of the acts of 2023. Um, which further extends to certain provisions of CO 19 measures regarding remote participation in a public meeting until June 30th, 2027. Please note that
not all items um listed may in fact be discussed and other items not listed may be brought up for discussion to the extent permitted by law. Um the agenda includes those matters which can be reasonably anticipated to be discussed at tonight's meeting. Please note that
this meeting is being recorded and um all materials available at the conservation division page website. Brian B the commission chair will facilitate this meeting. Please note that there will be a public comment period at the end of each hearing. Each
vote taken during tonight's meeting will be conducted by roll call vote. We'll begin with roll call attendance. Please review the agenda and take roll call attendance. >> Okay, I'll start with the roll call attendance first. And this is the order
we will vote in when we get to that. >> Tim Michelle, member present. >> Turk member present. Joe >> Joseph Flurry associate member present >> and yes you can't go forget >> Alter Talbert member present >> Martha
>> Martha Moore vice chair present >> Rambo chair present now we'll go over the agenda uh we're going to start off with the continuation of the public hearing um for Zero Vine Street MBTA that'll be a
brief meeting tonight that'll be followed by a continuation of a public hearing on a notice of intent for zero small lane. Then we move on to continuing a public hearing a notice of intent for 24 Dustin Road
followed by opening a public hearing on notice of intent for 400 Grove Street and then opening a public hearing on an amended notice of intent for Zero and Net Lane. And the last hearing is opening a public
hearing on request for determination of applicability for 75 day in a road. Then we have our usual discussion items and old and new business. And with that, call to order at >> recording in progress. >> 704.
We can start with our first item, which is zero Vine Street. This is the MBTA turnaround track. There have been some updates. Chuck, do you want to take us through it? Sure. >> Uh,
do I just >> No. Uh so um so last week we had an email from uh uh the MBTA and they asked to us for us to continue until December.
And today we received an email and it was about um turn this off. Uh it was an email and it said that they would like to withdraw the notice of intent without prejudice. And so the commission is asked to
disregard that first request of an extension but to uh take up withdrawing the application uh for this applicant. >> Right. And because we didn't take up the request for continuence, we're not going
to discuss it. It's just on the record. Okay. With that, we have to vote to accept the withdrawal. Can I have a motion to accept the withdrawal by uh the MBTA for Zero Vine Street? >> I move to accept the withdrawal for Zero
Vine Street without prejudice. >> Walter Talbert second that Michelle >> approves. J Walter Talbert's in favor in favor. >> Rainbow in favor. Okay.
Puts that aside. Next is zero small lane. I will read the blurb. uh continue the public hearing on notes of intent file by Joseph Marino pursuant to me general law chapter 131 section 40
the wetlands protection act and or the writing wetland protection bylaw section 7.1 for proposed tree cutting limited project roadway crossing retaining walls wetland alteration wetland replication drainage to construct a single family
dwelling porch walkway driveway rooftop infiltration grading and associated utilities All the work is within the buffer zone to a bordering vegetated wetland. The application plans can be viewed on the conservation division page under current
project assesses map 401 lot 153 and 29 also 22 small lane map 40 lot 155 D file number 270-803. Thank you, Brian.
>> Thank you, commission. Uh, for the record, my name is Jack Sullivan. I'm owner of the Solid Engineering Group. I'm here with the applicant, Joe Marino, and I'm here with Moren Herald of Norse Environmental. Um, since our last meeting, um, I did
make some changes to the design plan. Um, as the commission will re remember, I had a conventional culde-sac. Um both sides of the culde-sac were within with were within the 25 foot uh wetland buffer and the 35 foot wetland buffer.
The commission asked if there was a possibility I might be able to re realign the roadway or maybe have an an alternative design to try to limit the impact um to the buffer zone. Um I had a
DRT meeting with town staff. Chuck was at that meeting, but the uh town engine uh public works director was there, fire department. So, I came up with a plan um that I put in a hammerhead turnaround at the end instead of a a rounded full
culde-sac. By doing this and realigning it, I have the entire turnaround outside of the 35 ft no structure zone. Also based on DP's comments when we filed um for the notice of intent originally we were issued a DP file number there were
comments um on the Culver crossing um to see if I could reduce the length of that which I did. It used to be 41 feet now it's 31 feet and I was able to pull by doing that I was able to pull the limit of work line in more. Um so I I made
some substantial improvements. The last design I had 57 trees being removed. Now I'm down to 35 trees. So that that was a big positive. That was one of the big things, tree removal, which I reduced, and then trying to um get that turnaround
better designed, which I think I have. So we went to the planning board couple week or two ago. U we had a good meeting with them. Um, we're still awaiting um, comments from the fire department on the turnaround. I designed it so that it
meets um, the movements, the uh, turning radiuses for the largest vehicle, but of course I need some sort of memo from the fire department supporting this design. At the DRT meeting, um, the lieutenant from the fire department said he was open to it. Um, so that's kind of where
I'm at with the design work. Also with the drainage D had commented I had a detention basin out to the rear of the proposed house. Um since it was within 50 ft of a wetland they were saying I couldn't take credit
um for infiltration and I reviewed the D storm water policy. That was correct. Um it wasn't caught when we did the peer review last time. Everything had been reviewed and it was fine. But what I did is I eliminated that detention pond and now I I put a a drainage system
underneath the pavement. So I've actually reduced the overall site impact. Now I'm working within the footprint of the roadway. Those structures under the pavement. We'd still have the two deep sump catch basins which would flow to a storm septer and
then they would flow to what are called retained units. They're pre-cast concrete units and they're um they're eight 8 foot by 8 foot. You can get varying heights. These are three feet high. Um and I've managed the 210, 25,
and 100year storm event um without any sort of search charge. I'm able to handle all those. Another reason I limited the detention basin, we didn't really have too much of butter comment to um water issues, but there were some to the
rear of the site who had mentioned they had some wet basement and some concerns. So, by eliminating that detention, we did have an overflow um moving out to the wetland to the rear. Now, that's eliminated. So, I think the neighbors would be happy I eliminated any concerns
with water coming off of this project going towards them. Um, we still need to make comments to D. Um, Moren's going to write up some comments to them. Um, she can talk more about that tonight. Um, also, uh, Brian
wasn't in last time. We did have talks on the filing fees for this project and also um, peer review, but we didn't get too into that at the last meeting where you weren't here, Brian. Um, I did present >> Yeah, I did I did present
um what I thought um some fee the fees could be based on and Chuck talked about this at the last meeting based on um some of the other projects um and based on town council's comments on the fee structure. Um but we can get more into
that tonight. Um I'll turn it over to the commission. Marin's here as well to make some comments on the crossing, but I >> Why don't we cover that first? Mar, if you want to have any comments about your D interactions. >> Okay. Um, so the commission may recall
that D provided uh lengthy comments on the project itself. Um, so I can go through some of those comments quickly with the commission. Um >> Moren, can you introduce yourself? >> Oh, sure. Moren Herald, North
Environmental Services. So, one of their first comments uh was relative to the intimate stream bank um saying that we should identify the bank with the intermittent stream also located on the upream side of the
existing 12in pipe. So the bank itself is flagged in the field with the downgradient side. It's shown on the plan as 1D through 60D. With this new design that um Jack was able to
reconfigure the roadway and shift it and make it into a hammerhead. Um essentially the upgrad. I'm just going to point at the screen. This part here is essentially just removing the pipe because this is the
roadway. Um, I can certainly extend some of the bank flagging up gradient a little bit in that area, but I'm not necessarily sure it's required because we're essentially just
going to be removing that clogged in pipe. But to address D comments, I can extend that a little bit up gradient. That's not a problem. Um she notes bank should be delineated
revise the plans uh note the alterations and restoration uh DP's opinion that the bank alteration uh is inevitable during the culvert in installation. Therefore it should be quantified. Um, again, the upgradient
side, it would just be really temporary type impacts because we're going to be improving it. Right now, that's a 12 inch pipe that's currently clogged with sediment that isn't essentially uh flowing at all in that area. So, it'll
be a matter of removing that pipe, putting waddles on either side of the pipe, um, and and taking that out and stabilizing that area. We had proposed in the previous filing to do some um biodegradable matting at the base of the
stream. Um but keep in mind the stream in this area isn't your classic type stream. It's more of a drainage ditch. It certainly meets the requirement of a stream. I'm I'm not arguing that point. Um but it's
rather shallow and natural gradient of that pipe. >> Moren before you move on. So the pipe um I guess the water would go through the pipe although it's blocked but DEP is saying when you remove the pipe tell us
how much bank you're just that you're altering. is are you altering bank because it's buried now or D feels like the pipe isn't long enough so you are altering >> so my understanding the way that D looks
at this is the pipe itself when you take it out no you wouldn't be altering bank but possibly a little bit upgradient you might be as you're removing it from uh property so it would be a temporary
alteration at best Mhm. >> In that area, >> are you going to provide that information to DP? >> Absolutely. We have >> Does that change what the commission has to uh other than some numbers, does it change anything for the commission? It seems like the
same plan is presented, >> right? So it's the same plan and in fact this is quite the improvement than what's out there in terms of hydraology improving you know the bank and the BBW how it functions. >> So to follow up on that are you going to
be writing up a formal answer to the question? >> Yes. >> And we'll get a copy of that I presume. >> Absolutely. Okay. Um let's see what else we got here. Okay. She wants to quantify the numbers
which we just spoke about. Um she she did question in part of this on the bankful width and how we determine it. So the bankful width varies from 6 to 10 feet wide. Um up gradient it's
rather a narrow channel. Down gradient of the pike um Where are we? In this area here, it opens up. Um, when we did the original design, we were
conservative because it ranged from six to 10 feet. Normally, you take the average it would be 8 feet wide. I think on the pass filing we use 10 feet. Again, we have a relatively large culprit. It's 18 feet wide. So that more
than enough meets um the span ratio which needs to be 1.2 times the width of the bank itself. So we certainly meet that. Um let's see. She talks about some details on the plan. Plan's been updated. So um
we'll update the numbers dimensional crossing. She talks about bank restoration. Um, so in terms of bank restoration, when we do pull the pipe out, if we use the
average width of 10 feet, what I think would be the best case scenario is to put bottles 10 feet on either side of that and then a biodegradable blanket in the in the middle. Um, the bank itself, I'm not
sure if the commission has been out there in the intimate stream. It's rather shallow. It doesn't have much rocks within it. It's not like your classic rock type stream that you think of. It's more of a
sandy bottom with mud. And it has a very shallow gray to it. I would say half percent to maybe a 1% in some parts, but it's very it's shallow and there's really not much gray to it. Um, so I'm
not concerned about erosion downstream or um us taking the pipe out, putting it in this new culvert and and seeing a lot of sediment running into the wetland or any type of erosion.
Um, let's see. And then she goes into the drainage. So I don't know if the commission has any questions on the bank or the bank restoration. >> I wanted based on something you said a couple minutes ago. So you said you use
10 ft for the bank. Then you said the cover is supposed to be 1.2 times. So how can the covert be bigger than the actual bank? But so Massachusetts came out with the stream crossing standards
um gosh at least a decade ago maybe 15 years ago and you have a number of stream crossing standards that you need to meet and one of it is the bankful width. So when you do any type of culvert replacement or culverts for
crossing it's required that the culvert be 1.2 times the width of bank. >> I get that. But how do you do that if the bank is this big? You're saying the culvert itself is bigger than the bank. >> Yes. >> That's interesting. >> Yeah. And then you can line waddles
within the culvert to to you know create a bank in that area. I didn't know that and I because I don't see how that actually work but that >> I
um so I had I had a similar question. Um so in the original notice of intent what what was what did you determine that the bank full width was? So, we went with a
conservative approach because, correct me if I'm wrong. Um, LEC reviewed the original proposal. Um, we went through a number of reviews and essentially we designed the crossing to meet the
stream crossing standards at 100%. So as part of the stream crossing standards, you not only have to meet the bank full width, but you have to meet an openness ratio. So we designed it at the bank being 10 ft to be conservative.
>> Rather than the eight feet for the bank for width, >> so you've dropped it down to eight feet now. >> No, it's still designed at 10, but normally you take the average width of a V. >> Okay. So, it's designed a 10 and you're
doing an 18 foot three-sided open box cover and that's one point what did you say 1.2 times bank full width >> right? >> So your question was >> the bank is involved.
>> So if the bank is like this right some kind of tapering towards the water itself. So you saying that the culvert is wider than that? So it actually digs into the side of the bank. >> So it's a box culvert. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Right. So it's so it's wider than the
stream. >> So the edges of the bank come down on top of the edges of the culvert. >> No, it's actually a lot wider than the So the culvert is wider than the stream channel itself. >> Okay. That's what I was trying to get at. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So
>> to make sure that it doesn't constrict the flow. I I yeah, I get that. Just because then you were saying you wouldn't be affecting the bank, but obviously you're going to be digging into the bank >> to some extent to have it be bigger than the bank.
>> So in this scenario, it would be a no because even if we use the conservative of a 10- foot wide intermittent stream bank, we're putting in an 18 foot wide culpr.
So, some of the banks of the stream will still be underneath the culvert in their original location. >> Yes, that's what I'm trying. >> That will be altering the bank in order to dig under >> to to have it be wider than the the side of the bank, right?
>> It'll be popped on top of >> with footings. >> Yeah, they are going to do footings. It sits on footings. >> Yeah. Okay. I'm just not picturing that. So you dig the footings and then you would take the box cover and you would put it on top of the footings,
>> but you're removing the 12 inch cover. >> And how how wide are you making that area where the 12-in culvert is? Is you going to open that up to something in between what's upstream and downstream?
>> Yes, I think we have to I think we we have to find a happy medium between the two. I mean, at the end of the day, the stream is going to run its own course anyhow and kind of maneuver its own way through, right? >> But we just make it a starting point
>> and and yeah, it can it can wind in there and that's why the extra extra area is for. But when you take out that culvert and you create that new channel, that's what DP is asking. What's that going to look like? What does it look like upstream? What does it look like downstream? What does it look
like further downstream? I don't even know if there's a further downstream but and then put all that together and Morin's saying that's basically sand >> right and and I believe in D's comments that they requested a detail of this and
we can provide a detail but as Jack mentioned this is a little bit of a work in progress between you folks and planning board and just kind of getting everybody on board with the new layout for the roadway. So, as far as my question, which I still don't understand the answer to, I'll put it aside for now
and I'll have Chuck give me a class on this between now and the next time I see you because I I'm obviously missing something. Perhaps I'm the only one missing it. >> Is there something here you need us to move forward on for planning or is this just more information?
>> We have to go back to planning. So, we're set to continue this tonight. >> Okay. Well, it seems like you're on the right track from what I understand about about this. I do think that D wants their information. It would be great to have that go back to D and and make sure
that they're satisfied. That would that would be my concern. Um I mean, obviously D hasn't been out here. I think the commission has been some of us have been out there three or four times at this point. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, uh, one thing I brought up,
um, to Jack and to the chairs is that I don't think there's much flow coming around the peninsula, around the house. And if we open this up, is that just going to drain straight out? And I was asking for Jack to look
at some sort of weir to hold back some portion of that wetland so it doesn't just dry up. Now, I understand there's been some historic flooding out there and I asked them to take that into consideration, but we just don't want to pull the plug on the bathtub and you
know, the answer might be it doesn't need one, but I am asking Jack to look at that. >> Yeah, I mean, most certainly Jack can take a look at that. Um, as you mentioned, that area is really flat. the whole BVW especially upgradion of this
just off the cuff it doesn't seem necessary but Jack can take a look at it. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um Jack do you want to come back up and we can talk about >> Sure. Jack, do you want to bring >> Did she get through all the the list? I
don't remember. >> Actually, I thought >> Did you get through all the list? >> I think so. Unless anybody else has any questions. I I I was uh I had one more question, but
>> sorry, very quick tonight. I appreciate it. Um, so you're running uh electrical and sewage and water up the uh driveway. Are you I know you're going underneath the stream somehow. Are you like jacking
it underneath the stream or are you excavating it and dropping it in? I mean, what's the extent of the disturbance? Yeah, >> we would be excavating >> excavating. >> Um, and it's it's a good point you
brought up because I need five feet of cover over the water man so it doesn't freeze. So from the bottom of that channel will be going down, you know, five or six feet in excavation. That's why we showed a dewatering area. Um, but yeah, they'd be
excavating through there to put in the pipe. And can you can you do that within the 18 foot disturbance area that the ox culver is going to be dropped onto or you have to go you know I know it's coming in one side and out the other
side but outside of that >> they would they would most likely do the water and sewer work first and then do the footings for the box covered they dig through um if that's your question the the the deepest utility would go in first
>> then the footage Is that the sewer? >> What's that? >> So, which one's the deepest? >> The water. >> The water, then the sewer, then the electrical. >> Yeah, I don't understand. >> The C know this. Did they make a comment? >> They didn't make a comment on it, but I >> They understand that this is what's
happening out there. >> They should because I showed it. If you go to one of my sheets on the profile, you'll see where the box covered is and then see see that dash line. Mhm. >> Yeah, I can point out on this.
