All right. This is the start of the June 8th uh meeting of Martin Conservation Commission. It is now 6:30 and first item on the agenda is
meeting minutes. our last two meeting minutes. Uh beginning with April 13th, a fairly voluminous set of minutes. Um anybody have any
comments, questions, corrections? Mommy, >> uh, we had a full board at that meeting, so everybody can vote on it. >> I'll make a motion to, uh, approve the
April 13th meeting minutes as drafted. >> Seconded. >> We have a motion by Lisa, seconded by Courtney, uh, Mark, Courtourtney, and Lisa. How do you vote? >> I >> I >> I
>> uh Joe and Dan >> I >> Okay. And I'll throw in the motion carries. Um, our next set of minutes is from April 27th
in which uh Lisa and Joe were absent, but we have a quorum of the members that were there to vote on it. Any um questions, corrections,
additions? If not, we can consider a motion. >> I will make that motion. Second, move to accept the minutes. >> We have a motion by Dan, seconded by Mark to accept the minutes of April 27th.
Uh Mark, Courtney, and Dan. Any vote? >> I >> I >> and >> I >> and I'll throw in an uh and the other two will record as abstensions and >> abstain.
>> Agree with that. And the motion carries. Uh, next item is discussion of violations 181. Uh, is there any further things that we need to talk about with that? It's kind of ongoing. >> Yeah, we gave them a July 1st deadline
to get this all done uh before uh otherwise we're going to issue the enforcement order and I haven't heard anything. So, I'll draft up an enforcement order in preparation. Hopefully I don't have to issue it, but if I have to, I'll >> um I think the last time we met they
were going to have updates ready by mid June, but we haven't heard anything from them. >> Nope. >> Okay. >> So, they I think we've given them enough time to kind of get their act together on this project. And you know, I I I talked to one of the guys that was a
local guy that was looking to do the plantings out there and I said, "All right, well, you know, have them provide me an update and I want to see some information from Goddard and and all the likeliness." And that, for instance, began my July 1st deadline to have this all done. Um, it's been what 10 11
months. I think uh push has come to shove a little bit on this one that they need to get their acting gear. So maybe something a little bit more formal needs to be put into place if they're not going to be or take this as serious. So >> well our next meeting is the 22nd, >> right? So I say that if for instance we
don't get anything by the 22nd, I'll draft an enforcement order in preparations and then for instance you'll make a vote saying that if we don't receive anything by the first, we'll authorize the enforcement order on the first. Okay.
>> Yeah, I agree with that. All right. All set. >> Motion, Courtney. >> Motion to draft a July 1st order. >> Second. >> All right. We have a motion by Courtney, seconded by Dan, um Mark, Courtney, and
Lisa. How do you vote? >> I >> I >> And uh Dan and Joe, you vote? I >> I >> and I'll throw in an a motion carry.
Um next recommendation for discussion is 292 West Main Street. Um that is downtown pizza. >> That's downtown Pizza. Yeah, they it looks like they expanded their parking lot. I'm working with the landowner and
their consultants that they hired. Um they're hoping to get a plan to us this month. I told them that they should try to expedite it as quick as possible because um you know my patience is wearing thin with a lot of these violations. I know the commissions is probably wearing thin with a lot of
these violations by now. Um so we need to start I guess uh you know making sure that people know that there is a timeline with all this stuff that they need to follow. But um and the next one was one Kaylee way. I noticed uh a permit came across my desk through the building inspector's office and uh I
looked into it and they've done some holistic clearing out there. So I need to go out tomorrow and verify. I found out last Friday. So they have to put in down sediment controls and I'm out there tomorrow to inspect and make sure that none of the work is within our jurisdiction because if they did,
they're going to have to come in for an afteraction filing. So hopefully that doesn't it's not an issue. Uh and hopefully it's just a minor oversight uh from their their end, but we'll see what happens. >> So, they already put up a building. >> They haven't put up a building. They've just done some um clearing out there.
Okay. >> Um I'm going out tomorrow to verify that the work is not within our jurisdiction. If it is, then for instance, they come in for an afteraction filing. >> All right. >> 22 West. Have we gotten any kind of update from them since
April? because I think they were saying that they were going to follow up with you in May. >> Mhm. Yeah. The um so they they were going to go with one wetland consultant, but they decided to go with a different one and that person started flagging the wetlands and now this other person has to flag the wetlands. So they're
delaying it a little bit unfortunately. And I said, "Well, if I don't receive anything by July 1st, I think then we're going to have to have a conversation." Because I said, "We're already dealing with this in town already, and I want to make sure that this doesn't become an ongoing problem that we have to subject ourselves to moving forward."
All right. So, uh, next item is, uh, any request for continuation, but I'm assuming we don't have such requests at this point. >> No. Okay. And next item is >> I would t I would table all this stuff
till we go through the the actual meeting stuff tonight. >> Okay. >> So I would just hold off on the 225 South Worester Street minor revision, the Wetland Protection Act transfer and the ED3 discussion because it could take some time. So
>> all right. Um so there are no continued public hearings. We'll go to the first new public hearing file number 250 1170 416 Old Colony Road. Um it's an amended order of conditions I guess or a
discussion of an amended order condition and we have a representative correct introduce yourself and describe what uh what's going on. >> Sure. Good evening everyone. Um I assume everybody on Zoom can hear me. Okay.
>> Yep. >> Perfect. Thank you. Um, so my name is Rob Lucier with CMG with me as well as the owner and applicant at Andrid for 416 Old Colony Road. Um, I'm not sure if
all of the commission members were around in I think it was April or no, March of 2025 when the uh, order of conditions was issued for this property. But what I can do, I'll share my screen.
>> Just give you access really quick. >> Sure. I'll just go over quickly what was approved and what were requested. >> Excellent. There you appreciate it. All right. All right. So, um, this is the property
at 416 Old Colony Road. There's the existing Dunkin Donuts and what's the retail build? Is that >> a barber shop in Cleveland? >> Perfect. Okay. if everyone's familiar with the site, but what was approved last year was next door to the Dunkin
Donuts um in this triangle-shaped parcel was a two tenant commercial building. Um the hope was to do a restaurant and some type of retail space. Um uh the building itself was about 3,800 square feet, one
story with parking in the front and on the side. And in the rear of the building, there was no parking, but there was a a small paved area for access. Um there was also the proposed septic system because the thought was to do a restaurant. The septic system was
rather large um as is required for title 5. And the the reason why this tripped the a notice of intent was because where my cursor is, that's the 100 foot buffer. The outfall for the on-site
storm water management system where my cursor is now is the only work that falls within the 100 foot buffer. But because of that, um I believe that the on-site storm water management system that was designed did require peer
review. Um we got through the peer review um and the order of conditions was uh granted. >> All right. Just just for clarification. >> Sure. >> When we reviewed this, there was no development on that. >> Correct.
>> And that's still the case. >> Yep. Correct. Yep. There has been no construction. The only thing that's been done was the soil testing. >> Okay. >> So, Yep. So, yeah, there's nothing built. >> Yeah. Because people might get the misimpression that there's a structure there now. Fair point.
