Speaker 1: All right, let's get going. Welcome everybody. This is the Native Conservation Commission. Today is March 20 happy. Is today the first day of spring, or is it tomorrow? Technically tomorrow. Is tomorrow. The first day of spring. Okay. Happy. Almost spring. Get your eggs on. Yeah. So we've got a pretty full agenda tonight. Some important stuff that we're gonna be talking about here, ask that people who are watching the meeting from home, please keep yourselves on mute until your particular item comes up for discussion. And we will introduce each of these, each of these topics as we, as we proceed through the, the conversation. But the first item on the agenda is a request
for determination of applicability for 33 Pine Street. Do we have representatives of 33 Pine Street on the call here tonight? Yes, we do have the homeowner. Andy. Hey Andy. Welcome. Hi. Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 1: Lemme formally open this in accordance with the Wetlands Protection Act in Natick local wetlands bylaw article 79. The NA Conservation Commission hold a public meeting on a request for determination of applicability fo filed by Andrew DEG for property located at 33 Pine Street Map seven lot 47. The proposal is for tree removal on a single family home lot potentially within the buffer zone. So, Mr. Dee, would you just, you know, introduce the project
above and beyond what I just said and let us know what's going on? Speaker 2: Yeah, so there's an area to the southwest of, of my house in that top right corner that was not developed by the builder when he built the home about four years ago. And there are a number of both dead diseased trees as well as invasive species back in that area. And because of a project that we need to do on the other side of the house, we wanted to take the opportunity to go ahead and remove some trees at the same time.
So we had stump these come and do, in including an arborist, come and look at the species, look at which trees to keep, which ones to remove, and he recommended the ones that we noted in the application. The plan is to remove those and not grind the stump and to take no other action at this time, although in, in the future would be interested in understanding whether the delineation of being within a a buffer zone is, is confirmed or not. But that's, that's sort of business for another day, I think. Speaker 1: Got it. Thank you for that. So you've got a, you've got a,
a testimony we'll call that, use that grand term from certified arborist about this, just opening that up. So Yep. About 10 Norway maples. You wanna remove a 21 DBH, black cherry poor health decay found in the stem five 20 inch to two inch DBH American Elms top broken off, one in past storm. Others are in fair health, whoever all are highly susceptible to Dutch Elm disease. So removal of all, or at the very least, the damaged one, that's, that's a hazard.
So that's, let's looking on the map here, can you just kind of walk us through which, which trees are where and we can go from there. Yeah, Speaker 2: Honestly, they're, they're all pretty clustered. One of the elms is a little closer to the house. You know, notice how they're close to the deck. There are a couple trees, those are very, very small, but kind of over to the, over to the right, there's a cluster of three. Those are, I think one of those is an elm. But, and then there's one elm that's closer to my neighbor's, like kind of close to the riffraff.
And I forget the other species that wasn't the Norway maple, but that one's right in the middle of that cluster on the right, and that's the one that's kind of damaged. So Speaker 1: That's the, is that, that's the Dutch elm that you were, that you were talking about Speaker 2: The, the Yes, yes, yes, that's right. Speaker 1: Okay. Fair. Are you, are you considering any, any replanting program of any kind? You know, to to, one of the things that we're interested in is, is preserving tree cover in the town for a variety of, for a variety of reasons. Is that something that you've talked about or would consider as part of this process?
Speaker 2: ICI certainly would consider it. The, the reality is in that, that back area, it, one, we don't know whether it's in the buffer zone or not, but it's just, it's sort of like all kinds of trash from a hundred years ago. And it's just kind of gross back there. And we eventually want to, to, you know, unify that in some way. And I'd certainly be open to, to planting trees as well as other, other plants. But right now the interest is in just sort of removing the trees while we have the tree company helping
with some trees that have fallen on the other side of my house and hit my neighbor's home. So that's what, that was sort of the impetus for doing just the tree work at this time. Speaker 3: Got it. I have met with the homeowners in the past to discuss their interest in not only managing some of the invasives that are in this back corner, but also revegetating that area. Speaker 1: When you say homeowners, you mean Mr. De or you mean neighbors? Speaker 3: Oh, no, Mr. Dee. Yes. Okay, Speaker 1: Great. Okay. Mike, what's your, what's your take on, on Elms and kind of the, you know, I mean obviously they're susceptible to Dutch Elm disease, if the trees are not showing any indication of any
of you know of, of any disease at this point, is it just an inevitability in terms of them contracting it or, Speaker 4: You know, it, it kind of depends on the elm, you know, so we have a variety of elm species, so, you know, obviously American elm is very susceptible, but there's others like slippery that's less, you know, it just, it kind of depends on the species of elm we're dealing with. But in, in terms of if it's not infected, you know, so it, if you can think of Dutch elm disease, it's, you know, it's, it's a, it's a fungal path in the pathogen that's brought on
through a boring insect that creates galleries and that fungus then spreads behind the cambium of the tree and, and shuts off its transportation system, the tree's transportation system. And, you know, it's a fairly speedy death for the most part, for the, for the tree. But I would say, you know, I, there's plenty of examples that I find. I don't, I'm not a urban forester. I work in a different type of capacity as a forester.
So when I'm in the woods, I, I see trees that are infect infected with Dutch el disease that are dead. And then I see perfectly large beautiful elm trees and wetlands that are Speaker 1: Just Speaker 4: Fine, pretty robust. So it, it just kind of depends. It's species specific. I'd say slippery elms, just a, from my experience, and there's probably ecologist that might disagree with this, but I find them a little bit more tolerant, but, Speaker 1: And great, thanks Mike. And Mr. Diggs.
So the, looking at the Google Street view of your house on the, on the, on the left hand side facing your house, on the left hand side, there's a fence, and then the trees that we're talking about on the left hand side are, are behind the fence, is that right? Speaker 2: No, they're, they're probably not within the view and of the Google map, unless you go to the east, it actually looks like these trees look like they're on my neighbor's property. But my, my property line goes pretty far to the east. There's a, a really big, I think, I'm not sure what it is,
maybe an oak tree, very, very large. And there are branches from that tree that are hanging over over their homes. So we're gonna have just those, those dangerous branches removed from that. And then there was kind of to the, so I guess just to the left of, of the fence, so outside of the fence there was actually a tree that completely fell down and hit their home. Thankfully didn't cause any damage, but knocked the power out. And so we're gonna have the other leader of that tree removed. And then there's another tree right by it. So do you see if you can move your cursor? Yeah.
So the one to Yeah, that one I think, no, I'm sorry. The one to the left of that cracked and fell towards their sunroom. So the ones that are in question are, are sort of the two right there. Yeah. And then that big, the big one just to the right of that green bush. Speaker 1: Okay, got it. Speaker 2: I went one by one, decided which to remove. Speaker 3: And then I think you can see this is the canopy of Yeah. One of the Norway maples that's proposed
to be removed though. Yeah, Speaker 1: I don't, I don't have an issue. The Speaker 3: Rest of them are tucked back up in there on the slope. Speaker 1: Okay. And Mr. Dig, the, the, the intent is to remove the trees, leave the stumps in place. Right. Speaker 3: And I did get clarification, the attention is for the crane to be parked on the driveway of the house. Speaker 2: Yeah. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 2: But we can still have the, that system marked if, if needed. It's not a problem. Speaker 1: I'm sorry, say that last one again. Oh, Speaker 2: There was a system Speaker 3: I had noted in my comments marking off the stormwater system. Oh yeah. If there was gonna be equipment traveling on that path.
Yeah. Just to ensure that it isn't impacted. Okay. Speaker 1: Alright. Questions from the commission on this. I mean, you know, the delineate it, it's, there's a question as to whether this is even in the buffer zone at all, you know, which would raise the issue of whether this is even jurisdictional for us. You know, I, I appreciate you putting this in front of us just to noodle on it a little bit. Any questions from the commission on this? This is a request for determination of applicability. So the process would be to certainly ask questions and then to close and then to issue a determination. Speaker 3: Yeah. And the, the wetland system that's assumed to
impact this property through buffer zone is the same wetland, isolated wetland system that 12 Ferndale filed for. That is a a Speaker 1: At the Speaker 3: Bottom right misprint on my agenda, it should be IVW instead of BVW. So the question of whether or not the work is in buffer zone is the delineation done for 12. Ferndale did not necessarily confirm that the area that is extending buffer zone onto this property is in fact wetland. Right. Because of where the property lines fall. So the filing is under the assumption that there may be buffer zone there,
but the process has not yet been gone through to confirm or delineate that wetland. Okay. Speaker 1: Let's Speaker 2: If the team Go ahead. Yeah. And if the team can advise on how to confirm or deny just for a, a new person to this process, I would welcome either outside the meeting or now any guidance there as well. Speaker 1: You would get a wetland scientist to come out and walk the property and to look for evidence, be it vegetation soils, there's a variety of criteria that they use. It's a science and also a bit of an art form. Okay. Where they would then delineate it. And we can certainly provide you with a list of
qualified professionals who can do those kinds of delineations that will then tell you, that would be great. That will then tell you where the edges are so that any future work you wanna do on your property, you know, you'll, you'll know what you're dealing with. Basically, as Claire's probably explained to you, anything within a hundred feet under the, under natick's, local bylaw, anything within a hundred feet of a, of an isolated wetlands like this, this particular one is, is jurisdictional for conservation commissions. And you need to come talk to us before you did any work within a hundred feet of it. All that. Yeah, it makes sense. Go ahead. Speaker 2: Makes sense. Thank you for that. Speaker 1: Sure. All that being said, I mean,
let's operate under the presumption that it is, there is some part of this is buffer zone, just 'cause he's given us that opportunity just to provide comments on it and we can issue a determination as to what our findings would be, presuming that it is that, that some of these trees are within buffer zone. So any, any further questions from the commission on this? Yeah. What, Speaker 5: Which trees are those in the southwest corner though? Are those the elms there or Speaker 2: Can you say that again Speaker 3: Jim? Make sure your, just make sure your mic is on. Speaker 1: No, it's on. Okay, Speaker 5: Good. Yeah, confirm that the trees in that corner,
those are the elm trees in that corner. Speaker 3: Which corner? Jim? Speaker 5: The southwest corner there. The one that we think that's the only area that's Speaker 3: In the buffer zone essentially Speaker 5: In the, Speaker 3: So right. So there, there, there isn't Speaker 1: Norway maples. Speaker 3: There's a, a mix of trees throughout the site. So there are some Norway, I believe that Andy, this is based on my site visit remembrance, which was during winter. So my winter tree idea is not a hundred percent, the majority of the trees in this back corner and under jurisdiction are Norway maples, the black cherry. There are some smaller elms mixed in there.
And then the larger elm is on the opposite side outside of jurisdiction. Well, Speaker 5: 'cause it seemed to me like all the trees except the elms are in, wouldn't be in question. They, they have to go, don't they? From the, the Aris point of view. So Speaker 2: The, the elms that were noted on the arborist report, we only had a report on the trees that were backed in the buffer, central buffers on. So those two elms are, are in fact in the buffer zone. The other ones were not noted on the report. Speaker 3: Oh, okay. So we don't have jurisdiction. The report is just for the trees within the buffer zone.