Here's the water level and the culvert and the it extends two feet down. This is where the footings will be and you can see how the water man's going to go around. The soar is actually going it'll be covered um in here. It'll be soil. So, there's coverage over
that. But yeah, it's shown right in the profile. But I I can give some more description on that to spell it out. >> Yeah, I would just wonder So, I understand you're digging it out. What if you alter, I don't know, its holding capacity or something like that? Do you segregate
the soil to make sure you have like a clay liner in there or something? >> I mean, is that all taken care of? Is there some sort of document that describes how we're going to make sure that the stream >> uh doesn't just, you know, you said it's
very sandy out there. So if if precautions weren't taken, whatever is whipping around the corner would just go underground underneath the culver, >> right? I'd have to show some detail on how the utility work would be done in that area, how it would be protected, how water could be I mean obviously uh
if this got approved, it would this would be approved during a dry season to be put in. You're not going to do this in the spring when it's wet. >> No, I think that's a good idea, but still we want to make sure that we have it lined somehow. I'll have to show some details on how that would be done in
sequencing. Okay. Um, so for this part, it would be good to have an environmental monitor and I know that Moren is probably going to be that person. So I hope you don't mind, Moren. Uh can you let the commission
know how many um culverts of this type that you've been involved in just so they're comfortable with that uh monitoring? >> Um so I've been doing monitoring for 10 years. I I do it currently for the town
of North Andover. They require it for every project. I've been involved in culrid crossings, wetland replication, wetland restoration type projects. Been doing this for almost 25 years now. Um, >> so this is
>> I'm happy to do that if that's what the commission. >> So what we're hearing is this is not the first culvert which is going to be excavated instead of jacked that you've been involved in. >> Correct. >> So you said North Andover requires monitor for every project.
>> Oh, I did. Yes, they do. >> For every for every project in town, whether it's a deck, an addition, a roadway. >> Really? >> Yes. >> What about Andover, >> you know that answer. You watch those meetings. >> Majority of them.
>> Yes, they do. >> Okay. That's an interesting thought. We'll have to take that revisement. >> Okay. >> Okay. Yeah. Yeah. So fees, do you want to take us through your proposal?
>> Sure. So the commission knows at the last meeting we were wrestling with the fees on this project. Um if there was no relief on the fees, I calculated the bylaw fee to be $47,248.
And I think everyone agreed that's that's that's high for a single family house lot. Um, so what I did is I I I did up an alternative and and broke down um the fees and I ended up reducing um
like the the item G, the temporary impermanent alteration from the bylaw fee of $1.25 per square foot. I reduced that down to 50 cents. And then item J, work in a freshwater well and that's $11 a square foot under your
byar. I made that 50 cents and work in a bank is $11 per linear foot. I reduce that to 50 cents. Um, that's in line with some other project that the town council weighed in on. That came out to a total bylaw fee of $12,710.
So, that sounded a little more manageable. And then the idea would be with that fee, um, and this is where what we were kicking around last time, how that would be split up. Our proposal is to split that $12,710 into two $6,355
fees. Um, one wetland fee with a wetland fee in the memo. So there'd be two separate checks and the other check would be to the conservation commission fund with that noted in the memo. Um, and then so so that that would cover the
bylaw fee if we if we did it like that. Then I talked about the tree removal and that we have now 35 trees coming down. So, um I believe we should get credit for the
plantings that we're doing in the rep what in replication area and obviously that's up for discussion with the commission, but we're planting an equivalent of 18 trees in the rain garden, right? And to break that out, we're doing six trees, so that's a one:1
credit. And then we have 37 shrubs. That equals 12 trees at a 3:1 ratio. So, I'm saying out of the 35 trees we're proposing to remove, we should get credited back 18. That would leave 17 trees to be removed. Times $250 a tree,
it would be $4,250 going to the Conservation Commission tree fund. That would give a total payment of $16,960 between the tree fund and the the bylaw fee. 16960.
>> Can I just ask a clarification? One time you just said replication area and right after that you said rain garden. Are those the same thing? >> I keep screwing that up. I think I did that to >> It's that triangle space, right? >> It's a wet replication area.
>> Not a rain garden. >> It's not a rain garden. >> Yeah, it's that triangle over on the left. >> Yeah, it's that it's an area of about 1300. is that blue area on the the 1367 square foot area. >> We have the planting plan for that on another page.
>> Yeah. And that was called for in the previous when LEC was reviewing this, they wanted to see a robust planting plan for that wetland replication area. Yeah. >> So, it's pretty robust. >> Yeah. >> So, uh not to be on the other side of
this, but um I think that's >> why I get paid the big bucks. So I I so I objected to and I told Jack this that I was going to raise an objection to um doing this mitigation planting because they're filling a wetland and that's why
it's required. So how could they use those plantings which are required through a different portion of the WPA to also say that we're going to use those to offset the trees and the tree fund. And so that was that was my
concern. So, it wasn't just the trees, it's the trees and shrubs. Now, I appreciate you using the trees and that's great and I'm I'm happy about that. But, um I like we're always concerned about setting a precedent and so we just want to make sure if we're replicating
something or mitigating something that that's separate from replacing trees because we would have got that anyways if there were no trees taken down. They were doing mitigation. We said you have to restore wetlands in
a dry area. Wetlands always include shrubs sometimes trees which is being proposed here. But so that was that was my my comments. >> So what are your thoughts on that Jack? >> I see where Chuck's coming from. He
thinks we're double dipping. >> I've heard that phrase. >> Yep. And I understand that, but I from Joe's standpoint, you know, he's building one house. It's going to be expensive enough to build this roadway to get to this one
lot. Um, and then he's he's paying for all those trees and shrubs. And then if he has to pay on top of this, you know, I I thought he should get some credit for that because it it was a robust planting area. We could have done a wetland
restoration area and just done like a a wetland seed mix with a few shrubs and called it a day. We did we are so showing what six mature trees 37 shrubs. It's and we are over the 2:1
ratio. Like we're filling 566 square feet of wetland. We're well more than the 2:1. I could have shrunk this down and had less plantings. We're going above the 2:1. So there's actually a benefit. you're getting a larger wetland and it's well planted.
>> Um, but I know there was discussion on this last time and there's different opinions on that, but from I'm trying to support my client. He's going to spend a lot of money, so I'm putting it out there. >> You said so. What were you going to say? >> Well, I just want Don't get lost in the
terminology here. It's up to always up to the commission whether you're accepted or not. Jack can propose anything he wants. He could have proposed just digging it out or declaring it a wetland replication area and waiting for mother nature to take care of. It's up to the commission to
say what level of restoration restoring of that area would qualify for the fill. So that offset. So, do you want I mean I think he's class A what we're looking at is class A wetland which they've come up with and
maybe that's where you would have come up with in the in the first place but I've certainly seen these uh presented with just uh herbaceous material ferns and grass. So >> I just want to add one um one point is
that normally we would propose a driveway in this type of scenario and if the town would have allowed the driveway the removal of the mature trees would have been minimal at best. However, the
planning board requires us to provide this roadway and the roadway does provide a benefit in terms of the neighborhood and emergency vehicles and fire trucks that can now go down small lane and actually be able to turn around
quite easily. So, it's just a point maybe for the commission to consider. This is a substantial cost for the client because a roadway is required even though we would have loved to put in a 12 foot wide roadway. I mean that that's a much better design in a
scenario like this but it's just not allowed. >> So let me speak to that for a second. I I understand what you're saying. However, it was not us nor the weapon protection act that imposed requirement for a roadway and not a driveway. So the
wetlands shouldn't suffer because the town planning board said roadway rate uh instead. So I get your point. Um not really buying the idea that it's a benefit for the neighborhood because yes
uh the trucks can turn around but six and a half dozen the other and that that isn't a long road. They could have backed out like the current plan would be back out onto Dana and then go as opposed to going up the hill and using the hammerhead. So that's not really a
distinct >> Mr. Chairman, you have not talked to the fire chief because if the fire chief heard you say to back out a fire truck, the conversation would not go well. >> But that's what the current plan is, right? I mean, it's a dead end. It's not a
>> call. It's But Jack provides attorney radius for the fight. It's actually with we I mean we have two different competing interests just as you said Mr. Chairman uh town of Reading allows a maximum deadend road length of 500 ft. Right now
they have no turnaround. It looks like they do. They don't. And by us extending this road now we're like 700 feet. So part of our waiver request to exceed that deadend road length is to provide a turnaround. So the town viewed that as a
positive. They don't have a turnaround now. So the fire chief if there was an issue he would of course in an emergency back out but that's not what they want to do. >> I understand again there's town request and there's our responsibilities to the protection act. So
>> we did when I was at DRT I did ask if we could reduce the road width. We talked you know it's 24 feet. Could we get less? >> Yes. I know. And and just one last thing is we're disturbing a fraction of this
land in terms of the overall acreage. So there's 10 acres, >> there's 14 acres, >> and we're really trying to design a project that's not only appropriate for the town, but also for the commission given the number of resource areas that
are on site. Um, most of this land we're not even touching. just something >> wetland so it'd be hard for you to touch but >> true but we're we're not touching we're not we're not cutting any trees we're
not proposing any removal of vegetation just just another thought that's all >> thoughts are good um there anything more you want to say let me talk to commission first do you have any questions comments on any of this
discussion so far >> do you have You look like you're about to talk. >> Comments about something else. >> Um I'm thinking I don't like to see everything that's planted in the
replication area as counted against the trees removed. But I would be willing to accept that some of those plantings could count against the trees removed. and I just don't know which way of 50% would be the
appropriate answer. Um, so I that might be a middle ground we could find. >> Okay. Um, do you have anything you want to say before I go with my next piece?
>> Yeah. Yeah. No, I don't I don't I mean >> Okay. I don't we're gonna have to figure out where this where we fall on this, but uh right now it's sounds like it's almost the end of the discussion. >> Sounds like what? >> Sounds like we're pretty much at the end of the feed >> almost. Um the one last thing I want to
say is you've mentioned a number of times that he's going to be spending a lot of money. I get that. That's also not germanine to the Weapon Protection Act. Um, and we've already talked through the significant reduction in the
fees. I know where that came from. That wasn't your doing. That was previous. So, I understand how the 11 quarter became 50 cents. But, um, this your applicant, your client is
spending this money to build the house. So he's spending multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars. So the money we're talking about here should not be the straw that breaks the camel back. And a certain shouldn't certainly shouldn't be
at the expense of the weapons. So if we come up with some kind of a compromise, Martha's something else. That's one thing. But I really don't want to hear anymore that he's spending a lot of money. That's a choice. you know,
nobody's making them buy this land, build this house, deal with the stream crossing, and so that doesn't really factor too much into our thinking. At the same time, not going to take advantage of I'm not looking to drive them away by, you
know, a little bit more, but just want to put that in perspective. Moren said, it's just a thought for consideration. >> That's a good point. And the difference we're talking about if if we if we say none of the plantings count in the rain
garden, none of the trees, um the total he would owe $8,750 for the tree removal. We're proposing that he pay $4,250. So it's a difference of $4,000. So we're not world a world apart. So if we were
to agree with that number, and I'm not saying we will, but if we were to as a compromise, it could not be listed as because of the mitigation in the replication restoration area. It would have to be a compromise that was made
for the overall good of the property. >> I understand that. Yeah. >> Um, and you know, there obviously are some other considerations that could play in it as well. Um, I know there's been conversation about all the wetland
towards the back. Uh, and that conversation if it comes to fruition could be part of the overall compromise. So, uh, anything you want to add now
should we wrap this part of it up? Yeah, I sounds like this isn't going to get finished up. >> I don't think so. I mean from my perspective um the 16690
is an acceptable number perhaps with some some conditions but the way you arrived at it uh I don't quite agree with namely thing we talked about the taking credit for things in the replication restoration area
Um, I guess I guess I would say that we should not continue this fee conversation and give us some time to think about like Martha's thought on taking some credit for that. And
>> so, uh, just to >> conservation commission doesn't want to be in the position where they're coming up with solutions. will accept whatever your alternatives are. So, we do exactly opposite what Brian just mentioned. Come up with something that gets us out of
where we're at, which is kind of like a log jam. >> Right. I hear where you're coming from, Brian. You're looking for something um if it was like a land donation, could be mitigation, and then we could take off the tree removal, could be mitigation
another way that offsets the trees. >> Um it's something I'd have to talk to my client about. I understand that. I fully expect that. >> Okay. Okay. >> Um but the number itself, you know, as Chuck said, you're in the right class,
in the right place. >> Yeah. >> Just got to figure out the rest of it. >> And before we go too far, and Chuck had said this in an email to me, we need to know where the fire department stands on the hammerhead. >> Clearly. >> So, I really I wanted to get in front of you guys tonight. You weren't here last meeting, Brian. show this new design but
until we hear from them we know we need to continue tonight. So having said that we can hold other comments till next time. >> Okay. >> So can I have a motion to continue this to when do you want to
continue the two >> next to your next available meeting? >> So that's December 10th. >> Yes. >> We only have one in November and one in December. >> Yeah. >> Are you okay? Are you okay with that? >> You didn't want to have your comment?
>> We'll get to that at the next meeting. Okay. >> Okay. I move that we continue this hearing to December 10th. >> Top seconds. >> Tim favor in favor. >> Walter in favor.
>> Arthur Moore in favor. Rambo in favor. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Thanks. See you in a month. decision just okay. Uh so next on the agenda is 24 Dustin
Road. I will read the blur. Continue the public hearing on notice of intent follow by Shan Mcaffeffrey pursuant to Massachusetts general law chapter 131 section 40 the wetland protection act andor the writing wetland protection bylaw 67.1
for raising the existing home and constructing a new single family home with associated porch patio garage and driveway portions of the work are within the buffer buffer zone to a bordering vegetated wetland the application plans can be viewed in the conservation
division page on the current project justice map 26 lot 164 and who is here for that or online >> yes Andrew he's right right there who online uh Andrew can you hear me
>> who who can who else is with you I was looking to see if um I could figure out but I can't who who else should I let into the meeting >> yep we also have um Dan Dragani is our civil engineer and then Sean McSeffrey is the applicant. >> Okay, great. >> Okay, Andrew, do you want to take us
through uh an update? >> Yes, absolutely. Um and I can share my screen if I have permission to do that. >> Yes, you do. >> Perfect. So, as a brief um recap, we were last with the commission at your October 8th meeting where we introduced
this project, which is a tear down and rebuild um partially within the 100 foot buffer zone to these bordering vegetated wetlands at the edge of the site. Um so, at that meeting, we had gone over the project in detail and the commission had about eight comments for us to to look
to incorporate into a final plan. Um on November 6th, we had submitted a revised cover letter and a revised site plan set that we see here and that we were able to incorporate all eight of those additions into the plan. So I'm going to run through them quickly at a high level just to show the improvements that have been made since our last meeting. The
the major one is the implementation of a storm water management system. When when this was first filed, um it did not propose any storm water management. It was a request of the commission to add um storm water management for the roof runoff as well as the driveway runoff.
So since then, our engineer added a coldtech system outside of the 100 foot buffer zone that connects to the house's roof runoff and a rain garden next to the driveway to handle the runoff there as well. They test done and um there are calculations on the plan that show that
it's exceeds that 1 in volume. The additions from here get a little bit a little bit easier. Um the commission had requested that we use um mulch socks instead of straw bottles. So we updated our erosion control detail in the plans. We were asked to add a stockpile area to the plans. So we've added a note that we
will use the area of the driveway for all stockpiling as that's outside of the 100 foot buffer zone. We had had some conversations about sort of some previous use of the property where there was fill degraded materials towards the rear of the property. Um so we did add a
note to the site plans that as part of this project we're going to remove um the fill the thinner blocks anything that's degraded back there. Um similarly the commission had noted some glossy buckthorn shrubs on the sidewalk. So we also added a note to the site plan that as part of the cleanup we'll remove any
invasives that are back here. Um and then the last comments we had pertain to our restoration area. So, as the commission will remember, the the wetland system in the rear of the lot essentially exists along a ditch along the rear property line, but then there's a portion that bleeds up into the
existing lawn. So, the area that's between about flag 10 on my cursor and about flag 14 here. It currently mowed and maintained as lawn, but it does have wetland hydraology. And under the original application, we had proposed to restore that. Um, because that is
actually a wetland area. The commission had a few comments to beef it up and better protect that area. One of them being to add some no disturbed signage to these areas. So, we did add three to the plans in the locations we discussed at the last meeting. The the
southernmost will be located right at the 25 ft. And then we also increased the limit of our restoration area upgradient five feet at the commission's request to give it a little bit more of a buffer to the area we're restoring. And we have two more uh conservation signs going up in that area there. And
then the final comment that the commission had for us was to incorporate shrub plantings into this as well. We were proposing tree plantings as mitigation for um the few trees that require removal in the yard. But we had had the conversation that if we are going to restore this as a wetland area,
we should incorporate shrub plantings. That way we'll hit all of the the layers from trees to shrubs to our baceous. So, we added um sweet pepper bush shrubs into this area as well in addition to the red maple um and the swamp oak trees. So, at this point, we've been
able to incorporate all of the comments we had remaining. Um this was all submitted to the commission on the 6th and if you do have any remaining questions, um I'm here on the call and Dandra Gardney, our engineer is as well. >> Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions, comments from the
commissioners? So all your propo all your proposed plantings are to the wetland side of the wetland line or are they a little bit further out than the wetland line? I see your your
signs are a little bit further out but not all the way to the 25 foot. >> Yes, the plantings will be as well. Um at the last meeting we had discussed that originally we were proposing just to restore up to that that wetland edge because it's law at present. Uh it was
suggested by the commission that we we bump up the line at least 5T to have an upland buffer to that. So the plantings are intended to be cited both within that upland buffer and the wetland area itself. >> That's my only question.
>> Yes. I know during our site visit um we were walking towards the end of Dustin Road um to where Bradford Road is located and we noticed there was like leaf dumping. I think there was long clippings. There was a small kind of bridge. It's not necessarily on the
property but I believe it was tied to this propert. >> Is that item one? Yeah. Okay. And that'll be cleaned up. >> Yes, it will be. Um, speaking of item one, while we're on it, that's the one place that I saw that
you didn't fully go along with the comments of the commission. In the first part of your response there, you're saying that you're not going to remove the fill and you have reasons for that. Can you uh tell us what those reasons are? Explain that to us.
