Joe Lori, are you uh >> Hey, Jeff. Yep. >> How about now? >> I can hear you guys now. you guys now. >> Okay now and see us. No, >> no, I can't see you guys. >> So, this is what we need to do.
>> Now we can. >> Okay, great. All right. Hello everyone. This is Chuck Terrone, writing conservation administrator. This meeting is being conducted in person and remote format consistent with chapter 2 of the acts of 2023 which further extend
the co 19 measures regarding remote participation in public meetings until June 30th 2027. >> Can I chuck Can I interrupt a second? Did you start the recording? >> No, but I I'll do it after >> I can do it now. You guys
in the national airport. >> All right. So, I'm recording now. Um, please note that not all items listed may be in fact discussed and other items not listed may be brought up for discussion to the extent permitted by law. This agenda includes those item
which uh can be reasonably anticipated to be discussed at the meeting. Please note that this meeting is being recorded. All materials for this meeting can be found at the consultation division page under projects by year. Ryan Bo, the commission chair, will
facilitate the meeting. Uh please note that there will be a public comment period at the end of each hearing. Each vote taken tonight uh will be conducted by roll call and we'll begin with a roll call attendance. Brian, can you review the agenda and take the roll call attendance?
>> Sure. I'll start with attendance first. We'll start with the online. Joe, can you go first? >> Yeah. Joseph Flurry, associate commissioner present. >> Walter Walter Talbert, member present. >> Michelle, member present. >> Rick Rick Kio, member present.
>> Jen, member present. >> Martha Moore, vice chair present. >> Brian B, chair present. Now, quickly summarize the agenda. A couple of hearings tonight. First, wanted the continuation of public hearing on notice of intent for 43 Arcadia. That'll be
followed by opening a public hearing on notes of intent of 281 Main Street. That's it for hearings tonight. Then we have a number of discussion and vote items including a discussion of the Westland fees. Uh a violation at 125 H
Street. Um and then uh evaluation of a tree at 451 Pearl Street. All new business. Uh Chuck has his uh conservation DPW meeting um administrative report and
then we have some minutes for approval. Having said that, we can get to the first hearing which is 43 Arcadia. Does somebody want to step to the podium and introduce themselves for that? >> Jeff, can you
>> I sure can. Yeah. For the record, my name is Mary Trudeau and I'm representing the Sherburns this evening. We were before you perhaps a month ago um with our initial presentation of our notice of intent for
the construction of an ADU at as at a pertinent to the existing signal family house on 43 Arcadia. Um, since that time we've had to make several plan changes and we have also changed the regulations
that we had filed on. I had filed as new construction under the Riverfront Protection Area Act. After the meeting, Chuck shared with me an email that he had from Alicia Gallon, who is our circuit writer for this district. And Alicia felt very strongly that this was
a redevelopment project. So, I have rewritten my description of work to show where and where not we comply with the redevelopment standard regulations. And that was submitted to you, I think about a week ago. You should have it in your
packet. Um, so we could we can come back to that, but I wanted to go over a little bit of the change on the site plan. We had initially shown an independent driveway with our 900 square foot ADU and Reading has a policy that I
believe is administered by your building department and engineering department that requires that driveways be at least 125 ft from each other. Our driveways um did not and cannot meet that because of the frontage that we have for this
particular lot. So, we talked to the building inspector and he said he is willing to issue a building permit for an ADU um if we can show that we can share the existing driveway on the lot. And I I think that that is more than
possible. Um because ideally a driveway would be very helpful for the ADU. Um and we have some confidence that the town of Reading may review its policies
and regulation with respect to ADUs. Um we have maintained the size of our infiltration system which had been sized to handle not only the roof runoff for the ADU but any runoff from the proposed driveway. So even though we are not
proposing a driveway at this point in time, we have created um storm water volume compensation for it in our infiltration system that's associated with the ADU. If the driveway never comes to pass, the
ADU is just oversized. Um, but we at some point anticipate coming back to you with perhaps an amendment um or if it's years in the future with a a new notice of intent filing. Um, there
was a question from Mr. Talbot I believe last week about the rainfall data that had been used to size the infiltration system and I went back to the engineer and he had not run the calculations initially with the um I'm going to say
NOAA but I might have those letters >> newer 14. Yeah. >> Yes. Um, so he ran the system again with the Noah 14 and it remains oversized even if we put the driveway back in using that rainfall data. So
despite the fact that he had sized it initially for a smaller rain event system does have the capacity to handle the um Noah data rain event as well for the roof and for the driveway if that should ever come to pass.
Um the other issue that we had talked about and I submitted additional information for is we had talked about the potential of doing mitigation on this site um with respect to the control of non-native and invasive plant species
in the 0 to 25 foot buffer zone. If you recall, the existing fence runs kind of along the 25 foot buffer zone. It might be a foot or two off um in some places, but basically we have 2500 square feet or 2400 square 100 square feet of area
behind our fence that is currently um for lack of a better word, infested with non-native and invasive plant species. So, I've given you a little plan that's just um I took a template off of an invasive plant species site and filled
it out for this site. I have included in the plan the option to use herbicides. I know we discussed that at our site at our meeting here a month ago. Um, and there was concern that because the area that we're proposing to do the
mitigation on may actually belong to the town as it's off of the lot that in the town would not permit the use of herbicides on their property. So I've given it to you both ways in our plan that we could do the work strictly by hand with weed wrenches pulling culling
um or we could do a combination of culling and treating with um hand applied herbicide and that's really up to the commission which way they are comfortable um reviewing this.
Um, with respect to the change in our filing under redevelopment versus new construction, we had an issue with compliance um with a portion of the regulations. Um, the the
redevelopment standard talks about um that you can alter 10% or 5,000 square feet of your riverfront area, but we're already over that. like our existing site condition is that we have um just under 6,000 square feet of
existing impervious surface. If you've been out to the site, you'll know that there's the existing house, the existing driveway, there's some walkways, but there's also a pool and a patio out there which all add up to that um significant amount of improper surfaces. the ADU
and the um surfaces associated with that add an additional 1,276 square feet of imperous surface to the site um which is about a 5.7% increase and it brings us to I I think just about
oh just under 7200 square feet of impervious surface um because our mitigation was not quite suited to one for the 1276 6 ft. We've also proposed removing the existing shed, which
arguably creates a vegetated or permeable surface in both the inner and the outer repairarian zone because it straddles them. So that gives us another 113 square ft. So, we're at 2513 square ft of mitigation proposed for the,276
square ft of additional impervious surface that doesn't fall under the um threshold of of allowed disturbance in the riverfront area. And that's basically following their guidance that um you want to do your restoration as close to the river as you can and you
want to hit that magic two for one number and we're very close. We are limited on this lot in terms of what other mitigation we can do. One because it's a small lot and two um partly because of the pool that we don't want
to plant a lot of big trees around the yard because they'll cast shade and someone is just going to take them down because they won't be able to use their pool. um if the commission felt that our mitigation was not adequate. We had discussed last week um the issues with
planting new shrubs in the very well-veated 0 to2 ft zone. I still would not recommend that because I don't think there's enough shade or water supply to feed new shrubs, but you could arguably put new shrubs in front of the fence,
which would put it in like the 26 to 28 foot buffer zone if the commission felt um that that was a worthy thing. I would recommend either small shrubs like a witch hazel or a small tree like a witch hazel or a shrub um just because of the
size available there, the spacing and the um overstory canopy from the woods that border the river that I I think um it would be easier to get shrubs to survive
there than it would be to get new trees to break through that canopy. Um, with that I'm going to turn it over to questions because I think I've run out of tidbits, but >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thanks.
