10 years now. >> Joe, can you hear us? >> Yep, we can. >> You can. >> Oh, yeah. They're making plenty of money. >> Are there lily pads out in the ponds? >> No, there's a lot of like >> lily pad free. other stuff. Yeah.
>> I have a proposal that I'm going to send you, Martha, and uh Brian, otherwise known as Old Staint Nick. >> Go back to that. You know, Miss Christmas, you know. >> Well, you just you got it. You get the
look, man. Get the look. I can get you a gig at Macy's, by the way, if you want me to look. >> Uh that don't pay enough. >> So, Chuck, you were saying you wanted us to talk about the field trip. Have we got a
1295 Main Street is here to ask what the process is for a certificate of compliance. So, we'll have to figure out where that goes. All right, let me get rid of this. Doesn't look like anyone else is here. And we'll start. And Joe's given me
thumbs up right there. And so with that, I am going to thumbs up on that he can hear me. Hello, this is Chuck Terrone, reading conservation administrator. This meeting will be conducted in person and remote format consistent with chapter 2
of the acts. Be here all week. um which further extends the CO 19 measures regarding remote participation in the public meetings until June 30th, 2027. Please note that all items listed may in
fact be discussed and other items not listed may be brought up for discussion to the extent permitted by law. This agenda includes those matters that can be reasonably anticipated to be discussed at tonight's meeting. Please note that this meeting is being recorded. Have to remember that when I'm
finished here. And um all materials are available at the conservation page. Um so it's uh conservation division page and it's um uh >> permits >> current projects.
>> Current projects. No, it's u conservation page permits by year. That's where that's where it's at. Yeah. >> Uh Brian Bo is the uh commission's chair and he will facilitate this meeting. Please note that there will be a public
um comment period at the end of each hearing and each vote taken during this meeting will be conducted by roll call vote. We'll begin with a roll call attendance. Ryan, can you review the agenda and tonight take tonight's attendance?
>> Okay, we'll start with attendance first. This will be the order we vote in. Um Walter Walter Talbet, commissioner present. M >> Michelle, member present. Joe >> Joe
>> Joseph Flurry associate member present >> Martha Moore vice chair present Ramro chair present no Jose Joen um so in reviewing the agenda now we'll
start off with a brief public service announcement by yours truly then we get to the hearings first hearing is a continuation a public hearing for notice of intent for 281 Main Street. That'll be followed by a continuation of a
public hearing on nose of intent for zero track road. That's it for hearings. Then we have a a one discussion of vote item which is Beverly Road. Moves us on to old new business. Um,
and there we have items such as uh announcement or discussion about the second annual green communities garden friends and family day. Chuck will update us on the conservation
TPW coordination meeting. um talk about the assessment of the bare metal habitat plantings violation notices administrative report and then some minutes for approval.
U having said that first start with the public service announcement and that's just a fancy label for saying that we remind everybody out there that we are looking for additional members. Um, it would be great if somebody
had some background in environmental science or natural resource protection, engineering or something like that. But we will accept anybody who's enthusiastic and uh can learn, does learn. Those are
both important things. So um we know the volunteer committee is uh doing their work these days. So, it' be a good time to submit your application if you wanted to do that and you can do that online at the town of Reading website.
Okay. Um, please join us. It's really a fun time. Just ask anybody here who's smiling. Okay. The first hearing, uh, 281 Main Street.
I'll read a check. You let anybody in? >> Andrew is already in the in the meeting. >> This continuation of public hearing on notice of intent followed by 281 reading LLC pursuant to Massachusetts general law chapter 131 section 40 the wetlands
protection act the northern reading wetland protection bylaw section 7.1 for the proposed redevelopment of a mixeduse building and parking lot in a previously disturbed riverfront area. The application of plans can be viewed on
the conservation division page under current project assessors map 12 lot 42 DP file number 270-0809. Um okay. >> Yes. Good evening everyone. >> Okay.
Um so where I think we left this off is we were soliciting um some bids some proposals from environmental companies uh to do the third party review. At this point I believe we have uh well two who
answered a third who declined to answer. So we have two options to choose from. So at this point we should talk amongst ourselves as to which one uh we the commission would like to go forward with. Um and so are there any comments
questions from the commission about the choice among between the two options we have LEC and BSC? So LEC is uh combined with Horsesley Whitten because it's um wetland and
engineering. So um Horsesley Whitten has 3750 for their quote of what we've asked them to do. And um believe Brian was uh
looking real deep into the details, but I believe the wetland uh information that we asked for is the same between BSC and Forsley Whitten. So they wanted $3,700 for that. This is Orsley Whitten.
BSC is a combined quote. Um and then LEC was 8,500. So, isn't this your time when you say that's 12,000 something or whatever? >> Yeah, actually I think 13,000 something.
>> Yeah. Yeah. >> 13,275. >> So, that's what we have for them. And then we have uh BSC uh is a little bit higher with their review and it's 14,285 for um the engineering storm water
engineering and the um wetland review both are very highly uh talented companies. So there's no you know there's no disputing. They know what to do and they'll um you know qualified to the work.
>> Anyway, I just have to uh jump in and say that um in the very rare occurrence here, I was actually wrong. It wasn't 13,000 and change. It was 12,150 just for the record. >> Doing that now, but old style. >> Okay. Um Chuck mentioned that I was
looking at this a little more carefully and I agree uh in the main um they're proposing the same kinds of activities roughly the same time frames roughly the same dollars in the large scheme of things.
some differences that I noted and they're minor. Um, LEAC requires the funds in escrow before starting. BC just requires written approval. That doesn't matter much. Um, the other one which I think matters more is that BC would
conduct a site visit including the commission. Um whereas with LEC they would do it on their own at time they could personally in the past when I've done site visits with um people from LEC
or what have you I've learned a lot I've understood what they're seeing and so for that relatively minor reason I would prefer um BC I don't know if anybody else has a strong opinion other than
that >> is there anything else you can tell that we get different services one from the other or is that the only difference you could >> that's really the different they each are going to cover um a a commission
meeting they each will cover a remote meeting they each will cover um review of the paperwork to be sure that it's accurate plate things of that nature um they will look at uh the plans the NOI.
So they're using the same words in almost the same order. So there may be some minute difference that I didn't get. I'm sure each one has a claim to fame, but from my scan of South, it really feels like a difference without
distinction. So Brian Brian, I would echo that, you know, having having someone on site uh with with the conservation commission. It's helpful for us. You know, it's a great learning experience for us of how, you know, WPA is applied and what to look for during a site visit. So any
educated, you know, aspect of this for the commission. Um especially for folks that haven't done as many site visits, I think would be a beneficial perk for the commission. Um that would just be the only thing I'd like to add. Do you have anything you want to add?
>> Yeah, I mean just doing the math here. So the difference is $2,000 and um I think that would you consider it sounds like we're leaning towards BSC. um which you know I can't can't say it's
good or bad but if um is there an opportunity to reach back out to LEC and say did they mean that the commission couldn't come on that site visit I mean does that explicitly say that they're not you're not going and then how much
would they charge if if the commission came and then if we added >> So I think that's worth asking nothing else that makes proposals much more evenly matched to ask them would they object if we wanted to come along and if we did come along does that
change the cost whatsoever uh they lose some convenience but for the most part we can handle almost any day and time to a great extent so sure if you wanted to do that I just uh was
hoping we could make a choice today and didn't want to spend >> no no the so the vote would be um if they don't comply uh or agree to have the commission go out there >> then we do BSC. >> Then we would do BC. Yeah.
>> All right. Then I will make a motion that we choose BSC unless LEC agrees to invite commission along on the site visit uh for no additional cost.
Walter Talbert seconds that motion. Walter Thomas in favor to Michelle in >> favor. >> I see Andrew smiling so he's he's happy with the results. >> Yes. Thank you guys. I would say that understanding it's the commission's
decision. Yeah. The applicant is always conscious of costs. So I will say that if LEC is able to do that, they'll appreciate that. If they're not, we're always happy to accommodate sitewalks, too. Um, but I think your motion makes sense and Chuck, I'll work with you just to make sure they can do that and then we'll get one authorized. >> Great.
>> Um, thank you. I'll get I'll I'll reach out tomorrow. So, and I then I'll get back to you, Andrew. >> Oh, that sounds great. >> Yeah. >> Thank you all. Have a great night. >> Okay. Next is Zero Track Road. I will read the blurb
once I see. Continuing the public hearing on notice of intent filed by the town of Reading Engineering Department. It's pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Chapter 131 section 40 the wetlands protection act and or the red wetland protection bylaw
section 7.1 for replacing the existing bridge bridge number R03-006 parentheses BW7 over Walkers Brook on track road. Replacement of the existing bridge will
include replacing the existing structure with a new pre-cast concrete four-sided box covert within riverfront area. The application and plans can be viewed on the conservation division page on the current project assessive map 23 lot 023
0 dash 000000-00 track file number 270 710. And who is >> Ryan's Ryan's here and Heidi from
>> Yeah. So Ryan's right there. Is Is there anyone I missed Ryan on on the call tonight? >> Um appears that Jeff the Asentus is on as well. >> Okay. Okay. Did you want to run us through any
updates for engineers? Do you have since we didn't get a chance to meet you last time? >> Ryan, anything you want to bring up before we get into >> So, they did send out a uh uh so we asked some questions at the
last meeting so they could they could definitely go over that. though I I I have in here again going over responses both DP which we touched on last time and the ones to the conservation commission. I just didn't know if you had any opening remarks you wanted to to
get to >> No. Okay, that's fine. Then why don't we get right to it? Um can you walk us through um the com the responses to the questions that commission had last time?
Let me see the document. >> Yes, I This is Jeff Dianis with ACOM. Um I can do that if you'd like. I can share the memo that we put together or I can just read off from my screen. Um can you put it up, Chuck, so the
public can see it? >> Sure. Sure. Or or Jeff can. Do you do you have that with you? I'll have to listen. >> I do. >> Okay. So, um, can you share your screen then? And >> yes,
not having fun. Anybody following on? >> Um, can everyone see that? >> Not yet. Still not yet. Chuck, do you have to undo something first? I don't think so. He's has all the permissions. There you
go. coming. >> Oh, no. Sorry about that delay. >> Right. >> Okay. >> Uh, so comment one, um, why is the project necessary? Um, so there's a a a few reasons here, I think. Um, emergency
access being one, um, general public safety. There's the issue of if the bridge uh, the existing bridge is left in current condition, it will deteriorate uh, further over time. uh eventually falling into the brook. Um
Ryan, I see that you're on. I understand from the the uh meeting that we had with the commission on site on Monday, um the commission noted that Ryan had noted um there were issues with snow storage. Um and uh Ryan, are there any other I I
think um I understand you had some additional um things to share on this. Yeah, I think it's important to note that um in addition to the uh better access for public safety, um it opens up easier access for oil deliveries,
plowing operations, we don't have to back down, spread salt to throw it everywhere. It's easier to plow deliveries for um Amazon, uh you know, the postal service, all of that. It just opens up that whole neighborhood for
better access. So if I can we might as well stay on this comment for now. So the first point I have is that two separate items here. One is whether the
current structure should be taken down. I agree yes. Uh that should come down. separate question is whether there needs to be a new structure there or whether the one truly 500 feet uh further down suffices for a neighborhood of that
size. I understand what you're saying about Amazon deliveries and what have you. Um but there are other deadend streets in Reading. They don't they're not all going to have some kind of a cutth through rated for it. So why in
this case would we put the bridge over the Walker's Brook um with the incumbent environmental impact or the sake of easier Amazon delivery to seven houses?