Speaker 2: That's right, Claire. Okay. Thank you. Speaker 1: Okay, that's helpful. That, that's Speaker 3: A correction to my notes. Okay, that's helpful. The agenda. Speaker 1: Alright, so you know, just thinking about those, I mean, well, are there other questions from the commission on this? Jeff? Michael David? No. Alright, so this is a request for determination of applicability. Be at, at any point. Be happy to entertain a motion to move forward. Again, the process would be to close and then to issue a determination on this for an RDA Mr. Digga, you know, just as a word of encouragement, you know, as you're thinking about, as you do, you know, if, if you do this project as, as you're doing it
or as you're thinking about future projects, any tree replanting that you can do to maintain, to increase tree canopy coverage is looked upon very favorably. We're, we're really trying to encourage homeowners to do that. As you can imagine in Natick there's a lot of tree removal that goes on. We'll be talking about some projects here tonight where there's tree removal slated. So we're just really trying to encourage people. And Claire can point you to all kinds of resources, be it the tree warden in town or other places that can help, help do that either from a, you know, in some cases literally providing trees to plant
or guidance on that. All that being said, I've got no further questions at this point in time. Anyone else? Alright, happy to entertain a motion then If anyone wants to make one. Speaker 3: This would be to close the would be to close meeting. So moved to close. Thank Speaker 1: You, David. Is that seconded? Seconded. Thank you Jeff. Is there any further discussion on this? Alright, hearing none. All this in favor of closing the public hearing. No one to post. Is, is, is Chris on the call? No, he Speaker 3: Is not. Okay. So our our in-person vote is fine. Speaker 1: Only, only in person here. Alright. Determination. Would you know the, a negative free determination would indicate that this is, there is in fact some part
of this project that's jurisdictional for us, but that the but the determination would be that the proposed work would not negatively impact the resource area. Is that something that, a motion that someone would, would like to make? Speaker 3: So Speaker 1: Moved. Thank you David. Is that seconded? Seconded. Thank you Jeff. Any further discussion on that? All in favor? No one's opposed. Alright, Mr. Dig, you got what you need from us? So the, so it's a negative three determination, which means that this is jurisdictional, but our, our determination is that what you're proposing would not negatively impact the resource area. Please let us know if anything in terms of the scope or scale of the project that you're proposing changes and, you know, let us know if you would like Claire
to point you to some resources around getting those wetlands formally delineated so that as you're thinking about additional projects in your property, you know exactly what you're dealing with. Speaker 2: Yeah. Thank you very much and thanks to Claire for being awesome through the process. Really appreciate it all. Speaker 1: Well that's why she's here. All right. Yeah. Thank you sir. Appreciate your time. Speaker 2: Take care. Bye. Speaker 1: Alright. Alright, let's move on. Hold on one second. Next item on the agenda. This is 33 Pine Street. Next item on the agenda is a notice of intent continuation for two 16 to two 18 South Main Street. This is n the property next to Patriot mulch. There's a request from the applicant to continue this
to April 3rd. Speaker 3: We do need to, this is the notice of intent, so we do need to ah, open the public hearing. Thank you. And then yes, because Speaker 1: We, we just opened the stormwater permit last week. Exactly. Or last, last meeting. Let me, why do I not see? Oh, there is, alright, lemme formally open this then. So, in accordance with the Wetlands Protection Act and natick's local wetlands bylaw article 79, the NATA Conservation Commission hold a public hearing on a notice of intent filed by John John Rockwood of Ecotech Inc. Representing Anthony Gag. Anthony Gagliardi, two 16 to two 18 South Main Street, Natick, LLC for property, located for properties located at two 16
to two 18 South Main Street, map 60 lots, 36 A and 37. The proposal is for work within the buffer zone associated with the construction of a 26 unit open space residential development. So as you remember, we, we opened this and started the conversation about the stormwater aspects of this. There's also a, a, a wetlands issue that we gotta contend with. The idea was to then combine the conversations around both the stormwater and the wetlands. We'll do that at our next meeting on, on April 3rd is when we'll start considering these things together. So this is really just a formality to do this. So the wetlands part of that pro, this project,
the wetlands hearing part of that project is now open. Would someone make a motion to continue that to April 3rd? So moved. Thank you Jeff. Is that seconded? Seconded. I'll take David's on that. Any further discussion? All those in favor? In the room. Alright, so that's continued. Well, let's move on. All right. Next, next item on the agenda is 29 Indian Ridge Road. Notice of Intent continuation. The proposed project is replaced at failed Title five septic system. We opened this at our last meeting. We did not have, did not have a DEP file number at that point. We now do, do we have representatives of that project on the call here This morning? This morning? Listen to me today. Now tonight,
Speaker 6: Yes. Veto Kelowna from Cornerstone Engineering. Hey, Speaker 1: Welcome. Thank you for joining us. Would you just give us a, a voiceover then for what is being proposed here? Speaker 6: Sure. So existing single family Lot 29 Indian Ridge Road. It's about, it's almost an acre lot. They have an existing septic system to the rear side of the house that's in failure and has to be replaced. They do have wetland resources. Charles River is directly behind the house, so they have riverfront that encompasses most of the lot. There's also bordering land subject to flooding that goes up
to Elevation one 20, which generally coincides with the rear tree line. And there's also BVW that extends beyond the top of the bank. So the, we joined to Board of Health, I think it was a week or a week and a half ago or so to get variances approved to allow the location of the septic system. We're proposing it essentially in the same place as the existing to the rear of the house. Board of Health agreed that there really isn't any other location that we can cite that and have the proper soil conditions. The whole front yard is essentially ledge. So really we're limited to that backyard
and we've pulled it as tight to the house as we can. Typically Board of Health requires 20 feet off your foundation. They did allow us to go as close as 10 feet, so we were able to pull that as far away as we could from the river. But it does have to go in that backyard area. It's all sort of developed back there where it's in the existing lawn. So we're really not expanding that towards the river and it's really the, the best solution we could come up with to fix that problem out there. Speaker 1: Got it. Look, that's it. Go ahead. Speaker 6: Nope, that's all I have. Speaker 1: Okay. So it looks like the, you know, so the backyard fair to characterize it as slightly sloping down to the river?
Speaker 6: Yep. Yep. Speaker 1: Okay. And the, you said the existing septic tank is in the same place there, so that would be demoed and pulled out and a completely new system dropped in. Speaker 6: Yep, that's right. Speaker 1: Okay. So this is, this is a tank and Speaker 3: So there's currently a tank and just a leaching field. Yeah. What's proposed is a tank and infiltration chambers. Leaching chambers. Got it. Yeah, that's what I was a more modern system. And there is, I noted that the area will be restored to lawn following work, but there are two trees
that will have to be removed for the footprint of the new system. Speaker 6: Yep. Speaker 1: Okay. So all of the test pits, I mean, mean all of the, you know, the board of health process seems to be complete and soils are good. Speaker 6: Yep, that's right. Speaker 1: No issues there. Speaker 6: No. Yeah, we had good soils. We have good over the minimum separation to groundwater, so. Speaker 1: Okay. Yeah. Any, any questions from the commission on this? This seems pretty cut and dried. Speaker 5: What, what was the reason for failure? Just standards or was there an actual issue?
Speaker 6: They, yeah, it did have an issue. They had an inspection and it was failed. I think it's basically due to age. It was installed I think in the sixties. So it's a, you know, it's getting up there. It's approaching 60 years of age for a septic and I think it's just an age of it. And that's all. Speaker 5: Is there anything that you're gonna do with the, the existing leach field determine that's okay. There's no additional soil removal has to go on or anything? Speaker 6: They'll excavate that out. So they'll have to remove the tank and then they'll basically excavate out that old system and to install this new one. So any old fill, they'll have to pull out and put in new clean Title V fill.
Speaker 5: Oh, for the whole leach field? Yeah, the whole exhibit field. Speaker 1: The whole thing? Yeah. Well the Speaker 3: Areas that aren't taken up by the new system. Speaker 5: Yep. Well it, it looks like it goes up a little further on the drawing. Speaker 3: Yeah. Def it definitely extends outside of the footprint of the existing system. Right? Speaker 6: Yep. So all that would be left in place extend, essentially you excavate the system itself and then five feet all around it. Okay. Just to make sure you have everything out that could affect the new system. Okay. Speaker 5: And and do they have like a max groundwater estimate there that you got plenty of safety margin between the, the
Speaker 6: Tank and everything? Yep. Yeah. So it would be required to have five foot separation. I think we have six. Okay. So we have a little bit extra leeway there. Speaker 3: Yeah, the test pit information is, Speaker 6: It should be over to the right side. Good. And we had water, I think it was at 1 18, 1 0 1 12. I think I can read. Yeah. One 12.8. Yep. There it is. And our bottom of system is at one 18. Speaker 1: 1 18 6 Speaker 6: Feet. And actually we only actually looking at the design, I was only required to have four feet of separation. So we have two feet extra just in case. Speaker 1: Yeah. Pretty straightforward. Any concerns?
Standard construction protection processes? We've got erosion control put in. It's, you know, with the slightly sloping is our standard erosion control package. Speaker 3: I, I do think that it will be fine. Okay. Given the speed at which this type of work is usually completed, it's, it's fast. I, I don't expect any issues. Okay. Speaker 1: What's the, what are the trees that are being removed? Speaker 3: It's two oak trees. Speaker 1: Yep. Any interest in replacing them? Speaker 3: I will say, given the existing tree line and the ledge in the front yard, they're gonna have a hard time of it. Yeah, that's fair. But I think that if, if the commission wanted to, that there is potential
for, for regrowth, Speaker 1: I think in, for a project like this, I don't feel a need to put, put that condition on here. I think, let's get the septics, you know, the, the environmental benefits of having a, a properly functioning septic system on the short is very true on the banks of the Charles River. Far outweigh a couple of trees in my opinion. Speaker 6: And this site's pretty wooded if you, if you went to street view. Yeah, Speaker 1: Yeah. No, there's a lot of, there's a lot of trees. Speaker 6: Yep. Speaker 1: Okay. Any, any further questions from the commission on this? Is there any neighbors or abutters or any citizens who have any questions about this project? If, if you're watching at home and wanna ask a question, just please indicate
by using the raise hand function on, on zoom. Speaker 3: I did have a call with the immediate abutters who, if the commission recalls, we closed out a very old permit at nine lantern lane just last year. I had a whole conversation with them and they had no concerns about the project. Okay. Speaker 1: Alright. Hearing no questions, happy to entertain a motion from the board, the process to be to close and then to issue an order of conditions on the project. Any motion to close? Thank you, Jim, is there any, is that seconded? Seconded. Thank you David. Is there any further discussion on this at all? Hearing none. All those in favor of closing the public hearing. Alright. Order of conditions, Claire,
you've got a draft one in the, in in the, in the books. Speaker 3: Yes. In the interest of time, if the commission is comfortable, I won't read through the whole thing. I will just indicate the sort of changes above and beyond our standard conditions. Vito, I apologize for not being able to get this to you guys in advance. I just finished these prior to the meeting, but it is essentially just our standard order of conditions with two conditions added. Condition 26 has been added, which just notes that the applicant shall comply with all the requirements of Title V and applicable requirements as stated in the Natick Board
of Health regulations Chapter five. The other added condition is condition 31. In the current document, which just notes that prior to the issuance of a wetlands certificate of compliance, the homeowner is required to get their Title V certificate of compliance from the Board of Health just to make sure that both of those processes get wrapped up. Good. I am recommending that we remove condition 28 relating to certificate of occupancy. I am also suggesting that we remove the garage placard condition if the commission desires. I do think that marking the edge
of the wetland could be appropriate for this project. But isn't a necessity depending on the commission's thoughts? Speaker 1: The, is the backyard fenced Speaker 3: Veto? Speaker 1: I don't think it is. Okay. I, but there's a fair, I don't remember one. A fairly substantial tree line Speaker 3: There. There's a tree line between there. Fine. Speaker 1: I don't think we need to do, I don't think we need to do boundary remarks on this one. Okay. Any other comments, questions, edits, adjustments to the order of conditions as proposed hearing number. Someone make a motion to issue this order of conditions as amended. So moved. Thank you Jeff. Is that seconded? Seconded.
Thank you David. Any further discussion on that? All in favor? Any opposed? Alright. You got, you got what you need from us. Thank you for that. Let us know if anything's on the plans change, but otherwise you're good to go. All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. I just keep going. All right. Next item on the agenda is notice of intent continuation for 56 Morenci Street. Do we have a representative of 56 morenci here to talk us through this project? Speaker 7: Hi, Samantha Cripps. PMP Consulting. Speaker 1: Hi Samantha, how are you? Speaker 7: I'm good, how are you?
Speaker 1: Doing well, thanks. Would you go ahead and just walk us through this project? We formally opened it at our last meeting. Didn't have a DEP number as well now we do. I believe we do. It's not indicated. Yes Speaker 3: We do. Yes. Sorry. It was issued on Tuesday this week. Great. 2 3 3 dash 9 2 2. Speaker 1: Super. Alright, Samantha, walk us through this project please. Speaker 7: Yes, we are at Wilson Gardens Condominium Complex. It's a previously existing condo, I believe there's about 40 units across the site. The area in question is a existing parking lot
with some surrounding gravel area. There is an intermittent stream that runs around the property and it was confirmed to be intermittent from the USGS stream stats. So the applicant is really looking to repurpose this existing parking lot area at the most southerly point of the site to just put some dumpsters for the tenants and make the site more functional as well as clean up any broken pavement that's in the area. As it is not currently being used, we are proposing a
small stone diaphragm at the edge of the curb opening where the pavement's going to be resurfaced and all dumpsters will be screened with fencing. We are proposing erosion control as well to mitigate any runoff towards the resource area. The the work is minimal. There's not gonna be a ton of excavation. It's really just some minor pavement removal laying down some concrete and cleaning up the area. So if you have any questions, Speaker 1: Is, is there additional or, you know, additional impervious area being introduced as part of this?
Speaker 3: So there's actually no reduction of 48 square Speaker 1: Feet. Right? That's what I, that's why I was asking. I mean, I mean it looks, so you got a reduction in impervious area, an existing parking lot that we're just adjusting Yep. To put dumpsters in there. Speaker 3: And we did receive, as noted in my staff comments, we did receive answers to all of the staff questions regarding the, the proposed development. Speaker 1: Okay. All right. This is straightforward. I've got no questions. Anybody? Speaker 5: No, we are in the dumpsters now. Speaker 3: So I pulled up the aerial view shortly.
So currently there is, it's really just one dumpster inside a small fenced area Samantha note that isn't used very much by the, the residents. So the intention is essentially to recreate a more formal dumpster pad in this area that's currently unvegetated, remove the existing dumpster pad and then restore that area. Speaker 5: So that's already in the, in the, in the, within the a hundred feet of Speaker 3: The Exactly, yes. They're pulling the dumpsters away from the stream. Okay. Speaker 5: And so emptying these dumpsters,
there's a truck come in and, and Speaker 3: Yeah, so the parking lot is at the end of Wilson Drive. So Samantha, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the trucks come straight in down Wilson and then return back out to Morenci. Speaker 7: Yes, correct. Okay. Speaker 5: So we're not concerned about any spillage or anything like Speaker 3: That? No. I mean, I would be more concerned about spillage from the existing dumpster than the proposed Speaker 1: De Yeah. I mean they're, they're, they're pulling 'em away from the, from the resource area. Good. All right. No questions. Happy to entertain a motion to close. Speaker 8: So moved to Speaker 1: Close. Thank you David. Is that seconded? Speaker 8: Seconded. Speaker 1: Thank you Jim. Any further discussion on that? All in favor?