>> And thanks for redoing the uh the NOI a different approach. >> That's helpful. Any questions from the commission? >> The shed you're talking about removing is on the far left just behind the fence by the ADU. Yeah, it's 113 square feet
of imperous surface split mostly into it's not quite 50/50, but it it goes into both the 0 to 100 and the 100 to 200. >> And would you put lawn there? >> Yeah, I think so. We would replant it with vegetation. >> Uh when you say um where's the current
driveway? And when you say you're going to share the driveway in the new plan, where how would that be? Um the building inspector is saying that we need to be able to park four cars in this driveway right here. Okay. So I mean this looks like a long walk to the ADU, but they
only have 140 ft of frontage. So it's, you know, a 50ft walk. It's not. >> So you're not adding So the plan is not to add another driveway in the future. >> Well, ideally they would have loved to have driveway that came like right here, but Reading does not allow driveways to
be less than 125 ft. So until they change that standard or they would go to the applicants would go to the board of appeals and you know get a >> the reason for asking that is because then that increases your impervious surface even
>> it would increase our impervious surface. However we have already sized the infiltration system to handle that. We just did not reduce it in size when we took out the driveway. So if we would come before you at some point in the future for a second driveway, um we
would have the infiltration system in place. That's the only advantage. >> Is it affects the mitigation? >> It would affect Yes, we would have to do more mitigation because we don't have two for one including the,200 square or the 600 square feet that the driveway
would be. We would need another 1,200 square ft of something. at this point review the plan as it currently is and if it changes in the future. >> Yeah. I just don't want to be deceptive about why we're not >> I appreciate it >> building the driveway. >> Are you going to put some sort of a
paved walkway from the existing driveway to the ADU? I think it would be permeable like flag stone or something of that type because again we get into the problem with adding impervious surface that we then have to mitigate
for it and we're tight on mitigation. So I think that we would rather save our efforts if we ever get a driveway. Anything else? >> No. Anybody over there? >> No. I know Chuck had a lot of the questions I think at the last meeting.
>> I'm sure Chuck has a lot like a lot of them were answered. >> So your your question is for me to ask my questions. >> Yeah. >> Uh well um Mary uh proposed this project under 10585 and so that cleared up a lot
and when I reviewed um the standards I only had one question but she didn't mention it in her discussion and that was about mitigation. And in the paperwork, you took credit for the uh infiltration chamber, but you said um
that the town requires it >> and you told me that I cannot take credit for it. Yeah. So, I sort of and I think I put a sentence in there that said that I can't, but the fact is it still is mitigation even though you were
not allowed to take it into account. Um, but it does reduce the impact of the ADU. >> Super secret mitigation. I get it. >> Um, no, but it it's it's I would, you know, four years ago until that came up in a meeting I was in.
>> I No, I was not aware of that. >> But, uh, >> I guess it makes sense. It's just it's not helpful. >> Yeah. Uh, so most of my questions have been answered. What we're doing here tonight, I believe, is we're approving a buildable envelope
>> and which you're going to place your work in. >> And they don't, at the time I talked to the building inspector, they didn't have an architect who he would like to talk to, and there's some engineering questions
that need to come up, but they wanted to get through one mission. And so I felt a building envelope meeting all the standards would work. And um with the caveat that >> any changes, any work outside of that
box that they've drawn in on the plan, they would have to involve the conservation commission. So, we did talk about a walkway tonight and >> you probably just should have thrown it in, but if if you do that, that would be one thing that we'd want to see, even if
it is Flag Stone. But I don't have any other questions beyond uh what was brought up at the last meeting and most of those were were answered. >> Just if you're satisfied with the amount of mitigation. >> So, Walter, I had one. Yeah, you still haven't addressed my question from last
meeting, >> which was >> on your new diagram. You have a 25 year 24hour storm. >> I did talk to our engineer about that and he >> can I ask the question? >> Oh, sure.
>> What value did your engineer use for the calculations was my question then? That's my question now. >> Okay. Um, it's a two-part answer. Last week when I was here or last month when I was here, the
calculations had used the wrong rainfall data. As you pointed out, the town of Reading uses the TP14 NOA data base. So I asked our engineer, can you run this system again using the
correct data? And he did. And the system is still adequately sized for the correct rainfall event um which I think is about six and a half inches maybe for a 25-y year storm event. So the system is sized for the correct
database at this point. >> That doesn't answer my question. What was the value that was used for the calculation? >> Oh, I think it was about six and a half. >> I I I don't know. I did not do the calculations. I just asked him the question is my size
>> because going from the chart it should be as much as 8 in plus. >> Um yeah and the only thing I can tell you is I asked him the question showed him the correct database and he told me
it was okay. So I'm just repeating says hearsay. I mean, I I can get him to submit something to Chuck that verifies that. Um, but I can't give you a better answer. >> So, so Walter, there's uh there's more
to this, right? So, we found out that um the planning board requires Noah, like Ma has been saying, uh the Noah 14, but an ADA ADU is not reviewed by the planning board. We don't have it in our
regulations either, but the building department only uses uh what is it? Something 45. I don't know what it is. Uh the other the other >> the TB40. >> Yeah. So, um, they're following with
this. They're following, um, the building department's regulations. So, that needs to be understood. I'm not saying we need to back down. We've always asked for Noah plus Noah 14 plus. >> That's that's in the town rigs.
>> Yeah. But it's not rigs either. >> Our meaning >> like the town's wetland regulations. It's in the rig for sizing drainage. >> Yeah. Under the plan under the storm water. Right. Right.
>> This is not under planning board storm water review. >> So we haven't the town hasn't gone through the process of making sure all departments have the same standard which is a problem. It is coming up. We just
got that in about a year ago and it's going to happen. So um >> what is our >> right now? Right now it's a request. >> What is our jurisdiction for this project? Then >> should I just stop?
>> Yeah. TP40 is what we're what we can force them to do and we can ask them to do better but we can't demand it. So and they've met that regulations plus they've done a little bit more. uh it was oversized in the first place and by
removing the um driveway it it's uh it even has that additional capacity. So what I suggest is several things. First of all, one of the things we have to do in the future is to go through our regulations
and update them. Make a note. We'll be sure to cover that. In the meantime, can you ask your engineer to submit the value to Chuck? So, we'll have it on record. >> Yeah, absolutely. >> Um, and we won't use that in this
hearing for a determining factor. Um, because again, our regulations, our regulations don't state that. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Yeah, I'm with you. >> Okay. Um, I have one question. Thank you.
>> Oh, sorry. I didn't have a better answer. I I don't have a better question. >> Okay. All right. >> I have I have one question which is on your invasive management plan and you state um that there will be an annual um
removal and suggest certain time periods. So my question is more that you the homeowner are you aware that obligation you'll be taken on and and you're okay with living up to that
>> daily basis. >> Yeah. That what the plan says uh removal of non-native invasive plant species should be done each fall perhaps make summer visibility identification easier in full leaf. just don't want you to be surprised that
that's in there. Um, that's really all I have. Uh, Joe, do you have anything? Just uh, one quick question. So, the proposed deck off the ADU, um, there's no additional impervious surface that's going to be from that bottom step into
the uh, riverfront area. Is it just the steps going down into the grass next to the pool? >> Yes. If you look at um the chart that I put in the new description of work, we actually quantify that as degraded area. So we do take credit for having that's
in our number of 1276. >> Okay. >> Built into it. >> Okay. >> Even though the deck is not technically impervious, it is degraded. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> That was it for me. Yep. >> Chuck, did you cover all of your
>> Yeah. The only thing I didn't get a chance to elaborate on is if the commission feels like there's enough mitigation for this project just by doing the invasive removal. >> And the shed >> and the shed the shed is also required by the building department. So that's
that's going to happen no matter what. So I I guess I tell you >> I guess I guess they could move it back uh onto the lawn area and they're not doing that. What's happening in the shed? Is it going away alto together?
>> Yeah, you had a question. >> Um, yeah, I just wanted to comment. You read that stuff about removing the invasives in summer and fall, but if you're going to tackle any of the garlic mustard, that's a spring thing. Um, a
May Memorial Day weekend has all the white flowers, you can find them really easily at that time and pull them before they go to seed. >> And they're very easy. It's >> yeah, >> just hand pulling. It's not >> Yeah, they come up really easily. Um,
but once you recognize them, you can find them when they're blooming and later it's a little more difficult. >> Okay, so let's get back to Chuck's question then. Are is the commission satisfied with the amount of mitigation that has been planned here?
>> Is it is it three years? Is it in perpetuity? What What did you suggest for that? I think I suggested three years, but I don't think there's a problem of having it go longer. I mean, typically your first year is your most intense that you've got that's where you have
the physical work of taking out the box form, pulling out the woody vegetation and after that it's more, you know, if you're saying go in and pull out the garlic mustard when it blooms, there's, you know, maybe weed out the saplings um that are coming out. But yeah, it's not
a huge task to continue it, you know, to say five years. I would say at at some point they'll move on and you'll be dealing with a new homeowner on it. But um how do you do perpetual conditions? Do you attach them
to the end after the OC's order is >> No, they're written within the I mean, we highlight them, but they're within the document and they're not continuing conditions um as a separate item at the bottom of the order of conditions.