>> Yes. So, that was this fill pile right here. Uh the reason being is I typically only recommend the the removal of fill piles when they're causing problems for the adjacent wetlands. So a good example of that would be um if there's erosion
concerns or if it's um littered with invasive species such that that the removal would be beneficial. In this case um it's actually pretty well vegetated with native species. there is more of a concern of the materials that are on it, some of the old dumping. But
in this case, my opinion is because it's not leading to any issues and there are native species on it, I think that the removal of that fill pile would do more damage than good by um destabilizing quite a bit of the area directly adjacent to the wetlands and then it would actually take some time for those
native species to recover as well. So that's my reasoning there. >> Right. So, just to state it again. So, basically, you're going to remove all the debris back there um on top of those mountains and everything, but you're not
going to move the mountains at all. >> Correct. All All debris, all of the So, I know that there was things like cinder blocks. There was also the lawn clippings and the dumpings. All of that debris will all be removed and then just the pile itself with the native plantings on it that will function just
as a natural high spot will remain at the end. How much open space, how much open ground do you expect to be uncovered when you remove the cinder blocks, the leaf clippings, etc. >> Very little to the point where I would be comfortable saying it's dimminimous.
Um because they're all spread out, it would just be sporadic things here and there. Um nothing that would be noticeable or that would cause any sort of concerns over erosion. >> Okay, Chuck, do you have anything you want to ask? Uh just a question on the operation and maintenance plan. Is there
uh is there a mechanism where this is going to be transferred um if the if the house is sold? I'm I'm assuming it it's a development situation. So the house most likely is going to be sold when it when it's finished. Um
so I was wondering about that because I did notice the the cost per year was $1,700. Yeah, I'll let our engineer Dan chime in on that as he prepared the plan. >> Yeah, of course. Thanks, Andrew. Dan, uh Dan Dani, Engineering Solutions Group.
Um so, the intent was for that to um essentially go along with the um perpetual conditions of the order of conditions um and kind of ride with that if that that works for the local commission. >> Did you and I didn't see it so if you
could just help me out. the uh the reports are they being sent to the engineering department and the conservation office or or is it more like a log kept at in the garage or in the house? >> Um the intent was to be a local log, but I think we are open to that if that's something that is a local requirement.
We'd be happy to, you know, have that be a condition of the order if that if that's helpful. >> Okay. I I do believe that the engineering department would like to have u that information and uh we
usually get it uh also. So >> excellent. Okay, >> great. >> That's all I had. >> Okay. Um then I think I'm looking for a motion to Yes.
on the sizing of the uh Colt system and the drainage system. Um what did you use for the pre point precipitation frequencies? >> Yeah, of course. Um so we used the 1-in storm event. Um kind of coordinated that
local requirement and uh we exceeded the 1-in storm by 10%. Um we also proposed a small rain garden along the driveway. um that will also have some additional plantings there which are to be determined. Um and so that's kind of um
the primary summary there if that's helpful. >> I'm not familiar with the 1- in storm event. I always think in terms of a storm over a certain time period with a mount volume coming down. Um what is meant by a one-inch storm event?
>> So oneinch storm is similar to what the city of Boston does. Um, so essentially we do one inch across every surface that's proposed impervious. That includes the existing. So it's a little bit different than your typical HydroCAD model in that we are mitigating surfaces
that are existing. So we're not discounting um any existing surfaces. >> Well, in in writing we use the uh NOA volume atlas 14 figures.
you familiar with those? >> We absolutely are. Yeah, we do those in a lot of communities. Um we just we did some coordination locally and it sounded like the oneinch storm event was what um was requested here. So that's what we provided.
>> Yeah. So uh I did get a phone call from Andrew and I said that that one in storm would be accept acceptable in this situation. So uh if you're gonna That conversation did happen. >> I'm not sure what a one storm is. Pardon
me. >> Yeah. >> Sorry. >> Is there any way to correlate the one inch storm with the old the Noah uh the Noah Atlas 14? >> Is there a specific year that you use for that? >> No. But is it doesn't um like a
rainstorm event is like 7 point something uh and you know you know I mean is there a we know that you're talking about a one inch storm over 24 hours what would it be if we used the town's Noah uh
requirement. So using Atlas 14 you have sort of a selection right so you can pick a 2 inch 10 uh you can pick a two-year a 10year 25 year 50 year or 100year storm um to model the storm water and when you do
that using Atlas 14 um it does discount those existing areas so you're essentially only mitigating pre versus post whereas a 1-in storm event um basically mitigates every impervious surface, whether existing or
something that's proposed. So, we're not discounting that existing impervious. Generally speaking, typically a 1-in storm event correlates somewhere around the 25-year storm atlas 14. Um, it, you
know, it definitely varies for each site um because of all the different characteristics, but generally a 25-year storm event would be consistent with uh Atlas 14. And one of the reasons why they do it in city of Boston and some of the other communities is that it's a lot simpler
to evaluate um the analysis versus getting you know a report with 50 60 pages. You have very simple calculation um to kind of show those different volumes and compliance with those if that's that's helpful at all.
>> We say it's similar to a 25 year event over what time period? Uh 24-hour storm 24hour >> the NOAA says it's 6.4 in >> not one inch. >> Correct. Yeah. But what's happening
right is that you're not discounting those existing areas. So when you do an Atlas 14 pre and post um you know all the existing surfaces. So that existing rooftop is 1775 square ft. The asphalt driveway is 272.
And so almost 2,000 square ft gets discounted off of the proposed because you're just trying to mitigate pre versus posts. So it's not really like a a one to one on inches if you follow me. Um the the
oneinch storm event um calculation the way that it's done accounts for all of the imperous surfaces and and infiltrating the oneinch storm for all of the surfaces whether patio, house, driveway, and so forth. So,
>> okay. Um, yeah, you have an attachment here called the storm water operation and maintenance plan, but I don't see a worksheet delineate what you just said. >> So, the oneinch storm event we provided on the plan. So, it's upper left of the plan set. Um, you'll see calculations
done for that 1-in storm event. And, you know, basically what we did is we oversized it. So it's 10% larger than what was required per the calculations. In addition to that, we don't in those calculations, we don't account for the
benefit of the rain garden which is quite large. It's taken most of the driveway. Um and this patio in the rear that's pvious patio. Um and those are not in the calculations either. So it's sort of an extra on top of that local requirement that we um sort of worked
with for that oneinch storm event. And Chuck, this is acceptable. >> Uh, yeah, Andrew went over this with me and um I also spoke to the Arlington Conservation Administrator that used to work for the town of Boston and he's
familiar with this system and uh he he agreed that uh it's a better system. But um I know that we're confused if did you uh have a chance to look at that worksheet? Like I was satisfied doing that kind of research on it because
basically someone that I I work with told me that it was fine. Um and but if you want to >> I I need I need to find out that but I don't want to bog anything down. Let's go let's move forward. >> Sure. >> Where is this pvious patio going?
It's just in the rear of the property there. So, right behind the house, you'll see a patio. Um, and that's proposed as pvious patio in the rear there. So, you see on the right hand side of the plan, we do a breakdown and account for that area as PVE pavers.
>> So, it's a darker gray area. >> Yeah, >> correct. Yes, exactly. And it's something that we can do if it makes you feel more comfortable. I'm I'm happy to run an Atlas 14 25-year storm if you want to see sort of the difference. um and ensure compliance with that. I don't
really that that doesn't bother me at all if that could be potentially a um you know something that could be provided um you know per a or per an item in the order of conditions if that's helpful at all.
>> Okay. I I don't have any more questions. Um I don't think you've asked for audience. >> Oh yeah, >> nothing more from you. >> I'm good, but I think that last suggestion might be a good idea. We haven't >> conditions, but we haven't got the conditions yet.
>> We just want to let them know that we're leaning towards saying yes to that document. >> Um now looking for any public comment. Uh anything anybody online? If so, look for the reactions button on the lower
part of your screen and use the raise hand function and Chuck will look for you on the screen. In the meantime, is there anybody in the room who's going to want any questions or comments? Nope. Okay. Anybody online?
>> I don't see anyone online. >> Okay. Then now um a motion to close the hearing on 24 Dustin Robert. >> So moved. >> Alter seconds the motion.
>> Cherox deliver in favor. >> To in favor >> Arthur Moore in favor. >> Brian Mo in favor. Okay that's closed. Um now let's talk about conditions. Um the ones I have are actually right out of out of the document. The first
one is to remove the brush piles and grass clippings and cinder blocks. Um oh no long sorry I crossed over. Uh this one remove debris, cinder blocks and yard
waste from on top of the mounds in the back of the property. Um that's one condition. Second condition is remove remove the buckthornne. Third condition is storm water. So the water infiltration.
Third is conservation signage. Now what was meant by that? Is that just the uh the boundaries the bounds or is that something other than that? >> Believe they came up with the signage. >> That's what that's what the document says. Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> So is that the granite bounds or is that something else? Oh. Um, let's just uh ask Andrew a clarify a question. >> Fine. >> How's that? >> Andrew, clarifying question. When you
folks wrote that you're going to install conservation signage, was that granite bounds you're referring to or some kind of actual posted sign? >> These are the bounds that the commission would typically require. I know every town has a slightly different format or
layout, but whatever your typical bound that you would condition in, that's what those signages are intended to to mean. >> That's fine. >> That's what I was hoping it was, but clarify. >> But just to clarify, only one of those three bounds is actually going to be on the 25 foot line. So, that's a little
confusing. >> What do you mean? If you look at their four three squares up there, the first square down at the bottom is where the 25 foot line hits the property boundary. The two squares up at the top are more
like at a five foot line. And we often have the the bounds be at the 25 foot line. So those upper two signs are more like a no mo sign than a property. So they they did say that they're going to increase the vegetative buffer near the
well in five feet. So what we would want is for the grain of bounds to be on the 25 foot line and then you'd have five feet beyond it where would be um no mo it would be a vegetative buffer but the bounds would
be on the 25 foot line. >> No they didn't increase the buffer that much. Um >> if you look >> for the chair if I may just provide a clarifying comment. So the the reason for this one is because if you can see my cursor still at present the lot of
the property runs all the way down from about this flag across the wetlands this whole area. And so we were originally restoring just the area we see in here. The commission asked us to increase the buffer zone uh unveated buff or the natural buffer zone up 5t which is what
we've done here. remainder of this has been lawn and would continue to be lawn. So the reason why we cited the the balance here is because it I it tends to have the most benefit if it's right up against the the area to remain naturalized. U if the commission would
rather see them at the 25, I think that's a condition we're happy to take it. It would be my recommendation that we have the special condition read that they are in the location as shown on the plan. um only because they're intended to sit right on the line of of what we're renaturalizing to protect that in
perpetuity. >> So I I suggest the commission put something on the 25 foot line on the property line and on the opposite property line, >> right? >> And the two that Andrew is talking about that's going to protect the wetland.
>> Okay. >> You could keep those and then we have different signage that may be appropriate there. >> Okay. So it' be it'd be a hybrid. We would still to be consistent, we would still mark the 25 foot line on either end of the property, but to do what you
say, Andrew, and protect the area um in the two spots you have located on here, there would be something. >> Yeah. So, one's going to be >> Does that seem to work, Andrew? One's going to be by the street, one's going to be on the property line between the abutters.
>> Yep. I think that makes sense for both parties. That I think that's a great way to condition it. Okay. >> Okay. Um and then the next one we talked about already the increase of the vegetative buffer by five feet in a certain area.
And then the last one I had no that's actually two. Um increase the plantings. You in your document you said you're going to do that. Uh and the last one Chuck was one you asked about about the info report being
sent to engineering conservation. >> Yeah. conservation engineering and that continuing condition which I think you mentioned on the operation maintenance plan. >> Yeah. Okay. Anybody have any other conditions that we missed? >> Okay.
Um then with those conditions, can I have a motion to issue order of conditions for 24 Dustin? I move that we issue an order of conditions for 24 Dustin Road. >> Walter Talbert seconds to Michelle in
favor in favor. >> Hold on one second before we finish. We're also going to get that um information for for Walter about the Noah Alice 24 storm. >> Not to review, but let's just get that information. So did Andrew, did you hear
that? It was from your engineer. We offered to uh convert the 1-in storm into the Noah Atlas 14 24-hour storm and provide that information. >> Yes, we will take a commission to provide that. >> Right. So, it's not a condition. It's just some data you're going to send us. So, I'd like to have
>> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Happy to. >> You You voted in favor. >> I'm voting in favor. Walter Tower votes in favor. >> Martha Moore votes in favor. >> Ryan Mo in favor. Okay. Good. Thank you.
Thank you guys very much. >> Thank you. >> Yes. Thanks. Okay. >> Next. >> It's a 400 Groceries continues to December until to December 10th. All right. Can I
have a motion to continue 400 Grocery to December 10th? >> So moved. >> Alter seconds the motion. >> Chair in favor. Walter topics in favor. >> Arthur Moore in favor. >> Ryan in favor. All right.
Flying right along. Next is Zero Annette Lane. I'll read the blurb. um open the public hearing on an amended notice of intent followed by Dale Harvey pursuant to Massachusetts general law
chapter 131 section 40 the wetlands protection act and or the reading weapon protection bylaw section 7.1 from modifications to the approved construction and location of a single of a new single family home. The project includes minor alterations to the
foundation layout while maintaining all conservation setbacks and easement protections. All the work is within the buffer zone with bordering vegetated wetland. The application and plans can be viewed in the conservation division page under the current project assessors
map 38 lot 139 D file number 270-0780. Okay. Can you introduce yourself, please? >> Uh, Dale Harvey, hopefully future owner of Leroet. >> It's good to have dreams. Go ahead. >> Uh, so yeah,
sending everything. I think the only issue that I had with aside from the previous order conditions was the water because that was a concern of the abutus and we had the infiltration system um, we actually doubled it. It only needed like five more chambers. We end adding six. So the existing infiltration on the
back left that's already there had six current chambers. Um it's going to have 12 to take in account all the new water from the you know the bigger sized home. >> Okay. >> So that we're not cutting down any new
trees. We Andrew shifted the house to make sure the trees on the front right wouldn't be touched um and everything else meets the um setbacks. And I think you know the previous oh carinal primis owner has uh all the existing order and
conditions have been met. I know there's a couple issues with the growth and the tree damage and you know we brought some the engineer and a tree guy to talk about that if you have any questions. >> Okay then. Okay. Any questions comments from the commissioners?
>> Can I talk about trees? >> Uh you can talk about trees. Sure. >> Okay. Um, we had a request from Anna Butter that in what is just barely off the top edge of the map here that we
consider asking you to plant some trees there that would provide more screening along near that um wetland line. We were out there looking today and it looks like that is pretty well vegetated. So, I'm thinking that area not really a good
candidate for digging up and planting more stuff there, but it does seem like there's some opportunity for maybe some shrubs that can be understory shrubs um
closer to the um drainage easement limit of work area um up at that end of the property. Is that something you would be open to? So I did have a conversation with him. I think he the gentleman's here. So I do know that the current owner had paid into the fund in the
whole that was the money he was talking about to be allocated towards that. >> So it wouldn't be on you know it'd be whatever the commission decided to do with the the fund that you know Peter paid into >> our property though. >> Not yet. >> So there's some steps you need to know about. You would provide the commission
a plan. you and the commission would have to talk about back and forth what what uh you know whatever that is. So that would be another meeting. So you need to provide a detailed plan uh of of the planting. You would need to provide um
uh an agreement to monitor those trees. They're not going to be now your responsibility because they've been turned back into mitigation for three years. You would have to replace any tree that's dead within three years. three years and it would extend your order of conditions uh until we get
three years of uh growth where they don't die off. >> Well, was there >> my understanding was when the you know when you pay you pay the fee for the trees that money is the allocated money that instead of doing the plan because we were not going into the setback or touching the wetlands that that was the
fee that you paid that was you know then don't you're not doing all the plantings and all that. >> Absolutely. Yeah. So, he paid into the fund. He wasn't going to do any of the plantings. And that's that's >> But I I don't need a a planting plan if
he was already paid into the fund and took care of >> No, you need a planting plan if you want to take the money out of the fund. Commission the commission has to review the trees and the planting plan. And then you would have to guarantee that those because it >> it's no longer the old owner, now it's you. You're going to have to guarantee
those trees for the next three years. If they die, you're going to have to guarantee them until they survive for three years and they become established. Yeah. >> So that's there's some part of this is on you. The commission will only pay for the trees. And I did remember the other thing. You're going to pay for someone
to plant them also. So we never got with Peter uh the old applicant a plan that was a um a vegetation plan or what the site was going to look like. uh as far
as being um uh planted. So that was something that that didn't happen. So we would we would require some sort of plan about these trees. >> Um if I may, my name is Andrew Pandolf, Vineyard Engineering with a survey for the project. Um my understanding was
that Lucas Environmental did prepare a planting plan as part of Peter's uh application last year. Mhm. >> Um, so that plan is in place, but in lie of doing that, >> Peter made the donation to the fund. >> Um, I, you know, I think now we're
bringing that back into the fold that plantings need to be done. >> Is that right? Because like when when Peter received his approval, he made that donation in lie of plantings. >> Yes. >> Right. So, but now that seems to be coming back up again. >> Um, >> it was a question I asked.
