Conservation Commission (November 17th, 2025)

001Welcome everyone to the November 17th, Ashlin Conservation Commission meeting. I am calling to order at 7 o'clock and there is a quorum of the commission and this meeting is being recorded. This is a hybrid meeting so I'm required to read a few premeating protocols before we get to the agenda items. This meeting is being recorded and broadcast live by Wacka TV and livereamed on Facebook. Remote participation is available using the Zoom video conferencing platform. Any disruption with our video conferencing platform will result in the platform being shut down. Meetings will continue to be broadcast on Wacka TV. Under Governor Baker's March 12th, 2020 executive order, public boards are allowed to meet remotely. This order was most recently extended until June of 2027 by Governor Healey as part of the supplemental bill budget signed in March

002of 2023. Please follow these procedures for attending and participating. The meeting of the conservation commission will be held using Zoom. As I identify the item on the agenda, the applicant for that agenda item will be given an opportunity to provide a presentation and will be allowed to share the screen to show plans, pictures, etc. At the end of the presentation, the chair, myself, Greg Wanss, will entertain questions and comments from the commission. When the commission's discussion has concluded, the chair will open up the discussion from the public. Upon the hearing or meeting conclusion, a motion to continue or close the hearing will be entertained. After discussion, the chair will call for a roll call vote. During the meeting, commission members will keep their video on and microphone muted unless speaking. Applicants and representatives, please keep

003your video off and microphone muted until your agenda item is discussed. Public, please keep your microphone muted until recognized. If you are calling in by phone number, you can use the star six to mute and unmute. If you need to share your screen, you may request permission through the chair to do so. When the discussion is open to the public, if you wish to ask a question or make a comment, you may request to speak by using the raised hand feature on Zoom. If you are calling in by phone number, you can use the star9 feature to raise and lower your hand. When acknowledged to speak, please state your name and address prior to speaking. And if you come to the podium, there will be a place there to put your uh name and address

004um for the speakers. Public comment is limited to three minutes per speaker. Comments must be limited to the Wetlands Protection Act, Ashlin Wetlands Protection bylaw, or Ashlin Storm Water Management bylaw. Questions and comments not related to the commission's jurisdiction will not be accepted. During the meeting, the host, Becca Solomon, our Ashland Conservation Commission agent, will monitor the participants for raised hands and will be recording the names and addresses of commenters. Signing of documents will occur during the week after the conclusion of the meeting. So, our first scheduled hearing will start at 7:05. It is now 7:03. So, we'll have to wait a couple minutes before uh we open up our scheduled hearings. I think I'm doing okay. for this hearing. Sure. Um the floor is yours. So why don't you take us through your your

005project? Uh great. Thank you. Good evening everyone. Uh my name is Will Park. Um civil engineer at SMMA out of Cambridge. I'm representing um the applicant, the Guteras Company, represented tonight by Israel Lopez. Also on the project team is Mark Arnold from Goddard Consulting. Um would you like me to give a overview of the project specifically the storm water management design sir? >> Yes please. >> How about the whole project? So, we'll probably want to hear everything that's uh jurisdictional to the uh Ashlin Conservation Commission. So, yeah, buffers and yeah, the storm water. So, right, >> it's going to be more than >> just storm water. >> Greg, Greg, this is Jean. Um I I want to hear a whole presentation about the whole project. I think there's a lot of people here that may

006or may not know what's going on here, more than just stormwater management. That's one piece of the project. I think we need to know about the whole project. Okay, agreed. Do you want to take us? Uh, >> yes. I'll take it up a level, sir. >> And, uh, Mark Mark is going to present on this the wetlands and buffers and everything. >> Okay. So, um, the project site is located at 61 Waverly Street. Um, as you can see on this plan is showing, right? Um, as you can see, the project site is bound to the north by Waverly Street and to the south by East Union Street. There is a um large b uh bordering vegetated wetland to the east of the site. Um the proposed project is a five-story building, multif family residential building

007with um 226 units. The project is currently in front of the um Ashlin zoning board of appeals. The parking uh and circulation is provider provided around the perimeter of the site. The project is seeking a waiver um from the zoning bylaw to reduce the um parking ratio from 2.0 zero spaces per unit down to 1.73 in an effort to um meet um market demand and to help consolidate the footprint as much as possible into the center of the site. There's one curb cut off of um Waverly Street where my icon is located and one to the south off um East Union Street uh where my icon is right now. There are the parking is a combination of um surface parking and several garages around the perimeter. As you can see here, these smaller structures, the

008building itself will have an interior courtyard and amenity area as well as some exterior amenities, um a dog park and a playground in these uh nooks here. The storm water management design is highlighted here in blue. Um these are the main um trunk lines of the drainage system and I've highlighted the best management p the storm water best management practices which include two subsurface uh infiltration systems, one surface infiltration system and one bioretention system at the bottom of the driveway. The reason that these um so there are several outlets towards the um the BVW. Uh one is out of this subsurface storm water system. This right this discharge right here is from the foundation drains to help just replenish the uh the groundwater levels in the BBW. And then this um subsurface system discharges to

009the east towards the BBW. the surface infiltration system and the bio retention system will combine and enter um the street drainage in Waverly Street, which um the applicant is proposing to enhance with an additional structure and um convert the old uh catch basin that there is now into a more traditional um catch basin with deep sump connected to and convert the current catch basin into a manhole. Um consistent with current um best practices. Going through the um just a high level through the storm water treatment standards. Uh the groundwater recharge is met from the three um all four basins frankly. The soils uh beneath uh underlying the site are sandy loms and lomi sands which are uh hydraologic soil groups A and B. So uh recharge is quite favorable on this site. the um the

010applicant engaged um Sanboard Hannon Associates to do a very extensive um subsurface investigation to support the storm water design including roughly I think 20 or 25 test pits including the minimum required uh within the footprint of each um BMP. So the the the site does meet the recharge requirement and the TSS removal requirement. Uh and also for the very very small areas of the site which do not drain to one of them, one of the BMPPS, the weighted average has been used for both TSS and recharge to provide more than is necessary to make up for those small areas that cannot be routed to them. Uh I meant to mention this. The reason that all the that the um discharge points are concentrated on the east side of the site is despite the um large

011frontage along Waverly Street. There surprisingly is no catch basin or drainage under Waverly Street for this entire section. The only one that exists is this catch basin here that I mentioned that connects up here and then just off the viewport is a larger culver under Waverly Street. Um so that's why we're connecting uh up in this corner and not introducing um any discharges along this frontage here. uh in addition to the um mass D storm water regs uh in accordance with the local bylaws and the TMDL um requirements of the receiving water. The the site does meet the phosphorus and nitrogen removals. um we exceed um those targeted rates for removal of those two um those two pollutants um through use of the the various infiltration systems. And then lastly, um a a long-term operation

012and maintenance manual was included in the NOI filing. And the uh applicant is planning to uh because the disturbance is in excess of 1 acre is planning to prepare a SWIP and um apply for coverage under the NIFTY's construction general permit which can be uh we would be happy to submit to the town for for review prior to construction. Um that's what I wanted to cover in terms of storm water. Uh any any questions on that before I pass it off to my colleague to discuss the wetlands and buffers? >> I'll open that up to the commission. Are there any questions at this point? >> Your name is again >> uh Will Park civil engineer. We are probably going to have a general overview tonight and not get too far into the weeds. We've decided

013as a commission we have three 40bs coming before us simultaneously. Uh we're going to try to sever the 40B hearings from our regular hearings so that we can actually spend some time on them and not rush them through. So this evening, we're probably just going to have a general discussion of uh uh what your plan is and how we plan to move forward from here. >> Uh understood. >> Thank you. Um before I pass it off to Mark Arnold, um I just in a nice segue, uh the project respects the the town's um local 25 ft no disturb, which is this green line right here. As you can see, the grading and limit of work uh respects that. And the 100 foot buffer, um the proposed impervious surfaces within the 100 foot buffer are very