>> Yeah, because as long as the order of conditions is in effect, it will be in effect. You will do it. But once that goes away, then I don't know how you handle that. >> So, I'd be satisfied with five years. >> Yeah, there's some language in there that says that
>> there is a way to do it. I'm not sure >> Yeah. >> quite what it is. >> I'm okay with requiring five years. >> I think you know often homeowners, at least from my experience as a homeowner, once you know what it looks like, you you you >> you want to pull it.
>> You want to keep pulling it. Um, but I don't think we have to be um requiring them to come back and report it. So, I'm I'm optimistic that you will like what your backyard looks like with less. >> It is much easier once you've done it that first.
>> I mean, after that, it's just kind of like leading sight. >> Okay. Any other questions, comments from the commission? >> Just just in terms of the invasive management. So is that um once the invasive management is done, it's not going to be left in place. It's going to
be taken out like sent to the compost center. So the thing I I'm looking at is like garlic mustard for example. >> Not to compost. I mean typically you put it in a black past plastic bag and send it with your garbage or your trash. >> That's what I wanted to hear. Yeah. Especially for the garlic mustard that that stuff spreads like wildfire. So um
Okay. Just wanted to make sure. I didn't see that in the plan, but I could have missed it. And then Chuck, quick question. Um, in terms of the embankments for um the water behind the home, the town doesn't do any invasive
management of those spaces. Correct. That's >> okay. >> That's right. >> Okay. >> Okay. Joe, you all set? >> Yeah, I'm all set. Thank you. >> Okay. Chuck, any last thought?
>> Okay. Uh, anybody in the public have anything to ask questions of or comment on? If you're out in Zoom land, um, find the reactions button, raise your hand, and Chuck will see it
or not. Seeing none. >> Yeah, I don't see anyone. >> Okay. Nobody in the room. All right. Um, so can I have a motion to close the hearing on 43 Arcadia? >> A motion to close the hearing on uh 43
Arcadia to approve and the >> just closed. >> Just closed. Okay. >> Walter Talbert seconds the motion. Walter Talin's in favor. >> Tim Michelle in favor. >> Rio in favor. >> Jerox in favor. >> Martha Moore in favor.
>> Rainbow in favor. >> Okay. uh >> any conditions other than uh submit the value sheet prior to uh issuing the order of conditions. >> Yeah, I can get him to just send a memo
over. >> That would be great. >> And the conditions includes the five years invasive removal. >> Yep. And removal in black plastic bags. >> I was going to say, yeah, that should need to be written down if it's not in the plan already.
It's it's in appendex A of the uh ve vegetation plan under manual control. So >> I didn't see that either. >> Okay. Any other conditions or is that it? >> Um is the walkway in writing somewhere? >> You know, once we have our
architecturals, we'll have a better idea of where the walkway needs to go and we can submit it um you know to your agent. And yeah, I'm just thinking at least the condition should be the walkway will be permeable surface. Something like that.
>> What the walkway that wasn't yet? >> Yeah, >> it doesn't matter. We're not deciding on that tonight. So when and if they decide to do it, give it a piece of that >> as a change in plan or something. >> Okay. >> Okay. Um, so can I have a motion to
issue an order for conditions for 43? A motion to uh I'm making a motion to issue an order of conditions for 43 Arcadia. >> To second it in favor
in favor in favor in favor. >> Martha Moore in favor. >> Rainbow in favor. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thanks so much. >> I'll get that to you, Chuck. >> But I know you'll have if I don't. So >> yeah, I know. Uh,
>> we'll see. >> Okay. >> And um, >> yeah, I'll see you later. >> What about you? >> Thanks so much. >> Good luck. >> And you can just leave that door open when you >> stop talking.
>> Okay. Um, so next is 281 Main Street. I'll read the blurb while Chucky let anybody in if there is invite to let in. Open a public hearing on notes of intent followed by 280. 281 Main Street LLC pursuant to
Massachusetts General Law Chapter 131 section 40 the wetlands protection act and or the reading wetland protection bylaw section 7.1 for the proposed redevelopment of a mixeduse building and parking lot in a previously disturbed
riverfront area. The application and plans can be viewed on the conservation division page under current project assessors map 12 lot 42 D file number 270-0809 is there anybody here to speak for the
can you introduce yourself please >> absolutely um for the record my name is Andrew Tibo scientist with GD consulting and I am the representative of the applicant I believe our civil engineer Carlton Quinn was going to be on the zoom as well I don't know if you in the waiting room. >> I don't see the name Carlton Quinn. Uh
there is uh AMA meetings. Is that does that help? Jeff Brener, >> if Carlton is there, can he use the reaction button and raise his hand? >> No worries. The presentation's going to come from me. He's here for questions if there's civil storm waters to have a
whole team here with you guys. So I won't it won't delay things if he's not, but I figured make sure we can let him in and then I can I can share my screen from my computer here and we can go. Perfect. So, I'll kick things off with with an aerial of the property just to just to orient ourselves and look at the existing conditions. So, as was read
into the record, the lot is 281 Main Street in Reading. It's a it's about a 3/4 acre lot with an existing twostory um commercial building and parking. We can see here the exterior and eastern portions of the lot. They're forested
and undeveloped. It's bound by a perennial river to the east. Um when you take a look at the GIS layers for this area, it shows a perennial river and few small wetland areas in the eastern portions of the lot. We delineated this back in September of 2025 and there is
certainly a perennial stream out there. We had a medial high water delineation done. We noted that there are no wetland resource areas that come off the stream. There's an elevated walking trail that if you go along my cursor here that follows the stream, it's at a very well- definfined elevation above the manual
high water line and it seems to bisect any hydraology from entering anywhere else on the site. So, we had a manual high water delineation but no wetlands, meaning that the property has both the 100 and two 200 foot riverfront area to our perennial stream. And then the bank of the stream also has a 25 foot zone of
natural vegetation and then 35 foot no structure under your local bylaw. So as part of the plan set that was submitted we have an existing conditions plan. As I had referenced we have our manual high water delineation here. Um the detailed topo along the stream actually shows pretty well that it's a pretty well-
definfined bank. And so we have a a very straight stream delineation that casts both a 100 foot riverfront area and a 200 foot riverfront area on the property. So just about the entirety of this development as it exists today is within the riverfront area minus this
very small portion that we see on my cursor here. So this project would be filed as a riverfront redevelopment project under 310 CMR 10585 which we have here. So this notice of intent is before you for the redevelopment of this building in the
parking area. The intent is to convert this twotory to a four-story mixeduse building. So, it would be um commercial on the ground floor, residential above, and to develop the parking lot to suit the building around. Because this is a redevelopment project, there's a few important provisions that we need to be
aware of. Um one is that we can't move any closer than existing conditions as part of this. We have to hold all the existing limits of parking. And if there is any increase in degraded or impervious surfaces as part of this, we need to mitigate them. So, right off the bat, I'm going to pan back and forth between the existing conditions and the
overview plan here just to um to orient us. So, we have an existing um limit of parking that's pretty well defined here by granite curbing with a tree line very shortly behind that we see in the curved lines here. Turn around to the parking shown here. So, the redevelopment of this project needs to hold all of these
lines and it's designed to do so. So, we have that same limit of parking. that little turnaround here is is removed. And so all the the work is occurring within that maintained, degraded, disturbed riverfront area upgradient and we don't move any closer um than existing conditions.