>> Sure. Sure. Right. the the questions come up and uh yeah I mean I guess we have to see what the commission says what they want to see happen out there but when we finished with Peter's job there was no planting required because he made the donation to the fund was my understanding >> that was my understanding too
>> right >> I mean Peter could have done the planting and then we would have talked about what trees um would offset what what was what was cut down but I don't my my understanding I don't remember the I don't remember the planting But I that was my mistake.
>> So So the the only real difference here is this request came from in a butter. >> Um and it's a request from them. They obviously have no jurisdiction. Um we already had our approval and everything.
So this truly is a request. >> Okay. >> So if you wanted to help your neighbors feel better about the house being there, you could choose to do so. And um I think it would be fair for the
commission to pay for at least some of it. Um uh we do have money that gets put into a tree fund. So we have some money we could use to provide several trees. I'm not going to say a number. And certainly
not the full 20 that I think was suggested the screening would require. I don't know how you would get 20 out there anyway. As as Martha said, when we were there today, we saw an opening for two understory trees. There's a lot of
uh oaks and what have you, big canopies. I don't know how well they they would grow, but um to the point here is they've asked for some kind of screening. >> I'm not a fan of screening
for the record. Um there's also the issue about the houses up on a hill. you're gonna plant new new trees. They're going to grow for a while before they screen anything, but you know the bottom of your house, >> but this is a request to put in. So, >> yeah,
>> we're putting it forward to you. >> So, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the the issue of planting a few shrubs here and there isn't so much the problem. It's the timeline. You know, we're hoping to get approval so we can get a foundation in the ground. we'll
lose and um you know come winter time you really can't be pouring >> right and uh you know it was my recollection that the planting plan was submitted um so I would just hate to see the meeting get continued for something that may already be in place you know I
don't have it in front of me unfortunately but >> does I don't think it includes the um the trees that the butter is asking for how because that was never part of it >> no but there was there was a lot of plantings proposed different variet uh
different species that Lucas environmental who was the con um wetland scientist on the project had developed laid over our plan um and then Peter did that in lie of Peter made the donation in lie of making those plantings. So I
guess my point is >> so typically how that happens is the the applicant says look I'm taking down 30some trees >> and uh we ask them did you meet the conservation tree policy and they say yes or no and then they provide an
answer why. So you're saying Lucas Environmental did that with the planting around the house. >> All right. So that's that's something that didn't come up until tonight's meeting. So, we're going to have to look at that for sure. >> It's actually on the February 5th, 2024
plan. It says right here, proposed plantings to replace 32 cut trees, 16 trees, small trees, 10 shad bush, shrubs, 32 exact placement with chuck is my handwritten note with a question mark.
>> And I believe that was a condition. um if plantings were going to be done as part of the order of conditions, the commission would have, you know, an input on to where those plantings went and what species and whatever, >> right? In conjunction with the well and science. >> So So was that the was that the plan
from Lucas or or an actual plan? >> That was the plan from Lucas. They they there's like little dots on that, right? Like different color dots. Am I correct? >> Yeah. Blue, yellow, red. So, so Lucas took our plan uh placed
uh different species throughout where they thought it would work. Um and then they had said if you know these plantings do take place, they would go out in conjunction with you folks to do that. But I think after this after that um plan was prepared, I think what Peter
then ag decided to do is make the donation in lie of those plantings. >> All right. So where are we now? Are we doing those plantings or We're not doing those plannings, but this request has come up tonight. So, if if that's going to be what it takes to get us through this meeting, then it's going to be >> I mean, it's something I can work out
with them. I mean, I'm not opposed to planting stuff. I just want to keep the ball moving and not just keep coming back to meetings. >> So, we would again, we would need a plan if it's going to be part of mitigation. The money for the trees became part of
mitigation for taking those down. So we have a purpose for that to plant trees somewhere or do conservation work what whatever comes up but in order to have it part of the order of conditions or the amended order
of conditions we would need a plan because we wouldn't be able to ensure that it happened correctly and the commission approved it unless we saw this on a plan or a sketch. I mean that's my opinion. Yeah, we we always need something to go back to first of
all be sure that the tree survived the length and also to be sure it's the right kind in the right place. So having a plan that documents that would be necessary. This is now obsolete. >> Okay, >> you're not doing it. He wasn't going to do it. He gave the money instead.
>> So if you're going to accept the request to do plantings for screening purposes or whatever, we would need that documented on some plan. Okay. >> Okay. >> I think the other thing the other thing that you mentioned is that we have a
fund and we're able to use that fund. So that's not really correct. We we actually talked about this. The only reason why we're getting back into this conversation at all is because that money came from this project. >> And so we're not being asked
independently to provide some money from our tree fund to pay for an abut's request. This is the old developer put money into the trees. If there was some sort of agreement made, I think that we could pay for some trees out of the
money that the developer paid for us, paid us. That seems reasonable, but it would be the plan we need. You would end up taking over the responsibility planted correctly and then monitoring them for three years. And uh
you know that sometimes becomes a a big deal. Uh you know as we were been looking at another site down the street where was monitoring for five years and I think we're recommending three more. I'm not trying to scare you out of it. Be happy to get some something out there
but we're not taking on the cost for the for a plan and we're not taking on the cost for planting and monitoring would be on you. And then if those trees died, it doesn't come out of the fund again. It comes out of your pocket. >> So if no,
>> so if that's the, you know, if that's what's happening here, we say no to the about request to do those plantings. >> Okay. Um when we were out there today, we were looking for um on that same plan
from the 2024, it marked um along the wetland line closer to the boardwalk. There were supposed to be red maple trees. Final location to be determined during
construction. We didn't see those red maples planted. They're on your plan right there. Yep. Um >> those not been built put in yet. >> Those have not been put in yet, >> but you are still planning to put those in. >> Y >> Okay, good. We would like to see those put in. Um we also noticed that there
seemed to be two trees inside the red line just to the right of those same two maple trees that may have been taken down already. Yeah, a little bit. Not that pair, but to the right of them. Go the other way, Chuck. Yeah,
that one and the one upper left from that. Um, >> okay. >> That one. >> I was there. >> These two, >> those two don't seem to be there anymore. And yet they're not marked with X's on the plan.
>> Chuck, do you know if there was a revision during when Peter owned that? So when Peter took down some trees, there was the original count was around 30 30 trees and we walked around the site with um the arborist who's sitting over there. We identified additional
trees, additional six trees. Those probably were two of them. >> Okay, >> that's what I thought. >> All right. And there is now one tree in that general location that goes up and then takes a right angle and is broken at that point like 12 15 ft up in the
air. Um so we were a little concerned about that one. It's still there but it clearly is damaged. I I guess it got damaged and when we didn't see it when we were out there I think it would have been brought up.
must have happened, you know, once things slowed down or after we left the site. So, that might be something that needs to come up as part of this project when you have some machinery out there. But damaged trees are always something we can look at and just call us out.
>> Yeah, maybe at least just if you're going to do something, leave the part that's still standing as a snag rather than taking it out altogether. But it's it goes up and it goes across and it's hung up in a fork someplace else. >> Yeah. for your own safety, you don't want to leave it there.
>> Yeah. Um, we also noticed that near the boardwalk, the the the walkway down below, um, it doesn't look like wetland vegetation. It looks like grass down there. >> Yes. So, my understanding is, um, there
was some wood chips placed there, um, in error. Uh, Lucas uh, environmental had wrote a letter to the commission last year about that. The wood chips were removed. Um, and then a conservation mix was used, but it was the wrong mix. So, um, we fully intend to replace that with
the correct mix that the commission wants, and you know, we can get that done as soon as possible. >> Okay. So, that's in the plan already. >> Yep. >> Okay. And then south of the boardwalk, there's some wire mesh. Looks like it might have been 1 in mesh um fencing or
something in the in the area off the boardwalk and a chunk of asphalt that looked like a you know about this big size chunk that is down in that same wetland area should be removed. >> Okay. Yeah, we can do that. I don't know what where that's from or how it how it got there. That was kind of a dumping
area before this whole project kicked off, but we'd be happy to remove that stuff. If I can shoot for one second, going back to the grass that's there now, putting down a a wetland mix, you're going to have you're going to have to deal with the fact that it is pretty thick growth of what looks like
turf grass. >> And so if you just sprinkle the mix, it may or may not take. Uh so you can still be responsible for that taking filling in appropriately and surviving for the same period. So absolutely. I don't know if it's as simple as just scattering.
>> Yeah. So, the the area did germinate with this conservation mix that was purchased. Um, so it did take, but it was just the wrong mix. So, we'll, you know, repeat that process and get it to take again. >> Yeah. You say it was the wrong mix. That implies that some of it germinated. If you go back further, there's residual
ferns and what have you from the last growing season, but this top 40% it's nothing but grass. >> Okay. >> Well, you could mow it and have a lawn out there. Not that you should. >> Sure. Right. Yeah, absolutely. But we'll we'll address that and, you know, we're happy to uh, you know, monitor for the
three-year period. >> So, that's one ongoing obligation. You mentioned the damaged trees, which is an ongoing obligation. >> Should those trees not survive, unfortunately, you now own the problem dealing with that. >> Back to you, Michael.
>> Um, yeah. So, I think everything I've mentioned really could just be conditions for this project and not delay it. Um, assuming that we're not adding the shrub request. Um, and I guess I just want to remind you that
you're within a 100 ft of a wetland here. So, when you're choosing your landscaping, whatever you're doing around your house, we'd be looking for true natives. And there's a list on the town website of some suggestions of true natives that you could plant.
Okay, >> I'm done. >> Access to the boardwalk. >> Um, Chuck, I vaguely remembered some conversation about the slope going to the beginning
of the boardwalk. Um, and didn't remember what the exact details were. Were you concerned that it was too steep a slope? Yeah, I was concerned when I originally saw it, it was it was steeper than um would be allowed for ADA
requirements. So, I asked that it would be uh redone. >> So, I believe it still is too steep. Not that I'm an expert by any means, but it it it begins to slope down and then it gets to a tree where appears to be a root underneath and then it becomes more
abrupt. Um, >> so you're talking about the composite decking creating the boardwalk, >> the slope toward the composite decking. >> I was Yeah, I wasn't talking about the slope. How's the boardwalk doing? >> Um, yeah. I mean,
>> so it still has a slight incline at the beginning of the boardwalk. Um, >> so I haven't been out there. I've been out there a couple of times. I keep forgetting to look at that. That's just going to be something we have to look at during the certificate of complian. So that that was fixed. Um and photos of it
were um provided in uh the submitt that Dale provided. >> Oh, really? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Uh let's I can I can see if I can find them. >> But as Chuck said, when we get to the certificate of compliance, that's where we check those kind of details. >> So you still would have time to fix it
even if it weren't fixed. >> Okay. >> I think the the developer told me also I just needed someone from the me or the commission to verify that. So right now it's still it's still up in the air. It sounds like it's been >> Yeah. And there's there's photos of it, too. And you know, if it needs to be inspected again during this construction
process, you know, happy to have you out. >> And the four of us walked there today and nobody fell down. So that's >> great. Good. Peter built it well then. Good. >> My memory this morning was that when you look at the boardwalk, the fire hydrates to the right.
Am I correct? That's my memory. >> When you're standing on the street looking to Yes. on this diagram. It shows it to the left of the wall >> that wasn't moved, right? >> What's that? That's >> it was moved from
>> was in the drive driveway. >> So, it got moved further to the right. >> Yes. >> So, your plan may not be up to there. >> Probably a change in the field that nobody told the surveyor about, but that's okay. >> So, the area where the hydrant is. >> Yeah. You were talking about the snow
removal. >> It's marked as a snow storage area, but now there's a hydrant there. So, is there an alternative plan for snow storage? >> Where's the hydrant? >> It's to the left. I didn't know it was to the left of the driveway. So, we got >> Okay. Um,
>> you got the boardwalk at 10 ft. >> Okay. >> Um, I'd have to see what we proposed before. It's not on this plan. Um, >> it's easy where the hydrant is, that's where >> that's where it was. Okay. So, we could go on the opposite side where we say the
proposed hydrant will be. Um, or, you know, we can uh push it up along the right hand side of the driveway. Um, over that uh infiltration system, that underground infiltration system. That's probably the furthest point away. >> But this is snow storage
>> from being plowed from the street or the driveway? >> Question. I don't know. >> Yeah. >> Well, the street, this is an issue that came up previously. um the town would just plow it to the end and then kind of angle to the right, angle to the left. So, we have really no control over where
the town puts their snow. Uh we can just deal with our driveway. Um and you know, my understanding was that they would just push it to the right and push it to the left again. And if we have to dig out, you know, after a snowstorm, then that's what would have to happen like other places. Does that imply that
plow plowing your driveway your driveway would go up the driveway and and throw it >> on my own? It'll probably push it up to the right or something. >> Okay. So, you wouldn't just chuck it off the >> tree? No, it would go up into our property, >> but it also wouldn't go or would it go into the uh the area around the wetland?
>> No. Up to the right side where those three trees are right. >> Push it up and then angle it. >> Yep. >> Yeah. I would say most of it, you know, there's space to the right to put it there. I would say, you know, to the right of the uh driveway there. We also have some space, uh, you know, where that that shows that underground
infiltration system. You know, that's open space. There's just a manhole there. So, we would try and keep it on that side of the driveway. Right. >> The result of this part of the conversation is you got to update the plan to show where the hydrant actually is and based on that, you should put in a new
>> expected snow storage area. >> Okay. Again, we want in on the plan so we can look at it years from now on memory flaws. >> Anything else? >> Is the town responsible for shoveling out the >> um so the fire department does go around
and shovel out hydrants. Uh residents are always asked if they can do it to do ones near them. That's why you have children is to is to go clean out your hydrants near your house. Um but uh so it's kind of a joint responsibility.
I won't worry about it. >> Any other questions? >> Yeah. Uh you reviewed the uh storm water and you sent um some calculations. So did I I take your spot? Uh, and I was just wondering if you used
uh the Noah Atlas U information because I couldn't find it on your sheet here and I wanted to make sure comparing apples to apples. >> Uh, that was done by um civil >> Oh, civil engineering. Uh yeah, they so they took the previous design
>> which was which used 100year Noah >> and we're only adding >> I know that because the town engineer reviewed it and he mentioned that but I couldn't see it mentioned at all in this material where that's what they use. >> Oh, I can have him mention it. He he So we're only adding 30% more roof, but he doubled the infiltration. So it's way
over accounting for the amount of water that's coming out. >> So if you could update like this and just again sign it and send it to us, that would be great. It's just I was looking for it because I reviewed the old memo. >> Yeah. >> I just didn't see that information. >> Yeah. He took the previous design and
just overgineered it so we wouldn't have any issues because I know that was a concern with the abutus. >> Uh and then when you added the additional infiltration system, does that encroach past this one up here? That red line is
a limit of work. Yeah. >> Are you working >> beyond the limit of work now? No. up and down with it, so to speak. Um, >> you know, so north and south to stay within that limit of work. >> How many here now? Six. And you're adding six. >> That's 12 in that plan, right?
>> Uh, yes, that's 12. Yep. Right. >> So, half of what's there? >> Half of what's there is already in. Yes. >> Looks like there's room. Okay. >> In the back of the house, there's that easement area. You've pushed all the way back as far as you can go to the
easement, but just beyond that there's a red line that says erosion control, but it also says limit of work. And that to the to me that means no activity beyond that.
Are you proposing lawn or do you understand that? And like we're all thinking that there's not going to be any lawn. There's going to be fourth floor on the other side, the northern screen north uh of that red line. Is that your understanding?
>> I mean, honestly, she wants the smallest y possible anyway. So, >> I I just wanted to make sure because uh if there was some misunderstanding about what that limit of work meant, I wanted to make sure that we all
understood that before we went forward. And so an an additional condition that I was I will propose is that I don't know where the snow storage area is going, but the area that where the town is pushing into the wetland area, that would be one of the spots where I would
like in the spring just to be cleaned up of any trash um and any material that that's that's in that area that's pushed in. And wherever you're pushing your snow, too, it's going to be on your lawn. I'm sure you're going to take care of it. So it doesn't have to be said about that. But this area down by the
walkway Yeah, no problem. >> Sure. That's all I had. >> Okay. Last chance. Anybody? Okay. Um, public comments. Anybody in the audience wishes to speak? Can you please introduce yourself and come up?