014very minimal. just these little slivers here and here um where there'll be minimal parking and two uh portions of the two parking structures within that buffer. And uh with that, I'll pass it off to Mark Arnold from Goddard Consulting. Thank you. >> Thank you, Will. Mark Arnold again with Goddard Consulting soil scientists for the project. Just to give a quick general overview of the wetland resource areas on the property. We have a boring vegetated wetland that was delineated on the property that also included um the bank of intermittent stream at the north end of the property which was delineated separately. Um classical BVW characteristics included your red maple um vegetation with high bush blueberry, sweeper bush and um cinnamon fern. Um upland vegetation was pretty consistent um with a a break in slope changing up

015to white oak, red oak, white pine, bracken fern um and other upland species. Um we also delineated based on soils uh to confirm hydraology within the wetlands um as you're aware the wetland delineation requires that there be 50% wetland vegetation and also uh wetland soils within those delineate areas. We do believe the area is delineated per um the wetlands protection act and the D um delineation manual. Uh the site um is not mapped for any endangered species um not within any estimated priority habitat or critical areas of concern. Um not there's no outstanding resource waters um or FEMA flood plane areas on the site. Um there are two mapped potential um vernal pools on the site. The habitat is has not been confirmed. So at this point um it's only a speculation of whether or

016not there's habitat actually there and um the uh the project has been designed to um comply with the wetland protection act in terms of the buffer zone. Buffer zone area being a non-resource but only protected in so far as it protects the resource areas itself. Um the project does respect the 25- ft wetland buffer um under under the bylaws application is only under the wetlands protection act itself. Um in terms of what is proposed within the buffer zone just to walk through um what will talked about but also a little more clarity on that is um there's the two storm water systems one being the surface one being the underground two small garages um and then some of the parking areas and some of the graded slopes. So um that's highlighted in green on the

017screen. I'm just going to zoom in a little bit if I can just to highlight that. So there we go. I'm just going to shift it a little bit down as we go. But so you can see up here, this is the uh 25 foot buffer um dotted line on the edge here coming down here. That's your 25 foot. And then this is your 100 foot buffer zone here. Um, as Will noted, the project has sought relief from the zoning board on the parking density to respect the 25 foot and also respect this um area buffer zone as well. So, we've tried to protect areas that we can. There's also um natural undisturbed buffer zone on the other side of the wetland that the project is also protecting. Um, so it's a pretty straightforward um

018buffer zone project in terms of um compliance with the wetland protection act. we don't have any impacts to wetland resource areas on the site. And um we hope um if there's any questions that the commission may have about um the project's work and its impact to the BVW that we could um start that conversation tonight. >> So could you uh highlight again where the vernal pool is the presumed vernal pool? So the two the two potential vernal pools these are again these are these are areas that are mapped by someone who has never not necessarily visited the site at any point of time but basically looked at aerials. Um there's an area in here interior to the wetland itself. Um, and then there's the other one is down in in this area here again interior

019to the wetland delineation itself in some in some points like it could it could be 20 30 ft inside the wetland line if if it exists at all. Again, it's it's a it's a it's a flooded it's a flooded wetland area. It doesn't necessarily mean there's actually habitat or species actually breeding there at all. >> Okay. Are there any other questions from the commission? >> Just for clarification, uh you have um applied for a waiver to the local wetlands bylaw, the ZBA, correct? >> We have multiple we I mean are you referring to the the wetlands bylaw in Ashland? We have requested waiverss to the ZBA in in that matter before them. Yes. >> Okay. And for people that are watch this kind of gets confusing for people that are watching uh these hearings, uh

020we have jurisdiction over a local law and a state law. What the applicant has applied to the ZBA is for a waiver on the local law and it's the local law that contains the 25 foot no disturb zone. With regard to the vernal pools that the gentleman's discussing, um the state law only protects certified vernal pools. our local law protects non-certified vernal pools. So, um, and what he's described here is that these vernal pools are within another part of a wetland system that, uh, would be jurisdictional under the state law. Is that is you? Uh, >> so so just just to be clear, so this the state law states that the ZBA has has the jurisdiction to oversee all the local bylaws in in the town when a 40B application is filed. And so the

021ZBA is responsible for handling all matters of compliance and any waiverss that are required um to handle that. And so this application is under the Wetlands Protection Act. So in terms of of what we've done, we've respected 25 ft off the wetlands, if you want me to phrase it that way. Um just to be clear, the the the the wetland protection act does not protect any certain area of the buffer zone. U many projects are approved closer to the wetlands than 25 ft under the Wetlands Protection Act. And so, um, we've sought to to find a medium balance to what is known, which is we know we have a BVW. We've respect the 25 foot buffer. Um, and any of these potential, again, potential vernal pools is not known if they are vernal pools or

022not. Um, they're interior to the wetland system itself. And again, we believe we protect the wetlands under the wetland protection act. And therefore, anything interior we would also be protecting under the state law. And we haven't um you haven't applied for an ANRAD for this, correct? >> We have not. No. So this wetland delination was completed by us. We do believe it is um per the mass DP guidance, but if the commission wanted to review that is something a matter the commission could consider. >> I think that's something that we need to do uh to set up a sitewalk confirm the delineation. >> Absolutely. >> Before the end of this year, >> absolutely. If the commission wants to review the wetland line that it's absolutely within your perview and we would understand that. >> Okay.

023>> Go ahead. >> Anyone else? >> Yeah, Greg, this is Jean. >> Yeah, Jean, go ahead. >> When when was the wetland delineated? >> Uh, the wetland was delineated, just give me one second so I can get the date correct. It was delineated on November 20th of 2024. >> So about this time last year, >> correct? >> So it was in a leaf off condition and no ground cover. >> So um no ground cover. Um our our delineation staff did observe ground cover remnants including ferns um which are still often present although they may have died back you can still identify them from various characteristics. So we don't believe that the leaf drop would have impacted the delineation particularly also when we verified the wetland delineation based on soils. >> Okay. Do you want to

024schedule that while you're standing at the podium for for us? >> Um, I guess I guess the question is is is does the commission want to do a sidewalk before um uh the the delination is reviewed? I wasn't sure if the commission would want this u is going to just review the delination on the field or if they wanted someone else to look at it as well. Just to be clear, just from the applicant, is the commission going to is the commission like familiar enough and and or sorry, is the does the commission want to actually review the delination themselves personally or are they looking to um see see the site but also have a scientist personally? >> Yeah, I I haven't been to the site. I know there was one site visit a while

025ago and I wasn't present. So, >> yeah, >> I know I would like to check the flagging >> and that was before the delineation that the commission visited. >> Okay. So yeah, I think that warrants a a site visit by the commission. >> Absolutely. We'd be glad to do that and we'll bring our augers and we can show you the soils as well. >> Okay. >> In the past, we've usually go out and we'll check it ourselves, but if we have any questions, we've actually brought somebody else in. >> Okay. >> To >> Yep. Just just just wanted to make sure that this just understood the direction. But that that's totally understandable. >> Okay. Um sooner than later is this weekend. Um, are are folks available this weekend, Saturday at say 9 o'clock >> a.m.

026It's good question, >> Greg. >> Yeah, >> I I I will not be available. Um, but I would ask is is Becca, will you be available for that? >> I would not be available this Saturday. Um, I would be available Sunday next the weekend after. I am also not available. Sophia, I'm not sure what your availability is if you would be able to stand in if I'm not there. >> Okay. I think we're >> I can do Sunday. >> Sunday. Okay. >> If if that's amendable, uh, I think we're leaning towards Sunday. Okay. >> At 9 o'clock. and Sunday at 9:00. We I can accommodate that although it's not preferred. >> I don't neither. Saturday is great. Yeah. Um is there any chance we could move it earlier on Sunday? Does >> I don't mind.

