sure you're looking at the right spot. Yeah. Speaker 1: Make sure we're looking at the right spot. Okay. If you could do that, then we'll go take a look at it, walk it, and then we can reconvene at our next meeting when you'll have a DEP file number anyway and we can continue the conversation from there. Does that make sense? Speaker 4: That makes sense. When do you think you would walk it? 'cause I, I could get the survey crew out there, so I just need to know Speaker 1: Tomorrow at 6:00 AM No, I Speaker 2: Was gonna recommend if folks are available Saturday the 11th, just,
I don't know if the survey team would be able to get out, but I know it's a holiday weekend, so I don't know if Speaker 1: Everyone's Yeah, Saturday 11th might be, might be, might be tough. Might be tough. Any, any chance the survey guys could, could stake that out tomorrow? Speaker 4: I could check. Yeah, and I'll let, I'll let Clay know when it's done. I, I, I can get them out there. They have to go to Natick anyways so I can get them to go out there. Speaker 1: Okay. I mean, why don't we do that? I mean, would people be available this Saturday morning? Speaker 7: I don't think so. Speaker 2: Sunday Speaker 7: Morning. Sunday morning? Oh no. Would be available. Speaker 1: What about what our next meeting is? The 15th of the Wednesday after that? Yep.
The, the only catch is just that it's getting dark. You know, we need, we need to do a morning thing. It's getting dark early now. Speaker 7: I mean like I could, I could do like Friday the 10th at five, you know 5:00 PM five's getting darked though still. It should still be light by then. Speaker 1: Friday the 10th at five I could do Speaker 7: Or Yeah, 'cause the other night traffic Speaker 1: On Elliot should be really nice. It should be charming, right? That's not, you be walking from Leonard Moore. Okay. How about Fri? Yeah, let, let's shoot for Friday at the 10th at five. Okay. Speaker 7: 10th at Speaker 1: Five. Jim,
you'll be off the golf course at that point. You got it Friday the 10th at five. Okay. So if you could get it staked out. No, no fire drill for tomorrow. Okay. But if you can get that staked out by Friday of next week. Yep. Speaker 4: No, I'll let clan know too. So if you guys change your mind, just let me know. Speaker 1: Appreciate that. So let's just, let's start with that. Yep. Let's go, let's go walk it. We'll reconvene on the 15th and pick Okay. And pick up the conversation from there. Speaker 2: And Peter, I'll get you revised notes if not tomorrow, first thing Monday on those revised materials. So you guys have plenty of time to have those in your
hand before the 15th. Speaker 4: Okay, that sounds good. Thank you Claire. Speaker 1: Excellent. Thank you Peter, appreciate your efforts on this. So I'll make a motion to continue this to our next meeting on October 15th. Move. Thank you David. Is that seconded? Seconded. Thank you Jim. Any further discussion on that? Those in the room? We don't have Chris on here. Okay. So we're continued to the 15th. Peter, thanks and we'll okay, thank you. We'll see you soon. Speaker 4: Okay, thanks. Speaker 1: Alright, let's keep going. 17 mil for one. Nine seven Elliot. Alright, next item in the agenda is 26 Ferndale. Anyone online? Yes, Speaker 2: We have Kevin Coty, project engineer online. Speaker 1: Excellent. Lemme go ahead and just formally open this up.
Hang on a second. From Dale. Alright, so in accordance with the Wetlands Protection Act, Natick local wetlands BI article 79, the NA Conservation Commission hold a public hearing on a notice of intent file by Debbie Anderson representing Linda Zoni for property located at 26 Ferndale Road Map seven lot 24. The proposal is to demolish an existing garage deck in paver patio in construction of a new garage and, and addition to the existing single family home with associated site features. So we've got Speaker 2: Kevin, did you wanna share your screen? Speaker 8: Happily? Yeah, Speaker 2: I will go ahead
and make you co-host now. You should be all set. Speaker 1: Thanks Kevin, why don't you just walk us through at a high level the project and we'll we will go from there. Speaker 8: Yeah, of course. So the project is for Linda Zoni. She's a homeowner that is looking to do an addition. So it's a demolition of a portion of the house, the deck, and then patio with the rear of the property. Lemme know if you're, it looks a little blurry on my screen. Yeah, I was Speaker 2: Gonna say if you could zoom in a little bit Kevin, that would be great on the project. Yep. Area. Speaker 8: So, so basically the wetlands were delineated by Debbie Anderson. They're about 34 feet from the top of the hill here.
It's about a 20 foot drop. So we don't show contours just for the surveyor safety, but you know, we did get some spot graves at the fence here. So we proposed the erosion controls to be on the top of the fence. They do extend past the past the fence a little bit because the existing wall does extend past that. You know, the entire property is outside of the 40 foot no build zone. They're the, the park, the house, I'm sorry, the a hundred foot buffer does encompass, you know, the whole house is encompassing there. And essentially, you know this, we showed on this plan the limits of the addition.
We typically don't model decks as impervious area, but there was a concrete below it. So that's why we did that. But essentially they are gonna be removing their pavers and then not, not putting in new pavers. So it actually, if you go to the proposed plan, it does actually demonstrate a reduction of 145 square feet of impervious area. So per the guidelines we did provide 1.2 inches of storage using, using two coal tech three 30 chambers, which does actually manage the a hundred year storm event from the, from the roof. You know, the, the limits of the roof are here. So we did widen the driveway,
which is partially within the buffer, but it is a pretty significant reduction of runoff compared to the existing condition about like 40% per storm event for, for the a hundred year storm. So, you know, we did do some soil testing with Mr. Re, you know, it was a great sand, it started to cave in a little bit so we didn't go 10 feet. But yeah, so I'm happy to answer any questions. You know, like I said, they, the owner elected not to install under pave any pavers in the back there. There is a, a deck or a little landing and some, some stairs down to the backyard.
But the, the retaining wall also was shortened to be, you know, entirely within that 40 foot no build zone as well. So, you know, with proper erosion controls maintained, I don't really expect any impacts to the wetlands. And yeah, I'm happy to answer any questions. Great. Speaker 1: Thanks Kevin. Appreciate it. Speaker 2: The applicant clarified that there's only pruning proposed in terms of tree work on the lot. There's no removal required, which it does conform with what the aerial image shows and that the paver area to be removed will be receded with grass. Speaker 1: Okay. Any, any proposed fill?
Speaker 8: No, we're not doing any significant regrading, you know, they're just basically kind of, yeah, like, like Claire said, planting over the grass, you know, we basically mimicked existing conditions, you know, at where the, the limits the addition extend, you know, so it's no major rework here, just, just in addition and then you know, adding a garage. Okay. Speaker 2: Yeah. The retaining wall maintains almost a split level in the backyard. Yeah, the side with the drainage system is about four
to five feet higher than the lower level where the stairs will lead to. Speaker 1: And the, and the fence is staying as well, which is just another kind of, you know, demarcation that's gonna top the hill. Bottom a hill. Speaker 8: Yeah. So that, that erosion control barrier of the wattles will stay on top of the fence, you know, for the majority of the project we just showed it around the, the wall while that's being removed. Okay, Speaker 1: So, so less impervious we're getting on site, no grading fences, staying put. Yep. You know. And what was Speaker 2: The change of the driveway? It's being wide, slightly wider? Wider? Yeah it's
Speaker 9: Being wide Speaker 2: But it's about, it's about a four feet width increase. The, the current driveway is 18, I'm sorry, a two foot, it's about a 18 foot driveway right now. They're increasing it to 20 feet wide. Speaker 8: Yep. And the retaining wall at the front's remaining as well. Okay. And all in all the soil stockpile would be in the front yard? Speaker 9: Yes, Speaker 2: They do have that demarcated on the plan. Yep. Speaker 1: Questions? Speaker 9: Is this in the aquifer protection district? Speaker 1: It's, yes. Is it? Okay. Speaker 8: So that's why we had noted 1.2 inches of storage. Sorry if not mentioning that. Speaker 1: Questions, comments, concerns Speaker 8: In one note we did, we did end up getting a DEP file number for this. They just hadn't processed the check. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 2: Yes. So
Speaker 1: What was the answer? To clear your third question about the Speaker 9: Pavers, Speaker 2: It's gonna be replanted with grass in that area. Okay. And yes, the 2 3 3 dash 9 2 7 is the DEP file number. Speaker 1: Yeah, I've got no questions about this if there are no questions, this is an NOI. So we'd move to close and then issue an order of conditions if that's the desire of the the gang Speaker 2: Move to close. Speaker 1: Okay. Motion me by Jim to close. Second. Second by Jeff. Discussion, more questions? Speaker 6: Any anybody in the public? Speaker 1: Any comments, questions from abutters neighbors? Public hearing? None.
Got a motion on the floor to close. It's been seconded. There's no further discussion on that. All those in favor of closing order of conditions? Pretty standard. Yeah I Speaker 2: Think pretty standard. I would recommend either a garage placard or some markers on the rear fence. I think given the extent of the project and the hill down to the wetlands, we may not need both, but both is our standard if we wanna stick with Speaker 1: That. No, let's do both. And I, you know, also just 'cause it's, it's you know, there is the potential for people to chuck stuff over the fence down the hill. That
Speaker 2: Is very true. So something board, do we wanna just vote that the fence should be demarcated? Not any specific of the buffer lines? Speaker 1: Yeah, no, just the fence. Just the fence. And then let's do the garage placard as we normally do. Great. Speaker 2: And then I'll add in the condition about the storm water system inspections. Speaker 1: Yep. Great. Anything further to add? Alright, I'm hearing that someone make a motion to issue that order of conditions as discussed. Speaker 2: So Speaker 1: Thank you Jeff. Is that seconded? Seconded. Thank you David. Any further discussion on this? Those in favor? Alright, you're good to go. You'll get the documentation from us. Let us know if anything changes
please. But otherwise thank you. Speaker 8: Thank you very much and have a great night. The red, so Speaker 1: Yeah, go red. So excellent. Oh there Speaker 2: You go Kevin. Before Speaker 1: We, that's the goal, you know we are gonna be outta here by eight. No I'm kidding. Speaker 8: Got pushed back so I'm happy. Speaker 1: Alright, let's have a good night. Yeah, you too. Take care. All 26 Ferndale. Alright next, next item on the agenda is we're gonna discuss, we close. This is 2 16, 2 18 South Main Street. Anthony, welcome back. Thank Yeah, come on up. We closed the public hearing last week and then we are working on an order of conditions Speaker 2: And we will just need two separate motions
to issue the two separate decisions when we get Speaker 1: To that point. Yeah because we've got this under wetlands and under under storm law. I just wanna, you know, Anthony, again thank you for all your engagement in this. Thank you. You know, you and your team have been very professional in this whole process. Thank you. And you've responded to appreciate all kinds of questions and challenges and revisions and things like that, so appreciate that. Thank you. Appreciate you guys too. So we've got a, so we've got a draft order conditions that CLA has circulated for this. The wetlands one is fairly straightforward. Speaker 2: Yes. Do we wanna go through that one first? Speaker 1: Let's go through that one first and then the stormwater one is fairly significant as you know Anthony. And
Speaker 2: We do have John Rockwood who's the wetland scientist on the project online if there's any specific Speaker 1: Questions. Alright, so Claire, why don't you walk us through, through the wetlands order of conditions. Oh Speaker 2: Of course. So we are starting off with our standard administrative information Anthony, I do know that the project is gonna be under different ownership shortly. Potentially if there are any changes in ownership, please just make sure that that revised contact information is provided. That is one of the conditions. So existing conditions is two existing single family
dwellings with associated features on largely undeveloped parcels containing mature canopy trees. The approved project summary in which does in this summary include the work outside the buffer zone just for consistency, demolition of existing structures, construction of the stabilized construction entrance, pre-construction clearing and erosion control installation phase one, clearing blasting grading and temporary erosion control installation phase two, clearing blasting grading and temporary erosion control installation, construction of roadway and utilities construction of 26 units,
mixed townhouses and single family construction of stormwater management infrastructure and associated outlets and overflows final grading and landscaping and just clarifying specifically the work within the buffer zone and includes a portion of one residential unit with associated driveway retaining walls, stormwater chamber and outlet with appropriate head wall stabilization and level spreader portions of a detention basin and associated overflow with appropriate stabilization and a naturally surfaced pedestrian trail. I'm not gonna read through every single one
of the approved plans and documents, but it covers the most up-to-date materials provided by Anthony's team along with some of the preliminary site work like the ledge probing and the tree inventory as well as the order of resource area delineation that was issued for the property. I did also include in the approved documents just the final memo from Dominic at BSC group noting that the project met all of the technical requirements under the bylaw findings of fact. Again, these findings of facts are relating purely
to the work that is occurring within the buffer zone. So the proposed project permitted under this order of conditions 2 3 3 dash 9 21 consists of portions of a larger open space residential cluster development. As noted above, the site is located within areas subject to jurisdiction under the Natick Wetlands Protection Bylaw and State Wetlands Protection Act including 100 foot buffer zone, 25 foot no disturb zone and 40 foot no build zone project proposes only work within the a hundred foot buffer zone and maintains work outside of the 25 foot no disturb zone.