>> Yes. >> Butter Cooper. Uh, precinct 8. I'm also a precinct town member, but I also in a butter. Not in a butter. I'm a downstreamer, you know, where where the water has pulled in the past um is right
where where the the path is and the up to Spruce Road and a concern of us and there are about 16 different house back backyards that are that could be affected depending on what kind of absorption is going to be happening now. Um and we've followed this, some of us
have followed this. We're not notified because you people on on one side of Deborah uh CVY Hill that area and then the the the ditch goes from uh a spring that starts this in um up near Spruce
Road and then it it used to pool and uh kids really couldn't go back. They try to go across to go to school but where the where the boardwalk is now that's where they go. Um sometimes sometimes not because um it it is messy. There was there were fences and things. Um they
used to go down at the end of Coburn and across at the end of G. Um we're really concerned u and I've lived in Reading for 40 years in the same area. So we have never had wet backyards, but the back of our yard is abundant. It absuts the uh the drainage ditch which starts
at at where just beyond where the where the boardwalk is. And we're concerned and I raised this at town meeting as well. Uh we are concerned that you know it can be a boardwalk but that doesn't solve the problem of all the trees that were removed and there I mean the the
X's just show the relatively large trees. It was a forest up to that point and that was part of why people didn't go through there either to as a cut through to school. Um but our concern is that that when it's not absorbed there because all of the trees are gone. um
and the the drainage and the and the uh the way that the whole lot has been changed tremendously. I mean, you've got the that uh stone wall and you've got the the c the area um >> it's beautiful >> abuing them. I mean, it's, you know, it's it's an area that is fine there,
but the problem is that we're concerned that the water is now going to be coming down faster and that we along um along Deborah Drive, the side where the Penonis are and then it goes under Deborah just before you get to the the curve in the road and then it comes
perpendicular with Covy Hill. So you've got people in CVY Hill, one, two, three, four, four people in CVY Hill, and then you've got other people that are around the area. And so we're concerned that there will be a lot more water. And that, of course, the animals have totally changed. I mean, you still have
the turkey still, but >> Yeah, we saw those today. >> Yeah. Oh, I bet you did. They like to come across and they come across from Grove Street and from the golf course. >> I think we got your point. >> Yeah. But I I guess I'm my concern is and I know I've been following personally I've been following this
because we've been I was concerned about that kind of effect and I was also concerned um with when it goes uh you that it would no longer pool. I mean it's it's probably great for mosquitoes, you know, that it's not pooling, but at the same time we're really we're really
concerned that we're going to have wet wet backyards. >> Okay. So why don't we give him a chance to answer? So, um, you know, part of this strange design is we're capturing 100% of our impervious area. Um, we've accounted for the slightly larger house by adding
chambers. Um, any driveway runoff gets captured by a a catch basin in the uh in the driveway that goes to a infiltration chamber. So, any storm water that we have from impervious areas, we're infiltrating into the ground. We're not going to be adding it to that ditch.
And, you know, frankly, that's the town's infrastructure. It's not if it's not working properly, it's not, you know, the the property owner's responsibility. But the the point of it all is that, you know, we're not adding water to that um trench or to the street. We're capturing it all and
infiltrating it all on site. >> I'd just like to add that having lived here since the 80s, um it actually the town has cleaned it out once and the property owners decided that it was better for them along the ones that can
do that. But it's um you know it's as far as responsibility goes the town hasn't really felt it was theirs but it is and but then that's part of why we're very concerned that the way that it's drained. Now I'm surprised that you didn't know that the that the fire
hydrant was moved and it's been I mean I have I have records of of every step because we didn't know what was going on. People down >> Can you address your comment? >> Yeah. But people down downstream have not been conser considered at all unless somebody and and they a lot of people
aren't aren't notified and um so that that for us is a real problem and we um and some people more than others you know are we got your point and >> but I'm just I'm concerned that with this increase in the size of >> if you think that the town should be
addressing the drainage channel we used to take that up with DPW >> Oh yeah well that's No, I'm not worried. I'm worried about right now. >> Say that the last developer made the the statement that there would be no water leaving the property. They had their
infiltration in place as well. And can you say the same thing? >> Yes. >> And you can you put inviting in >> No, but can you guarantee? >> Excuse me. >> This won't happen. >> You talk to me. Okay. All right. So, I think we're all set. Thank you.
>> Okay. Is there anybody online who wants to make a comment? Ask a question. >> Sure. Let's check. >> Um I I missed this for a second. Someone had uh is just joining now. So why don't we go here and then look back >> introduce yourself please and take care
of you. >> Sure. Joe Mcdana, 47 Deborah Drive. Um Tommy member FE 8 and a pain in the butter. So um just I guess first I had two things. I'll come back to the um the
vegetation or planting of trees, all that good stuff. But the first point on the water um if I understand it correctly though, the town engineer has signed off on the new plan. Is that like they've reviewed it too? I mean, I know they reviewed it that that's the only
piece I couldn't catch. Uh the town engineering has not reviewed the plan, >> but will they as part of this process or >> typically they don't review single family houses that are just uh adding infiltration.
>> Okay. But I thought originally they did though on the >> they did they they did when we first came to this because we were also going through um uh CPDC as well. So, the engineering department renew reviewed the um storm water management plan as
part of the CPDC um permitting process. And so, this is just a slight modification. It's the same um methods. Uh we're just adding a couple more chambers. So, and but to answer your question, yes, they did review it and they approved it. They had no comments.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. But they they haven't they didn't look at the revised one. >> Excuse me. Same comment. >> I'm sorry. They didn't look So I think what we just heard is that they did review it and they're not required to review a single family home anyway. So I think that has been
covered. >> Okay. And the second point on the um like I didn't understand like the process. I thought it was going to be more straightforward first of all terms of that ask but like I guess some of you did visit the the site today and like
how many like trees or understory? I I know there's a lot of like tall oaks in the in what's left in the um land that's you know really all town land right now right that that lot north of this parcel in question but I mean what could even
be put in there I was thinking some understory or >> so what we saw was one area and the easiest way to identify it it's right near the half filled bag of leaves that's been discarded out there and there's an area that's a little it open.
Still has some uh tall canopy, but it's open enough that we thought that it could support some kind of second story, some something small that would grow under it and that could thrive in a fairly shady area, >> but there isn't any possibility put to
like understory bushes or anything like that or because again, I think some of it was like the reaction to, you know, people that have been there for a long time all of a sudden there's this, you know, almost 40 trees are gone And and I also see I'm not sure what's going on in
the town owned um um wood area, but a lot of those old oaks I think are shading themselves out and start you know fall to the ground. >> That may happen. >> It's becoming more open. So anything which is going to make you know this more open now to the neighbor. Right. >> Yeah. When we were there today, we did
see down in the area plan north that has a lot of um along the wetland line. We looked in there to see if there was space that was open and there's a lot of understory as well as the trees. So, in the winter, of course, with no leaves,
you're going to see through them. >> Yeah. But um you know there did look like there was a lot of shrub height plants as well as the trees. So um you know I I'm not in your yard looking back and you're certainly not going to see woods the way you used to,
>> but um it's not um bare ground. They haven't um >> clear >> clearcut all the way to the property line by any means. there's a a big swath of woods between you and the uh >> yeah it just so happens that deciduous
again it's getting used to like an open area but but in the um future though if I understood it correctly before though behind the house though like that's a that's not buildable like you know there couldn't be a pool there or a fence or I'm just trying to understand like what
it could look like 10 20 years from now. It's hard to answer that without having a proposed plan in front of us. Um, having said that, there's an awful lot of bedrock and everything that we saw today. So, they would have to make that decision and then bring it to us if they
wanted to, but I would say it'd be difficult. >> Yeah. >> Not being a structural engineer or anything. >> What about what about not answering it as far as a structural engineer, but what about during our rules and regulations? Can it's on the plan. So, could they ever build them back at their
house by our rules and the WPA? >> Depending on what they wanted to build, there is some space there and they couldn't they probably couldn't build a pool. >> All right. So, I'll I'll answer the question. >> Okay. >> So,
uh no structure zone is starts at the 35 foot. So, they could propose whatever they want up to the 35 foot. What I don't know how much what it would take if it's feasible or not, but our regulations allow that. um they would have to come back, stop part of this application, but that's what we do for
everyone in town. Uh homeowners can ask for a variance and go a little bit beyond that. Depends on mitigation and what they're asking for and the amount the amount of space. So the answer to that question is there is a possibility
that you in 20 years or next year we could be looking at uh this project again. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> All right. Thank you. >> All right. Um was there anybody still
online who wanted to talk? Chuck >> uh there is an easement out there. I saw that look. Yeah. >> I saw that look and I said I forgot something. >> Yeah. the uh there is a drain easement there that the town owns. There's nothing built within that easement, but that severely limits what can be done in that area in terms of structures and
things like that. >> But either way, it would have to be a a separate >> Yeah, we're coming back here to you folks and >> and we would look at things based on that plan at that time and the current regulations >> and and we don't review the easements. That's probably why I skip my thoughts,
but sure lawn, you know, above ground pool, I'm not sure. I mean, some people have gone to the engineering department and asked for, "Hey, what would you do if I put up a fence?" And they've come up with a workaround. >> Yeah. >> So, um yeah, everything is just stands
on its own. But, um I just wanted to make sure that there's no restriction putting on on this area for uh for the for you. um if you met whatever regulations and rules that threw out there from other departments
uh you could move forward. >> Okay. Did he we answer your question? >> Okay. Was there somebody online? >> Uh why don't you ask again? Just uh >> if there's anybody online who wants to ask a question and make a comment, can you raise do the raise hand function
under uh reactions lower part of your screen? I don't see anyone. >> Okay. >> Thinking I could move to close. >> I would entertain a motion to close. >> Okay. I move to close the hearing on
zero and lane. >> Walter Tabot seconds the motion >> to Michelle in favor. >> Jer in favor. >> Walter Talbbert's in favor. >> Martha Moore in favor. >> Ryan Mo in favor. Okay. Are there any additional
conditions above and beyond we had last time? >> Um cleaning up the wire mesh and asphalt south of the boardwalk. >> Mhm. >> Um replacing the grass just north of the
boardwalk with um the correct wetland plants. Um any plantings that the homeowners choose to do need to be native species. Um we still are expecting those two red
maple trees to be planted near the 35 ft line. >> Do I have any others? I don't think so. >> Updated plan. Updated plan with the fire hydrant. >> Thank you. >> And the snow storage. >> Snow storage. When is that plan
>> planned before issuing? >> When I don't know what your next step is. You're gonna Are you going to issue and you're gonna have me hold up? >> Yeah, I think we're going to >> until I receive a plan. >> We're going to vote on issuing, but we do want to get the plan in so at least Chuck can review it before
becomes official. >> Just um one bit of input if you don't mind. >> Well, we've actually closed. >> Oh, you closed? Yeah, >> I missed the boat. >> The boat, the train, the airplane. >> No, there was just I can't talk. So,
>> any other conditions that we should note in there? >> So, on the plan, we want the infiltration system and the snow storage area. The conditions I have are wetland mix. Uh we'll put that out now. Um,
>> engineering department is going to review the storm water. Is that a condition? I know it was mentioned. Do you want to go with that or not? >> Um, I wouldn't think so. I mean, um, they don't review single family homes. This is a single family home. They did review
the last plan. I don't think we should impose that condition. >> Okay. Um, in the spring you'll clean out near the hydrant from uh snow dumping and uh we'll review the boardwalk and
the tree damage when we look at the certificate of compliance request. Ma, did I miss I had you had some of mine. I had some of yours. Did we get them all in there now? I And then we have pick up what you said I didn't mention, but it was picking up the
debris and the wire. Yeah, the wire and the asphalt, the wetland mix, the two red maples are still on the planting plan, have not yet been planted, >> but they're they should be in the original order of condition. So, we don't have to pick those up at that point.
>> And I also just put in the condition that any plantings they do do around the house after it's built should be natives. >> True natives. >> True natives. It's hard to get true natives. You have to look and they don't
say uh variety after the name. So, it's just red maple, not autumn gold red maple. >> So, that's for the trees, right? >> Shrubs. Yeah. >> True native shrubs, too. >> And you said the town has that listed on the website, right? on on the on the
conservation division uh web page um there's a list of natives and it has native trees, native shrubs. >> Okay, perfect. So there's the list. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Thank you. And um
there's also a deer resistant list that's not on the town website, but I obtained a copy of it at the Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commissions. And that's a handy one to have because some species will have you have trouble keeping them
alive because the deer are eating them all the time. >> We're in a box. We go through that now. So I if you give that to me or send that to me, I can put it up on the website. >> Cool. I will share that with you. >> Okay. >> Right. Any other conditions
then? Can I have a motion to issue order conditions for zero net lane? >> I move to issue the order of conditions for zero a net lane. >> Malbert seconds that motion. >> Michelle in favor. >> Jen favorit.
>> Martha Moore in favor. Brian bro in favor. So again to be clear, we need the plan to Chuck. >> Yep. >> He's not going to issue until after we look at it and I think you have 21 days um to issue after we vote on it. So >> Yep.
>> The clock is ticking. >> Early next week. >> Do you have anything in front of the building department now? >> No, I was going to file. I was waiting for this meeting to go through. >> So it'll be a while anyways, right? Should be. It's usually not quick. I'll let them Okay. So,
>> sometimes sometimes I do it every day. Sometimes are great. Sometimes >> I'm not I'm not concerned about you. >> Okay. So, I think we all set that. >> Good luck. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Next is 75 Dana Road.
>> We'll read the blurb. >> Okay. What page? um open the public hearing on a request for determination of applicability filed by Francis Andrews pursuant to Massachusetts general law chapter 131 section 40 the wetlands protection act
and or the ready wetland protection bylaw section 7.1 for removing the existing deck and constructing a new 16t by 20 foot deck using composite decking boards with space in between each board for drainage for freecast concrete
puddings will be installed using an excavator. All spoils generated from the pudding installations will be evenly spread and graded beneath the new deck. All the work is within the buffer zone to a border vegetated wetland. The application plans can be viewed on the
conservation division page on the current project assessor's map 40 lot 122. Can you introduce yourself please? >> My name is Frank Andrews. I live at 75 Dana Road. >> Want to walk us through your project?
>> Sure. Um, we have a deck that I think was built around 1993. Uh, it had severe rotting on the underside, the structural part of it, and also on some of the railings, and it reached the point where uh it's it doesn't make sense to repair it. We have
to take it down and put up a new deck. And while we're doing it, we thought we would make it a little bit a little bit deeper. It was the original one was 13 ft deep. And we're proposing a 16 ft deep one to handle our whole family.
Uh and as you said, uh we'll be putting the concrete footing underneath the uh the deck supporting supporting it there. Uh easy easy pier, I think is the name of it. Uh there'll be four of them on there. And we'll be using Timber or
something similar to that for the uh for the flooring spacing between them to allow for drainage. And as you said, the uh soil from the uh digging for the peers will be spread out over the uh over the underside of the deck. I did a quick calculation and it
looks like that would be about an inch thick if it was all spread evenly. So that's the that's it in a nutshell. If you have any questions, let me know. >> Okay, questions, comments from the commissioners. We did a site visit out there and
noticed that there was some brush on the hillside leading down towards the wetland >> that we would like you to um not add brush to the hillside but also remove the recent brush. >> Okay.
>> Um and was there leaves >> brush grass? There were two piles of brush. of GL grass clippings between the two piles of brush. Okay. >> And you also told us that you found uh I think two uh
>> wheels wheel rims we had found when we bought the house 25 years ago and we found a couple close where where we could see it and we removed those and some barbecue uh grill type stuff. So we'll get down there and and remove those those
>> or maybe get one of the rest of that family that's going to be on the deck. get them to go down, not you. >> Well, I think we what we might do is uh because there's others. I think you said we we have to remove the uh uh railroad tie. There's a railroad tie down there
that you identified. >> Yeah. >> We'll get that out and the brush. And we'll probably just have the uh the guy that is going to take the deck down go and do all that at the same time. >> Sounds good. Yeah. The wheel rims were more to the left and the railroad tie to
the right. >> Yeah. And there was a tire next to the wheel rims. Clearly came off the rim. I maybe a second tire. I only saw one. I >> think in line with those tires, there were some cinder blocks as well leading down that slope. So closest to your
property line leading down there, there were a couple cinder blocks. >> Oh, okay. Yeah. Yeah. I I told my wife about this and she said, "Well, you should have asked them to put a flag up there so we could find it." I think we'll be able to find it now that we know it's there. >> Anything else? >> Um
the tree as well, right? That we identified. So, there was the tree snapped um towards the uh where the peak of the edge of the wetlands is. So, as you're clearing out that brush, possibly look at the broken tree. >> Yep. I remember that you had identified
that to us. So, thank you. >> Just the fact that the hanging part is dangerous. Not asking them to take out the broken tree just where it was broken. Yeah. >> Just watch out for it. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> We can do that. Okay. Um yeah, I have no
objection to the deck project itself. It was just looking at the um the wetland being respected rather than a dumping ground. >> That's fair. I agree with that. >> Great. Any other questions, comments?
Okay. I have a couple questions or points. First question is, so are you going to use a excavator to dig the uh whatever? Yeah. So, which side you going to be coming in on? >> They would be coming in on the right hand side by the garage to get down there.
>> Right hand from the from the street. >> Looking from the front, straight straight in. It would be coming from the right hand side. >> And you want to be careful that that equipment doesn't go any further back than absolutely has to because you don't want to get closer to the wetland line. >> Sure.
>> Which is the next point. >> So, on your plan, you have that marked as a estimated wetland line. >> Yep. Um, and we looked at the distances and it was sufficient to be okay with the project, but since it wasn't delineated, we're not going to I'm not
sure what the verb is, confirm it to declare it as officially correct or anything. Yeah. >> So, it won't be useful for you in that regard in a future project. >> I think that what Jack Sullivan did because Jack's the one that did this work. Um, I have a a similar plan from
uh 2020 that shows the same type of information. So, he might have been taking it from what was historically there. >> Yeah. From looking at it, it appears he just followed the the bottom of the slope. >> That seems to be where the break is. Um, almost exactly the way it's drawn there.
So, >> that's what we uh did for the the distance from where the deck was going to be. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Any other questions, comments before I open up to Chuck? Chuck, your questions, comments?