I don't understand the urgency of that. >> Brian, I don't think it's fair just to say that it's just for Amazon deliveries. Again, first and foremost, we want to open it up for better public safety access. I mean, anytime we have a dead end, that uh, you know, apparatus has to back down the street, which is
not ideal for the fire department. Um, whereas they can just come in, pull in, and have quicker access and get in and out. Um, these bridges were all open at one point. They didn't de get decommissioned till I think the early '9s. So, um, you know, we're looking to
bring two of them back to life for for through traffic and then the, you know, the middle one, we're not looking for that third one to be reinstated. Um, I think overall it's a good it's a good project. Otherwise, you know, um, if if something like this
doesn't go through, the the town's not looking to remove anything from that area. and and so I I don't see how that benefit how that benefits to the uh the embankment or the stream or to the neighborhood for that matter for for the access.
>> Okay. But you're talking about public safety >> getting to a situation is no different than whether you can go through or not. Either way you get to it. Yes, I admit that then having to back out in the case
of a dry fire truck would be more difficult, but a police car would just turn around somebody's driveway. So, there's no impact there at all. And getting to the emergency, whatever it is, is the same time because they're going in. They're not backing in to get
to the situation. Right. >> Again, I go back to the apparatus of you have a fire truck down there. um you know they we hear it all the time in in the DRT meetings in CPDC that their issues of backing up that's when they
have accidents and things of that nature. I I guess I I don't understand how um you know we we feel the need for the public safety and for just actual through traffic to open up this whole area. Um it's necessary to have this bridge. I I I guess I don't I don't see
where the purview for the commission is to weigh in on on transportation needs. >> Well, the purview is um whether the impact to the environment is necessarily to do. I mean, it's environmentally it's
better if we just take down the existing deteriorated bridge uh leaving it open an open channel and not uh necessarily put anything over it. >> I Yeah, I mean I was here for the discussion of the first bridge
replacement and I know I know Jeff was too and you know we we've always mentioned that these two bridges would be going um as funding became available. So that conversation did happen in the previous NOI and discussion, but you
know, I I understand what you're saying. I generally feel as though this is a need for the for the neighborhood for transportation needs and for access. So um I I determine that this is a need for the for that for that need. So we're in
front of the commission, >> but you said it's been it was discontinued, disabled back in the 90s. So, it's been 30 years. Um, have there been any incidents? Has there been any
um actual material impact or is this a what if? >> I you know I I don't think that's a fair comment in the sense that funding was not available at the time to replace these bridges.
>> I didn't say that. I you yourself said that the bridge was uh blocked in the 90s. >> That's correct. That's correct. It's some sometime in the 90s prior to my >> in the 30 years that the situation has existed where these concerns you have
about public safety and what have you have existed? Has there actually been an issue? Are you reacting to an issue that happened or is it uh something you're just trying to cross your tees on?
>> No, I think we're we're we see a situation where nothing has happened in the in the 30 years that I'm aware of, but that doesn't mean that something can't happen in the future. And if if you know what what is the what is the
harm in opening up the access to that error that was currently there to improve the overall access for public safety. Just to say that something hasn't happened in 30 years. If you want to hang your hat on the fact that something hasn't happened in 30 years and if something does happen and we don't have the access there, this is to
prove overall overall access to the whole neighborhood. The neighborhood is cut off. It's it's got one way in, one way out. You can't come in, you can't turn around. I mean, it's >> But the whole >> I I see I see the need for we see the
need for for that uh for access. >> Okay. So, um let's move on from that. I ask the questions. >> Yeah, I was going to say, can I can I chime in, too? >> Yeah. As soon as Del Walter goes, I get you next. >> Thanks.
>> I I have not seen anything of them. We've been looking at the bridge material. Where's this bridge going to? Right now, it's a bridge to nowhere because I look across there, I see a lawn going to the next street. Is that a separate project? Is that involved with this project or is that
>> that is that is part of the same project. The road would be reconstructed as part of the bridge project. >> So, it would go all the way to Line Road and connect there. >> That's it. >> Okay. I didn't see that. Okay.
>> There there is a pre-existing road there. You just can't see it because it was it's been reclaimed by by weeds. >> Hey Joe, you want to say >> I can >> Yeah, I >> Sorry. Go ahead, Jeff. >> I can go ahead and share the the plan
view um for the proposed uh roadway work. Um so what you had is the permitting set. There's additional detail in the construction plan set. Um this here is the construction plan and you can see it proposes um reconstruction of the
roadway, all new pavement um connecting to Line Road. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Okay, Joe, go ahead. >> Yeah. No, I just wanted to tie it back to the WPA. I think Ryan brings up a valid point. You know, if it's a public safety issue, yes, I don't think it's
necessarily in our purview to comment on it. But what I do want to go back to is in the WPA. Um I I haven't seen anything from you Ryan or from the town of how are you concluding that a full two-lane replacements necessary. So where is the
assessment where a less damaging alternative such as removal and bank restoration which is probably the the least impactful to the environment there. So, it's removing the existing structure or a one-lane replacement or an emergency road replacement um under
the riverfront area alternative standard uh in the WPA. Has that assessment been conducted and why are you guys settling on two-lane road versus those options? >> So, that's a that's an excellent question and Jeff can certainly chime in uh if I miss anything, but we are
required to send this to Mass DOT for for structural review um and adequacy. under that review, we are required to have a two-lane bridge. So, um, we have to meet those standards as as well. So, this this requires us to have a two a
certain span for a for a roadway. Jeeoff, if you want to chime in at all, but we went through a huge review with Mass DOT and this is what's required. >> Right. Again, it goes back to safety and good practice. Um, generally like Ryan said, um, Bass Dot is looking for a
two-lane bridge, unless um there'd be some um some extreme constraint that would prevent a two-lane bridge. Um, in which case it would have to get um design exception and approval from Mass DOT to to proceed.
And and is that tied back to the grant itself for the bridge or is that due to necessity of you know the objective of having the bridge? >> Uh I would say both. Um this this falls under jurisdiction of mass DOT
regardless but under the grant for sure. Yes. >> Um yeah >> and and I guess this is a question for Chuck I think for clarification on my end. So now that we're dealing with grant funding and mass DOT regulations, I guess how would that interact with our
WPA jurisdiction? Because I I would really want to go back to the alternative aspect of, you know, if it's just because of mass DOT regulations that we're going with a two-lane bridge versus one lane pedestrian or emergency only. Does that limit the conservation's
perview? I guess in this this discussion um or can we still pursue those alternatives? Like I I guess I I don't want to I don't want to keep going down this path if we can't actually pursue any alternatives with this other than not
permitting. >> So this is uh so it's reviewable under our own uh wetland regulations here in the town of Reading and under the WPA, but it is a limited project. And so um you have that's that's where we're
looking and they're limited to this section. There's no other place for it and therefore um they're restricted from making major moves but I don't I think these questions that are coming up are
uh appropriate but um yeah to answer your question it it is uh it is uh reviewed under the WPA and uh our own regulations. Okay, got it.
>> Um, as long as you brought up the idea of a two-lane road, I think that what that means is that you can't file it under 10533F because that only allows for
uh replacement of a road less than a single lane. So, it's intended for things like adding a shoulder, things of that nature. So making it a little bit wider, not more than doubling it with a second lane. So that means that you can't use 10533F.
You could of course uh refile it under the uh stream crossing, which is what uh 10538 I think it is. >> Yes. >> Yeah. 10538. So, no matter what, you're going to have to redo your paperwork to
uh file it under the the proper part of the regulation. >> Yeah, >> I was just saying maybe uh Jeff has a reason why they filed it under um F instead of was it eight or
>> eight? Oh, no. 10533 versus 1053. >> 38. Three or eight. Yeah, I know that that was the D response. I think I talked a little bit about it to Ryan, but I didn't >> um Ryan didn't we weren't speaking uh
>> you know why it would remain in this category. So this might be >> So that's a good point. Do you have any thoughts on why um you chose 10533 versus 8? Not only that and and did you what would
be your comment to D since they asked you to move it to 1053A 8? >> I think that's a little bit greater than that. >> Uh so I can uh chime on in on that one if that's okay. >> Um yeah so I just wanted to um thank you
for asking about that. I know that uh we had given response to D um and then we included in the memo as well just to say that um we do acknowledge that we had um initially put it down for um the um the improvement of an existing roadway but
we do we had included in the NOI that we also meet the stream crossing standards to the um um extent practicable and I think we had given some description um how we met those um standards um but we understand that um you know from a a paperwork perspective perspective um you
know we're officially going under but I just wanted to um you know make sure that we um we did state that um we are um claiming this project's met. >> Sorry for for stepping on you. I did >> not at all >> where you said that uh you do believe you meet the stormwater crossing
requirements as well. But the very least you're going to have to rework the NOI somewhat to take out the references to N533. This just doesn't work. Um, do we have any more questions on that before I move on?
Um, so why don't you go ahead with the next uh comment? >> Sure. >> Um, continuing on uh just on comment number two, will there be changes to the carrying capacity of the stream or any downstream impacts? Uh, this one's
pretty straightforward. Uh, the answer is no. Um we did a hydraulics analysis and study and the new bridge is um sized such that it will not impact any hydraulics. The foursided culvert the bottom
section affects the flow through the stream. How are you going to prevent that from accumulating or changing the dynamics of the stream? >> We do propose 2 feet of natural substrate. So, uh the same material
that's existing in the stream um will be a top the bottom um the uh invert of the the culver at the bottom of the slab um to mimic existing conditions. So that that 2 ft um should maintain in in place
um so as not to impact the hydraulics. >> That's usually standard. Okay. >> Okay. Um All right. So do you want to do the next comment then? By the way, if anybody has questions or any of the comments,
>> I did have a question about the streamflow question. That's right. Um the um plans show um place for um here we go. Yes. Um plan
I don't see a number on this plan. Um, proposed compensatory flood plane plan has a big gray area where you're proposing to carve back the stream bank to make more room for Yep. That one. Um,
I'm concerned about a the losses of trees on that stream bank and b um is there any way we can um mitigate the um flood storage in some other area that
does not um have as much impact on trees that as this one does because you're showing a number of trees being removed and replaced at all four corners of the bridge plus more in this uh bank
restructuring. >> So the notable uh tree in this gray area is the um we noted on the plan is uh 20-in maple. I think on site we observed that it may be uh a different uh type of tree. In fact, this is the um the only
large tree that we're that we would be removing in this um compensatory flood uh regraded area. Um there is also a a 6-in elm that we uh it's closer to the top of the slope. We may be able to protect it, but if not, it's called out
to remove and place. Um, these other trees are called out to be retained, including the the 10-in maple and the 20-in uh deciduous. Um, this area, if you can see from the the
contours, the topography in this particular quadrant allows for the most efficient regrading. um it's a little bit flatter to be able to um I phrase it as carve into the the slope for that compensatory flood storage whereas the
other quadrants you can see across here um this is a bit steeper um and typically what we try to do um when regrading these is pick out a single area if possible rather than split it up into different work zones um potential
additional risk cost um additional impact areas versus keeping it in a single area. Um, so that's what we were trying to do here. Um, I think when we were on site, we talked about if if absolutely required to save
this tree, we could potentially look to kind of work around it. Um, look more um to increase the limits of the project. Um again that's um a little bit of an impact a little bit of a extension of
the project limits where um ultimately we we typically try to limit uh the extensive work to the extent possible. Um the trees I think the other part of the
question um the trees in the immediate area of the bridge um I think as observed on site most of those I I don't believe we're impacting um very many uh particularly large trees um in the immediate area of the bridge um as we
saw on site for the most part there were some um due to the um the the uh bridge itself being closed for so long, there were some trees actually growing um right on or in front of the bridge. Um and a lot of those trees also were
smaller trees. So um 6 in or less in diameter. Um and typically those um we don't look to retain as much as the the older larger trees. Um and we are proposing to to replant um
trees throughout the project where where we do uh impact existing trees. Okay. Thank you. um at the same site visit. If you look at the top of the plan just off the top of the screen from
the same side of the bridge, we noticed there were a number of um recently planted um trees and shrubs there. Um were you able to ever find out why those were planted? Were those mitigation for some other project?