>> Yes. Yeah. So, this wasn't constructed and the plan is or the hope is to amend the order of conditions for the new construction of of what we're requesting here. So, if I go to the proposed plans, um, rather than doing the two tenant
commercial building, um, I guess the the building could still be considered a two-tenant building, but what the applicant is looking to do since the the site was marketed a restaurant and retail establishment, there was not a lot of interest with the site. Um,
fortunately there is an interested party which happens to be an electrical contractor. So, the hope is to utilize the the building. Instead of doing a one-story, two-tenant commercial building, it would be two stories, which I can show the
architectural plans in a minute. Um, so you can see what it's going to look like. But the idea is to utilize the first floor as more of a general warehousing storage space for the electrical components with overhead door
access in the rear of the building. Um that way that'll allow the uh tenant to load up vans and such in the morning, do any house calls and then unload uh later in the day. The second story would be general office space for clerical staff
and admins. Um the site design changed slightly. So the building is around the same footprint as you can see, but it was shifted a little bit forward. Um, instead of having two banks of parking in the front, there's just one in the front. Now, um, there's
still parking on the side of the building, but there was an increase in pavement in the rear of the building to allow access to the two overhead doors as well as more parking spaces for the tenant. Um, the net increase is
approximately 2500 square ft of imperous area. Um, and most it's pretty much just all in in the back of the building. Now, because of the increase in the imperous area, we did have to look at our storm
water calculations. Um, you know, the on-site storm water system, which actually, let me get to the grading and drainage plan. I'm going to zoom in a little bit. It's kind of tough to see at this scale, but if you look at this, so there was an
underground infiltration system uh for the front area for the parking in the front. We've kept that the same and it also takes the roof drains for the building. So, not a whole lot of change there. Um the increase in the imperous
area actually discharges to this storm water basin that's between the existing Dunkin Donuts and this proposed building. Um this is how it was designed previously, but there's actually more storage in
this system now. We've we've slightly increased the outlet pipe here. um or I should say we've increased the elevation to allow more storage and static recharge to accommodate the additional
uh imperous area and because the system was already um I don't want to I don't want to say it was oversized but because we had to accommodate the static recharge that drove the size of the system not the peak rate. So even with
the additional imperous area by increasing the elevation of that pipe we are able to keep um postdevelopment peak rates running out of the developed area well below uh pre-development. So, um,
we do meet the storm water calcs, um, or I mean the storm water management standards, and I'm happy to go into more detail with any of the storm water components. Um, lastly, I will just add that um, we did require a modification
to the planning board's site plan review approval, which we did receive that approval. It was last Tuesday. Yeah. So, >> yeah, it was last week. Um, we're going to have to resubmit to the board of health with the new septic system design
plan. So, the septic system is actually able to reduce significantly in size due to the fact that there's no longer going to be a restaurant as a tenant. Um, and then the other item too, um, this did require a mass DOT access permit which
was approved. We are not changing anything along the front of the site, grades, layout, nothing. Uh specifically because that was a lengthy process and we would prefer not to go through the DOT process again. Uh so that is the I
guess the the the summary. So we're looking for an amendment to the order of conditions that was granted last year to allow for this. Um, with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. >> All right. Well, I'm just gonna ask John, do you have any comments you want
to make about this before we open it up to anybody? >> No, I think I mean a lot of the work that they're proposing is minor. Um, I guess the question, the biggest concern and question that I have is does the commission feel that it's necessary for them to do a peer review again for storm
water? Um, but I mean I'd leave it up to the the engineering and their team to basically say why it would not be needed or not be required because the system, you know, obviously the I think the additional uh square footage of the I
guess impervious that's out there is is, you know, it's minor, I guess, is kind of how I I would address it, right? Compared to the overall project. >> Correct. It's it's a pretty minor uh addition of imperous area. And like I said, I I would
if I were in your shoes, I would definitely be concerned if we left the storm water system the same we just said. But yeah, you know, it's still, you know, it's it'll work. But we did >> modify to accommodate that slight increase. Um >> with that, you know, if if the
commission would feel comfortable with it getting reviewed, I mean, we're happy to do it. Um >> so what was the impervious uh area um design? >> Let me stop here. >> I mean is this is this like a a double
of impervious or you know like a >> um bear with me for one second because I have to dig a little bit into our storm water report to get those exact numbers. But we do have them. >> I think it was in your report, wasn't it?
>> Yeah. I mean, I I calculated 2400. That's from me, you know, giving you kind of a a overview for my own kind of scan a scan of the music. >> 2400 in addition add addition added on or
>> Yeah. So it would be and it' be additional like 2400 square ft of impervious that they're adding to the project site as part of this project. >> Okay. But but is a small percentage of what was previously
>> Well, I think the the lot is How big is the lot again? >> I can pull up the I >> one and a half acres. >> One and a half acres. >> So, it's about 60,000. >> Yeah, I can I think I know you're trying to to gauge the um >> well, >> what does 2500 square ft mean in the
grand scheme of what we're proposing for the impervious? Correct. >> And I can get that right now. If we have to decide that, yeah, this looks okay, we kind of need that that comparison. >> Yeah. And I have it right here. So, what
you previously approved for the um the the the one-story commercial building, we were proposing just under 20,000 square ft of imperous surface. So, we're adding another 2500 approximately. So
it's uh 22,600. >> You're adding you're increasing it by a little over 10% or something on that one. >> Yeah, I think so. >> So any any questions among uh commission members? >> Yeah, I have one. Uh if you can go back
to the site plan. So I don't really think it's just a matter of the map providing storage for P flows. What are you doing to accommodate quality with that increase in impervious surface and the use has now changed from a regular
parking lot to uh roing bay you mentioned which means trucks. So what are you doing to address water quality this increase? So it's not a one for one increase in terms of quality. >> Yeah. Let me um sorry bear with me for one second. I'm going to share my screen
again. Yeah. So, the pre-treatment requirements are 44%. So, a combination of two of the 25% pre-treatments is usually what we go with. Um, so the front of the site,
which is not the where the overhead doors are, those ones are going to have the same water quality units that we had previously, which are the hydrodome HD4s. The anything discharging to this basin.
Um, it's going to be a combination of the deep sump hooded catch basins. So that's going to be this area behind the site is essentially works as a bowl. Everything's graded towards the center and we had to do that in order to accommodate the grades because it's a
very flat site. Um, so it goes to a deep sumped catch basin which then continues to manhole and eventually goes into a forbay. the forbay and the combination of the forbay and the deep sunfooted catch basin um allows for the 44%
pre-treatment and then it will then go into the um the storm water basin which the storm water basin outlet was increased in elevation to allow more of the static recharge because in order to
account for the 80% TSS removal you need to accommodate for an eight for a static recharge, meaning that the 1 in water quality volume has to be below that um that that outfall. So, that's what we
have for the rear area. Now, as far as loading bays, they're not they're overhead doors. I I just want to reiterate that they're not they're not loading bays. You wouldn't be able to to fit like a you really wouldn't be able to fit a like a a box truck. You
definitely wouldn't be able to fit an 18-wheeler or any type of trailer vehicle back there. It would be more utilized for vans or I mean the vans with the cutaway boxes. I guess um but I just wanted to reiterate you wouldn't
you wouldn't be able to to fit a larger vehicle back there. But that's a great question. >> Um the number of parking spots are less. >> Nope, they're more. Um,
I think now there's 30. Go to the site layout, but presumably they're all to accommodate employees there. There's no public. >> Well, it it sort of sounds like this might be a fleet of vehicles for this
company. Is that accurate to say? Huh? >> Would do does they intend to store them here overnight or any do you know any >> most? >> Well, I only ask because fleet vehicles are they intending to work on them there
or >> just >> No, >> drive them there and drive them away or >> I think most of these people are bringing their uh service vans home. Uh but they would have to go to this site to pick up uh for the job for the day
and all the equipment. That's uh I guess they explained like if they were doing a house uh I guess everything would be there ready for them. They would get there in the morning. they would pick up all the stuff and then they would go out to the
job and um and then then that somebody in the afternoon would get them ready for the next morning where I mean there there will be probably a couple extra trucks. I would believe they have extra ones but uh what I was told was majority of their employees take home their car
their truck um or they might come and pick up like a a person. >> Okay. Thank you. That's kind of >> so it's at the level of residential electrical installation. >> They do a lot of electrical uh uh
residential. I mean I could say the name of the company if you'd like >> even commercial uh >> they do commercial as well. >> Yeah. >> All right. But there's from what you're complying these vehicles are well maintained and and
should not be a a leak hazard. >> Yeah. No. No. Yeah. I believe >> John Thomas on the last peer review did they have any comments on water quality? >> From what I recall or what I remember? No. Uh cuz if that was a question that
probably would have been addressed. >> Okay. >> Uh any other questions among commission members? >> Uh I I'd like to see this peer reviewed again. I think with that amount of increase I'd be more comfortable on a
commercial side with a review of the in and so if I could ask you Joe what what's what's triggering your thought that in a 10% increase um would be an issue
>> we don't know what future use of this building is this is the youth intended at the moment uh as we all know that things change along the way this could end up something very different part. >> Well, actually I don't know the rules about that. U if you have a a major
change in use, does that require planning board or >> Well, this is this is this is the challenge that I have. Right. So, the only portion of this property that's within our jurisdiction is the outlet
drainage component on this. So really the majority bulk majority of this project lies within the planning board's discretion. And you said, what did you guys say? The planning board said >> they approved it uh last Tuesday. >> Did they have any any questions or
concerns regarding storm water? >> No. >> All right. I need to talk. >> Yeah, I think they hear you >> by the planning board. >> So sorry, could was that I did >> Lisa, could you repeat that? Oh, was the
did the planning board have this um site plan period? >> They did not. I think and the reason for that I believe the big concern related to storm water when this was previously approved was the storm water peer review was through the conservation commission.
