WEBVTT METADATA Video-Count: 1 Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=ul77sc5MKhY Part: 1 1 00:00:12.400 --> 00:00:30.880 Good evening everyone. Um, welcome to tonight's uh, conservation commission meeting. Uh, all that wish to please uh, stand for the pledge of allegiance. To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, 2 00:00:30.880 --> 00:00:46.480 indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you very much. We will roll. Uh we have first up Anthony is here. >> Uh Brian >> here, >> Tom >> here. 3 00:00:46.480 --> 00:01:01.760 >> Joe >> uh Bernardo >> here. >> And uh Wilson is not here tonight. and Nicholas is present. Uh, first up is review and approval of the meeting minutes from our last time around. I just want to say thank you to Brian for 4 00:01:01.760 --> 00:01:17.360 managing the meeting while I was away. Um, really appreciate that. >> Thank you, sir. >> Uh, so can I any approval or um any comments, questions, concerns, additions, subtractions? 5 00:01:17.360 --> 00:01:34.159 >> Looks good. Can I get a uh motion for approval? >> Motion to approve last uh meeting minutes. >> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> uh All right. First up, uh we have D 6 00:01:34.159 --> 00:01:55.000 file number 0610862. This is a notice of intent for 1165 Northshore Road. This is a demolition and new development construction of 12 units um represented by uh engineering alliance. Open the hearing. 7 00:01:59.840 --> 00:02:15.760 >> Returning champion, >> the victorious shall return. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh members of the commission for the record engineering alliance. I here this evening on behalf of uh Chris Charmelo who's the owner and applicant of the subject property at 1165 Northshore 8 00:02:15.760 --> 00:02:31.360 Road. Um this is on the corner of Northshore Road and AWAM Street. Um there's an existing structure located on the property um right now. Um the only resource area present here is the 100redyear flood plane elevation 12 9 00:02:31.360 --> 00:02:47.519 NAVD88. It's a zone AE. Um the existing uh dwelling that's there currently has no flood controls in it. So it really just acts as a giant impediment um to the flood plane. Uh the proposal is to demolish that 10 00:02:47.519 --> 00:03:05.040 existing building um and construct a um 12 unit uh multif family dwelling podium parking. The only thing at grade is uh building access um and uh parking which is allowed uh within the flood plane. 11 00:03:05.040 --> 00:03:20.879 The entire garage is opened on the front um and on the westerly side there's an enclosure in this piece here um for um for the access. So it's an increase of about almost a thousand square feet of flood plane capacity on the lot. So it 12 00:03:20.879 --> 00:03:36.799 actually results in a net improvement. Um the site will be accessed from Awam Street via a new curb cut. Um the the closed range system will be extended um down to the front of the property 13 00:03:36.799 --> 00:03:52.720 that all accept the roof drain from the uh flat roof um utility connections be traditional connections uh water domestic water fire um and sewer um into um into Awam Street. Um we did submit an 14 00:03:52.720 --> 00:04:08.480 erosion control plan as well. There'll be a compost sock be placed around um the site u during construction. Um and like I said from a strictly from a resource area standpoint, it actually results in a net increase in flood storage capacity on the site because 15 00:04:08.480 --> 00:04:23.440 we're taking away that traditional foundation and replacing with a podium style construction. All the living space, utilities, etc., etc. is I think about 7 ft above the flood plane. So, well above above the flood plane. >> Elevation 19. >> Yeah, 16 00:04:23.440 --> 00:04:40.720 >> that's okay. All right. Um, what kind of paving material are you going to be using for the garage underneath? >> Garage will be a concrete slab. >> Concrete. Okay. >> Concrete slab with floor drains. >> Um, so and it'll discharge through a gas trap into the sewer in accordance with 17 00:04:40.720 --> 00:04:56.800 the state plumbing code. >> Oh, gas trap. All right. >> Yeah. And there'll be a shut off for that for that system in the event that a flood does actually happen. So it won't flow into the sewer system. >> Like a backflow pre or an actual shut off. >> It'll be It'll be like a backflow pre. 18 00:04:56.800 --> 00:05:12.320 Exactly. >> Yeah. No, that's valve. >> Um what about So the G All right. So the gas trap in it. That That'll work, I guess. Um Okay. Any other questions, comments, concerns, 19 00:05:12.320 --> 00:05:31.919 please? So, I didn't get a chance to see this um at the site inspection. Uh is the house the only part that uh is take being taken down the rest of it? I I I'm 20 00:05:31.919 --> 00:05:47.680 trying to get >> So, >> can you show me what's Oh, all right. >> There's a house right here, deck, stairs, a little retaining wall in here. Um patio over here. Um all asphalt over here. All that will get removed. >> I thought I saw grass. 21 00:05:47.680 --> 00:06:04.720 >> There's there's a grass area right back here behind the house existing in the proposed condition. What you see in green here, this will all be grass. This will be pvious uh pavers. So, if you're going to make a building that's going to that's going to 22 00:06:04.720 --> 00:06:20.080 take away the house and but also cover the grass, how do we get a net increase in the permeability >> and flood storage capacity? Yeah, >> I said flood storage capacity, not not permeability. So there's there's there's an exemption from pre and post 23 00:06:20.080 --> 00:06:35.440 development runoff when you're in land subsequent storm flow. You're not required to meet it. Um right now that house doesn't have any um flowthroughs or anything. So it sits in the flood plane. So the when so the flood waters when they come would have to fill in 24 00:06:35.440 --> 00:06:51.120 around it and it displaces them off the lot. This whole building will be completely opened at the ground level. So