Speaker 1: All right, I've got top of the hour, seven o'clock folks. This is the Native Conservation Commission. Thanks for joining us on an off off night. The select board decided they have priority over our activities, which I will argue to my grave is not the case. But anyway, yeah, this is the Native Conservation Commission October 15th. This is our, this is our second meeting of the month, I guess. It is, yes. Yeah, so welcome everybody. This is an all virtual meeting. Obviously what I'd ask is that if you could please keep yourselves on mute
until your particular agenda item comes up for discussion, just to keep the background noise at a, at a minimum during our, our proceedings here this evening. What I'd like to do is just shift some things around the agenda just a little bit as a courtesy. So I'd like to invite a quick discussion around, around 50 Harwood Road to come to the top of the agenda, just so we can take care of that issue quickly. Do we have representatives of 50 Harwood Road here on the call this evening, please? Speaker 2: Yes, the owner, Nicole, is on the line. Nicole, feel free to go ahead and unmute yourself. Speaker 1: Great. Hey Nicole. Thanks for joining.
Speaker 3: Hi everyone. Nicole Doucette, nice to meet you everyone. Speaker 1: Hi. Hi, Nicole. Okay, so fairly straightforward, Nicole. So you guys have put a permit or an application for a permit to do some yard work, including a pool in front of the community development office. And as part of going through that, what was realized is that when your house was built, some, a few years ago, I, I believe this was your house was built in 2018. Yeah. It turns out that the builder put a fence that extended significantly onto town owned land. Okay. And we gotta, and, and we gotta address that. Okay.
You know, we as a policy can't have home private homeowners kind of taking over town owned land and treating it as though it's their own. Not saying you're doing that deliberately. Just to be really clear about that, it's something that you guys, I think just moved into there. And we see this every once in a while. Actually, fairly recently we saw this as well. And so what we need is that when, as part of you doing the pool work that you're gonna be doing to, to pull the fence back onto your property. So it reflects that and there's no kind of taking of townland as, as, you know, incorporating that into your backyard.
You know, so when the pool work is done, pull the fence in just as part of it. There's maybe a little bit of jiggery in terms of where the, the trampoline was proposed to go there, but it's, you know, it, your, your stuff has to be on your property and town stuff needs to be left for town property there. Does that make sense? Do you understand where we're coming from on that? Yeah, Speaker 3: Yeah. No, I totally understand. You know, I understand the importance of, you know, maintaining proper boundaries and so on. I was just curious what we have, what the fence is there now is the post in rail.
And we weren't technically gonna replace the fence. We were just gonna add up on the fence, like another post in rail to meet the requirement of the pool. So is there any flexibility? I know it mentioned in our letter that we receive that, you know, we might be able to keep things where they are until, you know, we're ready to sell our property, you know, prior to the sale address that Speaker 2: Nicole, so that was just the, the one of the possible recommendations for this evening's discussion. The commission is the final deciding body.
I apologize if my letter gave the wrong intent of what tonight's discussion was gonna be. Speaker 1: Yeah, well, you know, the, I mean, from my perspective, and this is a, a, a multi body board here, you know, is, is, you know, the answer unfortunately would be no. You know, is it from my side, you know, you would need to pull the fence as part of the construction process for the new pool. And it's looks like it's six posts, something like that, that would just need to cut straight across the back of the yard within the property line, the boundary of the property line. As soon as we're getting into people, again, taking,
taking property and using it for their own, it just sets a precedent that we can't have in town, you know, then we would be seeing encroachment and we see it in fact a lot around the pi pond area. And interestingly enough, and that's for whatever reason, you know, commission if others feel differently, please speak up. Just one voice on this. Anybody see it differently? Okay, I'll, I'll take that as consensus on that then. So, as you know, when you're doing the work, you know, it, I, I realize that it does add some cost to it, but it's one, you know, I'm seeing 1, 2, 3, maybe four posts
that are currently kind of going out into the, out onto the town owned land. And if those could just be pulled back as part of it, did you do the fence on top of it like you've proposed and then just have that as the, as the, as the boundary as the property boundary. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 2: Cole, I'm happy to come out and help measure out the change the plot plan that you guys have is very recent and I'm happy to help measure out those distances and flag them so that there isn't necessarily an additional surveyor cost. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 2: Yeah. Matt, would the, would the commission be comfortable if the
fence is placed on the property line? I technically, you know, town requirements is a foot in, unless the abutting landowner Speaker 1: Agrees, I would, I would have, I would have no problem with that at all. Okay. Alright, Nicole, if you have questions, call the office. I'm happy to talk to you offline as well, but that's, that's where we stand. Really appreciate your understanding and cooperation. Very grateful for that. Okay. Yeah, it's, it's, it's not an easy conversation for us. Don't want to be those, those people, but we just have to stick to the boundaries as the, as as the boundaries say they are. Speaker 4: Hey Matt. Yeah. Is there anything we can do to reach out for the builder
to say, Hey, you know, not cool. Speaker 1: Yeah, fair. You know, it's funny 'cause that property didn't, I mean, it's obviously came in front of community development. I don't know how that was missed. It did it, it wasn't part of a conservation commission process. I, I believe when it was built. No, Speaker 2: The house is fully outside of any wetland Speaker 1: Jurisdiction. Yeah, yeah, exactly. So I'm not quite, I I can't speak for how it was missed, but yeah, David, I mean, let's take a look and see if we can find the builder. I'm just, my, my PD at my acrobats frozen right now. And so won't zoom in for me to see if we can grab the name off of that. But let's do that just to give, put that person on notice.
'cause that's just, it's not some, yeah, they, they didn't follow the rules when they did that. So anyway, just kind of moving on, Nicole, again, thank you. Appreciate, thank you. And if you have any questions, let us know. All right, great. Thank you. All right, thanks. Speaker 2: Just a note for folks at home, we do need you guys to remain on mute unless the chair has invited public comment or your agenda item has come up. Speaker 1: Alright. So with all that, let's move on to the public hearing part of, part of the notice. The first item of the agenda is for eight Drury Lane. Do I have representatives for eight Drury Lane here please?
Speaker 5: Yes, I'm here. Nick Arthur, the property owner and builder as well as my engineer Kevin Kuty. T. Speaker 1: Excellent. Thanks Nick, appreciate your time. I'm here as well. My name's Liam Lenin with Boston Civil as well. Great, thanks Liam. And of course. Alright, here we go. So lemme just formally open this. So I'm in importance for the Wetlands Protection Act and Natives local Wetlands Bylaw 79. The Native Conservation Commission will hold the public hearing on a notice of intent filed by Debbie Anderson, representing Nick Arthur. Arthur Custom homes for property located at eight Dru Lane Map 13 lot 180 8. The pro, the proposal is
to demolish the existing single family home and associated site features and construct a new single family home with associated site features. So Nick, do you wanna provide the voiceover? Do you want Liam? I don't know if Deb, I don't think Debbie's on the call 'cause she was, she was the up wetland scientist I believe on this. Speaker 5: She was, I don't believe she's here. She, her scope was mainly flagging the wetlands for us. Yeah. Speaker 1: All all good. Speaker 5: I can give a very brief description of the project and Liam can probably handle the more
technical questions. Speaker 1: Sounds good. Yep. Do it. Speaker 5: So as you said, we are proposing to tear down a single family home, rebuild a single family home. This site has a pretty severe grade change from front to to front to back. And what I mean by that is from the front yard we have an average grade of about 1 69 or of one SE one 70. And currently we have some grading in the back that's about seven or eight feet different. So the existing home has a walkout basement
and you can see at Elevation 1 62 it just severe really slopes back after that. And that is right along the line of the 25 foot Noe disturbs. So really we're looking to place the house on the site and we're not proposing any really any real severe grade changes here, quite frankly, I don't think it, we could really do anything else. So we're, we're trying to work with the grades more than change them. And I think that will benefit the home and the site the best. There is a fence that we're proposing along the back edge
of the slope, mainly just to serve the future homeowner with safety trash balls rolling down the hill and just a way to keep them out of the wetland in the back. Not that it's really usable anyways, we have a couple other sites in town that on Beverly Road that have much more severe slopes than we did. Propose retaining walls along the edge of the slope on those sites for erosion concerns. This isn't nearly as bad, so I didn't think it was worth disturbing that area and proposing a wall.
And we have one tree, Claire, I'm not sure if you saw, I, I think we're all looking at the most revised plan. Yes, there's one tree that we're proposing to remove outside of the 25 foot no disturb, but within the 40 foot no build. And we are proposing to replant that with any variety of tree that the commission sees fit. Other than that, that's probably the best description I can give of this project. Speaker 1: Great, thanks Nick. Liam, would you just give a quick voiceover on, on storm water,
on site, there's some infiltration systems and other things that are proposed as part of this? Speaker 6: Sure. So it's pretty basic. This project is located in the na, the Natick Aquifer District. So as part of that you're required to infiltrate an inch and on top of that, another 0.2 inches. So we have proposed typical Caltech systems, C one hundreds, there's five chambers in the back and we have on the backside of that to prevent any seepage down that steep slope. We have a impermeable membrane required there.
And in the front yard we have one Caltech R 300 chamber just because we have a little bit better distance from groundwater in the front, if you, oh no we don't have that. We didn't find any groundwater actually in either of our test pits. We have on test pit number two, which is located in the front yard. It was determined that there was 63 inches of fill. So that will have to be replaced with gravel as part of the installation of that system. But that was our only concern regarding any
of the soil on site, otherwise it was entirely sand, which infiltrates very well. Speaker 1: So Liam, what you're saying though is for the 63 inches of fill that you found, you would then you would excavate that underneath the Caltech in the front yard Exactly. And replace that with gravel. Speaker 6: Exactly. Okay. Speaker 1: Alright. And the stormwater report you provided shows decreases in, in rate and, and volumes there. So that seems to be in, in spec in terms of what our, in terms of what our expectations are, the one question I do have is around the, the sighting of,
or that I have is around the siding of the backyard system and you know, I think the impermeable membrane concept to keep any seepage from running kind of, you know, breaking through and running down the hill in other applications. Have you seen that approach to be, to be effective? I'm, I'm just, you know, I wanna make sure that that really works. 'cause if that fails then that's gonna be a nightmare for the homeowner then, you know, to deal with and all that.
Could you just have a, you know, talk a little bit about that and, and the performance of that approach? Speaker 6: Yeah, I mean we use those very consistently on a lot of our projects where we have steep slopes. We use them in Boston to prevent water from infiltrating into like basements and stuff. Not just, you know, in examples of steep slopes. It's, I I would say a good amount of our projects, we use it and we've never been, we've never gotten a bad phone call when we've used it. So Speaker 2: Matt, I've also seen new systems work quite effectively on, on trickier project sites.
Speaker 1: Okay. And especially if you've had the, you know, if it's sand and, you know, highly permeable soils than it should be, should be just fine. So one, one significant tree removal, is that right? Correct. Yes. And, and that'll be replaced. We can pick and choose from our favorite list of native, native nice looking trees to, to replace that or where do you stand on that Nick ab absolutely. Speaker 2: And Nick has also been open to a condition about a site visit to review the final grading of the swales along the sides, the retaining wall to determine what type of vegetative cover might be most appropriate.
Speaker 1: Yeah, proper, proper construction of those s swales and proper function of those s swales is gonna be super important. 'cause we gotta protect the properties on either side, you know, I mean, you're not changing the, you're not changing the height of the, of the lot significantly. It's not like you're coming in and mounding it up three feet. Speaker 5: No, it's essentially we're the part of the reason that we didn't propose terrorist retaining walls, which would look, I mean it would probably aesthetically look a lot nicer, but it would, it would involve changing the grades along the property lines. So this was, it felt like the path of least resistance
to just tie the grades in at the same level and slope it the way that it has been for quite some time. Speaker 1: Yeah, I think path of least resistance physically, spiritually, and kind of everything else involved. It's that, I think that's the right play there. Alright. Commission, other, other questions that we have? Anything guys? Speaker 7: I, I'm, I'm just trying to look at that wall there like, so is, is, is the purpose of the wall to form the swale or is that providing a entrance into the house or a entrance into a side door or something or, so Speaker 5: The walls on the right are probably
honestly not necessary. Liam could probably answer that better than I could. I thought that it would look nice to have mainly against the house, some terrorist planters versus just looking at a bunch of exposed concrete that was probably more of an architectural decision than it was a civil engineering decision. Those walls, there's Speaker 6: Actually, sorry, sorry to interrupt. The wall was actually a decision that was necessary to meet the, the average grade calculation. Speaker 5: Oh, I didn't actually even know that Liam. Speaker 6: Yeah, sorry. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Okay. So Liam, to, to your point, so the average grade calculation, meaning that in order to keep the average grade at a value that you want or that's, that's required then by having air kind of flat areas like that, that is what allows you to do that. Is that, am I framing that right? Speaker 6: Exactly. And in order to, in order to swale it was also important in order to swale the stormwater though as well and maintain that nice existing condition and, and prevent it from flowing off the back of the property. Got it. Speaker 7: And so there's a gap between the two sections of wall
because it, the, it's like four feet and then there's a, a four foot drop, then another four foot wall. Speaker 2: If I had to guess that would be a permitting issue to keep the walls under four feet and height. Speaker 6: Exactly. Speaker 7: But I mean the gap between the two sections of wall where it looks like Yeah, right there. Speaker 2: Yeah. To keep, that's the overall length of the individual walls under four feet Speaker 6: And to allow access for someone to walk in and maintain whatever landscaping might be in there. Okay. Speaker 1: Makes sense. Speaker 5: Thank you Liam. Speaker 6: No problem. Speaker 1: Chris, Doug, Mike,
David, Jim, anything? Speaker 8: I mean the only, the only, this is Mike. The only thing I have on my observation would be one where is snow going to be stored? Ideally would be outside of the 100 foot buffer. Where is the soil gonna be stockpiled during construction for the Okay. And any erosion control around that or not? Speaker 2: I do believe that there's a detail for the this, sorry, this is the revised plan sheet.