That being said, there is a slight increase in degraded riverfront area as part of the project. It's about 2,175 square ft total. So it's minor, but it's where when you're reworking the parking areas, you would impact landscaped areas, things that um wouldn't be considered disturbed or degraded in
front area at this time. So it does trigger the need for for some mitigation. So you would have had some graphics that were submitted as as part of the notice of intent. Um I'll share them here. So this is a view of the existing conditions. The existing degraded areas
within the riverfront area are shown in orange. So that includes the existing building itself that's there, the parking that surrounds it, as well as the concrete paper walkways in the front. Areas that are non-degraded, so they're more maintained lawn things that
although they're mowed, maintained, typically they're not considered degraded riverfront area, those are shown here in green. And then the forested areas are shown in this dark green line here. So, as I had mentioned, when we have this this new project now, so this is the proposed conditions, keeping the
same color scheme, the proposed four-story building and the new parking are also shown in orange. This generates that about 2,175 square ft of of degraded surfaces that are occurring. And so, we had our landscape architects take a look at the site and work with us to come up with a
mitigation plan to meet that 2:1 so we can comply with both portions of that riverfront redevelopment. So that brings us to the third graphic here. The areas that you see in pink and green now are areas that are proposed under this landscaping plan to be
restored. So it includes areas that are existing parking to be cut out and replanted with native species as part of the landscaping plan. It included portions of that lawn area that was being mowed and maintained to be converted to native plantings. So in total we had, as I said, 2175 square
feet of new degraded. We had um about 540 ft of that was mitigation, meaning that we needed to provide a 2:1 for um 1635 ft. So, we needed 30 3,270 ft of mitigation. And
this plan that our landscape architects came up with gives us 3,275. And if I go to their landscaping plan here that we reference, we see those same areas cut out of the parking here with plantings throughout the site, including in the areas currently maintained as lawn. So the intent of
this lot is to rework the building, the parking, and then the areas that were being maintained as lawn, areas of parking that's not required, they're all going to be removed and replaced with a native landscaping plan to fully meet that 2:1 mitigation. So it complied with both aspects of the riverfront
redevelopment. Uh, another important item to note is that as of right now on this property, there really is no landscaping plan. So, if I zoom into the existing conditions a little closer, um, essentially what you have out here is a building, a parking lot, concrete paper
walkway, and a little bit of lawn. Um, there's very little out there until you get off the limit of work into the wooded areas. And so, what this plan does is it it evaluated all portions of the lot where we can provide plantings throughout. So it includes plantings both within the riverfront area and
without because the majority of the site is within riverfront area. The majority of the plantings are within the riverfront area as well. Having worked with the commission before, I know we're also always looking to quantify tree removal and clarify where that's being replanted. So the
good news on this project is because this is riverfront redevelopment and we're not moving any closer to existing conditions, we're not touching any of the the forested portions of the property. So there were only two trees to be removed total and only one of which is within the current commission's jurisdiction. So there is there's a 15
inch or so um DBH. It's a multi- trunk landscaped ornamental that's on my cursor here. It's outside of the riverfront area, but it is to be removed and it was noted on the plans. And then there's one um 12-in DBH landscaping tree right here. So both of these are ornamental trees that are as part of the
site's very minute landscaping plan at present. So those are to be removed. So there's two total, only one within the commission's jurisdiction. Um, but the the replanting plan as part of this landscaping schedule in addition to the shrubs, the herbaceous, there's 25 trees going in. Um, as part of this plan, 24
of those are within the riverfront area. Um, one is without and that the breakdown of that is um it's 15 deciduous trees at about a 3 in diameter press height and then there are 10 evergreen trees that are tapped at about 7 to 8 feet in height. So the the idea
is remove two trees total, one within riverfront area and replant 25 with 24 within the riverfront area. So that concludes kind of the bulk of of the project overview. I can briefly touch on the the storm water plan as well. And like I said, our civil engineer will will certainly be here to answer any
questions if he's on the call. Otherwise, we'll do this at a future meeting, but there was a full storm water report that was submitted. We were working with Allen and Major Associates on this. So, uh, they had a pretty robust there's a subsurface infiltration system that takes most of the the roof and parking lot runoff and there's an
additional thousand-gallon dry well in the rear parking area. They provided a storm water report that retains all the way up to the 100-year storm event. So, it it fully complied. But that being said, that's a pretty full project overview. So, I can turn it over to any questions you have and um
we'll be happy to take them. >> Okay. Um, I'm gonna open by reading the statement >> if you want. Uh, Alan and Major Associates. I have AMA on here, so let me give them permission to speak if they have something to say. >> Perfect. It's very likely you're just
here for questions, but I'll let you do that that way. >> Can you take the uh screen down for a second so it's easier for me? >> Absolutely. >> I'm all set with this. If you guys want to see anything else, you can let me know. I can I can leave it open. >> Okay, should be good. All right. Uh this is Carlton Quinn with
Alan Mage Associates uh Massachusetts. Uh we did the land survey, civil engineering, and the landscape architecture for the project. And um you know, Andrew had kind of done a good job of going through it, but it's a a pretty straightforward uh drainage system. We have catch basins, sediment removal
devices, and and underground infiltration system. And we're capturing and retaining the 100-year storm event on site um with no discharge. um we will need to get it approved from the mass DOT and we knew we were in some um
pretty strict resource areas. So we try to do a good job on the drainage here. Um the existing site currently catches the site in about three catch basins, collects it and discharges it straight into the stream. So we this is a vast improvement over the existing storm water conditions. Um but I'm here if you
have any more questions. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you to both of you. Okay, I'm going to read a statement. The commission is requesting a third-party review to assist in re in evaluating the technical components of the filing, particularly storm water and resource
area protection given the scale of redevelopment within the riverfront area and proximity to jurisdictional resources. This is a standard tool used to ensure the records complete and performance standards of the act and local bylaw are fully met. So um
uh the first step there would be for us to uh issue a request to companies uh somebody to volunteer to stand up to do that. I think we have somebody um in
mind but uh we have to wait till they agree to do it. Uh, and having said that, um, I suppose we could take questions and what have you, but typically we wait till we get the, uh, report from the third party reviewer,
but then that informs our our questions over the commission. I think we can hold ours. Chuck, you may have something you want to bring up. >> No, I just want to hear what Andrew has to say. So they're the commission's request from third party review for uh the
environmental and storm water because uh I guess like you said the technical aspects of this >> and it's a pretty extensive storm water report um and we have many storm water report experts on the commission so I
reach out and help. >> Yep. No, we we understand we work with peer reviewers all the time. It's pretty typical of of large scale projects. The only thing I would ask is just a a clarification on the scopes. It would be primarily for a peer review of the the stormwater system and then did you say anything about um compliance with the regulations or was it more of a
stormwater peer review? >> Um well both. I mean they they always uh have information regards to both the state and the local. >> Yes, both. They'll review the order of so typically when we have I think um was
working with us on Pineville a when we had LEC come in >> and not only did they review the well in line and make comments um about the application they also reviewed the order of conditions to make
sure um it was written correctly or their comments were in that. So, it was that additional step about reviewing the order of conditions before the commission um um issues it. >> Yep. Yeah, we've seen all that before as well. So, and I will say we we did speak
with the applicant about the potential for that. So, um you know, we're we're open to it. And I would say, you know, if the commission does have any um burning questions, I'm still happy to at least answer them or take them for future reference, but knowing that a peer review would be coming, I'm comfortable proceeding, however, would be your preference.
>> I would prefer to wait for it. By all means, I mean, that's important. >> Questions can often spark from from the review as well, so that's perfectly fine for us, >> right? >> Did you have anything else you want to add? >> No. Um, >> all right. >> Looking forward to an early night. >> Okay.
>> Make it happen for you. Yes. >> Um, so then can I have a motion to continue this? What's a reasonable date for us to pick? So, we're going to try to do this in between the next two meetings and I will send Andrew any information that I receive and you can
distribute it to your team and um the commission uh we may yeah we won't decide until we come back to the next meeting. I guess that's how it goes. >> Yeah, perfectly fine. We can >> Could I ask a question? Do you have to wait to approve the peer reviewer in the
next hearing or can you do that without >> So I had a question out to um procurement and it's all about how much it ends up being and uh if it's under a certain number we can just go with um you know one we're comfortable with and
uh that's what I'm hoping and so that wouldn't have to come back uh and be voted on. >> Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I will add that I'm I'm happy to chat with you offline if there's like quotes that come in we need to get any approvals. We can work with you. Whatever helps us come up with, you know, some updates before the next meeting.
>> Sure. >> Did you want to do the next meeting or two meetings? You said >> no, no, I think we should try for the next meeting. >> Uh so that will be the 25th >> 14 days. Oh, the second. You're right.
It's that math thing again. Um All right. Uh motion to um >> I do believe that that's the holiday the April vacation week. So I hope that's not an issue with anyone. Um just wanted to throw that out there.