No one's opposed. Order of conditions. Claire, you put a draft order of conditions in there. The only changes were the removal of some of the certificates of occupancy. Yes. And the kinds of things like that which are not pertinent to this project. Speaker 3: Yes. So again, very similar to our the last amendments to the order of conditions. If folks are looking at the document in the folder, we would be removing conditions 27 through 29, which relate to certificates of occupancy, garage placards and marking the limits of the wetland, which staff do not feel are applicable for this project, along with the removal of the perpetual condition associated
with the markers and the garage placard. Speaker 1: Okay. Any additional conditions that we wanna put in here? Alright, hearing none someone make a motion to issue that order of conditions as discussed. Speaker 8: So Speaker 1: Moved. Thank you David. Is that seconded? Second. Thank you Jeff by any further discussion on that. Alls in favor. Alright, Samantha, thank you. Appreciate your time. You, you got what you need from us? Thank you. All right, our next item on the agenda. Speaker 8: Oh, it was 50. Speaker 1: All right. Next item on the agenda. The continuation of Lake Cochituate path. This is the proposed walkway or multi-use pathway going along the, the south side
of eastbound Route nine between Bacon Street and the end of Hartford Hartford Road. I guess there, we opened this last time, DDOT or DOT's representatives walked us through the project. They did ask, we had, we had asked for a site visit. We were contacted in the middle of last week that they felt that a site visit kind of squeezing along the guardrails of eastbound Route nine might represent a safety hazard, which in hindsight I think is a really good call. Oh, Speaker 3: I think Jim did a little firsthand recon as well.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you Jim, for sacrificing life and limb. Yeah. So anyway, so the, so the, the applicant's representatives asked if we would be okay with them, but it's walking us through some photos there and I think we've got a representative here who's gonna do that for us here this evening. So do we have such a presentation ready to go? Speaker 3: Marissa, did you wanna share your screen or did you want me to share the screen Speaker 9: Up to you? I have it up as well. So Speaker 3: I was say I'll, whatever, I'll make you co-host 'cause I am always driving. Speaker 9: Sure, no worries. Okay. Let me know when you can see that Speaker 3: It is up. Speaker 9: Alright. Course. Speaker 1: Can you blow that up, Claire? Or,
or no, I think she asked you. Huh? I've Speaker 9: Gotta present it. Yeah, it's just, I've got the bar in front of my, my options now. Thank you Speaker 1: Marissa. Speaker 9: All right. I think we're still good here. All right, so we went out this week. This is the view just from up above on the constituent trail. You can see here this is the water treatment plant. So a lot of the work, this is outside the buffer zone, but I know you said you just wanted overall corridor photos as well. So this is facing west toward the project area. And this is facing east away from the project area here. This is down by the wastewater treatment plant.
There's some work here. You'll notice these flags. I believe the pink flagging is for the water main that runs below. And you can see it's very tight through here. This is one of the wider sections as well. Speaker 1: And Marissa, as part of this project, as proposed, the, the fence around, around the, the wastewater tr I mean the, not, not the wastewater, but the, the water plant that would not move. Is that correct? Speaker 9: I bel Jonathan, correct me if I'm wrong. That is correct. We have fence replacement further down. Correct. Speaker 10: The fence east
of the driveway does not get, relocated the fence west of the driveway. Speaker 1: That's right. Okay. Does okay. Alright, thank you. Speaker 9: All right. And here we start to get, believe were just at the end of the, was wastewater treatment plant here. Lake Constituit is behind this tree line down here. And we Speaker 1: Just to avoid, just to avoid any confusion from people watching at home. It's not a wastewater treatment plant. That's, that's it's the water treatment plant. It's the water treatment plant. Oh, okay. It's, it's wells. It's, you know, that's, that, that's what's going on there. Anyway, keep going please. Thank
Speaker 9: You. Sorry. That's Speaker 1: All right. Speaker 9: So this is the approximate location of the proposed infiltration trench that'll run along right in here. You can see the edge here. This is like ait again, tight wooded. They'll be clearing and grubbing throughout here. This is again facing west along Route nine. And this is back looking up to the water treatment plant to the east. Speaker 1: Is there, talk a little bit about tree removal on the left hand side there on the, on the, yeah, that in the left hand image. The image image, yeah. The image facing west Sure are how many
or are those trees gonna be removed? Speaker 9: A lot of them will be just because we need to accommodate the shared use path and the infiltration trench in this area. Following, that'll be, you know, we'll loam and seed it, make it look nice and stabilize the soils. I don't think, believe we have an exact number at this point. Okay. I think the acreage, I think the total for the project is just under half an acre of clearing. Speaker 1: Okay. Alright, keep going. Speaker 9: Yep. This is just so you can see the proximity here. I'm standing at about the guardrail looking
at leak tuit here. So again, very tight corridor. And this is very similar. You're just looking at the proposed infiltration trench back behind it. So at the start of it up here facing it. Speaker 1: And is the, the design and the pitch of the shared use path gonna be pitching away from the lake and towards the, the stormwater handling features? Speaker 9: Yes. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 9: All right. Here we're clearly in the buffer zone here. This fencing will be removed and replaced and the shared use path will run along here to the bridge. Speaker 11: Okay. Speaker 9: That's another very tight corridor through here.
All right. And here is at the bridge here you can see we'll have the modified rock fill and we'll be placing a little bit along this area here just to provide stabilization for the work that's to be done being done. And this is what we had considered the ephemeral, non-jurisdictional stream. It's really just an outfall location and the fencing will be fixed throughout this area. All right. We continue west here along route nine, see the disarray of the fence again, this will be cleared with a shared use path going in through this area as well. And then I believe we're just out of the buffer zone here.
And it starts again, it's tight be doing charities path again throughout this area. And this is as far as I made it just 'cause it got very tight through here with the fence just notated here. Right. But this is, we're definitely outside the buffer zone here, just for reference. And this is all not weed throughout here. Speaker 1: And the intention is that the path will, I mean that that will continue all the way up there before it then kind of turns or bears left to the other side of the fence to where it will then connect into the end of the, the cul-de-sac at the end of Hartford Street, Speaker 9: Correct? Yes. Yeah, this is about, just about Archer Drive
or the Archer Archer cul-de-sac there. Speaker 1: Okay. And then that, that's a bit of a, of a kind of thinking in reverse. I mean that's, that's a downhill slope towards the lake right down the, down the shared use path towards, towards the lake. And again, the pitch of the proposed path will be such that all of the runoff from the path will be captured in deep sum catch basins. That's correct. Yes. And, and then infiltrated or Yep. Infiltrated. But then there, there is some overflow opportunities into the,
you know, into the lake, right? Speaker 10: Yeah. So the, the the, as it travels down the slope from Hartford, there is along the retaining wall and barrier between this path and Route nine, a permeable pavement. Right. That allows for infiltration and after passing all that infiltration, whatever does not get infiltrated does end up in a catch basin. Speaker 1: Okay. All helpful. I'm glad, we, glad we didn't have to walk it honestly,
Speaker 10: It's a little treacherous. Speaker 1: It's, it's a, yeah, I did a drive by after our last meeting and said I don't wanna be walking that. Yeah, Speaker 10: Claire, it looks like that the, the, the fence changes there. New development. Yes. Speaker 3: I, I think I actually, there was just from the windstorm that we had, what was that, the end of last week? I noticed that when I was driving over the weekend. Speaker 10: I am, I'm surprised we haven't heard from the, the owners there, but that is, that is at in maintenance of, of the, of the district. So they should reach out to the district. Speaker 3: Okay. I'll, I'll I'll try to get in touch and let them know. Yeah.
Speaker 1: All right. That was very helpful, thank you. Again, looks like a highly visible but technically fairly straightforward project. I don't see any, any real, you know, nothing that causes concern in terms of the design or how stuff will be captured. Any, any questions from the commission on this? Claire? Speaker 3: Just one question from me, Marissa and Jonathan, depending on how the remainder of the commission's discussion goes, I do anticipate drafting an order of conditions in short order. Would you guys be looking for a five year order
of conditions for this work? I don't know what the timetable is for construction and with any of the invasives work that you guys are proposing, if it would make sense to just do a five year right out the gate. Speaker 10: So it's to be advertised next January. January with a two and a half year construction duration. Speaker 3: Okay. So, Speaker 10: So if that gives you an, an idea, it's probably three years in total from advertisement. Speaker 3: Okay. So given that we would be issuing now, I,
I will recommend that we do a five year, just so you guys aren't dealing with an extension request though with the Permit Extension Act, you might not even technically need one. I'll draft up a five year and we can discuss with the commission. When would they review the order? Speaker 9: Okay. I say Kevin Thompson from Mass DOT is there tonight and he couldn't weigh in as well. Speaker 3: Hi Kevin, you wanna come up to the table? Speaker 12: Hi Kevin Thompson. Speaker 3: Just make sure the mic is on. Speaker 12: Yeah, it has a green on. Oh, thank you. Thank you both. Thank you. Hi, Kevin Thompson with Massachusetts Department of Transportation.
Yeah, thank you for having me. Yeah, I agree. I think five years. Okay. Just to be safe is Okay. Speaker 1: Who is, who's gonna be responsible for o and m on the stormwater features? The, the catch basins in particular to, to clean them up? Speaker 12: That would be the district operations, district maintenance. Speaker 1: And is that something that would happen as part of Route standard kind of Route nine maintenance or is Speaker 12: That Yeah, that would be standard maintenance. They have, I forget the exact schedule off the top of my head, but they come in very regularly. Speaker 3: Would it be Arthur Rossi's team doing the maintenance?
Speaker 12: I'm afraid. I don't know the Oh, Speaker 3: That's totally fine. Speaker 12: Name. I'm not familiar with the district. Speaker 3: That's totally fine. We can condition at least trying to get the contact information. I know DOT staff do turnover, but put a condition on the project that the o and m staff contact information be provided to the town. Speaker 1: Yeah, that would be helpful. I mean, it's similar to the, we had a conversation last time about snow removal and that would be also DOT. Speaker 12: That one I'm not sure on, that's not come up as I believe that would be DOT but that would be something that we would have to check on.
Speaker 1: Okay. If we could get some clarity on that just so we know, you know, I mean the, the town takes care of the, the rail trail, but just wanna know if the, who, who would be in charge of that. And is the intention to have this be accessible throughout the winter? Speaker 12: Yeah, I believe it is. Speaker 1: Okay. All right. Any other questions from the commission on this? Speaker 12: Yeah, Speaker 5: I got some Speaker 1: Jim. Yeah, Jim, go. Okay. Speaker 5: Yeah, so I did do the walk, so yeah, God Speaker 1: Bless Speaker 5: You man. We are obviously concerned about the resource being the lake and I know when this is nothing proposed for the bridge itself going over Lake Capitate,
I'm a little concerned in terms of the amount of litter that was out there was pretty significant. And that's with nobody walking or biking. So that's just, I assume most, most of it's from automobiles, which is a shame, but there's a lot there. But there's a nice fence that the black fence that's runs a pretty good distance, you know, not, not the one in front of the water treatment plant, but just up hidden towards the, the bridge. And that seems to keep a lot of the litter away from the,
the banks of the lake, which was nice. So that 'cause got to watch the walk the bank of the lake and that was nice and clean in terms of litter. So I was a little confused on the drawings, like what's happening to the fencing and number one is it moving closer to the lake? 'cause right now it's about, ah, 10, 10 15 feet maybe from the bank. So there's not a lot of room there, I don't think to move it. But, you know, maybe there's a, a couple of feet, but is it gonna be the same type or then, because I saw in the drawings about some cedar, I like more open fencing I think is what that that's
how I interpreted the cedar fencing to be. So I'm just trying to protect litter from getting in the lake. Do we think we got that nailed with this design? Speaker 10: Yeah, the, the cedar fence is not located at the, at the lake that's located approaching Bacon Street. And I think at the, at the stormwater control measure, the, the chain link fence will be black poly vinyl chain link fence is going to be replaced at the, at the lake. Speaker 5: Okay. All right. I guess just on the drawing it,
it gets a little confusing 'cause I see proposed cedar rail fence. Yeah, Speaker 1: Exactly. I was just gonna say that Speaker 5: It's right there and then it says r and d, the current fence. So anyway, just a little concern on the fence. So Speaker 1: The, so the drawing though does say cedar rail fence at the parts that are right near the lake, right? Which Speaker 3: Page? Just so I can share on the screen? Speaker 5: No, page 12 of 52 i a couple of different drawings. I Speaker 1: Was looking at page six of 52. Speaker 3: Okay. I also wanna be sure to the, that is the original plan set. The revised plan set is part of the full revised notice
of intent package in the folder. It's a 352 page document, but I, I'll just try to pull up that section Speaker 10: With Yeah. And that was revised at a hundred percent design submittal. Speaker 3: Oh, thank you Jonathan. Yeah. Speaker 5: Is Oh good. So it went to the, to the black fencing and you say Speaker 10: To the, to the black fence? It did. Speaker 5: Okay. And does, did, does it actually move the one that's there, it'll move closer to the lake or? Speaker 10: I don't recall off the top of my head. I know that does stay at the proposed back of the, it's at immediately at the proposed
back of the shared use path. And we are not changing the back of slope for the top of slope. Okay. For the sloping down to the, to the, to the lake. So chances are it's, it's very close to the, that exact spot. The fence also needs to be on, on ma stop property. Speaker 5: Oh, versus what DCI property? Is that what you mean? Speaker 10: Yes, correct. Part of the, and I don't believe we are acquiring Speaker 3: Property requirements in that Speaker 10: Particular location. Speaker 5: Oh, okay. No easement or anything there. Okay. Now how about the bridge itself though?