The full plan set has the details. Speaker 8: Is that the one that came in this afternoon? We Okay. The erosion Speaker 6: Control is identified on the left side. You can see Speaker 2: Liam, Mike is referring to the erosion controls around the stockpile area, which I believe is included on the detail sheet in the plants that I'm just getting pulled up. Speaker 1: Thought I saw that in a, on a sheep. Speaker 2: If not, we can certainly, Speaker 5: If it's not on there I, 'cause I'm having trouble looking at zoom in my file at the same time, I am more than happy to agree to
install erosion controller around that stockpile. Yes. Speaker 2: There's not a detail so we can definitely add that condition. Speaker 8: How about the STO snow storage? Speaker 1: It was labeled on the, no, sorry, it was stockpile area. So Liam, Nick, Speaker 5: I am just looking at where our a hundred foot buffer is. Speaker 2: I do think it would be easy enough to, for the snow to be stored in this front yard area. Nick, similar to what the Speaker 5: Soils, Mike, Mike, before I answered the question, I just wanted to look at where the a hundred foot buffer is. It does look like there with a little bit of back blading.
I'm envisioning it, getting plowed, pulling the, the snow away from the doors and pushing it onto the front yard would be pretty easy to do and keep it outside of the a hundred foot buffer. Happy to agree to if, if you're able to condition that, I have no issue with that. Speaker 8: And then the last thing is just, could you refresh my memory at the beginning of the conversation was around the, what is being placed on the 25 foot no build or the 25 foot no disturb line. Right.
Speaker 5: Right outside of it, if you will. So around 30 or 35 feet away from the wetland line we would be proposing a fence. Speaker 8: Okay. Speaker 5: Mainly just to protect people balls, trash from going down that hill. Speaker 8: Okay. So is the 25 foot no disturb area going to be identified in some way besides the erosion control? Speaker 5: So what I did on another project Yeah. It is identified on the plan. And if you're referring to how will we ensure that we stay out of that on site?
Correct. What I did another project on Woodland Street and I actually had Claire come and inspect this was we had the 25 foot, no disturbed line staked prior to having any erosion control installed. And actually it made it a lot easier to follow that line. So happy. Speaker 8: I think that's a, that's a great operational Yeah. Way of addressing that. Speaker 5: I think it's the only way or we would be guessing. Yeah, Speaker 1: Agreed. And Claire, can we provide placards for, for the fence? Yes, Speaker 2: Absolutely.
Speaker 1: So, so Nick you may have seen these before. These are just four inch discs that just say conservation area, no dumping on the other side of the fence. Yeah. You know, 'cause it'll be tempting for folks to chuck some stuff down the hill at certain times a year. And this, this will just be just another, you know, another reminder that that's not looked kindly upon. Speaker 5: I I will also say there is some trash and stuff down there from that we will offer to clean up while we're there. So Speaker 1: That would, that would be super and, and, and appreciated. Speaker 5: It'd be nice and clean. Speaker 1: Okay.
Any other questions folks? Alright, hearing none, this is it. Sorry, was there something, if Speaker 9: I may was just, if I may speak, of course in the past we've made it very strong I that the owners who buy it know that the backyard they've got is all the backyard they're getting. Speaker 1: Yeah. So Speaker 9: You say it's a very narrow backyard. Speaker 5: It is, Speaker 1: Yeah. And we, you know, a project to extend the backyard would probably be met with stony silence. Speaker 2: I think given where the 25 foot line is, it's very clear.
Speaker 1: Yeah, for sure. But Doug, good, good, good, good point. Spoken from, Speaker 9: Well they, they come in with play sets and tree houses and everything else. Helicopter. Speaker 1: I think Speaker 5: It would be, I think it would be very hard for given the, the topography of that slope for them to extend it even a foot. Speaker 9: Oh, you might be surprised what we've seen. Yeah. Right. Speaker 5: Yeah. Speaker 1: Well we we're gonna condition a placard for the garage, right? Yes. Speaker 2: That's part of our standard Speaker 1: Stan standard placard. Nick, this is just a laminated sheet that just kind
of has a plot plan and just clearly spells that, that, that, that gets hung in the garage as part of the CSC. Yep. That just says conservate, you know, labels where, where protected areas are and all that. And so that'll, that'll just be part of the standard set of conditions. Speaker 5: That's fine. I've, I've seen that in your conditions before. Speaker 1: Yep. Alright. Any other questions, folks? Speaker 10: I have neighbors saw that happening. I'm sure they would pipe up and call the town right away if an anybody was trying to extend the backyard at Speaker 1: All. Fair. And we, we have run into that as well. I would like to give any neighbors, if there are any neighbors on the call,
give neighbors an opportunity to ask any questions that they have about this. Is there anybody hear, hear from the, from the neighborhood or anyone else who wants to ask any questions about this? All right. Hearing none. So this is a notice of intent. So we would, if the commission so desires we could vote to close and then vote to issue an order of conditions or, or ask Claire to write the order of conditions that we would review at our next meeting. What's the pleasure of the board here? Move to close. All right, thanks Jeff. Is motion made by Jeff to close the public hearing on this? Is that seconded? Second. Speaker 4: Seconded. Oh, Speaker 1: Alright. Alright, I'll take Chris a second on that.
Any further discussion on this? Alright, all those in favor? Do a roll call vote because of zoom. So Chris? Yes. Jim? Yes. Jeff? Yes. Mike? Yes. David? Yes. And Matty? Yes as well. Alright. Order of conditions. Do we, would, would we like Claire to write the order conditions or is it our standard order of conditions? I Speaker 2: Can run through the ones we've talked about tonight. If folks would like, Speaker 1: Why don't we do that and then we can vote to issue that order of conditions here this evening. Speaker 2: Great. So our standard order of conditions
with the markers being placed on the fence condition to inspect the staked 25 foot no disturb line prior to erosion control, installation condition erosion controls for the stockpiling area, conditioning snow management as one of the perpetual conditions. One tree to replant to mitigate for the tree to be removed and condition to review the final swale grading to determine appropriate vegetative cover. Speaker 1: Sounds good. Anything else folks? Speaker 4: Claire, are we suggesting a tree
or are we letting them choose amongst native Speaker 2: Species? No, it, we do just require a native tree, but the language of the condition notes that the species has to be approved before installation. Nick and I have worked together on a number of planting, so he's pretty familiar with what we're looking for. Speaker 5: No, our provides, Speaker 1: I think it's time we try date palms here in nata. Can see how they do Speaker 2: Gap. Might not be too loving on those. Speaker 1: Yeah, fair. Alright, so with that we've got the order or what we've outlined as the order of conditions. Would someone would like to make a motion to issue the order of conditions as discussed? Moved. Thank you Chris. Is that seconded?
Seconded, seconded. Thank. Thank you David. Any further discussion on this gu hearing? None Those in favor, Chris? Yes. Jim? Yes. Jeff? Yes. Mike? Speaker 8: Yes. Speaker 1: David? Yes. And Matty? Yes as well. Alright, Nick, thank you Liam, thank you for your time. Appreciate it. Let us know if you have any questions. Absolutely let us know if the plans change. But otherwise, thanks for your time here tonight. Thank you everybody. All right, take care. Bye. Alright, moving on. I'm just get this next item on the agenda is
1 97 Elliot Street. Do we have presenters 1 97 Elliot Street here on the call this evening? Yes. Yes. Hey Peter. Thank you. Hi, how are you? Good. Alright, so this is a continuation of something that we opened last week or I think we opened it last meeting. Yes. And you know, this is the property down 1 97 Elliot accessed from Elliot Street. There's a lovely side drive that would be great to access the site from, but it's for ownership reasons and other, you know, access reasons. It can't be the case. And
so we're looking at a wetlands crossing across at the very beginning at, you know, the at, at the, the front of the site. We did a site visit on Friday afternoon, Friday evening. Got good eyes on the property. And we're just here to, to pick up the conversation here. So I'd like to invite any members of the commission who are on that site visit just to offer any observations that you have, any additional questions from our site visit and, and we can map out the path forward from here. So put, I'll just put people on the spot. You Michael, I'll start with you.
Just to put you on the spot, do you wanna offer anything that that, that you observed as part of this? Any questions that you have? Speaker 8: I observed a lot of Japanese knotweed both at the, the rear of the lot as well as, let me get my direction. It would be the kind of northeastern boundary that kind of goes down all along that, that driveway that is off of Elliot that goes down into the existing wetlands and carries down around towards the frontage of Elliot
and and such. So I think that was, you know, a concern of mine. One, because some of the Japanese knotweed is located in an area that is going to be excavated and that soil's gonna be stockpiled and then reused, which from my perspective is, is potentially gonna exacerbate an already bad situation out there with Japanese knotweed. The other piece is the reclamation area, although it is previously disturbed
and does have some fill associated with it, it appears from my eyes that the reclamation's occurring in a wetland. So we're recla we're we're, we're reclamation a wetland that already is existing. So I'd like some clarification on is that wetland boundary accurate and if it is, I may have a different thought on that and maybe a third party review might be necessary to resolve if that is actually the boundary or is it, or is the boundary somewhere else?
Hmm. I'd like to see an alternative analysis about crossing structure personally and get an idea of is this the best for that wetland and is there another potential way to get off of Elliot that doesn't involve digging up Japanese knotweed infested soil that's wetland soil and creating an exacerbating a invasive issue that's already existing on the property. So those are kind of just my kind
of 10 cent observations on that day. And then, you know, obviously I think, you know, there's some muck soil that is traveling down from the north side of that property into the subject area. So it would be great to just get a little bit more soil identification. You know, where does that muck actually stop? Is it in the middle of the proposed single family house or is it more outside of that? You know, I know there's been test pits dug, but you know,
there there's others, there's some soil situation there that I observed that just is, isn't lining up with my experience. Speaker 1: And the main, the kind of the, from a, from a third party review perspective, Mike, the, the main thing is kind of, you know, I mean there's, there's certainly the, the disturbance of soils that are laden with, with knotweed knotweed stuff that would just spread it around presumably or possibly or likely, but also as to whether the proposed reclamation area is in, you know, may in fact already just be a wetlands
itself and therefore what is, you know, what is being mated here. Is that kind of the gist? Speaker 8: I'd say that's the, that's the a hundred thousand dollars question I have in my mind is the area that's being proposed already A wetland. Yeah. Okay. You know, so we're not get, we're not getting anywhere with the two to one. Right. And then the other piece is, is is it would be great to just explore what is the other alternatives to, you know, I, I understand the, the, the existing driveway is off the table, I get that.
But there've seen a lot of really wonderful ways of, of crossing streams and wetlands that don't involve excavating and can you span that distance with something creative. And I would argue that there's probably an opportunity to at least entertain that cons, that construct. Speaker 11: Yep. Fair. Well put. Speaker 12: Jim, was there, could I ask a question? I was not able to make that, but was the, was there some indication that
there was structural sound banks to put a large more involved structure? I know, and I'm assuming that's what you mean, like something, I don't know, an arching type of system. Speaker 8: I mean, I would argue that there's upland adjacent to Elliot just just by looking at the tree species involved and, and the fill that was used to probably elevate Elliot at one point from that wetland system, you know, so is, you know, is there a way to,
to tap into that upland area and span that distance over that wetland resource area? I don't know. I'm not smart enough to, but I, I've seen a lot of things done in my profession that spans extensive distances, rivers like 25 foot wide rivers with, with structures that have no impact to bank. And, and I'd like to see at least that alternative approach at least be explored before I can get behind this current proposal.
Speaker 11: Can can, can I comment on that? Yep. Here please. So, so what I had proposed is an open bottom culvert in the span. So the, the actual channel is eight feet wide, that's top of bank to top of bank. And I'm spanning that, that stream. And I'm, the, the main objective is to preserve that stream. So there's a 12, it's a 12 foot span right now. It's, and it's open at the bottom. So I'm trying to preserve that. So it's kind of like a small bridge already.