>> Yeah. Um, I was just going to ask the commission if they believe this project needs erosion control because it's not shown on the plan. >> Good question. >> Anybody have have opinion before I give one? So, if it doesn't need erosion control,
it may need a limit of work since we have machinery out there. So, maybe something uh one of those two things might be a good idea. Did anybody on the commission check out to figure out how far away the project is from the wetlands? Is it 54T or is it further? It
>> it's at least 54 feet. Actually, it might be close to 60 depending on what you use for the marker. >> Okay. and the the slope goes down and it I don't think it gets to be really wetland for a little ways beyond base of
the slope by walking down there. Um and the vegetation changed along the flat part. >> Yeah. You actually found some skunk cabbage. >> Yeah. >> But further there's skunk cabbage there. >> Yeah. But um I mean it wouldn't hurt to
put erosion control around the back and that serves as your limit of work and >> yeah, >> you know. >> Yeah, that's probably a good idea. >> Yeah. Um
um how high is the deck off the ground? >> I would say probably seven to eight feet. >> Seven, eight feet. So underneath the deck now, is that just turns into lawn? Is that >> it's just just dirt under there? >> It's just you're just going to put more dirt on top of it. >> Yeah. And then outside the existing we
had uh a bunch of shasta plants and ferns, but we had cut it down to make way for the deck. >> And is it open underneath the deck? Are you proposing it to be wide open? You putting like some sort of screening? >> There's a uh I'm thinking something similar to what we have right now. It's
got a lattice word >> lattice. Yeah. >> Yeah. And I think we'd probably want to do the same thing. >> And a way to get in there or just completely block it out. >> We have a door that that can get in and we'll probably have something similar to that cuz it's a handy storage area.
>> Mhm. Mhm. >> Does your current deck have space between the planks to allow drainage? >> It has some. It has some. Originally, it wasn't. We had some uh some rotting a few years ago and I went and put some replacements.
If you're not doing a full replacement, you just have to work with the space that you have. >> Yeah. I just wanted to point out that if you're planning to put any storage in there, remember it's going to get wet whatever you put there. >> Well, we're just talking about like lawn hose and things like that. >> I approve of putting those things there
and not in the wetland. >> There' be no reason to put it in the wetland. >> You would be surprised what we see. >> Really, Jack? Anything else? >> Yeah. So, um um the stockpile area for the
material that's going to build the deck and the debris area, what is where is that um going to happen? Are they going to bring that right out to the front the driveway or is there going to be a temporary >> I wouldn't talked about that, but my I'm thinking that it would make sense to put it on the driveway.
>> Okay. Okay. So, uh, when you put your erosion control up, and I think from what we talked about, like straw waddle, yeah, >> or you know, silk fence, it's something you get at Home Depot would be fine, >> but you have to remind everyone that
they can't get on the other side of that. And I would like it to be placed as close to the project as possible, but allowing the contractors to have enough room to work. >> So, we we have a my wife has a a flower garden down there that that you saw. Uh what should we put it right at the edge
of that or should we move it further close to the project? >> I would say closer than that. >> So maybe 10 feet or something like that. >> It's usually like 10 or 15 feet is >> Yeah. >> Right within the margin of them complaining and then having enough room to >> Okay.
>> So something in that area if they need something more we can discuss it because they have to do a pre-activity meeting before you finally you you actually start the project. Um, >> but uh we can talk about where the erosion needs to go if your contractor
says they need more. >> I I don't I don't see why they would need a lot more. >> I have to have room for the excavator to come in. >> Mhm. >> And uh then they'll just be doing manual work. >> Yeah.
Okay. Uh it's going to come up when we do conditions, but no machinery can be in the backyard at the end of the day. It all has to be brought up to the front because like overnight storage with things that leak are is kind of like a no no with conservation. >> It's it's a kind of a project I think
that should be done in a day. So I'm picturing that uh you know when we're ready to start they'll come in, tear everything down. When that's done, bring the excavator in. I think the excavating job should only be several hours. >> Okay.
>> Then they have to they'll be using that to put the concrete peers in. So it might be an extra day if they have the concrete PS can't be handled. >> If it does go overnight, just move the equipment back. >> We'll do that. >> That's all I have, Brian.
>> Okay, last chance. Anybody else? Nope. Um, anybody in the audience have anything to say about this project? Anybody online have anything to say about this project? >> Don't see any hands raised. >> Okay. Can I have a motion to close on
72? Dana, >> I move to close on 75. Dana, >> sorry that rotate that bill into Walter Talbot seconds the motion. >> In favor in favor in favor, >> Martha Moore in favor. >> Brian Bow in favor.
>> Conditions are remove the brush and yard waste at the back of the back of the site. Install erosion control. Straw water is fine, which will also be uh considered the limit of work. No overnight storage for any machinery.
>> And remove the railroad tie. Remove the the two wheels and the one tire at least. Um remove the cinder blocks. Uh tree. >> Oh yeah. And get rid of the uh the widow
maker. >> Should I It seems like there's a lot of different things instead of listing it all. I'll just say some of them, but I'll require a inspection prior to issuing occupancy. >> That's after the all the work is done. >> When all the work is done and
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, so at least you know the list and you can get it done and then when we come in to see the project when it's done, we'll be looking to see everything get cleared out. So, >> and does it belong in conditions that we're saying we're not confirming that this is actually the wetland line?
>> It's it's part of the form. I'll just check that off. >> Okay, good. >> Okay, >> so we closed. So, um, this is an RDA, so kind of a motion for a negative determination on 75 data.
>> I move that we issue a negative determination for 75 data road. Walter Tobat seconds the motion. >> Tim in favor in favor. >> Walter Tobitz in favor. >> Martha Moore in favor. >> Ryan Moore in favor. >> Okay.
>> Okay. We're all set. Set. >> Yeah. >> Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thanks for hanging in there. >> You saved the easiest one for lasting. >> It's only 9:30. You didn't have to wait that long. >> More to go. >> No more hearings, just more
conversations. So I think we want to move uh to Baker because here and then to uh who's here for foundation circle.
>> Okay. >> Um do you want to come up and introduce yourself? >> Hey, my name is Andre Belos. I'm owner of 21 Baker Road. >> Okay. So, you're here for certificate of compliance. What?
>> Um, we had been out there before, but again, we did a site visit just the other day, uh, in the rain. Joined us in the rain. Um, and Martha, do you have a list of the things we had questions about?
>> Um, it was kind of rainy, but um, a big one was the grill in the backyard near the deck. There was some discrepancy between me and Brian on whether we thought it was inside or outside the 35 foot.
>> It was not inside yet. >> Okay. Um I mean it's close to the 35 foot line. Um so I think it's not on the asbuilt plan. Um it's near the foot of
the stairs of the deck there. Um and Huh. Well, I didn't grab the asbuilt plan. I grabbed the >> site plan. So, should I look for a different one? >> Yeah. >> Actually, can you go back to that for a second? Yeah. No, never mind. Let's do
the asbuilt. >> I just noticed that the stairs are going to >> Right. That's why I was looking. I was like, those stairs don't look right to me. Um, yeah, the asbuilt plan has the stairs sticking straight out. Um, so, um, I just
I think it's not a big issue in terms of infiltration because the bricks have gaps between them. Um, but I think it should be maybe added to the asbuilt plan if it's going to be there.
Um, and we also found there was a wood storage area that you had put um behind the 35- ft no structure zone in the back that you should move um to someplace that's this side of the 35 foot no
structure zone. And um the gutters are there. The Yeah, that's all I have. We did look at the
output area of the pipe that channels the rainwater from the culdesac to the wetland in the back. It was raining. Uh we were surprised that there wasn't any water in that little bowl-shaped area at
the end of the pipe. It's not an issue here for conservation, but you probably should watch that. And if it's not coming out, you probably want to mention it to DPW to have them think about why that could be happening. >> No, it's going in. I don't know why it's
>> Yeah. So, I mean, it may be important. >> I don't see maybe when it will be more rain. >> Yeah. So, if you can just keep an eye on it and if you don't see water, that's telling you something. Um >> um we were a little concerned about the
tree closest to the driveway. It's got a couple of big dead branches up there. And I think Brian thought that was the one that they um damaged the roots of when they did the construction. >> Um >> is that right? Or was it the one over here?
>> That would be this one. >> Yeah. Yeah, that one does show some some issues. Couple of dead trunks, you know, >> leaders up high. >> Um, so at the very very least minimum,
you need to continue to monitor that because it's showing some questions about the health and I think you certainly want to take down the dead parts now because it's in a used area. You don't want to fall on anybody. But
that was the one that we were concerned about. You remember they dug out of a pit around it and some of the roots were damaged and the roots were hanging out. So just looking at it now a year and a half, two years later, it's not the healthiest looking tree up high. >> Is the crown is gone.
>> Parts of it, it's like a a meter going up >> through it and some of it's still there. I have an analogy, but I won't use it. Um so obviously you are responsible for
the ultimate health of that tree. Um so if it does you know have to come down you need to think about replacing it. Um would he come talk to you about that or just be on his own at this point?
>> Uh he would have to come and talk to me. Yeah >> I think so. And that would be for a period of three years total from the approval of the project. The the completion of the work. >> Yeah. >> Completion of the work will be now or going back to when the major
construction was done. >> Well, we we definitely want to monitor the tree and you can um I mean it seems concerning that such a big leader is dead. So this might be a telltale sign. I would say in the next
couple of years at least monitor it. >> Okay. Yeah, I would agree with that. >> All right. >> And we had a discussion about 25 foot granite bounds, but Chuck reports that we did not make that a condition. >> It was not on the order of conditions, so you don't have to do it.
>> How did we miss that? >> We were children then. >> Okay. Um, that's all I have. Did you have anything else, Walter? I didn't. >> All right, >> Chuck, anything you want to bring up?
>> No. Uh, I wasn't at the site visit, so >> I just didn't know if you had any thoughts in general besides the tree. >> Um, oh, one I say nothing and then I remembered at the top of the landscape
stairs on the left hand side of the driveway. Um, he's added a few patio pavers into that top area. I don't know if that needs to be drawn in the asbuilt plan or if that's a minor enough thing that we don't put it in there. They
connect the driveway to the top step. >> Well, the top is outside of the 35 ft zone, so would be allowed. It's up to the conservation commission. >> I'm not saying whether it's allowed. I'm saying should we put it on the plan? >> That's up to the conservation commission.
>> I don't think we can tell. Okay. >> Okay. >> So, I >> guess we don't need to. >> At that point, we're um ready to talk about issuing a u certificate of compliance, >> but the condition has to be added
monitoring that tree for two years. So, do we do that in the usual way where we uh issue and then have the condition? How how do we put make that condition into the record? We'll just I'll just add a note to the >> to the certificate of compliance. >> Okay.
>> Not in it. It's a separate >> note, >> right? But it so it will stay there. So we'll know that for two years. We're concerned about the health of that tree. I'll live right nearby. I'll drive by now and again. Um
>> he will too. >> Yeah. Um, so having said that, can I have a motion to issue a certificate of compliance for 31 Baker? >> So moved. >> Walter Tobin seconds the motion. >> Michelle in favor in favor.
>> Walter Titz in favor. >> Martha Moore in favor. >> Ryan Mo in favor. Thank you. >> I have one question. Oh, so if that tape will fall eventually,
>> should I just because if I clean so it will fall someday, should I just take picture or how or just clean it? >> So you're talking about one tree that's leaning >> outside outside of house. >> Yeah, you talked about that, right? You
said it was leaning away. Um, and that's in the is that >> it's not in the 35 foot zone, >> but it's 100 foot buffer, right? >> It's within the 100 foot. >> Okay. So, then you should um you're
going to do a a tree uh replacement policy approach. You're taking down one actually. >> No, I don't want to take it, but if it will >> actually anyway, yeah, it'll be up to four anyway. So, never mind that. Um uh
>> does he have to do anything to report it to you if his tree dies? >> Yes. If if the tree dies um with because it's within the 100 foot buffer zone, you would go to the conservation division page and fill out uh the tree removal policy saying that
you trees come to uh it's going to die. you want to have it removed and we'd have to see that and approve it and decide what the next steps are at that point. >> But my question if I don't want to take it if if it will fall by itself so I will submit this.
>> There's no requirement to contact the conservation commission about dangerous items on the property. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> I mean it's good practice but feel like there's always someone listening and you
should do it but uh This is just >> any other questions or you >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Okay. Next discussion item is Cross Street. Uh we did a site visit to Cross Street.
>> No, we're going to go to uh >> Oh, sorry. We're going to go to Carnation Circle. I forgot you. >> Do you want to come up here >> and introduce yourself, please? You want to throw it on the screen. >> Good evening everybody.
My name is Bob Moses. I am an arberist and I am a contractor for Iron Tree Service out of Beverly, Mass. and I am involved in a project over at Carnation Circle which I have met with um Brian
and Chuck um various times and uh I've given them the information on trees to come down um that are over 6 in DBH and some under. They've walked the property with me and I'm just here if there's any clarification you folks
need. >> Okay. And can you tell the commission what the final tree count >> is? Is that enough background? Do you want to add some to that? >> Do you want to give some background
>> about me? >> Yeah, about the uh >> I can if no one else does. I I'll do it if no one else wants to. >> No, go ahead, Chuck. >> Are you asking about the project or my credentials? No, no, no. >> We're asking about the project like how
it started, what it looks like. >> I was contacted by the uh property management uh group and they had trees that were encroaching on various buildings. Uh they had decided to do uh one set of buildings which um Chuck and
I walked and then then they wanted to do a second group of buildings um which I contacted the commission again to walk the property to go over what was going to be allowed. Um in the end we counted
a total of 57 total trees to be removed. 30 of which were over 6 in DBH. One of those 30 was a snapped invasive sumac which um Chuck and I talked about and he said
that would not be included in the 30 because of the risk of danger and it's broken. So there would actually be 29 trees um that were over 6 in DBH. Um, with that I had recommended
um after talking with Chuck and Brian, I had recommended to the property manager that in the event that they take down the 29 trees, they would have to there would have to be a fee paid to the town.
And I also informed then that if snags were left 10 to 15 ft that they would be unable to be touched again or pruned and they would have to not they would not have to pay an amount of money for
the $250, but they would have to pay the trees that were over 6 in that they removed. Um, with that they agreed after I spoke with them, not that it's my call, but they decided that they wanted to spend
um they were going to pay for 14 trees total removals and the 15 would be left as snags and that's where my conversation end with them. I did recommend that they go that route. They had there had been talk of doing all snags and I told them that
I didn't think that was a wise move wise move aesthetically. Um, it may have been better for the e ecological factor with the birds and the bees and the insects and such, but as you know, it's very dense
uh wooded area back there. There's a lot of trees that have fallen that are, you know, being taken up by the bugs and the bees and the woodpeckers and such. So, I just said they should try to maintain a good relationship with you folks because that project's going to be there for a
long time. There's various buildings that are going to need work that are within the setbacks and and that's what they agreed on. So, >> did you talk to them at all about any possible replacement trees? I only talked to them about what it was
going to cost them based on the 14 trees >> because there was some concern as we were walking on the side uh closest to Jordans um that you know there's fewer trees there and so they take down I forget what the number was
over there take them down then that uh gets to be thinner and the trees that are left are more exposed. >> Are you are you preferring that some replacement should be done? Is that what you're saying? Or or is it I mean I I've always been a firm believer and and Mr.
Tyrone and I have talked about this. When you have such a vast number of trees in an area like that, as an arborist myself, I would personally rather see that donation to go to places where you guys want to plant trees. I don't see the need for any
trees back there. I' I'd rather see him in the parks and places where the community could benefit. >> Again, I'm not thinking behind the buildings we visited first. It's the ones we went over to on the other side towards Jordans
>> where that Cottonwood was had that funny twist to it. Yeah. >> And it was a little more sparse in there. That's what you're talking about. >> Yeah. So that's the only place that I was wondering if you folks would consider well your clients would consider putting in some >> I mean I could certainly talk to them
about that. I mean my thought with replacement in there if they were going to do anything would be either some you know maybe some river birch uh heritage birch or red maples which are you know good for the the wetlands area. Um
again what would be your reasoning for that? Well, let me ask Chuck. Does that even make sense? Was that what you were thinking when we're talking about business of the trees? >> I Yeah. So, we were out there when we were talking about it. Um, and I want to
say it was kind of in back of this area here. U, >> can you wiggle your cursor? >> That's what's happening. And um and um there was some open areas and I I did think that that was an area that we
could have put um some additional trees, but the person who was out with us was on the board and they were concerned that they would become a liability.
in the future also. So, um the description of this project is as you can see somehow greenhouse acres which I guess used to be green houses >> in the soil >> uh someone bought it and made it into
these condos or whatever whatever is here all these units >> within three feet from the conservation. >> Yeah. And there's a retaining wall along where my line is in the houses. is a retaining wall and all the trees at
least on a screen north side are growing up either in the retaining wall close to retaining wall but they're they're right there and there's a path between the houses and the retaining wall where people kind of like hang out and there's tree branches in your face and there's
trees over your head and there's trees on top of the roof and this is and we call those volunteer trees because no one really planted from them there. They just like seed back was in the ground and they just grew. And so these trees
have grown up over many many years and kind of taken over that space. And I've been I've gotten calls a lot from people and they said, "Well, what do we do?" And I've handled it on a one-off basis with the tree policy. But Bob's been
asked to look at the whole project and try to get, you know, some 10, five, no, seven to 10 years of relief. And so that's what he's looking for. And by cutting the trees back
and he's proposed what what was the number that you ended up with? >> The total number? >> Yeah, the total >> 57. >> Total cut down 57 trees around this this whole area. And you know it's 57 trees. I don't know how many houses there are if someone wants to count.
>> I'm sorry. Which includes a lot of small trees under under 6 in DBH. >> Yeah. So to me it looks like uh the owners and the uh associates and the people that take care of this place have been doing
an awesome job. They left the trees alone. They didn't do anything they weren't supposed to. It wasn't cut back, cut down in any way. But it is definitely a problem that needs to be taken care of because the next 20 years is going to damage the retaining wall and do some other issues.