>> Uh we have not yet. I I don't believe so. Um we we noticed the erosion control in place. Um this may be a question for Ryan too if you're aware of why there's some uh erosion control. There was some uh silk fence along the bank um in in
this area where the cursor is um this side of the stream. >> Was that part of the compensatory flood storage for the first bridge? >> That's what I'm wondering. I don't know. >> That's what me and Ryan talked about. I I think that's
>> Yeah. I mean, I I believe >> I believe that's I believe that's the area of competitor. If you look at just how if you if you look how um I don't have the plan set from the first bridge in front of me, but if you just look at the grading, it's very similar to the
gray area down on the bottom. Um those lung swooping lines that look like it has been manipulated for flood storage. So, how how long ago was that bridge down there built? >> Uh uh 2020. Yeah. So, December of 2020 and
I think it was permanent in June or July of 2020 if I had I >> So, is there any reason for that fence to still be there along the channel? >> I think uh no, probably not. I mean, I think everything's probably established well enough here now that it can be removed. I think at the time it remained
because we didn't have full establishment of that embankment. Um it can be removed I'm sure >> at this point. >> I mean they may be working right there anyways if you approve this project. Can I chime in here for a second? So uh
Martha you asked about So I think it was a great question. You said hey there's a tree. He's a 20-inch oak. I'm concerned about it. It looks like we were taking other trees down. That was two pretty big trees when I when we first talked about it, but I think they're saving one of them or that
wasn't involved, but you didn't you didn't follow up and say, "Well, I heard that we're going to try to to move around it, but you would probably want to see something uh usually a sketch or something like
that showing the new layout of the flood storage area so you can assure that that tree is going to be saved." um properly. You know, it has enough root ball, it has enough bank to hold on to and and all that.
>> Yeah. I'm concerned that if we're regrading the rest of the bank, you're leaving this tree subject to um the stream going around it and digging out around it roots. Yeah. >> So, it'd be good to get an updated detail or just a narrative explaining
how that would happen if it can happen. and maybe at the end of the day they can't save this tree. It doesn't work out, but it's something they said that they'll look into. And so we would need to review something, whatever their final process is that that would happen. >> Yeah. >> Now,
the where I was going with this is the flood storage mitigation for the first bridge is here on the far side of this bridge. Is there someplace equally far away from this bridge that might be a
better location for our flood storage? Why does it have to be just here, right upstream from this bridge? Has anybody checked the length of the river and looked for someplace that might have fewer trees that we have to impact?
So, as I mentioned, one of the goals is typically to keep the work area um to a a smaller area if possible instead of introducing multiple um kind of a split of the project site. Um we do have some additional survey information showing
the contours um kind of just beyond what you um see in the limits on on this sheet. Um and then for the area of the the other bridge as well. Um the other bridge um had similar grading um to to
some of these areas where as I mentioned earlier it's a little bit steeper and more difficult less efficient to to regrade those areas for the compensatory storage. Um as I mentioned earlier also this the area that we selected for the
grading um appeared to be the best location um where it is only impacting the the single large tree. Um and and I also want to note um so the compensatory storage area it won't regularly be
underwater in normal conditions. It it is just for flooding. So if if there is a flood condition, it's it's um an area where that additional searchcharge of of flood water um would be stored essentially. Um
so it wouldn't it wouldn't um typically erode um from from flow of the stream itself. Um it would only be in certain heavy flood conditions where the the waters would reach those levels. But heavy flood conditions is when you get
the fastest current and the most uh undercutting of the roots. >> So that's exactly the time that I'm worried about. >> And we are all seeing more uh torrential rainfall than we used to. So uh I think it is more likely than it
used to be that there'll be significant flow there. So, I guess what Chuck said, >> I I would I would echo what Chuck said. I would like to see um more explanation of a way you would redo this
to try to save that tree. Uh I also uh me and Joe after the site visit walked up uh to the first bridge and then out to where the beaver dam is and um kind of that trail kind of dead ends in the
swamp. I I mean there could be a spot up there. I don't think it's feasible. It's the access is tough and the bank is steep and there would be no way to
ensure that it doesn't fill back in from you know just the movement of the stream where where we could ensure that in this location it's it's watched or another location that's that works out. Um but I
have I haven't looked downstream. I don't think there's anything upstream. These are these areas have a very high bank. Um and so I mean there there could be other things around town depending on how far the
commission would like us to chase you know the reach of this stream which is Walkers Brook. So, um, but right now I think that, uh, AECOM is looking at just how to save the tree and if it works in that area, um, what they're showing here
and the explanation I got tonight sounds a lot different than when I got out in the field because it looked like we were losing two, uh, nice specimen trees and now we have a possibility of losing uh, none. So this this and this might end up
being the best spot. >> Yeah, I would I would echo Chuck's comments, too. Just from when we walked up there, two of the spots that we kind of identified were were very steep. Uh access to those spots was significantly further upstream than the proposed
location here. And uh access for equipment uh etc. I think it was the Open Land Trust Chuck that owns uh that parcel if I'm not mistaken. >> Um but it was it was still pretty tight considering uh the slope of the bank um
on the opposite side of the river. >> Right. >> Right. I think that's the other um concern here when looking at a a separate area to potentially regrade. Um it is the axis. So just the the the trees that potentially would be impacted
to to access the area for regrading. Um whereas here we're already inside of a work area um um to connect to and and I think the other thought was so the the couple of trees that we were looking at on site um
as we mentioned I believe the other one that that was in question of whether it would be um impacted or not was this um 20 in deciduous at the top of the slope um that we said would be retained. Um, so I think it it was always the single
20-inch maple that was the the the single large tree um that would be impacted. And based on the conversation on on site, um it seemed likely that the commission was going to um ask to to do
what we could to save it, see if there's um anywhere else we could regrade. And and my thoughts on that would be um still to to first take a look at um the areas the slope within the um or immediately adjacent to the the project
area now that we have access to rather than look significantly um upstream or downstream to an area that we don't currently have survey for. So, so that would be uh an issue to ob obtain survey and then again um to be able to access
that area um with with construction equipment for grading um getting any sizable equipment through there in itself could could impact some trees. So, that that was another thought on kind of keeping it all together in the initial design that um I understand this
is um a large tree that we'd like to retain if possible. Um but in general it is it is kind of relative to other options that are um um kind of the most efficient for for
construction and other aspects of the project. this this impact to a single tree may end up being um an overall better outcome than um if we were to spend more effort um looking at other areas um
where potentially more trees would would be impacted for access or or we just have other difficulties as far as uh survey and effort to to kind of move the project forward. >> Okay, we get that. >> Jeff and Ryan Oh, sorry, Martha. Uh just
about that one spot with the regrading and access of equipment. Um does the town have uh property on both sides of that proposed roadway? So just from the site visit, it seemed like it was very close to the property line of the one house right before the bridge. Um and
then there was a small walkway um on the left bank there. Um I know on the opposite side that's that's town land but on the bottom of the sheet uh where the flood storage is proposed. Is there also an easement for the town or
>> So this if you can trace the cursor here this is the um easement um for um it's a I believe it's a drainage yes drainage easement um essentially for access to and maintenance of of the stream. Um so anything within these dashed lines um
this here is private property. This I believe um similar to to this I believe this segment is also Tom property but I I don't see it on my screen. So I would go to one of the other plans to confirm if if we want to look at that further.
>> Yeah. Just my concern is if there I think it was a lot narrower than the opposite side of the street. That's what the reason why I ask is if you're trying to get equipment in there, you we talked about removal of trees to at least have um equipment access. Um it seems like you're going to be going pretty close to
that bank um for the additional flood storage. So I does that factor into I know it's less than 6 in for the trees, but you know, is there going to need to be additional tree removal or damage just trying to get equipment there versus going on a private property?
>> Right. So I I think one thing we want to avoid if possible is going on private property um for any of this this work. Um that that kind of opens up another aspect to the to the project with rightway impacts even for temporary easements. Um
>> yeah, I think it's something we we certainly have to consider. I think as the plans are now um as we we kind of have a good example from Track Road West um and that construction um I think the right of way conditions
were um an access was very similar and that project was able to be constructed um without any easements um and and this here would be similar. Yeah, you can see the um the line above
the box that has the legend in it is the property line. Um yeah, that one that has written on it. >> So, right, that's property line. So, there is a little space for easement. >> Um just to the right of your cursor now,
it says R and R 6inch elm in place. Does that mean remove and replace the same tree in place? >> Yes. that would be removed and reset in place um with a the size of it of approximately um 6 in
um and based on where the location is. um the contractor um so it's easier to work around it being at the the top of the slope um to to kind of fine grade around it or um with the size of it potentially
um remove it and reset it in place once this area is graded. Maybe just adjusting the the elevations um ju adjusting the the roots. Um I think contractors um um sometimes are able to do that.
So we would look to um as opposed to remove that tree and and plant a new one um that would be say three or 4 in um try and save the one um the existing tree that's 6 in. >> Okay. Is is there information provided
in the contract to the contractor to understand if he has the ability to do that and the knowledge or are you providing um I don't know details that he would follow to um remove that tree. I
>> think this would fall under so the remove and reset it would essentially fall under mass DOT standard um specifications. Um so no additional detail would be required. The the contractor would be familiar and refer to um mass documentation
>> copy of those standards to the commission. >> Um sure we can look that up for you. >> Yeah >> good. Thank you. >> Joe do you have anything else? I can't see. >> No no I'm good. I'm good for right now.
And the only thing I wanted to add is that I did check on town's GIS. We do own both on the side we met for the site visit. We own both left and right side of the road is town property and it's more than 40 feet.
>> So from the from the stream counts from the edge of the stream over. So the bank is part of that. So it goes beyond the line that says easement. the opposite side. We only have the right to work within the easement. There's no extra
land over on the opposite side, >> which is line road side. >> Okay. >> So, is that the area you're expecting or you're planning to um do staging of equipment?
>> Yes. Um, so really any any um I think the staging equipment. So, um on the the line road side, um there's some area here um
that that's currently within the town layout um that's unused um where the new roadway will be constructed uh or or reconstructed, I should say, that's currently um grown over with with grass. Um
that that's a potential layown area. Um there's definitely more area there than on the side that we met at um just as far as space and proximity to driveways. Do you have any um particular plans, protocols that you follow for ensuring
that there's not spillage or refueling, that there's not leakage because those areas is pvious. So anything that leaks out from the equipment is going to go right into the ground. Do you have catch basins or anything on the equipment?
>> Um, I don't believe we have any um kind of non-standard specific. I think that falls under kind of general mass DOT um requirements um and and good practice for any contractor. If they were to
cause um damage, they'd be responsible for it um for any any cleanup and and repair. Could you um check please and um be sure that the there there are
protocols that will ensure that there is protection under the equipment and that there are they have plans for refu fueling maybe out on the street I don't know but someplace further away from the water ideally not on previous ground if
you could >> and you're right the contractor may have those plans plans and expectations, but if you could check on that so we would have them in front of us. >> So, uh, at the last bridge, uh, this came up and I and and there was a
generator. We're going to do some bypass pumping here, I'm I'm assuming. >> Yeah. >> And so, there was a generator that was relatively close, but it but it the way that it was built, it had its own spill
containment as part of that generator. One of the things that that commission did is they asked that there was at least um one I don't know if one's enough but they asked for at least one spill containment hit on site uh during
any operational times. >> Was that specified in the order of conditions? was specified in the order of conditions. >> Yeah, I think that's another thing I was also just going to mention. Any if if certain elements are required, they could always be um put forth in the
order of conditions such as um uh the contractor could be required to refuel offsite so that it's not an issue that that could just be uh included in the order of conditions if not stated elsewhere. >> Okay.
Anything else on that? Okay. Do you want to go back to the comments? I think we may have covered this. >> Um the next one, um what is meant by restricted site? Um and that just refers to the location of the project within
the FEMA designated regulatory floodway. >> Okay. And we had the conversation about the uh sludge surge, >> right? >> Okay. Is that the last one? I think. Oh, no. Where's M?
