Speaker 1: First item on the agenda. So let, let's go ahead and, and, and open the public meeting here so that people can hear what's going on. We're not gonna open any of the formal agenda items at this point, but let's get into the general business discussion just to tread water a bit until the, we have quorum. So first, first item on the agenda is Town Forest Beaver Management. So Claire, why don't you give us an update on where your latest observations are with what's going on there with water levels. Speaker 2: Oh, of course. So I did make a site visit out on six four and gave the commission a brief update at the meeting
that we had last week as well. Water levels are certainly lowered from the, the extreme high that they experienced after we breached the Beaver Dam north of Route Nine, but are still in what I would consider sort of normal water level ranges. The water is still above the base of the culvert pipe under Oak Street and water is still flowing over the weir structure on the outlet side. So it was my recommendation that we do wait two weeks and do another site visit, especially considering that the drought conditions have been upgraded as,
as of the start of June. We're now in a level three drought, right, rather than a level two. And I did let the residents know about that. I, I do also just wanna point to the commission to, if I did did this correctly, Mike shared some great thoughts about Beaver Management and it did not end up in the right Google Drive folder. My apologies, I'll, I'll get that uploaded right now, but I would definitely encourage the commission to take a read of that. I did also share the letter with the JPPI residents and we're gonna be getting back out there next week
to do another site visit. Matt, I am trying to aim for Friday next week because I know, I do know you work from home on Fridays, but obviously anyone is welcome to join. I will try to let the commission know about the timing of that. The one on the fourth ended up getting switched around a little bit because of the, the rain. So just I, I'll have potentially another update on next week's agenda, but if not, I I, I'll send the commission an update by email after the visit that we schedule next week. Okay. But if folks have driven by recently, the water levels are still pretty co comparable to
what they were last week. It does definitely seem like water is still moving through the flow leveler device from Town Forest under the Oak Street culvert and the water levels in town Forest do not seem overly high. They seem what I would consider in normal range for the wetland system there. I did have an opportunity to walk down onto the blue trail this week. I had mentioned the commission last week. The trail is wet but not flooded right now, which I think is sort of where we are ideally looking for along levels to be, definitely need a good pair of shoes to get through there,
but you're not gonna get, you know, mired in the muck like you definitely could have in some previous seasons. So at this point in time, you know, I did see, you know, wildlife over in the, the big Jennings pond area and the little Jennings pond area that the swans are certainly in residence this year in town forest. So there were not any indicators to me of, of an unhealthy wetland system on either side of the flow level or device and the water level being held back by that upstream beaver dam is about about two feet
in the current state. Speaker 1: So the delta, the delta is about Speaker 2: Two feet exactly that delta between the water levels. I do imagine as water continues to sort of move out of the system via the flow leveler that delta might increase a little bit. Hence why we're gonna go back out next week, take a look and, and see what we need to see out there. Speaker 1: Okay, Speaker 2: I, I did get Mike's thoughts uploaded into the, the general business discussion folder if the commission wants to take a read on that, but I will sort of keep this as an ongoing agenda item through the summer, most likely under general business just
to make sure that we're sort of keeping on top of the larger discussion surrounding this topic. Speaker 1: Sounds good. Any questions, guys? Any questions, comments, concerns on this hunt for two weeks and and see and, and see how it looks in two weeks time. Alright, excellent metal detecting policy. This will be interesting. Yes, so, so you talked with car and what was her download? So Speaker 2: I've talked with Caris in terms of the metal detecting it really is up to the commission. There aren't any necessarily like legal or liability concerns in regard to the general activity
of metal detecting, but there are certainly some safeguards that we would want to put into place as I believe sort of care and custody property owners. And so cares recommended that if the commission feels that metal detecting is in line with the intended rules and regulations of conservation lands in the town of Natick, that we could slash should develop a policy in regard to metal detecting that can then be adopted and posted on the website and made aware for folks who are interested in this particular activity. I did draft up a policy
that is in the general business discussion folder and I also sent a copy of that to Kevin who was the gentleman who reached out and came and presented to the commission about metal detecting as I am not a metal detector. I, I wasn't quite sure how the language would actually apply in real life. And his one note was that occasionally folks who do metal detecting have have specialized spades for the sort of digging in the spots where they're alerting and that we may wanna offer a little bit more flexibility in the language that I drafted in regard to tool limitations.
And that was sort of, I know that the commission likely has not had a ton of time to review this 'cause I did just get the draft uploaded this morning. So if we want to sort of put a pin in this so the commission can review and talk about it at our next meeting. The one thing that I did wanna note, and I did, I did not include this in my notes, but in doing research to develop a policy for metal detecting, what I did come across is that metal detecting is by majority prohibited in a lot of conservation lands throughout the, the commonwealth of Massachusetts DCR prohibits any metal
detecting on their property. And another, a number of communities in Massachusetts have similar policies, not all of them. There are several communities that have policies in regard to metal detecting on town property specifically. So I just wanted to make the commission aware of that sort of interesting point of research that I, that I found if the commission is interested, I'm happy to upload all the different pieces of documentation that I found along with the, the, the draft bylaw that's up there for folks to review. But I do think that it is good to get some kind
of language in place to protect the commission if something were to ever result poorly of this kind of activity. And so that is, I'll pull it up on the screen now so folks can take a look if they'd like. Speaker 1: I'd be curious as to what the rationale is of other, other, other communities not allowing it. You know, and I'm, I'm open to either I'm, I I I'd be curious what that thought process was there. Speaker 2: Yeah, I can, I can reach out to some of the administrators and see if they, if they were there for when those yeah.
Policies went into place. It does seem like, based on some of the website language that I was reading, a lot of it seems to have to do with just the ability to enforce not digging in places and metal detecting in places where we don't want it to happen. Which is certainly a concern. I I tried to sort of get around that in that, you know, written permission must be obtained prior to conducting metal detecting so that we can have some kind of checks and balances process if we really, if we wanna get really fancy we can even do an open gov permit for folks who wanna apply to do metal detecting on our property.