027>> Yeah. So, >> what time what you thinking? >> Uh I mean, if we could do eight, that would be great for me personally. So, if you don't mind, >> let's do eight. Okay. >> Thank you so much. Appreciate it. >> Oh, you're wcoming us. Um All right. So, we're confirmed for Sunday at 8 o'clock in the morning this Sunday. >> And then >> it'll be chilly. >> Yeah. Bundle up everyone. >> Better than wet. >> Yeah. Okay. Where's the preferred place to meet on site? >> Um So, there's some there's some there's a pulloff on Waverly Street, although it's farther from the wetlands itself. Uh there's more space, I believe, on Union for parking. I'm just trying to think of that many cars. >> Yeah. >> All right, let's uh let's park at the

028>> the parking lot at the high school. >> Yeah. >> So, right across the street. >> Okay. >> Yep. So, here we go. Wil can highlight. >> Yeah. So, um there's plenty of parking here across the high school. Um, and then we can meet maybe in this front lot here and then start the delineation on the east union. Sorry. Start the We can park in the high school here. Start the delineation on the south side and work our way towards uh Waverly Street. >> Just look for my grape standing there with the hunger. >> All right. Okay. Thanks again for accommodating us. All right. Uh, are there any questions uh from the from the public? >> Wait a minute. Are we done here before we open this to the public? >> Does anyone else did

029you have something? Yeah, >> just a a general thing I want just a general thing that I want to be sure that we address going forward is looking very closely at any outflows. >> Yeah, that's getting it. I didn't know if somebody else was coming back up to discuss that. >> Yep. >> Uh that's a that's a very good question. Um SMMA uh my firm um we walked the site early in the design process and then we walked walked it again when the storm water management system had kind of settled in. And we've walked um the discharge points of each one of these flared end sections and you know moved it 10 feet left or right to make sure um they're they'll be in good spots not susceptible to erosion and everything. So uh thank

030you for that question. We'll be prepared to identify you know where each one of those blue lines um ends in the field. Was that what you're referring to, sir? I guess except we we um some of us went out there this week and we have concerns about the structural integrity of the section between where you're hooking into the uh storm water drain on the I guess that's the east side where that goes and where that exits onto the property across the street. >> Uh understood. Yes. Um we we've looked into that as well. Um and we we'll be prepared to discuss that in the field or would you like to discuss it any more tonight? >> I personally think that that uh we need to have a peerreview look at it. I'm not an engineer.

031>> So um allow me just to I I mentioned it briefly but let me describe it in more detail. Sorry. This um Okay, here we go. So, there's an existing catch basin right here where the blue dot is. >> Um we we observed that structure. It is filled with sediment. Um and which is why uh several folks and we've witnessed ourselves uh have have noted that it does not really drain well and there there can be ponding in this area. Um this existing catch basin discharges in a culvert up here and then just off the screen there's a large box culvert that goes under Waverly Street. Um, as I mentioned before, what we're proposing to do is converting that catch basin into more of a a drain manhole. Um, and that's where we'll be connecting

032to handle the surface runoff in that area. We're going to propose a new catch basin next to it uh that has a traditional 4 foot sump, an oil oil hood on it so that everything all the surface runoff in this area will enter the catch basin. Sediment will settle out. it'll be a lot easier to for the DPW to clean out periodically. And then the old structure will basic will have a solid frame and grate on it and essentially just act act as a conveyance through through that pipe as it exists today and into that um box culver under Waverly Street. So kind of converting it to a typical you know best practices today a catch every catch basin is tied to a drain manhole to uh prevent scouring and the the re suspension of

033the sediment in in the structure. Um I I should note that uh as part of the ZBA process um the first of several peer reviews that they engaged was a civil engineer peer reviewer uh Hancock Associates >> that wasn't much help to us wasn't much help to me that peer review that was the ZBA's peer review. Is this the conservation? >> Okay. They did review the civil design for just best practices for civil engineering. They did review it for uh consistency with the um Massachusetts uh storm water management standards. And at the time it was unclear the waiverss from the local bylaws and regs. So they did review it for consistency with the wetland bylaw, wetland rules and regs, storm water bylaw, storm water rules and regs and made comments on on them. And we

034did look at this cover. That's why I brought it up again. Well, and that's at least my concern is the structural integrity between uh where you are there and where it connects to that box covered and goes underneath Waverly Street and then what happens to the water after it goes underneath Waverly. >> Understood. >> Uh and that's what we think, at least what I think. I don't know if the rest of the commissioners believe needs to be reviewed by someone other than someone with my back. >> Would it be acceptable to re-engage Hancock specific for this? >> Not from my perspective. it wouldn't >> they've already reviewed it. Why would why would we have them review it again? >> So, I think just just a question um commissioner um in terms of if there's certain

035questions that Hancock never addressed that this commission wants addressed u because Hancock knows the project fairly intimately in some ways. There may be aspects that Hancock didn't look at this commission may specifically be looking for and that Hancock may be the most suited to gather um answer those questions because they have the background knowledge of of everything else that went up with the site. That's that's just that was that's what was kind of alluding to is whether or not it might be helpful if the commission had questions specifically. Again, great question, great concern. Um, that Hancock may not have thought about that if Hancock is asked about, they might be able to address in a way that's holistic to the project because of their intimate knowledge of the project itself. Just just I'm just putting

036it out there as a thought. It's not necessary if you need a different peer reviewer, that's understandable. That's the commission's purview. I'm just asking if if Hancock may need to be prodded to certain questions that may give you better information. My own opinion is that Hancock should have asked that question to you. I shouldn't have had to ask that question to you and they didn't. And so we're asking for someone to answer that question of the of structural integrity of that section of the drain system. And I would I would prefer it not be Hancock. >> So just just ask for clarification. But you mean the structural integrity of the the covert from that existing catch basin to the connection down the street. >> From the catch basin that you're going to connect to. Yep.

037>> To the next C catch basin which goes into the culvert. Yep. And underneath the street. >> Okay. >> Yeah. That's all part of >> Yeah. It it's there's this inspection, but the civil engineers may not be fully capable. They may involve like camera inspections as well. Um so um if the commission needs that information, the commission is definitely within his rights to request that by um an outside expert. Um and if that information does need to be collected, we just request the commission um move ahead with um engaging with whoever they need to to get the information that they can feel comfortable that they've reviewed um the project um under the wet inspection act. >> Can I ask a question? >> Yes. Go ahead, Jean. You're Mark Arnold. Is that correct? >> Correct. >>

038You're with Goddard. >> Correct. >> You're an environmental scientist or wetland scientist, whatever you want to call yourself. >> I'm a soil scientist. >> Soil scientist. How come you're answering questions about drainage and drainage design and whether or not something is functional? >> That's a great question. >> Why isn't I'll if you if you want Will's Yeah, I'll let Will answer these things. God. >> Hi Will Park, civil professional civil engineer. >> Got it. >> I understand your question the about the >> my question or or the question that we're hearing from >> the structural >> Okay. I'm sorry. >> The structural integrity I think was the term. We understand your question about both the culvert materials its life expectancy um of of this this structure the cul I understand your question >> and so

039you agree that that we can go forward with uh someone to review this >> I personally think that between SMMA and Hancock we can discuss this uh this did come up uh in in the ZBA. The the DPW brought it up, the conservation brought it up. We've addressed it like three times in from three different parties in the ZBA. So, I think we've addressed it. It would be our preference to continue the conversation with Hancock, but I understand if you feel that that rock has been overturned. >> I think I may be wrong, but is Doug Small on this call >> to the commission? Yes, I believe Doug Small is on the call. >> Could you allow him to weigh in on this? >> Yeah, >> because it's really a DPW. >> Yeah, they observed