>> So that's why I I think the planning board was more looking at the use. So >> So I would support Joe's um theory then. So we have no peer review on the planning board side. We have an increase. We have a different intensity of use. We have dumpsters there. We have
loading docks and we're going to have a different type of use. I think it has to be peer reviewed as well. It would be a different story if it were peer-reviewed by the planning board. Again, we're we're running into this. We're going to be running into this that we are the only line of
review. Well, I would doubt I, you know, I'm just going to comment that I don't feel the same degree of urgency because to me it's a limited number of vehicles on the site. The prior use was a combination
restaurant and also a a retail outlet. So, the amount of public vehicles that would come in and out of the site was in my mind much higher. So I I don't really see the same urgency. And you can't
really base your decisions based on the possibility, at least in my opinion, the possibility is some radical change in the future. So I I >> we have no control over that change. That's the issue. This is our one shot.
>> Well, >> so we're going to make it right and bulletproof to be, you know, the highest water quality for any future user. Now is the time to do it. So I I agree with Joe, but
>> All right. Um, so we're I mean this is public hearing, right? >> Yeah. Yeah, this is a public hearing. So >> So we don't we can't do motions. >> I mean, you can you can basically, you know, put it to vote with the rest of the commission members this evening if
you think that it's necessary that the applicant file for a um peer review, >> but we can't do it within the scope of this portion. No, we can. >> We can. I mean, you can you can talk amongst each other whether you you think that a peer review is ne necessary. I
think Lisa and Joe have both u basically said that they would like to see a peer review for this project. You know, all all we need is basically the rest of the members, Courtney, Dan, Mark. Um one one of you or actually two of you need to say yes otherwise it's a standill.
>> I I I agree. I don't I don't think I think it's better to have it done than not. >> Okay. >> In terms of risk and impact. >> So then so then we just need one more person to say yes and and we'll make I
think what we have to do is have a motion put on the table. >> Joe, you make a a motion. >> Move to have this site peer review. Second. >> All right, we have a motion by Joe,
seconded by Lisa. So, um, Courtney, Dan, and Joe, how do you vote? >> Hi. >> Did we move Dan? >> Well, sure. He's still on the screen. >> Uh, but Joe, how do you vote?
>> Well, Joe made the motion. >> I I apologize. This is Dan. Hi. >> All right, we got three eyes. So, Mark and uh Lisa, I >> and I'm going to throw in an A. So, that
is five eyes, one. All right. So, um I guess >> so we need to make a motion to if there's no other questions, we need to make a motion to continue.
>> Well, we we'd have to ask the rest of the attendees if they have any questions. Uh so, at this point, unless there are further questions from members of the commission, uh we can open questions up to anyone on the the in the
meeting. Uh and to do that uh you can either just put your mic off mute and identify yourself and ask a question or you can go to the uh reactions button and raise the hand button on that. So
any questions from anybody in the meeting and not seeing anything or hearing anything um we can now consider a motion to continue this hearing >> motion to continue this hearing.
>> Second. >> Uh and um is there any problem with continuing it until the 22nd our next meeting? I'm probably not going to get your approval by then just let me know. >> Yeah, I think it would probably make sense. It's okay to do probably the
first meeting in July that you have. >> That might not. >> Okay. Okay. >> No, I can I'll be here. >> All right. So, we have a a motion
>> uh Courtney. >> Yeah. >> And seconded by >> Dan. >> Dan. Okay. Uh to continue until July 13th. So, uh Lisa, Mark, and Dan, how do you vote? Hi.
>> Hi. >> And Courtney and Joe. >> Hi. >> Hi. >> And I'll show you tonight. Motion carries. So, uh you can be in touch with John with regard progress but otherwise
we'll see you in on >> Excellent. Thank you very much everyone. Appreciate it. >> Have a good night. >> You too. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> So our next uh
Public hearing is a determination 48 for Mass Coastal Railroad Railroad Rideway. Um, do we have a representative >> either in the meeting or on the in Zoom?
>> No, I'm dealing with his name's Thomas. um he's not gotten back to me through phone calls or emails. So, I haven't really had any conversations with him and we still need payment for a legal notice. So, um
>> All right. So, it sounds like >> So, if this doesn't get wrapped up, um I'll probably just pull it from a list tonight. >> Well, okay. So, uh but procedurally, do we consider this? >> We have to continue it. >> Yeah, we have to continue it tonight.
Yes. All right. But for instance, opening >> we have to open it and continue it. But for instance, if they don't >> don't give us payment by the next meeting, I will pull it from the permit list. >> All right. Well, I'm going to say my way
of opening it. The proposed work is for the management of education along the right away. So I consider that opening it. And I think now we can continue it probably to the next meeting. >> Yep. Motion to continue.
>> Second. >> We have a motion made by Joe, uh, seconded by Courtney. So, Mark, Lisa, and Dan, how do you vote? >> I >> I >> I >> And Courtney and Joe. >> Hi.
>> Okay, we got an I for Joe and I'll throw in an I. So, motion carries. We are now in um our request for certificate compliance unless some of these other issues um
should proceed that for example but 225 southwest >> we're going to we're going to talk about the rail trail and uh IBW first I think the best best action >> all right file number two 250-
1094 rail trail um where we stand with that. >> How you doing everyone? Um before I jump in, Dave, did you want to start off or do you want me to lead Dave Pashette? >> All right. And you you're identified as
Matt Chu. >> Yeah, sorry. Matt Chu with Beta Group. I'm here with John Nero from Beta as well. >> Okay. And >> my name is Dave Bashette here uh with Masto Environmental. So um as as we know
this is a sort of an ongoing request for a partial certificate of compliance that was asked for by um Mr. Thomas the agent. Um so that is why this issue is in front of us and there was some questions raised by the commission at previous meetings and so u Mr. Shu has
prepared some responses uh to some of those questions as the project design engineer. So, I'll just let Matt take it over and um take his comments. >> Thanks. Um could I get access to share?
>> You can and you will. >> Thank you. >> Should be all set, Matt. All right. >> Got it. Okay. Um can you guys see my screen? >> We can. >> Should be a memo. So, I'm gonna let uh
John Nero jump in on the first question. >> Sure. Thanks, Matt. Again, John Nero with Beta Group. Uh so, the first the two questions we wanted to address was a note about uh ragweed, you know, colonized basically both sides of the
trail between Washington Street and Cobb Street. Um and as you know noted correctly here uh the contractor did have obligation to control invasives at the site uh at least during the uh contract period of the construction
work. Um so assuming that this common is referring to common ragweed. Um common ragweed is a native species to eastern US. It it's actually one of the rare cases where it's native here and considered invasive in places like Europe and Asia. Um, so since that while
it is a nuisance in disturbed areas, you know, I pull plenty of it uh from my gardens, um, it is technically native and not considered an invasive species. And, um, you know, as far as invasives go for the project, you know, the
contractor was required to manage those. And so that would be things like fragmitees, notweed, bittersweet, um, things that are documented by my pag Massachusetts. Um and you know full eradication is not uh required per the
contract but the contractor is required to keep them in check throughout their contract period. So they did that for species um that are flagged by the state as invasive but for something like ragweed um that that would not be explicitly treated.