But it is certainly gonna be a balancing act. There are, I think always gonna be folks who are not willing to comply with rules and regulations. But then the question is raised, are those folks doing that now already without a policy in place? So would this necessarily make a difference in that? So personally I think getting a language developed either in either direction would be helpful just to cover the commission's, but to use appropriate language and really determine whether
or not, I think what needs to be determined is whether or not the commission feels it's appropriate for Natick property. And if we want, you know, this could just be metal detecting at Town forest. We could limit it even more to, you know, singular parcels that were willing to allow this kind of activity on. Just a lot of thoughts that had not necessarily occurred to me when initiating this sort of policy drafting. But as I reviewed more and more sort of communities policies and regulations, it was an interesting dichotomy certainly. Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean I'd, I'd be,
before we codify a policy, I'd be in favor of us just doing a little more research in terms of why communities have decided not to allow it. And I think there could be some good reasons and I'd like to understand those. As for the, the, the equipment, the spades, I mean it has to be hand dug, you know, I think some kind of language around a leave no trace, you know, kind of approach to, you know, allow them to look at stuff. I mean if something is deeper than eight inches, you know, it's 12 inches down or whatever, you know, so long as there's a leave no trace thing would be,
would be interesting. I think that the, the removal of archeological and historical artifacts is a, a good thing to put in place. I guess. It's up to, you know, it's kind of a, it it's kind of on the honor system in a way. Yeah. Yeah. Guys, what do you think, I mean any, what other thoughts or questions do you guys have as we just continue to research this? Speaker 2: And just to note that Jim has joined us, if we wanna jump back into Jim, we just started taking up some of the general business stuff while we waited for you. So you've got a couple seconds to get yourself settled. Yeah. Speaker 1: Okay. Thanks. Any other guidance to give Claire as we kind
of do a little bit more homework? I'd, I'd say let's, let's pump this to the next meeting. Let's do a little more homework. Let's do a little chat, GP ting and see what's out there. And Speaker 2: I'll throw some of the policies that I found into the Google Drive folder. Great folks to review and I'll reach out to some of those commission, commission agents about whether or not they they had any thoughts. Speaker 1: Great. Alright, well, seeing is out as we now have quorum, let's go ahead and open the public hearings part of the meeting. So, you know, welcome everybody. Today is Wednesday, June 10th, we're on an off cycle meeting here. I appreciate everyone's flexibility on scheduling
and so this is the Native Conservation Commission. My only request I have is that if you could all keep yourselves on mute until your particular agenda item comes on, that would be greatly appreciated. Just to keep back background noise to a minimum. So first item on the agenda is a request for a certificate of compliance for 17 Upland Road, which Speaker 2: Has been continued, a continuation has been requested. Speaker 1: Right. So we don't, we do not need to vote for a continuation on this, but just, you know, Claire, I mean it it sounds like there was some non-compliance issues. Yeah, Speaker 2: And, and what we're, what I'm trying to figure out now
and what they're going back to their surveyor, 'cause it was a different survey company that did the, as-built as compared to the approved plans. So there is a question of whether or not this is just a datu issue, if the plans were constructed in compliance and it, it really is just the datum, the survey was taken in, shows this discrepancy. But if it's not a issue, this is a serious concern. And so it was my recommendation to the applicant. Obviously it was, it was their determination about whether or not they wanted to appear before you tonight. It was my recommendation that we try to get an answer to
that question before opening up the discussion with the commission. So, amen. They are hoping to have an answer and have asked to just have this request be pushed to the six 18 agenda. Speaker 1: Great. Alright, so we'll, we'll we will, we will pick that up later. Alright, so next item on the agenda is a request for determination of applicability for 1 36 South Main Street. Do we have a representative of 1 36 South Main Street on the call here this evening? Speaker 2: Yes, Ted Garland is on the line. Hey Ted and homeowner and Matt, we did open this at last week's hearing, so we do not need to read the legal ad on this one.
Speaker 1: Okay, excellent. So Mr. Garland, would you mind just kind of giving us an overview of what it is you're proposing to do and we can then take it from there? Speaker 2: Ted, I'm getting the plans pulled up right now for you. Oh, you're muted Ted, we cannot hear you. Speaker 3: How's that? That Speaker 2: Much better. Speaker 1: Okay, gotcha. Speaker 3: Alright. I think, I think I'd know, know this stuff by now. It's not like Zoom's a new thing. I, what what we're going to, what I'd like to do is I'd like to take down the, the one car garage that has been on the property for
many, many years and replace it and, and move it to kind of higher ground for a two car garage with some additional storage and an A DU on the second floor. And this, the a DU is, is intended to create a space for family members, my son in particular because as we all know, finding, finding apartments or buying houses is, is extremely difficult in this, in this day and age.
So my, my plan was to create a place for him and, and also have some additional storage space and place for more cars. Speaker 1: Great. Speaker 2: So Matt, there's an intermittent stream that runs along the back of the property that extends a hundred foot buffer zone. The existing structure does actually sit within both the 25 foot and 40 foot local buffers under our bylaw. And the proposed structure will be fully outside of those local buffers because Ted's property does fall within the Aquifer
protection district. The, the project is required to provide a stormwater management for the first inch of roof runoff, which is why the tech system has been proposed at the rear of the garage. And there has been an o and m plan provided per the requirements of the Afer Protection District zoning regulations. Speaker 1: Right. So the call tech would be in, so the existing garage would be raised the a DU, the garage, two car garage with the A DU above. It would be built on, you know, on the other side of the backyard Exactly from where the, where the existing garage is. We'll have a drain line going
or roof runoff will go into the Caltech behind it. Speaker 3: Correct. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 2: And there was soil testing done on the site. So the system meets all the requirements in terms of separation to groundwater. Speaker 1: Okay. And Ted, the, your backyard it, you know, we know the area pretty well, relatively flat. Speaker 3: Yes. Yes. Okay. Speaker 2: And Ted, I think that we had talked about this briefly, but I would you guys be open to a, a staked straw waddle just along the back edge of the excavation for the stormwater system to make sure that if there was any sediment runoff during a storm event,
it would be the stream would be protected. Speaker 3: Oh, sure. Yes. Speaker 1: Okay. Okay. So this is a request for determination of applicability. Doug, Jeff. Mike, Jim, any questions for the applicant on this? Speaker 3: None for me. Speaker 2: Seeing lots of heads shaking. Speaker 1: Okay, Jim, you good? Alright, so this is a request for determination. Yes. Sorry about that. Yeah, no, you're good. So this is a request for determination of applicability. So if there's no further questions, be happy to entertain a motion to close this and then issue a determination if
that's the pleasure of the board. Someone wanna make that motion? Motion to close. Great. Thank you Jim. Is that seconded? Seconded. Thank you Jeff. Any further discussion on that, folks? Hearing none. All those in favor please indicate by saying yes. When I call your name Jeff? Yes. Jim? Yes. Mike? Yes. Mattie? Yes as well. So it's the hearing's closed on this. Someone wanna make a motion to issue a negative three determination jurisdictional not in any resource area.
And you know, it's in the buffer zone, not in any riverfront area or anything like that. So someone make a motion to issue a negative three. Determination please. Motion three. I'll take Jim's motion. Is that all right Jim? Yes. Okay. Now Jeff, can I take yours as a second? I think you had it, you're in there. Sure. Absolutely. All right, excellent. Any, any further discussion on this folks? All is in favor. Please indicate by saying yes. When I call your name Mike. Yes. Jeff? Yes. Jim? Yes. Yes. Matt? Yes. Mr. Golin, you've got what you need from us, you'll get the paperwork, please stick to the plan
as you've proposed it here. If anything changes, let us know. But otherwise, thanks for coming in and appreciate you all the project. Speaker 3: Thank you all very much. This is, this is very important to me and my family and I really appreciate your support. Speaker 1: I can imagine. Great, thanks. Good luck with it. Okay, take care. Alright, next item on the agenda is 24 Peterson Road and the applicant has requested a continuation or we need to have a continuation of this in order to get some additional materials there. So would someone make a motion to continue 24 Peterson Road to our June 18th meeting please?
So moved. Thank you Jeff. Is that seconded? Second. Thank you Mike. Any further discussion on that? All those in favor please indicate by saying yes when I call your name Jeff? Yes. Jim? Yes. Mike? Yes. Matty? Yes. All right. So 24 Peterson is continued to June 18th. Next item on the agenda is I've got a notice of intent for 2 73 West Central State. Have representatives of that project appear on the call today? Speaker 4: Good evening. Yes. My name is Natty King, I'm a consultant for the applicant, Gables Residential Services Inc. Environmental Planner at Fort Point Associates.