A robust erosion control and temporary storm water management plan has been developed to protect the resource area from the substantial level of disturbance. The site will be subject to stormwater outlets proposed include erosion control stabilization for the finished site and native plantings will be installed within the buffer zone areas disturbed for construction there will be a portion of impervious area added to the buffer zone but the existing single family home and gravel driveway will be removed from within the outer buffer zone. Overall the project minimizes and mitigates potential impacts to the resource area associated
with work in the buffer zone. This project also falls under the jurisdiction of the town's storm water management and erosion control bylaw Article 79 A and provides mitigation for land disturbing work and tree removal outside the a hundred foot buffer zone. I For the sake of time I'm going to focus on the conditions that are outside of our standard template conditions. Condition four is the first of those with just notes a reiteration of other conditions in the permit but that the project must fully comply with the conditions of the major stormwater permit associated with the project number 1 55. Scrolling down to condition 10 noting that prior
to the commencement of any activity on site a concrete washout plan designed to limit and control any adverse impacts on the wetland resource areas must be presented. Anthony, I think that's mostly just if there's any concrete work associated with the retaining walls in the buffer zone, making sure that that plan is provided. I I was pretty sure you guys are using ready rock so there won't be much but just in case condition 11 project shall submit a finalized storm water pollution and prevention plan once a contractor has been selected, no work may proceed until the final SW has been received. Condition 12. Prior to the start
of any work on site the applicant must mark all trees proposed to removal and a sidewalk must be scheduled between the owner of record representative of the firm to perform the tree removal and the conservation staff to review marked trees prior to removal to confirm final counts of remove trees and phasing of tree removal. Continuing to scroll down to condition 22. Folks might note that there is a lot of this being copied from the stormwater permit conditions as well that is intentional. So condition 22 is just noting that the applicant does need to comply with the state fire code requirements in regard
to blasting and any additional requirements set by the planning board decision or the Natick fire Department under building permit review. Condition 23 is in regard to stormwater system inspection frequency. It notes that inspections shall occur of the site's erosion controls and temporary stormwater management measures as detailed in the final approved SW and or every seven days for areas without temporary or permanent stabilization or after any storm event greater than 0.5 inches over 24 hours in areas that have been reviewed and received, written confirmation of either permanent
or temporary stabilization from the conservation agent inspections may be reduced to every 14 days or after any storm event greater than five inches over 24, sorry half an inch over 24 hours, five inches over 24 hours would be quite the storm condition. 24 inspection shall be completed by the personnel providing the reports and completed by a qualified professional approved by the conservation agent. I think Goddard Consulting is gonna be doing those inspections yes and and have all the appropriate qualifications. Condition 25 The applicant shall inform the conservation
agent and or town engineer immediately or is required under the final approved SW of any corrective actions required due to deficiencies or failures identified during inspection condition 26. Should any corrective actions be required on site upon completion of the corrective actions a report detailing the deficiency slash failure resulting in the corrective actions, the corrective actions performed and any follow-up actions necessary shall be provided within 24 hours of the corrective action being completed. And lastly, condition 27 During any storm event greater than
three inches over 24 hours inspections by the approved site personnel shall occur every six hours during active precipitation to ensure that all temporary site management features and stabilization remain in functioning condition. Continuing to scroll down to condition 34 oh Jim, I did revise the language of this condition in the stormwater permit but failed to update it here. Okay, I'm just gonna copy and paste very quickly so that way we can all be reading the same language.
Anthony, I had a few very minor comments from some ComCom members so they're a couple of updates to the language of the stormwater permit but nothing substantial. So rereading or reformatting condition 34. There we go. During the process of final grading, hardscaping and final stabilization, ground cover and landscaping installation including fin Oh there's a, I think my track changes did not copy over so I'm gonna read from this one. During the processes of final grading, hardscaping and landscaping installation including finalist
stabilization, ground cover plants, low ground pressure equipment shall be used within areas proposed to be pervious upon development completion to reduce soil compaction. This includes but is not limited to landscaped areas and slopes greater than two to one. If low ground pressure equipment is not sufficient to complete the necessary work, soil compaction protection may be required and methods of compaction protection shall be reviewed and approved by the conservation agent prior to work proceeding. And I'm just gonna highlight that one in a different color so that I remember to update it to match that language.
Condition 35. All mitigation trees to be installed on site shall be installed per the approved landscape plan. Any revisions to propose species or significant changes in planting locations shall be reviewed and approved by the conservation agent prior to installation condition 36. Prior to any trail construction work on site, the applicant or owner of record shall flag the trail location and schedule a site walk with the conservation agent, town engineer and if available a planning board representative to review the alignment. The conservation agent may require additional erosion controls prior to trail construction
to ensure no adverse impacts to the wetland resource area due to soil erosion condition 37 trail construction shall be part of the final phase of construction. The trail shall be constructed to sustainable trail standards for long-term erosion and runoff management. And Anthony, whoever is building the trail out at the end of the project, I'm happy to do a detailed review of what that really means. It mostly just means grading the trail properly so you're not gonna see sheets of water coming off of it Right. Condition 38, this is one of our standard conditions. I did just highlight it to bring attention to it
but if any trees not approved for removal within the wetland or buffer zone associated with the project area die within two years of the start of construction or have been demonstrably harmed by construction activities, they shall be replaced at a ratio of two to one with native canopy saplings. I imagine with the robust erosion controls on this property, that is probably unlikely. Moving into conditions after construction condition 41 all installed mitigation trees a total of 190 on site must survive in accordance with conditions K four and K five of the planning board permit 24 18.
Just to detail that for the commission, there is a two year survival requirement on the plantings that is upheld by a landscaping bond that is being held by the planning board under their permit decision. I noted that the applicant should mark the 40 foot no build buffer with our markers or or a marker of their choosing just based on where the trail is located and where the 25 foot it seemed like if we did the 25 foot there'd be markers sitting in the middle of the trail in a number of spots.
If the commission feels differently about the marker location we can absolutely amend that prior to the issuance. So a certificate of compliance the applicant shall include language identifying the wetland resource areas and associated buffers onsite in the homeowner's association. Covenant or declaration documents language shall not shall note restrictions to future disturbance within resource areas and associated buffers on the lot, any perpetual conditions that apply to the property and contact information for the Natick conservation office. And those are all of the
non-standard conditions currently required. I did, it should have shown up as a strike through. I did remove the garage placard requirement in favor of the homeowner's declaration considering there's gonna be 26 garages on site and that seems like it might be a bit overkill. Speaker 1: Okay, questions? Is that complete? I mean we've all had had opportunities to stare at this and review it. Any, any additional changes to this? Why don't we go through the stormwater one and then we can vote on the two orders of conditions after. Okay Speaker 2: Great. And I just wanna confirm, John, any comments from you on the proposed condition?
I just saw you unmuted. I wanted to make sure we didn't miss anything. No, Speaker 10: Seems to be fine. I don't know if Mark had any comments on this one. Speaker 11: I discussed this with Anthony. Overall I think the conditions are straightforward and reasonable so I think we're good. Speaker 2: Moving on to our storm water permit and I apologize for everyone in the room. This is gonna take a moment for me to read through. We are starting off with again the standard administrative information. The date of issuance will be updated upon the vote of this commission. The same approved documents are referenced in this permit as are referenced in the order
of conditions for consistency. Findings of fact this formatting and language is taken straight from Appendix A of the stormwater management bylaw and each point responds to one of the requirements or design principles that are outlined in the bylaw. So just reading through the project does propose a robust erosion management plan including a detailed phasing plan to minimize areas of exposed soil without stabilization and inspection of erosion controls Before work starts
to confirm, installation is in line with best practices Is required. The level of soil disturbance on the lot means that the perimeter erosion controls will not be biodegradable. However, interior erosion controls will consist of stump grinding berms. Inspections of erosion controls are required under the project's SW and this decision's conditions on a regular basis, erosion controls will be removed once approved O has been granted. Levels of stabilization required for erosion control removal are detailed in the project materials. In this project's decision erosion control placement will divert uncontaminated water from the work area.