>> Oh can I ask a question on that? So, I understand now Scott has seen the specs. So, I'm assuming that that I'm the one who brought this to the attention of Don Thomas because I walked this thing all day and there's a sea of ragweed along
the entire thing. So, I'm thinking, well, Masto almost had a speck, a seeding speck. Does this seeding speck along with a ragweed? I mean, it's a weed >> and it is it might not be an invasive
species, but that's not really what we envisioned along our rail trail is a sea of ragweed, >> right? That's that's a good point. And Mascot does have specific seating specifications. You know, they landscape group prepares specs that, you know,
have, you know, roadside, shade tolerant, wet, you know, all these different seed mixes. um this area I can't speak to off the cuff what was proposed here. we can confirm that. But um there are cases on these projects where in trying to get
these seed mixes uh which often times are primarily perennial and do take a winter period to cold stratify and actually establish in the meantime uh they can be taken over by either invasives or um you know colonizing species. And in this case you know a
colonizing species like rad. So, when's the Let me ask you, when's the last time somebody was out there looking? Cuz it's uh it's probably over 3 ft high now, and it's it's prevalent. So, I would ask, did somebody look at this versus the um the
seating spec and see what the percentages are? Um it's an issue. It's extremely unsightly. It may not be invasive of my definition, but I am sure it's not part of the seating spec.
>> I mean, >> I can certainly comment that the seed spec was applied uh as required. Um the resident engineer does have the seed tags for all the seed that was applied for the project. >> Okay. But did somebody do a follow-up to
look at exactly what's growing versus what was proposed? That's what I'm getting at. Did somebody do a check specific to the spec versus what's out there? That's what I'm asking for, please. >> And that I would have to check back with
the resident engineer as to when the last time somebody did look at that, but I do know they did work with the the appropriate seed spec for the project. >> Well, I would suggest somebody has to change their seed spec if that in in fact that amount of ragweed was um
acceptable. It's terrible. So anyway, I would ask that somebody go out there and look at that, please. >> Um, is it possible that the ragweed seeds came in through the soils that were used to add to the site and stabilize the site?
>> Um, I would so that that's actually the next thing I wanted to bring up is that, you know, obviously it's um something that colonizes pretty quickly as as everyone's correctly seen and noted. Um I don't think this is a case where the
seeds where any kind of ragweed seed was put down as as part of any seed mix. Generally what we see with ragweed coming in is it can come in with soil. However, it very very prolifically uh selfseeds. Um it's
generally either an annual or a bianial depending on species. And so they're very prolific in their seeds and they spread by wind and uh birds very easily. So um >> yeah it's been there since the first year. So
>> right >> since last year it's been there since day one and it's only you know it's getting worse. >> So regardless of how it got there I'd ask somebody to look at it see if it needs a spec. So when the soils were
disturbed and not seated, it could have blown in from uh other sources and just had a major head start. Is that is that a possible mechanism? >> Absolutely. And often times what can happen too is on these jobs where you're
uh even if you aren't bringing in soils, if you're scarifying existing soils, um you can unearth covered seed bankanks and they they're not at the surface and they pop up. So um certainly a number of ways they could get established um but obviously at the end of the day that
that is what ended up being established there. We just wanted to clarify um that you know it is it is technically uh considered a native species in eastern US. >> So is there any mechanism of of remedying it regardless of how it got
there? Uh, in my experience, I've personally dealt with things like ragweed and mugwart a lot. Um, your only hope really is to do um, uh, a pretty low mowing and potentially
um, pull out the top layer of soil, top dress with lom and compost and seed it again. Um, other than that, it's can be can be quite difficult to control. uh whether it be on a large site like this or a residential lot.
>> Yeah. I guess the point of that is was it put down properly to begin with, right? Because now we're stuck with it. Town of Norton is stuck with it. So, how often are we going to be able to move that stuff? You know, it should be fairly maintenance-free. So, if it was
put down incorrectly to begin with, you know, that could be an issue, too. But I would ask that somebody look at it, please. this solution. >> Yes. >> So that the town of Norton is not stuck with something that's a long-term issue that we didn't pay for.
>> Um >> or we paid for something else. Put it that way. >> The areas where it is prolifically established over time they may become uh coated with weed litter, I mean uh
leaf litter and presumably will choke out some areas. Is that a possibility as well? >> Yes. And often times what'll happen with these species is if you as long as you mow it before it goes to seed since they often are annual or bianial, you
basically cut off its own supply to reproduce. Um, and you can control it that way over time. You keep mowing it. You put down additional seed and often times you can uh win out. But it does take some persistence. >> So again, Julian, do you think the
town's going to do that? I doubt it. So I guess I want a product that's going to be low maintenance for us. >> Well, we should receive what we spec in the plan is what should be. >> Y >> and that's you know if it takes 10 years
to get this approved, we approved a spec plan and that's this is our issue we're standing with here. >> And Raguabe was not a spec. They have been in the industry for many many years. There are many ways to eradicate
this but uh this is not not acceptable. If it's spec for whatever perennial mix is we should see perennial mix there no matter what the perennial mix should be. It shouldn't be regular. All right any other questions comments?
All right. Um, I'll move on to the the second com. So, actually uh before I move on. So, Dave, were you going to check with the resident engineer on the next step on that? >> I'll uh I'll chat with him about uh the
issue. Yes, >> we did not have any onsite observation services with the town for this. This was all on the um on Mass. Um, so the next question was regarding
um this section of the trail right near the town line and the water that she flows across that trail surface. Um, and I'll just read through my response unless everyone's read it and you don't
need me to. Um so I mean this segment of the trail resulted in the most significant resource area impacts um due to the expansive wetlands it span the entire width of the railroad corridor. So the design intent here was
to minimize fill material obviously to reduce impacts. Um, also we had direction from Mass to reduce um construction costs, keep the pro the the profile of the trail low and and utilize
some of the existing railroad ballast as base course material. Um, not all of that is visible. Much of it is just beneath the surface. Um, so the resulting profile of the trail is um
that there's a low point about 60 ft south of the town line. Um, keeping that profile low doesn't allow for a color to go beneath the trail. Um, and I'll show you in a minute kind of what a sample
revised profile would do. Essentially, you're just moving that low point to another spot nearby and creating the same um situation. So, consistent with common trail design
guidance um we had ditches and swells incorporated into the the project throughout um to convey storm water adjacent to the trail where in in cut sections where storm water otherwise
um could not just sheet across the trail or underneath. So swells swills were constructed on the northeast side of the trail on both approaches, but when you get to that low point, you've got to get water to the other side and that's why it's it's shooting across the surface,
not ponding there. Um, and I'm just going to go to the profile view to show you guys So um the town line is right about in this area. Um the black line represents
the design profile of the trail. Um the low point is about in this area here. So, you know, in order to um to get a cover beneath the trail to convey storm water
from one side to the other, uh this would be the resulting grade line to get like a 12-in pipe under there. Um and then you still got to maintain minimum grades of the trail profile. Um so essentially that low point just gets
shifted over to the Mansfield side and we'd have a similar situation. Um, so just shifting down, this is a a cross-sectional view at this location. So the low point is is between station
40 and 40 + 50. You can see we have the swale here at 4050. Looking at on the other side, there's a a shallow swale. And this is the point here where um you know there's no way to get a pipe underneath and daylight that
on the other side. So it's naturally just shooting across at the low point and then it traverses um you know over the existing wetland areas and ultimately down to a replication area that was constructed further to the south.