We've also got Eddie, me from the applicant, and Nate Che, our civil engineer from TetraTech. And Ian Ramey, our landscape architect from Copley Wolf. I do have the presentation that I'd be happy to run through if few folks are ready for it. Speaker 1: Yeah, lemme just go ahead and formally re read the you. Speaker 2: Oh Matt, we did, we opened this one on the fourth as well 'cause it was advertised for that date. So this one is all set. Speaker 1: Yeah. Got it. Excellent. Thank you. All right, so let's go Nady, you're on. Speaker 4: All right, appreciate it. Gimme a sec to get my screen sharing set up.
Speaker 2: You should be all set with the permissions. Speaker 1: Let's start the Speaker 4: Question My Saturday. Are you guys seeing the presentation version or the speaker notes version? Speaker 1: Actually neither at this point. Speaker 5: Presentation look. Oh, it was just a presentation it looked like. Speaker 4: Good to go Speaker 1: Now we got it. Good to go. Speaker 4: All right. I would welcome Eddie, me from the applicant to say some welcome remarks and then we'll dive into the presentation. Eddie Speaker 6: A absolutely thank you Na, I'll keep this brief. Good evening. My name's Eddie, me with Gables Residential. I'm a vice president over there
and just by way of quick background, Gables is a privately held owner and developer of multi-family and mixed use communities since 1982. And we've been in the Boston area for about 15 years. One of the things that we are trying to do with our site here is to fully comply with all of the zoning as was approved with the West central corridor zoning that back in November of last year. And so we'll walk through all of that with you tonight. But without further ado, I'll hand it off to Natty to kick this thing off.
Speaker 4: Thank you Eddie. So we'll start with some existing conditions about the property. We'll summarize the project, go over resource area, impacts mitigation and benefits, touch on storm water, touch on the planting approach, and then have time for questions and discussion. So thanks again you all for your time. So the property is a three and a half acre site at 2 73 West Central Street. It's a strip mall development known as NA Native Crossings.
I'm sure you've all passed by it many a time. The site is nearly entirely impervious surfaces in the present condition to the north of the property is the META commuter rail right of way to the east is the West Natick station parking lot and immediately north of the site between the rail tracks and the northern property line, as you can see in the image, is a offsite bordering vegetated wetland that creates the jurisdiction in this area. This is essentially a drainage ditch.
That's probably why it has vegetation. The property has a drainage easement covering this area into existing outfalls that convey drainage flows from the site's parking lots into the ditch. So just a little context there. Within the boundaries of the site, the bottom two images you see are representative of the rear of the property along that northern property line paved parking lot, edge of the existing building, et cetera, grade sloping across the property as well. And then the top right image is just a look at
what the site looks like when you enter it from West Central Street. So in terms of what we're proposing, demolition of the existing development and redevelopment of the site with a new transit oriented residential mixed use building as Eddie referenced, our goal here is to, you know, develop a new project that capitalizes on the recently implemented West central corridor zoning district and help the town of real Natick realize its goals around leveraging proximity to transit with
multifamily residential uses. So overall we're talking about a five story building, two 19 residential units and 4,000 square feet of non-residential space. Significant public amenities including a plaza on the front of the property, a shared use path running along the street frontage and a new MBTA connector walkway that will provide an access between the right of way. And the MBTA. You know the, the station platform around the proposed building is surface parking
and on the podium level of the garage is enclosed parking as well. That totals 2 58 spaces. And of course a new stormwater management system will be implemented as part of the project and we'll talk about that in a moment. Overall, the project will result in a net increase in open space, included an expansion of vegetated surfaces with native landscaping within wetlands jurisdiction. So to that end, just a little summary of the work proposed with respect to jurisdiction.
You can see the offsite bordering vegetated wetland and green to the north. That dashed pink line just south of that is the edge of the existing paved parking lot. Just for some context, we have the 25 foot disturb zone and within that area the proposed work will remove the parking lot, pull it back away from the resource area, install subsurface utilities, and also significant landscaping particularly to the east of
that parking area you see on the screen, which is sort of a lawn area for the residents of the building. Beyond that is the 40 foot no build zone. Similarly, that will be essentially rep paved to continue a parking lot use in that area with the overall expansion and pervious surfaces. And within the buffer zone, that's where the existing building will come down and where the new building is proposed, kind of on the outer edge of that area. So you know, we've designed this project to comply
with the performance standards and the various requirements for the local buffer zones under the Natick wetlands protection bylaw. Our goal has been to design a site that will create an overall net improvement and kind of remedy the existing impervious condition by bringing in new, you know, expanded landscaped areas, improved storm water management and an overall improvement of the site. So summary of our impacts, we are redeveloping an existing deter disturbed site.
Such alterations are permitted under the local bylaw. We have no direct impacts to the offsite bordering vegetated wetland within the no disturbance zone. We have about 4,000 square feet of project related impacts out of the 5,000 square feet of that zone within the property boundaries that exist today. And within that zone an a net reduction of about 1700 square feet in impervious surfaces. Similarly in the 40 foot no build zone, about 9,000 square feet of project related impacts,
but a reduction of 2,700 square feet of impervious surfaces. And then finally in the a hundred foot buffer zone, 31,000 square feet of project related impacts and a reduction of 3,700 square feet of impervious surface coverage. And as I mentioned, you know, Ian will speak more to our landscaping program, but we do have a significant planting program that incorporates native trees and ground covers, trying to mimic a natural environmental condition in our landscaped areas to provide habitat support,
urban heat island mitigation, and also generally stabilize the soils along the rear of the site. So with that I'd turn it over to our engineer Nate, to run through our stormwater design. Nate, please go ahead. Speaker 7: Thank you Naty. And for the record, I'm Nate Shield and the civil engineer for the project. The stormwater system that's proposed is, has been designed to meet all the standards of the local Natick Aquifer Protection District and the stormwater management and Roche patrol bylaw as well as mass DEP standards.
Key features in the stormwater system will include deep sum, ped catch basins piped into manholes, piped two water quality units, and then piped into one of four subsurface infiltration in detention systems. System one and two are designed as exfiltration basins, which means they will be ex allowing storm water to infiltrate and help control peak rate control during a storm event. Those basins have been designed in areas where we have
over four feet of separation to groundwater recharge systems three and four. Those are not designed as info exfiltration systems. We do not consider infiltration in the rate control those two basins as there's two feet of separation to groundwater. I know DEP had provided a technical comment, so I just wanted to make that point clear just so that you could understand why the systems are slightly different. But overall, the systems will achieve a reduction in peak rate of stormwater
for all four design storms. The 2 10, 25 and 100 year storm event. We will also reduce the volume of stormwater discharging into the wetland in the back as well as increase groundwater recharge. The systems have been designed to infiltrate up to 1.2 inches of stormwater across all the impervious areas and the system itself will achieve over 90% TSS removal. All the stormwater will be discharged to the north,
to the BVW in the back of the site next to the rail right away and there will be no connection to the town system. And with that I'll pass it on to Ian. Speaker 8: Great, thanks Nate. For the record, Ian Ramey with Copley Wolf, we're the landscape architects for the project and as you heard Natty mention, we do have a fairly robust landscape plan. So what you're seeing here is an illustrative version of our planting plan and basically each color that you see represents a different tree species. So you can see that we're really trying to increase the biodiversity of the tree cover
that's gonna be on site. We're leaning very heavily into native species. Pretty much all of the trees are native with a few select adapted species for performance in key areas. We know that we're generally in sort of the Oak Pine Association sort of in this region. And so we're trying to use a lot of oaks to kind of take cues from that natural ecosystem. Within the resource area, there are two, two mature white oaks. Those are the larger green, darker green dots at the top of the plan, those will be preserved and supplemented with new trees around them. I think on the left side, this just gives a little sense
of the diversity of species that we're planting. This isn't all the things that we'll be planting, but generally speaking we have a good selection of shrubs, perennials, grasses, and ground covers. And these are all native species that we plan to employ throughout the site. I think with that I'll hand it back to Naty. Speaker 4: Thank you Ian. Yep. So to wrap it up with best management practices that will be implemented during the construction period, we will be preparing and implementing a storm water pollution prevention plan and obtaining coverage under the nifty
construction general permit. That being, because we're disturbing over one acre of land for this project, we'll install per perimeter sedimentation controls catch base and inserts and stabilize construction entrances. And as far as the perimeter sedimentation controls go, I know we had a question from Claire about this. We're proposing silt socks is our erosion control barrier and that's mostly because a minimal amount of runoff will be conveyed to the north of the site just due
to the existing topography on the property. And we believe a silt sock is sort of a less, a lower impact measure in itself compared to a silt fence where you know, you'd be staking it into the ground, it may involve some soil or you know, vegetative disturbance. So you know, if the commission's preference of silt fence, we can talk about that. But that is the reason why we opted for a selt sock in this location. Other measures proposed are protecting material stockpiles
with sediment controls, establishing vegetated cover on exposed soils as needed and other standard erosion control measures and dust control measures that you would expect to see for a project of this scale. In terms of post-development conditions, we've prepared an operation and maintenance plan for our storm water system that will be implemented after construction is complete. And of course those long-term benefits I discussed related to landscaping reduction of impervious surfaces,
native vegetation and stormwater improvements leave us to believe that what we have is a project that will create an overall benefit to the resource area to the north, while also helping achieve the town of Natick goals related to transit oriented development around West naic station. So with that, happy to open it up to any questions or comments from the commission. Thank you. Speaker 1: So procedurally, you're still in front of planning, is that correct? Speaker 4: That is correct, yes. Okay.