I I mean I I I was trying that, that that's my goal is to preserve that channel. And that's why I, because the o the the, the ratio for a stream crossing is 1.2 times the width of the channel and that comes out to 9.6 feet. And I went, I went to 12 to preserve that because we also need to, you know, if you look at the stream crossing standards, you're supposed to provide upland paths on the side of the channel, which by, by spreading that
to 12 feet, I still have, you know, I may be in wetland, but it is still a, an area where they can, where wildlife can pass on either side. I, I, my, like I said, my goal is not to disturb that stream and that's why I spanned it with an open bottom culvert of 12 feet wide. Sure. Speaker 8: I mean I just, with all, with all due respect, it's it's not about the stream. We're talking about a, a much more complex system there, right? We have BVW associated with that channel.
Am I incorrect in that? Speaker 11: No, you're correct. Speaker 8: Okay. So it's not just a, a channel, right? There's additional resource area there that is under our jurisdiction to protect, correct? Correct. Okay, so it's not just a, a formulaic approach, I don't believe for this specific resource area because it's complicated. Am I right? Okay. Speaker 11: Correct. Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean if, if you look at, if you look at C four
on the charts, we can kind of get a sense, you know, as to orient ourselves. I mean that the wetlands kind of has two lobes to it on either side. Yeah. If you scroll down clear Go to go to C four, that's the cleanest view I think. Yeah. I'm referring to a flag number. Oh sorry. No, no, no chart. See yeah, this one here. So you got, you got kind of the two lobes on either side of the lot, you know, and then there's this little protrusion of, you know, presumably uplands that kind of comes down in there. And so I mean, I agree Peter, I mean in the sense that,
you know, from a crossing, you know, from the stream channel, what you've proposed would protect the crossing. I think the question really is, you know, the total kind of disturbance that will be required in order to build the road. For me at least it would be to build the road bed for the driveway on either side. And also I've got a question, I mean I, you know, around the, the proposed replication area, which I think would be right under, yeah, so it's right there. So it kind, okay, so it'd kind of just bumps out if, if, if,
if we align on the delineation, that's another question we have. But if we align on the, if, if that is the delineation then it kind of bumps out the, the, the resource area a bit and adds, adds a bit more there. Yeah, I mean I, I guess you know, to Mike's, to Mike's point, I mean what what other alter, you know, 'cause we have this, this road, you know, the driveway and I'll, I'll call it a driveway, the driveway coming in that would basically go to neck, you know, to the edge of the culvert essentially of this 12 foot wide streambed crossing that you're providing.
I mean I think there's some probably some questions around the disturbance there and especially in light of a lot of knotweed, you know, which digging that up, moving that stuff around is, you know, certainly gonna just spread it around the site. And so I think that's something that we're gonna need to think about as well. Speaker 11: I mean we could remove that from the site. You know, any material that has not, we, we, they could just take it off and Speaker 1: Bring in clean. But Speaker 2: I think Peter, how are you guys gonna be evaluating what material does or does not have, not weed, you know, I think even in some
of the areas where the wetlands are proposed to be excavated to create the replication area, there may be an issue there. So then in that case, what soils are being brought in for that wetlands replication area? I, I think that there are a, a number of outstanding comments, Peter, that still have not been addressed. I know that the comments came in a little piecemeal after the last meeting and then after the site visit. So I'm happy to resend them all as sort of one big file. 'cause I do think that there is still some small things that need to be updated like incorrect addresses and the o
and m plan and things like that. But there are some much larger issues that I think aren't necessarily gonna be resolved until I can get out on site with Russ Waldron to review that wetland line. Speaker 1: Yeah, I think, I think that's key. You know, I mean when we were out there, I mean we've been in a pretty significant drought. There has been some rain recently obviously, but there, you know, pretty significant drought conditions. But that, that pasture is lush, shall we say. And you know, fairly damp and you know, I think Claire, you, us getting a, you know,
taking a look at the delineations, probably having a third party review of the delineations just to have a second set of eyes on it would be, in my opinion, would be important. 'cause I think the wetlands could easily extend 6, 8, 10 feet, you know, depending on soil conditions and all of that in, in, in either direction, you know, you know, mainly up towards the proposed house just 'cause I mean there was, there was some, some damp areas of that pasture, you know, and so I, I would, I would advocate for a, a, a third party review of the wetlands delineations just
so we have data that we can all align on. And then based on that, then taking a good hard look, I think you started in personally I think you started in the right, right way, Peter by, you know, going over the specs in terms of the stream crossing, but then us really thinking about the lowest possible impact ways to get across there. Also without, you know, keeping in mind the, you know, the presence of a lot of knotweed on site. And so I think for me at least, I mean any basic condition is gonna be totally clean. You know, any soil removed goes, gets trucked offsite
and anything that's used to rebuild, reconstruct, reshape, anything is gonna be clean fill, brought in from offsite. Okay. Speaker 11: I mean, I, I would, I would think that we should get a third party because I think that's a big question from the commission. Yeah. So if you could get that in motion underway Yeah, I I would rather just go right to the third party. Okay. And, and have someone else. So that is, Speaker 2: That is something that will come at the cost of the applicant. Is, is Marcelo gonna, I I I'll, you know, push out a scope for you guys to review and then send it out to firms to get responses back so
that hopefully we can have a, you know, discussion about a competitive offer. But then is that something that Marcello is gonna be open to? Speaker 11: I would think that he, listening to the commission, it sounds like that the wetland line is a, a question in everyone's mind and I think this is the way to resolve it and I think if we can get that proposal for a third party, I, I know Marcello wants to move forward, so then we can get that, that person out there to review it as soon as possible. Speaker 2: Okay. I can have a scope out to the commission and to Peter, you and Marcello for review by the end of the week.
Speaker 11: Okay. I think that's, I think that's good. Speaker 1: Appreciate the understanding on that, Peter, that that's great. And then I think ba you know, based on that then kind of coming back and Peter, you making the case, I mean you, you've already started making the case and continuing to make the case around kind of the lowest impact possible crossing and then how do we deal with the not weed infestation, you know, we're, you know, this is a topic of conversation, it'll be a topic of our next conversation. You know, that's something that we're gonna have to deal with and kind of handle very carefully. And Speaker 11: So, you know, I'll talk to Russ about it. Okay. The wetland sites scientist and see what he comes up with.
Perfect. I got, I got K'S comments today and I I emailed it to him, you know, so, okay. Speaker 8: Could I, I make one other just observation and, and I hope it's helpful to, to the applicant is that I think it would be really helpful if that area that has currently has fill and it's disturbed that is, you know, it creates additional complexity. But if, if that's an area that where the, the driveway could be located, you know, you're already dealing with the degraded system there, right?
So you have fill and disturbance in that wetland already, right? And, and that's, I, you know, just I think having that mapped out, that area that is c is what, from my observation looks like Phil and disturbance. Speaker 11: W what, where was that on the plan? What do you remember the flags? Speaker 8: I don't remember the Speaker 2: Elliot Street. Speaker 8: Yeah, it would be closer to the driveway, the existing driveway in that clump of where I think you've identified some, you know, maple
and there's some red maple black Speaker 2: Shirt. Mike, are you referring to the driveway on this side or the private driveway? The Speaker 8: Private drive. I'm sorry, private one. Yeah, driveway. So Speaker 2: They are pushed up pretty close against the lot line unfortunately up at the front there. And I know that the abutting owner has been, at least according to Jerry the pier, who I believe is also on the call, Speaker 1: Not sympathetic Speaker 8: Access and, and I could be misremembering, but there, there's, it's, it's clear as I think it's clear as day. I hope others folks saw it as well during the site visit.
I don't know if you saw Claire, but there's, I did when Speaker 2: I was clamoring back up, out, out of the site visit. Speaker 8: But you know, I, it would be, I think it would be beneficial to the applicant potentially if that was identified. 'cause then maybe there's, you know, the concern might not be as large, right? You're already dealing with the degraded system and there's Phil already there except, you know, just, just a kind of a thought. Speaker 11: Okay. No, I'll, I'll take a look at that. Thank you. Speaker 1: So I think we've outlined kind of the, the lay of the land and the, the concerns.
Peter, you've been, you know, hearing those and been been very responsive to that. So I think next steps is we'll get a draft of a, of a statement of work for a third party review of the delineations. And then based on that, I think you've heard the concerns we have around try to mini, you know, take advantage of existing fill, minimizing impact as much as possible, obviously to the resource area. You know, we're gonna be watching like a hawk in terms of the soil disturbance and the, and the knotweed infestations. And then let's reconvene and kind of see where we stand once we get the delineations that we all align on and, and go from there.
Okay. I think that sounds good. Alright. Any other questions, comments? You know, any, any comments from the public on this? Speaker 13: Yeah, so this is Jim Fit. I just, one comment, it's really not conservation related, but I, I was just concerned for the, the safety of the location of the driveway hub, to be honest with you. That, and mainly because of what we experienced during the walkthrough, that curve is really tough. And there was a close call there, Speaker 2: Sorry Speaker 13: It complaint that we were there at rush hour and it's 5:00 PM or whatever. But, so I, I don't know who looks at that and how, you know, that impacts the design of, you know,
entering and leaving that property. That's, that's all. Speaker 2: I'll bring that up to public works. I think part of the driveway permitting process that might fall under their purview. So I'm happy to bring that up with them. Speaker 1: Yeah, noted. It's, it was Harry. Alright with that there's no other questions, comments, anything like that. So we'll make a motion to continue this. And our next meeting is on what? November two. Yep. All right. So we'll make a motion. Oh, Speaker 2: I'm sorry, November 6th. I've got my month wrong. We were October 2nd. November 6th. Speaker 1: November 6th. So someone make a motion to continue this to November 6th, please.
So moved. Thank you, Jeff. Is that seconded? Seconded. Thank you David. Any further discussion on that? All those in favor, Chris? Speaker 12: Yes. Speaker 1: Jim? Yes. Jeff? Yes. David? Yes. Mike? Yes. Matty, yes as well. Peter, were there any, Matt, were there any, anyone from the neighborhood? I I offered it up. Haven't heard it, didn't hear anything? I think I offered it up out loud. Maybe I just thought it in my head, but Oh, you did? Oh, okay. Good. Didn't hear any, any, any questions from the community on this. All right, so we voted to continue this to November 6th. Thanks folks. Peter, thank you for your engagement.
Appreciate it and okay, we'll we'll see you next time. Okay, thanks. All right, let's move on. Next item on the agenda is five Auburn Street. So let's continue with our, our discussion here. This was formally opened at our last meeting. We also had a site visit last Friday evening. Took a walk around the site, would like to hear comments, observations, questions for the applicants from the commission. I'll certainly open it up to questions from Abutters in the community. But first I'd like to just hear from you.
See, it was Jim, Jeff, David, myself, Mike who were there on, on Friday. Can I, Speaker 12: Can I speak up real quick? Speaker 1: Yeah, of course. Chris, Speaker 12: Claire did you think that there was some procedural stuff that I need to, Speaker 2: Oh, Chris, it doesn't have to be done tonight. We should have to do it before we vote for the decision. 'cause the tool, we can't sign any of the paperwork anyway. Speaker 12: I gotcha. Okay. Speaker 2: We're just gonna have Chris do a Mullens certificate 'cause he met Abso last hearing, so we'll get that voted in before the, any closing of Speaker 1: Hearings. And that just basically indicates that Chris is getting himself up to speed on minutes
and you know, just fully familiar with the project. So he is eligible to vote working. Speaker 2: He and I had a conversation on the phone earlier as well. Speaker 1: Yeah, all good. So Mike, Jim, Jeff, David, observations, questions, things that you would like to see answers to as we continue this dialogue here. From what, from what we observed on site. Anyone, anyone want to take the, take the bait? Speaker 13: I'll, I'll take the bait. Speaker 1: All right, Jim. Excellent. Thank you sir. Yeah, Speaker 13: You know, my one question that that's I've been going around with and, and I know it was,
someone had made the statement at the site visit that it seems like every spring there is quote flooding in, in that area. And I didn't know if there's any more description of that or how far up it actually comes or whatever. 'cause again, that building, it just, you know, from, from the site visit, it feels like it's should be so close, you know, to the, to the property, to the fence line down that, that way. So I was, I wasn't a hundred percent sure what everybody was talking about that it's just, I I, I remember in the past way, way long ago that there was,
you know, there's been some significant floods in South Natick. One, one probably I'm thinking one in the late sixties as I was a kid. But, so I don't know. That's the one thing that would just, and I, I know there's no basement I think in the new bus, new building, which is I think is a good thing. But I I didn't know what everyone else thought about the, the, the, the flooding risk associated with the site. Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean I'll, I I I'd like just to chime in on that, I mean, I'm familiar with the neighborhoods spend a lot of time down there. Certainly at times of, there's times of high water when water is extending up
South Lincoln Street up Water Street, you know, e every house there pretty much has a sump pump in the basement and they're r you know, regularly used to, to clear out of the basement. I think, and I, this is a, this is half speculation on my part. I'd love to hear from others on this, but I think that there is, I, I don't know that I've seen water at the end of Auburn Street. That's just, Speaker 2: So, Matt, if I can jump in, I just pulled up the mass mapper contour layer so we could just Sure.