>> I believe we did talk about this one. >> Yes. >> Um, just where it was filed. Um Um, I'm not sure if we we talked about this one. Maybe not in much detail. Um, it
may have been discussed briefly at the um at the site meeting. the question regarding um why is a four-sided box cover culvert proposed instead of a three-sided box culvert. Um so we did consider a three-sided box cover, but it
actually is more impactful. Um, I put together um a a quick redline sketch on one of these um plans here to just share to point out how
um so if we were to go so this this plan shows our foursided box. if we were to actually have to go and this is exaggerated um for a conversation um the dimensions of these lines um but
it would essentially need to be um some dimension deeper and then go out further um for the the footings of that three-sided structure such that it would um require additional impact and excavation um and additional regrading
of of the slopes. it would be a a significantly larger impact area. So that that was one of the reasons um why we um proceeded with a a four-sided design. Um additionally foursided will
allow for a much quicker and efficient construction. um shortening the duration, shortening any risk um and limiting um that that duration reduces the the risk that there may be a storm event during construction or any other
issues that come up during construction. So those are all considerations. Okay. >> So, does a uh three-sided culvert sit on top of your looks like retaining wall lines right there below
the four-sided box culvert? I I can't really see where you've drawn in the three-sided one. >> So, the three-sided would be kind of a continuation of the sidewalls. If you follow my cursor, I can also um just kind of extend the these lines up.
>> Okay. >> Um something like this. >> And so why >> if that answers? >> Yeah, just just another clarifying question. So the the footings for the three-sided one are much deeper than the box culvert.
Why do you why does it not need um more support and you're just using the I guess the stream bed to support the base of the four-sided box culvert. >> Right. The box itself is the the bottom of the box itself is a support resting
on the the stream bed. That's right. Um, and as I did mention, this is this is somewhat exaggerated just for a conversation to kind of highlight, but um, certainly it would be more impactful. >> And so in in uh, maybe Heidi, in your
opinion, um, what we're trying to achieve with a four with a three-sided box cover is um, a natural bed, right? But with what you're doing here with the four-sided box cover, you are sinking it
uh into I guess what would be the stream bed and then replacing that material inside of it. So there's it looks like it's going to have somewhere around or I heard two feet of natural bedding at the bottom there. And so essentially
>> the same it looks I mean if this is what has to happen and I'm not sure if this is typical but if this amount of excavation is needed for all three-sided box culverts you know it does look like the four-sided box culvert is um at least in
this case uh less >> so let me ask you a broader question why do you think DP would prefer three-sided if in fact it's more impactful and requires this much infrastructure around it. What are they
thinking that makes it better in their mind? It's I guess it's not it's not this case for every instance. Um I think Heidi, you may be able to speak to this more than than me. Um
I think when we do we often do end up um for for similar projects on cover projects it is very difficult to achieve all the stream crossing standards. Um and and as mentioned we um achieve them
to the the extent possible. Um, and one of the things that we often do is is um DP usually is um satisfied with the um as long as we do use that twoft minimum of um existing channel bed material.
Um >> the dilemma is when you especially when you start screen again from what I understand the dilemma is once you start once you start running the stream again you run over risk of erosion of what the material is because
you only have two feet on a relatively smooth surface. Although the standard does say a minimum two feet. So presumably they could do more if they had concerns about that. >> I don't know if they could >> because they have dig down further.
>> It can only be where it is. You know, they have to meet the road at the top. >> Yeah. >> Um >> and if you >> I think I I should also note one more thing that I didn't draw on here. So um in addition to where the footings would need to be relocated and the impacts
from that um the retaining walls also would have to be modified. Um um as far as how they they tie in with the the bridge covered structure. Um, so there there's some redesign that also
makes the retaining walls um different and and um potentially more complex depending on um certain details. But it it would also I guess what I'm in short it would also be a different retaining wall design if the culvert were to be a
three-sided culvert u versus the the four-sided box. So, it's not just the footings of the culvert that would change and be more impactful. It's also potentially the the retaining walls as well.
>> Want to go on to the next one? >> Sure. >> Um, turbidity problems. Um so I understand it was mentioned that uh there were some issues with the contractor maintaining um certain
erosion control measures um for track road west. Um it is written in the contract that the contractor is responsible um for checking daily the the erosion control. Um that that's very typical of
all um erosion control specifications and and project requirements in general. Um, I think to enforce um um I think a a a project representative whether from
ACOM or the town or or the commission or whoever it may be um would also periodically check in um just on the condition of the the erosion control and and potentially stop work or stop payment if the contractor um wasn't
doing a a a satisfactory job of of maintaining that erosion control. Um I think there were some questions maybe specifically about the uh turbidity curtain. Um
the contractor um um I think that's another thing potentially addressable in the order of conditions um that the contractor may have to follow any uh additional specific requirements. um potentially submitting um or or be
subject to periodic additional inspections by the the commission or or whatever um party of the the project team. Um but um essentially to be held accountable um if there were any issues
and um potentially stop work, stop payment that that sort of thing um if the erosion control was unsatisfactory. So when you make a a detail for the um erosion control, we we see a detail, you
call it out what it is, silt fence and silt sock or something like that. People know what they're looking at. Do you have a detail that calls out some of the parts of a turbidity curtain? Um you know, I understand,
>> right? It's up to the contractor, but I think that >> we want to make sure we want to be armed with some uh information before this uh before we have to start reviewing it.
I'm not sure what was used at the last site, but my recollection was it was just silk fence. >> Given your evaluation of the stream, what category of turbated curtain would you use? So I I'm not sure on the Heidi maybe
you're familiar with the category but um typically the contractor would um submit their turbidity curtain for review as a as a shop drawing submitt um or or as part of an a larger erosion
control plan um submitt for review by the project team. And at that point, we'd have an opportunity to review and if we felt that the turbidity curtain um that they were proposing um was unsatisfactory, we could comment on it, ask them to um choose something else or
make a recommendation. And again, if there's uh requirements for a certain um turbidity curtain that the commission feels is appropriate for this project, um we could we could specify that or um
additional language in the order of conditions. >> Yeah, I was just going to um echo what you were saying, Jeeoff. I know um in typical um projects such as these that uh we would submit ahead of time um a soil erosion plan for the commission's
approval. Um so we would we would hope to work with you to um go through that and whatever is chosen to make sure that it's appropriate for these conditions here. >> I'm not satisfied with these answers. Um, presumably I wasn't on a commission the last time, so I don't know. But
presumably there were questions then about the curtain and there were thoughts that if there was an issue there would be consequences and things of that nature and yet it still happened. Uh, you characterize it as there being some issues. My
understanding from what I've heard about it, it was a complete failure. Basically there would be times that >> everybody heard from the same person. So they're not they're not characterizing it any different. >> The way I heard the interpretation from Chuck was that there'd be times they
would show up and one end of the curtain would be just flapping in the stream and it essentially wouldn't have done uh its job at all and whatever sediment it did catch had been released. So the damage was done. I don't know how it helps us
protect the waterway by saying uh we're right in there that they got to do it right. That doesn't seem to be meaningful. >> It was it was a tough project. They brought a lot of they put on a frack tank also and um
and and and they ran things through that. But my concern was so in my opinion what happened is when we heard turbidity current we were like oh great that's exactly what this needs it's a stream we need to maintain this
sediment that's going to be you know accumulating or you know whipped up during this process and the answer at our level is hey turbidity curtain but that was the extent of what we knew
about it it and and I was and I learned that I think it was the extent of the contractors uh what they knew about it also because this thing was just didn't work. And my effort here is to try to get some information on
what the material is made out of, the best way to anchor it, when a a good spot to anchor it, how often it should be checked, which that seems to be the easy part, but um what the procedure is that would happen. I guess that could be
a condition if it in fact um you know unties itself and and dislodges somewhere. I think I think some of it we can handle but other parts would be helpful if we if we had a um a detail
and maybe some understanding of you know the what product and I think Walter was asking uh some good questions also about uh what what the classification of the stream is so we actually know where to start. >> Yeah, it's my understanding you need the
amount of flow and the volume. I mean the volume and the speed of the flow to help size >> this makes sense >> has I I don't know if there's any historical measurements of what that
those numbers are >> is there also specification for the the grid you know so the size particles that be captured or not captured >> I'm just saying h have there been measurements >> yeah I I get your point >> the flow and the speed and volume
>> it it just seems too loosey goosey to say we'll put in the in the conditions that essentially they need to do it right. That just doesn't seem to get us where we want to go. If if the damage is done, the damage is done. It doesn't
help us any to be able to say uh you know, >> I guess I'll word it as a question. Are there measurements made of the stream? Yes, there was a full hydraulic report um and that will be available um as part
of uh appendices um available to the contractor. >> Okay. But the contractor makes the final decision. >> So, uh >> uh may may I uh step may I just chime in
for a second? I think I might have a solution that might be that might work. Um, in the past, uh, Chuck, Chuck, if you remember, we we've been in back into the commission where we presented, you know, dewatering plans, bypass plans of that nature that the the commission has
approved after from the contractor. >> Mhm. >> Would this be something that um the commission would like to see on what we've gotten on for submittal in their plan for the tuberity curtain pri prior to uh putting it in place?
Yes. So, I believe Heidi mentioned that there's a um soil erosion plan review and that I would assume that that would include the turbidity curtain. And I heard that any questions that come up at that time. Um you know, you'll
straighten it out and then you'll and then I guess what you're saying is you send that to the conservation commission. That's great, but I still think we need to know the the first part too, which is, you know, we want to be educated on how
you're putting it in. If we're going to be out there monitoring this, we want to know the material, how it's anchored, and so I'm saying, is there a detail that you can provide with the turbidity curtain? But I I do expect that once the contractor submits something and AECOM
reviews it, we'll have more information, but for us to approve this, I think we're kind of stuck at at this one spot. >> We don't want to approve it. We want them to approve.
>> I don't I don't know. I think we always should approve, but they can review it and make comments and then we can be satisfied with their comments and review and approve. How's that? But um >> yeah. So I don't Ryan any any other thoughts? I think
>> well and I I just know in the past Chuck and we we've sent um bypass plans and dewatering plans back in front of the commission for certain projects for final approval and after after our consultants and engineers have
went through the submitt process and reviewed it on their own. um that I think that's still probably going to be helpful given your concerns. I know just going back to how the construction process worked on the on the first bridge, um we did have some
issues with the turpidity curtain for sure. Um we were out there, we we witnessed it happen. Um, but part of that, and correct me if I'm wrong, Jeff, but they're going to be blocking up that downstream side of the of the uh of the
stream. Correct. And then bypassing through that. So, we're not going to have constant flow only from the bypass pumping through the stream at during the project, I think. And it's been a while.
I can't remember. Was the issue after we released the the uh the dams, Chuck, was that the issue or was it >> No, it was during construction and it was all from the backpass pumping. Theidity curtain was
>> 20 plus feet away from so where the turbidity curtain was in a stream because it kind of reconstituted itself after the bypass pumping >> and it would just it just wasn't working and it could have been the anchoring but
um >> yeah there was there was a problem and I understand that yeah we've looked at other things all those like other um dewatering situations we haven't had a problem with. I think we should look closer at this one because we had a
problem with this. This was one that didn't work even with everyone reviewing it. And ultimately the contractor threw his hands up and said, "I'm just going to finish my project." And so we uh I don't I don't even know I can't
even tell you that the turbidity curtain was used the last bit of the project. So >> we can I I think we can look into different types of turbidity curtain how they may be anchored as a general um
idea what they could use. Um that doesn't mean that we'll get the exact product or method that they're going to use under that detail, but we may be able to look into how they're anchored, what they're supposed to be. Some of them are floating curtains. So I think
that might have been part of the issue on that last one is that it was a floating curtain but then it wasn't established on the bank properly. Right. And that's what we were seeing. So I think we can look into that for you
know and and see what we can do. >> Okay. So why don't we put that issue aside for the moment and whatever next comment is. Sure. >> Um, can we consider alternatives to tree replacement?