Speaker 1: Could you just give us a, give us some bullet points on kind of where those discussions are at and what the negotiating points are just 'cause that'll help us calibrate in terms of where there might be shifts, design changes, things like that. I mean, in, in conversations with Claire and, and and her thoughts on this and certainly aligns with mine, you know, leaving this open until planning concludes, just so that we don't have to go, you know, go through a process of reopening any,
any hearings if there are any adjustments there. But if you could talk a little bit about what the, the highlights of the planning board conversation would be, that would be helpful for us. Speaker 4: Sure. Eddie, do you want me to take that one or would you like to start and then I can fill it in? No, you you, you go ahead and take that one. Sure. So, you know, I think a lot of things of interest related to our planning board discussions, our evaluation of traffic. So not really so much the design of the project itself, but you know, evaluating the site with respect
to potential reopening of the nearby Boin Lane Bridge. Evaluating the shared use path along the frontage with respect to existing utility boxes and traffic masks that may conflict. And just generally reconfirming our traffic numbers, which we have done and we've kind of prepared a updated traffic assessment for the, for the planning board's review that we'll discuss at the next hearing. So I'd say that was like one of the biggest points of discussion. Another thing we've been working on is more
on the architectural side. This is a project that's subject to DRB review. So we've been meeting with the design review board talking about facade materials, window groupings, kind of like how do we make the entrance to the building look like a signature space that kind of, you know, sets this up for success is a new district of transit oriented development. So that's another, neither of those things really would implicate anything on the rear of the property. Other things we've reviewed have to do
with potential shadow impacts to adjacent property visibility of utility, you know, rooftop mechanicals from adjacent properties. We've prepared studies that we'll be sharing with them on that point as well. So I would say nothing that implicates the physical footprint of the building or the surrounding parking layout. Maybe some, we've done a little tweaking to our planting plan, like what sorts of trees and pedestrian amenities or putting along the MVTA connector walkway,
which have all been incorporated into the plans you've seen. So I think we're feeling like we're at the point where I don't want to speak for the planning board, but I think we're almost there with them and no significant design changes will be forthcoming and drainage hasn't come up at all. I I think they probably defer to you guys for the review of the drainage system. So there's been no, no substantive comments on that point besides just high level information about what's proposed. Speaker 5: So it Speaker 6: Sounds, I'll, I'll just add that, sorry, that, that our intent has been all along to meet every single
zoning requirement for this area. Height, massing, setbacks, et cetera. And, and many of the comments that were received were, were intended to make the, the public spaces better and that those were one of the revisions we made in this last go around with both DRB and when we sit in front of planning board in a couple weeks. Speaker 1: Okay. Good. Questions from the commission. Mike? Jeff, Jim, sorry, Speaker 2: Just a quick note that the next planning board hearing and, and na Eddie correct me if I'm wrong, is, is July 1st you guys are scheduled for, correct? Speaker 4: That's correct. We'll be appearing then. Yep.
Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 5: Yeah, yeah. Could this is Jeff Naty, could you go back to that? To the plot plan kinda showing the, the northern edge right there? Yeah, so I, you know, I'm, I'm pretty familiar with that area 'cause I extensively take the MBTA and spent a lot of time the past couple years at the West NA station. Not a indictment of what you presented, but I think it's a, a little overstated, the ease with which you'll be doing work along
that 25 foot node disturb zone. I mean, that, that area is elevated above that bordering vegetated wetland. There's trees that are coming out from around the tar from the, the bank. It's, it's really degraded. So I I I would wanna, I mean we may even wanna walk out there to see that. 'cause I think that that, that work, if it's done right and we make sure that we implement the OR conditions would be fine. But if it's not, you know, it can result in an impact.
I think. I think you said that there's really not much of an impact or direct impact, you know, TBD from my perspective because removing that pavement right there and not impacting that top of the, the bank area, I think that that's threading a needle. Speaker 4: Yeah, that's fair. Appreciate that. Speaker 1: Okay. Jeff, is it your suggestion that we do that? We do go take a walk out there and, and, Speaker 5: Yeah. Yeah, I think that's a, I mean, you know, that's a, that's a really degraded area right there and is, you know, and that, that wetland is abused a lot, you know,
by a, you know, by a lot of stuff and impact by a lot of stuff. So there's a, I think that there's maybe an opportunity sort to kind of clean it up a little bit to take the trash out of there, but I think that looking, putting eyes on that ridge right there and then getting a little bit more detail about how you'll do that work is important. Speaker 1: Okay. So let's certainly take that under advisement and into consideration. Sounds like a a, a pretty solid suggestion out there, especially since you spent a lot of time staring at that part. Staring
Speaker 5: At yeah, yeah, Speaker 1: Yeah. As you're waiting for the wildly efficient or commuter rail there. Alright, good. Jim, Mike, questions from you guys? Speaker 9: Y yeah, this is Jim. I, I, I'm, I'm wondering about the, the demolition plan. I mean, it, it looks like there's a very significant demolition right, of this existing strip mall and I assume is it all the pavement, you know, gonna be removed? That's gonna be, you know, now it'll be a foundation for the building.