040it and made the same observations as us that point A connects to point B and it needs to be cleaned out prior to this the project going online. It hasn't, to my knowledge, it hasn't been determined exactly who is cleaning out the pipe. >> I'm not sure that it's a matter of cleaning. It's a matter of checking to see if it's if it can handle the uh >> Hello. >> Hey, this is Doug Small, DPW director. >> Hey, go ahead, Doug. >> Hi. Thank you. Um I don't um looking at all the the peer review and and um all the notes from the ZBA, I haven't seen I haven't come across anything that discusses the culvert and anything that discusses from the actual the catch basin that you're talking about and then the the the

041the pipe that runs parallel to the street that leads to the culvert. Um, I know there were I know early in the process there were discussions about cleaning the catch basin out and inspecting it some more, but beyond that I didn't see anything. I I didn't come across anything and I and I did mention it a couple times to various people. So we we observed twice the the project team observed the the catch basin and the outlet pipe in in question twice. DPW observed it. We discussed it with the DPW and Hancock. >> We are we are matching or even reducing flows to that catch basin. So once it is cleaned out, we we have every reason to believe that it will function perfectly properly. It's a I believe a reinforced concrete pipe well within

042its life expectancy. We haven't observed anything to make us think it won't function perfectly fine, especially after the improvements we're making to the upstream end of it to trap sediment and keep that pipe flowing free for uh moving forward. >> Then you wouldn't mind if we had it inspected independently to confirm what you're >> No, would not object. I Yeah. Okay. Thank you. >> We would have to agree on on the scope of that. >> Agreed. >> Can we agree on that scope now? >> Yeah. To have um an independent inspection. Is that what you you're saying? >> I would like to have a peer review. >> Okay. for the conservation commission of everything including this because the peer review that that we had prior is is really of no help to me to decide

043the outcome of this application. >> I I for one would agree with Carl on that because first of all it was a ZBA's peer review. We had no input into what they looked at or what they what questions they asked or, you know, we had we had no no involvement whatsoever in that process. And since we've now got the application, I've got a lot of questions that I didn't see were even discussed or considered by their their peer reviewer. Well, that's why um that's why I said what I said earlier that we didn't want to get too far into the weeds tonight because we do have a lot of questions. We have a lot to do which is why we've segmented these 40bs into separate hearings from all the other ones. What I would like

044to agree on and we have is that we're going to do that. Two that um we are going to come up for a site visit to confirm the delineation and three that we could do a peer review to uh of our own for the conservation and then we can answer the rest of these questions the more specific questions in subsequent um meetings. >> Understood. Um I am a little confused about why Hancock did a thorough thorough peer review of uh for consistency with the storm water management standards and the local um standards regarding uh you know phosphorus and and nitrogen removal and several other items that we did just uh in good practice. I I'm curious what a second peer reviewer would find in addition to that thorough analysis. >> Well, first of all, we

045submitted >> stamp here. So, why don't I defer to some of the other commissioners to answer that question? >> Okay. Um perhaps we can find some middle ground. Would Hancock could they come to this meeting and answer our questions if they're very familiar with all the topics that we have questions on? >> I think we'd be happy to reach out to our contacts there and see if they'd be happy to re-engage. >> I'm I'm sorry. >> Hancock is not here to to support your project. >> The peer reviewer works for the town. >> Yes. I'm sorry. I misspoke, sir. I'm sorry. I mean, why would they come and do that? >> It >> Sorry. I'm sorry. >> That doesn't make any sense to me. Whatever. I >> I I have not taken a deep dive

046into the design. I will and I will have more questions. Um, and I I do have a lot of questions that get into a lot of detail, but I don't think we want to get into that detail right now. >> Um, >> I I think Jean, what we want to agree on is whether we can get a peer review. >> Yeah, fine. >> Or not. >> I thought that we were almost there with the structural integrity discussion. >> Um, I I guess a second pair of eyes on this. I don't know what the problem with that is. we we we weren't um we weren't happy with the first peer review and it wasn't very helpful to us. So, the fact that we have to make a decision on this that's going to uh impact the

047entire town, we want to make sure we get it right. >> Did you want to speak, sir? >> I did. Thank you. um Israel Lopez on behalf of the applicant. Um uh first of all uh it's it's certainly within the purview of the conservation commission to engage uh a peer reviewer and you know we respect and and support uh whatever the commission uh decides it needs to do on that front. I think uh what we're trying to understand is because I'm I'm hearing a number of conflicting uh messages. On the one hand, I'm hearing that you haven't really reviewed the information uh in the application. You have a lot of questions about it, and on the other hand, I'm hearing that you're not happy with the results um or perhaps the analysis that was done

048uh in the existing Hancock peer review. So, >> I can clarify that, sir. >> Yeah, that would be great. >> Um a couple of myself and and some of the the other commissioners have attended a good many of the ZBA meetings, so we were we were present uh with the um with the discussion but not privy uh directly. Uh so that's the that's the concern of that we weren't particularly pleased with it. However, it wasn't before our uh commission and it has been before our commission this week and that's why a lot of us have been able to to review some of these pictures, review some things in more detail and um uh and visit the site several times and and have questions that we think should be handled by someone that we hire, not

049someone that the ZBA hired. Did that did that clarify it all? >> It did. And I think obviously the project was before the ZBA, not before the conservation commission. As you as you pointed out, >> the peer reviewer that was engaged represented the town. Um, you know, obviously it's the ZBA within the town and not the conservation within the town, but it is representing the town's interest. So presumably Hancock is acting on behalf of the town when it's reviewing the project. We we would you know uh I think as has been mentioned I think our preference would be um that the commission go back and ask Hancock what questions they may you may have uh I think it would be more a more efficient review um for all the reasons that they've been that they've

050stated we have no interest in it could be it could have been Hancock it could have been any firm our we don't have any particular allegiance to Hancock we're just simply trying to facilitate the process in in a way that doesn't, you know, create a lot of of double work. >> Well, it seems to me that that because Hancock has done something, if we hired our own people, they could review the work that Hancock did, which would expedite that part of it, but they could also do the structural integrity part of it. >> And if the and if the and if the board uh would like to do that, if the commission would like to do that, I' I'd be happy uh for that to happen expeditiously. And if the commission wants to agree on

051on another peer reviewer this evening so that that process can can start uh we would we would welcome that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Uh and then on the structural integrity part I think I just want to make some clarify um what is meant by structural integrity. I mean it's the pipe belongs to the town obviously. It's a it's not um on our site. It's within the public right of way. So certainly the town has uh is certainly within its right to go in and and clean out, you know, snake out that that uh clogged pipe and, you know, perform an inspection of the pipe if it chooses to do so. I'm not sure if what was being requested is that our project do that and that it do it now. So that I'm not

052sure what >> was requesting that right now. It's um um we have to find out that you're hooking into a system that we have to make sure is is a good system or we're derelict in doing what we're doing, >> right? >> And so that's what we're asking and what needs to come next we would have to have in a pre in a subsequent discussion from my perspective. So, we're not asking anything right now other than for fresh eyes to um look at what you've proposed. >> Okay. >> Does that work? >> Okay. Yes, it does. So, I think what we've agreed to is a site visit this Sunday. Uh, and beyond that, I guess the board needs to deliberate as to whether it wants to engage another peer reviewer and who that firm is

053going to be >> and then Becca could communicate with you the outcome of that if that works for you. >> Okay, that that work. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. So, um, Mr. Lopez, do you agree with the system that we've set up to have these? We're we're planning uh to have these um hearings for the 40BS separate from the rest of our agenda so that we can >> spend the time that we need to spend on them and they would be on off weeks for us probably. Does that work for you? >> Yes. Does the commission meet? It meets u >> meets every two weeks. >> Every two weeks. >> Um >> if the commission wants to propose dates now that we can consider that would be fine with us.