An extended construction entrance is proposed to ensure vehicle transit of sediment through tracking is minimized. Soil stockpile locations are identified on the approved plans and require erosion controls. All federal, state and local laws and regulations shall be fully complied with and the project will require an nip D'S permit. Interim and permanent stabilization measures are detailed in the phased erosion control plan and shall be instituted on a disturbed area as soon as practicable. Management of pollution generating activities will be detailed in the storm water pollution prevention plan, which will require review and approval prior to work starting
as it is currently designed post-construction site conditions shall not result in any increased erosion or deposition of sediment. Section B. Stormwater management as designed the project shall result in a decrease of onsite runoff as designed the project complies with the performance standards of the most recent version of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook and the local bylaw article 79 a differences from the handbook. The project proposes no untreated discharges. The project does attenuate the 24 hour extended detention. The project does attenuate the post peak development discharge rate. The project does attenuate the peak discharge rate from the
a hundred year 24 hour frequency storm event to pre-development rates. The project does prioritize recharging, recharging of groundwater where appropriate. There are extensive areas of ledge on the site that limit potential for recharge for all proposed storm water management features. There is no flood plain on the subject lot project does comply with water quality volume sizing requirements. Project has provided documentation on the hydrologic and hydraulic evaluation of the site as required by the bylaw. And finally, section CO impact design The project, the proposed project will disturb disturb
a very large currently undeveloped area. The applicant has worked to develop a limit of work erosion control plan to minimize any areas of disturbance outside of the limit of work. Activities have been sequenced to minimize simultaneous, simultaneous areas of disturbance. The site's natural features have been identified on the plans and wetland areas have been fully preserved with no work in the 25 foot. No disturbed zone. A large number of the site's natural features will be disturbed through construction but conditions have been placed on proposed work and mitigation has been identified.
A building envelope or limit of work has been identified. The project has been developed under the town's open space residential development which clusters the impervious area footprint and prioritizes retaining and preserving open space. The project proposes a total of roughly 33% impervious area for the development area approved under PB 24 18. Impervious surface was minimized slightly through the use of pervious pavers and shared driveways. The remainder of the lot outside the limit of work will consist of preserved open space to be protected under a conservation restriction which will
prohibit future development of the remaining lot area. Applicant did work to match existing drainage patterns for the proposed development by splitting the drainage watershed approximately where the crest of the existing hill is located. The level of disturbance proposed does result in substantial clearing and regrading due to the nature of the lot. Applicant proposes to remove 503 jurisdictional trees over six caliper inches. Native species 190 saplings are proposed to be replanted on the site and the applicant has offered mitigation funding for the remaining 313 trees. Mitigation funding is also required
for 25 trees under PB 24 18. Sub watersheds have been used for both temporary and final storm water management on site. All plants proposed on the site are native conditions regarding fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides will be detailed in order of conditions. 2 3 3 dash 9 21 Associated with the project, irrigation has not been shown on proposed plans and would require additional approval if proposed outside the roadway drainage infrastructure. All proposed stormwater management features are low impact development or nature based. These include vegetated detention basins, perforated french drains and underground stormwater infiltration systems.
Moving into our conditions, I am again going to scroll through the standard conditions, just calling out one which is that this permit is valid for three years but can be extended. Just I it's a big project, don't know how long it's gonna take to construct And as we scroll down I will just read out 'cause we don't issue a ton of major stormwater permits. There is a stormwater certificate of compliance that's required. I imagine that it will come hand in hand with the wetlands COC request and includes pretty much all the same materials required for
that request, an as-built plan and a letter of certification noting any changes to the approved plans. And Jim, I did correct that condition reference condition 20. It had previously referenced condition 21, which is after it meaning to reference condition 19 above it. Moving into these special conditions, if folks have a question, please feel free to interrupt me so we can talk about it while I'm on it. I think it'll just make things a little smoother than trying to backtrack. So prior to construction, any changes to the site development including but not limited to, changes in square footage of impervious area, reduction in constructed units,
roadway layouts and landscaping proposed must be submitted in writing to the conservation office. Prior to any field changes, projects shall issue, shall submit the issued national pollution discharge elimination system or nip these permit within 30 days of receipt by the applicant and or owner of record. No work may proceed until the issued NIP DS permit has been received by the conservation office. Business days and hours provided in the finalized storm. Water pollution prevention plan shall conform with the requirements of conditions a six of PB 24 18.
It sets the construction hours for both weekdays and weekends. The project shall submit a finalized stormwater pollution and prevention plan or swip once a contractor has been selected. No work may proceed until the final SW has been received by the conservation office. Prior to the start of any work on site, the applicant shall post all required surety and or performance bonds as required by PB 24 18. And this decision prior to the start of work, the applicant must mark all trees on site proposed for removal. Anthony, here's one slight change from the language that you saw last at the recommendation of Mike
Mark Tres proposed removal and the access paths proposed for the tree clearing equipment just so those can be identified and a site walk must be scheduled between the owner of record, representative of the firm to perform the tree removal and the conservation staff to review marked trees prior to removal to confirm final counts and phasing of tree removal condition 27. Upon the completion of the tree removal review required under condition 26 of this decision, the applicant may proceed with a pre-construction phase of the approved phased erosion control plan condition 28 To the extent possible tree clearing shall be
conducted during dry weather periods or frozen soil conditions to minimize potential erosion. And given the time of year this permit is being issued, it seems like that might light up pretty well. That was a new one. Yes. Sorry, I meant to call that out as well. Condition 29 Prior to the start of phase one and and that's worded to the extent possible. Obviously based on the timing of your guys' project that may not be practicable, but if possible, condition 29 prior to the start of phase one of the approved phased erosion control plan,
the pre-construction inspection as required by condition 18 A of this decision. Oh, Speaker 6: I shut you down Speaker 2: Apparently I don't actually know what's going on. Oh wait, it just went away. That was, I've never had a red screen of death before. There we go. As required by condition 18 A of this decision shall occur with all necessary parties including but not limited to the conservation agent, town engineer, selected site contractor, owner of record, and SW preparer slash inspector conditions during construction.
An adequate stockpile of erosion control material shall be onsite at all times for emergency or routine replacement and shall include materials to repair silt fences or any other devices planned for use during construction. If dewatering is required, which I imagine it will not be given the amount of ledge on this site, water shall be pumped into a filter bag or settling basin constructed of straw bales or silt fence, which will be located in suitable areas. Outside wetland resource areas, the basin and all accumulated sediment will be removed following dewatering operations and the area seated and mulched condition 32.
The areas of construction access shall remain in stable condition at the close of each construction day. Same condition from the wetlands permit regarding compliance with the Massachusetts Comprehensive Fire Code and any conditions regarding blasting set by the Community Economic Development Department or the Natick Fire Department condition 34. Contact information for the selected blasting company shall be provided to the conservation office prior to any blasting work being initiated. Condition 35 Any stockpiling materials associated with the project shall be located as shown on the approved plans and properly protected with erosion controls.
Should any stockpiling remain in place for longer than 30 days, piles shall be covered with jute netting to ensure erosion from stockpiles is minimized. Condition 36, 37, 38, 39 and 40 are the same stormwater inspection conditions that I read under the wetlands permit just to save myself five minutes. I won't read them again. Condition 41. Upon completion of phase one as detailed in the approved phase erosion control plan, including preliminary grading and stabilization, the applicant and or owner of record shall schedule a site visit
with the conservation agent and the SW inspector to review disturbed areas, all disturbed areas in phase one not to be used for. Again, I'm so sorry folks. Speaker 9: Could be worse. Oh shit, my red sucks. It doesn't happen all that often. It's that it hacked. Could be worse. Speaker 2: Okay, let me just do some quick security settings. I see somebody's been in the chat as well. I apologize for everyone online who has to see that. Let's try to get my share back going. I have re instituted the waiting room,
so hopefully we don't have to deal with that again. It's been a minute since we've had one of Speaker 9: Those, but it, it has been a minute Speaker 2: So Can't even recall where I was at this point. There we go. All disturbed areas in phase one not to be used for access or stockpiling shall be stabilized with temporary ground cover. As detailed in the phased erosion control plan or equivalent approved stabilization method, the applicant and or owner of record shall receive written approval from the conservation agent noting state site stabilization measures prior to instituting phase two of the approved phased erosion control plan.
Upon completion of the stump grinding berms and temporary basins identified in phase 2.1 of the approved erosion control plan, applicant shall schedule a site inspection with the conservation agent to review. No blasting may proceed in areas noted as part of the phase 2.1 until this review is completed and approval has been issued by the conservation agent in writing. This condition is then repeated for the phase 2.2 stump grinding berms and temporary basins condition 45. Upon completion of the roadway and associated drainage infrastructure within the right of way, silt, sax or other approval approved alternative
sediment and control sediment control measures shall be installed in all drainage structures. Condition 46. This is the final stabilization low ground pressure equipment condition that I read under the prior decision with the correct language. Jim, is it a little clearer now in terms of the wording? Oh, definitely. Thank you. Conditions 47 and 48 are the same trail construction conditions that are listed in the wetlands decision as well. Post-construction conditions include upon completion of work requiring large or heavy machinery, all disturbed areas proposed
to remain pervious must be brought to final stabilized conditions including ground cover and escaping condition. 50. Stormwater management features designed to manage runoff from the site under final stabilized conditions. The underground infiltration system and detention basin will not be connected into the roadway drainage system until all pervious areas have achieved stabilization as approved by the conservation agent. This may be temporary or permanent stabilization. Should connections be approved under temporary stabilization conditions. Additional sediment control measures may be required to be reinstalled for the period
of transition from temporary to final stabilized conditions. Condition 51, no certificates of occupancy shall be approved by the conservation shall be approved by conservation unless a stormwater certificate of compliance has been issued or the request receives the approval of the conservation agent prior to the first lot release slash certificate of occupancy, A homeowners association covenant or declaration must be submitted for review and approval, noting that any future changes to impervious area or tree removal in the proposed open space residential development, lots must be reviewed
and approved by the conservation office to prohibit impervious area increases or vegetation removal that would negatively impact the development drainage system upon final approval, this document must be recorded at the registry of deeds and the proof of recording shall be included in the final stormwater certificate of compliance package condition 53. All mitigation trees to be installed on site shall per the approved landscape plan. Any revisions to the proposed species or significant changes in planting locations shall be reviewed prior to installation. The next two conditions are the same as the tree outside
of the limit of work and the tree survival requirement from the prior wetlands permit. Condition 56 just tallies the mitigation dollar value total based on the letter provided by Anthony. It also simply assigns that same value to the required mitigation permit payment under PB 24 18. Condition 58. This is the longest and maybe most complicated condition of the the proof permit. The first line is the $10,000 minimum surety bond required
for projects disturbing up to one acre of area which this project is section two. An additional $10,000 shall be required for each additional acre of disturbance as the site total 7.27 acres and additional sum of, I had written $60,270. Jim noted that this should maybe be instead $62,700. That is math. It is indeed. And it's really a matter of decimals in terms of how the commission would like to apply the,
because it's $10,000 per acre, I wasn't quite sure how to break it up for the 0.27 acres. I had done it as $270 on top of the $60,000 for the six acres above the first acre. Jim had noted that it should maybe be 62 700, it Speaker 1: Would be 27, it'd be 27. Speaker 2: So that was a math error on my part. Anthony, do you have any issues with that? Speaker 12: No, that makes sense. Okay, four five, which is 72 7 total. Speaker 6: Could we just clarify that, that site disturbance acres or is it the whole site? The Speaker 12: Whole site. Right. Speaker 2: That is actually a very good point. Whole site.