>> Nothing here. We'll be here. But >> okay, >> thank you. I appreciate you checking. >> We'll have a quum. >> I've already booted my kids out of the house, so >> just making sure. >> You're in good shape. Uh motion to continue the hearing on 281 Main Street to the next um uh meeting
which is on April 22nd. >> Talbert seconds it >> favor. Thank you. >> Thank you guys for your time tonight. >> See you next time. All righty. Um, so
next we that was it for hearings. So next we get to uh discussion vote items. The first one there is to conclude our discussion of wetland fee adjustments. Could I ask whether we can move that
later and have people who are here in person have a chance to go first? Oh, >> that's a good idea. Sure. >> Well, that's good. We didn't need a motion for that, but that's fine. Um, >> I thought you'd appreciate that.
>> Okay, so I'm guessing these people are here for 125 Forest Street. Um, that a good guess. Great. Um, Martha, do you want to walk us through this morning's visit quickly? >> Oh,
Martha. >> Yeah, I can do it. >> Shurock, we showed Shiron. You weren't there. Sorry. >> I wasn't there for the >> You wanted him to know that. Anthony. Yeah. So, he was prepared. >> Sorry. I didn't mean there. >> Everybody typed it out. Um, all right.
We did a sitewalk this morning. Uh, I was attended by Chuck, Brian, Martha, Walter, and myself. >> I can't wait, hence me not knowing you're the man. >> Uh, Frank Capone, the owner, was uh, present as well. Uh, we saw the driveway extension, that is, uh, beyond the 25 ft
wetland line. Uh, the end of the driveway is gravel. Um, owner confirmed that no vehicles with an engine are parked there, just the trailer. uh we measured the 25 ft lines and determined that the GIS map was a bit more
aggressive than the the the actual uh uh 25 ft and 35 ft uh distance from the uh wetland. Uh so that may kind of put only the top right hand corner uh within the 25 ft zone. Um there is some
building material in the back and was determined to be outside the 35 ft zone. Um the owner said uh there may have been a campground sometime back in the 50s uh since there's a foundation near the 100 foot line. Uh and and they will try to
get some information regarding that. Uh there's some amount of leaves and debris in the 25 ft zone on the right hand side of the property. Uh since the portion of the driveway is in the no disturb zone, we need some mitigation
options including and not limited to 25 foot gran. Wanted to make one correction. The extended driveway doesn't go into the resource. It goes into the two buffer zones into the buffers. >> Just want to make sure that was clear.
Anything else to add? So, I put the plan up there that uh Shrek talked about and um we determined that um the wetland is pretty close to the edge of the driveway in one location, but not exactly
accurate in another location. So, I think we would um move this line here. I don't know, you guys can't see my We would move it further down down the driveway
um and meet it up. Let me see if I can get this draw on here. >> So, the idea is to my terms cut off a corner of the existing driveway to pull it back a bit from the uh from the resource.
And then you were going to kind of round out the inside of the corner to give you the turning radius that you needed for your vehicles. >> Yeah, I was using a fancy term. Where did this original picture come from?
>> This picture before you drew the lines? >> I I put that together. >> Oh, okay. So, the commission and um um >> Frank >> Frank Well, I knew it was Frank. I'm trying to remember his last name. >> Mr. Capone. >> Capone. Mr. Capone. Uh so, everyone
understood what we were talking about. So, I I put this together based on the town's GIS and I sent it to everyone. >> Yeah. I'm just curious where the Okay. So it >> it's not legally active accurate, but it's a good idea what's going on.
>> Yeah. So the town's GIS is not accurate. It has that disclaimer that it can't be used for permits, but the conservation commission did go out there and and I think we dialed it in pretty much. This my drawing is probably not as good as
what we drew on the uh driveway, but um it looks like there was a section that could be um beyond the foundation because the foundation would have been an existing structure and so it was never wetland or was you know and we're
not asking anyone to pull up a foundation um beyond the foundation but in the 25 foot area there was a section that that seemed seem to be in that area and I and I think that's where we are generally in this area here.
So, no foundation. Um, so Mr. Capone did uh send me some pictures this afternoon about the foundation and I can bring those up. Sure if that's going to snap in there or
see There you go. So it should come up now. And so one of my questions was, could you show that the foundation goes from the wetland edge closest area to the buffer
zone which is um in the by the grass on the screen that it meets up with the other side where the grass is. And I believe he uh just uncovered it. It was about two or three inches of gravel. He uncovered
that. And so I think that goes to screen left. And um all of that uh area. I don't think that it's possible that um if we reviewed this before the work happened that we would have said pull
the pull the foundation up and this should be restored or anything like that. I think it would have been an area that the commission would say, well, it's obvious that this is a disturbed area and you can use that, you know, for your future plans. So, it's just in front of that area that
that I'm talking about that seems to have um this opportunity uh right here. And so I think what the commission needs to do is just
kind of verify where we're talking about what needs to be done and then ask for what we're going to use to kind of correct this situation. And of course one of them is um the after the fact
request for determination of applicability which would kind of straighten this out. So one the other picture is the same. It just shows the foundation, >> right? So what you're talking about is essentially from that red line
outside that existing foundation and towards the wetlands. So removing all the gravel that's outside the foundation and within the constraint of that line that you drew there. So, kind of an arc if you will.
Is that what you're saying? >> Um, so this 25 foot is the zone of natural vegetation. Uh, let me show you another picture before we get uh too far here. Um. Um. Okay. This is it.
Did that change up? It looks like it did, right? >> I just got two of the foundation uh from from you. Yeah, that's going to be outside of this area. But um but I don't think I got
that. Uh let me switch to my uh stop sharing and go back to where I was. I think this is the one we want to look at. Yeah. So, here's the one that I want
you uh the commission to see. And what it shows is what this looked like before the work had happened. And um so that's just um gravel back in that area. and uh there was kind of a road
down there and um trampoline up in this area here. And so now there's been a lot of work done and it's all lawn which is much better than gravel. And so um
I guess this access road seemed to work. This is a 2019 picture. And over here is where uh the parking area happens. So my proposal was to
take this and inside the 25 ft line but but beyond the the uh foundation is just to think about restoring that section
of >> Right. Okay. That's what I was trying to say. >> Yeah. So, it's in the 25 foot, not in the 35 foot. And um remove the gravel, put some top soil in, and then
restore it to something. That doesn't have to happen. You could also understand that this was my apologies, but I'm going to say a pretty miserable backyard and a lot of work has happened and you could say
leave it the way it is. Put in some border planting that's next to the um uh next to the wetland and that would be an improvement over the existing conditions. After all, this is a u gravel driveway so it's pvious.
Those are the two options that he probably would >> third option for just a fee. >> What's that? >> Would there be a third option for just a fee? >> Just a fee? >> Like if he had done this, submitted like an RDA, would he could he just submit a fee to
the board? The third option? >> No. You know, I don't u there's no there's no fee. Um there's no way to just pay >> retroactive >> out of out of I mean you have to think about if they came in asking to do this.
>> How would we have done that? We wouldn't have said you know just give us 2500 bucks and we'll you can do it. We usually try to look at how to protect the resource area but also how to allow the project.
>> Thank you. Okay. So, I I have opinions, but yes, you guys should talk before I >> They're not looking to add anything. They're looking to make it as if they had been through the process from the beginning. >> Yeah, as I understand it, Frank didn't
understand the process. This happens a lot. Happens everywhere. We we Someone didn't understand uh that a permit's needed. They understand that. Everyone understands they need a building permit, but no one understands they have need a
conservation permit or maybe some other zoning permit or something like that. Those are the things that no one no one listens knows about. We have our um we have a integrated permit system now in town hall. So that's a lot of things that
caught, but putting in a driveway that's gravel wouldn't have been I don't think that would have been. >> So basically what we're doing here is considering an after the-act RDA. So we have to think of this as it hasn't
happened yet and they're asking to do it and they've submitted an RDA to see if there's um jurisdictional interest from from us. But that's our perspective and depending on what the answer is there would be a decision
after the fact because it's been done. So what Chuck is saying is that uh we would have looked at the uh 25 and the 35. We would have seen that there's an existing foundation.