when flood waters come that whole lot has the ability to flood whereas right now it doesn't because it has to flood around the house. So the house actually displaces flood waters. This will allow 25 00:06:51.120 --> 00:07:08.800 for the eb and flow of flood waters to come through the property. >> How many stories? >> Five. >> Four. >> And uh parking just on the on the lower level. >> Yep. Four stories. Three stories above 26 00:07:08.800 --> 00:07:26.080 uh podium of parking. And the and the parking's on street level. >> A grade. Correct. That's >> awful. >> Thank you. >> Uh so quick quick question for you. So um when when you see that taking up the whole corner, is is there any neighbors 27 00:07:26.080 --> 00:07:41.680 having any issues with like sight visibility or anything based on the fact that they're currently having a small little pit of a shed next to them of a house that's now going to be this giant building. Um, anything with shadows or sun blockage or anything with any of the 28 00:07:41.680 --> 00:07:58.240 neighbors having any issues is really what I'm wondering. >> No, I mean this this is the second public hearing this has had. This also went through the board of appeals. Um, there was I don't believe there was any opposition at the board of appeals. Um, and there's a pretty wide sidewalk um out here. So, you're actually pass you 29 00:07:58.240 --> 00:08:14.720 you look down the sidewalk before you even get to the gutter line of Northshore Road there on Awan Street. So it wouldn't won't cause any shadows or sun blockage for any of the properties that are around. >> Um I don't believe so. Um >> because I mean this is I mean this this 30 00:08:14.720 --> 00:08:30.319 is a large property as opposed to what was there before. I mean I can understand what you're saying. >> I think that's why they only went to the four stories >> because if they went to five there would have been an issue. >> Okay. >> More than likely. So I and I totally understand what you're saying before 31 00:08:30.319 --> 00:08:46.320 with it being the first floor being open, but is there going to be French drains or anything for that water to go or are you planning on that area to flood if necessary? >> Plan on that area to flood. I mean, we're talking about this according to the FEMA map, you know, and again, we're 32 00:08:46.320 --> 00:09:00.720 talking about the hundredyear storm here, right? We're not talking about a storm that's coming this weekend with a thunderstorm or something like that. So this this lot is about elevation five to varies between elevation 5 and 8. >> Okay. >> And the flood plane's around 12. >> Yeah. 33 00:09:00.720 --> 00:09:16.959 >> So we're talking about a flood of as much as 4t of water >> should that 100year storm actually be realized per the FEMA map. >> So you you don't really have any fears of needing to have a French drain or something based upon the fact that the chance of that area flooding is minimal 34 00:09:16.959 --> 00:09:32.399 at best. >> I mean we're not talking about a little bit of water that comes onto the property that we would need to infiltrate. We're talking 4 ft of water in the whole entire neighborhood. Got it. And then it would it would recede. The lawn areas will help. The pvious pavers will help. Um it's not going to 35 00:09:32.399 --> 00:09:49.279 create more runoff because all the roof runoff is going to be captured. So actually the the physical runoff that comes off of this in in a storm event will actually be less than the pre-development condition because we're putting it into the closed drainage system. Um but you know, relative to the the height too, there was no relief 36 00:09:49.279 --> 00:10:04.480 sought for the height. the the height that's allowed in this district is 50 ft. This building is only 42 feet high. >> Okay. All I just ask cuz one of the things of us being on this commission is thinking of the neighbors and thinking of that. So, we have to pretend that we 37 00:10:04.480 --> 00:10:22.800 live next to that building and if we weren't there, what how would we feel? So, I ask on their behalf even though they're not here. Um, but thank you for those answers. >> Yep. No problem. >> Any other questions? Okay. Um, so my other question was, did 38 00:10:22.800 --> 00:10:43.600 you take any um, soil samples or core samples for water table height? I was just curious. >> Yes, we did a geotechnical investigation here. >> Yeah, soils aren't great. That's why that's another reason why you don't see an infiltration system on here. Usually every project I design has an infiltration system. 39 00:10:43.600 --> 00:11:00.640 >> Yes. It's all clay. It's Pete. It's organics over clay. So there's >> Yeah, >> there's no opportunity to infiltrate here. >> No. So it's it's literally just going to hit that first layer and sit there or run somewhere else. >> Um No, I get that. You'd have to excavate and get below that to be able 40 00:11:00.640 --> 00:11:17.440 to infiltrate water into that area. I gotcha. Um and then the just the storm water that's going off, I know it's considered clean, but how is condition of the drains? Are we good with everything in there? Yeah, we had the um DPW superintendent look at the drains 41 00:11:17.440 --> 00:11:32.160 and he said they're in very good shape there. Actually, I think that infrastructure is out pretty new as well. >> I I couldn't resist. I you know, you got to you got to take the low hanging fruit when you get it, Rick. So, anyways, um I have no problem with this. and the fact that you're all the way up at 19 ft 42 00:11:32.160 --> 00:11:48.480 first floor uh elevation. The what you're putting under there as far as storage units, minimal cars, flow through all the way through storm water system that's catching clean water and putting it into our drains. Also flushing our drains with clean water, 43 00:11:48.480 --> 00:12:05.040 which is a good thing. Um I don't know as far as how is it going to violate the wetland protection act? No, in my humble opinion. And we're working on a resource area that currently has no performance standard. >> That's zero performance standard, which you can't plan for a 100red-year flood. 