The elevation differences. So yeah, I thought that was pretty high area then. Yeah, so from, from the end of Water Street to the river elevation is only about five to 10 feet. When you compare it to the end of Auburn Street, we've got about 15 feet Yeah. That we're extending before we get up to the roadway. So there is, there is a large wetland area that abuts the river here. The floodplain extends through, oh I apologize, extends through most of that wetland area,
but the flood elevation, at least as identified by FEMA in this area, does not extend up to the elevation of Auburn Street. Yeah. It does extend up to the elevation of Water Street at the very least. Sure. I believe the elevation is one 10, so to the back of, you know, several homes. Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah. That's where I was going with my comments is that I've, you absolutely see it all the time in South Lincoln Street and Water Street. I haven't seen or heard of it extending up the bank and it's pretty, it's perched up there substantially higher than those other roads are
and so I think, I think that particular issue around flooding even under really significant flood conditions, I don't, I don't think that's gonna be an issue on the site personally. Speaker 7: I mean when you think back Matt to that double a hundred year 2009 Yeah. Storm that damaged the bridge by Roach brothers and Right. And I think the water was just like up to the base of the bridge in South Natick. Yeah, Speaker 1: It Speaker 7: Was, if it didn't crest then, and I don't know if it did, if we have evidence
that it did crest then I don't know if it would crest at all. Speaker 1: So neighbors, there's a lot of people who live in the area there. You know, when we, when we open it up for public comment, if anyone has any observational stuff about water cresting up to the, onto Auburn Street from the river, please feel free to bring that information to the, to the table. But I don't, again, I don't, I don't think that's a particular issue. Speaker 13: And also wouldn't dam removal gonna even help the situation more? Yeah. Like creating that upstream floodplain. Okay. It
Speaker 2: Will theory, oh sorry Chris, I didn't mean to interrupt. No, Speaker 13: I was, I was stopping on you. Speaker 2: I the, while the removal of this spillway will reestablish flood plan in the upstream reaches, there are no expected or anticipated changes to the floodplain elevation downstream of this spillway. Speaker 1: Okay, Speaker 14: Mr. Chair, I can Speaker 2: Benefits but No, no calculable. Sorry Dana, go ahead. Yeah, Speaker 1: Dana, go ahead please. Speaker 14: I was just going to confirm your, your, your assumptions, excuse me. The, the, the elevation of the, the site at the, at the rear of the proposed building is around elevation 1 21 21
and as you had mentioned, the elevation of floodplain is about elevation one 10 and then the elevation of the flat area where there's a lot of marsh, that lower marsh is about elevation 1 0 5. So the, the water, I think, I think you commonly see it in the spring and the, you know, higher water times of the year or whatever. That's probably up into that, that marsh area. The, the elevation 1 0 5, that's typically a normal higher tide. I think getting up to one 10 is that's five feet higher than that. So that's, that's a substantial increase in water that's in volume that, that's coming through there. So it's, you know, it's, it's 10 feet above that even.
So I, I think we're, we should theoretically be pretty high even even looking at the 500 year storm, which I think Chelsea had a couple of questions on going through some of the, the HUD app applications, et cetera. Yeah. We looked at the 500 year storm and I think even that only goes up another foot, foot, foot and a half or something like that. It's not, it, it doesn't even get close. I think in fact what we were concerned about is the elevation of the, the, the pipe for the, the foundation draining. We're still, I think we're above the 500 even with that or it's right at it or above it. So it's, it's pretty high
and it, it theoretically should be high and dry up there. Speaker 1: Right. Speaker 12: I think also if you look, if you believe the lidar on Google Maps or Google Earth, the archways of that bridge are lower than the bluff, the top bluff of that. I mean it looks like that would be a real constrictor Speaker 1: And, and pleasant Street would be getting taken out be like Dan prior to, prior to to water cresting the top of the hill there. There'd be a whole Yeah, that's what I would think. Whole lot of other more existential issues I think we'd be dealing with at that point in time.
Speaker 14: Definitely. Speaker 1: Alright, thanks Jim. Jeff, anything, anything you observed while you were there, questions that you want us want to be considered addressed, you know, as part of our checklist as we move forward in these conversations? Speaker 7: Well, I mean, as, as we came around the, was that the, the river at that point is running what? East and west? I think so the west part of the old school at which was now going to be, which is all, you know, grass and permeable surface to the fence, you know,
it was now gonna be paved. Right. And it's a substantial amount that looks like is being taken out. Right. So, and there were questions that came up in the, in the, in the, the public walking there too concerns about, you know, that's gonna just go away and it's just gonna be paved. So, you know, are are we, you know, are we sh you know, how, how are we mitigating that? Right? I know that, that it's been addressed.
But if you can address that again about, you know, I know that there were some pavers that have been put in for the fire truck access down below, but that pales in comparison to the amount of, you know, permeable And it'll probably, probably, you know, previously disturbed land that's there, but it won't be there anymore. It'll be paved. Yeah, Dana Speaker 14: Sure, I can, I can adjust that. So we have proposed, I can pull up, if it's okay, I can pull up the proposed site. Lemme Speaker 2: Co-host real quick, Dana. Sure. You should be all set to share.
Speaker 14: All right, great. Can everybody see that Speaker 7: It's coming up? Speaker 14: That's so that this is the existing conditions. Yeah, here we go. So this is kind of what, what Jeff was mentioning, this, this is the grass field area and then if we go to the proposed conditions, we'll have the new building kind of in that area as well as the proposed driveway, which will be in front of that in between. So what we've proposed is a fairly substantial subsurface infiltration system both in, in between the two buildings. And then there's also one to the rear of the existing Elliot school. And this area, this, the stormwater will be both treated
by these, the bio retention areas, which will have pretreatment from a, a sediment four bay and a a 25 foot long vegetated filter strip. And then once that water is treated, it will be directed into a fairly substantial subsurface infiltration system. And the same basically happens back in this rear area there. There'll be a sediment four bay here, which will direct water. Speaker 7: Yeah. Can you go, can, oh, sorry. Oh, is that, is that me? Oh, I think it's you. Okay. That was, that was on my screen. I wasn't seeing. Okay, go ahead.
Speaker 14: Sure. Can you see my, my cursor? Yes. Yes. Okay. So same idea with this second. The, the bio retention area will be pretreated by a sediment four bay up along the pavement. Water will just flow directly into there, pretreated with the sediment four bay, and then flow into the, the bio I retention area. Once that fills up to a certain elevation, it will overflow into a beehive grate, and then that will be directed as well into the subsurface infiltration system. We've kind of oversized these a little bit to make sure that we're decreasing the, the peak rates of,
of runoff from the site towards the, the Charles's River, knowing that it's a, a critical resource area. So we have, you know, we've made sure that these are sized to make sure that we have a decrease in the, the peak rates of runoff and the, the volume that is coming from the, the site under the, the proposed conditions. So, as we mentioned the last time, the existing conditions is really nothing that's treating or capturing any of this runoff from this, this paved parking area, as well as some of these roof leaders just discharged right onto the pavement. So all of that runoff from the, you know, portions of the roof area.
This paved parking area is just kind of flowing over land without any pretreatment treatment or infiltration or anything like that. It's just kind of flowing directly towards the Charles River. So we'll be able to fix that situation. We'll be capturing all of the, the runoff from the, the proposed surfaces and directing it, you know, treating it and directing it into subsurface and filtration storms systems. And then you really only see runoff coming off the site during larger storm events, but where e even that's gonna be at a much lower peak rate and volume of
what the existing conditions are, are currently showing. Speaker 4: Thank you. Speaker 14: Sure. Speaker 4: I have, I have a related question. I, I think I'm comfortable that the flooding is, is an extremely unlikely event for the new building, but I'm looking at that, what I guess is the southeast corner of the new building, which is very close to the drop off. And I'm just wondering, do have, we, do we have an engineering assessment of the soil there in terms of stability? I mean, if you think about a, a flood coming along, not getting to the building, but maybe weakening the soil, you've gotta drop off pretty close
to the corner of that building. My question is just about soil stability and stability of the corner of the building at that particular location. Speaker 14: We, I don't know if we have it yet, but I know that a, a geotechnical exploration is in, it's in the works. I'm not sure if they've completed that work yet, but they will be examining the soil just for, you know, obviously to make sure that it's structurally sound to support the building itself and make sure that, you know, it's gonna be, it's gonna be able to hold up to the, the river next to it and, you know, during construction as well as, you know, many years in the future.
So that's something that they are looking at and, and making sure that that will be addressed. Speaker 4: Thank you. Speaker 14: Sure. Speaker 15: And I'll just clarify with the, the borings as well, those that work was done. And we are just waiting for the report from the geotech now. Okay. Speaker 1: Okay. Michael. Speaker 14: Oh boy, Speaker 8: Ones, sorry, my brain is, so my brain is gone. Is keep going, keeps going back to the 200 foot zone and, and, and
because I'm, I'm really slow on the uptake and, and kind of not as smart as, as other folks in this room. I'm, I'm just trying to wrap my head around, you know, so I appreciate, so for instance, the, the building's located out away from our outside of the 40 foot no build zone, which is, is the wetland boundary. The majority of the building is, is generally in between 100 and, and, and the 200 hundred foot zone of the river protection
or riparian zone, I guess. So my question is really around the disturbed land and because that's, that's a main consideration of what we're, how we're determining what's allowed, right? And or what is, what is, what is the purview of the regulation with regard to undisturbed riparian zone, the 200 foot versus what can occur in a disturbed land within that 200 foot riparian zone.
So my understanding is it it's land that's either been previously disturbed or developed. How does, how do you, how is it being viewed? How is a grassy field considered developed or disturbed, I guess is my first question, Speaker 2: Mike? If I could, I'm sorry, Matt, if I could jump in on this just 'cause I, I did have a phone call with Alicia Gaylin earlier today on this exact topic. Speaker 8: Okay, yeah, Speaker 1: Please, Claire. 'cause it's, it, one of my key questions is around the alternatives analysis,
which is I think very related to this. Yes. So is is that in the, in the project narrative, there's a section titled alternatives analysis. But it doesn't, in my opinion, it just gets right into the point Michael's making right now about kind of disturbed versus undisturbed area, you know, redevelopment. You know, it's a fundamental question for me is, you know, yes, the town had decided that they wanted this project to be built in the configuration with the footprints that it currently has and that's fine. But any applicant, be it the town, be it a private developer, be it a nonprofit, you know,
under our rules, you know, we need to see a real justification as to why something in the riverfront area is located where it's located. And to have a detailed conversation and analysis as to why other locations are not more suitable. I mean, from an ecological perspective, pulling that building back and parking it right on Elliot Street would make a whole lot more sense ecologically in terms of protecting the resource area than perching the building on the, you know, on the bank up there. I get the aesthetic question. I, I certainly understand that and I'm sure I'm gonna raise some hackles in town hall by
going down this rabbit hole. But, you know, I'd Blake to understand why we're not seeing a more thorough alternatives analysis in front of us. So, sorry Claire, I rant. Go for it. Speaker 2: That is fine. So as I mentioned on the site visit currently in the northeast region, DEP does recommend that projects that are being filed under the riverfront area regulations be reviewed entirely under 10.584 or entirely under 10.585 rather than as sort
of a piecemeal application. The reasoning for this is because the 10.585 regulations that the preamble to the performance standards, the language reads a previously developed riverfront area contains areas degraded. So there, while there hasn't been judgment by a court because the decision was settled, the judge felt that that language meant that if the riverfront area on the subject property does contain degraded areas,
that the 10.585 standards could be applied to the entirety of the project. What I will note is that the commission is the determining factor. You guys are the issuing authority, and if you guys feel differently and feel that the 10.584 regulations would be more appropriately applied, we just need to make sure that, that our documentation and our requests are worded as such. So that way, if and when a decision is issued and an appeal potentially comes through from DEP, from an applicant from Abutters, that there's a clear sort
of determination about why the commission has determined this and why they're requesting this information. Speaker 1: So, so I think the whole conversation would benefit them from a, with a primer for all of us. I mean, I, I can, I, I can't recite, I mean I can certainly find ten five eighty five quickly and, and you know, and stack this up against that. But an overview of what the, the difference of 5 8 4 and 5 8 5 are and how that may impact this. I mean, so if it's 5 8 5, that's development within a previously developed site. Right?