The, the railing that goes across there very, very low. I, I is and, and you see anything? It Speaker 10: Is, it, it's similar to the other side as part of this project, in order to not trigger chapter 91 license, we're not making any modifications to the bridge. Speaker 5: So, so fencing can't be added there. You're saying Speaker 3: Fencing along the lakeside or along the roadside? Speaker 10: Yeah, I don't know of any, any mast. The bridge standard, it's Speaker 5: Very low right now. Speaker 3: Oh, the guardrail. Speaker 5: The guardrail. Can you just put something up there that dis discourage people from tossing stuff over as they either walk or drive, ride their bikes by, you know,
Speaker 1: But on the, on the lake side of the path Speaker 5: Yes. You're talking about lake side. Yep. Lake side. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 10: I mean I I will say the amount of litter that's out there is, is, you know, part of the nonactivated result of that, of that section of corridor. Right. No one's there to clean up anything. No one can get there to clean anything up. It's the same reason we didn't want to go take, take a crew of people out there. Right. I just by having this path there concerned people Speaker 5: Using Speaker 10: Be cleaned on a regular basis simply by the fact that people are going to be walking along there.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Jonathan, I think that Jim's concern is mostly about the potential for trash to then be thrown into the lake to buy trail users in the future rather than the accumulation of trash along the trail. Okay. I just, I think the question is whether or not there's been any consideration for any kind of screening or safety fence coming up off the guardrail to restrict that. I know there's obviously the view consideration that goes along with that as well. Speaker 10: Yeah. There hasn't been any, any consideration to changing the bridge simply for the, for the reason
that a chapter 91 permit would've been prohibitive for the project. Speaker 1: But is there any, is there any safety concern? I mean, if you've got bicycles or whatever riding down that, I mean Speaker 10: It's a, it, it's a standard MAs dot railing for pedestrian use. Okay. Okay. The other side of the bridge that has a sidewalk is the exact same railing. I Speaker 5: All right. Okay. Go. Alright. Speaker 10: And I I believe it's the same as the railing on the FOSS reservoir as well. Speaker 5: Yeah. I guess I'm just comparing it to our constituent rail trail as you go over the culvert, there's at least a, a, a four or five foot fence there. It's just, I just happen to be there today
and it's like, it, it just discourages people from doing anything I think, but Speaker 10: No, yeah, I mean we'll certainly bring it up with it with, with Masta and, and district three to make sure that they don't have any additional concerns Speaker 5: There. Alright, thanks. Appreciate it. Yep. The, the, the other questions I had were this, this infiltration trench, which I believe is just really in one place, right? Yep. And so, and I'm assuming that was analyzed as that there's, that's where there's a lot of flow of water from, is it from route nine coming in that we're trying to make sure we capture that
and don't let it proceed any further and get, you know, filtered and into the, to the groundwater from that point. So Speaker 3: It's to capture the runoff from the newly created path. Speaker 5: From the new path. Yeah. Speaker 3: So because the project is required to meet the storm water standards, they have to collect and treat the, in the runoff that's created by the new pavement surface especially, but don't Speaker 5: Need that one spot. I mean, it's only, so Speaker 3: That's the only spot that's wide enough. They have other types of stormwater management proposed along the rest of the path. There's that, but maybe that's comfortable with all there's
that permeable pavement and then a couple of deep sump catch basins being proposed as well Speaker 5: Because I was trying to understand what's going on in route nine there. I didn't see a lot of basins. Speaker 3: No. The, the drainage in route nine in this area is more limited and I believe that most of the catch basins are on the interior median to ensure that water isn't running off into the lake. Speaker 1: Yeah. The intent is to capture the runoff from, from the, the new path itself infiltrated at in that re trench, the bridge Speaker 3: That's soon to come down. That's right. Speaker 1: The stuff that, that, that doesn't get infiltrated on its
way to the trench Okay. Will get infiltrated at the trench. Got it. That at that point. Right. Speaker 5: That's intent of, there's no concerns. I mean that's, it's not that close I guess to the waste, not the waste, the water treatment plan which is pumping. Oh, Jim. Speaker 3: So there's not thankfully, which is pumping. Right. Thankfully there's, there is not a well located at Springvale. Just look at the DPW staff in the room to confirm that. And so there's no water being directly pumped from this area, from the, the groundwater. Speaker 5: Oh, is that right? There is, yeah, sure. Speaker 3: There are whales. That's springville, please. Speaker 5: Yeah. Strike Speaker 3: That. Strike that from the record to myself. A note to myself.
Speaker 5: It's like got number one. Well, right, isn't it? A lot of wells come into the Springville, but there are some wells at Springville. Speaker 3: Bill Sprat from Public Works just noted that there are a number of wells that direct water to Springville, but there is also a well at Springville, Speaker 5: I I just had seen, seen that there's concerns with if you have infiltration trenches too close to a pumping. Yeah. So Speaker 3: They do meet all of the required water quality standards that's needed for a project of this type. Good, Speaker 5: Good. Okay. And I guess my last question was, one I had last week was about power poles.
I know it's not really con com related here, but it seems like there's a couple of significant power poles right at the constituent rail trail bridge That and, and it's not just light poles, there are a couple of light poles. Those are, those would be pretty easy to move. But the power ones, it looked pretty significant. I was just from a project moving point of view, it looks like it could be pretty intense. I mean, you mean we just went through that on route 27? Yeah, I I know one of the photos might show it. I know. Yeah. Marissa,
Speaker 10: Do you wanna flip back to the, the photos smack at the rail trail trail? Speaker 5: Yeah. In fact, I don't know, I just, I had an idea I could source Speaker 1: Our, our Speaker 5: Pole. Speaker 3: Was it this pole right here, Jim, that you were noticing? Speaker 5: I think that might be one of 'em. Speaker 10: Yeah. So Speaker 5: The right by the bridge Speaker 1: Yeah. Picture Speaker 10: You can see just if you, if you zoom in on that, on that particular slide right there. For instance, for instance meeting confession. I think the other one has, has a, a more distinct version of this. If you go even farther to the east on the path. But all the, the utility poles that are located both in the other direction on this at, at the driveway
and continuing east that carry utilities are not being relocated. We've gone to a great effort to shift the path around those utility poles because they are carrying a lot of utilities and it would be a significant effort to relocate. Right. Speaker 1: Okay. So, so just to clarify though, I mean, so there is no, no pole move moving proposed as part of this project at Speaker 3: This location? Speaker 1: No, at, at this Speaker 10: Location there are no utility poles that are carrying, well this many utilities, there are several utility poles called out on the plans that are actually light poles. Right. I think you can see them just maybe the third
or fourth pole back in this picture that are just light poles. Right. And they are being relocated. In addition, there's a couple old poles from the CAO rail project that were cut off that were, but were not removed and they are also being removed as part of this project. Speaker 1: Yeah, moving light poles is easy as compared to moving utility poles, so that's good to hear. Alright, Jim, any further questions? No. No, that's it. Any further questions from anybody else in the commission? Alright, any questions from the public on this project? Speaker 3: If you're on Zoom, please feel free to use the raise hand function.
If you have any questions or if there's anybody in the room, you're more than welcome to raise your physical hand. Seeing Speaker 1: None. Hearing none. Alright. What's the pleasure of the board? So we can, we can move to, we can, someone can move to close, we could then work on an order of conditions for our next meeting and do that. If the pleasure of the board is to close the public hearing on this. Any further questions, further comments from the applicants? All good. Someone wanna make a motion to close then move to close. Thank you David. Is that seconded? Seconded.
Thank you Jeff. Any further discussion on this? Further questions before we close? Hearing none. All in favor? Alright, let's Claire Speaker 3: Homework. Yes, Marissa and Jonathan, I will work on drafting an order of conditions. Are you guys comfortable continuing to the four three meeting at which we'll review the conditions and vote to issue? Speaker 10: I'm not available for the four three meeting, but I'm guessing Marissa is maybe, Speaker 9: I am actually going out on maternity leave. Congratulations on, thank you. Speaker 3: I was about to say, so I will have the conditions prepared in advance if you guys are comfortable with reviewing them
and the commission discussing without you present or we, we could continue to the following meeting April 17th. I know Marissa, you'll probably still be on maternity leave at that point, but Jonathan, if you're available, whatever your guys' preference is Speaker 10: On the 17th is fine. We also have other staff that could attend on the third. Yeah, Speaker 9: My staff can cover as well. Speaker 3: Yeah. Okay. So let's do the third, Speaker 1: Let's do the third. Someone make a motion to continue this to the third. Speaker 13: So Speaker 1: Moved. Thank you David. Is that seconded? Thank you Jeff. Any further discussion on that? All in favor? Okay. We'll pick us up on the third vote in the order conditions at that point. Thank you folks. Appreciate your time. Good presentations.
Thank you. And we'll have a great night. Look forward to seeing this, seeing this project. Speaker 3: There's a, a little bit of turnover for the next one, Matt? Speaker 1: Yeah. All right. Next item on the agenda, or is that it for tonight? No, I'm kidding. Gross. No, I'm kidding. So close. I'm kidding. Alright, next item on the agenda. It's the 1111 Pleasant Street, AKA South Natick dam. Lemme go ahead and formally open this. Hang on a second. Speaker 13: Excuse me. Speaker 1: Alright, in accordance with the Wets Wetlands Protection Act and Natick local wetlands bylaw article 79,
the NATA Conservation Commission hold a public hearing on a notice of intent filed by Adrian Dun Gia Geo Environmental Inc. Representing Jamie Erickson, the town of Natick for property, located at 11 Pleasant Street Map 63, lot 23. The proposal is to remove the spillway and fish ladder components of the South Natick Charles River Dam. This is a, a full, full circle project in a sense. You know, remember when this, the original dam maintenance project came in front of us five years ago, six years ago, something like that. Five years, Speaker 13: Five Speaker 1: Months, five years, five months, three days, four hours counting, hundred Speaker 13: 82 Speaker 1: Days, right? Who's counting? Yeah.
You know, and it was, you know, the proposal was to maintain the dam at that point in time and then it kind of got referred back to a whole public process around that in a public engagement process that resulted in I think, what's in front of us here tonight. So, Adrian, thank you. You know, if you could introduce yourself formally for the minutes and then just walk us through your presentation about the project. I wanna just preface, preface the conversation here this evening. You know, there's a lot of interest in this, you know, and this has been quite a process to get us to where we are here tonight. And so we're gonna do our best to focus on jurisdictional issues for the commission here.
But at the same time, I recognize the, you know, the interest in this project. And so there will be some stuff that may stray from stuff that's jurisdictional, but I'll do our best to keep us on track for this. This is not gonna be a one meeting process, you know, it'll take us some time, but we'd like just to walk through to have an overview here this evening, see what questions that introduces, we'll likely do a site visit to go take a look. I all think all of us have been down at the South Natick Dam many times, but it'll be good to lay eyes on it and just lay eyes on it in the context of what's being proposed here this evening.
So why don't we go through the presentation and we will take it from there. Speaker 14: Great, thank you very much for the record. I am Adrian dunk. The light is on of GZA geo environmental here representing the town of Natick, who's the proponent of this project. And so, as you said, I'm sure you all have been there, but the dam is in South Natick on the Charles River. So we do have a, a slide here showing the project setting. The dam is just upstream of the municipal boundary. And so the, the Charles River does flow in this image up, up into the right. And so the whole area there is the impoundment. Next slide.
This project was, this is a very odd font that came through on the slides. It, I was noticing that I've, it's never looked like this before, but that's okay. We can, we can roll with it. This project was filed as an ecological restoration limited project. So I don't know how many of those have come before you before it is filed. It, it's a little bit of an odd one. So I I'm Speaker 3: Just gonna do one thing quickly that I think will fix the issue, hopefully. Speaker 14: So that means that it meets the definition of an ecological restoration project, but it does not meet all of the additional eligibility criteria that would allow it
to be filed as a ecological restoration straight project using the Form three A and resulting in a restoration order of conditions. The WPA form five A, so it's filed, as you've seen, using the WPA form three, like a traditional notice of intent with Appendix A, which is for the Restoration Limited Project. So I just know the nomenclature can get pretty complicated, so I think it's worth kind of being very explicit about that.
I think I have fixed it, and it does mean that the project takes many of the actions necessary for an ecological restoration project in order of conditions. But ultimately it is reviewed under three 10 CMR 10 53 4, and those regulatory, that regulatory section. All right, so yeah, that's, that covered that slide. So this project, it has two primary purposes, the first of which is to decommission the dam and permanently resolve the safety and liability concerns related to maintaining a high hazard dam.
That's a very practical purpose for the town who is the owner of the dam and who is responsible for any liability related to the dam. That's not the ecological purpose of the project. The ecological purpose is to restore the Charles River within the impoundment area to enhance the natural processes of the river and improve climate resilience. Next slide. I do wanna go over a couple of project definitions. So we're all oriented in talking about the same thing. This is an aerial image of the dam itself. The earth and berm is to the top right here.
This the southern side. Many people may have walked along that earth and berm. I know that that was the subject of quite a bit of community discussion related to the trees. The earth and berm is staying. It is in white text. Everything in white text will remain on site. We're not altering that. So the earth and berm, the training wall, the gate structure, we are proposing to leave those intact. We're gonna remove, we are proposing to remove the fish ladder and the spillway. And those are the concrete structures that are in the river channel in orange text on this slide.
So I may say dam removal, but I'm talking about the spillway and the fish ladder and not the other pertinent features such as the training walls and the earth and berm. Next slide, zooming out to look at our existing conditions. Our project area, right? Our project site where we're doing the construction is the dam. However, we will be altering the 16 acres of the impoundment area upstream of the dam. We'll be converting that from land underwater or land underwater bodies and waterways as it is today to other wetland resources. And there is town owned property
to town parks on either side of the dam. We are proposing to access along the earth and embankment. We're not proposing any construction access on the river left side of the dam. Next slide. Here's an image just to, just to help orient people who are not maybe as familiar with the dam site. This is downstream of the dam looking up at the dam. So the spillway is the section of the dam where the water flows over it, and that's that more smooth looking water. And then, and the left part where it looks like stairs,
that is the fish ladder that will come out. And then to the left of the fish ladder is the gate structure that will remain next slide. And then looking across the dam here, you can see the fish ladder, the foot of the fish ladders in the bottom left hand corner. And looking across the dam, we have the spillway and the spillway apron. And that is constructed out of concrete and it is what we are proposing to remove. Next slide. So as I've been saying, the project is really, while the impacts may be significant and
and large, especially compared to what many applicants come before you with the proposed project, is to remove the spillway and restore the free flowing nature of the river. So the construction area is fairly limited. Wetlands and floodplains are expected to reestablish within the existing open water areas. And the right hand image here is a rendering of what it, what it may look like following dam removal. And that's the pleasant street bridge in the upper right hand corner of the rendering. Next slide. Here's another rendering of a, of an aerial view of what it may look like as wetlands and,
and floodplains reestablish. And you'll notice those evergreen trees there. Those are the existing trees on the earth and berm next. Okay, so now into the nitty gritty of how we're proposing to do the work. I do have this one slide of the plans for our members online. I also do have a full plan set here with me if we wanna look at things in more detail. We are, as I said, we're proposing to access through the park. There will be in preparation of the construction work, five trees are proposed for removal on the dam.