44 00:12:05.040 --> 00:12:20.480 You just can't. And you can't hold the water back when it comes. >> Um, >> and well, this is designed to this is designed to handle the 100 flood. It's it's designed to sustain it and all the living space will be well above it. So, >> awesome. All right. Um, so I guess uh I guess I'm good. Um, if there are any 45 00:12:20.480 --> 00:12:38.079 other questions, I'd um Nope. Okay. Uh, I'd call for a motion to close out the hearing. >> I make a motion to close the hearing. >> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor? I >> I >> um and I thank you for your presentation 46 00:12:38.079 --> 00:12:54.880 and your time and um as I said, I I just the way it's designed and the way it's going to be in um and the way that the curb and traffic pattern, I know that doesn't fall under us, but I get where Brian's coming from about the being mindful of the neighbors around, but I 47 00:12:54.880 --> 00:13:11.040 don't really see any reason as it pertains to the Wetland Protection Act to call this to be call for a no on this. So, I would call for a motion to approve this notice of intent. >> Make a motion to approve this motion of intent. >> Second. >> Second. 48 00:13:11.040 --> 00:13:45.040 >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> Thank you guys. >> Thank you very much. Appreciate it. >> Yeah, no problem. Okay, next up um is uh continued business uh Fennel Street RDA seeking approvals for wetland classifications uh 49 00:13:45.040 --> 00:14:10.000 represented by uh VHB. >> Let's see if we got this. Oh, your mic. Yeah, there you go. Sorry about that. >> Yeah. So, just uh >> start again. Uh Scott Morrison from BHB >> um here uh regarding Feno Street. I 50 00:14:10.000 --> 00:14:25.040 appreciate the commission taking time out of the busy schedules to to conduct a sitewalk. I think it was worthwhile to walk up and down the the stream channel. >> I do. Um I I almost lost a boot on this one. I want everyone to know. and thank you for the hand out of the out of that 51 00:14:25.040 --> 00:14:41.760 mud. But uh no, I think it was fruitful and just seeing the condition of the outfalls from the highway, the conditions that were at the end when we finally got to the end and the fact that the areas kind of blocked up and the condition of the largest uh feed. It was 52 00:14:41.760 --> 00:14:56.959 good to see all of that and kind of get connect with the folks that would be able to be impactful to make some upgrades or cleanings of that area. But anyways, thank you So, I've got a a brief PowerPoint presentation. I won't get into the detail that I did the last 53 00:14:56.959 --> 00:15:12.880 meeting, but I just kind of wanted to to go through a couple slides if we could if we could switch to the the next slide. Um, so just a site locus just to get you oriented. So, it's right along the revered Chelsea line, Northeast Expressway just to the east. Um, 54 00:15:12.880 --> 00:15:29.360 off-ramp to the highway to the souththeast um and Feno Street to the north and and northwest. Next slide. So what we submitted, we're requesting that the asking the commission to confirm that the concrete line diversion channel would meet the definition of 55 00:15:29.360 --> 00:15:44.320 canal under the wetlands protection act. And we're also asking the commission to confirm the limits of the historic dumping grounds and degraded areas under the wetlands protection act which are shown in the plan. Next slide. So just kind of refresh everybody's memory. I'm sure you're well aware that 56 00:15:44.320 --> 00:16:01.120 this is the the entirety of the the channel on the site is a concrete line channel extending from essentially from culvert discharges out to u the box culvert that goes underneath the the offramp to the highway. Next slide. And 57 00:16:01.120 --> 00:16:17.680 then again historic dumping grounds. We provided detailed information um regarding historic dump grounds on the property uh that were conducted prior to uh the the enactment of the Rivers Protection Act. So that that area would be grandfathered so they could go in 58 00:16:17.680 --> 00:16:33.759 there and do some cleanup work. Next slide. So as far as historic dumping grounds, we highlighted this area on the on the plan set. So, it's generally the in this slide page, the north is to the left, south is to the right. So, we've 59 00:16:33.759 --> 00:16:50.079 identified the area that that has like those wind rows of of debris that that was dumped through there and a couple piles in the northern section. So, we've identified that on these site plans um and submitted those. Next slide. So in conclusion, based upon the 60 00:16:50.079 --> 00:17:06.480 regulatory regulations and definitions, we believe that the concrete line channel meets the definitions of a canal and due to the historic dumping and clearing of the site contains areas that were historic dumping grounds that existed prior to August 7th, 1996, which is the enactment of the Rivers 61 00:17:06.480 --> 00:17:22.959 Protection Act. Um so we're requesting that the commission um come to a finding that the streams a man-made canal with a 100 foot buffer zone and no riverfront area. um and would meet the definition of a canal. And then portions of the site identified in the submitted plans 62 00:17:22.959 --> 00:17:41.440 are historic dumping grounds that existed prior to August 7th, 1996. Um assuming that the commission agrees with those findings, >> yeah. Um, I'll leave it up. I'll put it out to the commission right now and just 63 00:17:41.440 --> 00:17:57.039 um from what you saw and from what we the condition the present conditions of this uh considering its title nature, I' I'd love to hear some of the thoughts of the folks that walked it down. And um I know 64 00:17:57.039 --> 00:18:13.360 we all know that it's in crap condition uh right now. Excuse my language. Uh but the upshot of it is of what it was primarily there as a as its function and how we can define it in the wetland protection act. So, I'd love to hear some thoughts. 