054>> Why don't we um so we would continue this to a certain uh date? >> It's certain >> 8th December. Well, it has to be date that we're not meeting uh on a regular schedule >> to the commission. Your next two meetings are December 8th and December 22nd. So, your off cycle dates would be December 1st and December 15th. For your dates going into next year, the meeting schedule is on your agenda um at the end of this meeting for discussion and approval. >> December 1st is in two weeks. Yes. >> Monday after >> correct. >> Is there anything that um I guess before we finish too, Becca has a list of a checklist that she'll probably send to you of things that you need to add to your plan. So, you'll need >> Okay.

055>> time to add that to your plan. So, would you rather go for the first or the 15th? The >> the first. That work for you guys? >> Um, I won't be in person. >> Yeah, works for me. Yeah, >> may work for you. >> Yeah, I actually may be in person. >> All right. Well, let's tentatively set that. >> Okay. And just one other uh final question on the de on the site visit and the delineation. And it was I think if I heard the commission correctly, the commission is planning to walk the delineation and and make its determination on the on the delineation. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> To the commission, I'll just add one correction. The commission will not make any determinations at the site visit. They will not be able to

056deliberate with a quorum. Okay? >> They will make their observations and then deliberate at the meeting on December 1st. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. So, do we need a motion then to continue the >> Wait, we have to open it up. >> Oh, okay. That's right. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Sorry, Arty. >> It's all right. All right. Is there anyone uh from the audience either online or in person that would like to uh ask a question or make comments >> to the commission? You have two hands raised online. I saw Jeremy Lechens first. Uh, and I would add the reminder that you guys do have a three minute limit on public comment. >> Okay, is that understood? Okay. Uh, Jeremy, do you would you like to come off mute and uh and speak? >>

057Yes. Thank you very much for the time. My name is Jeremy Leechen. I live on Nikki Terrace, which is a culde-sac off of East Union Street. And I know this this particular hearing is f is focused on the you know for conservation of the area. But I just wanted to go on record in saying that that myself and many many of my neighbors are extremely upset and concerned about this project for a number of reasons. First and foremost safety. Um we already live off a very congested street both ways. And I I can't see how this project isn't going to result in a huge increase in cars on East Union Street. I have two children who are both going to be getting to the high school in in the next eight years. And right now,

058all we have from our street across busy East Union Street is a crosswalk. There's no stoplight. There's no walk don't walk sign. There's no flashing light at the crosswalk. There's nothing. And this is going to significantly increase the number of cars on East Union Street. Uh East Union Street is already congested. And you know, this would make getting into and out of our culde-sac extremely difficult. It already, you know, can take a minute or two waiting for cars to pass to come in and out of our street. And I can only see that this is going to drastically increase that issue. >> Mr. Legend, th this is the wrong hearing for that. Uh we can only do wetland stuff that we have jurisdiction over. Tomorrow night, the ZBA is having, I believe, their final meeting.

059The ZBA is really the one that controls this comprehensive permit. And all the stuff that you're discussing is all legitimate stuff to discuss. It's just that you're at the wrong meeting to do it. It's the ZBA. They meet tomorrow night um at 7 o'clock. >> Okay. I just I received this notice in the mail that this is the first that I heard about this project and this meeting. So, that's that's why I joined this meeting. So, apologies that it is the wrong one. >> Okay. Well, but uh weigh in uh tomorrow evening. >> And if you have any comments about uh you know, water, drainage, anything related to the wetlands, uh we'd love to hear that much as we'd love to hear the other stuff that we can't hear. >> Yeah. No, I I my

060concerns are with with safety and and traffic and, you know, uh just being able to get in and out of my street. Those are those are my concerns. Well, they're major concerns. Yeah, >> but but they're under the oposes of the um zoning board of appeals on this application. >> Understood. I'll I'll come to the meeting tomorrow night. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. I see Mark. Yeah. >> Yes. Sly commission Mark Done is next on. >> Okay. Mark, you're you can come off mute. >> Okay. And um let's see something. First box 119 Main Street and I know that the camera is not working. Okay. Something must have happened with the feed. Okay. My question I got I got two quick questions. Um the one is um how how's the um what's the um

061slope rates on the on the drainage pot? What's the numbers? Mark, we haven't really discussed that yet. Um, this is kind of a preliminary preliminary discussion and we'll be discussing that at subsequent um, meetings. >> Okay, they probably be the same as >> so save that question >> and this probably be a save one too. Um, is there any information about the 100year flood situation? >> That will be at a subsequent hearing as well. >> That's all I got. Thank you. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Thanks, Mark. >> Is there anyone else? Oh, yeah. Here we go. We got someone in in house >> in person. >> Yeah, they're okay. Sure. >> Hi. name and address and >> hi Paul Flareity. I'm the owner of 63 Waverly Street. Um the property, our property is where this

062manhole is located. And um I do have just a couple of things to mention that uh the commissioner keep in mind on Sunday on your walk through is that this time of year normally that wetland is full of water and it's flowing down the stream. But since we've been in a drought for most of this year, uh I believe it's still fairly dry up there. So, I'm not quite sure how you flag it with no water there, but that's not my area of expertise. Um but I just wanted to make sure you keep that in mind on Sunday. Um, the other thing is the the surface retention area that comes off of some of the parking lots. I think the overflow goes towards Waverly Street and into the manhole we've been discussing. Is there a

063reason why that can't go towards the wetland instead rather than putting that much more water into the questionable drainage system that exists there right now? >> I don't know who. >> Yeah, if you want if you can answer that I can answer that. >> Okay. Did >> Did you have any more questions? >> Uh no no I was just wondering if that was >> Mr. Flity. Let me answer your first question first. Um, wetlands are delineated by soil and plants, not by water. >> Okay. >> So, uh, we should be able to be okay. >> Right. Very good. >> You you know what I'm asking, right? >> Yeah. >> So, the the question was, why is the surface infiltration basin discharging to the street connection versus uh the wetland? Um, one is, uh, that that

064basin is just downs slope of the wetland. So, um, we'd have to discharge it. >> The bottom the bottom of the basin is lower in elevation than the wetland itself. Um also we are sending uh I should have said this from the beginning because the site is underllayed with hydraologic soil group A and B soils. Um our hydraology model um when you model a site with A soils it it it says like essentially zero flow is leaving the site in like the 2 10 25 year storms. I know there's been reports from neighbors and towns people that um who observe water leaving the site um in certain areas. Our hydraulic modeling, hydraologic modeling states that it's essentially zero leaving the site now. So our proposed model has to discharge essentially zero CFS in the proposed

065conditions up until like the 25-year storm. So the flows entering this um the system beneath Waverly Street is fractions of a CFS for uh you know the data the the weekly storms. It's uh I think I don't have the I can get the numbers and perhaps next year and I'll I can sh present just on this structure that we've been focusing on. But it's sending like one or two CFS in like the 25ear storm to this to the structures which is why again we're very confident once the sediment is cleaned out that it's going to operate perfectly fine u moving forward. Um, so I think that addressed it is we can't send the the water uphill to the basin. Just how the the elevation of the basin and the wetland work out. And that minor

066connection we're making to the street is not sending a torrent of water down there. It's it's it really is a trickle in in most storms. We're infiltrating, you know, 99% of the storms. my mistake. >> Um the >> right >> the commission I'm just going to remind the public to please come up to the microphone so our people watching at home and online can hear you. So the you're talking about the surface basin, sir? >> Yeah. So the bottom of that basin is essentially level with the wetland. There is a Imagine I'm standing in the basin, you're standing in the wetland. Our feet are at the same elevation. So it's very hard to get to get it to drain kind of uphill. There is a there's a lot of contours there because there's a burm

067right here. So that in the hundredyear storm, you know, it can fill up to knee high or something and then slowly drain back down. Um, but that is we're anticipating that basin is going to be dry 99% of the time. So there's gradient up and then back down to you. That's that's all the gradient that you see there. >> Thank you. So, so are you saying that in a large storm where it's going to be draining out the drain, which is not at the bottom of the basin, partway up the basin, if I'm reading this correctly, but that the wetlands would likely be fairly full, too. So, it couldn't bring into the wetlands. The wetlands would be up at that level as well. >> Uh, no. The the basin is equipped with a lowflow orifice.