I guess just in general, how's the demolition plan handled and specifically I guess our concern is, is there testing done? I mean, you know, we hope there's no area underneath there that may have some kind of issue, but we just had, you know, just a few weeks ago a site that did have some contamination in, in the soil as they, you know, started to do the work. So I'm just curious in how that is that, you know, documented and how that's planned out? That whole demolition, I mean just, just the, the amount
of trucks and the amount of work, it just seems like a, a, a big deal. Speaker 4: Well, I will say we have a pre-construction partner that's been evaluating all of the construction logistics. We do have a construction management plan that covers demolition in place. We're using that in part in our reviews of the project with the META. So it has been looked at and considered at this stage. I'm not privy to all the specific details, but Nate, perhaps you'd be the one most likely to have
had some interface with that. If you have anything you wanna share on that topic. Speaker 7: You know, from my point of view, typically, and actually I'll throw this question to Eddie, but typically you would do a phase one environmental assessment as part of your due diligence and that's where you would start to unearth some of those potentials on a site. Speaker 6: Yeah, no, and I'll, I'll speak to that. We, we have, as part of our due diligence for the site completed an environmental phase one, which found no significance contaminants onsite, which limited our, which did not have to do a full phase two.
There is, it's an older building, so there is asbestos inside. So there is a remediation plan for that, which is part of, you know, which would get covered as part of our demolition permit and would need to be remediated prior to anything taking place at the site. And then otherwise, you know, we would have to go through a full, you know, demolition permit where, you know, the, the city and the building officials are reviewing, you know, what is happening, where it's happening, dust mitigation trucks entering and leaving, making sure, you know, we sweep up
after ourselves if dust is going on the street. All of those things are taken into account through both a, you know, demolition plan and then also through the demolition permit, which, you know, would be sometime next year. Speaker 1: So Eddie, as part of the phase one though, there's no, there's no prior uses of use of concerns. Any, any evidence of USTs on site or for Speaker 6: Retired Speaker 1: Decommissioned Speaker 6: Can? Candidly, it's been a while since I've looked at the environmental report. I I do not recall any USTs, I don't think there are. And there certainly was nothing of concern that, you know,
we felt that would be, that we're required to do anything outside of the norm. Speaker 1: Okay. For the, for the, the new building, I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with the term podium level parking, what is, you know, so, so this is, so it's underground parking or it's one layer beneath it. Is that, is that what you call podium level parking? Speaker 6: That, that, that's correct. Essentially it's a, actually it's a steel podium that the building will be above it four stories and then below it will be parking. But in the front we'll have non-residential space as well
as our management office, mail room and some amenity areas for our residents. So. Got it. Essentially what you would see from the street would be occupiable space behind it would be parking and then around into the back would also be surface parking. Speaker 1: Got it. Okay. Great. But then as a result though, I mean you're not the, the separation to groundwater on site. I'm just, I'm getting at if if there's any potential need for, for dewatering as, as you're excavating the site and preparing it for, for the podium level parking. There,
Speaker 6: There may be isolated dewatering with, as we pour foundations for some of the columns, it probably is right on the threshold. And typically they would, you know, set aside an area for excavation. They would do some localized pumps. Sometimes they would pump it to an area, you know, within the site Yep. And sort of almost make a little sort of bowl or volcano where you'd pump the water, you know, to, to pour a single foundation. Then you go to the next one and then then the next one. But allowing it to essentially evaporate it, it should not,
this is not a, a major and dewatering area for our, our foundation. Now if we did more underground parking, that would be a different story, but not for the foundations that we're currently assuming. Speaker 1: Okay, Speaker 6: Great. Which are only slightly below the existing grade. Speaker 1: Right. Okay. Great. Other questions at this point in time? Speaker 9: Yeah, Jim Fitzgerald again in, in regards to the, that's an open quad area I guess you'd call it, or an o open area in the middle. Speaker 4: Yeah, so that's the podium level is,
that's enclosed space at the podium level and then there'll be a courtyard for the building residence within that kind of rectangular area. Speaker 9: Okay. Yeah, above the parking. Yeah. Can you go back one slide to the, the, the cons? The, the picture, the one that, that shows a Yeah, there it is. Okay, great. Okay. I was just curious. So is there any plantings that go on in there or that's, that's the more per impervious type situation in there, or Speaker 8: Yeah, I can clarify. So that interior space is really a,
a rooftop garden basically it's a, it's a landscape and activated amenity space. It's above the roof of the garage, so there will be planting, so it'll just be in raised containers. Speaker 9: Ah, raised container. Okay. Yeah. All right. So no, no trees and, and, and in terms of any storm, storm water or snow removal or whatever, how, how's, how's that handled in there? Is it Speaker 8: The water that falls on that will be directed to the roof drainage system of the garage and then from there? I think maybe Nate knows more about how that works, but
Speaker 7: Yes, we'll pick up the roof drainage and direct it to one of the four subsurface infiltration systems. But we can, in terms of storm water, yeah, I consider that entire courtyard area is impervious. Speaker 9: Is impervious, okay. Speaker 7: Just, just as from a stormwater perspective. Okay. Speaker 6: So, so for all your calculations it's, yeah, correct. E even though we'll have green area, that could absorb some of the water, but it's not including your calculations. Yep. There'll be some plant uptake and all that good stuff. Okay, great. Thanks. Speaker 1: Okay, so procedurally there's a couple of questions
or kind of, you know, suggestions. I mean, I'd suggest that we do keep this open for the planning board process to close out, just so that we know everything's all, all buttoned up there. This is a filing under the Wetlands Protection Act, so it's a wetlands filing here. Claire, what's your thoughts on a storm water, a major storm water permit filing for this in addition to that? I mean, oftentimes we can combine them, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on that. Clear. Speaker 2: Yeah, of course. So the, the applicant is required to file for a major stormwater permit because of the level of site disturbance. It is my recommendation that
because the drainage system is utilizing that existing outfall, all that in a, a reduced capacity with the drainage system that's being designed, I do feel it most appropriate for those permits to be closed in tandem so that the conditions can really reflect each other and it then avoids any need because the outfall is located within the wetlands jurisdiction. If there are any changes to the stormwater system, we're not having to reopen the notice of intent public hearing to then reflect any changes to the wetlands impacts. I do think that there are still some staff comments that,
that need to be addressed by the applicant team that were provided. And so it would be my recommendation that this hearing remain open and be continued yes, to an upcoming public hearing. The filing deadline for our meeting on Thursday next week has passed. So the earliest that the stormwater permit would be able to be opened is our July 16th hearing, which does line up with the, the planning board timing as well, i i to the applicant team. I do think, you know, you guys have done quite a bit
of preliminary work with Bill McDowell and myself on the drainage system design. As far as I'm aware, there are no strong concerns, so I don't imagine that the hearing process associated with the major stormwater permit will necessarily be particularly long. But I do think that trying to close those permits out in tandem does make the most sense from a procedural standpoint and, and just a timing standpoint from the planning board review as well, that that would be my recommendation at, at this point in time. And that also gives the commission some time
to potentially get a site visit scheduled if they are interested in that. Yeah. Speaker 1: Eddie, in terms of your, your timeline and all of that, would that, does that make sense to you? Speaker 6: I, I, I believe so. Having some of these open past planning board, I don't believe is a problem, but I'll let Naty and Nate opine on that. But I think the timing that you mentioned is, is, is perfectly fine with us. Speaker 4: Yeah, I don't see a problem with it. I mean, that's plenty of time for us to get a storm water permit application together and filed and as you said, you guys
Speaker 2: Have all the materials, it's really just submitting it through the portal at this point in time, Speaker 4: Right? Yeah, I mean, I, I have no objection to that. Sounds fine on my end. As long as it's fine on Eddie's end. Yeah. Speaker 6: Okay. We'll make it work. Speaker 1: So why don't we proceed this way then, you know, then that'll also, as, as we said, that'll also give us an opportunity to go take a walk in the back there. I mean, it's a pretty open area, so I don't think we have to do much coordinating in terms of schedules and all of that. I don't believe that we need, you know, one of you guys there when we do it. You know, it's a pretty straightforward, it's a big project,
but it's also a relatively straightforward project in my opinion. You know, we, you know, sometimes you see big hairy projects, sometimes you see tiny, small, really super complicated projects. This looks like a big one that's pretty straightforward. So with all that, you know, I mean, I'd suggest that we proceed that way where we could just go ahead and continue this, you guys get a storm water permit together. We could do that for our July meeting. We will schedule a site walk that will happen sometime between now and then. So we'll come with that under our belts for the next, for that meeting in July. And then we, we pick it up there. I think that's probably the, the most straightforward way
to proceed here, just to be efficient on, on all of our parts. All good. Speaker 4: All good on my end. That Speaker 6: Sounds great. Thank you. Speaker 1: All right. Commission, Jim, Mike, Jeff, are we good with that? Any any further comments or things that we wanna throw onto the table before we continue this to our next meeting or to our meeting in July? Speaker 4: No. Speaker 1: All good. Mike, you good? Yes. Excellent. All right, so with all that, so make a motion to continue the, the wetlands hearing. Continue this to our meeting on July 16th. Motion to continue. Thank you, Jim. Is that seconded?