Um, it was noted that tree replacement is often unsuccessful um due to lack of resources for maintaining newly planted trees. Um, and I think in addition at the the meeting this week, it was noted that um two of the plantings from the previous project
initially didn't do well. Um and I believe those two were replanted um and um are doing well. Um but initially not all did well. >> Uh that's what we heard from a neighbor
um of the first bridge project. He pointed uh out to us two shrubs that had been replaced. they still had the tags on them and he said that they had not thrived and they have been replaced. So
that's one person's observation. >> Yeah, we we have a >> I think we have a general warranty period on those, right? I mean, we we inspect them after they're planted to make sure that they're planted properly and they're doing well. So, those were replaced within the warranty period and
those replacements are doing a lot better. Uh Jeff, correct me if I'm wrong, but I I I think the initial planting of those shrubs, they weren't looking too hot before they even got there and planted. So, they were on our radar right from the beginning, and I think they got rep replaced
uh pretty quickly. So Ryan, is that something that you or your people would be keeping an eye on, or would you be expecting us to keep an eye out and let you know if plantings aren't doing well? >> Yeah, I mean, generally speaking,
plantings have a one one-year warranty period on them from from the date that they're accepted. So, um, we would keep an eye on those and, you know, the the contractors responsible up to that year warranty. After that, then it would just
be something the town would have to come in and and replace if we see that it failed after that. >> Okay. Typically on our projects, we require a threeyear survivability. So, there's a gap there that we'd have to talk about, but um
yeah, that's not an issue for the moment, but there's a difference, I think. >> I'm just curious, who waters the plants that are put in? Does the contractor come out and water them regularly or are they just put in and left to fend for themselves? >> They generally get water bags and then
they're they they're supposed to water them um during that period, but you know, during the dry period. after that in an area like this. I don't I don't think they came out and watered them after that dry period and they they seem to do fine. I mean, we've had failures
in other projects, but um it all comes down to those gator bags if they use those properly. >> So, as part of the contract contract, the the um contractor would come out and and be
required to water the water the trees. they are resp. So, you know, we talk about this all the time, right? It's means and methods we can we can tell them that they have to maintain and keep that tree and have it survive for a year. Um, if they feel as though that
it's getting enough water under their warranty period, um, that's a different story. We saw it happen at Mallette. But um you know, >> are they required to replace the trees or is there another option like well
just forfeit our $500, you know, bond is and and do they do that? I'm I'm just I'm only working around this to to understand if there's a better spot and you know if we're going to do tree replacements or does it even make sense
to do tree replacement? you know, if we're looking for mitigation, which would be for the trees, is there something else that that might work? I I think what I've heard and what I saw what looked pretty good. I mean, the
trees on the panic, but this bridge being replaced, those are rand, they're looking nice. They don't look like they're going to die. Um, and someone went out and replaced some of the shrubs, and they seem to be doing well now. though it' be good to know
when those trees were planted. I mean, for all I know, the ones near this bridge that Walter saw, they may have been planted two weeks ago. Made up number for all I know because they still had the tags on. So, have they survived since the since the bridge was built or
did they fail and get replaced in the meantime? In which case, whatever maintenance process there is probably didn't work. No, they they those were original to um the construction of the bridge. So during
you know either during the uh restor I I believe we did some restoration work in the spring time. I it's hard to remember but it would have been you know spring of 2021 the latest that those would have been planted. Um that I can tell you the town the town has not gone out there and replanted
anything in that area. Right. >> That's good to know. Okay. >> They just left they probably just left the uh the tags on them and everyone probably missed it until >> I get that leaving the tags on. We see that time. >> It just that may or may not be
indicative of when they were planted. That's >> Yeah. Yeah. Fair fair statement. >> Okay. Uh next comment. Okay. >> We already touched on this one a bit. Where will equipment and materials be stored? Uh is there is there town own
land nearby for storage? Um so again I think the immediate um equipment um in daily use or pending the the current operations would be in that area um between the stream and line road. Um but
the contractor um if there's additional equipment beyond that I think the contractor would be responsible for identifying um uh an area nearby that that was uh suitable to them and for the town. Um, unless Ryan if you have any other
thoughts on if there's a a town area that the contractor could use. >> No, I mean I to be honest with you, I think we use that actually same area for lay down um that you're talking about, Jeff, in that under the last project. Um, we generally like to keep it as very
close to the project as we can to minimize any tracking of anything and just trucking in general. But we don't if we can keep it to limited to the area, that's really what we like to do. Um. >> Right. >> Yeah. So, I would say as close to the
area as possible, if not right on that um you know uh right ofway area that's leading up to the bridge, >> right? And I think um to add to that, I would say there's not relatively large amount
of equipment. I think it's the the construction uh machines um that they'd have and then the the culvert um bridge structure components that it's um essentially a clam clam shell shape for
the box, the four-sided box. Um so there'd be some uh components for that. Um but I think if if the contractor uh um they they could um they they do a good uh they would schedule it such that
um additional materials um at any given time what was on site um I think would would fit in that area. I don't think there's um other projects you might have um a number of uh say drainage structures and other components
but I think for the the staging of um how this project would uh be constructed it would be some excavation and removal of the existing bridge um um then some some materials would come
in and then the the um the concrete uh clamshell structure would would come And that would be the um kind of the the the large uh uh two-piece structure. I think that might be on site for a few days while
they continue to prepare for installation. And then there'd be um I think cast in place concrete for the retaining walls. Um so there and then uh later the uh the bridge rail would come in. Um there'd be some additional
concrete work. Um and then the the um the pavement materials. Um so as far as kind of hard large hard um structures, it's really just the the bridge materials themselves that the clamshell uh clamshell concrete and then
the rest of it would kind of be um um sort of daily operations in and out with material deliveries. Uh I don't see a lot of um say stockpiling of of equipment and materials.
So So I think um it could very well fit within just that um that area between the the stream and and Line Road. >> I think there's plenty of space out there if they want to dump it on the town property. The last project they
just used someone was pretty nice, let them use their yard, but they were always in the street. So, and then they they had to put the generator over the stream at one point for some reason. >> Can't remember why.
>> Yeah, I I don't think >> went there. >> Yeah, I don't Chuck. I don't think we're going to actually have that same opportunity to do that. I think if you remember the the uh we had um channelized walls leading up to the old bridge that we tied into um and they
dropped that that decking right on there. Now, the decking from this bridge is not in good shape. We can't reuse it in any fashion. And number two, I don't think there's any um uh concrete uh walls leading up to that. I could be wrong, but I don't remember them on this section of the bridge.
>> Yeah, that was I wasn't trying to scare. I just think that it's it there's there's a lot more room here than there was >> at the last bridge and and it worked out at the last bridge. >> I agree. >> We did look at both bridges and the old
bridge, previous bridge had shorter concrete walls going back 20 30 feet upstream from the bridge and those do not exist on this one. >> Yeah, that's that's my recollection as well. And there was an old SLLE way that
was built into that, believe it or not, that they used to actually dam up the the previous but we don't have that benefit as well. So, um I don't think you're going to see that generator sitting over the stream like we did last time. >> They were testing me.
>> Yeah, >> it wor Yeah, it it worked out well. That wasn't the issue. The issue was downstream, but um that wasn't the issue. Again, we're going to try to limit the amount of time we have bypass bumping. That's always when a generator's going on, it's loud and we
want to make sure it's quiet. So, you know, that's another reason for that foursided sh, you know, box culvert. It gets us in and out of there as quick as we can. >> And speaking of limiting the time, when we move on to the next comment,
how's that for >> and I think this is uh the last one, 10 of 10. Um will a deatering system clarifier for sediment laden water be used and can you provide a list of recommended systems? Um so this um again like we've been um
kind of discussing the the dewatering system would be the responsibility of the contractor. Um we've um seen a lot. We we took a look back at at some um systems that were proposed as part of um kind of larger
projects that maybe weren't the best examples to to share here um to to kind of satisfy that part of the request. Um but if there are certain requirements, again, I think this is something we can talk about now more um and then potentially add to the order of
conditions. Um and um we noted here again the contractor can also provide the option for dewatering to the commission for approval prior to the start of work. So prior to any start of work that's something that can be submitted for approval, coordinated on
um and um agreed upon. Okay, I don't see any comments here. That's fine. All right. Um, so I did I just wanted to ask a question.
Ryan, do do you need a building permit for this project? I'm thinking um we can I could double check with uh with the billing department on that and get back to you. >> No, I was just I was just curious if it
would go through the open gov system or not. Um >> uh you know I I don't know. Um my memory is not as good as it used to be, believe it or not. So, I can't remember if it what happened on the uh first bridge, but it's a structure, but it falls under
the roadway. So, I'm not sure if it's it falls under their jurisdiction, but I can we can ask them. >> Yeah. Okay. Um, yeah, that was my only question. >> Chuck, to add to that question, are there any additional approvals outside
of conservation that are required for this project to commence? And um have NOIs been submitted to the neighbors like track road etc. >> About our notices? >> Yep. I believe all the butter notices have
went out to the uh to whatever the requirement is. Yes. >> Okay. And >> that's correct. And in terms of permitting, is it just conservation at this point? And the the building permit question from Chuck or is there any other department? So,
>> uh, it's that's a great question. We went through about two years of permitting with Mass DOT, Jeff. Is that about right? Um, >> and you know, >> yeah, their structural review changed a few times and their hydraulic uh uh
requirements changed as well on on the bridge. So that was the biggest one. We have that struct structural adequacy uh stamp for for this. So we're all set through mass DOT's uh perspective. Anything else regarding this falls in
the public right away which would fall, believe it or not, under engineering and DPW, but those are generally street opening permits and things of that nature. And um this would fall under a contract which is going to carry a higher uh insurance requirement. So, um,
no, I don't think outside of not being clear about whether it requires a building permit, which I don't think it does because it's in a public way, but we could clarify that and make sure that, um, you know, we obtain those permits if need be. >> Uh, 28 certified butterlist
notifications went out >> and that was Chuck, that was for this this hearing that we've opened for our conservation one >> was for the last hearing. That was when we So there no >> Oh, for the first the first meeting that we had two weeks ago >> with this project. Yes.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Um any other question from the commission before we decide next steps? >> Is the next step deciding whether it's a 1053? >> Actually, that would be part of the
question next step. So >> So any questions, comments? Dr. ask you anything more you want to add before we get to next steps? >> No, Brian, is there public comment at all? >> That's a fine question. Thank you for reminding me. There's nobody in the room here, so that's easy. Is there anybody
on Zoom who has a question or comment? >> Just raise your hand. Use that raise hand function. We'll let you into the meeting to talk. >> Seeing no one. Okay. Um, so at this point it seems to me like we need to continue for a meeting.
There's a number of things that I have that um have to be addressed provided whatever verb you want to use. Um, does that make sense to you Ryan as the applicant?
Uh, I am I'm fine continuing and we I can circle back um with whatever comments necessary that we had. I think we have a pretty good understanding of what the commission is looking for and I think we can probably respond accordingly. >> Let's let's list them anyway just so
we're on the same page and then based on that list uh you can decide what date you want to shoot for coming back. So what I have is the adjustment to uh filing under 10538 rather than than
10533. Uh from my opinion, you might as well just remove any mention of 1053 uh3, but you can decide how you want to do that as long as it's clear that you found it under 10538.