068Why is >> I wasn't talking to you. >> I would love to see what it captured. >> Freaking >> I hate >> um >> that point is useful. >> The outlet of that surface infiltration basin is at the bottom. The you can see there is a structure there that appears to be halfway up the b the interior burm. It will have a lowflow orifice that drains it from the bottom. And the the second part of your question, the hydraology in the wetland did not um does not play into what I just described. >> Okay, thank you. >> We can make that more clear. It is. I can see how it's deceptive how that OCS1-2 the outlet control structure does appear that it is up the up the burm um that it the lowflow orifice will

069be down at the bottom of the basin at um 230 or actually it's uh 229 and a half. The reason it more than you need to know, but the reason actually it is important to know the reason it's shown up on the bank is so that again in the burm analogy if there's a big burm going up and down right there we like to have the alo control structure kind of buried into the slope so it's not a big concrete structure standing out in the middle of an open basin. Um so that's the kind of thing we'll we'll detail in the detailed design of the project to make the that um concrete structure as um as least visible as possible. >> Thank you >> to the commission. I have Claudia Bennett online with her hand

070raised. >> Hey Claudia, go ahead. Good evening. Thank you, Claudia Bennett at 9. Snow Way. I just have a process question. If the ZBA is meeting tomorrow night and potentially might close the hearing um for 61 Waverly, how does that work while you folks are still uh navigating through your process? >> Oh, good question. >> That's a great question. Uh the ZBA's process and our process are related but separate. Uh, one of the things the ZBA has to uh decide is whether or not to grant them the waiverss of the local bylaws, including the ones that are normally under our jurisdiction. And uh I think the assumption is that that is likely to happen because that's usually what happens in these 40b projects. Um so on the assumption that that happens uh then our jurisdiction

071would be somewhat limited uh but we still have the state law under our jurisdiction and uh would still be continuing to review and uh grant a permit under the state law which the ZBA has no authority to uh to wave >> to the commission. I will also add that council is on Zoom if there's any procedural questions that you would like them to clarify on. >> Did I get all that right? >> I think you got it right. Preston, >> do you have any followup, Claudia? >> Okay. Oh, we have Jean. Jean Walker. Go ahead, Jean. >> Thank you. >> Jean, you need to unmute. You're muted. >> Okay. I'm Jean Walker on 123 Waverly Street and I'm not in a butter, but I am a neighbor that has been here for 60 years and

072I've seen many things happen over over the years. And one of the things that it repeatedly happens during the uh spring w actually mostly during the winter as it's getting toward the spring there's a water that comes out of the ledge area and goes onto Waverly Street as you you begin just before you begin to turn. And if you're coming going east toward Boston you are not going to see that. You don't see that until it until you're almost on top of it. And and it certainly is a concern uh for that. I know we're not talking about that, but it is it is a concern of accident happening when that water is all frozen and it happens like quickly. You might go by it 10 minutes later there there it is frozen. So, it's

073it just I think especially where the driveway is so close to that area, I think it really is a real a real hazard to people. And I guess my question would be what the first death that occurs there, I'm sure that will happen the way it's set up now. Who was responsible for that? Is that the contractor? Is that the town? Who who is responsible for that? That's that's all I have to say at the moment. >> Okay. Jean, this is Carl. Um, we are aware of that, at least some of us are aware of that the A, if we've lived in town for any length of time and B, if we've been to the ZBA meetings because it's been brought up numerous times at the ZBA meeting. We're not really talking specifics at this

074meeting. We probably will start at the next meeting, but I'm sure that that will come up in in the discussion. And I did bring I did bring that up once what before when I was at a meeting and nobody was particularly interested in it. >> Well, it it it's part of our jurisdiction. So, >> yeah. Yeah, I know. I thought maybe because it was it involved the the storm water uh leaking out there that it might be under your purview. >> Yeah. And you're right. >> So, we will discuss that eventually. >> Okay. >> This evening. You're welcome. Claudia, did you have another question? I see your hand is still up. Or is that just your hand being up from the first question? >> Ah, there we go. I I I know I had muted

075myself again and then I was locked out from unmuting. Um, I did have a follow-up question. So um in terms of the uh ZBA now then if they have the ability to um respond to that particular waiver, do they reach out to you folks before that they respond to the uh local waiver? >> We sent them an extensive letter uh discussing the the waiverss that were requested and uh our recommendations concerning those. >> Okay. Thank you. whether they've gotten back to us uh is your question I believe and um that that's maybe it's a better question for council than for us to answer if he wants to weigh in. >> Yeah. And to the chair I'm happy to chime in on that. This is Brian Wy from Me Towerman and Costa. Can you hear me?

076Okay. >> Yeah. No, I just wanted to add that um we've been in in regular communication lately with your agent um who has suggested some conditions and um some uh material to add into the zoning board's draft decision um which has been considered and incorporated. that draft decision now exists and it's been circulated to the zoning board member uh membership and um uh I believe it's also been circulated to your agent for further review and comment and so we are in communication uh well I shouldn't say we the ZBA is in communication and um we have those materials we have those letters uh and they've been reviewed and incorporated and the draft has been circulated so we hope as they continue that process that communication will remain ongoing. >> Thank you. >> Is there anyone

077else in the general public? Oh, here we go. Yeah, sure. Name and address, please. >> Uh, Johnson, Roberts Road, Ashley. Um, I just getting back to the vernal pool uh drainage. There's all the parking spaces like in a snowstorm is some of the uh snow get pushed over towards the vernal pool because I'm just wondering about like the salt and would that contaminate the vernal pool area or is the um snow pushed somewhere else on the site. I know there's like 396 parking spaces so it's like all around. So, just wondering how the snow with all the salt and everything, would that go into the vernal pools? >> I I think that's um one of the things that's actually missing on the plan is where the snow storage is. So, we will have that discussion.

078>> So, um but bring it up again if you don't hear the answer to it at subsequent meeting. >> Can I can I address that? >> Sure, you can address it. Yes. Um, snow storage actually was addressed um during the peerreview process with the ZBA. Um, and those snow storage areas are shown on C121 layout and materials. Um, there's several, it's a diagonal hatched area around the perimeter of the site. um labeled snow storage area and there's snow storage si specialty signage as well. And also part of the ZBA peer review. Um, and I believe this was a part of the con one of the conservation letters was a request to have uh fencing along the edge of parking um in between the parking and the wetland to prevent snow uh storage in the buffer

079zone and accumulation of trash that may you know blow blow out of the cars onto the parking lot over the bank and towards the wetland. So, um we have the design does take that into consideration uh with both um fencing, designated snow areas and signage. >> So, you're saying that the hatched areas and those parking spaces that's going to be used as snow storage? Yes, that is consistent with current um best practices uh from the state where they actually encourage it to be on paved areas so that upon snow melt it can melt into the storm water treatment um system to be treated and detained versus the traditional method that most of us are used to which is piling it in lawn areas. the pollutants can damage the lawn and infiltrate into into the groundwater.