>> Uh can can we just enlarge that picture again? >> Sure. So which direction is the water would be expected to flow? >> So it's flowing from here to here and then from the other side
um it flows in this direction and then this is the low point where it needs to go. It tra it traverses across here and then it just it's overland flow on this side. But it's but it appears to be hitting a burm there on the
downstream side that is acting as a dam, does it not? >> It's constricted on that side because of ledge. There's >> there's rock on that side. It it's it's getting it's really narrow. It narrows
up and it's not allowed to infiltrate on that left side on the on the left side. >> Yeah. Yep. So, okay. So, a couple things. There's plenty of space on one side, right? And you're constricted on the other. The issue is getting the water
from one side to the other or right source reduction. So, can we look at the left side where it's accumulating? I don't know what the brown water looks like, but can we excavate that to make it deeper? Can we put infiltration media
in again to get some of that in? Cuz I'll tell you, this thing's wet about 9 months a year. It's a safety issue. You have people biking, walking, it's ice all winter long. It's to me it's a design flaw and it's like nobody's
fault. It just happens. It's really difficult to guess where the water's going to go. There's a covert in Mansfield that's doing nothing. And and I know you can't move that one down here, but it was designed further down. That's not it's not conveying anything.
So, um, so I'm trying to think of outside of the box how to fix this because this absolutely needs to be fixed. This is not normal, right? This should not be happening to a railroad, right? It shouldn't be inundated 9 months of the year with water, right?
>> Well, the water isn't making it impassible. It's just it's doing what it's supposed to. And again, we're relying on the contractor verifying that this was built to the proper cross slope to convey that. Um, and during the
winter, this is not going to be plowed or treated for ice. There's going to be ice all along the corridor, >> but there's constantly water flowing across this where the rest of it's dry. And you're constantly having to walk over ice and water for 9 months a year.
So, I'm looking for a solution because I don't think this is acceptable. So, my question is, is there any way to excavate something deeper on that side where it's filling out? Clearly, you don't have enough depth on one side, right? >> Well, so this I believe this is all
within the flagged BBW area on the left side. That's why we were minimizing disturbance. >> That's correct, Matt. um >> we were limiting disturbance there because that whole swath of existing trail or corridor right away was um
vegetative wetland. So even those portions that remain today um there's there's not going to be any infiltration capacity in my opinion. >> Yeah, this is so this is roughly the section we were just looking at. This is where that
swale is filled with water here. I mean, the other thing we had considered was a leeching basin on one side, but again, with the the water level where it's at, it's not going to do anything there. And we're excavating a a structure in the middle of the BBW, which we're trying to
avoid. >> Well, balance bitw, right? Cuz that BDW is already filled, right? It's already fragmented. It's already cut off from the rest of it because the path is there. So, it's just a remnant in that location. I guess I'm I'm more concerned about safety,
pedestrian access, having to walk through ice for the sake of of of you know sacrificing a small wetland there. This is this is quality of life at this point. This is in my view should not be happening.
I mean this wetland I don't have the other sheets available at the moment but it this looks this is the t this is a continuation of the sheet here and this continues um and yeah I mean you can see our our goal
was to kind of have our limit of work as close to the trail as possible um to minimize that impact. And again, I understand the concern with ice, but my understanding is that the trail is not going to be the entire thing is not
going to be plowed. So, it's um there's going to be icing. >> Why do I get that? But what happens when we start to get allergy growth on the asphalt and all the wonderful slippery things that a warm wet spot
on the water? You know what happens when we get that safety concern? Just bicycles going down. >> Well, we I mean that that could happen anywhere as well. You've got, you know, leaf and tree. >> You shouldn't have standing material on
any impervious surface. It's not systems. >> Again, the So, the water is not standing. It's always sheeting across. If it's standing and ponding, it was not constructed for the plans. It's not necessarily flowing all the
time. It has water on it like so you couldn't you couldn't discern a flowable you know there's not a flowable path but it just seemed and especially when it equalizes right so that left side reaches equilibrium with the right and it's just standing there it's not
necessarily flowing all the time it's not going anywhere so it's it is standing water and if I didn't walk through this, you know, and have it wet for 9 months a year, I'd be like, it's not a big deal. But it is it
>> Well, I don't know. >> Again, I think the the right side is BBW as well, but maybe this could be maybe this was not graded properly and it's it's too high on this side and not allowing the water to sheet off as quick
as it is. But >> so I understand, Matt, that you guys don't do as builds, but would somebody at least topo this area to figure out if it was how do you know if it was built correctly? I mean, did did the contractor give you their notes in terms of what the elevations were? Cuz I know
you don't you don't produce an asbuilt. So, how do you know it was constructed correctly? >> Yeah, we're not responsible for the as build. We were told they went out and checked us with smart levels. Um, >> who's Oh, they the contractor did. Yes. >> Well, wasn't that like the fox guy in
the chicken coop? >> So, you have a contractor saying, "Hey, we built it to plan. There's no independent." >> Yeah. I may actually have photos of the smart level um documentation that they provided.
Well, is it possible, do you think, to have them examine this burm area and see if it can be cut down just a little to facilitate sheep flow >> uh and allow
um I I mean to to my eye it looks like there's a an obstruction there. Uh and it may be, you know, something that wasn't present in the initial uh construction, but with vegetation and
leaf litter and freeze thaw, >> there's now a little elevation that wasn't there before. >> Yeah. It's almost like there's a little lip there. >> Yeah. >> And I get it right. It's going to filter supposed to filter through that into the swale, but I don't think it's making its
way there. John, this whole right side is BBW as well, correct? Yeah, that's correct, Matt. It extends pretty far down uh both further into Norton as well into Mansfield,
>> even though it just looks like a grass slope. Yeah. Now again, you know, personally, I'd be willing to sacrifice a foot or two of a wetland to make a safer rail trail. Might just my opinion.
I mean, there's not even any vegetation in that area anymore. It's kind of strip. I don't know how much it functions as a wetland over there, but that from the first couple feet. >> Yeah. more important to shed the water I think at this point than to worry about a fringe of what looks like lawn.
>> What is um the ask that they talk to the contractor and see if there's anything that can be done with this particular area. I think that's what the ask is. Sounds like >> Yeah, I think somebody needs to do a
maybe something a little more detailed than just a a level if we're going to talk about getting this to sheet float or to fix this. >> I mean, one thing I'm seeing with our crosssections. So, this area is in between these two
sections and you can see we had, you know, a 4:1 slope right off the edge here, 2:1 here. And to me, based on the photo, it looks just flat um on that right hand side. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. I think that's >> I mean, if it's as simple as that, that would be fantastic. If we just scrape a couple inches and let it go into that, >> get it into that swale. I think I think what we need to do is request some spot
grade survey from um the contractor out here, especially on this this area here. um and make sure this gets restored maybe off the shoulder here it get
instead of um lman and seed which is going to naturally create a burn over time um maybe it's some type of although I don't like crush stone next to the trails what happens is the stones end up on the
trail um and then we have another safety hazard that happened down in the >> the section that was already built built uh to gain access to the the um treatment facility. The scones are all over the trail down there. So that's
>> down White Hill Street. Yeah. >> Yeah. Um but anyways, we'll get some survey to start with here and take a look at that. >> Okay. Thanks, man. >> All right. Um any further questions, comments? So those are the two
u focused areas of concern or I shouldn't say focused with the ragweed issue but that that was the summation of the discussion at this point.
>> Yep. Sounds like it. Well, I'm kind of asking that and uh >> uh those are the two questions that were brought to our attention to talk in further detail about at the at the meeting. Um Dave, does that make sense?
Do you think that's a reasonable request of the of uh you know the contractor is kind of demobilized but um you think there's going to be a challenge in getting that information and maybe you don't know the answer to that. >> Well,
>> yeah, I mean we we certainly can u chat with the resident engineer and see if he can provide or gather that information from the contractor. I mean certainly I think it's worth the effort to try to get that information so you can evaluate it. Okay. Um
and I don't know when you might want to come back to us to have another discussion but our choices are the next meeting is June 22 uh and then we have the 13th and 27th in July.