The whole site. Let me pull up the site plans to, I believe that you guys have it outlined. No disturb Speaker 6: Is listed. I just can't remember it. Speaker 2: It is li I'm just pulling up the, the civil plan right now. Speaker 1: So that number will be lower. Speaker 6: Yes, correct. Yeah, it's good catch. I did that for free. Speaker 12: I, I thank you, man. You're welcome. Speaker 2: Maybe Mike gets the value. No, I'm joking. Speaker 1: Strike that from the minutes. Speaker 2: Strike that from the minutes. That was absolutely a joke. Stop my share. So I stopped giving people whiplash with my scrolling. Speaker 12: It might be on the OSRD plan. Speaker 2: I'm, I'm thinking that is maybe where it is, which I do have in the Google Drive folder.
Speaker 6: See if I can find it. Let me revise packages Speaker 2: Am land disturbance. I've got the volumes on that last page, but I don't have the square footage. I don't have this in my folder right now, but I can jump back to my office quickly, unless, Anthony, do you have it? Speaker 12: I, I have, well, I have the square footage of, oh, there we go. Preserved open spaces. 130,619 square feet. So you kind of gotta do the math. Speaker 2: Yeah. Here, do you wanna repeat that number real quick? Speaker 12: 130,619 square feet. Speaker 2: So that's a three acres. So let's Speaker 12: 6, 9, 9, 8. Yes,
Speaker 1: We're all at three. Speaker 12: Let's call it three at this point. So Speaker 2: We will subtract three acres from that 4.27 number. So the site totals Speaker 1: 40 2007. So 52,700 for the, for the bond disturbs Speaker 2: 4.27 acres. An additional sum of 42. No. 32. Yes. 32. 700 shall be added to the total surety bond. Thank you, Mike. Speaker 12: Anytime. Speaker 2: This is why I like it when other people look at the decisions I write. Condition three of
that is an additional amount sufficient in the opinion of the conservation commission to secure performance of the construction of the stormwater management system as shown on the plan per the recommendation of the project. Peer reviewer, Dominic Redi, P-E-B-S-C group, stated 9 29 25 and the town engineer a value of $3 million, 296,300 shall be added to the total surety bond. This is the value determined to be necessary to construct the following paved areas. Catch basins, manholes, pipes, other conveyances surface detention basins and outlet control structures, underground detention basins,
roof, dry wells, water quality structures, and other BMPs surety bonds. Ir irrevocable letters of credit or other non-cash forms of security shall be valid for the estimated length of the project. The commission may release part of the bond as each below identified milestone in the project is completed in compliance with the stormwater and erosion control permit. But the bond may not fully be released until one year after the date of the issuance of certificate of compliance. Any request for release of a portion of such performance security shall be made in writing to the Conservation Commission for review.
Temporary as-built plans may be required in order to demonstrate compliance with the milestone. Milestones are as follows. Completion of all initial site clearing and grading and establishment of temporary stabilization ground cover in areas proposed to be pervious at project completion for a minimum of three months as confirmed by inspection of the conservation agent. Second milestone is the completion of the roadway to a binder coat level with all associated utilities and curbing milestone three completion of all drainage infrastructure outside of the roadway, including the underground infiltration chambers with associated outlet, the detention basin
with associated outlet, roof runoff collection systems, and the French drain system with associated outlets final stabilization of all areas to be pervious. And the fourth milestone is final stabilization of all areas to be pervious at project completion and all impervious cover installed, including patios and driveways. Condition six. Under the performance bond release of all, or a portion of the surety by the Conservation Commission, shall not constitute or imply release of surety required by other boards, commissions, or departments for the project. Nor shall the release of sureties by other boards and commissions or departments constitute
or imply release of the surety required by the Conservation Commission after the system has been constructed. But before the surety for the development has been released, the applicant should submit an as-built plan of the actual system per the requirements of condition 20, which is the stormwater certificate of compliance condition. If necessary, the consulting engineer for the board shall inspect the system to confirm its as-built features. The engineer shall also evaluate the effectiveness of the system in an actual storm. If the system is found to be inadequate by virtue of physical evidence of operational failure, even though it was built as called for in the plan, it shall be corrected by the applicant
before the certificate of compliance and the surety is released. If the applicant fails to act, the Conservation Commission may use the surety bond to complete the work. And that is the last of the conditions. Speaker 1: Epic. Additional comments, edits, inputs. Speaker 6: Could we, could we just revisit the conservation restriction language a little bit? And just for the, Speaker 1: For the open space. For the Speaker 6: Open space. So Speaker 2: That is required under the planning board Speaker 6: Decision. Okay. So it doesn't involve us, are we holding it or who's holding it? Speaker 2: None of those decisions have been made.
The applicant would need to approach the ComCom to hold the CR or work with a land trust. Speaker 6: So there's no, so there's language that a CR will be filed, but there's no language about when, or Speaker 9: It Speaker 2: Is required prior to the release, I believe of the surety bonds under the planning board Speaker 6: Permit. Okay. So, but that does not enter into this conversation? No, Speaker 2: It does not enter into this conversation. Speaker 1: Yeah. Part of the planning board decision. Speaker 6: Thank you. Speaker 1: Okay. Other comments or questions on this? So we've got two orders of conditions. If we vote to, I mean, so we've closed the public hearing.
We have not voted to issue the order of conditions at this point. We've got two draft orders and conditions, one under the Wetlands Protection Act, one under and, and Natick bylaw, and then one under our stormwater law. So the process here would be to make basically two motions in the motion. You know, assuming that this, you know, we did a straw poll last week or last meeting around where people's heads were at on this. You know, the decisions we have in front of us is that we could, we could vote to, someone could make a motion to issue these two orders of conditions under the stormwater, under the wetlands, and under the stormwater bylaw.
We could, we could vote to not issue the orders of conditions if we decided, you know, if people felt that was the way that, that was not what was indicated at our last meeting. So, with that, what's the pleasure of the board? Speaker 7: Well, I have a, a question. So where is the money being held for the trees? Who, who gets that? Speaker 1: Good question. Speaker 2: So it will be, the language in the tree condition does note to be set aside in a dedicated fund for tree planting and tree care slash maintenance in the town of Natick. Prior to the issuance of a stormwater certificate of compliance, these funds must be received
and confirmed to be deposited by the town of Natick. I've been working with the town administrator to determine what the process is for setting up the specific dedicated account, or if there is a specific account that art has for this purpose that can be used for these mitigation funds. But that will all be worked to be established in coordination with Anthony, but it will be a dedicated account, the condition language, because Speaker 6: That, you know, will control it. Speaker 2: It will be controlled by the town. So in theory, in order to authorize expenditures under that account, it would have to be approved by town meeting. Speaker 6: I mean, that language is a little bit unclear in
that last section with the storm water, because it says that the surety of the, you know, four acres now is being collected in, in as well as the tree money at the same time with the same, and it's, it's a sum of those two numbers. Well, Speaker 1: It's different things. Speaker 2: No. So the surety bond does not include the roughly 252 separate, 2 50, 200 $50,000 of tree mitigation money. Maybe Speaker 6: I'm confusing the first $10,000.
Speaker 1: So that's the, that's Speaker 6: There is a summing, there's a calculation, Speaker 1: Yes. That's a minimal bond amount is 10 K. Okay. And then we add on a per acre surcharge, Speaker 2: The total surety bond will sit at approximately Speaker 6: 3 3 5 0 3 3 5 Speaker 2: Oh. In terms of just the surety bond payment, we will receive an additional payment separate from that. That will be for the tree mitigation funds. The surety bonds have to be deposited in an escrow account. Okay. And the mitigation funds will be set aside in a sep a town account that is dedicated for tree
Speaker 1: Planting. And there's two, there's two pools of, of surety bonds in this, you know, one is kind of the standard 10 K per acre, more or less. But then there's an additional $3.3 million, which basically says that if, if the developer runs outta money can't complete the work, that there's funds in place that we can then draw upon to button up the site and to make sure that storm water is handled. And it's not just kind of an open soar that sits there. That's the intention of that. Okay. Speaker 2: And so as those milestones are reached, that 3.3 will drop down and it's likely that that, you know,
$42,000 would be the remainder that's held onto for the year following? That's right. Until the certificate of blind is issued. Speaker 1: Okay. Just to clarify that, clarify the tree mitigation money. Yes. So this is the way that this is currently written is that that goes into a fund, that town meeting would require town meeting approval to use. So Speaker 2: My understanding, I've been learning all of this with the stormwater revolving fund setup that I've been working on. If we set up the funding in a mitigation fund,
like the MathWorks mitigation money that the town received, we had to go to town meeting to receive authorization to appropriate that money for a specific purpose. Town meeting would essentially distinguish the level of detail they're looking for. Art could say, I wanna plant 60 trees and, you know, provide maintenance for x, y, z number of trees this fiscal year as a, you know, a capital budget line or, or a request that doesn't necessarily specify exactly where trees are going. It could also be set up in a revolving fund, though John has cautioned against that
because it is mitigation money specifically, rather than like filing fees or something like that, that has a continuous input that would also require town meetings approval on the maximum expenditures from that account during any given fiscal year. Speaker 1: But there's no, my concern is that there's no guarantee that that money is gonna be used to replace the trees, which is what Speaker 2: It will have to go to tree planting or tree care and maintenance. But yes, there's no guarantee that that money is gonna be spent, you know, Speaker 1: Tree care and maintenance can mean anything. Yep. It could be, you know, fuel for the trucks to drive
to go look at trees, you know, I mean there's, it could cut 'em down, you know, and it's just, you know, I'm not, I don't love it, you know, and I, and I think if, if this order of conditions is issued, I would want us to try to nail that down so there's more specificity there. So that, you know, the, in my opinion, the, the point here is to replace the trees. We talked about, you know, Natick is on the hook to do the tree planting at 9 27 when that's done, you know, whatever, you know, God knows what that process is gonna look like. But if that could be a way to revegetate that, that area,
Speaker 2: Yeah. And that's Speaker 1: When that project's done. But I just, my my concern is that this is gonna turn into a pile of money that's gonna get frittered away over the years and that the net canopy loss that we're, that is resulting from this project is gonna be a net canopy loss. And there's no hope, there's no, you know, guarantee that we have a mechanism or the funds to try to restore that canopy loss. But Speaker 5: You have time to do work this, right? I mean that payment isn't for like three years. It's at the CSC period of time. Speaker 2: Well, so the, the mitigation money actually, and I guess that this goes back to one
of the earlier conditions. Currently the condition reads that prior to the start of any work. Oh no, that's actually just the surety and performance bonds. Right. So actually the language regarding tree payment is just prior to the issuance of a stormwater certificate of compliance. So yeah, Jim is correct. This isn't something that we need to have in hand and the account set up tomorrow so that Anthony can start work on the site. We should work it obviously, if I was just say, if the commission is comfortable with it, what I can, if there's Speaker 12: A need that it comes up during construction, we could pay the pay it at that Speaker 2: Time. I was gonna say, what it, would it make the commission more comfortable if I add a line to the end of that condition?