So, it's already been disturbed back before the act took effect and therefore we wouldn't my term hold that against them. We would protect outside of the foundation as as best we could but not
have them try and pull that back. >> Close. >> No, no, you did a good job. Uh, so don't get lost. Uh, one of the things I think we need to do is like we can talk a lot tonight, but we're going to also have to talk about the same thing. If you decide that this is not an enforcement order
and this is an after the-act RDA and it needs to be submitted with whatever planting is proposed or whatever mitigation is proposed like the trees, you know, may maybe one of these other things. You could say
what you prefer, right? And then we could just and then that could be what happens. >> Can you reiterate the second option again like about planting like where can they instead of like just >> So there was this area of um
lawn that was close to I'm sorry I have to do it this way. Uh but I lose half my screen. Um this is area of lawn. I get rid of this one. And then the right one up there.
And where is that? All right, here we go. So, if it was just planting, this is the area that I'm talking about that's has an opportunity to be planted. >> Okay. And that would be an option for
the owners, right? Like not not something that I mean they have the option of either going with the moving the driveway. >> The commission's in charge. They could say, >> okay, >> which one they prefer. >> Okay. >> Those are the two options that I was
thinking would work. >> Okay. >> Um I mean, yeah. So either one in my mind does work. I didn't see any erosion issues when we were there. So, I think the permeable
driveway is working. >> If we're going to have them do plantings, measure the square footage of what the foundation is exposed within the the 25 and maybe even the 35 and then have plantings in that square
footage in what you're saying. >> Okay. Well, I could I could just say uh submit the application with that those numbers in it. >> That's what I would do. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, let me just get what you're saying on the map. To be clear, we now think
that the 35 foot zone basically where that trampoline is um is that corner of the driveway is the part that's in the 35 foot zone. >> Pretty. >> Yeah. >> I think it's even 35. >> 35 is a liter.
a Yeah, but I I'm thinking there should be no structures out to the 35 ft line. So, >> um so I would say >> about that corner where the trampoline is is where we would want to take out
gravel and put in some plantings sort of along the curve of the driveway there. >> The gravel's working. >> Yeah, the gravel's fine. The gravel is going to make it worse, >> I think. the that trampoline does isn't there.
>> Trampoline's not there. Right. But >> the question was, did they extend their driveway too close to the wetland? And I thought the solution was move the driveway further from the wetland. And you're saying don't move the driveway. >> Nothing's happened back there. And you're going to make it worse by digging
that up and putting >> bushes and plant somewhere else. Leave the driveway as is. >> Right. You could just put the shrubs to the right. the shrub to the right like Chuck was saying and just leave the driveway exactly as is cuz there's nothing like >> Yeah, it wasn't >> was saying there's no
erosion back there. So, why move something that's working? >> Also, don't forget that it wasn't lawn. It wasn't lawn when you bought it, Frank. >> There's a lot of sun over there, mostly dirt, grass, but there was a lot
of >> but now it's lawn. Um, so >> it's not lawn, it's gravel. >> Well, it's lawn and gravel. >> Yeah. Oh, sorry. The gravel. >> Okay. So, it it was all gravel. At least it looked like that from the 2019
picture. Okay. >> And now it's lawn and lawn and gravel. Um, bus lawn and driveway parking area. Um anyways, you know that that's the that's the question. You know, propose
mitigation within the 25 foot area um commensurate with the uh um square footage that you've uh used for your driveway or remove the driveway uh in
that area and then move everything over. Was there any mitigation that was done um from the 2019 um GIS map uh out in other parts of that 25 foot and 35 ft zone during the
construction of the semi-p permeable little driveway? So, uh, yeah, that makes me think, um, I just want to say that we didn't get a permit for that 2019 area, but if if we did, we you would consider any area that
was turned into lawn would be considered mitigation. >> I don't I don't see anybody at the podium. The question was for them. >> Frank, do you mind uh getting up to introduce yourself for the record? Thank you. Frank, owner of 125 Forest Street.
>> Thanks, Frank. So, no, as part of like from the the 2019 GIS map, I mean, I see a lot of dirt surface before the driveway was constructed, when you guys did construct the driveway inside that 25 and 35 ft line, not the ones that
Chuck has drawn, but the existing ones, was there any kind of work conducted in there to replicate wetlands or any plantings or anything as part of the project that you guys took on? Just the the grass. >> Just the grass.
>> There is growth down the hill. Uh >> my land is actually about what 4 feet higher than the wetland. So there's like a slope. >> There's growth right in there. >> Okay. So there was no plantings that you put in as part of the receding.
>> I mean just the uh I think there's some pine trees that are growing along the edge. >> Did you put those in? No, they they grow naturally around there. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And the reason why I asked that is, you know, to offset some potential
mitigation asks here um to see if there was any existing work done, which it sounds like there was nothing. >> I did put a row of um abites, but that was with when the owner was doing the project next door. I don't know if that's within
the 25 foot zone. >> It's probably outside of it. Um, it's further up the >> That was for the guy project. >> Yeah. >> Okay. I mean, I would I just to chime in kind
of briefly to the commission's discussion. I I would rather see kind of plantings within the 25 foot without necessarily having to take take out the the semi the semi-er impervious surface the gravel driveway that's existing. So
where trucks kind of highlighted in the grassy area. Um see that bolstered and potentially uh behind where the I guess that's a trampoline or a pool. I think it's a trampoline. um >> somewhere along those lines to prevent
any more like any any further encroachment um beyond what's what's already there. >> So, you're suggesting some kind of plantings outside the structure of the foundation but
within the the buffer zones. So, what kind of plantings there? >> Correct. >> Plantings are you thinking? >> We're not Yeah, we shouldn't get into that. So we're at the point >> basically shrubs >> shrubs >> mostly plants >> native um
uh yeah not to lose track. So we there's you've heard a couple of suggestions. I mean you have to do an RDA. >> Yeah that's true. >> And then pick your best you know instead of like giving you know we really can't without a permit.
>> We can't design it or anything here. So >> just u can't agree to it without a permit. Just FYI, just so I you don't think I just went down there and just did whatever. I when we bought the place, it was that foundation that Chuck showed you. I actually today when you
guys left, I just remembered where it was. It is it's only a couple inches below the gravel. And there's a lot more that goes around and must have been maybe three tennis courts if you measure them from the stone wall to the back and across the whole yard.
But I don't know. It had to be some type of campsite or recreation center. So I just thought into that, you know, I just continued the gravel to the end. So >> Okay. So with the pre-existing conditions there.
>> So it sounds like where we are is you've heard some ideas that we have for mitigation to do. So you need to submit that RDA application as if you were doing it ahead of time and in it you would have
the plan for I want to build this driveway and I'm going to do these these plantings this mitigation uh in conjunction with doing the driveway submit that and then we look at that plan because we can't decide do we
have a plan in our hands and so uh you can get that form online Chuck can tell you to do that if he hasn't already and it doesn't have to be uh you know a formal plan done by an engineering company or anything. uh basically just good enough sketches and what have you
so we have it in the record and it's saved and so we can uh discuss a concrete plan as opposed to >> okay >> like a plan but we'll be
>> so do you think you can put that together and get it back to us by the first meeting in May May 13th because I don't think it would be possible to do the next meeting. >> No, I think that's >> and the only thing just just to the commission
losing work in the 25 foot area which we never do. It's going to I'm going to have to get a variance. I would have gone over that with Frank um >> over the phone when we talk about this, but um we don't want to set a precedent.
So, we're going to have to figure out how this works in the 25 foot area. So, one of the things. Too bad there wasn't foundation all the way over where where he's because that would have that would have
created a situation where we're saying because of the foundation this work was allowed. Not everyone's going to have a foundation in that situation. But you have to think of that because we don't want people working in the 25 foot area. So, out of all the suggestions I
heard, even the one I gave, but I gave two, Martha was probably the most right on about protecting our 25- ft zone of natural vegetation by saying you got to move this stuff out or you got to get to
a point where, you know, you've moved it far enough away so we can give a variance for the rest. So, um, that's what you guys have to think about. Frank, you have to think about what works best for your property and then bring that into us and we'll
discuss what you what your uh you know what you're going with uh at at the commission and they'll decide whether that works or not. >> Okay. Can I just say when you are submitting the RDA, I'd like to see it in writing that no
um vehicles with motors are parked in that area that's near the wetland so that we don't have any risk of um oil leakage onto the pavement >> or the gravel. So, you know, that's a something to put
in your RDA when you're presenting it that you park your trucks closer to the house. >> Well, I definitely park my truck closer. >> Understand? But I want it in writing. >> Okay. >> So, if I drive by and I see a pickup truck down there where the trampoline is in the picture, I can say, "You aren't
supposed to be parking there." >> And she will do that. >> Yeah. I'm I'm nasty that way. I drive by and peer down the driveway. Make sure I'm not loading leaves. >> Oh yeah. >> Okay. >> Do we need to know officially where the
25 and 35 foot lines are in that only in that part of the property? >> Well, we officially I what we did this morning is official. So I could draw it out better for Frank at his house and then he could put that on a plan and
then we could work with that. But uh I'm he doesn't need to go out and hire a wetland scientist. In my opinion, >> you're not going to do a delineation. >> Yeah. So we could we could make it work a little bit better and then write that get that on the plan so it's not what I put here. So you know I'll I'll work
with you to redo the plan. >> That's what I'll do. I'll come in get the application. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Thanks for staying with us. >> All right. Thanks. >> Okay. Next is
>> good night. >> Have a good night. >> Next is 451 Pearl Street. Um there's a uh three there. They asked us to evaluate and we went there this morning after the site visit to Forest
Street. Um so to help you, this is across the stream from 445 Pearl Street that we've been working with for five years now. one of them and uh
we looked at it. The tree is definitely undercut. The roots on the stream side have definitely been sheared off. Um so what we suggested this morning was that he should get an arborist opinion.