Seconded. Thank you Jeff. Any further discussion on that? All those in favor, please indicate by saying yes when I call your name Jeff. Yes. Mike? Yes. Jim? Yes. That's a yes. Alright gentlemen. So thank you. Appreciate it. We'll be putting these plans under our pillows and sleeping on 'em and we'll come back with questions. Actually real quick, guys, when, when do you want to do a site walk on this? That would be good. And so we simply just need to get out there before our meeting on July 16th. I am out the next two weekends. We could do something like Saturday, July 11th
before the meeting if that works. So it's fresh in our minds top of mind. Would that work for folks? Everyone have Speaker 5: Three Speaker 1: Weeks of fi fishing trips planned or anything? Speaker 5: I I, I could do it the, the week, like I could do it like the sixth or the sixth or the 7th of July, like during the week I could get over there. Sure. But Speaker 1: Mike, how about you? Sixth or seventh, Jim? Speaker 5: Yes. Yep. Speaker 1: How about if we, how about we plan on Tuesday the seventh at say 5:30 PM Okay. Meet the meet there on site. Speaker 5: Yep. Any chance of getting the parking lot open instead
of trying to, because it'd be tough over there at that time with the people getting out of the West Natick tea station and stuff. So Speaker 2: How about I send around an email confirming the larger commission date on the 11th. And Jeff, you and I can coordinate on what time you'll be able to get out there and then maybe Eddie, I can touch base with you about making sure site access is available. Yeah, Speaker 6: That happy, happy to get the, the lot open for you guys. Speaker 1: So, so Claire, are you suggesting that we do the visit on Saturday the 11th and then, and then we'll have a, a, a, a special custom tour
for Jeff on the seventh when he can get out there Speaker 2: If that works for the commission? I, I'm happy to coordinate that. And Jeff, I'm also happy to meet you out there on, on the sixth or the seventh whenever you're getting out there. If, if the 11th works for folks. I, I I'm also around that weekend. I've got no issues. Speaker 1: Well why don't we stick to the plan of doing it on the seventh and if, and if you know Eddie, if, if, if, if you can arrange access for us so we can just pull off the road and not not be parked in the middle of 1 35, that would be great. I, Speaker 10: I might not make the seventh if that's okay. I could always go before or after. Speaker 1: Sure. Okay.
So just to keep it simple, let's plan on the seventh, say 5:30 PM on the seventh. Mike, you, you get out there at your, you know, when your schedule allows and Claire, if, if, if you could work with Eddie to arrange that. Speaker 2: Yep. And Mike let me know, I'm happy to, to meet you out there as well. Okay, Speaker 10: Thank you. Speaker 1: Cool. Alright, so we have gone ahead and voted to close to continue to July 16th. We've got a site visit arranged for Tuesday, July 7th, 5:30 PM on site and we'll go from there.
So gentlemen, thank you for your time. We will see you back here on the 16th to pick up the conversation. Speaker 6: Thank you. Thanks. Thanks very much. Speaker 1: Alright, thanks guys. Appreciate it. Speaker 4: Forward along. Any questions that might come up in the interim. Speaker 1: Great. Speaker 2: Sort to send along any, a compiled version of any questions that come in. Speaker 1: Thank you. Alright, care. Thank you guys. Alright, let's move on. Next item on the agenda is we are got the continuation of the notice of intent for 56 Beaver Dam Road and we've got some conditions for us to review. Speaker 2: Yes. And we do have Eric on the line. Representative of the applicant team, the
Matt Morrow, who's the environmental representative, did review these conditions. Did not have any concerns. He actually, he did have one brief concern about condition 29 that I'll get to at the bottom there, but I explained the intent of the condition and he is a okay with the language as it is. I am still just waiting on the, the final approved plans with the, the planting detail updated. So this information, I believe Matt is should be getting that to me before the end of the week and this will be updated with that information when it goes in. Otherwise we have our standard administrative information findings of fact that the project does comply
with the requirements of 10.585. That the project does result in an increase of degraded area as well as areas closer to the riverfront, closer to the bank. So mitigation has been provided in compliance 19,500 square 1,950 square foot, sorry, Eric, didn't mean to quadruple your guys' mitigation size. Square foot mitigation area has been proposed to be planted with native species creating additional vegetated buffer between the single family home in Beaver Dam Brook. The area will be permanently demarcated with an existing retaining wall and new boulders.
The project has requested a waiver from the stormwater management requirements under local bylaw article 79 A due to extremely high groundwater elevation on the lot. Rain barrels are proposed at the downspouts, but the project does not meet all the requirements of Article 79 A. The commission did agree to grant a waiver due to the hardships associated with the lot moving into our special conditions. This is based off some of the discussions at the prior meetings, but prior to the placement of erosion controls, the rear property line shall be staked based on the site survey to ensure that erosion controls are placed entirely on the subject lot
and do not encroach onto a budding state land. Once the staking has been completed, a site visit shall be scheduled with a conservation agent to review prior to the installation of erosion controls. Then we follow that up with our standard erosion control check at the free construction site visit. Moving down to our next special condition, which is condition 26. In regards to the mitigation planting area, noting that all plants will be installed per the approved mitigation plan, including but now limited to species number of plantings and size of plantings, any changes
to the proposed mitigation plan R two B Yep. Provided in writing for review and approval by the conservation agent prior to any installation, all planting work shall be performed or supervised by a qualified professional. And contact information for the professional selective shall be provided to the conservation office in advance of installation. Installation of mitigation plans shall occur between these appropriate seasons if they need to be out installed outside of those seasons, a discussion can be had in regards to setting up appropriate watering protocols. This is based off some of the experiences we've had on prior
sites where plants have been installed and, and not properly watered and during harsh weather conditions. So just trying to make sure that there's more communication about that a, as the development occurs. Finally, a memo completed by the qualified professional who performed or supervised the installation of mitigation plans, including photos, shall be provided within 30 days of the plans being installed. The memo should note compliance with the approved plan or detail any changes and all mitigation. Plantings must survive a minimum of one year from the date
of planting in order for the site to be eligible for compliance remainder our standard commission. So Matt had some concerns about Article 29, especially because some of the updates to this house are specifically related to accessibility for a a disabled child. And I did let Matt know that this really is more of a formality. I'm already in the process for the certificate of occupancy issuance. So this is just a condition that helps the building department be able to support the requirements of, you know, clo out, making sure we get the right as-built
plan before that certificate of occupancy is released. But I, I have not to date held up a certificate of occupancy for actually anything other than a drainage system failing to be installed correctly. So I generally, this condition does not impact the issuance of the certificate of occupancy at all because the order of conditions also holds teeth for the commission in terms of long term enforcement. Yes. Condition 30, which is our condition regarding marking. I recommended that the marking shall occur along the edge
of the mitigation planting area because there's already some permanent demarcation proposed to make sure that that area is protected in perpetuity. And lastly, in our special conditions in perpetuity, noting that our riverfront mitigation area shall remain in a naturalized state in perpetuity. No additional land disturbing activities or alteration shall occur within the boundaries of the mitigation planting area. And also noting that the proposed bluestone patio shall be maintained in perpetuity to ensure permeability. Obviously, that one is a bit more difficult to enforce, but it does give us the ability to go in
and make sure that maintenance is occurring. If in the future it does result in any issues. Any questions from this patient or other things or changes? Speaker 1: This last one. So the proposed bluestone patio shall be main, shall be maintained in perpetuity. Yeah. Not, I mean this, so this isn't, 'cause you could almost read this as saying that the proposed bluestone patio should be left in place in perpetuity. Speaker 2: Oh, you know what that is? That is a very, language is such a funny thing. So shall be kept up. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 2: Shall be Speaker 1: The proposed, Speaker 2: Oh, here we go.