Those trees have been coordinated with the town tree warden, and they have been specifically cited that they, they're either existing hazard trees or are directly along the existing trail that's on the top of the earth in berm. And so they're, you know, immediately adjacent to the trail and would be a hindrance to the construction access. Those trees will be removed in accordance with the bat time of year restrictions, and they will be cut flushed to the ground and stump ground, but no other earth disturbance is proposed. There will be a lay down area to the, in
that lower left hand corner, a stabilized construction entrance off of Pleasant Street. And then the access roads that will be used are going to have like a mulch, a mulch layer laid down to avoid direct ground disturbance. We have no interest in altering a dam embankment, so we're not proposing to dig anything up or build like a gravel road. We're gonna work on top of the embankment. The construction access will then go yeah, along the top
of the embankment and it will enter the Charles River upstream of the dam. The gate structure will be open. There are, there's, it's a, there's boards in there now, they'll be opened to lower the Charles River empowerment. This work is proposed during a low flow time of year. So when the river's already low, the impoundment will then be gradually lowered in a controlled manner through the gate structure to avoid downstream flooding. So we'll have low flow conditions with some added water that equal maybe a normal flow,
but not a flood, less than a flood flow downstream. A culvert or other bypass pipes will be installed through those gate structures, and then a boulder access road will be constructed across the top of the dam. A a coffer dam will be installed downstream of the dam to allow for a dry work area. And then the contractor will go to the far side of the dam river left and work removing the concrete, haul it out. And as they work, they will then remove the haul road as well and tighten up the coffer dam.
Speaker 1: If I can just, just clarify some terminology. You, you're talking about a, this, this access to the dam, but it's the spillway. Speaker 14: It's the spillway, yes, yes. My apologies. It's the access along the upstream side of the concrete spillway. Okay. Yes. So the, yeah, the boulder road will be directly along the upstream side of the spillway. And the coffer dam is downstream of the spillway. It does not block the, you know, the flow will be allowed to go through that gate structure unimpeded by our work. Speaker 1: So the fir the first indication, I mean, besides some limited tree removal
and some mulching for an excess road, the first kind of major step in the process is the opening, opening Speaker 14: Of the gates, Speaker 1: Opening of the gates and the installation of these bypass pipes. That will, is where water flow will occur while this process is taking place. Is that right? Speaker 14: Yes. And drawing down of the impoundment. Okay. Yes, that will be the first, the first indication is that the impoundment will be lowering and narrowing into a, into a river. Speaker 1: And how long do you expect that to take? When the, when you know from when the, when the, the gates are first opened
to when work can start, how long do you think that'll take? Speaker 14: A couple of days to a couple of weeks. Okay. I've seen, in my experience, I, I had an impoundment that was 18 acres and it was largely filled with sediment and very shallow. And it emptied in 26 minutes. Speaker 1: 26 minutes. 26 Speaker 14: Minutes. Speaker 1: This one might take a little bit longer. Speaker 14: This one I expect to take longer, but yes. Speaker 1: Okay, thank you. Speaker 14: And that was also through a gate that was not like, we didn't like blow out the whole spillway.
We opened a seven by five foot gate. So they will yep. They'll install this, access, this boulder road using large stones and the coffer dam so that they have a dry work area. And the coffer dam will also catch smaller debris as they're demolishing the concrete. They'll go to that river left side, demolish part of the spillway, remove the debris, enlarge pieces, and then take that coffer dam, tighten it up, take the access road, remove the boulders, and so their work areas stays dry,
but water will start to be able to flow around the left side of the work area. It'll also go through the bypass pipes and they'll just work their way out. And so when they're done removing the spillway, their access road will also be removed. The coffer dam will be removed, the bypass pipes will come out and work will be done. So Speaker 1: The coffer dam will be, will be shortened or shortened in length as the removal process happens. And flow will be allowed to go around it Yes. As, as the removal happens. Yep. Speaker 3: It'll probably curve up as the road gets pulled out to, again, make sure that there is that dry contained area,
but water will allowed to be flowing along the treatment walls on this side. Speaker 1: Yeah, a lot of these questions I just wanna make sure everyone's just visualizing this and just following along with what the process will look Speaker 14: Like. Absolutely. I appreciate it. I've been thinking about this project for a year and a half a while, so I I appreciate the, the clarifications. Cool. Speaker 15: And I am a little confused, so Sure. As you begin to rip away the spillway and the apron, yes. What will prevent the water from coming through where you rip it out? Is it blocked and directed through the pipes by the gate
or No, there's a copper dam. Speaker 3: Yes. The hall road, it will essentially serve as a wall. The hall road constructed out of boulders, it's layers of different sediment sizes. Okay. That will essentially create a wall that will be directing the flow through that bypass gate. Speaker 15: Okay. Okay. Speaker 14: Oh, sorry. Yep. Nope, that, so that's, that's the work. There's no, this is another kind of nuance in the regulations. The, there will be passive release of sediment. So once the spillways removed during removal, and once it's removed, sediment that has
accumulated in the impoundment area will be allowed to naturally migrate downstream under the Massachusetts regulations. That is considered improvement dredging. And we are seeking a 4 0 1 water quality certification to approve the dredging of 11,500 cubic yards. We are not proposing any mechanical dredging or hydraulic dredging. So we are not gonna be out there with an excavator dredging sediment and dewatering it and decanting it and trucking it offsite. So I do wanna be very clear about that,
that while there's dredging reported in the NOI, we are getting a 4 0 1 water quality certification. That dredging is the reinitiation of a natural sediment transport regime in the Charles River. And so then this is a second, second drawing from our plan set. And this is a proposed conditions. So the Charles River is expected to return to a more normal channel width following the dam removal. And this estimated or proposed understanding of
where the channel will be in blue is based on sediment probing that multiple sediment transects were taken throughout the existing impoundment to understand where there's soft sediment, where there's hard sediment, where the historic channel likely was how wide the historic channel likely was. And that's what you see here is this is where it, prior to the, the dam being installed and the dams previous prior dam and the prior dam before that, this is likely where the channel was. And it's likely where the channel will be. Rivers have a really long memory,
and we, you know, it's the, the research indicates that when dams are removed, they find their way back to where they, where they used to be. And so it will return to a, a more narrow width than you know today, but a, a width that's similar to what you observed downstream and upstream of the impoundment, the other areas in green, those are currently today land under water bodies and waterways, and they're expected to become bordering vegetated wetlands and BLSF in the future. Speaker 1: What, what are the error bars on these projections
for where the channel is? You know, what, what, what variability do you see? I mean, you know, you can project based upon modeling. I'm just curious in reality what, you know, what's observed in in, in the real world. Yeah, Speaker 14: I think, I don't, I can't give you an exact percent of like, it, it will be right here plus or minus five feet. I can't, I can't give you that, but it is really shocking in both in our observed research and our partners at, you know, at DER who we work with regularly, who remove a lot of dams in the commonwealth and in the research Speaker 1: That it's pretty good. It's pretty
Speaker 14: Good. Yeah. Yeah. It's, it's really, it's really surprising and, and I think historically a lot of effort went into us trying to re-engineer a stream where we thought a bench should go where we thought debris, you know, woody debris should go or logs and, and rocks and nature does it best. Yeah, Speaker 1: Fair. Thank you. Speaker 14: Thank you. Next slide please. So this is, goes over the impact table. This is in the NOI, these are pretty significant numbers, so I, I would not be surprised
if people are a little shocked. So I do want to go over that. This is conversion. So it is not loss of resource areas, it is conversion resource area conversion is explicitly allowed under ecological restoration projects and ecological restoration limited projects. It is, there are no dimensional thresholds. So we are relieved from our traditional, you know, 5,000 square feet or one, one-to-one mitigation requirements that are in, you know, the BVW or the bank standards. So we are looking at a conversion of a loss
of land underwater, but a big gain in BVW and then alteration of where the riverfront area is. And we're actually looking at a little bit of loss of BLSF also because it's turning into BBW as well. So that's just where BLSF can't be. Conceptually, we know that the BVW is holding floodplain legally, it can't be both. So next slide. All right. There are a lot of eligibility criteria for
ecological restoration projects. I'm not gonna go through them all, but I do wanna hit a few of the high points. And so those are that this site is not within rare species habitat. So we have coordinated with natural heritage endangered species program and they do not have jurisdiction here. We also have coordinated on time of year restrictions for in water work with mass wildlife and mass DMF. And there are, there's actually not time of year restrictions in Natick, but there's time of year restrictions right up
to the Natick border, which is like 1500 feet away. And so we are, we've agreed to observe migratory fish time of year restrictions in the fall and the spring. And we're proposing to do our work in the summer so that in water work will be accomplished between July 15 and August 31st, 31st. Yeah. I always have a, have a little pause if there's 30 or 31 days. We are also proposing to observe the US Fish and Wildlife Service time of year restrictions for the bats.
So the tree work will be done separately from the construction mobilization for the in water work, just because that those two time of year restrictions were not really compatible. We are, as I said, proposing to dredge more than a hundred cubic yards a sediment. So we have submitted a 4 0 1 water quality certification as required and that is currently under review by the 4 0 1 dredge office in Boston. And a dam safety chapter 2 53 permit has been issued by the office of DAM Safety permitting the removal of this dam. Next slide. Alright,
here's the good stuff. Here's the interest of the act, why we're all here. Ecological restoration projects are permitted, provided that they do not harm in any, any of the interests of the acts and they benefit, they increase the capacity of at least one dam removal projects increase the capacity of multiple interests of the act. And they, this project will not harm any of the interests of the ACT provided by this project site. So when we think about the protection of public and private groundwater supply and the protection of groundwater supply, generally
we are seeing benefits from jam removal projects. There's gonna be an increase in the BVW area and we know vegetated wetlands, they retain and release water during dry times, during dry periods of the year. So they really help maintain those base flow conditions, which are important for groundwater. We also know that both the riverfront area and vegetated wetlands capture nutrients coming from upland areas. They capture nutrients and sediments, which can improve water quality in the rivers and they can improve water quality and groundwater. We are restoring sediment transport regime,
which better distribute sediment composition throughout the river corridor, including organic materials. And that organic carbon particularly can improve water quality. And I really can't speak enough about the importance of a natural sediment transport regime. It's like my, I just, it's so important and I could really nerd out about it for a long time. I will save you all that. But, but sediment moving through natural river systems is the lifeblood of a healthy river and dams stop that.
And so removing the dam immediately restores this critical source of nutrients and, and habitat building capacity in rivers. We're also going to have an increase in native vegetation and increase shading because there'll be vegetation along a more narrow river corridor instead of this big flat open water and cooler water and increase vegetation, that can all also increase how the water is getting through the substrate through those root channels into the groundwater. Next, next slide. Flood control and storm damage.
These are kind of storm damage prevention. These are the ones that come immediately to mind with dam removal. Right? We're gonna take this existing area that already this bathtub, it already holds water. We're gonna remove some of the water from it. It can store water in the future in that bordering vegetated wetland and that BLSF. We have done quite a bit of flood modeling, including a no rise certification per FEMA requirements and per FEMA protocols that show
that there will be no increase in the hundred year base flood elevation upstream or downstream of the dam from this project and upstream of the dam, there will be a decrease in the water surface elevation of flooding. We also know that bordering vegetated wetlands hold water and release them later resulting in flood attenuation. So not all that water is just jetting down, jetting down the river when there's a flood. Some of it can be held and released later, which is a flood benefit. We also see an immediate removal of the threat
of a potential dam breach or an uncontrolled release of water, that that threat is immediately and permanently resolved through the removal of the spillway. And then again, that natural sediment regime restored, that's gonna build back bank stability and it can decrease excessive downstream scour and erosion during flooding events. Next slide. Prevention of pollution. This has been mentioned, but it bears mentioning again, increasing rear riverfront area allows it to do its job, right? It's gonna intercept overland flows, it's gonna filter out
pollution in, in runoff from upland areas before it hits the Charles River. The water supply covered a lot of improved water quality benefits, which is a prevention of pollution. Impoundments behind dams do are a source of thermal pollution because they are these big open areas of water. So s restoring it to a flowing water that's more narrow, there's less sun baking it, the water's moving more quickly so there's less residence time and that can cool water at least remove that source of thermal pollution. And healthy wetlands can store carbon dioxide
through accumulation of organic material as they build soils. Next slide. Protection of fisheries. Removing the dam removes the fish migration barrier and it improves passage. So we did model this particularly for shad and American eel and so Shad can will be able to pass through this section of the Charles under all modeled flow conditions. American eel will be able to pass through in, in most of the flow conditions that were modeled, which is an improvement over existing conditions. We're gonna have an increase in water quality and decrease in thermal pollution.