080Um so that is actually discouraged uh these days. >> How does it affect your um parking capacity? >> Uh that was discussed with the peer both um the civil peer reviewer and the transportation peer reviewer during ZBA. Um I mentioned before that the project requested a waiver of the 2.0 0 spaces per unit and we're down to 1.75. Uh the project team actually believes that number is still high compared to market demand, especially with you'll see all the other um specialty parking areas for ride shares um and delivery. Uh there's a term for it. It's like short-term parking or something. Um turnover parking, I believe. Um we we believe that the site dem supply and demand can accept uh the spaces that have been identified to be lost for periods over the winter. >> Okay,

081thank you >> Greg. This is Jean. Just uh yes, Jean. >> Follow up on that. follow up on that that may be a little getting into the weeds a little bit more, but what happens if somebody's parked in that space or in those spaces and now you don't have a a a storage area? Uh that that good question uh sir that that gets into kind of site operations um where you know the on-site property management will just need to convey to um the residents and their guests. And as I mentioned sir there there is signage that will say um snow storage area and it'll be discouraged to park there. And I I don't want to get in I'm speculating here, but I imagine they'll know whose cars belong to who. And if there's someone parking

082there routinely in the winter, they can say, "Hi, hey, do you mind, you know, avoiding this area um during, you know, we have a snowstorm coming up or something?" And they can communicate. These these sites are pretty well well operated. Um they know who who's who's parking where. >> Been a dream world. Okay, >> I see uh we have Joan online with her hand up. Would you like to come off mute and u speak? >> Um yes, I just have um clarification for um I think it's two questions ago now. Um, but I believe um, am I correct that the ZBA has already closed the hearing for 61 Waly and I was wondering how that I I I kind of understood what you said about it it's now come to the come to the concomba

083approves the project and the concom hasn't finished their process how does that work >> to the commission. Would you like me to check on that? >> Yeah, Brian, go ahead. >> Certainly. So, the public hearing portion of the DBA's process is closed, but they have 40 days to deliberate and render a written decision. So, that's the part I was referring to earlier about getting the conditions right and and vetting them with their their peer reviewers and the professional staff within town hall. If that process ends because it can't take any new evidence at this point uh and the project is changed through the conservation commission's public hearing then the applicant depending on the nature of that change may have to seek a modification from the ZBA um and file an application and have that considered

084by the ZBA sometime in the future. Um we're speculating a little bit because I don't know what those changes might be or if they'll even happen. Um, but there is a process under the 4DB regulations where if changes are made after the decision issues, the applicant can go back to the ZBA and try to reconcile those two plans. >> Okay. And second part of my question, um, thank you for that. I appreciate it. Is, um, did they I I have not read the waiverss on this project. Have they waved the local, um, con conservation bylaws? Again to the chair, would you like me to try to answer that? >> Yes, please. >> So, the the zoning board took uh a straw poll preliminary vote on the waivers. Um waivers um for the most part were

085were uh approved but approved with conditions. So, it's not a blanket waiver generally speaking. So, this is a good example with respect to the wetlands bylaw and vernal pools. we can approve that waiver request or the CBA can approve that waiver request um on two conditions. One only to the extent necessary to construct the project and then two subject to certain mitigation conditions which are the kinds of things you might see this commission grant with respect to protection of a verbal pool. So, uh, some of those conditions that would normally go in an order of conditions by this conservation commission, um, because the zoning board is acting as the local authority with respect to the bylaw consideration, those conditions have found their way into the draft comprehensive permit that's now under consideration by the zoning

086board. >> Thank you. Um I just so just to I'm still I I apologize but so one of the waiverss does request a waiver of the local zoning bylaws. Is that is that true? >> Zoning bylaws many of them. Yes. But and also the local wetlands bylaw. >> That's what I meant. Thank you. So thank you. Okay. >> Yes. Yes. Okay. Thanks. Lopez speak. >> I did. Thank you. Um I just wanted to suggest make a recommendation to the conservation commission with respect to the uh delineation um at the site. We were actually expecting that the commission uh would engage a third party peer reviewer to walk the delineation and confirm the delineation by Goddard, which is what we've, you know, quite frankly typically seen uh most towns do. And so, um, we we we

087would recommend that if the commission wanted to have a third party peer reviewer that the commission selects, um, to be present, uh, I don't know if we can get someone by this Sunday. That seems like, you know, fairly short notice, but, um, perhaps. I don't know whether you know that'd be feasible or not but I guess we think that would be helpful in aiding the commission um to have a third party you know independent peer reviewer uh sort of check the delineation that uh that we've provided. >> I don't have a problem with that other than the fact that it's not our usual practice. >> Okay. We have uh wetland scientists on the conservation commission. Um and >> what's that? >> Well, what do you >> Well, typically Yeah, that's right. we go out and

088we'll we'll either confirm or sort of change some delineation flags that we don't agree with. And past we've come in with we can't agree, we'll hire a third person to come in and confirm or deny or give us a >> Yeah. >> better delineation. >> Yeah. Okay. And um new new for me because most and I've been in front of many many commissions and typically there's always a third party peer reviewer. But if that's the way that this commission handles it then that's >> why don't we do this? We'll go out and and do it ourselves and if there's a conflict we'll get a third >> okay resolve it. >> Great. I just wanted to offer that up. Um and then lastly, if we could perhaps def define the scope of the peer review for

089storm water, if that is in fact uh what the commission would like to do, I think it'd be great to you know define that uh scope so that you know we can move um we can sort of understand what that scope is going to be and uh work through that. And it's not clear if the commission has decided to do that. I guess I'm just trying to get more clarification on that. >> Has the commission decided to prefer? >> Yeah. To get a an independent reviewer. Yeah. >> Okay. So, we you want ahead. >> We'd have to find somebody see if what their availability is. if they get a vote from them. >> Okay. And is that something that um we can have done between now and the next hearing that the commission can engage

090someone and provide the materials? >> We should. >> Yeah. >> I think it's um we would have to discuss the the general scope because we're talking about peer review as well as structural review. And so um you know we have to see who actually can do that. I think the fact that you've already had it peer reviewed uh as far as the um performance standards and things like that should expedite that part of the review. uh but we just want to include the structural review and so we would have to ask somebody that's qualified to do that and right now we don't know who that might be to the commission to clarify for our notes. It sounds like you were looking for a review of the regulations under the wetlands protection act and associated regulations.

091A review of the overall storm water design and how the storm water regulations are being met in a structural integrity analysis of the culvert being connected into and the associated connections as needed to confirm the capacity of that culvert to accept the proposed connection. Is that have I summarized that right? >> I'm sure Mr. Lopez heard what you said, >> but um >> I can send the notes to you or I can read it out again. >> Well, you were right. The civil engineer to confirm the integrity and capacity of the culprit. >> Great. >> I think just also for the record, I think we would want to tie the DPW into that analysis at least for this the structural aspect of the town's infrastructure. Great. >> Okay. Thank you. That's all I had. >>

092Okay. >> Anyone else in the uh audience? Any other questions or comments from the commission? >> I'll make a motion to continue this hearing to what was the date that we read on? >> December 1st at 7 o'clock. Second. >> Roll call vote. >> I pro I >> Molton I. >> Juan's eye. Motion passes and this hearing is continued until December 1st at 7:05 p.m. >> All right. >> Okay. Thank you. >> We'll see see some of you in the field. I'm >> probably glad it was only a preliminary hearing. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And then just to confirm, we're on for Sunday at 8 o'clock. >> This Sunday, 8 o'clock a.m. >> Okay. Bummer. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Okay, next on the agenda, we have notice of intent 90 Waverly Street, map 10, parcel 70,

093Victor Mario, D file number 95-103. And this hearing was continued from our last meeting. And let's see, do you have we have representation? Very good. All right. >> Yep. Dan Shin with Haley Ward um here representing Victor Moro, the applicant. Um I have a little bit of old school stuff, old tech. Um, if there's more clarity needed for uh the video watchers, I should say. I do see some extra flash drives here. I have my computer. I can grab that if it's needed, but by all means, I'll I'll at least get started, explain kind of the changes. It's been a long time since we've kind of seen this project, at least from my involvement. So, I'll give you kind of the changes overall, and then kind of get into more of the weeds there. >>