Um we gave him some names. He had already done some himself. So he can get an arborist opinion as to whether the tree is dangerous. Um whether it should come down. uh even
from our inexpert opinion uh it looks like it's urgent enough that uh we encourage them to find somebody and if the answer is to take it down then to get a movement on that as quickly as possible u because it
that whole stream side has been cheered off. Um, what else to say about uh kind of tree is it? >> Triple trunk. Would you say maple? >> Red maple. >> Yeah. >> It's just starting to bloom. So, you can
tell easily. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. That's the strange thing is you look at it and if you didn't see the root system, you say, "Oh, that's a pretty healthy tree. It's doing well." The issue is it's undercut. It's undermined. The stream bank no longer
slopes toward the stream. It dug out where >> the spring corates have dug the water out where it shouldn't have been dug. But
also, as Brian said, the roots are very close to the trunk. >> Right. >> So, um, as far as this property goes, we've given him steps to take and agreement to
take them quickly. As far as a bigger picture for us, it uh brings urgency back to 445 Pearl Street to have him finish the work on that side of the stream. Um, and so,
uh, I will go back one more time, uh, knock on the door. We may have to resort to doing a letter to try and get his his attention if I don't manage to reach him. I've been by well four times so far in this latest
round of stopbys. Um >> I thought at some point we had already started finding. >> No, we there's an enforcement okay >> letter but there is uh enforcement order but there is is no fighting. >> Not yet.
Yeah, >> we could still >> go in that direction, but he's done. So, when we reviewed it today, the work looked acceptable. Needs >> needs to be finished, >> right?
>> So, if you just finished it, we would be happy. >> Um, and I think that's why Brian wants to get his attention again or call or or whatever. So, we're not at this finding stage where nothing's happened and he hasn't done anything. we've asked
because he has done things we've asked and he actually did a lot of work. So we really um >> finish. >> Yeah, it's would be a long road from here to to to uh you know we'd have to initiate this fighting process again.
Yeah, he needs to get the northern bank stabilized with quaral logs at the bottom and put soil back where the soil all got scoured away and maybe some >> Yeah, >> he does have the coral down the the base
of the stream on both sides. So, that channels the water well when it's at the current level, but clearly when there's more of a flow, it comes above that and undermines the bank. So, he's going to have to build up something on the side
to protect it and then put soil down on top of dirt down on top of it. Does the neighbor push him at all because now it's impacting his side. >> Um, I don't know if they have interactions or what interactions they have. He clearly wants it addressed. Um,
this came about because he's he's also he's the owner on the northern side 451 is looking for certificate of of compliance. So, he wants to finish that up, too. >> Yeah. >> And he's worried that this tree is going
to fall on the home of 445 or on the vehicles in the driveway because that's the side that's getting undercut. So, he's not really worried about his house, but he's worried about his liability because the tree is on his property and it's going to smash
>> 445's belongings. >> Okay. Anything else on that? >> No, I think he reached out to uh some tree companies and uh he's hoping to get down by the 11th. >> 11. Okay, great. I didn't.
>> Okay. Uh then we can move on. And I made you jump ahead so don't forget what we skipped up above was fees. >> Oh, that's a fine point. >> Yeah. >> Why don't we forget the fees? I did last time, too. >> I guess I don't
>> Well, because I asked you to give >> the Chuck, can you bring up >> 125 Forest Street a chance to go home? >> The spreadsheet. >> So, this spreadsheet is one that we've already discussed a couple of times. These are the numbers that we've agreed
to. So, this would be us just voting to accept it officially on the record. >> Make a motion to accept. >> Wait, let's do it all at once. So, uh on this one here, it does Sorry, but instead of having two, it's because it's we only have one set of fees.
>> Yeah, you see two places, >> but we have two uh uploads for each. So, um I think it's Does anyone have any comments on this slide? Um we did go over it each one
individual at our last meeting >> and please nobody have comments. >> Okay, >> it's fine with what it was. So >> okay. >> All right. So this is now the second batch.
This is right in the bylaws by paragraph. It's uh section two paragraph D nine. And then we're mostly focused on F through K I think it is. We'll see in a moment.
>> Yeah. So GH um G&H we discussed at the last meeting and I felt what I said was no one's really complained about G&H. So um I think that
they're exactly where they need to be. I don't know if uh anyone was proposing an increase temporary permanent in the in the 25 and the 35 foot. So for instance,
Frank Capone when he was here 25 a dollar 25 per square foot of impact. Um so >> okay so those we can leave the way they are. I would suggest >> the next one one where there's the
yellow highlighting we talked about that that the whole conversation vernal pools so the decision last time was to just remove that line all together >> because we don't allow work within the >> anyway so there's no point in having it let somebody think they can buy it
because they can't and that brings us to the two with um that had the large dollar amount uh It was 11 for both of these. $11 $11 a square foot and
$11 linear foot for the bank. So what we talked about was reducing that. Uh we've been reducing it anyway in actuality over the past few months since uh the issue was brought up to us. So, this is talking about putting a number in uh
officially and the number there is $3 per square foot and $3 per linear foot. Yeah. So, uh the town asked us to look at the fees. This is actually um something that we can defend. It is lowering the fees, but we were never
getting that fee anyways on these large projects. We always had to give variances and bring it down pretty close to what this number is going to still yield. So we're we're at a good spot with this. And it works it also works with smaller projects.
>> Right. >> So what is now going to be I is specifically resource areas not buffer zones. >> So correct >> these two are bank is a resource area or buffer zones. No resource area or
bank or resource area >> and we dealt with buffer zones earlier >> above. Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. >> I'm fine with this. >> Anybody comments? Anything? >> Nope. >> I'm good with this. >> Okay. >> No, you're >> I'll make a motion to
>> approve the U. >> I don't have any questions, but maybe Rick has a question. >> I don't have a question. I But I have a motion. >> I was just trying to like >> Yes. >> You know, like what you did to me. I'll make a motion to accept the fees
from um the wet wetland fees as well as the uh updates to the second part of that. >> It's all wetlands fees. Make a motion to update our wetlands fees as presented on the screen uh and reviewed by the conservation commission.
>> To accept the fees as it was presented on the screen. >> Walter Tabet seconds that motion. Thank you, Rick. Uh Walter Tabs in favor. >> Tim in favor. Rakito in favor. >> Martha Moore in favor. >> Uh, no. Bambo in favor.
>> All right. >> Okay. Great. Put that one to B. >> Now, I'll let you jump down below fees and see anything else you might have missed. >> The first thing is uh the coordination meeting conservation DPW
uh April 7th, which uh was yesterday. How did that go? If you had >> I contact with the uh DPW. uh was not in and he asked to move the meeting. Something has come up. Uh we have it tenatively scheduled for tomorrow, but if not, we'll do it next week. It's not
in. So, I didn't have an opportunity to talk about the chain at Elderberry Lane. >> Okay, I'll put that aside then. um violation notices uh in passing discussion 451. I
talked about 445 so you're aware of what the action there has to be. Item eight is a minister's report >> and again I was going to bring up Elderberry Lane and the LSP that didn't contact the conservation commission and
then finally the town and the uh health department got a notice. Uh this was RMLD. They had a transformer fall from a pole. Happens a lot. Uh my question and the chair's question was why are we
getting notified a month later? Um clearly there's wetlands across the street and in proximity to where this entrance was. So I reached out to uh Joe Jlo who runs uh the uh LSP operation that deals with RMLD.