Speaker 2: So it is a, the redevelopment standard, so applying to sites that do contain degraded area within the riverfront and just for all the folks on the call, degraded is defined in the act as an area that is impervious or unable to support sufficient topsoil for vegetation. So things like gravel, lots parking, lots buildings, the, the lawn area, if the riverfront area line was, you know, 60 feet to the south and the existing parking lot was fully outside
of the riverfront area, there would be no question in my mind that this should be reviewed under the 10.584 regulations because that existing grass area is ungraded because that riverfront area does extend into the portions of the lot that do contain parking lots and degraded areas. There is an argument under the way the regulation is worded and interpretable argument, but an argument nonetheless that this project should be reviewed under the 10.585 performance standards.
Speaker 1: So my question then back guidance, my question then back to you would then be Yes. How does that then drive the requirement or not for an alternatives analysis that could include citing the building on other locations on that property? Speaker 2: Yes. So under the 10.585 performance standards alternatives analysis are not a required part of an application. Speaker 1: Okay. That answers my question. Speaker 2: Will the 10.584, the economic and economically imp practicable alternatives
analysis is a required part? Speaker 1: Okay. So you're saying that if it's that if the development is proposed on a quote previously disturbed, if the riverfront area is previously disturbed and as part of this, you know, the argument that's being made, or at least the proposal would say that because there's parking lots, there's buildings as other things within that riverfront area that it qualifies as previously disturbed. Therefore they're not an alternatives analysis, like what I've been talking about is not required under ten five eight five,
whereas it would be if it was an undisturbed site on exactly ten five, eight four. Okay. Speaker 2: The alternatives analysis is listed as a performance standard requirement under 10.584. Speaker 1: Got it. Okay, cool. That, that, that's very helpful. Speaker 12: Can I get kind of a simplistic Speaker 16: Question if I can jump in quick? Go ahead. Brad Holmes, wetland scientist for the project here, totally agree with Claire. The, there's two types of riverfront. The the 10.584, which is what you're referring to, which would be new, new construction, new disturbance. We'd have to do the alternatives analysis, go
through the economic benefit and the practical alternatives. And then there's redevelopment under five 10.585, which this is because there is previously degraded, not necessarily lawn, but as Claire mentioned, degraded being the area of impervious, which doesn't contain top soil. So therefore it's triggers it under the redevelopment category, which gives us more flexibility to go beyond, you know, go up to 10% and go beyond 10% if you, you either restore or mitigate.
So the riverfront regulations were crafted that way 'cause they know that, you know, in 1996 when you adopt a new regulation and you have all these previous construction and development within the riverfront, you have to give these properties some flexibility there. You couldn't have that stringent 10.584, no significant adverse impact. So this, this property and project falls within those redevelopment standards. Speaker 1: Got it. Thanks Brad. Chris? Speaker 12: No, I think that answered my question. Speaker 1: Okay. Michael, Speaker 8: I, I guess I'm, maybe I'm just
approaching it maybe in too much of a common sense approach. I'm looking at what's been mapped as previously disturbed with that impervious area and such. So I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the 5 8 4 and 5 8 5 standards when, how about if there was 10 square feet of impervious? So, Speaker 2: And I think that's Speaker 8: Now the whole riparian zone can be fall under 5, 8, 5. It, it just doesn't, it doesn't seem like a common sense approach to
what we are looking at here, which is inherently the reason why the act was passed, which is to maintain the ecological viability of the stream, or in this case the Charles River. Also the, you know, the, the ecological importance of the natural storm, you know, storage capacity of that river and all the other ecological functions that 200 feet inherently really smart people in 1996 said that was important.
Speaker 2: So Mike, that is what it is up to the commission to decide. Like I said, if the commission there is, you know, 3% I believe is the number percentage of existing riverfront area that is degraded on this slot, it it is the commission who is the jurisdictional authority. If, if the commission feels that that percentage of degradation is not appropriate for reviewing this project overall under the 10.585 regs, like I said, we just need to make sure that we are documenting those requests and those reasons. So that way whether the applicant chooses to comply
with those requests or not, whatever decision is crafted at the end of this process is defensible in front of an appeal. Speaker 16: So, go ahead. One thing I may add, Mr. Downey, it doesn't, the riverfront regulations were crafted to make a betterment, the the redevelopment re regulation. So it doesn't mean you can just max the thing out and then walk away from it and say, Hey, we're redevelopment. We don't have to, you know, comply the, the stringent regulations in the sense that if you're gonna go up to 10%
or beyond 10%, you have to prob mitigate or restore. So this property is infested with invasives. So the mitigation proposal is a significant betterment to the resource area of riverfront and the buffer zone in the flood zone by removing the invasives and revegetating with a, with a native plant community. It's not gonna be something that's minor. It's, it's a very significant project. I think it's a, you know, certainly a betterment to the Charles River in, in the site as a whole. So it's not, you you, it's not like you're, you're,
it's not in the sense that it, it, there isn't an improvement. There is a double the amount of improvement to the site through the project. And that's where the, the, the redevelopment breaks were crafted smartly in the sense that, okay, if you're gonna redevelop and you're gonna, you know, go beyond standards, you have to mitigate or restore. Speaker 8: So how, how does the building fit into a restoration of this, of this riverfront? Speaker 16: The, the restoration would be as if we were taking out degraded riverfront and re re and converting it back to non degraded.
We're not proposing that the, Speaker 8: But you're putting a building in the riverfront, right? We can, we can agree on that, correct? Speaker 16: You definitely can agree on that, yes. Okay. Okay. What I'm saying is we're not, we're not restoring, there isn't, there's two types of riverfront redevelopment that give you flexibility. There's restoration and mitigation. Restoration would be at a one-to-one ratio where you'd be taking out a building or a pavement or something like that in order to offset your increase. The mitigation is at a two to one ratio. So every square foot of new degraded area, you have
to mitigate it a two to one ratio. So what we're proposing is to remove the invasives along the slope and into the, you know, edge of the wetland at the site. And, and then also revegetate with the native plantings. Speaker 1: Well, al but also Brad, I mean, so it it, if the, the project narrative document goes through this and this, this is a very helpful conversation for us. 'cause we, you know, we do a lot of riverfront stuff, but having this, this whole ten five, eight four five eight five is not a conversation I think we've had previously in at least my time on the commission. So I think this is very, very helpful.
But in this, in the document, it kind of steps through, it makes the case for the 10, 5, 8 5. I mean, and Ben to your point, Mike, I mean the case that is mathematically made here in the document is that there's, within the riverfront area, total riverfront area on this site is 52,000 square feet. So over an acre there existing degraded riverfront area is 1,588 square feet or 3% of that area. So by virtue of the fact that there's 3% degraded riverfront area, that can trigger the review as it trigger,
it can trigger it up to the discretion of the commission. It could trigger review under 5 85 instead of 5 84. That's a, that's a, that's something we have to get comfortable with. If that's the case, if we agree or if we say 5 8 5 is the case, then we can also look at the, the required mitigation. And then they make, they build a narrative, they build a case here as to why, as, as to what the improvements are. And just to go through them here is that it's, you know, the proposed work shall result in an improvement over existing conditions of the capacity of the river for an area
to protect the interest identified in the Ton's Protection Act installation of new storm water system to capture areas of the site that are currently untreated new treatment trains to provide treatment of all storm water from impervious parking areas and accordance with mass DEP storm water, new rooftop and impervious parking area recharge systems, and then mitigation activities to Brad's point mitigation activities to significantly improve the riverfront area. And so our, what we need to decide and what, you know, where our judgment needs to come in is a, do we agree that we're reviewing this under 5, 8 5 instead
of 5 8 4 is sufficient. 'cause there's, you know, 3%, that's kind of a gamble, I think on the town's part. I mean there, you know, or on the applicant's part. And that is that will that trigger, you know, convince us that reviewing it under 5 85 instead of 5 84 makes sense. And then to go build the case and to say, well here's, here's what we're doing to improve the, the site. And I think we'd all agree that, you know, absent the River Protection Act, the, you know, there's improvements, new storm water systems, you know, treatment recharge, all that other stuff. But it's not a done deal in my opinion, at least that,
you know, reviewing it under ten five eighty five makes sense. You know, if we've got 3% of degraded area on in this, in the riverfront area to use that to allow to basically negate the need for a more detailed alternatives analysis is, you know, I think for me personally, it's something up for debate. Speaker 8: Could I, could I ask just one other question just to, to just get a full understanding of, of, of kind of my, the conversation. So the, so building within the 200 foot riparian zone on already
disturbed land, w is it, my understanding of the act is, is really the goal for that specific 5 8 5 is to, is to balance right? Is to create a balance point between development and the needs of that ecosystem. I is that a correct analysis on my part or assumption on my part? Speaker 1: I would agree, Mike. Yeah, I would too. Speaker 14: I i I would as well. And I, I would just point out that as, as you had mentioned, the, the ecosystem and, and you know, keeping the,
the riverfront area intact as it is. I would, I would just, I I know it's, it's not, it's not degraded technically in the, in the sense of the word, you know, it's not paved anything beyond this area right here. But this is an open field currently up to this fence line and it, there's a lot of grass there. It's certainly not, you know, it's not paved, but it's, it's also not providing the, the habitat area that the, the riverfront area is, you know, that that's the goal is to pro provide habitat area to provide groundwater recharge, things like that. It is, you know, it's probably not terrible with the groundwater recharge, but I think we're making such an improvement.
That was one of the goals to, you know, as Brad had mentioned, the part of the, the criteria is to provide that, that substantial improvement to the, the site itself. And that's, so that's what we kind of focused on, was providing recharge, whether there really isn't recharge providing water quality, whether there really is no water quality treatment currently. So we've taken this, this grass area, we're adding a building, but we're also capturing all of this runoff that was previously not being captured and treated, not being recharged. We're recharging a huge, substantial volume of it.
And we're, we're treating it beforehand. So we are trying to make an improvement to this, you know, the, the, the development in this grass area currently, which, you know, it, and I totally get what you're saying, it would be a different animal if this was pristine, vegetated, wooded area up here with habitat and everything like that. That would be a totally different animal to, to ask you guys to consider that for 3% is, that's a big ask. But where it's, you know, it's been kind of a playing field and it's been grasped, it seemed like a, you know, it's a little more reasonable if we can come up with some improvements. It seemed like it's something that, you know,
it was at least something we could have a, a good discussion about. Speaker 1: Yeah, I think the, the three, the 3% number, you know, it's, it's a, it's a gut, you know, a gutsy play and therefore it raises the bar in terms of kind of the improvements that are being asked for. You know, and storm water handling is good, that habitat improvement, invasive vegetation management is good. Is that, is that worth it? Is it also worth kind of taking off the table the, you know, our, our right to ask for alternatives and to say really, why does it need to go there?
And again, aesthetics is part of it, but, well, you know, it's a little bit out of our purview. I mean, there is, it, it is in our purview to a certain extent, you know, but just to kind of remove that completely from the conversation for this process feels a little weird to me. And to just kind of say, you know, we're, this is all the only thing we're gonna look at. So I think that's, that the, that that's an outstanding question for us and we need to think a little bit about how we wanna resolve that. And, you know, if we want to, as a commission kind of really in a structured way, walk through the conversation
of, you know, is this a 5 8 4 or a 5 8 5 project? 'cause that, that's what that'll fundamentally shape the trajectory of this, of this conversation that we're having. So that's something, let's, let's, let's put, Speaker 8: I would just add a couple other points is, is that, you know, there's other stuff going on within this 200 foot zone, right? There's a snow storage area, there's other stuff going on. It's not just the building, right? So like, you know, I, I'm gonna kind of keep my mouth shut, you know, 'cause I've been talking a lot. But it, there's other things in this project
that are impactful to this 200 foot zone. It's not just the building, it's not just whether this is, this body decides 5, 8 4 or 5 8 5. There's proposals within this plan that are inherently in conflict with what I think is supporting the function of the Charles River and snow storage I think is, you know, putting snow storage within the 200 foot zone is, you know, I think it's an affront honestly, especially when there's a huge building within the 200 foot zone or is being proposed, excuse me.