Sediment flows enhance fish habitat and they enhance macro benthic invertebrate habitat, which is what fish eat. And then having naturalized banks can improve fish habitat for escape cover and breeding and food. And we're gonna follow the time of year restrictions recommended to us by DMF Next protection of wildlife habitat. The Wetlands Protection Act states that bordering vegetation, bordering vegetated wetlands are the most important inland habitat for wildlife end quote. And this project will create over 307,000
square feet of PVW. I think that number speaks for itself. The project also will create contiguous naturalized areas along the Charles River within what's currently the impoundment to allow for a wildlife travel up and down the Charles River. So that that leads to a lot of connection for our, our wildlife to hopefully keep off the roads and outta backyards. Next slide. Okay. We know invasive species are always a concern on these projects. The plan is to remove the spillway and the fish ladder, allow the sediment to move
and allow banks to naturally form as experienced across the commonwealth. With the last 80 dam removals that have been completed to date, what's proved really successful is allowing the seed bank in the impoundment area to naturally revegetate with very little action on behalf of the proponent. So there is a seed bank that's accumulated over time. It is predominantly native and it grows back amazingly quickly.
And so we'll see within pretty short order on the magnitude of weeks of vegetation growing in the impoundment area. The town, as the proponent is aware that invasive species in the Charles river corridor is a concern. They are concerned about it and what they've proposed to do is allow for this seed, native seed bank to grow in and monitor it every three months during the growing season, they're gonna monitor it and hand remove invasive feces or mechanically remove invasive feces. So that's Who is they? They the town.
The town with trail steward project partners. Speaker 3: Yeah, so the town is committed to either through volunteers or if funding is available. Obviously we can bring in a, a professional contractor to do that work. But there are a number of residents throughout the last five years of the dam removal process who have reached out about wanting to be involved in wanting to be engaged following spillway removal. So the town does hope that we'll be able to have a good volunteer program around this area. But there are a number of grant programs and potentially town funding in future years that may be available.
But we do hope to rely on volunteers based on the expressed interest from the Speaker 1: Community. And there's also, there's also grant funding resources that would be available for projects like this. Quite Speaker 3: A number of them for Speaker 1: Sure. I also appreciate the second bullet point here about if herbicides are in need. I mean, Japanese notwe, as we all know, is, is a tough cookie. Yes. A tough customer. Yes. And so if we to remove that is a long-term effort and if herbicides are needed for that, we'll have an additional conversation about that. Speaker 14: Absolutely. Right. So that then, then the town will come back and work with you all on that.
But the intention is to get out there early and often and hopefully nip it in the bud. Yep. Speaker 1: Fair. Thank you. Speaker 14: Then if there are areas where there's just poor revegetation for some reason, which can happen, then there would be a proactive seeding using native floodplain or wetland seed mix. And I think that would be coordinated directly with you all as well. Next slide. Alright, so this project, it is large and that means that it has received a lot of regulatory scrutiny. And so just to recap what has been completed and what is pending, the project has adequately
and properly complied with the MEPA process through the issuance of two secretary certificates. One on the expanded environmental notification form issued in August, 2024. 20 April, 2024. April. Thank you. Yeah, I was like, that doesn't make sense. April, 2024 and one on the single environmental impact report in September, 2024. As I mentioned, the Massachusetts Office of DAM Safety has issued the chapter 2 53 DAM safety permit. Mass DEP is currently reviewing the 4 0 1 water quality certification for, it's a combined dredge and fill permit, but it's being reviewed through the dredge office.
Under chapter 91, we are submitting a demolition approval for removal of the structure itself and then a permit for the sediment release. And that will be filed in short order here. We've done early coordination with mass historical and then additional coordination is being completed by the Army Corps of Engineers through the official section 1 0 6 consultation process, which is a federal process. We are also coordinating with MWRA because there is a, they do have a sewer line under the Charles River
upstream. I Speaker 1: Was gonna ask where they, they fit into this. Speaker 14: Yep. So they're, they're aware of the project we are coordinating with them. We don't anticipate any effect on their sewer line. It is several feet below hard bottom of the river, so hard bottom doesn't typically change. It's the soft sediment that's accumulated on top of the hard bottom that moves. So there shouldn't be any change to their, to their sewer line. However, we are working with them to permit it as necessary and, and make sure that everyone's satisfied with the, with the project.
And then the Army Corps of Engineers is removing, is reviewing the project as a pre-construction notification under the Clean Water Act. And that's ongoing as well. Thank you. Easy. I know that was a lot easy peasy. Right? Speaker 1: No, appreciate that. Any other, any other comments or things or should we just open it up for questions at this point in time? I'm Speaker 14: Here for your questions. Great. Speaker 1: Just to reiterate, you know, this is, we will have some preliminary questions, I'm sure we'll also open it up for some public questions as well in terms of the overall process here. I mean we'll have these initial questions here this evening.
We'll do a site visit to go out and take a look at that and then we'll reconvene here and we'll have more questions and more conversations about it. Perfect. There, just wanna invite Bill Mcal, town engineer. Any, any comments at this point in time from, from your side that you wanna add, add to this thing before we dive into some questions? Other Speaker 16: Than what a long, strange trip it's been, Speaker 1: What a long strange, it's long strange trip it's been. Yeah, for sure. It's very Speaker 16: Thorough with the, the public outreach with the, the d removal committee Speaker 1: Bill, would you, you see this? Would you mind gonna the microphone for the folks at home?
Thanks. Speaker 17: I I do feel like this has been a long process and not an exhaustive process. However, I think we've done a very good job working for, with public outreach and, and working with the committee and then working with the select board to come to this point. And what we're seeing more and more as we do this is, you know, the loss of liability and the loss of, of an ecological impediment, you know, on the river. So we're seeing more and more the advantages of this as we peeled back the onion more and more. I'm very happy we've been working with Gz. I think they've done a very good job with this work
and I'm actually looking forward to the construction of this. Speaker 1: Great, thank you Bill. Appreciate that. So, any initial questions from the commission? I've been taking notes here and taken notes throughout for the past five years on this, on this project. Certainly have a few questions there just to, just to air out. Anybody wanna lead off? I can lead off. Speaker 15: I have one. Speaker 1: Yeah. David, please. Speaker 15: So when you open the gateway and the water flows and it, and the upper above the spillway, you know, comes down and recedes, there will be turbulence and the, the sediment upstream of the spillway will,
will get worn down, probably close to the original channel. Right. But there will be turbulence in the, the, the mud and the sediment will be put into the water. So downstream of the spillway for a while. Days, weeks, I don't know. There will be turbidity I guess. Well, Speaker 1: Milky water, Speaker 15: Milky water. What are the effects of that? Speaker 14: So there will be tur water for a while. That is, the effects of it are, it can temporarily smother what's in the, in the river, which is why we observe the time of year restriction. So it's not a time of year that fish are laying eggs,
it's not a time of year that sensitive species are migrating. It's typically looked at as a, as a short term adverse effect for a long term benefit. Speaker 1: Do you, are there instances where you see, see things like, you know, fish kills from, from that kind of activity? Typically Speaker 14: Not the fish, the fish move. They go upstream into other little tributaries and they get outta the way. I've not experienced fish kills. I, I can't attest that No, no single fish has been killed, of course. But there's not like wholesale belly up fish ex, you know, observations from these projects.
Speaker 3: I will note there's some great photos in some prior GZA presentations that are available on the dam decommissioning website that shows some example photos from other dam removals that show, I believe it's six weeks post dam removal, three months or six months post dam. Yeah. Several intervals of time passed dam removal that show how the sediment conditions look downstream of the former spillway location. And I'll get those forwarded to the commission. So you guys have them in your email? Speaker 14: Yep. So we do see the sediment, right? When we, when we open the gates, there's a sediment pulse.
When we remove the spillway, there's a sediment pulse. That's when there's, there's a large quantity of sediment moving. It settles when there's a large storm event, we'll see sediment remobilize just like in any storm event or any other storm event, right? Yeah. The water will look like chocolate milk and then it resettles, but over a matter of, of weeks to months and then a couple years, it just really integrates into the sediment that's there. We do have a couple of graphs in the document that show the downstream of the dam is sediment starved right now.
So it is more rocky with less fine material than upstream of the dam. And so we would see a more normal distribution of sediment sizes following dam removal upstream and downstream. Speaker 1: Would, would you speak to, I mean one of the concerns that's been raised, and I know there's been some testing done, would you talk about the, the, the chemical testing of the sediments themselves as to whether there's any risk of dispersing potentially hazardous or toxic substances downstream once that sediment pulse Speaker 14: Yes. Is released? Absolutely, yes. So sediment samples were collected in the impoundment area
and also downstream of the impoundment. And there's, there's a couple of things going on. So one, we are, there are anti degradation standards in the state, so you cannot release or place sediment that is dirtier than the receiving area. In this case, actually the sediment in the impoundment is a little bit cleaner than the sediment downstream. Speaker 1: When you say downstream, is that, is that a hundred yards downstream? Is that a mile downstream? I'm curious from a testing protocol perspective, Speaker 14: We do have, we do have a figure in our plan set
that show exactly where the samples were taken. Okay. And so there were two, two or three samples taken downstream that were a couple hundred to a couple thousand feet downstream. I'll Speaker 3: Get those plans pulled up right now. Great. Speaker 14: Okay. So we are not, we, we are releasing, so both downstream was considered clean and in the impoundment was considered clean, but in the impoundment was a little bit cleaner. And so then the sediment is sampled for a number of constituents we call them. So metals, VOCs, PCBs, petroleum byproducts.
So PAHs ephs, I know it's a lot of acronyms, but all of this is dictated by DEP and by section 4 0 1 of the Clean Water Act. And so these samples, we take them and we compare them to standard thresholds. And the thresholds that we use are from the Massachusetts contingency plan, which is the cleanup standards for mass DEP, the sediment samples collected in the impoundment. Were below the thresholds that you have to meet to be considered for a a, a property to be allowed for
residential standards. You could build a daycare in this impoundment Speaker 3: And Speaker 14: The builds a playground here. It's that clean. Speaker 1: And is that true for all of the constituents that were tested Speaker 14: For? All constituents of every sample. Speaker 3: And Matt, here's the sediment sampling. So the green circles that you see downstream are the locations that were tested Speaker 15: The, the reduction in surface area of the water. Yes. And the reduction in what essentially is a heat sink above that spillway. Would there be, do you predict any material change in water temperature at all or? No?
Speaker 14: We expect a a yeah. A decrease in water temperature. It does water temperature is, is complicated. But overall, yeah, a decrease in water temperature, which Speaker 15: Is good. Speaker 14: Which is good. Which is good. Yes. Speaker 1: Is there any protocol proposed for monitoring the impacts of that initial water release? You know, one of, one of the concerns that I've heard, heard from, from neighbors particularly downstream is that, well, when you open the gates there's gonna be this big tsunami of water flowing now through, through yards
and down, you know, there's some streets downstream, Lincoln Street Water Street that already deal with flooding issues at certain times of year. Is there any protocol in place to be monitoring water levels, particularly in vulnerable neighborhoods so that as the water is being released, we can tell with some warning that water is getting higher than we expected it. And so maybe we should slow it down. Speaker 14: We'll be watching the water release as it occurs. As I said, it's happening during low water fair time of year.
The Pleasant Street Bridge is also a big hydraulic constriction on the Charles River. So I'm not sure if you all have observed during flooding events when water's really backing up behind the Pleasant Street bridge. We don't want that happening 'cause we're installing coffer dams. Right. We're putting in super sacks. So we're not interested in flooding our own work site. So we will be monitoring how much water's going downstream, how much water is being released through those gates is also going to be further metered by the Pleasant Street Bridge. And so we actually would be flooding ourselves before we're flooding the downstream neighbors.
And we don't, we don't wanna flood the downstream neighbors and we don't want to flood ourselves. So it would be observed, it would be watched during that time, and then the gate would be closed adjusted as needed. Once the water's lowered a certain amount, it's only coming through that gate. It won't also be coming over the dam anymore. It will stop going over the spillway. And so only so much water can go through, through those outlet pipes. Speaker 1: And just to reiterate, a point that you made earlier that I think is important is that the, the South Natick dam serves no flood control function.
Speaker 14: That is correct. Currently, it, it provides no flood control. Currently Speaker 1: What goes in comes out, Speaker 14: Currently what goes in comes out and this project will not change the, the experience of downstream neighbors to flood events. It will not increase flooding for them, it will not decrease flooding for them, but it will remove the risk of a possible damn failure occurring on top of flooding, which would release a lot of additional, which could release a lot of additional water on top of an already flooding situation. So that risk will be eliminated of, of, of a damn failure.
Otherwise, their experience of downstream flows won't be different than what they experienced today. Speaker 1: By the same token though, earlier you were saying that when, you know, when the, when the impoundment is released and it reaches its kind of equilibrium level that the new exposed BVW and will will provide some level of kind of flood storage capacity. Yes. Speaker 14: Right. Yep. So I think yeah, that is, you're absolutely right.
It will provide some flood storage capacity, some flood attenuation. We think about flooding and flood attenuation on all different scales. When we talk about like FEMA and the base flood elevation, we're talking about a hundred year event. So we're talking about a very large event and that's where we do not see a change in the base flood elevation downstream. It will be the same before and after, but other smaller, more, more frequent events is when those vegetated wetlands can really do a lot of work. Speaker 1: Okay. Other questions from the commission? Speaker 5: What, what's the timeframe
that things are gonna get going? Speaker 3: So currently, based on our permitting timeline and our funding applications that are being submitted, we do anticipate that work will most likely be happening next summer. So in between that July and September time of year restrictions in 2026 and the actual deconstruction work is quite a short period of time. So th though our available window is short, we don't anticipate any issue with working within that window. Speaker 5: So it'll all be done in 26, you're saying that?