The next item I have is plan information, some details about uh the saving of the tree conversation that we had. Uh how it would be done. Um just something we can look at so we can
be comfortable with the process and the likelihood of of success. Then we have information a number of pieces of information about the uh curtain tubidity curtain. um what what type you're thinking about, what's the
anchoring, just some plan details for how that's actually going to work. Um from our perspective, we need to give some thought to what other mitigation we might ask for instead of
replacement trees. Um, we had a bit of a conversation today, but I think we need to uh noodle on that a little bit more from our own perspective. Chuck, do you have anything more than that? >> Uh, yeah. Um, I wrote down
the applicant has to uh document that he'll plant a tree for every 6 inch diameter tree that they remove. a detail uh needed for new flood storage design that would save the tree. I think you mentioned that. I did.
>> Um mass dot remove and replace document to review. You mentioned about the details on the trivity curtain. I wanted to if you have a hydraulic uh report. Sounded like Walter was interested in
that. I think the commission is too. Um so just send that to the conservation commission and then um just to understand your tree guarantee if that's that's a year
um and there I mean how does the tree guarantee work? I didn't really pick up on that whether it's it's a year and then we can call out for replacement or do we have to go through the town or um
does the contractor get to say he's not going to plant them again and just find me or keep the bond? I don't I don't know how that works, but a little more information on on that and that's all to understand whether or not we're going to have trees replaced.
Is the commission leaning towards a donation in lie of tree plantings? >> Well, it depends. I guess with that information, we could decide uh if the contractor walks away.
>> So, they kind of did that at um kind of, you know, the contractor at Mlets and Morgan was okay watering while they were there, but then they just left it. And um we did we did fine. You know, we did
all right over there at uh >> you're not deciding now. You're just saying can you give us more information >> based on that? >> That's >> that's all I have. >> Okay. >> Okay. So given that list, do you want to uh continue to two weeks from now or do
we need more time than that? >> Our next meeting is the 27th. Do you want to continue to the 27th? Um, hold on one second. I would defer to I would defer to AECOM, but I think two weeks might be a short turnaround.
>> That's fine. That's why I'm asking. >> Um, and to be honest with you, the 27th is pushing pretty close to that Memorial Day weekend. So, um, >> so our first one in June is the 10th. You want to make it June 10th? Yeah, I
think Jeff, does that sound a little bit better just going out another month? And >> I I I don't think we're we're held up right now with uh with anything on the application. So, it's not like we're losing any time on that end. So, um I think just getting close to that
Memorial Day, it's just going to be a little tough with vacations and things >> of that nature. So, yeah, I think let's do the 10th. Give us a month and then we'll >> hopefully that'll be the last meeting. We'll have enough information to to satisfy those comments.
>> Okay. I note your wish. Um >> I'm very optimistic, Brian. >> Good. >> I move to continue this hearing to June 10th. >> Uh Walter Talbet seconds that motion. Walter Talbert in favor. >> Michelle in favor. >> Martha Moore in favor.
>> Ryan Bow in favor. Okay. Thank you folks. >> Thank you very much. I appreciate it. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Good night. >> All right. Moving right along. We're going to let um getting long conversation. >> So, that's it for our hearings. Next thing we have
uh has to do with our visit to Beverly Road. >> Oh, you got that back right in there. Okay. So, I'm going to let Jeff uh Jeff Pitinger in. He's the guy we want to talk to, right? >> And you're gonna tell somebody to talk about our uh site visit.
>> That's where I was going with it. >> I know. I know. I just was stealing it back and forth. It's all good. >> Okay. Anyway, um so in order to keep uh Chuck in his box, Martha, can you fill us in on the uh
site visit we had? >> Sure. Um we went out to 16 Beverly Road. We noticed that the deck was finished. The uh garage has not been started. Um
it there was uh silt fencing along the wall that's the retaining wall near the swamp. Um there was a small pile of dirt that Brian noted in a corner of a
further up retaining wall that um we are just concerned whether that could erode if uh if not contained in some way. Um, >> we were told that that the end of the project that will be removed and in the
meantime he'll keep an eye on it to look for >> signs of erosion, erosion, then do something to contain it. >> Yeah. The yard waste that had been at the bottom of the big retaining wall had been removed and the plants that we had requested had been planted. We did not
go down to look at them closely, but looking over the wall, they looked like they were doing okay. We saw the rocks underneath the outflow pipe because we were there before there had been erosion at that location. Uh bottom line is we
didn't see any issues. Um and explained to us that although the uh conservation permit covers the whole project, the building permit covered the first part of it, the deck. And that's
why he's looking for closure on this part of it. Um, and so >> and an extension to be able to do the next part, >> right? That's what we're really looking for is an extension. >> What is it?
>> Yeah. So, uh, uh, Jeb reached out and said that he would like a two-year extension, uh, based on his, um, uh, timing of what he what he thinks he can do. So, that's that's a request, but it's also because
we haven't issued an order, not we haven't issued a certificate of compliance, I need your permission to sign off on the occupancy permit for the deck. So that has to be part of the um vote. >> So the the vote is two twofold. One, do
we uh authorize a two-year extension? And two is do we agree do we authorize Chuck to sign off on the occupancy certificate? Have a motion to that effect, please.
Should we vote them separately or is it all one unit? >> I think it's all one unit. >> Okay. So moved. >> Okay. Walter Tet seconds. Walter Talbertson in favor. >> Michelle in favor. >> Martha Moore in favor. >> Ran in favor.
>> So Jeb, I would only uh let you know that there is a fee associated with the um with the extension. Uh it's a it's $50. So, you can just get that check to town hall and I'll work on the paperwork next week and get it to you and I'll
sign off tomorrow. >> Okay. Do you need the physical permit paper or not? >> Uh, an extension is uh usually the extension is like an email request by the owner and then we have paperwork
ourselves from D to fill out. >> Okay, perfect. Thank you. Hey, you want to say that Jeff? Thanks. >> All right, take care. >> That was quick and easy for you. >> It took a while to get here. >> Yeah, unfortunately I've been here for the whole thing, but uh it's been good.
Uh it's been good to uh understand everything else going on. So, thank you very much, guys. Take care. >> Okay, good night. Okay. Uh this is a point where I planned on doing a another reminder, another appeal that we're looking for um
additional members. I think instead I will steal that time and let Martha tell commission about the planned field trip on May 26. >> Yeah. Um last spring we did a field trip
for the fifth graders from Barrow's school. Um they walked over from Barrows and spent the morning at Mlette Sms Morgan, Brian and I and two um town
school staff members and also some um high school AP environmental science students um ran a program for the fifth graders at Mlette SS Morgan. they've asked us to do it again and it's May
26th and uh basically similar format to last year. Um I have requested and received a permit to put a portaotty on site and um it'll be there for a week. So it'll be there from the Friday before
Memorial Day weekend through the Friday after Memorial Day weekend. Um so um public will get a little bit of use out of that as well as the um school children will have a nearby resource for
the day. Um and yeah, we will be teaching them about the constructed wetland that is the extra flood storage for the Aberona River Basin. Doing some tree
identification and some understanding about um the importance of wetlands for filtering um water and cleaning the water that goes downstream. I would like to in my usual understated
way say that um my part of the program was the most popular. That would not be true. In fact, it was Martha's filtration thing where they got to get some water seat was in it. And um this takes a few hours and then um they walk
back to Barrows in time for lunch. >> No, they eat lunch there on the hill. >> I thought it was a snack. They ate something. >> Yeah. Nobody passed out, so they ate enough. >> Anyway, so this would be our second time doing it and hopefully be as successful as the first time. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. And it's not closed to the general public. If people are still there walking their dogs that, you know, they they are not prevented from >> doing so. Unless you agree, I'm going to come down for a cameo uh cameo here and
uh work my way into the discussion because I would like it if you let them or or somehow work into the conversation how important the stones are that are between the
ponds and how they shouldn't be moved, stacked or create or bridges made out of those. Um, you know, you can talk about skipping stones also. I don't think that's a big deal, but I think when when kids are moving the the stones,
we're we're losing some filtration. >> So, give us a second to discuss. Um, so actually, if you wanted to come down to a cameo, that's fine by me. Otherwise, you can tell us what it is. You would say we can add it to one of the >> All right. Well, I'll suspenseful. I
I'll see if I can make it. >> Yeah. >> I mean, if you want the angry neighbor, I can also be there, too. I I have some availability. I don't know. >> Walter, do you want to come down? Also, >> by the How you doing? You want to come on down?
>> Okay. So, it's a Tuesday. >> I'll be in >> Oh, had a blast. >> One of the 50 states. >> Take some pictures. I can't use them because it shows kids faces. But um I'm going to try this year and and get people's backs or something so we can
have it, you know, in report showing successful event at less might be. >> Well, I'll take on the stone situation. It'll probably be a really quick conversation, but >> All right, moving right on the next topic. Second annual green community's
garden party is Thursday, June 18th at the library in the community room downstairs from 6:00 to 8. We will have a table. I will be there for sure. At this point, I forget who else said they can be there. I think Martha said an hour.
>> I can be there for at least an hour. >> If somebody else wanted to come down, it's great. >> Is it? >> Um >> 18th. >> Thursday the 18th. >> June 18th. >> Yeah. six to eight. So, I guess we could say we do have it
covered. It's always useful to have other people in case somebody gets tied up in a conversation, they can talk to anybody else who's walking by. Next, friends and family day, June 20th. Um,
>> do we know what hours that is yet? >> It's usually like 10 to >> 10 to 3, I think. Right. >> Um, so this is at the uh the Birch Metal
Fields, I guess you would call it, kind of across from the YMCA. Um, as a town entity. We will have a tent provided by the town, set up by the town, anchored by the town, >> anchored to the town.
>> Uh, sure. Just any preposition you want to use is fine. Um, they typically put us in the area of other like-minded entities, although not always. Uh, last year we were next to the uh
guitar school of rock or some such thing, which downsides. But anyway, um so we are looking for people to help support that. I am not volunteering for the duration this year. I know you're
not supposed to point out the negative, but I'm not going to be there for the whole day. So, if anybody could check your schedules and find a way you could be there to cover at least part of that time, that would be extremely helpful. Um, otherwise we'll have to try and
coers Chuck to be there and talk about stones. >> I can be there for part of the day, but I also will be at another tent the same day. So, I can't do the whole day. >> Okay. >> So, >> sorry. >> She's cheating on us basically.
>> Okay. So, uh, we have another meeting before we get there obviously. So, please give some thought in the meantime. It will come up again next time and we need to have a solution where we cover the table slash tent for the bra >> maybe like a twohour everyone can go for
two hours does that work >> I think that would that would be great if people can do it >> and then it's also good to have something there to attract people to talk about like we have we have things but I mean so one one year I did a
wetland in a jar I was going to do a solar oven that that turned into a big health department uh request and I I didn't want to do that after that. But um but if someone can think of something
to uh create this environmental thought process, it would be it would be good. And usually we have all our literature out and pamphlets and color >> newly printed map of the >> newly printed map. We try to sign up
volunteers. >> It gets damaged every time with rain or whatever. >> You know, hopefully when is it since June? >> June 20. >> Yeah. >> June 20. >> Yeah. >> So, >> right. Okay. >> We'll talk about it again on our next
meeting, but >> yes, we will >> see if your schedule's free >> or if you can make a couple hours free. People have lives. That's the problem. Uh, okay. Next one is the conservation staff meeting, co coordination meeting
with DPW. Chuck, can you speak to that? >> Uh, yeah, we're uh we're we're having conversations more often than just our staff meetings, just making sure things are working. And um
the last the last staff meeting, I think I said, was cancelled on that day. We had to go out into um uh where did we go? We went out to Bare Meadow to uh see some sites that um need
to be painted. So, there's a uh the handicaps the handicap painted parking spots. Uh we reviewed that. So, I I think it's still working out. Um they haven't told me about any
upcoming projects. Um, and usually these things happen so quickly that I only hear about them afterwards. But, um, it's it's still a good plan and and it's working out, but but nothing to report other than that it's uh
working fine. >> Speaking of the indicap spot painting, you saw my pictures of the one at Gro Street. You agree that doesn't need anything urgently. Would that >> I'm going to put on the list. If they want to do it, then they're going to do it. Yeah.