65 00:18:13.360 --> 00:18:29.760 >> I I'll give you my opinion kind of overall on it. Um, so it's it's really just sitting there as a pit. I mean, it's it's not a place where really anything would ever happen there to be cleaned up or people working on it 66 00:18:29.760 --> 00:18:44.480 unless there was some type of a development there. And I'd have to assume that if they are going to eventually build there, I I'd have to assume there's going to be some kind of an affordability aspect to a place that's going to be built right next to 67 00:18:44.480 --> 00:19:00.799 the highway and when we need affordable housing more than anything. So I know we're at this stage of what we do, we can't attach anything along the lines of it has to be affordable, it has we have to be able to just make the decision to 68 00:19:00.799 --> 00:19:15.919 allow them to just start the process. And I think that the way that land is right now is not helping anyone and is not helping the environment. I think that the way it sits, if they're not 69 00:19:15.919 --> 00:19:32.799 allowed to go forward and to investigate the next steps, which they may not be allowed to do anything other than that, and that's well beyond us, that's going to be on many other commissions and people and city councils, and there you have a million fights ahead of you on this, but I don't want to be the 70 00:19:32.799 --> 00:19:47.760 commission that says that we don't even want you to be able to take that first step. I want you, in my opinion, I don't speak for the whole commission, I speak for myself. Um, I want you to be able to do everything possible to help the environment. And I think having the 71 00:19:47.760 --> 00:20:02.720 ability to go there and more people know it exists and more people seeing it would bring more eyes on the fact that even if you what you're trying to do fails, which I'm not hoping I'm hoping you succeed, but if what you're doing fails, there's at least enough more 72 00:20:02.720 --> 00:20:19.280 eyeballs on that site between Rivere and Chelsea that hopefully someone will go out there and clean that area and do something. So you're being a cheerleader for that area I think is nothing but positives for the environment. So um you 73 00:20:19.280 --> 00:20:35.440 know I'm just one voice and one vote but I would say speaking for myself I do not want to be um the hindrance of stopping this pro this project from moving forward. I want to see um the project at least have a shot. So my vote would be 74 00:20:35.440 --> 00:20:53.039 to allow you to keep moving forward until someone tells you to stop. my opinion. >> Uh any other commissioners about the classification of it as a canal and the impact that creating a 100 foot buffer 75 00:20:53.039 --> 00:21:08.559 zone would create in development of this parcel. >> I'll take that one. >> Strictly speaking from the wetlands protection act perspective, if it ever was a riverfront, that riverfront was relocated to this man-made canal. It's it's 100% a man-made canal. um you 76 00:21:08.559 --> 00:21:24.480 should not be subject to the jurisdiction of riverfront area. So that's strictly wetlands protection act zeros and ones. Thanks. >> I I kind of tend to agree with that. It's I it definitely has a I mean yes it's made of concrete. It's 77 00:21:24.480 --> 00:21:41.039 impermeable. Water flows because of blockages. I mean I don't know. I'm there's there's a lot of uh factors for me because of how the where it drains to and how it impacts how it currently functions in my humble 78 00:21:41.039 --> 00:21:57.919 opinion. Whether there's tailings or historical dumping or how that was impacted or how that impacted how this naturally flowed at one point through that area doesn't change the fact that that it is the way it is now. Um, Anthony, how 79 00:21:57.919 --> 00:22:13.679 about your >> So, as far as this conversation, I it's a canal. I'm I'm good with that. Um, the I I was able to talk to a uh old-timer who has some institutional knowledge on 80 00:22:13.679 --> 00:22:30.480 on this and seems to believe that it was built in the 50s for for the purpose of being a storm drain. But he also said that it was also used, for lack of a better terminology, a a backflow for the tide. So instead of having when the tide 81 00:22:30.480 --> 00:22:46.960 comes up, instead of have it going wherever the tide wants to go, the tide would go down this channel and and backflow and fill it. But that's a different battle that that you're going to have to take another day with with the tide problems. >> Yeah, >> I think it's a canal. I do have one issue and this is maybe you could answer 82 00:22:46.960 --> 00:23:03.760 this. Will you guys be taking ownership of this storm drain system or whatever we're calling it canal or is it still going to be mass dot still on Mass DOT's property? So yeah. Well, if Mass DOT is listening, I'd really appreciate it if you could get a maintenance crew out there to take care of this problem 83 00:23:03.760 --> 00:23:20.080 because it has a lot of sediment. Uh some of the the the outfalls are completely blocked. There's it it needs a little maintenance and I understand how difficult it is to maintain these things, but you know, maybe once in the 75 year life of that you could go down 84 00:23:20.080 --> 00:23:36.240 there and clean it. Thanks. But yeah, I think it's a canal. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, I I tend to agree and um I'm not really sure what the edge of that canal to where that 100 foot buffer would fall um there, but um yeah, I would tend to 85 00:23:36.240 --> 00:23:52.720 agree that this is definitely a canal. um just because the way it stands and whether it was engineered to take that tidal influence or not, it's still it still exists. It's still functioning and it's still doing stuff. Yeah. Do I wish the outfalls weren't uh the top of the 86 00:23:52.720 --> 00:24:06.559 pipes uncovered? Of course. And do I wish that the it functioned as it should? Yeah, but there's more roots growing out of those outfalls than than there are there is water coming out of them. So, I hope the DOT is listening 87 00:24:06.559 --> 00:24:24.159 about this. Um, but anyways, I've never really I'm just going to put it right out there. I haven't done one of these, so I'm not really sure to call for a vote for this. L, um, if you wouldn't mind helping me out with this. 88 00:24:24.159 --> 00:24:50.480 >> So, they're asking, >> correct? Do you feel that the delineation it being a canal. >> Yes. >> Two separate things. The way I see it within one RDA, you don't have to say 89 00:24:50.480 --> 00:25:19.200 yes to both. Yes, I see the whole >> So that was my >> So So my other question is can we can we vote this all at once? So >> I would say no unless you think that every >> So let's discuss just a little bit more. 90 00:25:19.200 --> 00:25:35.840 So the second part of this >> Yeah. Is that on? >> Is this on? >> Yeah, there we go. >> So I think that you need to vote on two separate items. One is is this the appropriate >> description and determination that the 91 00:25:35.840 --> 00:25:52.320 concrete lined >> waterway >> y >> drainage >> is that a canal? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> So, I think that's number one. Gotcha. >> And then number two, >> I didn't think we could have separated, but I didn't want to. >> I think we have to separate it. I don't 92 00:25:52.320 --> 00:26:08.960 think that >> well if we do then then how could if we have a split vote one's yes one's no then we don't have a clear determination >> the um >> I think the second one would be that if the commission agrees that the area 93 00:26:08.960 --> 00:26:23.919 we've identified is a historic dumping ground >> correct >> so is it a historic is it considered by definition which I emailed the definition around a few weeks back does it does it qualify as a historic dumping ground and clearing prior to 94 00:26:23.919 --> 00:26:40.159 August 7th, 1996, >> which would reclassify what it could be used for. So, if it's considered degraded or a historic dumping ground, it has it opens it up to development, which in this case, whatever they 95 00:26:40.159 --> 00:26:55.840 decided to propose for the housing or affordable housing, it would open it up to a much more invasive development if we consider it degraded. Please. >> I could I could speak on that. So, um, 96 00:26:55.840 --> 00:27:10.640 as far as it being a a dumping ground, I mean, it's clear that it is. I personally can't say if things have uh when stuff was dumped there. Now, I would say by the type of structures that are back there. They certainly are not 97 00:27:10.640 --> 00:27:25.600 what we use nowadays, especially and I, you know, with what I do for a living, we don't use those kind of structures anymore. I haven't seen structures like that for the better part of at least 30 years, which would put it pretty close to putting you in the window of of 19 98 00:27:25.600 --> 00:27:40.960 what what's it going to be 96 97. >> So I would be comfortable saying it's a historic dumping ground based on looking at the material that I saw back there and say, "Wow, this stuff doesn't get used anymore. I haven't seen anything like this in ages and it's clearly been 99 00:27:40.960 --> 00:27:57.039 sitting there for a long time." >> Yeah. We tried to demonstrate that through the aerial photos that we submitted in the the application too to demonstrate that that fill was placed there beforehand. >> Just to go a little further, I mean, in some of the places you got you have trees that are growing through the 100 00:27:57.039 --> 00:28:12.480 debris that they had to have been growing for at least 30 years. I mean, they're massive. >> And and those those are definitely tailings piles. I mean, you have curbstone out there, highway curbstone, not like residential curbstone. Big stuff. Probably when they were constructing that highway originally, I 101 00:28:12.480 --> 00:28:28.240 would say. Um, so, so let's let's >> can I just Yeah, go ahead. One more thing. So, >> I think we're kind of ready, but yeah. >> Okay. So, it's whether or not it is a stream or a canal. That's really what needs to be determined. Um there is also 102 00:28:28.240 --> 00:28:45.679 the opportunity to say that a full delineation hasn't been done and we would require a wetland delineation to be performed on the property which would give a much more in-depth analysis about what type of vegetation is growing um whether it be from the debris or not 103 00:28:45.679 --> 00:29:00.799 from the debris. Um, and that would be like step two is, you know, we don't we don't necessarily know if we agree that this is a canal >> until we have >> until we have a wetland delineation that's been >> I get that. >> I mean, I know that there was a 104 00:29:00.799 --> 00:29:17.520 sidewalk, but a site a wet. It's quite a vast area with vast types of vegetation. So that's that's also an option is to request >> um an ANRAD or you know wetland delineation and ANRAD to be the next step. 105 00:29:17.520 --> 00:29:34.159 >> So may I speak on something that >> please? >> Sure. >> Thank you. Lyn just mentioned Ally just mentioned I will defer to my colleagues because I wasn't able to walk the whole site but the site the part that I did 106 00:29:34.159 --> 00:29:50.720 walk >> yes there was there was fill there and it was obviously was maintenance or DPWs from some some city or something but not the whole area. >> No. And and I'm wondering if what Ellie 107 00:29:50.720 --> 00:30:07.840 just mentioned might really be necessary because I would want to and again you people saw the whole site but I wouldn't want to say that the whole site is a dumping ground if it isn't a dumping ground. You get a picture of a dumping ground uh you know goes from from border 108 00:30:07.840 --> 00:30:23.440 to border. It just >> crap all over the place. But >> so from speaking from someone who definitely walked the the entirety of the site, one thing that I did notice was when you got closer to the wetlands down at the end towards the gates, the 109 00:30:23.440 --> 00:30:38.960 tidal gates there, um there was a lot more evidence