So it, you know, I'm willing to kind of listen and, and hear and observe and learn because that's inherently how I function in this position. But what I'm not here to kind of continuously just encourage more opportunity for just more infringements into this 200 foot zone with this project Speaker 1: Point, point taken. I mean, I think that's, let's, let's put that on the list. So I've got a couple of simpler questions. You know, I mean I, we we're dealing with a fairly fundamental one, which I think is important,
is gonna take some, some processing cycles for us to, to, you know, come to clarity on. I think what you're hearing is, is a, you know, and then we can, what I think we're hearing from, from Michael, certainly from me as well, is a, a question as to whether yes, 5 8 4 versus 5 8 5 also just kind of the, you know, our charge under the, under the, as stewards of, of the resource area as to whether a project like this makes sense and we need to, you know, come up with a process for
how we're gonna kind of make, make some of those decisions in a stepwise manner. Some simple ones stored, you know, the, the, the storage tanks. My understanding is that they're all going, you know, board of health has asked for them all to be removed on site as part of this development project. I'll just want some confirmation of that. There would like to have some conversation as to whether any additional testing for hydrocarbons would be informative here. You know, when the testing was done originally back in the late nineties, there was nothing reportable, presumably that would only have gone down since then. But that's just a box I would like
to tick at the appropriate time. And then lastly, as part of, from my side, at least as part of the, the, the mitigation that's proposed, one of the concerns that I have is that invasive management is a long-term commitment. It's not a one and done certainly, as we all know and it's not even a three or four year thing. I'd wanna really understand from the applicant and from the whoever is in charge of managing this site, to make sure that there's not only an organizational commitment, but there's a financial commitment and the financial wherewithal to be able to take on
the invasives management that's been proposed as a really substantial part of the mitigation effort here. 'cause that that'll require some financial resources. And I'd wanna see some indications and some assurances that those resources would be in place part of a long-term budget of the operating, you know, of the operating business model for this organization and this entity that those resources would be in place to, to meet whatever long-term o and m is proposed and may be permitted by this, by this commission there. So that's my, in addition
to the other stuff we were all talking about, those are some of the issues that that, that I've got on my, on my radar. So with that, I mean, I think from the commission's perspective, you know, I think we need to have a really candid conversation. And this might be something that we want to have counsel involved in around deciding whether understanding what our leeway is with respect to 5 84 versus 5 85. And yes, that's a technicality, but I think it's a very influential one in this process. And then in parallel or in addition to that, to then also have a discussion
around, you know, whether a project like this being proposed in such a way with the mitigation, potential mitigation based on 5 84 versus 5 85 and all that stuff. You know, is that, can, can a project like this be constructed in a way that is consistent with our charge as a conservation commission to protect the resource areas? You know, can it be done in that way? And I think we need to come to a dis you know, some clarity and a decision on that, like to hear your, I'd like to hear your thoughts on that. Yeah, Claire, Speaker 2: I was just gonna, would it be helpful for me to put together, just 'cause I know that the regs can be a little bit
of a slog in terms of interpreting the language. I'm happy to provide a, a primer sort of document if that would be helpful for the commission. Speaker 1: I think that would be a great idea. Yeah, absolutely. You know, so that we can then, what I propose that we then, you know, in, in a public meeting sit and go through that and go through kind of a be it a be it a flow chart, be it a, whatever it is that gets us to a point where we can feel comfortable that we're review, we're reviewing this project through the right lens. 'cause I'm not, you know, I'm, I'm, I'm not ready
to sign off on just saying, yeah, this is the right lens to look at this through, you know, there's 3% disturbed area, you know, that, that, that's a major, in my opinion, that's a major decision that has really significant impacts on the direction of this process. And you know, the applicant has proposed that that's how we review this. And that's fine. I get that. I think we need to make the de they make a very clear, clear-eyed decision that that is the right way for us to be, you know, that we're good with that. And then we can proceed further with that the whole time. Keeping in in mind Mike's concerns
or what, what Mike articulated, you know, is this project, can this, is this project consistent with what we're fundamentally charged with as a commission? Mike, am I representing you accurately there? Speaker 8: Yeah, I, I think so. I mean there's, you know, I'm trying to wrap my head around really what the crux of the crux is is, you know, is this disturbed or is it not, you know, and, and where, where is the common sense approach to that line Is 3%, you know, enough to, to trigger
a review under that disturbed area? I don't know. I'm hoping somebody smarter than me will be able to guide me and, and, and provide some influence to me that provides clarity to, to me. 'cause I'm unclear on that specific point. I personally, I would argue that, you know, somewhat this being town owned, town owned land, you would think it would be under the advisement that the town would do the alternatives analysis to just start with. But I'm, you know, I'm not in charge of this town, you know,
but that would be a thoughtful suggestion that, you know, just like we did with the South Natick dam removal, you know, we had a project that came in front of us. We said, Hey, how about thinking about it differently? I think we're all present for that conversation. So, you know, why wouldn't we take the similar approach to this situation? It's the same river. It's really the foundation of our beginnings here. Whether it's American Indian or, or European or what have you. River is, you know, is sacred to this town, in my opinion.
So Why wouldn't we have just a conversation about what alternative there is? And you know, if I'm on an island, that's fine. I, you know, however we review it or however it's suggested to review it is how I'll review it. I, you know, I have no problem with that. And then the other, just one other last thing with, there's a septic tank or what I would call a cesspool out there at Elevation one 15, it's uncovered is, is there gonna be some mitigation so nobody falls into that
or gets injured or, or is it gonna be, you know, kind of crushed in place? I didn't see anything mentioned. It's o obviously in the plans and I saw it during the site visit, but I did not see anything mentioned about what's gonna happen with that. Speaker 14: We had some, if I go to the, the erosion and demo control plan, we kind of indicate that that's to be abandoned and in accordance with the state environmental code, title V as well as the native board of Health re requirements. So we'll be kind of working with both the,
the Conservation Commission and the, the board of health to ideally we'd be, you know, crushing and filling that in and just kind of eliminating, make sure it's abandoned and easily, you know, with as little impact to the, the, the buffer area as possible. Speaker 8: Thank you. Speaker 1: Sure. Okay. Alright. Jim, Jeff, Chris, David, just would like to hear from you, you know, I mean, it, it seems like us taking a step back and just looking at what, you know, what is the right lens through which we're viewing this project so that we can review it as effectively as possible.
Is it something that I think Mike and I are advocating for, would like to hear your, your thoughts on that? And Speaker 4: I would say you're not on an island, this is not my power alley of expertise, but I would love to learn more about 5 84 and 5 85. And I'm with Mike, one of the last things he said was, regardless, why wouldn't the town look at alternatives? So I'm very keen on that. Speaker 1: Fair. Speaker 12: Yeah, I I would say the same. I, I don't know enough. I, in fact, I, I deferred it to Mike on a lot of the, the riverine stuff.
'cause I think that he seems to have a pretty good understanding of the processes and the needs for, for safeguarding that area. And I, so I need to learn more. I I think 3% seems like a loophole. Try not to say it as, as definitively suspicious as that, but it seems like a loophole to, to be able to do away with certain safeguards. Just, just because you met a certain, what I consider arbitrary threshold. Speaker 2: I will be doing the primer doc, but just since we're talking about it, I just wanna do another plug for Alicia's deep dive series.
I sent the commission with the first one conflicts with our meeting here tonight, but the riverfront one of months, so I, I will make sure to re-forward that to folks so that they can get it on their calendars if they'd like to attend. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 7: Well Matt, I mean this good point. There's a, there's a conundrum here, right? That since it's a a town project going to town council seems like a conflict of interest because Speaker 2: I will just note this is not a town project. The project applicant is Metro West Development Collaborative, collaborative Development.
I'm gonna get that mixed up. The town is still the current land owner. So Jamie Erickson's signature is on the notice of intent, but this is not a town proposed project. I just wanna clarify that. Speaker 1: And I think that's helpful. You know, I mean it's, that's, that's helpful clarification there. I mean this is obviously this project, you know, highly visible, somewhat controversial. Yeah. Project we, you know, it is what it is. Our job is to review this project under the, you know, you know, according to our Speaker 7: Charge. Yeah. But if we're, if we need, you know, if we need to get a, you know, the equivalent
of a third party review of it legally, it's, you know, can we request an independent legal opinion? I mean, because it's still, you know, the town is applying for it and, you know, would town council have to say, well I already had these discussions with Jamie, I know Jamie's an honorable guy, you know, well that's fine. But if the, if the lawyer had any discussions about, I think that we can get this in based upon that, then going, you know, I think that to get us better informed, you know, we would need to have a, a source that is not, you know,
within the, within the town. That would be my case. Speaker 2: So we can, we can certainly get a third party review on that. Or what I will note is that because town Council has not had any involvement in the development of these plans, town council would've been involved in the RFP process that the select, so select board issued a request for proposals for this lot, reviewed those proposals in public hearings and selected the proposal from Metro West as the sort of chosen proposal. So this was only a concept, and I I will say has substantially changed throughout the
zoning board of appeals 40 b comprehensive permit process from what the original proposal was. We absolutely can get a third party review. I have no issue with that. I can certainly reach out, I know a number of folks who I could reach out to on that regard. But I do just wanna note that there would not necessarily be a conflict of interest between the town council and this proposal from wetlands regulatory review standpoint. But I'm happy to reach out to a third party. Speaker 1: It's, it's also, I don't think we need a third party review at this point in time. It is incumbent upon the attorneys involved in the process to indicate if there is a conflict of interest.
Yep, exactly. You know, they are legally obligated to prove, to disclose that and to say, Hey, I shouldn't be guiding you on this. And so I would've no co I would've no issue with going to Paris and just asking Paris if, you know, Hey, is this something you can co you can, you know, counsel us on? And if she's con, if she's conflicted, she has to tell us that according to her legal obligations. Yep. You know, and if she's not conflicted, she can, she can then help us with that. But I think let's start, Claire, let's start with your, with your document of course. Sure. And kind of your analysis of that. Let's take a look at that and, and workshop that at our next meeting.
I think that would be the most effective use of time. 'cause again, I think this is quite a fundamental question for us that, you know, really impacts the trajectory and of this, of this effort here. Yeah. Let's, I I would suggest that is is on, on the commission. Is everyone comfortable with this? With us? Yes. Taking that step and doing that. Speaker 13: Absolutely. Yeah. Judge, just one comment. It, it seems to me that there's, there's some historical commission stuff involved with this, right? Right. From the, like that the zoning boards and that hey, we didn't want, we didn't want any change
to the school itself and, and the way it, it looks from the street. Speaker 2: So that would, so Speaker 13: I, I didn't know if that helped drive the decision. Where else are you gonna put the building, if that, so that decision is a restriction that's put on, if that restriction is put on this, like who wins then, right? Between that restriction versus, you know, what, what we're dealing with. So, I dunno. Speaker 2: So that decision was made, I, I believe based on some of the open space priorities in town, I know that the open space advisory committee, I do believe was in favor
of ensuring that this sort of grassy lawn area along Elliott Street was maintained. I do also believe it was a preference of the historic district, though I do not think that their district extends fully to this point. I'll, I will need to check the maps on that. I'm not as familiar with this end of the historic district. Speaker 1: I would argue, I would argue, Tim, that it's, Speaker 2: You know, but I, what I will say is that the commission's regulatory authority under the bylaws that grant them that authority, both state and local, is a
jurisdictional authority. So it, I I don't wanna say necessarily that it would supersede any decision, but if the commission does not feel that a building can be permitted at the rear of this lot, and that the only practicable, economically sustainable alternative is for it to be at the front of the lot e essentially a denial on this proposal would need to be issued. And, and a a very large process would restart. But I think that, that we are maybe not quite at that point yet. No, Speaker 1: We're, we're not at that point. I don't wanna, I don't wanna, I I inflate things, you know,
certainly prematurely, you know, let's go through our process, you know, and if we can, Speaker 8: Can I just ask one more favor of the, of, i I, I don't want to put it on Claire's plate, but maybe it's the town lawyer or town counsel. Is there any way to provide some sort of summary of legal opinions, court cases and other things specific to 5 8 4 and 5 8 5? So that provides a little context to, you know, maybe there's a project that's similar in scope, maybe it was 4% disturbed,
you know, that that le that legal opinion or court case or case study, whatever the, the terminology is. That would be very helpful. Hmm. To not have to, you know, kind of reinvent or make a, you know, make a decision in a vacuum. Speaker 2: Mike, I'm happy to, I, I believe that MACC has a database on those kinds of decisions. So I'll, I'll see if there's anything that we can pull quickly and absolutely ask car to, to assist. Speaker 8: Thank you so much. Okay. Speaker 1: So I think we're, we're, Speaker 2: I did map Caitlyn Madden from the applicant team, had her hand raised. Speaker 1: Oh, Caitlin. Yeah, please. Speaker 15: Yeah.
Hi everyone. Thanks for everything to, to, to speak. I did wanna add, so yes, it was a, a priority of the, the select board during the RFP process to maintain the sight lines of the Elliot School. It was also a priority of the historic commission and the property is in the historic district commission, so it was a priority of theirs as well. I'll also say, you know, over the past three years as these plans have been developed, we have worked with other town agencies such as, you know, fire police, board of health. So, you know, we've had to take into account, you know,
circulation and other aspects of kind of life safety and other things as well. And that, you know, all of that and our early, you know, process with the conservation commission through the amrad process kind of informed the, the place at the placement of the building. So I, I guess I just wanna say there has been a lot of analysis to date around where exactly the building is placed and there's been a lot of feedback from different agencies around this being, you know, ideal from a number of, of their perspectives.