Speaker 3: Yes. Got it. All of the spillway removal work will be done in 26. Speaker 1: It will be, that's fast. Speaker 14: It's fast, it's, we spend years permitting these things and then construction is like a couple weeks. Speaker 18: What's the exact method for removing that? Is it jackhammer? Is it just pulled up it like, is that, what's it look like behind the spillway or how deep is that behind the spillway? Does it drop off? Does it slope down? Does Speaker 14: It's pretty vertical. The, the back of the spillway is pretty vertical
and so it's gonna be pull it off caught and pulled out. Speaker 1: Say it again. The Speaker 14: Whole ram with a, with a hoe ram we will be Yeah. To break up the concrete and pulled out. Speaker 1: You talked earlier about how there was time of year work restrictions in Wellesley. Yes. But not Natick. Correct. Why is that? 'cause Speaker 14: Of the dam. We actually believe it's 'cause of the dam. The time of year restrictions. Yes. It's the division of Marine fisheries technical report 47 has all these time of year restrictions based on observations of anadromous fish, ah, in water bodies. Makes
Speaker 1: Sense. Then Speaker 14: They have observed shad in Wellesley. Speaker 1: There's also a vernacular as well. Speaker 14: So they have a time of year restriction for American eel and Shad in Wellesley and not in Natick. Interesting. So we hope you'll have a time of year restriction too in 2027. So those can't, Speaker 1: Those can't get over the fish ladder then Speaker 14: The, this fish ladder is not a very effective fish ladder. Okay. That water's moving really fast over that fish ladder. Speaker 3: Yeah, it did. The science back in 1932 wasn't necessarily
getting into the specifics of fish migratory patterns Speaker 1: I think could be like a blue fin tuna or something, you know, to get over that Speaker 14: Thing. Like maybe a salmon, you know, a Pacific salmon. Speaker 18: What will be the, the elevation change between upstream the spillway and downstream once it's removed? Speaker 1: Post construction? Yeah. Speaker 18: Is it, is it pretty level like is it, or is it gentle slope? So Speaker 14: We do expect actually a little bit of a riffle feature cascade there based on why the dam was cited exactly where it is. And so we do expect that there may be a little bit of a, a little cascade, a little bit of a steep slope slope there.
Speaker 18: Go down class three. Yeah, Speaker 3: Jeff, it'll probably depend on the flow characteristics, but they're, as part of the parks project, which is a separate project from this project, which Speaker 1: Is not, which is not in scope for this conversation, not Speaker 3: In scope for this conversation, is addressing things like boat launches on both upstream and downstream sides to ensure that there's still access. Speaker 1: Is the intention though, that once, once the, once the spillway is removed, both the, you know, the, the high part and then the, the apron, would there be any features engineered back in there, some boulders placed there? Or just just remove it and just let it do what it does?
Speaker 14: Remove it and let it do what it does. Okay. Speaker 3: Part of the ecological restoration project criteria. So if the town in the future were interested in that, we could go through a separate permitting process to do that. But as part of the restoration, we're just gonna let nature do its thing. Speaker 1: Other questions? Right now before you know what I was, what I'm thinking that this process will look like here this evening is to have this conversation to invite the public to provide some, ask some questions or comments about this schedule a site visit and then reconvene where there will be other questions
as we're digging, you know, continuing to dig into the literature and all that. I'm sure there'll be a thousand more questions. One another question for me is that as you can probably imagine, as you know from experience, there's a lot of public interest in this. Absolutely. In this project. There's a number of permit processes that are currently going on right now. Are there other opportunities for public involvement and comment in, in the permitting process? So if people wanted to stay engaged and have their voices heard outside of this forum, are there other places where they could do that? And if so, which ones? There Speaker 14: Is one more opportunity,
which is the chapter 91 process. Okay. Speaker 1: Say a little bit more about that one and what goes on there and how people could get involved if they wanted to. Speaker 14: Yes. So the chapter 91 program is navigable waters. So their responsibility is protecting our shared commonwealth resources of navigability of this water body. And so what we are permitting with them is a, is actually an exemption, but it's a written, written approval of the exemption for the demolition of the dam structure because the dam spillway is an unlicensed structure.
So removing it for the benefit of ecological restoration is exempt with departmental approval. So that is what we are requesting for the removal of the spillway itself and the fish ladder. And then the, the sediment release, as I said, is technically by definition dredging. And so they do regulate dredging as well. So they will be looking at those things they have requested and we did prepare they, during the mepa process, they requested and we prepared and we did submit it actually to you all as well,
a sediment monitoring program. And so that will be looking at downstream sediment monitoring for two years following dam removal. Their concern with sediment monitoring is loss of navigability of the river, so sediment shoing or buildup that would impair boating on the river. Speaker 1: So it's simply just kind of the topology of the sediment. You're not looking, you're not mo doing further monitoring for chemicals downstream. That testing's been done already and shows Speaker 14: To be that testing's been done and shows to be clean. That's, that's done and it's clean.
So this is about the, yeah, the buildup of sediment. If it's creating hydraulic constrictions that could lead to flooding or if it's building up in such a way that's impairing navigation. So that plan has been prepared, it will be submitted to the chapter 91 office. It was submitted with the single environmental impact report. So they have seen it once before it was submitted to you all we would expect following that plan to be part of our conditions. And it also was submitted to this, to the 4 0 1 office. So we're committed to following that.
During that plan there would be some, some gauges installed at the Pleasant Street Bridge and then also downstream along Honeywell Park in the river to look at, to measure how the sediment accumulation, it would be the contractor's responsibility to check those during construction to look at sediment accumulation actively during construction and make sure that it's not like, you know, building up very, very high and gonna really alter the flow so that this, the reverse starts carving out a new, a new channel
or starts eroding towards someone's house. We don't want that. So they would be watching that daily during construction and take action as needed after construction. It reduces the rate. They are responsible though for the first year and then the town is responsible for the second year of monitoring. And so the rate of monitoring does decrease over time because the rate of sediment movement will decrease over time. So daily would be kind of, kind of crazy. But the the point is to, to keep tabs on what's happening downstream with sediment buildup and if it's causing a problem,
if it's impairing navigation, take action to stop that and to protect residents. Speaker 1: Got it. Speaker 3: And just a quick note about why we have not filed the chapter 91 license yet. We are required to have a DEP file number through this process in order to file that application. So as Adrian mentioned, we do expect to be filing that I'll say within the next week or so. Yes, Speaker 1: Claire. So this as, as a service to, you know, people at home and interested parties in the community. Absolutely. Could you, for our next meeting, could you
provide, I guess it would be a, a website or, and or a a a place where people can get more information about the Chapter 91 process that if they want to continue to stay engaged absolute they know where to go, where to look for stuff just from the spirit of full transparency and people know. Yeah, Speaker 3: Of course. So the presentation from tonight as well as the notice of intent materials will all be posted on the dam webpage, the dam project webpage. They're currently available in the commission's public Google Drive, but I'll make them available there as well.
And I'll also put together sort of a quick fact sheet about Chapter 91 and the involvement on that process. Speaker 14: That would be great. And the process for 91 is I'll file it some time will go by and then they'll do the first part of their review and administrative review. They may coordinate with me on some initial questions that they have. We'll go back and forth and then they'll do their public comment period. And so as that we will notify abuts via certified mail. We will post a legal ad in the newspaper and we will notify you.
So we'll notify the planning board zoning board, select board conservation commission, as well as some other state agencies. And Speaker 1: Just to be clear that the, the public engagement mechanism for this is a, is a public comment one versus a public meeting like this where people can show up and ask questions in front of a panel of people? Or, or is it both? Or is it, Speaker 14: It's a public comment mechanism, but based on the public comments received, it's at the discretion of the DEP if they wish to have an in-person meeting.
Got it. Either on site or at a municipal office. Speaker 1: Okay. Cool. That's good. Yeah, I just wanna lay out all of the absolutely. All of the opportunities for people to be engaged in all, in all aspects of Speaker 3: The process. Matt, just one additional caveat on the chapter 91 process can be a bit ephemeral in the terms of the time that DEP is taking. So if folks see that we've submitted and then don't hear anything, it's likely because DEP is taking their time, not because there's no action happening. Speaker 14: Okay. And it's a 30 day comment period. Okay. So it's a, it's a fairly long window. Speaker 1: Cool. Right. Any other questions from the commission?
Again, I just wanna reiterate that, you know, we will have, we and residents and concerned parties will have many opportunities to ask questions during this process. You know, Speaker 4: I just have, yeah. Michael, two questions. One, one around kind of the federal time of year restriction around bats. Could you just walk me, I know the process, but could you walk the process in terms, is there somebody walking through the forest reviewing maternity roost trees? What, what does that look like? Speaker 14: So for the bat time of year restriction, what we do is we initially complete an IPAC initial
Speaker 4: With Fish and Speaker 14: Wildlife. With Fish and Wildlife. Speaker 4: That's a per, that's a permitting review. Speaker 14: It's a permitting review. It's an online tool. Yeah. And based on the project site, the project actions, what we answered, they Speaker 4: Provide you a determination. Speaker 14: They provided us with a determination of not likely to adversely affect. Speaker 4: Sure. So what's your process after their determination? Speaker 14: Their determination going out Speaker 4: And reviewing species? Are you reviewing if there's maternity roofs potential, or are you just taking that determination at face value in that time?
Of year restriction or are you actually looking at individual trees as potential maternal roost or pot potential roosting sites? Speaker 3: So all of these trees have been inventoried within the last two years with our good, hed and I believe Bartlett Tree did the inventory. So we do have more, more recent monitoring data than sort of the more historic data that's available in the public tree viewer. I don't believe there's any specifics determined at this point for how that process will go. I think this commission has an opportunity
to potentially add some conditions into our permit regarding that. But currently at this time, the proposal is just to comply with the time of year restrictions and determination. Okay. Speaker 4: And then my other question is, is so we have seven acres of BVW that's gonna be created to your point about Mother Nature's gonna kind of take care of the seeding 'cause there's a seed bank. What's your experience with the size of that? Have you ever had a seven plus acre BVW created and has it all naturally re-vegetated? Yes. With no human intervention? Speaker 14: Yes. I, I have a site also in Massachusetts
that was an 18 acre impoundment that was drawn down. Speaker 4: Where is that? Speaker 14: It's in Munson mass. It re-vegetated within a month. It had over 90% vegetative cover within a month. Similar Speaker 4: History in terms of Speaker 14: The dam was built in the 18 hundreds. Okay. 1866. And it actually is much more BVW because the stream channel there is much more narrow. It's only about 40 feet wide instead of here it's about 130 feet wide. So the proportion Speaker 4: Of the population density along the river with regard to houses and such where there's invasives growing
Speaker 14: Lower housing density, but extreme invasive species pressure. Okay. Japanese not weed pressure. Japanese not weed has not moved in because the site re inundates actually pretty regularly and stays wet. So, so Japanese knot weed has, knock on wood, thankfully not been an issue yet. We're three years out purple. Loose strife has been an issue. It's purple. Loose strife is, is in moderate
to high densities throughout the impoundment. The native population is also present everywhere the purple loose strife is. So it has not established a monoculture. We do see at that site, gar sella predation on the purple loose strife. And we're working with the commission actually to consider if they wanna do additional gar sella releases. Speaker 4: Hmm. Similar, so like similar soils would you say in Munson as as South Natick or more less silt loam in Mun in Munson. Maybe Speaker 14: That impoundment particularly has a history of, of
sand deposition from some Speaker 4: Okay. Speaker 14: Watershed activities. Speaker 4: Well, no thank you. That's, that's great. Thank you. Speaker 1: Other questions from the commission before we open it up for public comment? Alright, so we'll open it up for public comment folks, when you, if you have questions, please indicate by raising your hand in the Zoom chat or here in the room we're going to, I'm gonna monitor this. There may be a lot of questions. If there is, I'll, you know, ask you to keep your questions brief and to the point. I'll also ask you to keep them jurisdictional. You know, the property owner in this case, the town of Natick has, you know, through its,
through its legislative process, has decided that this is a project they want to, you know, move forward with. And, you know, we as a, as, as, as a regulatory body are, you know, we have an application in front of us and so we're going to do this. So questions about, you know, whether we should do this or not are less relevant at this point in time. You know, the, the property owner has decided this is what we wanna do or what the town wants to do. I know that there's a lot of high emotions about this project and I, you know, really want people
to have the opportunity to be heard. There's been lots of opportunities for people to be heard, you know, so I'll, you know, use my discretion to shift or kind of guide questions in directions that are jurisdictional for this process, just in the, in the interest of efficiency. So with that, if people, if anyone in the room or if people at home want to ask some questions, I ask you please identify yourself, name, address, and then fire away with your questions. Sir, please, if you come, come up to the microphone and identify yourself and let us know what's on your mind. Speaker 19: Roger Scott, 40 Water Street, down River been in our house since 1977.
The dam has been there since 1934. So, so Speaker 1: You're a relative newcomer to town? Mm, Speaker 19: Relative. Yeah. But I get if, is there any possibility to show slide one, the very first slide you had out there that showed the direction of the river? Speaker 1: Get it up there, Speaker 3: Roger. Is it won't show. Oh, there you go. Now it's showing on that screen. Okay. Is this the one you were referring to? Speaker 11: Oh, water. Water, yeah. Speaker 3: Oh, here, I can use my cursor to circle it. So Roger, okay, this is the, the collection of streets right in Speaker 1: Water Street, Lincoln Street. Speaker 11: Okay. So my,
Speaker 19: My question is, and you'll notice it's a u it's like water and Lincoln, south Lincoln I guess they call it now they're a peninsula, right? So we have the Charles coming down, coming down around that street and up we're talking about sediment and this, the sediment is gonna be released and you're gonna have monitors over over time. But I just wanna know, the initial thing is it's, it's like mud and, and the like, how do you know that it's not going to shape reshape the river so
that it doesn't cause a blockade at the bottom of that u You know, you start to accumulate because you gotta swing around that Kern, you got the Cheney Street bridge there, which is 30 feet wide small openings. So how do you know you're not gonna just end up having to accumulating and all that stuff that's been sitting down there for all those years and affect the flow of the river so that it's, that the flow up the water street up the Lincoln Street, you know, it's not affect people's property. You know what, what do you do about that? If you find out, oops, we made a mistake
Speaker 14: During construction. It is monitored daily. It is not a wall of mud that is released, it is turd water, but it is not a wall of mud. So turd water happens during storms, sediment moves during storm events and, and accumulates and shifts. And so it would not, you know, in, in a day enough sediment could not accumulate that would change the flow of the river. And so it is being monitored responsibly and regularly such that it's, that is not
gonna create a blockade. It, it gets distributed out along the length of the river. Speaker 19: But reading your report, I've been following this a while in front of that dam area that's, you know, it had been dammed off since 1934 ish, 35 in that area. You had, you have a a a big area of, of congestion of water there. But that, that sediment is two to four feet deep according to what I've followed on your reports. And it's thousands and thousands of cubic yards of sediment.