of it not being that way. And there was a lot more upkeep over there and there was definitely not as much invasive uh species because of how large that area is and how close it's starting to get over there. Yet were 110 00:30:38.960 --> 00:30:55.360 there traces of fragmitees? Of course, it's everywhere. But there was definitely traces of other stuff, too. Not just poison ivy that we had to look out for or Yeah. or the or the um what what was it? The the maples, the Norway maples that are all through there. There 111 00:30:55.360 --> 00:31:11.279 were I can't think of the other trees that I saw. There was a ton of them, too. I mean, yes. Is it vegetated? Is it whatever? But I mean, would that be something that BHP would be willing to do is take it the next step and really go dig down over in the other part of it? 112 00:31:11.279 --> 00:31:27.840 >> Yeah. So, that's it's one thing they're going to, you know, for any development, they'll have to do some test pits and and really kind of get figure out what kind of material there is. >> Like my guess would be they're likely going to have to pull some of that material off site just because it's, you know, not usable for, you know, 113 00:31:27.840 --> 00:31:43.440 underneath foundations or access drives or anything like that. Yeah, >> as far as the delineation, we did delineate the site, but under this application, we're not asking for the commission to confirm the delineation, right? >> So, that would be kind of the next step. When it comes time to file a notice of 114 00:31:43.440 --> 00:31:59.840 intent, we can ask that that question. Essentially, we've got it very narrow regarding the canal issue and historic dumping ground simply because those are the most important things to be able to to to take the next step to see if we can design a project on the site. 115 00:31:59.840 --> 00:32:16.240 >> Right. So, so we get another stab at this is is I guess maybe not what what everyone's >> definitely going to get another boring vegetated wetlands, >> but I don't want to I don't want to say that it is like Joe said a complete dumping ground because there were some parts of it and I'm sure you can agree 116 00:32:16.240 --> 00:32:32.960 that that we're not dumping ground, especially towards the end near where those gates were. It it started to not have that feel. the land started to level out and yeah, maybe the DOT area wasn't that great, but the land that was on the Chelsea side on the other on the 117 00:32:32.960 --> 00:32:49.200 river side rather, excuse me, that wasn't in bad condition once you got past the tailing piles. And actually, if we could Andrew um put up the uh slide that had the topical view. Yeah, there you go. >> So So on the uh what is that the 118 00:32:49.200 --> 00:33:06.799 >> So it's on the the page right you're you're talking about. Yeah. >> Yeah. So page right right over there those are natural um slope that's that's like natural grade to the land like you can clearly see the tailing piles and and the just after that and how the way the outfall 119 00:33:06.799 --> 00:33:22.720 the main outfall comes out in that area. I mean there's definitely been h like uh how do I call it so I'm not being insensitive but vagrants uh occupying in the area. It there's a lot of that presence over there. So there's 120 00:33:22.720 --> 00:33:39.039 lots of dumping in that vein. But the from starting from the tip of the tailing piles where you had those those large concrete or uh granite slabs all the way to the end of the tailing piles, that was kind of where I feel like historic dumping ground over at the end 121 00:33:39.039 --> 00:33:54.880 over there where you just finally come in. I think a little bit more needs to go it go into that. Um so I don't want to classify it all as a dumping ground and I I'm glad that Joe brought that up. So, I would be comfortable and I don't know 122 00:33:54.880 --> 00:34:09.919 how other commissioners feel if this would be to make a positive determination about the um canal, but omit the other one. >> Yeah. separate. >> I kind of think I do. 123 00:34:09.919 --> 00:34:27.200 >> One one one other item just to mention is based on what the delineation is >> um and what percentage of wetland or land um BVW um could be impacted. There may be an 124 00:34:27.200 --> 00:34:43.919 opportunity for some type of restoration depending on the percentage of the usage. >> Yes. So just determining all of it to be historic dumping when maybe only a portion of it is classified as historic dumping when doing a delineation 125 00:34:43.919 --> 00:35:01.119 may may spark a different outcome. And if it's a concern of the commission identifying the specific limits of the historic dumping ground, you could simply I think it would be acceptable to make a decision on the the canal and 126 00:35:01.119 --> 00:35:16.560 just make a decision that there's historic dumping grounds but the limits have not yet been identified. If that gives the commission some comfort >> that would actually give us enough of I would be I would be comfortable in that 127 00:35:16.560 --> 00:35:33.280 >> that feels like a fair compromise. That is a definite fair compromise. >> I I would ask the chair if we could start by doing the vote on the canal. Get that over with. >> Yeah, let's get that out of the way. So, uh, so I would call for a motion for a positive determination that this is a canal under the Wetland Protection Act. 128 00:35:33.280 --> 00:35:49.760 >> I'll make a motion. This is a positive determination that it is a canal under the um, wetland protection act. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I I >> um, >> round one complete. >> Round one done. Uh and then so for as 129 00:35:49.760 --> 00:36:05.599 for the second part, I definitely feel as though that is a fair compromise in this um in this just because it leaves the door open for possibilities of restoration, which would be amazing, especially considering that what type of project is is being proposed for this 130 00:36:05.599 --> 00:36:21.440 area. and having folks that are in those types of units seeing restoration efforts happen right in their own backyard would be something that would be amazing. So at this time I would like to call for uh 131 00:36:21.440 --> 00:36:38.720 >> So would we say it's a negative determination that the site is a historic dumping ground in its entirety? >> So this would so this >> without further analysis. >> Yep. So this would be a Is that right? Say that again. But 132 00:36:38.720 --> 00:36:55.280 >> the commission is not determining that it is a 100% historic dumping ground without further >> and further analysis required. >> Sorry. >> I I would say positive and then limits need to be defined. 133 00:36:55.280 --> 00:37:09.760 >> Yes. >> Yes. That's yeah, that's kind of why I said so >> future determination would that >> so that the that the that we would call for a positive determination for um a historic dumping ground, but it is not 134 00:37:09.760 --> 00:37:25.599 yet been determined the entirety of that or the the final scope of that historical dumping is essentially what it would be. So, so I I I would I would call So, so we're calling for a positive determination, but the entire limits 135 00:37:25.599 --> 00:37:43.040 with with the fact that it is not been clearly defined as a 100% yet. >> Ah, fantastic. Go ahead, Anthony. >> Mr. Chairman, um, how would we would how are we going to determine that? How are you going to to come up with this is 136 00:37:43.040 --> 00:38:00.400 where it ends? So, so, so just to kind of quickly answer that that I sorry to is it basically is saying that we identify that there is historical dumping that has happened but we don't know the extent or the damage that this dumping has caused for that 137 00:38:00.400 --> 00:38:16.000 >> are we or will you who's making that determination at the end of the day we're you're going to we'll go out and we'll say hey we think it ends here and that's it. So, we'll probably because they're going to probably have to do another round of determination. Then we would probably to confirm that and it's 138 00:38:16.000 --> 00:38:33.119 not a big area. We would probably have something like a third party or even a step further an ANRAD or an ORAD for this particular site or the particular areas where we identify it as this is not historic dumping. >> Well, I guess what I'm trying to get at 139 00:38:33.119 --> 00:38:48.240 is I'm I'm comfortable with what we're saying. I would like to have on the record what the end point is with what like who's going to make the determination. So something to the effect of u we agree that it is a a historical dumping round but the limits 140 00:38:48.240 --> 00:39:06.000 are to be determined by >> set engineer by the chairman by >> or maybe even say a future application future notice of intent or application. So >> for instance, if we come with a notice of intent for >> some type of project, we can identify 141 00:39:06.000 --> 00:39:20.640 historic dumping ground in that application. >> At that point, it may or may not even impact the project, >> right? >> But we could it just I think it just pushes kicks the can down the road. So we it gives the commission a chance to 142 00:39:20.640 --> 00:39:38.480 review a future project and that at at the same time. >> I I think that's chair. I think that's very fair. However you want to, this is what I', Nick, I'd say to you. Um, however you want to phrase this, take a second to think about that. >> But, um, I think what he's saying, I 143 00:39:38.480 --> 00:39:54.720 agree with. I just don't know how you're going to phrase it. So, if you want to take a minute to >> propose your thoughts to do it. >> So, here's the thing, too. What what they're proposing on the site is is going to be subject to a member review. >> Yeah. >> FYI. So, this is going to get an ENF, the whole nine yards. They're going to 144 00:39:54.720 --> 00:40:11.599 have to do a complete delineation everything. So, if this is going to be I don't want to say what it is, but we all know what it's going to be. And I think that because of this the nature of this project, it's going to be under a much finer microscope that we could provide 145 00:40:11.599 --> 00:40:28.400 in my humble opinion. So, um I would say that we are calling for a positive determination that this is historical dumping ground, but only in part. Further analysis is required. >> Yep. I think that's reasonable. 146 00:40:28.400 --> 00:40:44.000 >> If someone would call for a motion for that, Brian, that would be fantastic. >> Wow. Okay. I'm gonna do my best. My memor is good, but I don't know how good that is. Uh, so a You want to word this with me? A motion to what is it? Approve >> for a positive determination. >> A motion for a positive determination 147 00:40:44.000 --> 00:40:59.200 >> that is historical dumping. This is a historical dumping ground but >> in part >> in part >> and further analysis is >> um until further analysis we'll know more in detail. >> Can I have a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I 148 00:40:59.200 --> 00:41:14.640 >> I thank you guys. No, I appreciate that. I appreciate you guys talking this out. It's uh it's a little tricky and I haven't really made a determination like this. So So thank you for that. >> Thanks. I appreciate it. >> No, appreciate you. Um I'm sure we'll 149 00:41:14.640 --> 00:41:30.560 see you again, sir. Uh so this is uh continuence was requested for the 620 River Beach Boulevard. Uh the applicant requested this uh because they need to be go before the um zoning in July. So uh I I 150 00:41:30.560 --> 00:41:47.200 agree with that and I think the given the nature of this property, it makes sense. Uh the next on this they also um requested a continuence uh 35 Glendale over in Oak Island. I don't think that they have gotten their 151 00:41:47.200 --> 00:42:02.880 information to site plan review at this point and and variances haven't been granted. So we're still waiting on that one. And the um Mass D uh 0610857 the Route 16 bridge replacement. I had a conversation with them and just to 152 00:42:02.880 --> 00:42:21.440 briefly fill you in um the last special order of conditions number I believe it's 36 or is it 34? I can't remember. The last special order of conditions that they had um concern with. It was concerning traffic pattern flows or 153 00:42:21.440 --> 00:42:37.359 something. It was something to do with the roads and it was not under the wetland protection act. So I felt comfortable omitting that. I will uh provide. They have not I did not see their communication via email to me yet. >> No, we've not received that in writing yet. So, until that's received in 154 00:42:37.359 --> 00:42:53.200 writing, I've asked for them to provide in writing whatever conditions that were discussed at the meeting that were voted upon that mass is not able to support >> because of their jurisdictional procedures and policies. 