So I just wanted to add that, that context, Speaker 2: Kate. Speaker 1: Thanks Caitlyn, Speaker 2: Hopeful. And Matt, feel free to jump in if I'm way off base here, but I, I know that the ZBA process was very long and very complicated and I did try to keep up as best as I could, but if there was like a brief summary document that you guys could prepare, I don't think you need to get into every, you know, revision and change that was made, but just sort of the general, you know, reasonings of why certain decisions were made based on those feedback processes. I don't think it needs to be particularly long,
but just a, a summary document would be very helpful for the commission. Speaker 1: Okay. So I think from the commission's perspective, we're at a pause point and I wanna, you know, so that, you know, we've got some homework to do and some understanding to, to, to build here with all that, what I'd like to do is briefly open this up briefly or not. So briefly open it up to any, any abutters or residents who have anything that you want to add to hearing what you've heard. Now if there's additional questions that you would like to throw on the table at this point in time, I'd like
to invite those at this point in time. Again, please keep in mind the discussion we just had, where we're gonna be looking at some fairly fundamental questions at, at this point in time before we proceed into any kind of de you know, technical details or further technical details. But I'd like to invite anybody from the, from the community to, to contribute to ask questions or throw things on the table that you'd like us to consider as we continue to, to deliberate this. Is there anything that anyone would like to add Speaker 2: If folks could use the raise hand function as we are on Zoom just so that I can know who's hoping
to speak Matt if it is. Okay, we, Marco did submit a comment via the chat to me directly that I can read out on the, Speaker 1: If you would please, Speaker 2: The neighbor's issue is not flooding of Auburn Street, but the regular impact of annual high water has on the location of the Charles River Bank. The flooding history that was cited by Abutters during the site visit was specifically dec di directed to the accuracy of the a hundred foot riverfront area limit. Neighbors reported that much of the so-called BBW is regularly flooded every spring. And that the mean annual high water Mark May not be in the
appropriate place on the plan. I did respond to Marco in the chat letting him know that because the Amrad is currently open and valid, that where the wetland lines is not currently up for debate and that the the mean annual high watermark is intended to establish where the bank full conditions are, not necessarily the areas where flooding may occur on a either seasonal or or storm event basis. So I did provide that clarification, but I wanted to make sure that I read his comment out on, because I did discuss the flooding that the commission was talking about at the beginning
of this discussion and I see that Roger had noted that he would like to make up the comment as well. Yeah. Speaker 1: Alright. Roger. Speaker 17: Hello. Can you hear me okay? Yes. Yeah. Okay, so I have a question here. Location is gonna have 41 parking places for the 32 units and I see that there's a tiny snow storage area in the rare and there's a very large amount looking at this map, a huge amount of impervious area that has to be plowed or whatever. And I'm just concerned that that's in the end,
that's such a small area to handle a two foot snow storm and how you gonna handle that with all the cars being there and what's the procedure on a dead end street as to moving the cars out of the way and all the other issues that a serious snowstorm that can cause for the neighborhood in general. And another thing is just looking at your map. Can a hook and ladder firetruck get around that corner between the church and the old building? There's a a narrow thing and I know you have to remove some trees there from doing the walk the other day
and it looks like a really tight turn if they have to get something in the back of the building there and dealt with her in a fire situation. Speaker 1: So 2, 2, 2 things. I'll just jump in. The, the fire fire access is all, it's not technically under our purview, Roger. Okay. It is something that the, the applicants I'm sure has in collaboration with the public safety agencies have negotiated the access that the fire department feels they need to it. And that's what's in front of us there. And so whether a ladder truck could get around a corner,
whatever, seemingly at this point in time, the fire department's comfortable with what's being proposed in terms of the snow storage area. Dana, I mean is there, is there a formula for kind of the, the square footage of the snow storage area per per square foot of parking lot area? Speaker 14: There's there's nothing too specific I don't think, you know, in this case. Yeah, Speaker 1: I, I've never seen one. I think Speaker 2: I will also just note that there is more than one snow storage spot identified. I just gonna mention that on the plan set. It's just one located within the riverfront area where Speaker 18: Is That's correct. Speaker 2: I can pull up. Speaker 17: I I haven't seen 'em on the map
Speaker 2: So I'll just pull up the plan. Dean, I have the page up already so I'll just Oh yeah, but so here's the snow storage area within the riverfront. Speaker 17: Oh Speaker 2: Okay. There's another large snow storage area identified here and I believe the area up at the front is also identified as storage in several locations. Thank Speaker 17: You. Speaker 14: That's correct, Speaker 1: Wayne. Speaker 18: Yes. Thank you Matt, I just wanted to compliment the commission and you for being as careful with what we're doing here, number one.
Number two, you know, it might be a good recommendation to the town for the future to consider these an issue such as this earlier in the timeframe as opposed to, I think we're probably close to three years at this point in time. And, and third, I, I guess I was wondering from MWC if there is any estimate if things go forward based on the remediation process that is currently planned, what the cost of that alone would be. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thanks man. Dana, is that something that you could,
you could develop if it hasn't been been developed at this point? What an annual maintenance cost? I'm, I'm presuming Wayne you're referring to the, the, the invasive mitigation invasive management. Right. Speaker 18: But yes, both the, both the development cost as well as what would be going on during the operations cost as well. Once a, a management team takes Speaker 1: It, it over, is that possible Dana, to, to develop a, a estimate on that? Speaker 14: Yeah, we, we can try to find somebody that's, that's capable of doing that work to give us an estimate.
The, it's kind of a, it's a little bit of a specific, you know, skillset, but we can, you know, maybe with Brad's help we can find some companies that, that do that work and just come up with a, a yearly maintenance cost for that. Yeah, I mean it Speaker 8: Was, it was submitted to the community preservation committee. So you, you do have a, you do have a foundation to build off of. Okay. Speaker 14: For the, for the overall development or for the, for the Speaker 8: Overall development maintenance costs. It was ran out I believe 20 or 25 years. Okay. And that was submitted to the community preservation committee. And then I can't speak to the invasive species
'cause we, that was not something that was submitted to the Community Preservation Committee Speaker 1: Representative on the ccpc. Yeah. It gets to, to the question that I had earlier about just wanting, you know, invasives management is a long-term effort and wanna make sure that, that the resources are committed. You know, if that's a commitment that the applicant is making, wanna make sure that the re you know, that's done clear-eyed with an understanding of what the financial commitment is and that those resources can be dedicated to that. 'cause that, that, that's a li in my opinion, it's, it's one
of the linchpins of the 5 8 4 5 8 5 conversation. It's one of the trade-offs that's being, you know, or one of the benefits that's being touted. So we'd wanna make sure that that was, would really happen if we decided to go in that direction. Yes. Caitlin, please comment. Speaker 15: Sure. Thank you. So I just wanna note that as part of our project review and closing process, all of our lenders will be reviewing all of our permit approvals and all of the conditions associated with those approvals. And they will also be triple checking
that the costs associated with meeting those requirements are incorporated into our budget, both on the development side and, and on the operating side. So, you know, we can provide some early estimates now if it's helpful to the, the commission and to the public. But just want people to have that understanding that, you know, that is a, will be a focus as we go into to closing on our financing for the project as well. Speaker 1: Great. Thanks. I think it, you know, we would like to see some, I would like to see some estimates, you know, and Dana, to your point, yes, it's specialized.
We get that. Just to understand what the, you know, is it 5,000, 50,000, 500,000, you know, kind of order of magnitude, you know, and we could probably do a little bit better than order, order of magnitude, but just to know kind of what we're looking at in terms of the ongoing cost of managing this particular aspect of the proposed plan. Speaker 14: Sure. Speaker 2: No, I was just say has the, hi his and I believe his wife is also in the framing bare hand raised. Speaker 1: Oh yeah, sorry. I did. It's a slightly different color than the other one so I didn't, didn't jump out. Yeah, please.
Speaker 19: Hi, I'm Christine Shell, I live at Five Water Street. I'd like to echo what Wayne Gate said. I wish this conversation had a, happened much earlier in this process. It might've influenced what the project looked like and it might've yielded a better decision for the river. I'm really concerned that these three years are, you know, that you're coming in at this point in the process and I'm hearing significant concerns. And I'd like to say too that the local community in writing
and at meetings have also voiced concerns about the health of the river and what this project, you know, how the project could potentially impact the health of the river, the health of the creatures that live on the river, the lights from the building and how that affects all the nocturnal bats and birds and various creatures that, you know, need a dark sky. So I just wanted to say that this has been presented at several boards,
the select board, the zoning board, the planning board, and I feel like the local community has really not gained much traction with that conversation about the river. So it's nice to see that it's happening now, but I feel like it's really put the conservation commissions back up against the wall and that's really too bad. So, and my other question, which is more rhetorical is what will this decision look like in 25 years to have this large building built so close to the river?
Will the storm mitigation remedies that are being put in now, will they be outdated in 25 years? Will they be clogged? Will they not work? So I, I'd like the board just to consider not only how things will work in the first 10 years of this project, but how will these mitigation measures work in, well I live in a house that's almost a hundred years old, so I'm assuming this building will last for 50 plus years. What will things look like then and how will this large project
affect the river in potentially negative ways? So thank you for thinking long term on this too. Speaker 1: Great, thank you. Other questions? Alright, hearing none, I think you know, where we're at is Claire, we're gonna do some homework Yep. Around our comfort with which lens to view this project through. It's been very informative and and enlightening. I think for, for, for me certainly, I think for all of us there are some, you know, administrative things around some cost estimates, stuff like that. I suggest we reconvene at our first meeting in November
where we can talk through that discussion and come to a conclusion at that point as to our comfort with looking at this under 5, 8 5 versus 5 8 4 or which one is the appropriate one. I'm sure there'll be some, you know, sidebar conversations going on, but, you know, we need to do this in public meeting. So I think let's, let's proceed that way, if that works. I think it's what we need to do. Speaker 2: Matt, just to clarify, folks are more than welcome to email me with sidebar questions or concerns. There should be no deliberation happening between commission members outside of a public hearing.
Yeah. Mostly saying that for the record sake, I know everyone on this call has never had an issue with that. Speaker 1: Yeah, comcom@natickma.org is an appropriate email address that comes to all of us if you have Speaker 2: Issues. 'cause I know there have been some folks having issues with that email. I did confirm again with it this week that that email is accepting emails if you've received an email to it this week. So if you are having issues getting to that email, anything that is sent to me is also immediately provided to the commission and added to the public record in our Google Drive. So please feel free to reach out
to c rundel@ickma.org if you're having trouble with the con con email But I'll put both of those in the, the chat right now for folks. Speaker 1: Okay. Alright. Any last, last things before we continue this? Speaker 16: One thing I may ask, please, Claire, as you're putting together your riverfront analysis and kind of flow chart, if you have questions and or if, and we can collaborate on that. I'd love to be a part and I have a documents and other things that may be useful. Speaker 2: Yeah, of course. I, I would of course be providing that document to the project team as well as the commission
so you guys are all in the loop with what's being discussed. Speaker 1: Yeah, thanks for that, that offer, Brad. I mean, I think just had, making sure that we're really, we're approaching it in the right way and that we've got multiple sets of eyes on this is super important. So appreciate that offer. Speaker 16: Sure. Happy to help. Speaker 1: Alright with that, so we'll make a motion to continue this to November 6th, please. Speaker 16: So move, Speaker 2: Continue. Speaker 1: I'll, I'll take Jim's motion and Chris as a second if that's all right? Sure. All all right. With that all is in favor, Chris? Yes. Jim? Yes. Jeff? Yes. Mike? Yes. David? Yes. Matt's a yes.
And Doug, thank you for being here and I'll take your nod as a yes as well, even though the vote doesn't count officially. Okay. So we're continue to November 6th folks, thank you. Appreciate all of your time and engagement on this. We'll keep going. This is Harry as you know and probably expected but you know, we'll power through this. So thanks everyone. Okay, thank you. Good night. Thank you very much. Alright, have a good night. Moving on on our agendas. Next item on the agenda is we got minutes from July 17th. Any edits, comments, changes to those before we approve those? Look good. All right, Jeff, can I take that as a motion to approve the minutes from NOV? July 17th. Motion to approve. Thank you Jeff.
Is that seconded? Second. Thank you Michael. Any discussion? Those in favor, Chris? Yes. Jim? Yes. Jeff? Yes. Mike? Yes. David? Yes. Matt? Yes as well. Alright, minutes are approved. General business discussions. So we've got town force trailhead improvements from the Trails and Forest Stewardship Committee. That's awesome. Speaker 2: Yes. So I'm gonna be presenting on this tonight. Lisa Stanley had a actually two conflicts with this meeting tonight. So this proposal is coming to the Conservation Commission from the Trails
and Forest Stewardship Committee regarding improvements to the Honeywell Town Forest Trail heads this, it's not included in this proposal document, but the intent would be to also work on the Route nine Trailhead with the existing funding that we have appropriated the $10,000 appropriated for that, which is mainly gonna go to vegetation management, mostly Poison ivy. But Lisa Stanley has put together a really great document that's been reviewed by myself and the, the board over at TAFs. And I'm not gonna read through the whole thing
'cause it is available in the Google Drive for the commission to review. But I did wanna scroll down to the sort of summary of what the committee would like to do at the two, the Oak Street and the Bacon Street Trailhead, as well as just do a quick budget review on what that is gonna look like. So they're hoping to paint the existing metal access gate brown to better blend Speaker 1: Doubt. I like Stout. That's Speaker 2: Good. To better blend it into the background. The, the, you know, cold steel does stand out quite a bit. Remove, there's an existing asphalt lump.