Um do you have a preferred I would target the um 13th of July at this point. >> Okay. Uh technically this is not really a hearing. This is informal discussion.
Is that right, John? So we don't have to have a formal motion for >> Yeah. It's a request for certain compliance. They don't get it because, for instance, they haven't met the the um concerns of the commission. So, >> all right. >> Hopefully on the 13th they will. >> Okay.
>> So, we'll shoot for the 13th and you can negotiate with John for any changes that might happen unexpectedly. >> All right. >> Thank you. >> Thank you all. Have a good night.
Um, lost my um, so next item is file number 2501 66. Um, it's the IBW
site at 257 259 Avenue and this is up for certificate of compliance. Is that right? >> Yes. So, I believe Matt Matt you're on the call tonight, right? >> I am good evening. Matt Basy with Ber Engineering representing the um the
applicant NES group. So, you can you can share your screen if you want to. You're all set. >> Oh, sure. Yeah, sure. Good evening. Hope everyone's um doing well. It's been uh since we first filed the application, since uh we we've met with the commission. Um >> they've they've wrapped up construction
out there. John, I know they mentioned you've been out there uh quite a bit and um we hadn't heard much from you, which is uh usually a good thing. Folks usually call us to tell us how awesome things are going. Um so, not uh hearing from you is real good news on our end. Um but but they wrapped things out. We
were up there during various stages of construction primarily. Um the storm water was the thing we were most interested in getting inspections of like bottom of the bed for the basins and whatnot. And also out there recently um for the final kind of walk through as they they're wrapping things up. Um we
also had our survey surveyor prepare a full you know new uh ads built a record survey of the property which is what I'm sharing right now. Um so so we want they're honestly generally built per plan. Um the the storm water basins seem to be operating um as intended. I think
uh John when we sent in our certificate compliance letter, we like to be very very thorough if we can be. So the things we noted were when we went out there about 10 days ago, the grass was looked like it was pretty established, but you know, it was still a little bit to go, but that might be um kind of
rectified for uh recent visits. Um the markers, I think they mentioned that they might >> Yeah, I have I have them in the office. just um have somebody come by and we'll put up the placards. Okay. >> Yeah, we have the placards were the other thing we noticed there, but I think those are those are in the office
and ready to go. So, um aside from that, it was really much um for us to comment on. Um be happy to run through the the project in general, but uh open our request compliance. Well, I think John, you have the final mod of uh
>> So far, from what I've seen, the guys that were out there, this is probably one of the most buttoned up sites I've seen from just the aesthetic kind of uh construction side point of things. Um, their site was very clean throughout construction. I mean, I was driving by Mansfield AB quite frequently and never
had any concerns. Um, you know, maybe some minor sediment tracking, but they cleaned it up immediately. So, you know, they've been a great uh group of guys to work with and just the oversight for this project has gone very well. Um, I don't really have any concerns. I mean, it was a kind sensible project being so
close to the reservoir, but they did a great job with the effort. So, I'm recommending the commission that they uh issue a full COC for this one. >> That's pretty cut and dried. So, any questions from commission members? >> I just had a quick follow up on the
stabilization. Um, Matthew, did you say that um it was close to achieving final stabilization or it had? >> Uh, when we were out there two weeks ago, it was very close. I think um to be honest, I wasn't up there. I think they had a site visit with John um late last week and and things have kind of fully
grown in or mostly grown into at least 70%. >> Yeah, with all the recent rains that we've had and everything of that nature, it definitely has taken a lot better than what we saw originally. So, I appreciate the efforts that you you and the guys did to uh kind of get this whole site wrapped up.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Sounds like we're ready for a motion. >> I'll make a motion to commission the full COC for file 250-1166. >> Second. >> Oh,
>> um so motion made by Lisa, seconded by Mark. Um, so Mark, Dan, and Lisa, how do you vote? >> I >> I >> I. >> And Courtney, and Joe, how do you vote? >> I,
>> and I'll throw in an I. The motion carries. >> Great. Awesome. Thanks everyone so much. Um, great work with you and, uh, have have a good night. >> Have a good night. >> Thank you. >> You, too. Thank you. >> All right. So, we have, u few more items.
uh back up to the departmental updates public increase. So >> did we put the line stuff on here? >> Yeah, the modifications are at the top. >> So yeah, it just went from the there's a letter. Just see uh
just want to remember this one. Six duplexes, right? >> So this is 225 South Worester Street. Um, and
I assume there's not a representative for this. >> No, no, no representative for this one, but this is kind of the rendition room here. I'll just share it in a second. Let me see if I can zoom in. I don't have the best capabilities here.
>> So, this was the sidewalk uh >> project. Is that right? We did a sidewalk out there. This the second. >> Did we do a sidewalk on this one or >> No, we did not do this. I'm g Hold on.
Let me just share my screen. Uh, share. Okay, here we go. So, this is um 225 South Worester Street. Um, this one was the I think it was the Heritage Realy project.
>> So, this was a small area in the front and then there was a few >> Right. So the the major the major thing that they were doing was um they were doing they didn't change anything within our jurisdiction. Um the only thing that they changed mainly was the um was I
think they did a recall correctly. Give me one second. It's been a while since >> um they increased the square footage by 74. >> Yes. Of the project. 74.
which was which one's 74. >> Anyone come with us, sir? >> Oh, Ryan, you're right there. How you doing? >> Hi. All right. Yeah. >> Yeah. I'm just trying to I'm just trying to um obviously you're not here. I don't know if um was um
is it is it who's the guy that's working on this one? >> Peter Lavoy. >> Peter Lavoy. Yeah. Is he is he coming on the call tonight? >> Nope. I was just um when you and I had talked about it, we thought it was pretty minor. Um, >> so I'm available for questions and I can, you know, answer anything and kind
of walk you through it. >> Um, what it was is the it's 15 duplexes and due to some market demand, we've had some inquiries for some potential buyers that are looking for first floor primary bedrooms. So, we wanted to offer a
slightly different footprint than on some of the buildings. So, um, we proposed six of the 15 buildings to be modified with, um, actually their overall less square footage, but it's a slightly bigger footprint.
>> Yes. So, each building is an additional 74 square ft. >> That's correct. That's what we had put in the letter. Exactly. Yep. >> So, this and this would affect the storm water as well as their few buildings.
No, it doesn't affect the storm water at all per the letter. >> Okay. Right. It's a it's a dimminimous um increase. I think the overall was a couple percent or something. It's it's in the paperwork which I don't have in front of me. So um but and we did
already present this with planning board and they approved it as a minor modification as well. So >> okay. So we're back to the same thing. Let's look at what increased. Was it the footprint, the overall development footprint? Was it
uh unitbyunit increase? Was it pavement increase? What what increase? >> There's no there's no change in the pavement. There's no change in the crossing. The only modification is six of the 15 structures have a slightly uh different footprint,
>> larger footprint. >> Correct. >> So the letter does note that there's a minor increase in imperous area that will be added to the project. due to due to the roof from the footprint. Correct. >> Okay. Uh are those are those is the
runoff from the roofs going to dry wells? >> Um I don't believe that was proposed. I think the roofs were calculated in the overall storm water. >> Okay. So did somebody revisit the storm water when you increase the roof square
footage? You just need to make sure that your calculations are correct for the storm water in the in the roadway to accommodate that increased area. >> Correct. And that is the uh letter from the engineer which was provided also. He takes took a look at that and it was
already factored in to their you know they kind of overdesigned a little bit. So the amount of the increase doesn't get it. It's it's the letter that John should have there if you wanted to share it. >> I have it here. It's in it's in the files shared with the commission.