Condition 56. Which notes language developed in regard to the dedicated, eh, allowed use language developed as it relates to the received mitigation funds Allowed use of, Hmm. I'm usually very good at wordsmithing. Speaker 7: I mean, what if we, the payment would be consistent with when, if the trees were going to be replanted on the project. Right? Not at the end. So
Speaker 6: I mean, wouldn't we control the mitigation funds? This, this Speaker 1: Apparently not though, because it would be, it would be, it'd be subject to town meeting. Speaker 2: Well it's, again, it's subject to town meeting to the extent of we have to dedicate a use of the account and town meeting votes to approve that dedicated use. Okay. Speaker 1: So what if we, what if we put some language in here that said for under in condition 56, what if we put some, could we put some language in there that says 90% of said funds must be, I'm not gonna get the language right here,
but must be focused on, or must be dedicated to tree tree replacement. At least 90% of it. So 10% can be due for maintenance in other places or whatever, but 90% of it is for replacing trees. Speaker 2: Okay. Do we want to say Speaker 7: Can, can we put that in a, that con is that, can we, is that a condition that we can put on the homeowner to enforce on the talented area or Speaker 2: That's, I think that this would be more of an internal condition on me setting up the town meeting where I'm Speaker 1: All for putting conditions Speaker 2: On town.
But what I can do if, if envy is comfortable with it, is essentially right. The majority of dedicated funds are intended for the use of tree replacement with the understanding that care and maintenance is a part of the process. But that these funds are primarily intended to replace removed tree or lost canopy in the town of Natick. It'd Speaker 6: Be care and maintenance of trees that were planted with these monies. Speaker 2: Oh, I like that. Speaker 1: I, I'd be okay with that as well. Speaker 2: A dedicated fund for, I just don't Speaker 1: Want this to be, you know, thank you not, not to cast dispersions on art in his operation or
Speaker 2: No, I think it's good town operations Speaker 1: Think it's good, but it's, I just don't want this to go into the general fund. I don't want this to be used for Speaker 6: Cutting down. It could be used for cutting Speaker 1: Down, for cutting down other trim. Right. Speaker 2: So we could 10 tiers to replace, so could be set aside in a dedicated fund for tree planting and the subsequent care and maintenance said trees of said trees. Does that work for you Anthony? I know it doesn't really make much of a difference in terms of, you still have to provide the dollars in the town of Natick. Okay. That has been updated. And I will just update the language in the next, in the
Speaker 7: Warrant article for them to approve, to say whether approving is a fund that Speaker 1: I would like for us Speaker 7: Restricts the money to be targeted towards, Speaker 1: I would like for us to be assertive. Speaker 2: The commission would be likely the one sponsoring that warrant article. Speaker 1: So I would like for us to be involved in Speaker 2: That process with you guys Speaker 1: Assertive in our in. And I don't think we need to control it. I wanna be assertive in the disposition of those these funds, what it's gonna be used for. And I think that's where the a a designated tree committee go figure. Right? Yeah. We, we gotta bring that back up. Let's some I don't wanna stir up good idea that from my,
Speaker 2: Okay. Discussions of the conference. Speaker 13: When does this account get funded? Hmm? When does this money get into, when does this account get funded? Speaker 2: So prior to the issuance of a stormwater certificate of compliance. So essentially before at Anthony gets to wash his hands end Speaker 13: Of the years from now three years. Three years probably. When do the trees get cut down? Speaker 2: Oh, the, the trees get Speaker 13: Tonight during the project. Yeah. Why do we have to, to Speaker 2: Wait that long, midnight night? Well, so it's the mitigation funds, the surety bond is being required in advance of the project starting any of the work. The mitigation funds are, are generally seen as a compliance effort rather than a, you know,
protection because the, the trees are coming down. I understand if, if the commission would prefer to see it earlier. I do, I will need at least six months so that I can get a town meeting warrant article on the next town meeting agenda. Speaker 13: Okay. Speaker 7: No, I, I agree that the, that the, the physical payment should be as close to when the other option which was to replant Yeah. The trees. And that would be the expenditure of the money for the trees to be replanted and which would've to be done well ahead of the order condition. Right. Versus wait until the order condition. Right.
And so if on the sequencing plan the trees were gonna be going in a year before the CFC, then that's when the payment would be made, right? Speaker 1: It could be, it would it be in inbounds for us to stage it, you know, to have, you know, 50% is upon removal of the trees and 50% is upon the issuance of the CFC. That's Speaker 7: Even better. I think Speaker 13: That's, I think that's reasonable. Okay, Speaker 2: Let's do that again. The only question I, if their trees are coming down in the next four months, I don't have an account to put that money into. Speaker 1: 'cause we need town meeting to Yes. Speaker 13: Okay. Speaker 1: How about, okay, well, well let's,
let's, maybe we can work we Speaker 2: Did within one year of tree removal. Speaker 1: Let's, let's go with that. Okay. Perfect. Nice job. Speaker 7: 50% within one year. Speaker 1: 50% within one year of the initiation of the project, which starts with tree removal and then, or you know, from, from tree removal commencing and then 50% on issuing to the CSC. Speaker 9: Makes sense. Speaker 5: Yeah, I think that's a practical compromise. Speaker 1: Yep. Yeah. Gets us there. Okay. Others? Alright, so we've got two orders of conditions
that we can choose to issue. Can vote to issue or not. Speaker 5: Do you need two separate motions or? Yes. One Speaker 2: Separate for order of conditions. One for the major stormwater permit. Speaker 1: One, one for the order. Yep. Speaker 9: Alright. Speaker 1: Alright. What's the pleasure of the board? Speaker 5: Motion to approve the stormwater permit. Speaker 1: Some Okay. Some motions on the table to issue the stormwater, the major storm water permit. Is that seconded? Speaker 9: Seconded, Speaker 1: Seconded by Jeff. Further discussion on that. I mean, I'll add, you know, just, just my comments and I wanna be very clear that I'm very grateful, Anthony,
for your team's work on this. As I said in our last meeting, I, I'm not behind this project. You know, it's not, not something I'm in support of, not because of any shortcomings of from, from the applicant, but I just don't think it's consistent with our charge under the stormwater bylaw. So I'm not gonna be voting to, to issue the order of conditions, but I'm one vote there. That's just my, my statement on this. Any other statements? Pontifications? Speaker 6: I mean, I'll make a statement. I'm gonna be kind of in one way and another. So if for the NOII have a different vote for this storm water. I have
Speaker 1: A different vote. A different vote. Speaker 6: Okay. Speaker 1: Okay. So we have a motion on the table that was made by Jeff Sec, made by Jim, seconded by Jeff to issue the, the stormwater permit for this all is in favor of issuing the stormwater permit for this. Got three all is opposed. Two. Okay, so that passes. Yes. Okay. Next motion for the Wetlands Protection Act and the, and the bylaws. We've issue the order of conditions under the wetlands bylaw and the then the Wetlands Wetlands Protection Act. So moved. Speaker 9: Motion Speaker 1: Made by Jeff to issue the order of conditions.
Correct. Okay. Is that seconded? Seconded. Seconded by by Jim. Any discussion on that? I'm gonna vote the same way for the same reasons that I articulated. Okay. All those in favor of issuing the order conditions under the Wells Protection Act and na bylaw those in post. Okay. Done. Thank you. Excellent. Everybody appreciate it. Thank you Anthony, appreciate your engagement on this. Thank you Speaker 2: Anthony. With my schedule tomorrow I'll probably have this stuff ready for issuance on Monday, if that's acceptable. Okay, Speaker 1: Thank you. Alright, Speaker 14: Welcome. Speaker 1: Let's go. Next item up something called five Auburn Street.
Oh boy. Maybe you've heard about that. Speaker 2: Hmm. Speaker 1: Let's go ahead and get this opened. Speaker 15: What are we gonna do now? Speaker 16: Three. I Speaker 14: Know the, Speaker 1: This is, this is also a major stormwater permit or just under the what? Speaker 2: Both major stormwater permit and under the Wetlands Protection Act, as bulk of it comes in, when comes I'll say, okay, about half of the property falls Speaker 1: Outside of it. Yeah, right, exactly. So in accordance with the Wets Protection Act in Natick local wetlands BI article 79, the NA Conservation Commission hold a public hearing on the notice of intent file by IRE Irene Irene Coleman Merrill link representing Caitlyn Madden,
Metro West collaborative development for property located at five Auburn Street Map 63 lot one. The proposal is to renovate the existing structure and parking area on site and construct a new building with associated site features. There's a whole lot buried in that, all that lang in in those sentences there. So welcome. Speaker 2: Oh, Matt, there is another legal ad for the major stormwater permit. Speaker 1: Yeah, thanks. That's what I was wondering. Yeah, let, let me, Ah, there it is. I couldn't, didn't see that there report. Lemme just read this one into the record. So also in accordance with na, stormwater Management
and Erosion Control bylaw article 79 A, the Con Native Conservation Commission hold a public hearing on a major stormwater permit application filed by Irene Coleman of Merrill Inc. Representing Kaitlyn Madden Metro West collaborative development for property located at five Auburn Street Map 63 lot one. The proposal is to renovate the existing structure and parking area on site and construct a new building with associated site feature. So welcome folks. Thank you for being here. I know you've, this has been a long process here in town, so if you wouldn't mind introducing yourself for the minutes, and then whoever is going to lead the charge on this, just give us an overview of the project. Speaker 15: Sure, I can, I can kind of start off. Good evening.
My name is Dana Ella with Merrill Engineers and Lance Surveyors. I'm here with Chelsea Gaylord and Caitlyn Madden from Metro West Collaborative Development and Brad Holmes for En Environmental Consulting and Restoration. Excuse me. Great, welcome Number five, Auburn is located on the southwesterly side of, let's see if I can, my name is, oh, it's not gonna work on the screen. So it's located on the southwestern corner of Auburn Street and Elliot Street. It's at the intersection of Elliot Street.
If you, if this looks something that you're familiar with, the property was reviewed by the, the commission back in spring of 2024 for the in rad application that was submitted for this project. The commission's input was also very valuable during the recent ZBA process, which wrapped up last spring. And the ZBA actually submitted a or approved the project with a, a decision being issued last summer in June. The site consists of approximately 2.84 acres, of which approximately 0.7 acres are considered wet wetland resource areas. The site itself contains the historic Elliot School, along
with its driveway parking play areas and associated site features. The existing topography on the site is relatively flat sloping from Elliot Street at approximately elevation 1 24 down relatively gently towards the fence at the back of the Elliot School, which is approximately Elevation one 20. From there, there's, it's, it is essentially clear throughout that area from Elliot Street back to that fence. And then once you get to the fence, there's a, a tree line and a relatively steep slope that slopes down to the Charles River, which is about elevation 1 0 5 or so.