Sorry everybody for the acronyms, but um >> a licensed site >> licensed site professional. Yeah. And so um uh Joe uh said he didn't realize uh that there were wetlands there and um and
long and short of it is it's part of what his due diligence is supposed to be. That's I mean he's a licensed site professional. These guys go in in lie of D. they are, you know, for less better term, they're blessed by DP to act on their behalf and
and they're tr totally trusted. And so I just brought that to his attention. He apologized and said that that is not how they operate and he just said that that won't happen in the future. So I think that um
>> one thing I want to add, Sure. um you knew there'd be something. Um it it is bad enough that conservation wasn't notified, but in the end when Chuck actually was told, it was indirect. Health department actually is
the one who told Chuck. So it never the light never dawned over Marble Head and they didn't do it late. They didn't do it at all. The health department >> I have to correct you. Okay. Our new town manager was the one that made sure that all the departments got that memo. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. So, to me that's one step worse. But, uh, he is apologetic. He does say it won't happen again. >> And we've worked with him before and they he's called us on Wellland issues, but
I think to anyone that there was well there for sure. Certainly across the street, you couldn't couldn't drive down the street without seeing them. But but uh I'm I'm satisfied. Um >> satisfied. Somebody else has a disagreement.
>> What is Joe's position again? >> Uh I think he owns the company. >> Um what company? >> Oh, you're going to ask me. I didn't I brought the paperwork. It's like >> Jamlo and Wheeler. Uh I'll look for the email
now. I did say you got all this information and you got so hold on. >> That's all right. >> Cushing. Is that what it was? >> Cushing Jamlo and Wheeler. >> Thank you, Tim. Thank you. >> I'm just thinking for the sake of the minutes. >> Yeah. >> Who this person is who's never going to
let it happen again. >> Yes. >> And it's not an RMLD employee. It's a >> It's a subcontractor that manages all the transmission. >> It's like a clean harbors basically. comes in and takes care of that. Any
anytime one of these uh transformers falls off the line, they have to come in and take care of it. >> So, >> okay, we can put that one to rest then and we can move on to minutes for approval.
>> Um, >> we didn't get any since the last meeting, but we had two that came out right before the last. >> So, the first two we can vote on. So, can I have a motion to approve the minutes for January 28th? >> A motion to approve the uh minutes for
January 28th. >> Walter Tobin seconds that motion. Walter Thomas in favor. Rick in favor. >> Clicker in favor. >> Martha Moore in favor. >> Ryan Bo in favor. >> And I have a motion to approve the minutes for February 11th.
>> Motion to approve the minutes on Feb for February 11th. Walter Talberts in favor. Walter Talbert seconds that motion. Walter in favor of the motion. Michelle in favor in favor. >> Still in favor. >> Martha Moore in favor. >> Ryan Mo in favor. That would have been
good time to say so moved. It was so straightforward. >> Okay, that's it for tonight's business. Um in my email I had recommended that people spend some time reading that 1058
5. U as you can see it it's it has come up. It will come up again. Reading is a riverrich environment because the streams count as rivers perennial uh streams. So it's something that you
should be familiar with. And one thing I well That's fine. So, I just wanted to make sure that you took that seriously. Having said that, can I have a motion to adjourn at Chuck? What did you volunteer us for? >> 8:36.
>> Well, so the question, what's that? >> You volunteered us for something in May. >> I did, didn't I? >> June. >> Friends and family day. >> Friends and family day. >> Oh, June 20th, I think. >> Yeah. Um,
>> good catch. Yeah. I just wanted to know. So I, you know, we're in the process of signing up. Do you think there's enough people to go that day? It's, you know, 10 to what is it 10 to 1 or two or something like that? >> 10 to 3:30. I think I just read that thing. >> And so usually Brian stays there the
whole day, but maybe maybe if other people show up, it can be uh, you know, we can split it up between four people or so. >> Yeah. It's usually the Saturday where it's beautiful out and you wanted to go somewhere else and that's that's how it
is. But uh it's it's exciting. Um if >> actually no >> like people asking you questions as a um official >> it often has rained and we were cowering under the tent >> one time the tent blew over.
>> All right. Before we before we turn this into a lap test, I just wanted to >> I'm willing to put a couple of hours in. >> Great. >> Anybody else? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Can't commit to that week. >> The the other thing we want to do is to make sure we have stuff for people to
attract them. Like one time we had a turtle and other time we brought invasives. >> Um um >> Martha has a wetland in a bottle once. >> I hadn't done that in a long time. I'm wetland in a bottle. >> Um, we were going to do a solar oven,
but I actually had to get a health permit and so I nixed that idea. This was several several years ago, but um, so things like that, you know, um, if you can think of some interactive something or other, it's usually works
out pretty well. There's a lot of kids around, there's a lot of adults. uh kids can do something while the u parents ask us questions about their property or other properties and then we have a sign up for volunteers to do work um you know
either in a wetland close to them or if they want to be on any kind of list and we'd have our own list and we'd have uh the volunteer list for the trails committee and um who will also be there and um t force committee >> we also always have a large scale map of
reading showing the various conservation areas green space in general but the conservation are >> the arbit tree fund donate seed >> did is it the arbitry fund >> did so that's is it a day >> so the IPS river watershed is that what
it is the if river so it was the watershed association did donate some seed to the town forest for a day if that's what you're talking about yeah so I got an email and and uh it was Kim Hanich logger who was you know our old
GIS will finches uh so anyways they uh I the sea's fine cast it out and so that was all approved >> but there's also in conjunction with the library there's an effort to plant some trees this would be their second year
doing it >> yep and they need volunteers so >> 25th yeah So, come on down. >> Library is also doing some green community day. Uh, >> I saw that. Does anyone want to show up
for green community day? They're asking to come on down. And >> Thursday the 18th from 6 to 8. >> I can probably do that. I have to get on my calendar. But >> there also is a Buckthornne pulling this
Saturday. What? I can't. What did you say? Where? >> At the town forest. >> Town forest. >> Anywhere >> or what do you mean? >> No, that's they just said they're
>> okay. >> Do they did they give you any hours when they were planning that? >> I don't know the answer. >> So, look on the uh town forest website if you're interested in the buck pulling this Saturday.
>> Buck pulling contest. And you said you could do Thursday the 18th. >> Yeah. At >> this one is in in the community room. There's a number of different organizations. Um we we haven't typically had a lot of traffic from outside people, but it's
been a good place for us to talk to other like-minded organizations in town. So useful to go to when it's relatively short. >> Should we sign up for that if enough people go? When was it again?
>> Thursday the 18th from 6:00 to 8. >> Thursday is order. >> So 6:20 me, Rick, and Sherog can do is 618. Brian can do. >> So 18th
month. >> No, it's June. >> Oh, it's June. >> They're both June. >> That makes sense. >> I don't know. They're two days apart. I don't know why they're so close. >> The 20th is a Saturday, right? Yeah, Saturday 18th Thursday evening, >> they usually provide pizza.
>> All right. >> For those who eat pizza, >> um I can also probably >> I can tell you to >> I'm not available. I have another meeting in my own town to go to.
>> Okay. So, not Chuck, not Sherog. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. The 18th isn't going to work for me, but I could probably swing the 20th. Okay. And one suggestion for that would probably be invasive identification since we're doing a lot of that with
town forest. And it's a question that comes up regularly for conservation. At least I've seen that in my neighborhood. Um maybe we can just have some signage for that so I can sync offline. >> Yeah. You know those brochures my
environmental club kids made that we printed some out about invasive species? Maybe we could put some of those up. >> Um I don't know that I have any hard copies, but I think if I can dig out the
electronic copy, maybe you could print some for us. >> Sure. Okay, >> you do have a number of different books on various topics that occasionally >> hold somebody interest somebody's interest. >> Cool. >> Okay, we finally ready to adjourn.
>> Yeah, I just want to make sure we >> got everything. >> Have a motion to adjourn at 8:43. >> So, all in favor say I. >> I didn't second it. >> I did. I did. I jumped on board.
Good night everyone. >> Thank you Joe. >> Thank you.