The permeability of the Speaker 1: There you go. Shall be maintained in perpetuity. Speaker 2: Sometimes it really is just about switching around the words. Speaker 1: Yeah. There you go. Speaker 2: Okay. Speaker 1: Okay. So Eric, you're good with this? Yeah. Speaker 11: No, we're, I've been working closely with Matt on this. We're fine with all of it. Speaker 1: Okay. Commission questions, Mike. Jim. Jeff, questions, comments, concerns? All right. So we'll make a motion then to issue this order
of conditions as discussed. So moved. Thank you, Mike. Is that seconded? Seconded. Thank you, Jim. Any further discussion on that? All is in favor, Mike? Yes. Jim? Yes. Jeff? Yes. That's a yes, Eric, thank you. Let us know if you have any questions and certainly if anything changes, but otherwise you've got, you've got what you need from us. Speaker 11: I appreciate you. Thank you. Have Speaker 1: A good night. All right. Thanks. Thanks Eric. Take care. All right. Next set on the agenda is we've got a, some conditions for 1 0 4 West Central to talk through. Speaker 2: Yes. We do not have any representatives
of the project on the call for this project. I did have a conversation with Pat Moynihan, who's the attorney for the applicant. The applicant team is fully comfortable with the conditions as I've drafted them. I did make the applicant team aware that if they don't have a representative here tonight and the commission does choose to make any changes, they may not have an opportunity to discuss or debate those changes. So I, I wanted to make them aware that you guys do on occasion look for some changes in the conditions that I've written, but overall they do not have any concerns with the conditions.
I believe most of the conditions were discussed at prior hearings as well the, the special conditions that have been drafted. Speaker 1: Okay. So why don't you just give us the, the, the, the quick version of the special conditions on this are conditions that deviate from our standard conditions. Speaker 2: So standard administrative information, because this is buffer zone only, the findings of fact are a little bit more simple. It notes that we're pulling the impervious area away from the delineated wetland and that we are providing storm water management and vegetating a currently impervious area within the inner buffer zone.
Scrolling down to our first special condition, which is following the demolition of the structure, additional soil testing at the location of the former floor drain shall be completed. Further recommendations of the phase two report noted under approved documentation, the testing report shall be provided to the conservation agent within 30 days of report completion. Condition 17. Oh, sorry. Oh yes. Construction of the new single family home shall not be allowed to proceed until additional soil testing is completed. If the report demonstrates additional contamination beyond the existing known contamination,
the applicant shall be required to appear before the Conservation Commission to determine if amendments to the proposed stormwater management design are needed and would hesitate an amended order of conditions. Speaker 1: One, one suggestion on this. So the way this is worded, construction of the new single family home shall not be allowed to proceed until additional soil testing is completed and the results are available. I mean, they could do the testing, but we've, they don't know the results. They shouldn't move ahead. Yeah. Good. Perfect. Speaker 2: Great. Okay. Standard conditions continuing through
to condition 26, again, this is per some of the prior discussions and the recommendations from the board of health director Mike Re, which is that all fill material within the footprint of the proposed stormwater infiltration system shall be removed. And I'm just gonna clarify, any all non native fill material shall be removed down to native soil. Any new material needed to achieve approved elevations for the infiltration system shall consist of clean fill or gravel with appropriate void spaces. The condition regarding our stormwater inspections for the installation, the condition 30, noting
that the landscaping shall occur for the approved plans, any changes to the proposed species or planting location shall be submitted in writing to the conservation agent for review and approval prior to any landscape installation. And finally, in terms of marking, I noted that this site has an interesting relation to the wetland resource area in terms of where the buffer zone line falls. So my recommendation is to mark the 40 foot no build zone, which sort of runs along that sort of sloped lawn area that's proposed at the end of the driveway
and then along the rear property line. As those sort of jurisdictional areas move further from the property. I I, I think from not only an aesthetic and functional standpoint, but from a, you know, making sure that dumping isn't occurring that rear property line is a really great opportunity to really hit home that, you know, this is state land that we're abutting and that there needs to be no disturbance in these areas. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 2: And then last special conditions in perpetuity. Special condition, noting that the stormwater system,
operation and maintenance plan requirements remain in effect in perpetuity and other responsibility of the current and any successor in interest of the property. Speaker 1: Okay. Questions, comments? All right. With that, happy to entertain a motion to issue this order of conditions as discussed all issue. I'll take Jim's. Jim's motion. Is that seconded? Seconded. Thank you Jeff. Any further discussion on that guys? All is in favor? Jeff? Yes. Mike? Yes. Jim? Yes. That's a yes. Speaker 2: I feel like folks can see the end in sight.
Speaker 1: Yeah, really. All right. Next item on the agenda is major storm water permit. This is for 43 Cypress. Applicants requested a continuation to our June 18th meeting. Speaker 2: Yes, so the applicant did provide some response materials to those last staff comments that I had, but I think in maybe developing those responses are having some second thoughts about site access plans and are potentially gonna be reconsidering how they will be accessing the site as well as the applicant team member who's gonna be here tonight
had a family emergency. So they have requested a continuation to our meeting next week to potentially provide some revised access plans for the commissions with. Speaker 1: All right, so I'm make a motion to continue 43 Cypress to June 18th please. So moved. Thank you Jeff. Is that seconded? Seconded. Thank you Mike. Any further discussion? Those in favor, Jeff? Yes. Mike? Yes. Jim? Yes. That's a yes. Alright, we're continued there. Alright, so that concludes the public hearings that we have here for this evening. We'll go, let's pick back up the
general business discussion. So town forest beaver management, we've done metal teching policy done. So last thing on the general business before Claire gives her updates is the mesh core repeater. I've kind of forgotten about that whole that, that, you know, the, the kid climbing the a hundred foot pine tree to hang a to hang a router off of it or whatever it is. So, so Claire, where do we stand on this? Speaker 2: So I think this one raised a few more red flags for Caris than the metal detecting. She had some additional conversations with her colleagues in regard to this type of system.