>> So, okay. I I need a sanity check here. What is the difference between this project that's coming before us? That's just looks likeformational discussion versus the one at Duncan next to Duncan that we just saw that we had to look at a peer review. I mean they're both
resulting in increased imperous surface uh you know relative to storm water management. Do we still have the same question? So why was the other one handled as an amendment? And this is just a
discussion. I'm just asking this question. >> I'm wondering does it does it trigger the need for an amendment? I'm asking the commission right now. Does it trigger the need for an amendment? >> Well >> oh okay. I'm sorry John. I thought you were just like telling us what was going. >> No, I'm asking I'm asking the
commission. Do you feel that this would would trigger the need for an amendment? The limit of work hasn't changed and there's probably about what we say 15 structures that are going to be subjected to a little bit of increase. >> Six of six out of 15.
>> So six six out of 15. So 6 * 74. So that's what um mathwise less than 600 ft. And correct what I >> So this would just be an administrative plan change. >> Correct. And that's what I'm asking the commission to make sure that for
instance they're comfortable with signing off on this as administrative plan change versus the applicant going through a full-blown amendment. >> Okay. So Courtney, since you clearly read the file, um what did the engineers um what did the engineers say about the
roof? How that was being handled? So the only information that's in the letter is that the six six of the 15 buildings will have a footprint that will be about approximately 74 square ft larger than
the original plan. Um and it will not have an impact on storm storm water design. Um but they also did note that there is a minor increase in imperous area that will be added to this project and it sounds like for Ryan that that is based on the roof. So, from my
perspective, if it doesn't um change the totality of the project in terms of square footage, I don't necessarily see an issue with it, especially if it doesn't impact the storm water issue.
>> All right. But what I also heard Brian say is that the original storm water design was overdesigned for the original uh extent of impervious surface. Is that
a correct statement, Ryan? uh based on my conversation with the engineer, I think it's uh kind of standard practice to incorporate a certain percentage above and beyond your overall impervious when doing a design. You know, it's not right for the square
foot. So, he said that the minor percentage increase is well within that added percentage that he carried when doing the design in the first place. >> Can he update the letter to include that information? Yeah, I don't I don't think that would
be a problem. >> Yeah, I I think that would be my my recommendation because right now the letter it, you know, it states that the new footprint is slightly larger. there's not a change in storm water design. But I I think it would be good
to include from a documentation perspective a little bit more detail on how they have determined that there isn't an impact on the storm water >> or that and or that the system as designed can can accommodate the
increase both from uh quality and quantity. I think that's the statement that needs to be said to written. Exactly. >> I can talk to the engineer. I don't I don't see why that would be a problem. That's what he made specifically relayed
to me, but I can definitely have it add it in the documentation. >> All right. And perhaps we can if they can produce a modified letter, we can revisit this with our next meeting. >> Agreed.
>> So, Ryan, is that a plan? Yeah, absolutely. >> All right. >> Yeah. So, just so the commission's aware, this is an active project and they're working on it right now. They're working on the proposed duplexes that are close to the street. And Ryan, you said, for instance, this project's going to be going on for the next two years,
right? >> Correct. >> So, we have two years to get this under under wraps. Right. >> Yeah. >> All right. Great. So, uh we'll see we'll see hopefully get that letter from you and uh we can uh entertain this at the next meeting then. >> Sure. I'll I'll have it uh I'll have it
over to you. Should be by the end of the week. I'll talk to Peter tomorrow and relay to him what the commission's looking for. >> All right. Great. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. >> Absolutely. Thanks everyone. Have a good night. >> You too. >> Bye.
>> Next next item is wetland protection act transfer. So, the town manager and select board office had requested that the conservation commission transfer $5,000 from the Wealth Protection Act fund, typical of past years, um to uh
support um Megan and I's salaries moving forward. Uh any discussion of that? But John, the question we always ask is uh you know do we foresee any need for
first of all what do we have for the what is the what's in the fund now? How much is in the fund now? Let's ask there. Let's start there. >> Uh I think over 50 I believe. >> Yeah. Over $50,000. >> Okay. So we don't foresee anything
controversial. I don't foresee any legal battles or any sort of appeals or anything moving forward that's going to eat away at that wetland protection act budget in the near future. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And as I have envisioned this or
interpret this is the wetland protection act is a state law uh the m the enforcement of which is delegated to each town but it's an unf unfunded mandate. So, we
collect these fees and a small portion of the fees we collect can go toward the town government um in order to defay some of the cost of >> No, I think it has to be used John Thomas, correct me if I'm wrong. When we
transfer it, it has to be used directly for conservation department salaries. >> Correct. Correct. >> Right. It cannot go into the general fund. >> Nope. It has to go right to my salaries. >> All right. But it's the >> that is what the letter requests and
that is what is the town has been um held. >> I just want to clarify that it does not go into the general fund. >> I misspoke. >> Nobody gets to use it like for school department stuff. It's conco related. So anyway, um I will make that motion to transfer
uh monies from the Wetland Protection Act, $5,000 to the Is it? It's not the Is it the general fund, John? >> No. No, that money gets put into our account. Um I can't remember what the number is um for our budgeting.
>> So you can make it through a conservation account. >> Conservation related use. Yes. >> Apartment use. Yes. >> Motion by Lisa, seconded by >> seconded.
>> Courtney. And um so Courtney, Joe, and Mark, how you vote? >> I >> I >> I. >> Dan and Lisa. >> I I
>> And I'll throw in an I. The motion carries. Last item is E3 discussion. >> Hello everyone. And uh so we have the open space committee and I have been doing a lot of work um with kind of
figuring out finance and stuff for properties moving forward. And um at our most recent meeting uh we had a discussion about kind of what to potentially do with Edith Reed moving forward. and the seven members on the
board um had some suggestions. So, I just wanted to let everybody know that we will be putting together a land management plan for the commission to review uh in the future and hoping that that I have a draft right now. I'm hoping that that version can get kind of ironed out, but then I'm going to
present it to you guys and see what you guys think. We had a we had a local survey around um for gauging interest to see what pe the local community is looking for. It's still active, still up and running on our website. So, if anybody wants to fill it out, you can.