So it's, it's fairly steep from that fence line down to the river itself. Excuse me, the, the wetland resource areas where delineated by Brad back in July of 2023, as I mentioned, an an rrAD was submitted and the NORAD was issued by the commission in April of 2024. The bordering vegetated wetlands, which are shown in blue, are associated with the Charles River and the associated wetland buffers are shown in green, including the 40 foot no structure buffer and the 25 foot no disturbance buffer. The 100 and 200 foot riverfront areas are shown in magenta
and the FEMA flood zone, A elevation one 10 is shown in orange, kind of at the bottom of that slope. The site does not contain any estimated or priority habitat areas, and there are no vernal pools or a CECs on the site. Moving on to the proposed site plan, this overall, this notice of intent has been submitted for the, the renovation of the historic Elliot School, which will create nine new residential units and then the construction of a new 23 unit residential building, along with a new driveway, parking areas associated site grading and new utility connections.
These would also include a new stormwater management system, which will comply with both the town of Natick stormwater management and erosion control regulations, as well as the Massachusetts DEP stormwater handbook, excuse me. Work specifically with, within the jurisdictional areas includes the construction of the new building, which is on the right there. There's a new parking area in front of it, as well as a new fire department access, which is located below the building on the screen also proposed our associated grading
and utility connections for the new buildings stonewater from all of the impervious areas will be managed and treated for both water quality and quantity. Currently there are no existing stonewater controls for the site. Roof runoff and untreated stormwater from the parking and driveway areas just flows over land untreated towards the Charles River predominantly. Currently, there are no recharge systems provided on site for any infiltration as well. The proposed stormwater system will reduce peak rates of runoff from all design storms while providing a minimum 80% total suspended solids removal
and a reduction in total phosphorus of 50% as required. The stormwater system will also provide and exceed the minimum recharge volume requirements for the proposed impervious area. Based on the proposed impervious area on the site, a minimum of 2,212 cubic feet would, would be required for this project. Between the two subsurface infiltration systems we're providing 7,727 cubic feet below the outlet for those two systems. So it's all in excess of, you know, what's required for this site. Soils testing was performed in May of 2024
and which was quite pleasantly surprising. There's really good soils out there, good sand and gravel with a relatively deep estimated seasonal high groundwater, which is always great to see on existing sites where the, it's a little bit harder to work with the elevation. So that was really nice to see. This testing was witnessed by Michael Madre, the, the director of public health. The proposed storm water system will utilize low impact development techniques. These include bio retention areas to capture and pretreat stormwater from the, the majority of the paved areas on site prior to directing. This will treat or pretreat the, the stormwater prior
to directing it to the two subsurface infiltration systems. I wish this would work a little better, but there's one, Claire's actually got it. So there's two systems right there will both be infiltrating the, the stormwater which has been treated. Additionally, the paved driveway and parking area to the north of the existing Elliot school will be treated according to the low impact site design credit number three, which will utilize a qualifying pervious area. The runoff from this turnaround area will be directed to the 15,000 square foot grass area, which is on the corner of Elliot Street and Auburn Street
soils testing in this area also confirm good pervious soils and the area is relatively flat with slopes less than 5% as required for a a qualifying pervious area. So this really works. I ideally with, with that area, excuse me, the runoff from both roof areas will be directed to those two subsurface infiltration systems. And both systems have been designed to provide four feet of separation from the bottom of the infiltration system to the estimated season of high groundwater just to ensure that there's no issues with groundwater mounting under the systems themselves. Work within wetland resource areas
or their buffers has been limited to the previously altered areas on site. We've essentially maintained the existing fence line as the, the limit of work out there. So that's essentially outside of the 25 foot notice disturb zone. There's a small area that encroaches on it, but it's like four square feet or something very small. So we're just maintaining that existing fence line, keeping that existing limit of work and not altering any of the trees that are out there, you know, beyond that fence line. For the most part, the proposed building has been set outside of the 40 foot no structure buffer
and the 100 foot riverfront area, no permanent work is proposed, as I mentioned, within the existing wooded area beyond the fence. So there should be no impacts on any habitat area, but there will be a small amount of temporary alteration for the proposed relocation of the existing foundation drains for the Elliot School. We're just trying to keep those gravity so that they are able to not require any sum pumps that could obviously not work during power outages or, you know, could have mechanical failures just to make sure that the residents that are gonna be living in those lower levels don't have any water issues
during their, their time there. We, we have reviewed this approach with clear, we've addressed some initial concerns that she had prior to submittal and we did receive recent comments related to the actual NOI submittal. We will be submitting revised plans to address all of those comments as well as comments received tonight at this hearing. And we also understand that the, the commission wishes to have a, a site meeting on site. So any comments that come up at that as well, we'll be addressing those. Lastly, there will be a, a contiguous line of silt talk proposed down gradient of all work and kind of surrounding them, the project itself, we will be adding a silt fence during, within some
of the more critical areas on the, the top of that slope there as requested by Claire at her comment letter. At this point, I can hand it over to Brad. He can kind of discuss the riverfront area compliance and some of the, the mitigation and vegetation management for the site. Great, Speaker 17: Thank you Dana. Good evening, members of the commission. I'm Brad Holmes with Environmental Consulting Restoration. As Dana explained, the this project is a buffer zone and riverfront redevelopment. That would be the majority of the concern for the commission is how does this project work
with the riverfront associated with the Charles River. And because this area is developed in portions of the riverfront exist now in a degraded condition. This is considered a riverfront redevelopment project, which gives us a little bit more flexibility than a, than a new development within the riverfront. So what the riverfront regulations basically say is you figure out what the existing degraded riverfront is, and that is areas that are void of topsoil, basically. And we have pavement here. The field area doesn't qualify as degraded.
Riverfront is certainly developed, but it's not degraded. So when you calculate out the existing amount of de degraded riverfront, it's approximately 3%. You're allowed to go up to 10% and you can further expand beyond that allowable 10% if you propose restoration or mitigation. So what we're proposing to do is go beyond the 10%, but in order to do that, we'll pro we proposing mitigation, which is gonna be a combination of planting native vegetation within areas
that are existing field now, and then coming up with a significant invasive plant management plan. The majority, if not all of that slope, leading from the fence down to the, the wetland is infested with Japanese knotweed and other invasives. So we're proposing to do is to treat and remove the invasives and then revegetate with natives so that we'll have a better buffer and riverfront leading to the Charles River. That's all detailed in the riverfront redevelopment analysis. It's a step by step approach.
We've analyzed how it complies with the regulations for redevelopment and we've also provided a step-by-step management plan on how the invasives are proposed to be treated, removed and revegetation with natives. And, and it would occur over a three year, three to five year plan. It, as you know, invasives aren't something that you can be one and done with. So it's gonna have to be an ongoing management overseen by professionals and licensed herbicide applicators and people that do this for a living, not just a,
not just typical landscapers. So I can go through that with you if you like, but that's a, a little bit of a over wash of the mitigation component so that we comply with the riverfront regs. So we'll be at a more than a two to one ratio, which which is required at a two to one. So we're a little bit over that with our proposal Speaker 1: Are, is the invasive management plan, I mean, who, how is that funded over the three to five years? Is that, is that currently budgeted in and is that, you know, part of the expense or would that be something that would, you know,
TBD in terms of who pays for that and who does that work please? Sure. Speaker 18: Unless you wanna pay for it from Speaker 17: Beyond my Speaker 1: Budget. Speaker 18: So we would, we would include the costs of the mitigation of the invasive invasive species during the development period and the development budget and any mitigation that continues into the operating period would be covered by the operating budget of the property. Speaker 1: Okay, fair. Thank you. Okay. Why are we looking at this plan as it's currently configured? So, so alternatives analysis, I, why is it, why is it cited,
why is it located like this rather than pulling all of the, all of the disturbance back away from the river and towards Route 16. So Speaker 17: Part of the issues, Speaker 1: And I know this has been a shoot on for months if not years, but I'd just like for, you know, for for the record and for our benefit, it's something we need to consider and you need to consider and you address it somewhat in the application, but I'd just like to hear the voiceover as to, you know, why park the, the new building on the backside of the school instead of towards Route 16. Sure. Speaker 15: So one of the, and Caitlin
or Chelsea may be able to give a little better detail, but, but one of the requirements for the RFP originally was that the town green area on the corner of Elliot Street and Auburn Street remain in its, you know, its existing character kind of maintained the character of the school, the phase, you know, what people see when they're on Elliot Street, when they're on Arbor Street. That was really important to the town when they, when they put this together and they wanted to maintain that character, you know, through the process. So that was one of the things that had actually gotten Metro West proposal accepted
by the, the town was the fact that they were coming up with a hundred percent affordable housing, maintaining the character of the school, incorporating the school into the project, and maintaining that that green space as it currently exists. So when people drive by, it won't really look a lot different than what you see today. It's, but it is gonna provide a huge affordable housing component for the, the town itself. So that was kind of the, Speaker 1: So aesthetics Speaker 15: A requirement by the town, but yes, aesthetics, Speaker 2: We'll say character, Speaker 15: Character too. Speaker 1: Call, call it whatever we want, you know. That's true. You know, but the fact of the matter is, is that, you know, is is that from a ecological perspective,
there are preferred, there would be preferred locations and that's something that this commission isn't empowered to. Speaker 2: I will, I will note alternatives analysis are technically only required under the new development performance standards versus the redevelopment performance standards. But is still something the commission can discuss. Certainly. Because as I noted in my staff notes, redevelopment is at the discretion of the commission. Exactly. Speaker 1: Yep. Exactly. I mean there is, there is room for us to push back on that as we see fit and that's just something we should, you know, think about just as, as part of this, I mean again, our,
our charge of protecting the natural resources, ideally these things would be pulled away from the River bank versus perched right on the edge of them. And Speaker 7: I Speaker 1: Mean, we we're being handed a thoroughly baked plan that's gone through all kinds of different boards and committees at this point saying take it or leave it. And we're not obligated to do that. Just Speaker 7: Mean prove on LA Street. We have, I mean the house is never built 'cause the property ended up getting bought by the neighbor, but we a similar situation. It's constructed right now. Speaker 2: Huh? That project is getting constructed right Speaker 7: Now that, that way back when
with the property in between bought Speaker 2: Another developer. He went through the appropriate building permit processes, he's complying with the DEP. Speaker 1: Alright, let's stay on this one. No, sorry, Speaker 7: But that was, that was by that Charles's analysis was that, that there was a setback that was Speaker 1: Oh, sure. Applied. I mean if, if there's a formal zoning setback or whatever where you know, that that's one thing if, if the town's criteria was we think it would be prettier to save the, the lawn, that's fine. It's a, it's a, it's a valid reason for it, but it doesn't have to be the defining reason for us that,
that that's, that, that's just my point. Speaker 15: Just as a point of inform information too, the, so the, the approved layout that was submitted to the town and the, the at tonic accepted originally had kind of an L-shaped plan and that was based on, you know, GIS and very rough resource area layouts from, from GIS, obviously not a hundred percent accurate. So once we went out there flagged the, the resource areas found out that, that the, the riverfront area came much further into the property than originally anticipated that it l shape was no longer possible.