If folks are familiar that they're proposing to remove, that would be part of some larger sort of parking edging improvements, repainting the gold lettering on the Honeywell sign. I think with, we had previously discussed this at the open space advisory committee meeting, there had been some consideration of potentially relocating that Honeywell Street sign. But based on the cost estimate to get a new sign in the style of sort of the trustees signs, it is likely more cost effective to refurbish the existing sign
where it is and install a newer sign closer to the road, removing the two invasive Norway maples on the south side of the parking lot. This would be done by a professional tree company, not volunteers. Just to, to clarify removal of invasives mechanical removal only between the kiosk and Oak Street to improve visibility primarily out there. Right now what we're seeing is some bittersweet, a very healthy population of mug wart in the summer months. As well as some smaller buckthorn saplings, things like that, that are proposed to be removed.
Plant native shrubs between the kiosk and the Oak Street. The sign will no longer be relocated. So I will amend that. And then removing the accumulated leaves along the south edge, which is the sort of forest side of the parking lot and formalize the edges with most likely granite curbing brought in by DPW from their existing stockpile just to create a hard edge at the back of that lot. The Bacon Street entrance. The improvements are a bit smaller in scale, similarly painting the metal gate brown, removing weeds and overgrowth from the sort of base of the access road.
It is a little bit, not super overgrown, but a little bit overgrown. Currently the area in front of the kiosk is unlevel and not sort of accessible from the sidewalk. So the intent is to hopefully level that out with a small sort of curb, tie style level landing area, plant native shrubs, as well as the associated sort of gravel fill in the new sort of curb tie area. There's some sketches further down that I'll show to folks.
These are some rough cost estimates. The only thing that is a, a firm cost estimate that we've received a quote on is the new sign for the Oak Street entrance. We would be working with Sunshine Signs who's done a number of signs for the commission in the past, the beaver signs at Petro Pond, the tiny forest sign at the high school. And some of these costs may go down depending on what DPW is able to assist us with and depending on what planting costs are at the time this work happens, as well as whether or not we're able to pair the,
the invasive Norway maple removal with other tree work that we're doing in town. Just to get sort of that best rate for the hours that we're seeing there. Very Speaker 1: Quick question, for the new sign that will be designed, I mean if there is a new sign, will it be kind of identical to what was there previously? I just wanna make sure there's consistency. Oh, of course there's a little bit of drift that, you know, there's the signs at sign at JJ Lane. There's this sign here, I just wanna make sure it's just all, Speaker 2: So this sign would be a newer style of sign for the commission and for conservation properties.
I do think as we are looking sort of lar larger at sort of trailhead improvements that we could see town wide, I think especially with the petrol pond work that's happening, this might be a good direction for us to move into. But the proposal is to create a sign that looks, I'm just gonna zoom out a little bit. Looks almost identical to this. Not obviously not the aesthetics of the sign, but in terms of the, you know, format of post and sign that would be installed out at Oak Street. So very easily visible from cars passing in both directions. And the signage itself would be in line
with the existing Trailhead signage that's been designed that sort of maroon burgundy color with the gold lettering. Okay. And the existing logo that's been established for the native space and trails. So we would not be reinventing the wheel, just a new format of signage for the conservation commission. Speaker 1: And is it, is it the intent that we're using the Natick open space and trails, that logo that that's gonna be kind of on all of the open space that the Cocom owns? Speaker 2: So currently that is what is on the Trailhead signs that have been installed. I think Pickle Pond, winter Woods has one at
that one Trailhead and a few other spots throughout town. So that has been the decision that's been made in the past. But I think that any, the final signage design would come before the commission, before any orders are placed with Sunday. Speaker 1: I just want to be consistent. Speaker 2: Absolutely. Speaker 1: So, okay, Speaker 2: So overall the rough total cost of the work proposed sits right around $5,000. Again, give or take, what we're able to sort of finagle with DPW reduce with the tree work pairing, which easily fits into the existing trails
and forest budget that's provided on an annual basis. We get $15,000 a year to manage approximately 410 acres of open space. So about $30 an acre. So we do definitely have to choose where we're spending our dollars. Well, but I think pairing this with the available money that we have for the Route nine Trailhead improvements, I think makes a lot of sense to sort of group all of this work together. Agreed. Just to pull up some photos, so this is the existing Honeywell Town Forest sign that would be sort of refurbished, sanded, repainted restained.
This is just the view coming out to Oak Street. So currently that sign is almost hidden by the, the sewer pump station and yeah, completely invisible if you're, if you're traveling north on Oak Street, this is the Bacon Street entrance where, so right this area right in front of the kiosk, it's essentially just proposed that six inch by six inch, you know, railroad tie posts would be installed here in order to just create a small level landing pad area for folks to be able to step off the sidewalk, check out the kiosk before moving into the forest. And this is some of that overgrowth
and stone debris that's proposed to be cleaned up and hopefully working with DPW to bring in some fresh rip wrap into this area to help manage any erosion coming down the hill. Speaker 1: So do we need, do we need to vote to approve the, the, the budget or this is money that's already been allocated and Speaker 2: So we, this is just the $15,000 is just our annual budget. Right. The committee chosen Forest stewardship is looking for permission from ComCom as the landowner to do this work. Some of this work also falls under the category of requiring conservation commission notification under the
General Trails maintenance order of conditions. So looking for sort of general blessings from the commission and approval for the overall work on ComCom land approval as notification under the generic order of conditions. And I, I guess a blessing for the budget. Technically ComCom does have authority over the budget. I don't think there's been any issue with how the budget has been spent in the past. But if the commission has concerns about potentially this amount of money going to one location at one time, that certainly we can discuss breaking the project up into
separate segments over separate years. Speaker 1: So any questions from anybody? Speaker 4: Concerns everyone? Can you, can you bring up the Bacon Street picture one more time? Yeah. I, I hate this entrance. And, and the reason I hate this entrance is that the, you know, reasonably attractive post sign to the right is overwhelmed by the, you know, condemned property signs at the entrance. Is it possible to get rid of those other, Speaker 2: Are you talking about these signs on the gate here? Yeah, Yeah. Yes. So the committee, it's not included in this proposal 'cause it doesn't have a, a budget aspect that goes with it. But the hope of the committee is to, because folks may have noticed at the Oak Street Trailhead,
there used to be some signage that was either lost to the plow or to hooligan teenagers over the winter. And so there does, there is a need for signage to be replaced already. So it's the hope for TAFs to sort of consolidate and get more consistent signage up because they do agree with you, David, the existing signage both at Oak Street and Bacon Street is very piecemeal. Speaker 4: Well, I'm just, I'm, I'm to, just to be clear, it's those three metal signs on the gate that look so awful to me, which I would love to see go away and I'm, I'm willing
Speaker 2: To be, you likely have to retain one that says, you know, no motorized vehicle access. But I think we can certainly consolidate and make it aesthetically look a little bit nicer. Perfect. Speaker 12: We could put 15 grand into it. Really nice. High quality golden bo signs. And Speaker 2: There we go all in. I like it. Speaker 1: All right. Any other questions or comments on this? Would someone make a motion to issue a general approval for this plan to move? Thank you David. Is that seconded? Seconded. Thank you Chris. Any further discussion on all that?
All in favor, Chris? Yes. Jim? Yes. Jeff? Yes. David? Yes. Mike? Yes. Doug, are you good with it? Sure. Love it. Blessing. Alright, so we're good there. Any other updates from community economic development? Speaker 2: Just a couple of brief ones. A little bit of good news, at least for our region. So some of the other regions have much worse news. We have been lifted from a level two to a level one drought condition in the northeast region.
The, the Cape and the Southeast are, are really feeling it. They've been accelerated to a level three unfortunately. Oof. But the rain over the last month, luckily enough has, has lessened our drought conditions, which I have seen pretty clearly reflected in the water bodies throughout town in the last week, Speaker 7: The Southeast got a, like a proverbial shitload of rain. Speaker 2: Oh. And my guess is that when the meeting in November happens to review the October rainfall, they'll be lessened. But I think because September was still so dry for them. Yeah. That's why they, they were worsened. And
Speaker 7: That's a technical meteorology, meteor, meteorological term. Speaker 1: I was just gonna say thank you for broadening our vocabulary, our, our our our technical vocabulary. Jeff. That's excellent. You're welcome. Speaker 2: Just a reminder for folks, if you're interested in attending or participating town meeting starts on Tuesday next week, October 21st at Kennedy Middle School. Speaker 1: Who has missed the most meetings then that's the person that we send to town meeting Stillman. That's me. That's me. I'm kidding. I'm kidding. Speaker 7: Okay. Clear. Did the, did the turf.
Speaker 2: So Crown Counsel has ruled that a moratorium bylaw would not be allowed. So if, if the motion BI believe it is, if motion B, which is for an advisory against turf passes, then there's no binding requirement that turf not be proposed. It's, it's more of a, you know, public notice that turf could be bad. It is, it, it certainly does not have any teeth like a, like a bylaw moratorium would. So I think that that'll be an interesting discussion
on the town meeting floor. And honestly I'm curious to see what the results are based on some of the chatter I've seen on Facebook. There is definitely a lot of conflicting views on, you know, turf versus natural fields. And I think that the, the budget piece of the discussion is, is potentially a big one in this regard when comes to, to land maintenance, but also maintenance of artificial turf. Speaker 7: Do we know about when we expect to see that project come before us? Speaker 2: I, I do not know. I, I think I talked about this when they were here presenting. As far as I'm aware a design study has been completed,
but I, I haven't even seen, you know, 25% designs. Not to say that they haven't been done and just not sent my way yet. But art is usually pretty good about sort of giving me notice on those types of things. And the last one, I'll send around a Google form link to everyone tomorrow. You've probably already received it maybe from the open space email, but this Saturday, October 18th is gonna be the fall Trails day here in Natick. We are the, the focus is on, on Town Forest. A number of small projects that are being proposed
to get done, not related, maybe related to this proposal I guess if, if folks can get their acts together in three days. So I imagine that'll be a tight turnaround. But mostly looking at some invasives work in the meadow, getting some folks out to do some trail brush clearing down at the sort of route nine end of the main loop trail. And some students will be out installing the bike trail signs as well for the mountain bike trails, which will be great. So there is a Google forum that we're asking folks to sign up on just so that way you can get notices about weather delays
and all that sort of fun stuff. So I'll send that link around to the commission tomorrow if you're around and available and wanna stop by Town Forest for a couple of hours. I will unfortunately be in New York not able to join, but the several members of the chosen Forest Stewardship Committee are gonna be their lead in the church. Speaker 1: So the plan is to meet at Oak, you know, sign up first and foremost if you can, but then meet at Oak Street entrance at 9:00 AM or something. Speaker 2: Exactly 9:00 AM just, we are asking, and folks will get an email about this as well, if you sign up on the Google form, obviously parking at the Oak Street entrance is limited. So we are asking folks to park over at Sergeant Field
and just take the little walk down Oak Street so that way we don't end up with 40 cars in the Oak Street parking lot. Speaker 1: Great. Anything else? Speaker 2: That is all I have. Speaker 1: Thank you folks. This five Auburn Street discussion's gonna be an interesting one. So pretty fundamental questions to be thinking about. So thank you all for your patience on that and we'll we'll get there. Alright, so we'll make a motion to it, Speaker 9: Matthew? Yes Speaker 1: Sir. Speaker 9: Just, just so I'm sure everybody's aware the Historical Society, the Elliot School was designed by the same firm that did the capital building in
Williamsburg shortly after. And that's why historically it's, it's a very significant building. Speaker 1: Yeah, cool. It's a cool site. It's really interesting. So yeah. Thanks Doug. Alright, so we'll make a motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn. Thank you Jim. Is that seconded? Seconded. Thank you Jeff. All in favor? Chris? Yes. Jim? Yes. Jeff? Yes. David? Yes. Mike? Yes. And our senior emeritus retired designee. Doug? Speaker 9: Yes. I apologize for missing the last few,
but I've become grandpa's chauffeur for my grandson goes to TaeKwonDo on Thursdays. Speaker 1: Ah, excellent. Speaker 9: Back in time. Speaker 1: TaeKwonDo rules all. It's good to see you then. Yeah, Speaker 9: The grandson rules. Speaker 1: Yeah. Absolutely. Well, thank you all, Claire. Thank you as always everyone. We'll talk to you guys soon. Take care everybody. Bye.