>> I mean, it's still visible, so I I don't know how. >> I think Pearl Street and Material Cabin are the the big two. And there's some there's one somewhere else, but I don't know where it's at. >> Okay. All right. Uh, next one is a bare
metal habitat area planting sess assessment. You or Joe want to cover that? >> Joe, do you want to speak up on that? It was just our site visit and walk with uh with Carl. >> Yeah, I think we covered that during the
last meeting, but um as a followup, Chuck, I guess the question I had for you was, have we gotten a a follow-up plan from Carl um at all for the topics we discussed? So, some of the tree replacements, the warranty,
>> um any additional uh plantings that we had for the three gu or the four gardens, >> we did not um I don't think so. We went up there on April 27th, >> correct? >> 21st.
>> There was uh it was right I thought it was right before our our conservation meeting on the >> Y 23rd. >> Yeah. So, Carl said he'd reach out to um find out if we can they would honor our guarantee. So, we're within that year
period. So, we're hoping to pick up 10 plants to replant. And um he also said um that he'd come up with a plan of what to do because he recommends some fertilizer in that area. Organic fertilizer, it's what we're going to be
using. >> All that needs to be purchased. Is he going to check with the company on replacements? >> Yes, he said >> is he gonna is he going to ask if they would consider giving us different plants as replacements because >> 100% because obviously we know what doesn't work there.
>> Yep. >> Uh >> basically one species is everything that died. >> Okay. >> So >> yeah, I just I figured you would have covered that. >> Yeah. And then Chuck, for for the watering plan for this coming season, um
do we have kind of like a next step for uh contacting either DBW to get the hookups again for the um fire hydrant, you know, so that we can start hooking up hoses and setting up our, you know, sprinkler system or
>> uh that call has been placed and >> I was there yesterday and I I didn't see that it was hooked up, but we're getting some rain. So, I think uh we still have time. >> Yep.
>> We're not getting a lot of rain. >> We're going to have to get back together, all of us, and just put the hoses out because that can happen. >> You know, it would be best to do that before the grass starts growing. >> And >> well, they they just mowed, right? >> They mowed. They have they have a little
more to do, but for the most part they've got the mowing's been completed this year until uh the fall. >> Okay. I thought we had changed it to once a year moment. >> We did >> in the spring. >> In the spring.
>> Then why did you say until the fall? >> There's a section that was too wet that they have to come back and get. And I'm not saying that they're going to come back and do it. Maybe I'm going to do it with a aggressive weed whacker or something like that, but it's a big area. But, you know, we don't want the
wooden vegetation to grow. >> I remember probably change it to once a year. >> Okay. Um, that's it for that. Then brings us to violation notices. >> Actually, I have two more things on that list that you didn't get on the list.
Um, just a comment. um the parking lot behind um market basket in the winter. The conservation uh granite bounds had been knocked over. I I saw that at least two of them are
now right straight up again. So, somebody did go and fix the granite bounds with the conservation diamonds on them. Yeah, I reached out to when you called, I reached out and so we know all the contacts for most people around town now. Uh, and that uh I was able to get
to um her name is Jamie or Joanie and uh she put it to her site person who said that uh he had planned to do it all along. >> Oh, good. >> So, >> okay. Well, I noticed a couple of times that I
shopped that they were down and then the most recent time I was there, they were up. >> I always like letting people know that we're watching. >> Okay. >> I mean, they have a crew and everything. It's no big deal for them to make sure that place is in operating condition.
>> Okay. And then my other thing when we were talking dates, I'd like to just remind people that the porchfest is June 27th and I hope we are going to sign up to have a porchfest at the Mata Cabin um
>> pavilion. And I think that and something's I think there's a little ambiguity about what's going on at uh Mlette and Morgan, but I know Joe talked about something and if they don't do it, I wanted to do
something at Mlette, but um there's likely two on conservation land. So, >> okay. So, we know how to do it at the pavilion as far as running power cords and what have up there. What would we do at Mlette Psalms for
Power? >> Right. So, last year a group who lived as in a butter to Mlet songs and Morgan had uh just did it on their porch or out in their yard. >> Okay. >> I think they found out that that wasn't great. Joe, you talked to them. Do you
want to take over from here? >> Well, yeah. I think uh for Porchfest last year, we we had some inclement weather coming in. So they had moved from I think they were going to have on on near one of the stands,formational
stands at one of the corners they were going to have um folks stand there sit there kind of in mlet zones and then they were going to play from their backyard or from their deck. Uh they moved it underneath their deck and had everybody standing on their property
instead when it started to uh rain. Um, but I believe Chuck, we've talked about two locations at Mlette, like either off of the parking lot or at the um the
peninsula between the two main ponds. Um, having some sort of setup there. In terms of power, it would probably have to be some sort of generator. Um, but we didn't really get that far considering
we I think we we were also thinking about maybe just doing instrumentals or woodwinds or something that doesn't have as much of a power draw um if we do it inside the conservation land rather than like adjacent to it. >> And I didn't want to take any of the energy away from the people that did it
last year. So that's where absolutely that's where we're, you know, we haven't really gone anywhere with this. I think someone has to reach out. I I probably have their email information. >> I mean, they're my neighbor. I can talk to them, Chuck, too. Um, we were originally going to maybe move it over
to my property and have it on my trail that connects down. Um, but that that didn't really go anywhere so far. So, I I can reach out to them. So, what would you do if it did end up being atmosphing
people um trampling the grass down to the water line and things like that? >> Well, we did it last year. I put up some tape last year, but it wasn't it wasn't I don't know. It doesn't sound like there was a lot of people people >> No one used it. >> Yeah, it was it was raining and it was
too far away and all that. So, I think the idea is to bring it closer. Um, so there is a path at Joe's house that goes straight into Mlette and Morgan. As long as they're on the path, I don't think there's a problem. >> No, that would be fine. I just didn't
know I was going to end up being down in the property yourself. So, okay. >> Yeah. >> I wanted to give add some thought to that. I will say when we had it at the pavilion, I think Chuck and I were the only ones who were there running it. We had
droves of people. There was a mosh pit. It was great. It was raining. >> We got lucky. We had we got three bands that wanted to be there. Yeah. >> So, it was a longer time than other other people got. >> And actually, one of them had a tremendous following. They came from states.
>> Was it you or I? It was uh Rinsley. I don't know. It was one of those >> came a long way away with all different plates in the parking lot. So, >> a good day even with the rain. >> Did you use the restrooms at Mata for that um at all or did you keep it closed? Did we?
>> Yeah. >> Okay. >> I don't remember. >> Maybe we can get a portaotti or something like that. >> I don't remember that. >> Okay. Maybe you shouldn't remember it then. Um but we ran the power from the cabin from the outlets at the back. >> So maybe we should grab the uh porta
potty from bring it up to Yeah. No, >> but it would be good. It would be good to know if we can use the power from it at least. I know if we don't have the permit for the building. Um if if it could still run power, you know, have any exemptions there.
>> I don't think we need that. Yeah, that's our building. We we can definitely move we'll run power up, but I don't think people can go in. >> Yeah. >> Not even I don't think people can't go in, but we can run power up. >> Okay, that's great. >> Yeah. >> So, I think I think the Porchfest at
Matira is we just have to request it. So, we know what we're doing. It's um no issues, but I think that we have to kind of keep working through Mlette Sabs and Morgan. So, why don't you reach out? >> Yep. >> You think you say I take over? Oh my
god. You Why don't you reach out and find out where they're at and uh and um let's let's find out. I don't want to have I don't think there's room for two, especially if it's at >> kind of more center
>> where you where your house is. So, >> I I I agree. I think there's there needs to be more thought for that location. If we do the parking lot, I think that's going to be a lot easier to manage. The parking lot and the hill overlooking the parking lot might be nice. Um >> maybe Mike can help with that >> behind Mike's property. Yeah.
>> Okay. >> Okay. Do you have any other additions? Are you sure? >> Yep. Okay. >> So then that brings us to the violation notices. I do have one update. 445 Pearl
Street. Uh when I went by recently, he has in fact got back to it. Both sides are now shaped. They're covered with a a matting, a netting. Uh there's some uh sprouts planted at the bottom of the
ravine by the channel on the northbound northern side. Um it's it's an improvement. I don't say I wouldn't say it's done yet, but it certainly has come a long way. So I guess we need to continue continue to keep an eye on it, but it's progressing,
>> which is good. So and I think that it's progressing because we're keeping an eye on it. So >> Okay. Uh and then do you have anything in the admin administrative report yet?
>> Yeah. Uh so so I I think that everyone here knows or maybe they don't know that uh CPA passed at uh town meeting which is uh great. It's uh wonderful. CPA is wonderful. It's hard to start up,
but once it's in place, everyone's going to realize that it's uh it's it's really helpful and it's really good. So, um like I said, it funds out of four buckets and uh housing, conservation, recreation,
and historical. So, it's a you know, these things will have places to go for uh funding for some of their projects. and we'll notice that more things are happening around town. But before we get
too excited, there is a second step. So that vote at town meeting only >> was allowing it to go on the ballot where the residents of Reading will make the final decision. And so that will be happening this
November. Is that true? This November. And uh we should do whatever we can to um you know mention it, talk about it at all of our events and make sure that everyone understands that it's a it's a
good way to keep the town um parks and conservation areas, historical sites, housing um up to date and in good shape with uh repairs. Uh although you can't do
repairs with with uh real real fixes um and uh have the have the town uh contribute some but also to have the the state also contribute a portion which no longer is uh one for one. It's it's more like 27%
something like that. So it's really good. I know uh a lot of people on this committee was very excited about it when it came uh up again. As I understand it, it only lost by a little bit the first time it went to town meeting. So, it was inevitable that
it would run into a >> It only lost a little bit when it went to the ballot. >> The ballot. >> The ballot. >> The ballot was really close last time. >> Okay. >> Town meeting voted it in. It went on the ballot. It was a very close call on the ballot last time. >> Um, this time at town meeting, it was
like 106 to 60 that people voted to put it on the ballot. So, it seems like might be time. It's a it's a tough ballot year, but let just leave it at CPA discussion, but it's a there's other things that are going to be on the ballot, too. But, um, yeah, Community
Preservation Act. Most towns in Massachusetts are in it, and that's not for uh and that's not by mistake. >> Okay, that's it. >> That's it. >> All right. Min for approval. Both of
these we can approve. We had them we've had them for a while. I have a motion to approve minutes for April 8th. >> So moved. >> Top seconds. To top in favor in favor. >> Martha Moore in favor.
>> Ryan Mo in favor. I have a motion to approve the minutes for April 22nd. >> So so moved. >> Walter Talbert seconds. Walter Tomson in favor. >> Michelle in favor. >> Martha Moore in favor. Rainbow in favor and we are caught up.
>> Oh yeah, there's two people on for 129 Main Street to talk about. >> Okay, >> I'm just going to let them in, >> right? So I can't go. >> Chuck, before we move on to that, uh just from administrative perspective, do we have a change in our liaison for conservation yet uh from select board or
are we still working through Melissa? Yeah. So, uh I don't know, Brian, you got the email. Maybe you didn't read it, but yeah, we were notified this afternoon, um by Jax, um who works in the select select board office that um I
I didn't even know about this. Melissa didn't uh I thought it was Melissa the last uh town uh select board meeting. Um, and then we were at the board of health last night, so I missed this one, but I did get that notice. And, uh, we
have Chris uh, Chris Haley is going to be our EAS on this year or notified uh, of that. Uh, so there is there is that change. >> Welcome Chris. >> And he has he has asked us to include
them in agenda items and any packages we produced. So >> yeah, I've worked with Chris on he came to Mlets and Morgan last year, you know, pitched in. >> It was it was great that he showed up, worked on a conservation project. He's
been around I don't know how long, but he's always uh been a someone to say uh you know, hi to me in the hallway and whatnot. So I think it'll be a good relationship moving forward. And I think um you'll find that out yourselves also.