So that, that's how we landed on more of a, a rectangular shaped building. So that, that was going further much further into the, the riverfront area than we, we currently show. It was going into that, that 40 foot buffer originally. So obviously we had to pull that back, get that out and, you know, meet those requirements. So there was a little bit of shifting and shaping to meet the, the existing regulations and that's, that's kind of how we landed on what we have now. So at least we're outside of that 40 foot buffer outside of the, the one two foot riverfront area with the building and kind of inside that previously disturbed area.
You know, nothing extends beyond that. Fair. Speaker 1: Okay. Other, other questions? I mean, you're right in anticipating we will, we'll go take a walk on the site. I mean, we're all fairly familiar with it. I've walked it several times, but just as for, as a formality to go walk it, look at it, ask questions, kind of get a, get a sense of that. One, one kind of historical question is that there was, you know, there was two underground storage tanks on site at one point. My understanding is that one has been removed and is no longer there. One is remains on site but has been decommissioned. That's correct. Is that accurate?
Speaker 15: That's correct, yeah. Speaker 1: Talk about the sta you know, and, and I know there was borings that was done I think earlier this week actually for, for groundwater. What is the status of any testing for residual hydrocarbons on site back, back when they were first decommissioned? There was, I'll, I'll recite what I think was the case, is that when they were originally decommissioned testing was done, there was nothing reportable found. Is that right? You know, nothing above reportable limits. Is there any plan to be doing any additional testing or as part of the borings that were done earlier this week, are those gonna be tested for hydrocarbons at this point?
Speaker 15: The, I I can't say that the borings, I believe were, were done for the, the structural design of the new building. Speaker 1: That's what the borings were for, I believe Speaker 15: So, that's correct. Speaker 2: There were some monitoring wells noted as well. Was that also for structural design or Those were for Speaker 18: Monitoring groundwater. Okay. Speaker 1: Yes. Monitoring groundwater for contaminants or just Just levels? Just Speaker 15: Levels. Just Speaker 1: Levels. Just levels for structural information. Okay. Speaker 15: And more for the, the existing basement. So, so as I mentioned earlier, there's a, there's a foundation drain that have been some, some water issues in that building. So they, while they're out there doing the, the borings, it,
it made sense to put some, some monitoring walls in there. Sure. Just so we can Makes sense. Really confirm that. Speaker 1: But again, just just for the record, there's, when the initial, when the tanks were one was removed, one was decommissioned, there was testing and there was nothing, there was no reportable, you know, there was no levels that were reportable of any hydrocarbons of no. Right? Speaker 18: That's correct. That's correct. And if I could just add, we also commiss commissioned a fresh phase one report and that study looked at the records from the prior decommissioning of the tanks and did not recommend any additional
soil characterization testing. Speaker 1: Okay. So, so in your, in your opinions closed issue Speaker 18: That's correct. Okay. In the highly qualified opinions of our engineers. Yes. Yeah. Speaker 1: Fair. They're the ones behind the phase one reports. Yeah. Okay, good. Just wanted to get that out on the table. Okay. Other questions before we decide to, you know, to do a site visit, take a look at this and then reconvene and then get into details. Speaker 6: I just, this is like probably like months of ahead
of a question, but if so, Speaker 1: Lay it out there. Speaker 6: With the invasive species control for three to five years or however long, is there going to be a non issuance of a certificate of compliance until we receive a report that control has been done, the trees are, and the shrubs and et cetera, according to the landscape plan are, are thriving and no Japanese knot weed is
Speaker 1: Existing. Speaker 6: Existing. Speaker 1: I think we could, we could structure an order of conditions that reflected whatever kinds of controls that we wanted. Speaker 2: I think this is also a site where the commission could consider something like a partial COC. Right. Speaker 1: Where it wouldn't be fully released until, until everything was Speaker 6: Yes. Oh, I mean, a, the issue with knot wheated is around as, as we all know, as our friend and colleague that used to sit on this commission who was a knotweed expert and as well as Superstorm stand,
Sandy clearly indicated up in Vermont that any Japanese knot weed along banks, culverted areas, bridges create instability in those areas. So if that Japanese knot wheated is not treated, that bank area along the Charles River is now, you know, unstable. Unstable, I Speaker 2: Guess it's currently Speaker 6: Unstable, right? It's currently unstable. So it would be advantageous to control that knotweed if you trust that science. Speaker 1: I, I tend to trust science. Speaker 6: I think it's, it's pretty been shown, I think, you know,
the tens of millions of dollars of damage to roads and culverts in that storm. Speaker 17: What I can say is that you're correct. When you get into a area like this on a slope, you think that you would think that that plant would have a good root system. It doesn't. It's very shallow if that's what Speaker 2: DOT thought when they introduced it. Speaker 17: Right. So it's, it, it is something that, you know, would be a benefit and rolled into the mitigation proposal. We can't guarantee that we're going to lick the site clean of knotweed from here.
You know, once we're done and walk away, it's, it's gonna be a control ongoing, but, you know, we'll get to, you know, 95, 90 9% and if, if it's managed over time, it can stay that way. I mean, you, you guys know, but it's, I mean, we couldn't craft an order of conditions that would say, okay, we're not gonna sign off, you know, without, you know, we can, we can figure out that language, but sure, I can't, there's no, no one's gonna be able to guarantee that there's not gonna be any Japanese knotweed that could be found Speaker 6: Once we on the site excavate the bank
and, which is a whole other problem. That's Speaker 1: A little outta scope, I think. Speaker 17: Yeah, you don't want to know what's the old timers maybe have had some class dumps or who knows. Right. I Speaker 2: Do think unfortunately because of the water body that this is located on, we have upstream seed stocks that we are potentially fighting against as well in the long term future conditions. Speaker 1: Is there, just, just back on the, the, the UST in the front yard, is that gonna be left in place? Or is that gonna be removed as part of this, the one that was decommissioned, that still exists on site.
Speaker 15: The, the idea is to leave it in place. It's, it's set, you know, we don't wanna mess with it. Yeah, Speaker 1: Fair. Speaker 15: I get that. So we'd like to just leave it in place. Okay. Speaker 7: The, that little sidewalk there that, Speaker 2: Oh, this one Speaker 7: Jets out. Yeah, Speaker 2: So there's an existing flag flagpole Speaker 1: There. It's very cool. It's a cool little perch. Speaker 2: I believe the flag is hung by the owner of this property at eight Auburn Street, who's a veteran. His daughter is also a veteran. I believe it's his flag from his service period. Wow. That's Speaker 1: Cool. Speaker 7: It's just some Phil there, I mean, is that land owned by the school or is that, is that outside the scope of this?
It appears to be in the scope. Speaker 15: It's actually owned by the school, but it's been set up by the, the neighbor. But it was, it's gonna be maintained as part of the project though. It, you know, the intention is just to kind of make it a little more desirable, I guess. Yeah. Speaker 1: Don't just clear. Don't poke that bear. We'll, Speaker 2: We'll see on the site there a there's a, a tread dirt path. Yeah. That exists out there today. So I think the intention is to just formalize the path around the flagpole. Speaker 1: Okay. Any other questions at this point before we go take a look and then we reconvene and come back and, and really dig in. Could we
Speaker 6: Just get the corners of the building staked please? Prior to the site visit? Speaker 2: The new building, obviously. Yeah, right. The existing one is still there. Speaker 1: So the existing building that's just for the, the walls of that are staying exactly the same? No, no extensions, additions, jut outs. Okay. What's the, this is a little bit outta scope for us. What, what's the status of the asbestos remediation in the school? Is that, how's that looking? Speaker 18: Sure. So we had a, a hazardous materials survey completed for the building, which showed extensive asbestos in the plaster throughout the building. Speaker 1: Buildings of that era tended to, yes,
it was very convenient material to use. Speaker 18: Yes. So that will be an exciting challenge, but we don't plan to move forward with the remediation work until we close on the financing and start construction. So we are aware that it's there. It's not being disturbed and it will be part of our redevelopment project. Speaker 6: If you could stake out also the 141 square foot area of alteration, temporary alteration, Speaker 2: That's for the drainage. Sure. The foundation drain. Speaker 1: And that's just on the, on, on the plan here. That small little slope that comes off on the west, west side.
Yes, yes. Yeah, sure. Speaker 2: And that as noted in my staff notes, Dana and I did a little bit of coordination on that in advance of the filing. Yes. So there is a call out on the plan sheet that notes that the drain and outlet will be field located to minimize the disturbance where possible. Yes. Speaker 6: Okay, thank you. Okay, Speaker 1: Other questions at this point, Speaker 6: Do we have the landscape plan yet or am I missing that? Speaker 2: We do. We have a landscape plan. I landscape, it's the L 200 right up here, mitigation.
But there is, and I noted this in my staff notes, there's an L 100 that's referenced. If you guys can just provide me with a copy of that Sure Speaker 15: Can, I can roll that into the, the next plan. Perfect. Speaker 6: Thank you. Speaker 1: Sure. Total, total tree removal on site. I think I saw that referred to in the, in the, in the documentation. Speaker 15: Yes. We're, we're trying to minimize that. There are a few trees that will be removed, but we are replacing several trees on, there's a, it's a, Speaker 2: It's the majority in this area right along Auburn Street, if I'm remembering correctly. Speaker 15: Yes. It's for, for the entrances. And then there's, there's the driveway that connects
between the, that island there on the, on the, I think it's the south side, the other side of the building actually. Oh, sorry. Right. Yeah. Or, or in that area there's a couple of trees that just with the pavement, they'll, they'll end up, you know, the, the root systems will be all altered. So they'll, they'll end up having to be removed. But we have other trees that'll be re replaced on the site. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 2: I actually think I had a staff comment just looking for a rough number of the, the Speaker 19: Trees to be removed just so that way our Speaker 2: Permit can appropriately reference the removal and the equivalent mitigation.
Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 1: Other questions at this point? Speaker 6: Please cut down the Norway maples. Speaker 15: That was part of the, the mitigation. I believe that'll ultimately make its way in there. Speaker 1: I think it'll make its way into the order of conditions. Alright, anything else? So for a site visit, can we do, so if we're, if we're gonna do 1 97 Elliot on Friday the 10th at 5:00 PM if Speaker 2: We are our Speaker 1: Prompt, Speaker 2: Prompt and brief at 1 97 Elliot and can get over here, I think any later than six 30, we're gonna be in trouble in terms of light. But I think that we can definitely make that work. Speaker 1: Yeah. And it's also not, it's not a complex site.