155 00:42:53.200 --> 00:43:09.680 >> Correct. So I've asked them to detail that in a response to the draft >> order of conditions that we provided which was based on all the comments and feedback of the commission. >> Yep. >> So once that's received I'm happy to share that with everyone to make sure that everyone is 156 00:43:09.680 --> 00:43:25.359 >> um aware of what's happening and then we can go ahead and move forward if that works for you. >> And and I when I spoke with Erica she had mentioned that she was going to be sending out something to both of us by the end of the week. they have wanted to talk with a few other folks uh get all 157 00:43:25.359 --> 00:43:41.760 the chiefs in the same room and uh make sure that they are responding to us in a thoughtful manner. Um so that's why the Route 16 order of conditions has not been issued yet. Uh we did have some site visits some a little last minute but we did have one for 1165 Northshore 158 00:43:41.760 --> 00:43:56.400 Road. Uh and over at Feno Street we had a walk down on the 9th which I appreciate everybody coming out and Tom thank you for the lift. that was much appreciated. I've had those boots a while. Um, we had two communications, 159 00:43:56.400 --> 00:44:14.160 uh, one from the D and then one from LEC. Uh, next time we will have these available as a PDF to display on the screen, but for now, these will be available in uh, with our conservation agent up in the um, in at city hall. So, 160 00:44:14.160 --> 00:44:29.920 if you'd like to see them, there they are. They're quite extensive. I don't want to have to read them on camera, but they are available. Uh, other than that, some open discussion. Um, anybody have anything they want to bring up? 161 00:44:29.920 --> 00:44:45.920 Good. L >> just one one item. >> Okay. >> Um, so I understand the D gave us a little bit of a hiccup with the 1165 Northshore Road, but in the future, I'm going to vote present. If we only have two days to 162 00:44:45.920 --> 00:45:01.040 review an NOI and schedule a sitewalk, that was just too much. Regardless of who the engineer or applicant was, that was very quick. And >> yes, I I agree. And if they didn't have the supporting documentation for 163 00:45:01.040 --> 00:45:17.839 checks, certified mail, uh, postings in the P. If they didn't have all of that stuff, I would have definitely no thank you. And and I I completely understand where you're coming from. And it is no matter how large or what the scope of the project is, we should definitely have enough time to review 164 00:45:17.839 --> 00:45:36.240 and make sure that we're making the most informed decision that we can. And I appreciate you saying that. Um, thank you. >> Confirm next month's meeting. >> Uh, next month's meeting date. So, are we uh were we able to get the first 165 00:45:36.240 --> 00:45:54.960 changed uh instead of having it on the first? I know that's pretty close to the Fourth of July weekend, can we maybe do the weekend after or the week after rather? I noticed on the I noticed on the calendar that none of the cal none of 166 00:45:54.960 --> 00:46:13.280 the dates are on the website past our last meeting, right? >> So, I requested um the clerk's office if we could add those. I also spoke to Brian to make sure that we're not overlapping any holidays. And I requested later today, it was later in 167 00:46:13.280 --> 00:46:28.640 the afternoon today that we I made the request to have this meeting moved to July 8th, which is the following Wednesday. >> I don't know if the chamber is available yet. So that's the proposed date would be the 8th if the chamber is available. 168 00:46:28.640 --> 00:46:44.480 Does that work for everyone here? >> Okay. Excellent. >> No, it doesn't work for Joe. >> No, I have no idea. >> Oh, you don't know? That's right. I thought you were shaking your head. >> So, we just want to make sure that we have a quorum. So, >> um 169 00:46:44.480 --> 00:47:00.640 >> the chair suggested that we probably don't have it on July 1st because many people are traveling. >> Actually, in the past, we have July. >> Yeah. >> Last year we had July 10th. >> January. >> Yeah. No, I'd rather take off the winter 170 00:47:00.640 --> 00:47:16.160 when we know we don't have anything and instead of taking the July, which I it completely makes sense, but I'd rather push it out past the holiday so that if people want to take the week because it falls on a Saturday this this year and I'm kind of people are definitely going to take a couple days before, maybe a 171 00:47:16.160 --> 00:47:32.880 couple days after, who knows? But, um, I just didn't think it was going to be a good idea to have it on the first and run the risk of not being able to get a quorum together. So, um, if folks agree, if the chambers are available, I'd say we call for a meeting on the 8th >> next month, and then that would just, uh, push our deadline out. Actually, 172 00:47:32.880 --> 00:47:49.760 that'll give everybody an extra week. So, no excuses not to get it in on time. Um, anyways, uh, that's pretty much all I have uh, at this point. If nobody has anything else, um, someone knows what to do. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Fantastic. Second. 173 00:47:49.760 --> 00:47:56.599 >> Second. >> Excellent. All in favor? Hi. Hi. Thank you very much, folks.