Communication does have to go through the commission, >> right? >> But uh >> so he he's an average photographer. We should ask him to document some of our events. We can have uh some pictures to put on in reports for example.
>> Yes, that is a new session of mine now. >> Sure. >> Okay. Uh we have one last item. It's not on the agenda. Um this is 1295 um >> Main Street. >> Main Street. Chuck will let the person
that already has let the person in. >> Right. Yeah. Yeah. >> He's Well, actually, I'll let you uh explain what it is you're looking for and please introduce yourself and let us know. >> Yeah. So, hi, good evening everyone. My name is Ahmed. Um and I am the owner of
1295 Main Street Property. Uh my wife Maha is also attending with me this evening. Uh I recently met with Chuck regarding the open conservation file associated with the property and I appreciate the time and guidance that
was provided. Uh my primary uh purpose tonight is to respectfully request guidance on initiating the review process towards a certificate of compliance. Uh the property has remained stable and wellmaintained over the years with no known ongoing environmental
concerns or material changes beyond the original scope. Uh I also understand there may be a potential path for the commission to consider substantial compliance depending on the review of the file and site conditions.
I appreciate that some members of the commission may already be familiar with the project history and long-term uh site condition and I hope that that context may help support practical review process. Uh I would also note
that the project hold back um and security deposit was previously released which I understand reflected the stable condition and ongoing maintenance for the property over time. Um my my family and I have truly enjoyed living in
Reading, but I recently accepted a work relocation opportunity out of state. Um and I wanted to proactively work through my like any remaining administrative matters associated with the property before future ownership. Uh so I would
greatly appreciate the commission's guidance regarding next steps and whether the review could be initiated in the near term. Um, thank you for your time and consideration. >> Sure. It's good to know. I'm sorry to see you leave in town in the state. Um,
I'm gonna let Chuck kind of Well, we probably has he already walked you through the uh the process. >> I'll walk the commission through it. So, Ahmed is going to sell his house. This is the one that is tucked within our 35 foot zone
>> and also has lot A main street and also has the vernal pool. So, um they came down to town hall and they're in this process of moving through selling it and one of the questions came up, you know, should we try for our certificate of
compliance? And um some people do and some people don't. I mean, they've been sold with a certificate of compliance not issued and with them being issued and it it seems
to be different each time. So, I don't have a handle on why it's needed so much on some properties and not so much on other properties. But um this all gets down to the fact that we're we want to um think about this tonight as if we
were going to move forward with a certificate of compliance. So this project this the plants have been in the ground for three years. So and what I'm hearing from the homeowners is that they are substantially alive at this point.
um and they've taken great care to make sure that they've been watered and it's all working out. So, there's a couple of steps for the certificate of compliance. We need a form 8A. No problem. That's a pretty
easy form. We need a letter from an engineer. The engineer that did this project was um >> Giovas was it Giovani or No, it was >> Giovani. Federa. >> Giovani and Federa. And um >> you said Fedora. >> We would What did I say?
>> No, I said Fitz Laura, not Fida. >> Okay. And um we need uh an engineer, could be anyone, but Gonnie knows this the site to review the order of conditions and write a substantial
compliance letter that states that everything's in substantial compliance to the order of conditions. Although they did have a small shed small shed approved that's on the property and in the in the location that was approved.
So that's the only thing that's on the property that we didn't have in the order of conditions and then an asbuilt plan. So I believe tonight Amed and uh Maha are asking for us to wave some of
those um needed material. And the reason that we talked about at the counter was um because the commission had been out there so often and so much during the planting process
that they have uh you know what would be the equivalent as an institutional knowledge of the site. So therefore, this wasn't uh something that uh they felt well, they felt like it was it would be an opportunity to ask if you
needed a uh an asphill plan. And what they could provide, which they had to do for the um construction of the house, is that the um building department does have a asbuilt plan. It's just not as
detailed as the one we usually look at. So, did that uh Amed, did I uh did I state that for you correctly? Is there anything you would like to add? >> Uh yes, Chuck, you you you said it
perfectly. Well, thank you for that. >> Thoughts? I agree that we we were out there a lot. Um what you ask on the surface makes sense to me. I don't have any
strong grounds for disagreeing with that. Um when we talked to you and your wife many times certainly was apparent that you intended to do the right thing. Um and so I would think if we went out
and did a review without requiring a detailed asbuilt plan. I I think that would be sufficient in my opinion. Um I'm a little worried about setting precedent of not requiring an asbuilt
plan. So I guess my question is is there a hardship that is the reason that you don't want to bring a current ASB built plan to the
certificate of compliance. >> Uh yeah so my understanding is that the property has remained stable and well maintained over time u with no environmental concerns. So or material deviation. So from original scope I also
understand the project history relatively well known. So um moving to like I have a relocation timeline. So I'm just moving out. I just wanted to make sure that all liabilities on the new owner is well explained. So if we
could get the certificate of compliance um before moving, I think that would be helpful just to make sure everything is okay with the property. >> Okay. So the issue is one of time that you don't have enough time to get an
engineer to make a new asbuilt plan in time for us to do the certificate of compliance before you move. >> Okay. Um, I
am pretty sure I have copies of the plans of what was supposed to be put there. So, I would feel comfortable taking the plans that I have from when it was built and the asbuilt plan from when the
con construction happened and go out there and compare to what's actually growing out there. Because mostly the issue is whether the plantings are in the right places. I I'm not questioning whether the house is in the right place. >> That'd be hard for it not to be in the
right place. >> Yeah. So we could so we could move forward and I mean like trust but verify we could move forward and if there are inconsistencies on the site we would probably not want to move forward with
issuing and we would ask for an asphill plan. Does that make sense? >> So that would imply that we would get out there soon very soon to do that. Um, you know, I So, from what I heard, um, Amed is already going, uh, traveling
back and forth to his new job and they're just waiting for the school year to end. >> So, there's that kind of time. >> Okay. So either way, uh, did that make sense? That way, uh, we're doing what we can to support you in your move, yet
we're still holding some kind of a tether in case there is an issue that we can say for this reason, we can't go through with the original plan. And that way um, we have protection and then and yet you have a means to move forward.
>> So we could put it on to the meeting for the 27th and go out there on the 25th. >> Yeah. which would be the Monday prior to that meeting. >> That's a Memorial Day. >> Everyone says that. Yeah. Hey, I'm free on that day. Isn't that strange? So, um,
so is that site visit going to be the next day? Is it the next day? It's going to be the 26th. >> That's the field trip day. >> That's the field trip day. >> And I think the 25th was also mentioned by Jane as a MBTA site visit, too, which
could be longer. And I don't know if that's actually happening on Memorial Day, but >> MBTA, is that our MBTA culvert day? >> The Culvert Day, but that was again mentioned by Jane during the select board meeting yesterday. It hasn't been >> It won't be that day. That's all changed. I just Okay. Update anyone.
Um, no, in a good way. No, it's not. Well, it's just been postponed. >> No, that that's Yeah, it's Memorial Day. That's why I just want to make sure. >> Yeah. Um, >> what about Wednesday the 27th? I could do that. >> And I could do that.
>> You're going to be in Canada, Mike? Mike? >> No, I'm uh No, I'm >> Tim. Mike Tim? >> No, I'm training my new employee at 7 o'clock on the 27th. >> Oh, really? >> So, I have something at 10 that I can't move. Other than that, I'm open. So if
>> there's likely to be couple of things um it's a likely to be a couple of things. >> Hello everyone. Can you hear me? >> Yes, you can. >> Hi. How are you? Um thank you so much for your support. I really appreciate it
and that made me more emotional that I'm leaving Reading. You're so nice and thank you for everything. Um um just have a request if we can have it before the Memorial Day as the 27th we are going to travel to find some houses in
Texas where we are going to move. Um so I'm not going to be on site. So I really appreciate if we can make it before Memorial Day. Um I really want to see you Martha Brian. So I wish I can be here um to see you. I'm not sure if that
can be visible. I mean, I can do it before 27. Obviously, you guys have more scheduling issues than I do, but I could do it Tuesday, Wednesday, th Thursday of next week,
>> including Tuesday the 19th. >> That's not first thing, but >> say 10:30 on >> um >> certainly Wednesday, Thursday, first thing I can do. >> Yeah, >> I would just assume do it Wednesday
morning. Wednesday the 20th. >> I could do Wednesday the 20th. >> That work for you. >> Okay. And you always depends on >> I know it doesn't work >> for my daughter's graduation. >> It doesn't work for you.
>> It would only be maybe only you two and maybe others. >> Does Tuesday the 19th at 10:30 work for you? >> And do you want to be there? Is it >> uh I think
Yeah. So, um I'm going to put my my commissioner hat on instead of my administrator hat on. It's an outside project. I don't see the need for the homeowner to be there. We can do it anytime we want. Um it's our review. I
think that you could do it on a regular day. I think one of the one of the things that I'm hearing from people about joining the conservation commission is there's a lot of site visits and you just added another one. So, um I don't I'm not saying we have to
fix it this time, but we do want to have consistency. Uh we can go there uh whenever. But why doesn't after Memorial Day work also since
I've forgotten when school ends, but it must be June something, right? >> 22nd. June 22nd. >> So, I think there's time, right? >> But you were just saying that you have multiple things to do on Wednesday after. >> I can't do Wednesday. Um, let me look at what Tuesday looks like.
>> Right. But you were saying Wednesday the 27th we're going to have more site visits than just this one. I suspect we will because there's a few things on my calendar right now. >> So, >> so that's the question is
>> it's just because we don't have the Monday and >> well and don't we have to do we have to take a vote before the June 10th meeting effectively then? So, it's either the 27th or the June 10th meeting
>> or what what why do we take a vote? certificate of compliance vote. >> They would like to get a vote before school's out. >> Well, yeah. Or >> right >> or before they sell their house,
>> which I believe they're having open houses for this if I'm not mistaken. >> So, if you guys go out on Wednesday the 20th, does that is that a problem? I think m you'll be able to manage the >> I'll bring my plans. >> I think that works.
>> I think so too. >> I mean this this is very much taken an optimistic viewpoint as much as anything because we saw it so frequently in such detail. >> Um I can probably tell you where the
invasives were in the back right and I can tell you where the piles of debris were. Um, so I I think we can have a very good view of whether there's anything a miss, >> okay, >> pretty quickly. And so I think we should go with that assumption and worst case
if we find something then so be it. There's a reason that is there. >> Um, and let's let's be positive. Let's assume is going to work out and if it doesn't, >> well that's on you guys anyway. >> So So Wednesday the 20th, >> Wednesday 20th,
>> 8:30 at 8:30. Is does that work? We're gonna see our best two members. >> Walter's going to >> Oh, said he's checking his schedule. He didn't know. He did the I don't know. >> He did that. >> Okay. So, let let's say uh we'd be at
8:30 on Wednesday the 20th with bells on. >> All right. Sounds good. >> Okay, that work for you guys. >> Perfect. Thank you so much. >> Yeah, fully appreciate your time with view.
So >> I do think we are going to do this. >> Oh, never mind. Chuck won't be there. I was going to ask you to get coffee for Chuck, but never mind. >> Okay, you got it. >> Oh, he won't be there. It doesn't matter. Okay,
>> I'll be in. >> Thank you so much. >> All right. Thank you. Good night. >> Thank you so much. >> You Bye. Anything else before? >> You won. You're the funniest tonight. That's all. >> You won.
>> Well, yeah. Not sleeping. >> Okay. Um, that's it. >> Do you have anything else? >> I don't have anything else. I don't think anyone else is here tonight. Um, and so we're ready to close it in.
>> Move to adjourn at 9:36. >> Second. All in favor? >> Okay. Good night. >> Good night, everyone. >> Good night. All right. See you, Joe.