And based on her research and input from some of her colleagues, the, the mesh core network is considered part of a long range radio network. And the devices are subject to certain certification requirements. Generally these types of systems do fall under potentially certain types of zoning regulations. If they're being installed in, you know, residential areas or on municipal property, they do require some kind of lease or licensing agreement before they should be installed. And then Karas also also raised some concerns about the fact
that the, the young gentleman who came and asked us about the installing a mesh corps repeaters is a minor and would require parental permission in order to sign any sort of lease or licensing agreement. And while she did not say this directly, it was sort of one of those, maybe it would be best if we left this alone kind of answers from town council. And so I think unlike the metal detecting policy, this seems like maybe a larger town-wide
question in regard to mesh core repeaters on public property. And I would almost defer into the commission, of course I would almost refer the issue to the select board as sort of a larger town wide policy just because of the potential zoning implications and the larger municipal licensing agreement. It seems like that would maybe be more appropriately situated with the select board rather than the Conservation Commission. Just in case there are other future requests not on
conservation commission property to sort of establish a, a larger precedent town wide that then the commission could be a part of and and involved in those discussions. But it would apply writ broad to municipal property. But I wanted to hear the commission's thoughts. Speaker 1: Personally I have no interest in kind of permitting something or allowing something where there's bigger regulatory issues at play. And I'd suggest that we, you know, I'm, I'd like to provide this young gentleman with clear guidance as to what a next step is in the exploration.
I would suggest that contacting the town administrator's office and having, I know Jamie kind of doesn't have a whole lot on his plate, but to have, you know, to go via the town administrator's office and then he can, you know, he or John Marshall can, can dictate, suggest whether he talks to Caris or whether he goes in front of the select board or what. And just kind of punt, punt this out of our stadium because clearly it's not something I think we're
in a position to take on. Speaker 2: Wonderful. I will get that email sent out this week. In terms of other updates, fairly brief for this week, the rebid for the pick pond floating Boardwalk closes on the 18th next week. So I will have an update for the commission 'cause it'll be after the 5:00 PM deadline on what sort of responses we've seen to that. Fingers crossed we did have another very good spec request list. So I am hoping that there's maybe some interest
in, in the reduced project. Other update, we had a really successful spring trail stay in May. Had a, a nice turnout of folks, did some great refresh up in the pick pond area, cut back a lot of the vegetation to the Bradford Road Trail. Matt, Doug Dreek and David Little got out the following weekend and installed some new bog bridges through that section to replace some of the, the ones that were too short for the, the water levels out there. Almost, Speaker 1: Almost burned down. Pick pond in the process as well? Yes, Speaker 2: That's, that was gonna be the other update.
Okay, good. That they discovered a, an electrical issue from the, the lines to the pump house resulting from that larger windstorm that we had a, a sparking wire was down in Piro pond and the timing couldn't have been better for Matt and the team to be out there. They, they called the non-emergency police line or the water department. Then the non-emergency police line fire department came out. They called Eversource. Eversource got it all shut down, Matt. Everything has been fixed out there. I did coordinate with Tony over at the water department. So everything has been resolved,
but definitely a great catch by You guys Speaker 1: Have, have you been out there by chance? Speaker 2: I have not had a chance to get out there this week. I'm hoping to get out there tomorrow or Friday. But Speaker 1: Friday if you had a chance, I'd be curious 'cause the, when the Eversource guy came out, he was talking, you know, 'cause this, the pole that the wire had fallen off was about 20 feet off of the boardwalk and he was talking, he's like, oh, you know, we're gonna have to bring out matting and do all this, that and the other thing in order to get out to the pole. And so I'm just curious if there was any kind of collateral damage as, you know, when they did whatever they needed to do to get out there. I mean,
Speaker 2: Well, I have it on my list to get out there this week. I just heard from Tony that they didn't have any lingering issues with power in terms of the Wellhouse functionality. So I've got it on my list to get out there this week and I'll, I'll get some pictures for the commission for meeting. Speaker 9: Good. So the whole pond was electrified. Speaker 1: Thank no man, I'll, I'll tell you it was, it was, it was rough. You know, know was just saved Speaker 9: Lives. You saved lives. Speaker 1: It was just, it was a, there was a low wire that had fallen off of the pole and it was just sagging down. And then every, every 30 seconds it would arc to a,
to a small, like a small tree and the small tree would catch on fire for a second and then it would go out. It was, it was, it was interesting. It was entertaining. Oh, Speaker 9: Great state. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 9: All right. Speaker 1: All right. Claire, anything else? Speaker 2: Nothing much. Keep some eyes out. The, the Chosen Forest Stewardship Committee folks might recall approved, got some plans approved by the commission to do some trailhead improvements at Town Forest. Those plans are gonna try to be kicking off this summer. We're getting some new signs printed. There'll be a design for the commission to review. I'm gonna have that on the six 18 agenda
for if folks are called, they, they're proposing a new sort of like hanging style sign out closer to Oak Street Allah, the trustees of Reservation and Sudbury Valley trustees signage. So there'll be a design that the trails committee put together for the commission to review at our next meeting. And they will also be looking to kick that work off as soon as we get the signage approved essentially. And then finally, the commission may recall we got a proposal from Land Stewardship Inc. For some additional invasive species work at Town Forest
around the Meadow area. Springtown meeting did approve the increased operating budget for invasive species management. So my hope is to, I don't know if it'll get on the six 18 meeting, 'cause that meeting is already looking a little long now, but if not the next meeting, the July meeting, I, I am gonna have a proposal for the commission in terms of how I foresee that money potentially going to use over the course of fiscal year 27. I have already been sort of in contact with land stewardship in the hopes that we could pick up that scope proposal this fall.
That proposal would only eat up about a, a third of the, the money that we have available to us. So I think that there's some good opportunities to get other properties assessed and get some plans in place for managing them. Along with that, I did submit the grant application to the Accelerating Climate Resilience Program with MAPC for the Atlantic White Cedar Monitoring and Restoration Plan Development. That would be a project. No, loose Braids is an indigenous organization. The leaders is Andre Strong, Behar Gains,
who's the gentleman who had stung a harvest at this property prior and has quite a bit of experience throughout the state in Atlantic White Cedar restoration. That, that organization has agreed to be. Project partners as well as BSC Group provided some really great input. Their water quality division on the types of monitors we would be looking at and confirming some of the budget numbers that I had put together for the proposal. So hopefully we'll hear good news about that shortly and ideally later this summer, early this fall, we'll be able to start getting some monitoring
data in for that area. Super. Speaker 1: Alright, anything else folks? Mike, have you, have you seen any white smoke or black smoke coming out of the select boardroom at this point? Speaker 10: Not yet. I'm, I'm keeping my fingers crossed. I'm, I'm anxiously awaiting, but you know, what's the worst? I can just move to another committee, I guess. Right. There you go. There seems to be lots of openings. Speaker 1: No, but this is your spiritual home here, brother, so Speaker 10: It is, it is Speaker 1: Excellent. If Speaker 10: Can can, if I can make it to, if I can make it through the CPC committee, that's, I, I feel,
I feel lost there at times. Speaker 1: Excellent. We'll figure it out. Alright, happy to entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Thank you, Jeff. Is that seconded? Seconded. Thank you, Jim. All those in favor? Speaker 10: Yes. Yes. Speaker 1: All right. Thank you everyone, Doug. Thank you sir. Good. We'll good. We'll, we'll we'll see you guys next week. Thanks. Thanks. Take care. Bye. Take care. Alright, bye.