And is that just gonna relocate on the other side where the dam was and just start to flatten out the river, make it a higher thing, a higher river and you know, possibly jeopardize the safety of the people that are currently living there since 1977 or so. Speaker 14: Right? So our estimate is, is thousands and thousands of cubic yards, absolutely it's 11,500 cubic yards of sediment is going to move overall, not the day the dam comes down. It moves through more sediment at the beginning as,
and then it stabilizes and storms happen. And so that is the total sediment movement as the channels form and it'll happen over the course of years. Speaker 19: But the storm movement, like you said before, it's not a flood issue, it goes over the top. You're not touching what's on the bottom. It's not like pushing this, pushing this back up into the, into the, the top of the river and the, and the stuff is coming over the top of the river. All the sediment, sediment's on the bottom. So it's not gonna be affecting the neighborhoods until you start to take the damn down and then whatever happens, happens.
It's, it's your model versus reality, you know, at that point. So how, how are we safe? We just can't go on theory here. We have to go on reality and IIII just want somebody to be responsible and not disappear in a year. And we'll with the problem as well as whatever the cleanup would be for the town with a budget override thrown in. So I, I just don't know, you know, how do we be sure that you guys actually, you know, you can walk away from this how wonderful it was in another part of the state, but we're the ones who have to live with it.
Speaker 14: No, I, I understand your concern. I'll say that about 80 dam removals have occurred in Massachusetts Speaker 19: Residential neighborhoods. Speaker 14: Yes. All over the commonwealth. Speaker 3: The DAM advisory committee actually went and visited a dam removal location in South Andover Andover during the DAM advisory committee process to see a dam removal that occurred along a similarly developed stretch of, Speaker 19: Of, so there was housing the other, there Speaker 3: Was in fact a, a large scale mill building that had been redeveloped into a apartment complex just adjacent to the impoundment area. I think it held about 130 units.
Speaker 19: Yeah, I'm very happy in my house and I want to be very happy in my house. We want you to be happy in house. I just don't wanna have stress levels because somebody planned something that they didn't really plan out fully. One other thing. So if the, if the, you know, I know there's claine in this and that, which was outlawed in the eighties and it's still there according to your own shots. Did you, why do we have signs up to not don't eat the fish if the river is clean and safe? Speaker 3: Adrian, I can jump in on that one if you'd like.
So, okay, Roger, if you visited Lake Constituit, you'll notice that there's similar signage in Lake Constituit as well. Most water bodies in the state of Massachusetts do not meet water quality thresholds. That mean that the fish from those water bodies are safe for human consumption, specifically in large volumes. Generally if you were to eat one fish from the river, you'd be fine. But daily consumption could present a concern. It has very little to do with the actual sediment quality and more to do with the habitat and the healthy, healthy environment that the fish are being exposed to.
Adrian, feel free to jump in if I got any of that wrong. Speaker 1: And fish bio accumulate stuff. Yes. You know, so very low concentrations over time. You know, to my blue fin tuna joke earlier, you don't want to eat a lot of blue fin tuna 'cause the bio accumulates mercury. Yeah. You know, it's the top of the food chain, you know. Alright, Speaker 19: Thank you. Thank you for addressing my concerns. Thank Speaker 1: You sir. Alright, other questions, Speaker 3: Folks online, if you're having trouble finding the raise hand function, you're also more than welcome to just turn your video on or unmute yourself. I don't think we have a, a large enough crowd that I'm worried about folks jumping on top of each other.
Fair. Speaker 1: All right. Speaker 3: Brinley? Speaker 20: Hi. Yes, thank you. Brinley Vickers precinct date. I just, I don't have a question. I think more, it's just a comment to say I've been following this all along and I feel very reassured and grateful for this process. Basically everything you went over tonight sounds like everything you've been saying all along. And so I feel really great about it and I'm, and I'm grateful for the continued open public process and information. I think you guys are doing a, a great job with this and I thank you very much. Speaker 1: Great, thank you Brinley. Other questions?
Well, you know I was ready for as was 11 o'clock. You, me too. Don't jinx it. Don't jin ahead. I got Alright. Hearing, hearing none. Is there any other comments, questions from applicant proponents, opponents, public, Speaker 3: And I know Matt mentioned that there will be multiple meetings, but at any point in time, residents interested parties are more than welcome to reach out to myself or any of the town staff on the dam team to ask questions and get additional information. You can also sign up on the dam removal webpage
for the Civic plus notification list. That will mean you get emails and updates regarding updates to the project website and announcements regarding events associated with the project. Speaker 1: Alright, hearing none at this point in time, which I was not expecting to be able to say at nine 15, it's all good thing. What we'd like to do is schedule a site visit and go out and, and take a look. Speaker 3: Matt, do you want GZA staff there or is the town team sufficient? Speaker 1: Why don't you tell me how versed is the town team in construction? Specifics of the process, kind of the technical details
around how this process will take place if the town team is fluent in that stuff. I'm, I mean we've got a wildly capable town team, you know, what do you think? So, you know, we can do it either way. I'm sure you are. Bill. So why don't we, why don't, you know, let's, let's start with the town team at this point in time and let's go out and take a look. This will be a, this can, you know it, it's a sidewalk. It's public property. So residents, you're welcome to attend. We can take a look at calendars and see what's, see what's possible.
Speaker 3: And I have access to the town staff calendars though. I, I do think that if we can schedule something for a, a week day potentially might make it easier for some of our town staff who are not local to Natick. That's just a recommendation, not a requirement. Speaker 1: Could we? Yeah, I, I wanna make sure that residents have the opportunity to participate. Yep. Okay. And you know, and it's one of the tensions we always have with site visits and public meetings, is that what works for town staff or others, you know, during the week, you know, us,
us feed folks who, who also have jobs that aren't, aren't in Natick can be, Speaker 3: I know staff are more than welcome. More than willing to come on the weekends as just sort of that or Speaker 1: Or could we do it at a time? I mean it's, tomorrow's the first day of spring. Oh we Speaker 3: Do have another public. Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. We'll come to Sean in a second, you know, but let's think about what timing we could do. I mean I just wanna make sure people have an opportunity to participate and see it and ask questions. You know, when we, just to be clear, when we do site visits, they're not formally public meetings in the sense that, you know, they're not places where we go
and debate the merits of a project. We ask, ask factual questions and clarifications and then come back and do a public meeting where we can then debate the project. Speaker 3: Yeah. So again, the commission asks questions for the applicant team to hear and then to address in future revised materials or public meetings Speaker 1: There. Let's come back to choosing the date. Mr. Levy please Speaker 21: And thank you so much for the opportunity. I also just wanna echo what a great job everyone in town has done with this project. And I, you know, I'm proud to be a resident here. I live at seven Indian Ridgeway in Natick. I just would also advocate, if possible
to do it either on a weekend in terms of the site visit or later in the afternoon. Maybe instead of, you know, in the morning. It just might be a little bit easier for people to be flexible with work and other family responsibilities to try to join. Again, we're realizing this is a more of an official visit, but I would certainly be interested to kind of be there myself to sort of just see what's what's said. So thank you very much again. Speaker 1: Great, thanks Sean. Appreciate it. Okay, let's take a look at calendars and just see what we can put on the, you know, let's look ahead to a beautiful sunny day. Two weeks soon Speaker 3: Coming soon to a ick near you. Speaker 1: Right? Our next meeting is Thursday the third.
Speaker 3: Correct? Speaker 1: We've got, well, you know, so basically we've got two weeks until we do it there. I mean are we, are we prepared to kind of reconvene on the 3rd of April? Is there any reason that we wouldn't be able to reconvene on Thursday the 3rd of April to keep the process going? We're prepared to be here. Right on. So let's, let's think about next week then and just see and to, to Sean's point, I think to the point I was trying to make earlier, I wanna make sure that we give people a chance to participate. Yes. Speaker 3: I will note I am out of town the weekend of the 28th,
but if other town staff are available, Speaker 1: I'm actually outta town the weekend, the 28th as well. Speaker 3: So do we want to, I know we had planned a similar timing, do we wanna try to do a pre-meeting site visit from sort of five 30 to six 15 ish on the third? Speaker 1: I could do that. That'll Speaker 3: Give folks a little time to get some dinner too in between the meeting and the site visit. So Speaker 1: Five, 5:30 PM I mean Sean, I don't know if you're still on just to use you as a barometer on this. Would would five 30 in the evening, do you think for most mortals be a workable time to, to show up?
Speaker 21: I certainly think so. My schedule's completely wonky so I'll have to check. But it's not about me obviously. So, but I think that's really kind to offer that. Yeah. Speaker 3: And obviously if there are commission members who can't make that time, I'm happy to meet out on site with folks on a one-on-one basis to discuss. Speaker 1: Yeah. What what I would propose is why don't, why don't we book this for five 30 on Thursday the third on site and then at our next meeting on the third, if there's a whole bunch of people who didn't know about it, couldn't make it or whatever, I think we could do another one. Is South Maine on that same day? South Maine's the following one? No, south, I'm sorry. South Maine is next week for us. That's another site visit.
We're doing Thursday the 27th. We're going to two 16. Two 18 South Main Street. Speaker 3: Yeah. So we don't have a meeting the day of that site visit, Speaker 1: But Thursday the third. We'll, we'll Thursday Speaker 15: The third, 27th By before the Speaker 1: Meeting? Speaker 3: Yes, before the meeting. Okay. Speaker 15: Oh did you? I think I'm on the site. I have it canceled. Speaker 1: Okay, let's come back to that then. Speaker 3: No, so the site walk for the Lake Constituit path was canceled. That was scheduled for today. There should also be a calendar invite on your calendar for next Thursday. The 27th. The 27th. Speaker 15: Okay. Oh I declined it. That's fine. Speaker 1: There you go. Okay. Yeah. And then again we can we, you know, let's, let's kind of hear what people say.
You know, if there's a bunch of residents or folks who weren't able to attend, then we can, we can do another one. Speaker 3: And there will not related to dam removal, but staff will be on site. There is a public site walk related to the parks project scheduled for May 4th. Speaker 1: For May 4th. Okay. And, we'll that's not, we're not hearing that project yet. Speaker 3: No, we are not hearing that project right now. That project is still in design phase. Not at, not at permit level design quite yet. Speaker 1: Okay, cool. Alright, so Thursday the third, 5:30 PM on site. We'll do that. Bill, does that work for your schedule? Yes. Perfect. Okay, let's do that.
Speaker 3: I sent a calendar invite to both of you, Speaker 1: Otherwise are there any further questions this evening? Hearing none. So I'm gonna make a motion to continue this to April three. Motion to continue. Thank you Jim. Is that seconded? Seconded. Thank you Jeff. Wow. S any, Speaker 3: Everyone's excited this didn't go. Speaker 1: Any further questions? Any further conversation on this? All in favor of continuing to April 3rd in the room. Excellent. Thank you all for your time. Hey, thank you very much. Great presentation. Thank you. Thanks job. Thank you so much. Speaker 3: Thank you. And just while some of the members of the public are in the room and on the call, the House of Representatives has passed an extension to the virtual meeting allowance.
It is due to be heard by the Senate before the end of this week. So we do expect well in advance of our April 3rd meeting to know whether or not that will be a hybrid meeting or well whether it will need to be in person. Speaker 1: Alright, thank you folks. Appreciate it. I think let's take a look at our agenda. This may be, I think that was it. It's a Speaker 3: Commercial property, so I'm wondering if maybe that Speaker 1: That's it just didn't Speaker 3: Get signed. Speaker 1: Alright. Minutes approval Jeff. They look good. Alright. Any, any suggested edits? Nope. I saw none. Anyone else? Someone make a motion
to approve the minutes from January 16th? So moved. Thank you Jeff. Is that seconded? Seconded. Thank you David. Any further discussion? Wasn't in favor. Good general business discussion. I left Speaker 3: Everything off 'cause I expected us to be here too late. I'll just do some very quick ones. Feldman is expected to out be out doing the ground penetrating radar work for the constituent aqueduct sometime the first week of April. Weather depending, there's no vegetation clearing that's associated with that. Their primary concern was standing water of which there is currently, well I haven't been out since Monday's rainstorm, but I would expect there to be none by the first week
of April given our current weather projections. A reminder that we have a site visit for 2 16 2 18 South Main Street on Thursday next week. Again, folks are gonna access the house at two 18 via the gravel drive off of the back of Patriot Bark Mulch. There isn't really a park driveway at two 16, so it'll be easier for everyone if we head up the hill. And finally, I had sent out a doodle poll about a site visit for the community Organic Farm Pavilion site visit. If folks can take an opportunity to fill that out
whenever you get a chance, one of the potential dates is for this upcoming weekend. If it works for folks Saturday morning at eight 30, I'd love to get that confirmed with Casey tomorrow. Possibly do Speaker 1: Your homework guys. Speaker 3: I know I sent a lot of emails last week and that's all I have for you guys. Okay, Speaker 1: Anything else? Great. So I'll make a motion to adjourn. So moved. Thank you David. Is that seconded? Seconded. Thank you Jeff. All those in favor? Boom. Thanks guys.