Speaker 2: This one It is Speaker 1: Certainly, you know, if we hit 1 97 Elliot first, which is a little hairier, and then come and look at this one. I mean this one's fairly straightforward. I Speaker 2: Think this is also one where we're not dealing with any existing occupancy. It's in theory town owned property. So the commission is also more than welcome to visit the site at any point in advance. But a coordinated site visit with the stakeouts would be good. Speaker 1: Yeah. So if we could do that. So we'll do that a week from tomorrow. Is Speaker 2: That, does that work with you guys? Friday the 10th in the evening? Speaker 1: Just, just that should just what you wanted. That Speaker 15: Should be fine. Speaker 2: I know that I had said weekends over email.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And, and, and we can also, you know, I mean whether you guys, you know, if one of you is there or even if it's just us. I Speaker 2: Was gonna say, I, I wanna take notes. It's all the site visits, it's the commission goes. It's not a complicated, you guys are not available. I'm more than happy to record any of the comments. Obviously there can be no debate on the site visit. So it would just be the voicing of any comments or questions that I can then get to you guys afterwards if you're not available. That's Speaker 6: Alright. Pizza and I can be Speaker 15: There. Speaker 2: Wonderful. Speaker 15: So we're thinking six o'clock or something. I, Speaker 2: I would Speaker 1: Probably 5 45. We'll
Speaker 2: Say 5 45. Speaker 1: Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Something like that. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Speaker 2: And I'll confirm that with you guys the week of, okay. Speaker 15: That's Speaker 1: Good. Yeah. Perfect. Okay, I think we've got what we need for right now. We'll continue this to our meeting or what's today? Today's two, October 15 of 15th 15. Speaker 2: Just the reminder that meeting is on a Wednesday. Wednesday virtual, not a Thursday. And it'll be a fully virtual meeting 'cause the select board will be sitting here. So we're relegated to zoom Speaker 15: That, that, that's more than fine for me. Speaker 1: Okay, good. Someone make a motion to continue this to October 15th, please. So moved. Thank you David. Is that seconded? Second.
Thank you Michael. Any further discussion on that? All in favor. Good folks. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Very appreciate all the efforts and the thought. I know this has been a long, a long set of conversations. Speaker 15: No problem at all. Speaker 1: Thank you. Take it from there. Thank you. Alright, Speaker 2: We'll just note on the next section. I was a little over optimistic The July 17th minutes. We're not ready Speaker 7: For this. I thought you were driving me crazy. No, I kept flashing. So sorry. Speaker 2: Crashing. Speaker 7: I was like this is a test. Speaker 1: Alright. It is a test. June 19th minutes. Good. Motion to approve from Jeff. That's seconded. Thank you Jim.
Further discussion. Those in favor. Good Beaver activity. So dam was breached at Yes. Town Forest. Speaker 2: They did a a very, it was about a, a three foot section. That was actually, I've got some lovely photos that Speaker 1: I can share. Has it already been buil commission and bu? Absolutely it has. Oh no. Speaker 7: Yes. Oh man. What'd you say? It was, I saw those pictures. Yes. And I read that letter and I was like, huh. And then they're very sorry. Pictures of it day after day after day coming right bound back. Speaker 2: I will note that Speaker 1: A folder just just says beavers, you know, Speaker 2: The water levels in Jennings Pond have been fairly level.
They are just certainly still low. But, so lemme Speaker 7: Ask, did you see the levels change when the water was Speaker 2: Released? Yes. So the water levels, because I was there when they were doing the breach and then I drove by about four hours later on my way to another site visit. And you could tell the water levels in little Jennings pond and the town forest side had been raised up over the cages of the beaver to seas. So there was quite a, an amount of water that moved through. Wow. It leveled out pretty quickly I think because it happened the day before.
The rain, the water levels were a little bit higher than if we hadn't gotten the rain, obviously. But folks can see. Speaker 7: Can you put a criter cam there and watch these guys? It's got a look. Speaker 1: So this, I've got a wildlife cam I can parked Speaker 2: Out there. This is the breach that was done. Interesting. DPW just used a small skid steer to remove some of that material and, and disperse it. The progress of, there's what it looked like the night before the breach, the breach day after the breach, two days after the breach, and three days after the breach. Speaker 1: That's Claire just messing with us. Wow. Wow. We're
Speaker 2: Just flipping back and forth between the same two pictures Speaker 1: To see if you guys can tell. It's astounding. I mean, it's just, it's astounding how fast they, that's remarkable. Speaker 7: Someone said, did you feel that? And then they all went to work. That was it. That Speaker 1: Was it. Speaker 2: So I, I am gonna be meeting out with some of the volunteers from the Jennings Pond neighborhood tomorrow morning to review the process of breaching. I set up a sort of detailed protocol for them. I think folks were all CC'd on that email chain. So folks saw the, what was communicated to them. Essentially what will be going forward is obviously until freezing conditions happen, roughly weekly notching if necessary.
Obviously if we start getting more rain, hopefully it won't be necessary Speaker 7: And they don't respond. Like if you breached it and then put one of those coyote targets sitting there, they wouldn't, it wouldn't matter to them. No. Speaker 2: Unfortunately not. The, the beavers are not nearly as scared as the, of the coyotes as one could hope for them to be. I mean, we need to bring wolves back and then we can actually get some, what Speaker 1: A bunch of printouts Jeff face. Yeah, that's right. Snake it to the top of the, of the moat with Speaker 7: With like red eyes looking. You Speaker 2: Scared.
I do just wanna bring up, Mike had brought up a good point about obviously the, the commission has discussed at our last meeting there's a commitment to water moving, but there is also the matter. Beavers are a keystone species in the state and he recommended us adding a preamble to our order of conditions narrative. Just discussing the ecosystem services that beavers provide and their importance just as a sort of balance to the management efforts that we do. If the commission is open to that, I don't think it would require a formal amendment
of our order of conditions, but I'm happy to append it to the order of conditions that exists for, for future reference. That's fine. Wonderful. Yeah. Speaker 7: When would they, when would the beaver guys look at that to see if Speaker 2: They have not confirmed when they will be out, but they should be out sometime this month to evaluate. They try to do their fall inspections in October before the things start freezing over. But when the beavers will actually be active in preparing for winter. So we are keeping a close eye on the area, but the, the breach was certainly successful in terms of getting Jennings pond back up to
somewhat more regular water levels obviously. Speaker 1: And, and that has, even with the beavers re I mean obviously even Speaker 2: With the beavers rebuilding, 'cause I, if folks are driving down Oak Street, there's a small residential dock that sticks out into Jennings Pond that's visible from the road. That's been my sort of checkpoint. Obviously I drive up that road every day on my way home. So I am constantly checking. Sometimes I will park at Town Forest and pop out and grab photos as well. But essentially monitoring the water levels against where that dock is located. Prior to the breach, the water was about a foot, foot and a half in front of that dock. And currently to date since the breach,
the water has been about six inches behind the front of the dock. That's, oh, great. So the water levels have been restored? Not fully, but quite substantially. And it appears that they're remaining relatively level even following the beaver's repair. Again, because Jennings Pond is a, we are controlled outlet, the water levels should remain fairly level with only evaporation being the primary source of water moving outta the pond when the levels are below the weir height. Speaker 1: So next steps is to get some of the volunteers trained up so that they can go and do breaches. Yes. We'll get Beaver solutions out there
to take a look at the, the applicability of a device. Yep. And we go from there Speaker 2: And we go from there. And I'll add the preamble to the order of conditions narrative. Is the Speaker 13: Device pretty much a question of how deep it is? Yeah, so it's Speaker 2: That simple. So the cage has to be, the pipe inlet is set at the bottom of the cages. No, I get it. Yep. And yeah, so it's just about the distance for the water flow to keep the beers. That's why we think because of the drought conditions with the water so low, that's why they were able to dam up that device. Speaker 13: Yeah. So I'm gonna ask the question I know the answer to, but let's say it's, you would need five feet
and we find four and a half feet. Can we just dredge down a little bit? Speaker 2: Sadly what I will say is dredging is one of the most expensive and permit heavy projects. What there is an alternative, it's you, it was hydro raking, which is not a removal of the sediment material, but of organic material from within the water column. Generally that's done on ponds to maintain sort of eutrofication status and things like that. In a system like this where it's primarily a stream corridor, the hydro ing equipment won't really even fit in the width of the channel that we have there.
Most of the equipment that I've seen has a minimum of width of about six and a half, seven feet. So you'd essentially be taking up the entire waterway with that equipment. So dredging I'll, I'll say is always an option. It's just a matter of dollars and, and timelines for permits. But I think in this instance it would be not necessarily worth the larger benefits for the the cost. Okay. Speaker 1: Alright. Anything else Speaker 13: Complicated? Speaker 2: Unfortunately. Speaker 1: Any other updates? Speaker 2: You already gave my reminder about the October 15th meeting. The only other update, and this is not necessarily in regard
to this commission, but will impact Matt on a personal level. Maybe Peg Waters is leaving the department, so our office manager in CED is gonna be moving on to brighter futures, so won't affect anything in regards to this commission. Just an update for sort of general CED staffing the town. Just on the grant side of things, EEA has established a new one stop permitting portal for the majority of grant programs that they manage. So the town is gonna be submitting four expressions
of interest into the new eco one stop portal. And those four expressions of interest will be evaluated by all of the grant funding programs that are being managed under that portal. And feedback will be provided from all relevant grant programs so that we can better assign our applications to individual grant programs. Great. Well that's cool. That's great. It's very exciting. We we're limited to four expressions of interest because of the staff capability of reviewing that number of expression of interest from the 351 communities in the state.
But we are not limited to four grant applications following the expression of interest process. So depending on the feedback we receive, there might be more applications submitted than expressions at the onset. And those are my big updates. Speaker 1: Great. So we'll meet Pat online on the 15th. Yes. And go from there. So make a motion to adjourn. Speaker 2: Oh, I apologize greatly. There was a question that just came through Speaker 1: The chat. Yeah. Speaker 2: Four minutes ago from, I'm just gonna see if Marco is still on the call. He is still on the call. So Marco,
because of the question is asked after the hearing has been continued, what I'll do is note this question down, provide it in my staff notes for the commission to discuss at the next meeting when the applicant is present. Speaker 1: Can you just read the question but we don't have to discuss it? Oh, of Speaker 2: Course. So I would normally ask this question via the conservation agent via the con com@natickma.org email. But that email is not accepting incoming emails Speaker 1: Con com@natickma.org. Yeah, Speaker 2: It should be. Yeah. Marco, I I'll reach out regardless to you. Yes. After the fact. My question was about the under
existing abandoned underground fuel tank noted on the site plan. Normally in situ abandonment is only allowed if removal would negatively impact the integrity of any existing onsite structure. The normal procedure would be for the town of ick fire department to approve the in-place abandonment and concur that removal is not feasible. Maybe get an answer to this question at the October 15th virtual meeting. Speaker 1: Good question. Speaker 2: And I, I think I'm, I'm waiting on a response from the Board of Health public health Speaker 1: Director on that. Thank you Marco as Speaker 2: Well because he and I were not able to connect before this meeting. Speaker 1: Yeah, no, it's a good, you know, we'll pick this up at our next meeting. Yes. It's just so we're playing by the rules.
Alright, so we'll make a motion to adjourn. So thank you. David made a motion. Is that seconded? Seconded. Thank you Jim. Any discussion? Long drawn out discussion about that? All is in favor. See ya. Alright, rush.