I don't think there was a retaining wall around the very end of the building about maybe about here. But what I saw was, you know, thank you for paying attention to conservation, but I also agree that these trees needed to be cut
back. And there was trees behind them that will fill in and there was probably a seed bankank as soon as the sunlight hits the ground that will take over. So that kind of is an answer to why we're here, what it looks like and why it's not so important that we ask for or like
insist on new plantings in my opinion. >> So the issue is this was probably a forest or a lot of forested things and they carved this development out of it. So the trees around the edges are growing to the light. So on the screen
north side of it, they're growing towards the buildings and there's a row of trees that are arching towards the buildings. On the other side, of course, the light is across the wetlands to Jordans. So you don't have that same issue. So can you tell us roughly where
the 14 trees are going to come from? Are they going to come from screen north or >> haven't decided? >> Oh, so you just picked a number. They picked a number and I'd be happy to go over that with you guys as well. But I do want to say something about that area that is sparse. There's a reason for the
sparseness there too. I mean you know as as we all know germination can take place with keys flying from the maples or you know any type of seed going from any of these other trees. But that area itself just may not be conducive to some
new plantings. So, if we go ahead and put in some wetland approved plants, I just don't know if they're going to monitor them, monitor them, and and if they're going to survive. So, >> and and that's fine. I'm not pushing in place my as I'm just giving you my
professional opinion. That's all >> rationale made sense to me. So, yeah, >> I consider that issue. The the issue, the question I have is I don't know how many trees on the screen north there are that are leaning uh towards the house or that are growing
out of the wall. It may be the 14 is is enough. Maybe the 14 is not enough. So they may have to revisit their number. But um >> so they're taking more than 14 down. Right. >> Wait a minute. >> So there's there's there's a total of 29 coming down.
>> Oh yeah. Yeah. Right. >> 29. So there so they we were going to leave 15 snag um we were going to do um 15 snags and 14 total. >> So they gave you a number. So you're going to go in and see if 29 gets rid of all the
>> Yeah. I I think I think that's going to probably have to be me making recommendations to them on what should stay, what would do well as a snag and what should come down so that you know a larger snag may be too close to the
buildings. I mean, as we both all three of us knew, there were a variety of different sized trees there. There were a lot of sumacs and you know, the sumaxs we just want to get rid of. Um, there were some Norways. >> Anything in the retaining wall has to go
>> and the the ones Yeah. And a lot of the trees were damaging the retaining wall or they will do more damage as they grow. So, um, and obviously our, um, I don't know if you folks have been in that property, but the the driveways are tight, and the
only way that we can do this project without damaging any of the other trees is to pick the trees with crane. So, instead of just cutting and letting stuff fly, we're going to do it the proper way and hoist them. But, we would need to get in there. They want to move on this as quickly as possible. We would
need to get in there. I don't know how good there's snow removal program is in those driveways, but the crane has a 24 foot box with outriggers and we need to get the outriggers out. So, this we're trying to get it done before the winter time. I who knows, maybe we're going to
have a bad winter, maybe not. I don't know. So, I think Bob's what Bob's saying is he'd like you to understand the project, make some comments, allow him to move forward, but require the applicants to
come back and do an after the-act RDA to make this all, you know, work within our regulations. And the request is only being re asked because of the time we're at and the
potential snow hazard that's gonna that's going to come. >> Okay. So, should we have a conversation about fees for the trees being removed? >> Well, I think there some snags, but there's going to be trees removed. >> Yeah. So, he's saying 14 trees and so
it's 14. So they're they understand the policy. So they'll be donating into the fund for those 14 >> and for the 15 >> 3500 >> for 15 snags >> snags. >> Now if it changes they may not like all
the snags and it might end up having to come back and cut them out. >> And can I just touch on that? >> We're working on that. >> So we talked about that about the snags. Okay. And I said the exact same thing. Now, if you guys want to remove the snags, we go back to the board, we remove the snags. You still have to pay
the 250 bucks for each snag that would come out. Correct. >> Absolutely. >> And they know that. I made them aware of that. >> It's as far as I could go with it. >> I mean, I worked in the best basically tried to be on both sides of the fence here for them and for you guys.
>> So, >> okay. So, it sounds like then that right now we're looking just to continue this and you're going to make your final determination. Give us final numbers and then we're going to do an after the fact.
>> They have their final numbers now. >> I thought you said final numbers. >> I thought you said they weren't necessarily final. >> They were what? >> Necessarily final. You were going to make a recommend. Oh, this this is what I came to propose tonight after speaking with them that there would be uh >> So you believe 29 total will take care
of all the ones arching over the >> the other ones are pruning. >> Yeah. Okay. >> The other trees that were not taking down are prunes. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> And some that are less than six inches. >> Yeah, I know. >> Yeah. And less than six inches and and some of them may even need to be pruned, but they're under six inches. So those
are the final numbers for removal and snags. And I I don't know what is the next step with them. I mean, is it an after the-act RDA? >> Yeah. So, the the conservation commission I mean, you're only being approved with what if if it happens. You're only being approved for the
trees, 15 snags, the 14 removals. That's all you're getting an approval for. If it changes, you have to come back. But we need >> Not for the pruning though. >> Not for the pruning. >> Pruning is okay. >> 20% of each treere's canopy. >> That's what we 20% of each treere's
canopy. up to >> up to Bob knows that. >> Um >> I just thought I'd tell >> if they So the the the one issue I I'm sure that the the the owners don't know that they have to do an after the fact
RDA. So either you're going to agree to do it if they don't or we're going to have to continue. >> Well, I had this conversation and this is surprising to me. I thought they were going to have to talk to you guys and do an RDA prior to. So, I don't think they're going to have a problem either way. That their girl was in the office
was ready to go with the guy Gary that we we met. He knew about this that there were going to have to be permits done. If it's after the fact, it's going to be on them, not me. I want to make that clear. They know that they're >> So, before we go down that road, if this was approved on December 10th, is that
too late? Because then if it's that's if it's fine, that would work for us. Then we don't have to do an after the fact. Do they have to do paperwork is what I'm asking you prior. >> They'll always have to do paperwork. They're either doing it after the fact and you're getting your approval tonight. You can start whenever you can
get mobilize or if you can't even get there until some mid December time, then we don't have to make that accommodation, we'll just put it on the agenda for December 12th to >> I would prefer because of the risk of
snow and who knows, right? I would prefer to get approved tonight and let them know that they would go for the RDA after the fact. >> So that's your request. >> That's my request. I mean, only because I've had you guys out there. It's not like I'm walking in a blind. It
>> it's safer for us to not do the after the fact, you know, but to sit there and continue for the next meeting because you express some >> urgency >> concern. well, urgency, but also you're saying it's on them if they come to us or not, which implies there's some risk
that they wouldn't come to us with the paperwork after the fact. >> Well, I disagree with that because as I said, they're going to be in bed with you guys for a long period of time. Why would they jeopardize that? There's other buildings that have to be worked on. I I mean, they may not use guy like me that's going to come to you guys, too. And I understand that.
>> I'll put the risk. That's all. I'm fine with doing an after-fact uh determination, but >> and and I will stress that to them and I'll just let them know that if we get approved tonight that um I mean if if you need to have them sign some type of
a letter for stating that after the trees are done now, are you guys going to come back and inspect? >> Absolutely. But I'll tell you what we're going to require. Well, I'm going to suggest this. The commission is going to tell you what we're going to require. We're going to we want the application pro started before you start.
>> I agree with that. >> We want the check for the trees in our hands before you start. So, whoever's in the office would have to fill out the applications. We require two copies and electronic versions. Go through the uh
assessor's office to get the abutters list and then deal with that however and be all set for the agenda for December 12th. Once that all happens, which can happen in like I've had people do it in five days, you can start because
>> So, we're not doing after the fact anymore. >> No, you are doing after the fact because you can start anytime. The meeting's on December 10th. I just want all the paperwork beforehand, which they can do. >> Okay. So, let's just say I have the opportunity to get in there next week. I can't do that.
>> No, you can do that as provided that the person in the office has all that information. So, as long as they get the proper paperwork to you guys right away >> and they're on the agenda. Yeah. >> You have it in hand, then we can start >> and the check. >> And the check. What happens if the
numbers change? What happens if we leave? I mean, let's just say I Now, again, they came up with the numbers. I really have to determine that this is the right way to go here. There may not be >> That's what I thought I heard when I
said there wasn't a final. Well, I I mean, they picked the numbers. >> Yeah. >> I I told you originally they were going to say do all snags and I said I don't think that's smart for for your for your relationship with the board. That's what >> Okay. Well, so if it ends up that they
need to take down additional ones because you >> they just pay more money. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, based on the numbers that I I've spoken with them about, we'll go on that. I'll tell them that prior to commencement, paperwork has to be filled out and a check has to be made out for the 3,500 bucks.
>> Right? And so something you can take to them just so they understand our position. We are not constrained by the $250 per tree. That's for single family homes, smaller numbers and
everything. So technically what the regulations say is when you get when it's when it's a commercial enterprise, it's our decision. It's our discretion. >> So are you saying it could be less money? >> I'm saying it could be more. And that's what I want you to take to them is that
I think we're being reasonable here and for them to understand that. >> Why would it be more? Um, not not so many trees here as I thought it was going to be, but I'm thinking of projects where they've requested a
hundred 100 and change. That's a big impact on the the forest and if it's in the buffer zone and everything, it's a big impact. So, it's our discretion. So, if there were some uh overarching reasons, maybe the species of tree,
whatever it is, we could do it. And I just want to let you let them know that we could. So, are you So, I can be clear on this. I could tell them to write a check for 3,500 bucks and then after we're done with the job, you could ask for more. >> Oh, no, no, no. I'm sorry. >> That that's going to because that would be a little cloudy here for me.
>> Yeah, that would be that would be entertaining. I I should try that sometime. >> Yeah. >> No, no. It's just within our rights to ask for more, but we're only asking this time for two. >> And Bob, we don't do Once you get a decision. >> That's it. >> That's it. So, he was just letting you
know >> how good he is. a good >> You're being nice to me. I agree. It's like I never go to a customer's house and tell them 2,000 to take trees down and then the day I'm there, I tell them it's going to be >> doesn't go over good. >> I only did that because I heard in the last meeting somebody said we're not a
bank. So >> So yeah, and I put that together because I, you know, not often does the commission allow after the fact, you know, work. >> Is it because I'm special? It's not because you're special, but it's it's mostly because of the snow and that you
were out there like five or six times and they met me once and Brian once, you know, two separate occasions. And I, you know, I I think that to try to make it seem like we're as close as possible given the fact that this is, you know,
air quotes, an emergency or could be an emergency. >> That if we got all the paperwork in >> and I knew that they were going to be on the meeting for December 10th, you know, then it's and after the fact, then then we're ready to just say go
ahead and there no changes. If you want to talk about changes, then that'll have to come up on the 10th. >> I think at this point originally when I looked at the work, they were only going to do the first portion of it and then they decided we were going to have the equipment there. We could give them a different rate because of mobilization
twice. They decided to go for the whole thing. So, uh I think they can go on the website and the paperwork is there. >> Just have whoever's doing it call me. We'll get it done quickly. >> Have them check. Whoever's the lead
person at their office should call me, >> okay? >> And I'll go over it with them. >> I think we beat this to death. >> Um, so I think we're ready to move ahead with a motion. >> I move that we allow Bob Moses to go ahead with the tree cutting under the
conditions that Chuck has stated. >> So, it's a after the fact determination, >> right? And that's just not part of my motion, but just FYI, it's because we're not meeting on Thanksgiving eve. So, we have
to go a whole month. >> There's that also. It's the month or >> Yes. Walter seconds that motion. >> In favor in favor. >> Martha Moore in favor. >> Ryan Mo is in favor.
>> Thank you. Okay. All right. Well, thank you very much. >> All right. You guys were worth the wait. It was good to watch everybody else. >> Have a great night. >> See you later. Have a good holiday. If I I sure I'll see Brian and Chuck, but to the rest of your season's greetings. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. Cross street. Um >> I'm going to excuse myself. I feel like garbage. I've been fighting this all day. >> Don't breathe on us any more than you have on. >> Oh, I'm not good. >> All right, Tim. We'll see you later. >> Okay, so that's >> I've been fighting. Tim's
>> and we're still a quorum. He's allowed to. >> Yes, that's why he stayed, >> but we still have four anyway, >> right? We're still a quarter quorum. >> Okay. >> So, next is Cross Street. Uh we went there because there's report that there was a buildup in uh dumping uh at the
end of that path on Cross Street. If you followed it in along the drainage and then took a left would bring you up to the boardwalk that takes you to 259. So, we went there site visit on Monday. >> No, today. Well, >> it wasn't raining.
>> Yes, that's right. It wasn't raining. It was cold. Um, we looked at it. We saw um >> cold. >> We saw what looked more like uh neighborhood activity rather than kids.
We saw uh a dozen uh house plants that were dumped out of their plastic containers. Um, we saw >> four pumpkins. >> Yeah. We saw a plastic rectangular like a uh a waste basket in an office or in
your kitchen or something. We saw a number of cans and cups and what have you for refu. We also saw some tire tracks in the dirt mud running in towards the drainage channel. Two
boulders blocking the path. Don't know if they were put in after the vehicle went in and came out or whether the vehicle moved them, went in, did their work, and came back. I don't know. Uh Chuck has that added to his upcoming conversation with the DPW in the monthly
coordination meeting. Um, so the question is, uh, is it bad enough that we should be installing signage, do not dump or what have you, signage? Um,
I think that's really the the question, right? >> And the other question would be, is any part of that located on the 269 Main Street property because it's their responsibility to clean up the trash >> in their area? >> So, I don't believe so. It doesn't extend more than 10 ft beyond the
boulders. We're at the which is at the uh the opening to the culvert going under the street going on cross street. >> I think I have a no dumping sign but I'm not sure. So you'd have to approve that expenditure and we're we're close to not having any money.
>> We're up against it. Okay. Well, why don't you check it? We have a no dump inside. >> Yeah. Um, >> and I'm going to say if we don't have any money in this year's budget, and I don't think it's
urgent enough that it would have to go in in this year's budget, if we can buy it the beginning of next year's budget, we could put it off till then. >> Yeah. Um, uh, we could I could just put a note in my calendar to purchase a sign. I'll I'll be able to check.
>> Okay. >> Um, >> yeah. And if we can do it this year, great. Uh, >> it might be a no. Yeah, >> I agree with Martha. If we had to wait till next year, >> and I'm not waiting for the DVW meeting. I sent a note to Right. >> Mr. Casman and Mr. Cole. >> Right. I knew you said you would want to
do that. >> And do you get any sort of a bulk discount on more than one no dumping sign at a time? uh >> bought a batch of >> I think I think the numbers are
um would prevent me from getting some. I think it would be like six, five, like six, seven, eight is less money. I think they're like a hundred now. They're like the aluminum signs that we've been asking for >> around $100.
>> Okay. So, >> so if you bought it this year, you should just buy the one. If we're waiting till next year, it might not be bad to buy like three so you have a couple on hand. >> That's all I'm saying. >> So, can I have a motion to authorize
Chuck to buy uh one or um some smaller number if you've got additional and come back to report to us and how many you bought, but they're authorizing to make the purchase of the necessary no dumping signs for this area and maybe some others.
>> Yes, I move that. if he doesn't have one still in the office. >> I want to second that. >> Walter Tabbert will second that. >> In favor? >> Walter Thomas in favor. >> Martha Moore in favor. >> Brian Brew in favor. Okay. Next on the
item is a MBTA update by Mr. Flurry. >> Just one second before we go into that real quick. I asked the uh I asked the DBW to back blade the tire ruts and to either move the stones closer or put additional stones there. So that's what
we're asked. Okay, >> good idea. >> Is there any update you want to give? >> Uh can you give a quick update? So October 27th there was a special select board meeting um with the reading turnback committee and the select board
about 500 almost 500 residents from reading had attended along with the MBTA all members of the select board were present hour or so presentation from the writing turnback committee some of them here today as well as lengthy public
comment um to really just talk about the entire MBTA proposal not necessarily our open NOI. Um that resulted in a 50 vote against the location proposed by the MBTA and then subsequently uh preceding
select board meeting they had written and approved a letter to be sent to uh interim transportation secretary Ang of the MBTA. Um I did want to bring up just two points now that we have the second NOI
rescended. Uh we were going to talk about the public health department. Um their board of health uh made a motion on October 9th uh that notified the conservation commission of their intent to engage a qualified engineering firm to conduct an independent analysis on
air quality, noise, and vibration impacts. >> Excuse me. >> Uh Chuck, was there ever an intent to get an environmental review during that NOI or that RFQ? uh all my attempts were uh were uh not
successful. a couple because um I think a day had mentioned that that's not the direction they were going to go into with their with health department money >> and then when it was it came up again um
just before they were going to issue this uh um Jane mentioned that the scope is getting too uh large. I don't think that would have changed it. I think it was up to a day. My department didn't have any
money. We were relying on the health department to include some uh environmental tests and uh that looked like it just wasn't able to happen. So ultimately these studies wouldn't have helped the
conservation commission uh make a decision. But there might have been something that we could have uh you know I guess leveraged uh to get our own tests out there. I I don't know. We'd have to see the tests, but it just
didn't look like it was heading in the directly towards the environmental uh review. >> Do you happen to know? Are they still going to do it even though it's been withdrawn? >> No, they are. I I think that the last email I saw they were asking uh uh procurement to uh kind of like resend
the request. >> Is there any way to get a copy of that RFQ? It was not posted even though it claims to be posted on the bids site on the town. The only reason why I ask is this is the second NOI we've received from the MBTA for the same location.