Um but the survey is basically tailored to kind of figuring out what people are looking for to happen at Ether 3. Um and majority of the people um were looking at upgrading a lot of the facilities there, but they didn't want to rent the lodge moving forward. So that was kind
of disheartening to hear. Um but you know plan part of the plan moving forward is to address some of the safety concerns at the at the property. Um looking at see seeing what we can do for facility improvements making repairs to the facility that are low cost. And then
uh we also want to make sure that we can evaluate it and assess it for potential camping and passive recreational use. So and the thing with the camping thing is that we're not going to charge. It's just going to be a place where people can camp as long as they fill out a um a
form with the conservation department, which we do normally here in town. So, if anybody wants to camp on any town properties, all you need to do is um fill out a form on our online platform or make a request via email and I send over a a verification form uh basically confirming your stay. It's almost like
Airbnb via the conservation department. Uh but there's no cost. So, it's just me basically keeping record of who you are, what your contact is, how long you're going to be there, and basically verifying that you understand the rules and regulations for camping on town property, that you keep it to a certain
standard, and basically don't be a nuisance, otherwise I know who you are because I have your contact information. >> John, did we do we have a line item budget for Reus Reed? >> We do. We do. And um one of the questions that I received from the finance committee was, "When are you
going to use that money?" And I said, "Well, I'm still trying to figure out a good use for the property with that money. Uh because there are restrictions on what I can use that some of that money for and what I can't use that some of that money for." And um I've kind of identified some things that the property does need. Um probably about I want to
say about a year and a half ago, uh we had some issues with vandalism and a bunch of people burned the burnt the picnic tables out there. They had a nice bonfire. So my plan is to actually have metal uh picnic tables that are going to be changed with pavilions. I need to have the pavilions um looked at by a
code enforcer and also um a contractor to see if they're safe. I also need to have um you know a lot of the leantos and and camping platforms looked at to make sure that they're safe. Um I need to have the lodge looked at to see like what kind of situation it is with being
habit habitable. Um the other question is the the the bathrooms out there. What's the plan for having those bathrooms? because you know obviously there's up up uh up cost keep for having those um you know used and open cuz they need to be cleaned on a on a weekly
basis if they're going to be used. So the question is do we want to um convert you know the them sort of portaotti and just demolish them or do we want to just you know decommission them cuz kind of similar to what we did with the old comp house compost outouses that were out
there we kind of decommissioned them and boarded them up. So, you know, what do we want to do with a lot of these old dormant structures that have been sitting there? That's kind of all going to be outlined in the land management plan that I that I'm working with the open space committee before I come talk to you guys. So, there's a lot of things that I'm trying to figure out and kind
of get through the kind of pathway so that we kind of have a game plan moving forward as how we can keep this place safe, how we can keep it up and running for passive recreational use, but also give it the use that it basically deserves uh for the public to be able to use it in a passive passive kind of
restrictions that it currently has. >> John, do you have that budget number off the top of your head? >> I think I have close to about $50,000. I I don't know the numbers like to a tea but I think that's what it was. But I think a vulk majority of that Joe was for the upgrading the lodge
specifically. And unfortunately, you know, the challenge is is that if the lodge isn't going to be utilized as a environmental center rental kind of leasing kind of facility cuz that's going to cost a lot potentially moving forward. Then for instance, you know,
I'm probably going to have to give that money back to the town if I'm not going to use it for that use. Um because that's what it was basically mandated for through the article. I think it was back in 2018. Um, so those are things that I need to consider because I don't think the town's going to give me a
caretaker. I don't think the town's going to give me uh a coordinator. I don't think the town's going to give me staff. I need to actually run that facility if I was going to lease it out and rent it. And unfortunately, I don't have the time nor the I guess bandwidth to take this on. Uh, it's something
that, you know, I know that Jennifer Carino is very adamant about and she spent a lot of hours and her own personal time doing and I feel bad about like just letting it go, but at the same point I don't think I I personally have the ability or the capacity to do it. So, um, you know, if somebody wants if
somebody wants to volunteer their time or or or there's another person out there that wants to take over, um, responsibilities or do some sort sort of thing as a volunteer effort or spearhead some sort of initiative as a as a business practice. I think that maybe there's something that we can think
about, but you know, the challenges are that I just I I physically don't have the the capacity to do it. One big concern I have I you know obviously been on that property quite a bit is uh the ADA compliance anywhere in
and around that lodge there >> that's >> and that's part of the safety concerns I think that that I'm I need to get the ADA compliance officer who's also the building commissioner here in town out there and be able to identify the hazards and look at everything. That's also part of my draft that I put
together is is having that expertise. you know, we have to get that consultation so we can get a better understanding as to what the liabilities are, what the hazards are, what the, you know, potential um problems could be if we if we didn't take that in
consideration. So, >> get rid of all the buildings, put in a slab stage, and do summertime concerts for the community. uh the residents would probably be against that and I think that would be a violation of
unless it's a free concert unless it's a free concert it would be a violation of the passive passive use restrictions >> cuz we can't have any sales no uh food trucks no um sales of any food so anybody that is basically any food
that's being there has to be free food and I don't think that that's in the cards >> even for boosters like for high uh it can't be anything that where there's any transference of money. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. That those are the challenges with these land grants is that once you put a land grant on the property, there's a lot of restrictions. There's other grants you can get which are like the park related grants which are a little bit more focused on recreational things which you know obviously it it doesn't matter at this point but there are other
grants out there that could give you more recreational things if that's what you're looking for in other other parts of the town. You know I I have fears that I mean all those buildings decay and require constant maintenance. So it
may be that bringing them into complete safety and other compliance issues is not going to be feasible. So we may eventually need to remove them and just have spots for people to pitch t and
that might be in the in the cards in the future. I think that the first step is to see from a client a compliance perspective is to get the building commissioner out there and then get a a a licensed contractor out there to give me quotes and estimates as to what it would cost to do a lot of these things
that to get these code compliances and all these other things. So that way I can have a list and that way for instance I can have that as a as a backing to actually get an idea what our options are moving forward and that would be all laid out in my land management plan that I provide you guys.
All right, further questions. So, I think this brings us to the end of our agenda. Um, and as is one more, sorry, there's one more thing. >> Yeah. Um
uh um I had uh John came out uh to my uh place the other day and I have three dead ash trees. Uh but I didn't realize until John came out that it was ash bors.
So I'm going to have to have those cut down. Um anyway, I think they're some distance from the uh wetland. >> Yeah, Dan Dan Dan will be taking those trees down in the buffer zone. So, just
so everybody's aware. Oh, I've got probably six units with a similar fate, but they're not Well, some of them are pretty close to the reservoir, but um I may have you take come take a look, but they're beginning to
>> Do you handle those administratively? >> I do. >> Yeah. >> With a with an online permit, but obviously Dan is on the commission, so I said you might as well just let the commission know at the next meeting. Well, I'm letting you know. And if if you want to see them, you're
watch you're welcome to uh I should have taken a picture or something, but uh >> yeah, >> two of them are >> completely gone, but they're losing bark and they've got the little holes in them
and uh it's uh it's really unfortunate. Yeah, this >> just make sure there's no bats in them. Dance. >> Ah, well, uh I don't think they want to be in
something that's so exposed to uh the uh Yeah, these holes are they're very tiny holes. They're not uh I mean they're they're ashore holes. So, >> no, they they hide they hide behind the
bark. They hide between the trunk and the bark. >> I didn't know that. >> Yeah. Yeah. It's a It's Yeah, it's unfortunate.
Uh too bad. But anyway, it is as it is. And uh >> this this plague started in the western part of the state. Is that correct? And it's been advancing east over the last All all I know is that you'd be best
trying to dissolve the nuisance before it come becomes a bigger problem and it's best to get rid of the trees that are infected. >> Yeah, that's another thing. Yeah. So, okay. Well, thank you. Yes. Yeah.
>> All right. Um Well, I think we are ready for an adjournment motion. ages. I'll put on the camera. >> Sorry, a quick question if I can. John and Megan, I believe I'm up for reappoint this month. Do you need anything from me or anything I need to
do to make that happen? >> You have to, I believe, write a letter of interest saying that you're still interested in being a member of the conservation commission and you have to go get sworn in at the town clerk's
office. >> They don't. >> So, the select board doesn't send out a letter anymore. usually do, but I don't know if that's been happening. So, >> I haven't gotten anything. So, >> is that something you can check up on, John? I think I'm up as well. >> I will double
>> typically they send a letter. >> The person who used to send the letter is no longer here. So, I don't know who has that job anymore. >> I guess nobody, >> right? Council not plans or is that is
that just a corporate thing that All right, cool. I'll check on the appointment letters. >> Thank you. >> Um my last round it was more informal. It was just call the board of selectment secretary
and say you are or not interested in being reappointed. So I did >> do we know when our terms are up? >> Uh yeah, the last day of everybody's term is um June 30th. No, they're staggered by year so that we all know.
>> Um, yeah, I would have that. >> Yeah, maybe you can send out an email to each of us. Yep. >> Telling us >> when we should put it in our >> It's on our website, too. >> Yeah, I was going to say it's on our website. We usually have the the dates
on there. >> Oh, Lisa, you're good till next year. It's Dan and Joe and I. >> Okay. >> And I'm March next year. >> Julian, you're up next year. I'll reach out to the town clerk tomorrow and see what's going on. >> Okay. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> So, there's a motion on the floor to close. >> A motion made by >> to to adjourn. Yes. >> Yep. Ajourn. Yes. Sorry. >> Second. >> Second. >> Motion by Lisa, second by Dan. Um Lisa,
Dan, and Mark. How do you vote? I >> I >> I >> and Joe and Corner. >> I >> I >> And I'll throw an I. >> It's official. We're ajourned.