Public art health department and the board of health have both requested that they were going to pursue an RFQ. Yeah. Now they finally written one. So I would like to kind of see the cont. >> Sure. So you had asked me to do that before and I heard from Jane that it's posted and that's where that information
can uh can be uh received and downloaded. If it's not up there, when it never goes up there, I don't know what the case is. Um but um I think that's a request that you know I could
make again, but you could also make email. I have sent you multiple emails on >> and the risk would be that now if they do resend it that they would take down the >> He's just wondering what's in the RFQ. >> Yeah, I would like to just see especially from the air quality perspective because we did briefly touch
on air quality. >> Have you reached out to a day? >> Yes. >> Have you reached out to the chair of the board of health? >> No, I believe they were not meeting this week. At least they don't have a posted agenda or else I would have. But I'll send an email directly. >> Yeah. I mean, you could definitely chase
that down. I think if it's if it's not on the site and uh you reached out to procurement, then um I would have to I would get the same information. They said it's not up there and we're not handing it out, then that's that's what the answer would be. >> Okay. >> And then just um there there was a
separate email um sent today. I think there was two emails. One was posted publicly about the NOI being rescended without prejudice. Um, there is a second email from concerned residents uh between the MBTA and there was a comment
made in one of those emails about emphasizing that the NOI will not be resubmitted for this precise location. Is there going to be a formal communication from the town of Reading um you know or from the MBTA that states
that fact or how is that information going to be shared with the public? Uh, I I believe that would be a Jane or Matt question, you know, not to like sidestep this, but uh if if there's any information
um about them coming back to the conservation commission or somewhere else in town, I think we've made it quite clear that that information goes to Matt, Jane, and the select board first. We hope that the MBTA
uh gez understands that. But hey, I could get it first based on what's what's been happening. >> But however, this is the MBTA saying that they won't come back at the same location. As far as we're concerned, there's nothing inhibiting them from
doing it legally conservation commission wise. They could do it. It would mean them going back on whatever they wrote if they wrote something. But there's nothing that we have in our purview we could say you can't have it in the same location. >> Right. My my question would be like they
they once again stated in the second end of why being rescended it's without prejudice back in February they rescended without prejudice came back six months later with the same exact location and some additional information. >> My concern is that it's been with
removed without prejudice. There could be a move of like 500 feet closer to residence. We still may have a component of that NOI. I know we're speaking hypotheticals and that's very dangerous, but I think the time and the effort that the conservation commission and the town
has spent over the last year on two NOIs that have been rescended without any input before an NOI submitted for reviewing our wetlands or conservation land with the MBTA or with the town. I think we need to be a little bit more
assertive to ensure that if they're going to propose something within the town of Reading, >> if if you could come up with some thing you could cite >> that says that they can't do that and we have >> some way we're allowed to be assertive like that
>> like to be a part of that conversation. >> I mean, I just don't know if there is anything. I' I've read through I don't know all the ancillary kind of things but there's nothing in in the protection act that dictates how many times they somebody can come back right >> and whether they would go to the same
spot >> right >> so yes it may be annoying and expensive for us for the town whatever it doesn't mean us on the commission have a different responsibility should they come back >> okay I just want there to be at least some validity to the statement that the
MBTA has now stated that They will not come back to the Mlette SS location because that does fall within our purview for conservation space. >> No, it doesn't come under our purview. Whether they do, it's just if they do, then it's under our purview. >> Okay. >> But whether they come back or not,
that's outside of us. >> Yeah. I think that statement was uh good conversation to have with the select board and the town manager. I mean, I I I believe if they if they said they're not coming back in the same location,
there's no clause in the WPA, like Brian said, to for us to check it off and say, "Well, anywhere else in town is fine, uh, but you can't go back here." But they did make a a promise. they did
put it in writing uh or if they put it in writing then that would be something the select board and the town could could do something about >> that's a credibility issue on their part >> it's not us I mean how would you even enforce that suppose they came back and was five feet different
>> well that's my question it's the without conversation because we don't own that could we go back to their first presentation at the beginning of the year within the first minute the person making the presentation said they don't need our approval to do anything that
they had jurisdiction to do anything they want >> and and that's a we don't need to talk about that now. This is the update MBTA. The update is is they withdraw it for now. >> I'm good. >> Last question is and this is more of a question for Chuck. Are we going to get any responses to our questions uh from
the MBTA or is it now that the NOI is rescended we will not receive? That's probably not >> I mean I Okay, that's fine. I just I want to say it publicly because we we haven't gotten answers multiple occasions and there's two NOIs on this. >> Okay. So, can we can we table that?
>> That's it. >> In the in the interest of Oh, can't watch the Celtics game. Never mind. >> Yep. Thank you. >> Um the next one is yours, Chuck. DCR trail. >> Oh, no. It's it's Walter Talbot and mine. So, Walter is up. I think I was
pointing at Chuck. >> Any uh screen sharing you need to do, Walter? >> No, I'm just going to make it brief. Uh Mass Trails has a program for reimbursing towns that do trails. So,
we're thinking about the trail around the recal center. And the program is basically you have to submit all this information by February 2nd of next year. They will
award a grant in late spring. The advantage is you have to use the grant within two years from being awarded. So what happens is whatever money we apply for,
we have to spend first and then they reimburse us 80% of what we spent. So we still have to pony up the last 20%. >> Well, we pony up the 100% and then get 80% back. >> Yeah.
So, uh, they're going to have a webinar on week from tomorrow, which I hope to get involved with. I've already through all the paperwork and requirements. Um, it's quite formidable, but on the other
hand, free money is free money. >> So, um, are all requests granted? >> No. And do you know what criteria they use to determine who gets I hope to find that out a week from Thursday.
>> But we do know whether we've been granted it before we actually have to spend it. >> That's correct. >> That's good. >> When will they announce grant approvals? Usually May. Usually May. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, we're going for a grant
for design, engineering, and construction costs. That's within the first two years. And then we'll follow that up with construction. And that'll be probably supplies and
whatever else we we learn from this process. It could be supplies and we would provide labor. It could be including labor. So the the 8020 split is usually split by staff input
um engineering input staff conservation staff and labor. So that's usually how we put our 20% in and they understand that. >> Okay. >> So the grant should look like whatever fees are going out is paid 100%
then we we'll back that up with our own our own work. >> The phasing on the project is pickle ball courts first and then the building and then the trail. So, do we really think that they would get to the trail in the
two-year time frame that Walter was talking about? >> Well, we're only asking for design and we have um 80% plans already. I sent those to Walter so they could design off those plans and then we could hold off a year if we weren't ready for
construction and then come back into >> So, basic. Yeah, I I think that we can we can get our project ready. >> Is that what is that term that people use? Uh shovel ready. >> And then when recal catches up, which I
actually think they'll be right in line with us, hopefully we'll be able to go straight forward. >> Okay. I just wanted us to consider that. >> Just to let you know, someone's in the waiting room has been there before as well.
That's uh one of the guys that was uh um part of uh one of the projects. What is it? 24 Dustin. >> Okay. >> And I just want to say I think it's great if we can apply for this grant. Thank you. >> Yes. >> Yeah. So, we're we're really looking at
a lot of help. I mean, Walter is helping, but this is we want people to help committee like a committee. So, um, Mary said she would look it over. Andrew McNichols said they would he would help out where he could,
>> the school person, monastery school. >> Um, yes. During during this process, she uh indicated that she had a lot of uh background in receiving grants. Yeah, that's good. >> And so I've also contacted Epsilon and
uh they're going to help us out with some stuff. I have some friends over there um that have done a similar project. So we'll be able to get some >> We'll definitely be able to get a few uh Zoom meetings and maybe some information. >> When should the next update be? The next, you know, December 10th. >> Well, we can talk about that as soon as
I finish talking, but uh >> just trying to get everybody home before >> I don't know. I think some things have to fall in line. I think uh uh Walter will be giving a report at every meeting. We have this meeting coming up and then we'll be able to think about what our next steps are.
>> But you have you said you have to have the proposal in by when? >> February 2nd. >> Right. So we only have one in in December. So at the latest would be the first one in January for an update. >> I think this is going to be a lot of individual Yeah. me reaching out to
different people, different branches. >> Fair enough. There should be there should be an update to the commission somewhere along the line even if it's a briefer than >> well let's just say February the February meeting will probably be very close at that point. I mean it's just going to be a chaos for us to try to
keep the commission informed. I mean when we're when we're close to it you know it's happening author again I don't know why I have this in my head. Walter will uh will uh give a rundown at every meeting. It's going to be an a reoccurring um liaison report.
Let me just get over the first roadblock we can break the project into different pieces like we want to do. >> Okay. So, >> have you got the uh have you Well, I didn't receive any kind of uh credentials yet.
>> Sent that out last week. >> Yeah. And so, it's tomorrow. >> Week from tomorrow. So, we'll I'll reach out tomorrow when I'm in the office just to say what's what what we're looking for, but there's phone numbers and stuff we can give a call. I we'll we'll have
it. We explain your time. I'll do it tomorrow. >> Anything else you have to say tonight? >> Good night besides that. Okay. Uh next item was a budget update from Rick. Rick's not here. Rick's not here, but I want to let you know that Rick has
graciously agreed to be uh lead person for our budget request, and I've already got him in touch with um our ex our ex uh conservation member. The name is escaping me, so if you can help me out,
uh from the finance committee chair, >> Joe Khan, yeah. >> And so they're going to talk and we're also looking for people in that meeting, too. So, finance people, let me or let Rick know that you want to
be part of this and we just want to make sure we understand the dates. We want to make sure that we understand the budget process. I don't know what happened with the town forest, but they're, you know, they're coming up with an article uh for $50,000 tomorrow night,
>> hopefully tomorrow night. Could be Monday by the way these are going. So I just I just want to emphasize that's the second request for help in the last half hour. There's only so many of us on the commission. So if anybody did have newly
acquired time, it might be helpful if you could figure you out someplace to jump in. Not that I'm looking at anybody in particular. >> Well, yeah. >> Yeah. I mean, I think I think there's there's like a little bit of work before
we need more people, but certainly >> we can get somebody to volunteer so we know who's around to help >> now that they're not teaching anymore. >> Um, >> I got it. >> Is your finance Do you have a finance background? >> If you ask my wife, she says she'll
definitely say no. >> So, what's your wife doing? Who's that? So, what's your wife doing? >> You can ask her. She's probably better at it than I am. Okay. So, that's enough on the budget, Chuck. >> It's enough for me on the budget. >> Okay. Next is old new business. First is
enforcement follow up on 445. I went by there a couple of times and um last time we reported that he had done some work and he had he had done a fairly good job for part of it. Uh there's been no progress since then. So,
it's still partially done. There's still mounds of dirt and rocks on his driveway and the north side is still uh needing help. >> Um >> so is the uh uh
core logs core bashing logs are they in place in the stream? >> Yes. >> Well, at least that's gone. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And I will say um there's not a lot of sediment or anything, but there's trash down there. In fact, when I went
by today, there was a empty Huggies case box. So, everyone's not well taken care of. >> So, let's uh let's just get him on the phone again. >> Okay.
Who is the lets? Is that Chuck volunteering to get him on the phone or asking Brian to? >> I'll do it. >> Yeah, I'll be happy to be on a conference call if you wanted to or I can come by your office either way. I want to see that you actually do some work in your office. I have no evidence that happens.
>> Anyone that goes No, never mind. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Next. Anything you want to say about the conservation staff me uh DBW meeting? Um, yeah. So, the the only thing I wanted to say is we're trying to get um
I'm trying to get my list together. I've got it I asked at the last meeting. I've gotten most of it together, but if there's some sort of project that is beyond just like normal. Uh so, for
instance, we have the DPW dig the footings for the deck at Mata Cabin. They're not That's not a typical request. That had to go on this list that I that I wanted to do. And they they did a trail for me and then they took out a lot of cement in the middle
of a field so I could have a bench installed on that slab that was made. So if there's, you know, a request that kind of falls into those parameters, let me know. Uh,
outside of that, I think we're going with a few a few projects. Maybe not as much as last year, but there's a there's a there's a few on there. Um, >> is there anything left from last year's list? There must be >> all those I have to compile last year's lists, and most of it was done. There
might be one or two things. Uh, Chris Cole believes there's nothing. Uh, which is might be the case. Uh, but, um, yeah. Yeah. So, I'm going to put the list together and then uh I'll let you guys know. But I'm not everywhere. So, if
there's something that you can think of, like one of the one of the requests is to um you know, at Lob's Pond that that we need some tree trimming. We need material, gravel pushed up against the
original locations of the the boards that stop the tires from going too far. So it looks like a parking lot, like not like an overgrown, you know, mess. We need to get that cleaned up. And there's a couple of things in there that I can do with volunteers, but to get us started, I need some help from like
forestry and and uh DPW. >> Yeah. Um yeah, it'd be good to think of some projects. >> Yeah, Trails is doing it, too. So >> good. Okay. Uh violation notices. I'm going to suggest we skip that for for tonight's
meeting. I think we have to get these off and start fresh. Um, >> give them off to somebody who has a little more time on their hands. >> I don't know. We have anybody >> who's has no finance.
>> I'm finding my head just turning to the right. I don't understand that. Uh, Chuck, any administrative report in mater? >> Um, yeah. So, we did do an a second meeting or I don't know if it was a third meeting, but what we're looking at now is just compiling the information
that we received from the second engineering report uh into a list of what volunteers can do and what volunteers can't do and the uh code that's referenced for each one. And so
that uh we've taken about a week already, so it's due in two more weeks. So theoretically whatever volunteers can't do would be something for facilities to deal with. >> That's an So whoever gets that done is
unknown. Whatever the TR whatever the volunteers I'm obviously I'm one of them can't do and I'm saying that's a good thing but I'm just saying I'm there. Uh whatever we can't do is up for grabs. I don't know how the
town's going to approach it because we really didn't know the first part yet, >> right? >> And so I know it is a building that facility has to take care of, but it's this is above and beyond. So I'm not sure how this happens, but I think that
Jane just wants the information first and then we'll we'll figure >> I would like to see what the expected cost is whatever the volunteers are not going to do. At least if we know the number, we can consider things. Yeah. So, a facility does is I don't
think we would know we would ever know what what it costs. Um, >> right. I mean, what's the estimated cost? That's what I was saying because there was an estimated cost for uh the occupancy at this level, occupancy at that level. So, somebody did some
analysis based on something >> did. Okay. >> I don't remember. >> That's why somebody told me that. Um, I what I what I was saying was there's we're only going for a 20 person
occupancy and it whatever it costs >> is about what we can afford here. If we ever wanted to go for 30, that's a whole different conversation which has additional costs that we're not even >> So that's that's the leveling then that I was remembering. Yeah. Although I
thought there was a a level at eight as well. But >> no, it's it's it's easiest to go for a 20 person occupancy. Least amount of things need to be done more manageable and this the next 10
people. It's, you know, it's it just increases exponentially from there. It's too much. >> Does 20 include the deck? So like if you were just using the deck, not the inside of the building? >> I think it's in interior. I I'm not no one has asked that question but but
but this is occupancy. >> Yeah. >> I mean are they occupying >> porch fest you know for example stood there before? >> Yeah I mean me and Brian did Porchfest. They're all up by the pavilion. It wasn't really in >> the cabin wasn't open for any
>> it's it has nice ambiance up there >> and we we're there on a rainy day and there's still a lot of people >> last week. It it was perfect for that kind of an event. Yes, you could do it on the deck. People could stand down below the deck. So, it could be done for
that matter. We had multiple bands. You could have one in each place. >> That would be pretty aggressive. But you could do that. >> I guess that based on our occupancy issue and those problems that are suggesting we do >> only at the pavilion. How's that? We'll
use the field and the pavilion. Yeah. >> So, what you should do is have Walter do a a grant proposal for a trail leading around the uh the deck and get use of that money to do seating or something. Never mind. It's late. Okay. Um minutes
for approval. We got September 10th, right? >> We did get September 10th. >> Okay. Um and that's it. Right. >> All right. So, have a motion to approve the minutes for September 10th.
Um, and to move that we don't have to have actually read them. Is that correct? >> I move that we approve the minutes of September 10th. >> Although in favor >> 4. So, I just want to
don't want to mess up this vote, but I I recognize some part of where your comment and what you're what you're trying to say is you can vote if you weren't at the meeting. Ah,
>> because a lot of people say, "I'm not I wasn't at the meeting, so I'm not voting." It's an administrative action, so you can vote. I think if you didn't read it, that's a different that's a different question. Okay, good point. >> So, do we have a quorum with Alpatha on that one? >> No, we don't.
>> So, um I I don't think you can do that. You would have to read it even if you weren't at the meeting. >> Okay. Yeah, I I haven't been asked. >> Someone could call in and say, "I'm absolutely wrong, but we're going to go with this tonight." >> Okay. So, we won't approve this. >> Sorry. >> That's okay. >> And by the way, so if you haven't read
them, at least read them. >> Yeah. >> Submitting comment or two would be nice, but at least read them. I will say Emily does a much better job than any of us ever did. >> So there's uh there's many fewer comments to make. >> Okay, on that note, are we all set to
adjurnn? Have a motion to adjurnn at 10:30. >> 10:30. >> I move to adjourn this meeting. >> Oh, wait a minute. Let's just find out if someone's here. Sorry. We get a couple people online. Just ask them if they had something to say. >> Does anybody who was online have anything to say? Please, if you do,
raise your hand using the reactions button and the raise hand function. Some point I'll get that down to one sentence. >> Okay. Uh, seeing none, >> seeing none, have a motion to adjourn at
10:30 and a half. >> I move to adjourn this meeting at 10:30. Alter seconds the motion. >> All in favor? Amen. >> Have a pleasant rest.