094All right. Very good. Yeah. Thanks for refreshing our memory >> to the commission. while they set up for the benefit of those on Zoom, I will share the screen of the plan and try to follow along with what they're pointing at with the laser pointer. >> Thank you, Becca. >> Try to do both here. I see we have some new tech hiding over here as well. So, it's been a while. So to give you a little bit of a refresher here, um again this is a single family home um designated right if I can find where this lands >> rats. Um so the single family home pretty much on the southern side of the plan set at least where you're looking at. Thank you, Becca. Um and then this is essentially going to be a

095septic system that's kind of shown with the little chambers there. Yep. Um and then you have a this long drive that kind of comes down right off of Waverly Street down the side here. Um since then we've kind of added some additional changes um to the you know general storm water management of the site. I know based on some of the previous conversations we've had there was some concerns about you know water essentially ripping down off of Waverly Street down the driveway and over topping the retaining the wall. Again this is a pretty significant size retaining wall. Um I think the peak of it is I I believe 13 ft if my memory serves correctly. Um but the changes for the um drainage infrastructure what we've decided to do is we added that keystone diaphragm

096kind of showing that dark hatching right on the northern side of the driveway itself. Um we also provided a swale that kind of runs down on the other side of that as well with some check dams just to kind of you know alleviate some sort of sediment and then dumps down right at the corner of the driveway. Perfect. Thank you very much. back. That's like a little one foot sump um stone uh for lack better term just dam if you will. It's it's going to have some reservoir space underneath it to kind of allow sediment to kind of settle out uh rather than being spilled out. Gives it a little bit extra filtration and then from there there's actually a connection to the wall itself. You'll have those um for lack of a better term

097those under drains um sitting behind that wall and then we'll have some wee poles coming out the sides. Um, I don't want to speak for the commission, but Victor has kind of informed me some of your guys's concerns. So, I'll try to play the telephone game and then if I, you know, misunderstood anything from our conversations, please just feel free to correct me. Um, so it's my understanding that I believe there's some concerns with erosion. Um, I'm not necessarily sure if it's about water going over the wall or if water coming out of the pipes. Either way, if it's coming over the wall, there is a construction detail that we show that actually has like a one foot um stone diaphragm at the face of the wall. Uh let's see if I can find it

098there for you, Becca. Um it's actually looks like it's in plan view if you go up a little to the left. Plan. Perfect. And a little bit more uh up if you could just so we can kind of see that leader. Beautiful. So again there. So what you're kind of seeing is that rectangle that's in all those rocks there. That's essentially the bottom of the sump itself. Um where water will kind of sit there, get retained, get some sedimentation. And then on the other side of the wall on the front of it, you have essentially think of it like like a drip edge that you would see for roof runoff that doesn't have like gutter systems on it just to kind of also assist with that. Um so I would, you know, foresee that if

099water's coming out of these pipes, it wouldn't be coming out, you know, extreme velocities or scouring velocities coming out of it. it would all kind of drip down onto this um foot of uh rocks on the face of the wall. That was kind of my understanding of the major concern. So, I'll kind of flip it back to you guys and answer any questions you guys may have from there. >> So, water will be going over that wall at that point >> possible. I I only I only say it that way because ideally in a perfect world, right, the the swale should capture a lot of that runoff, okay? >> And kind of duh bring it down to that um stone sump. There's essentially a hydraulic connection between that stone sump and essentially that back or

100that rock back fill if you will behind the wall. Okay. That'll kind of allow water slowly filter out in extreme storm events. I think that's a fair uh assumption. You're saying so that there's a 13 ft of stone behind the wall that will filter the water, allow it to filter down, then go out. We holes the bottom of the >> Exactly. I'm I'm not a wall designer, so I will defer to the the structural, but general practice is is you have like some crushed stone essentially behind that wall as well as like drainage pipes. And the reason for that is twofold. one, if water is sitting behind that wall, you don't want so much water building up that you kind of get an over topping. So those weed holes are kind of designed to allow

101that water some release kind of coming down to keep coming out. But um with the design that we kind of have here, it's essentially that that sump kind of sit in the bottom. You have a little bit of a hydraulic connection between that stone uh or presumed stone out fill that you'll have and then bleed out. I say assume because ideally because of the size of this wall as as I'm just a civil engineer, structural integrity is going to be more important um than anything. It's can be done in a bunch of different ways. You could have like morphy fabric or I shouldn't say that but more of like geoteexile grid coming out behind it to kind of give it some structural integrity. But again, most general walls have that rock backing to kind of

102allow for that same kind of purpose. And you're not expecting any flow to go over the wall. >> Yeah. Because you're going to essentially have like those little like stone caps sitting on the top of it. So maybe have like a quarter of an inch, you know, before like finish grade, if you will, to that wall as well. And again, because of the size of this, it would also have to follow suit with all sorts of building codes as well. I know I think when you're over four feet, you need a fence and stuff of that nature. So that would obviously be in the wall design itself. >> And there's concern that you have a one inch rainfall and an hour or two that over top and concerned that the stone you have at the

103base of the wall >> is going to be sufficient to handle that and disperse the energy so it won't erode away base of the wall. That I think that's our biggest concern. That's a pretty significant wall that is not going to get road and underneath and now you compromise. >> No, absolutely. So I >> house and property. >> Absolutely. And just to make sure I'm on the same page with you. So more of the concern is the water falling over the top of the wall and that essentially the gravity pulling it down hitting pretty much right at the base of the wall and underlining you know potentially structural fill if you will for lack of a better term. >> Okay. I I personally I wouldn't foresee something like that being as a a major concern.

104the swale itself and the piston diaphragm. The peace diaphragm will kind of intercept a lot of the water that's coming off the impervious surface which was going to be your most runoff generation during those kind of storm events. So you kind of have a little bit of dissipation as well and you'll also have like those um check dams in the soil that also trying to slow it down before it all gets to that sump. Um but great point. I think, you know, personally, um, my my concern would be is if you had like something that's very sizable that was holding water behind that wall because then you would have more of like a a head situation pushing water through those pipes. Um, so to me, I would see this as kind of like the maximum

105extent practical kind of situation for this specific site. Um, just because everything is, you know, very tight. But great question, William. Thank you. >> I have a question. Um, and it really doesn't have to do with your site. It has to do with the impact of the previous applicant on your site. Um, the on your um plan here um how far is the house from the uh your property line? >> Oh, that is a great question. Um, let me just try to do some check here. You guys are very prepared. I appreciate that. Thank you. So, let's see here. >> So, I apologize. I'm not trying to intrude, but to answer your questions, about 124 feet from that uh plane view here would be the south easterly corner of the house to the property line.

106>> 124 ft. Is that >> correct? Correct. >> What I wanted Mr. Moro to understand is what was going on at the previous uh >> hearing because he hadn't heard that yet. And the water that's coming under Waverly Street is not uh it's not coming onto his property, coming onto the neighbor's property, but it's also it there were two different manholes there. Correct. One has the culbert in it, one is further up the road. They both empty out. One is very close to Mr. Maro's property, one a little further away, but they both have serious scouring going down that hill. And so my concern is if if the increase in volume coming through those pipes, does does that erode does that erosion go onto your property and does it impact the structural integrity of the

107wall that's behind your house? And that that's I just wanted you guys to be aware of that issue. No, >> because it's something I think that we're going to have to address when we when we uh >> when we deliberate the next time. Where's this water going? >> Yeah. >> And is it causing significant erosion on the other side of the street, which is maybe your property? Definitely your neighbor's property. >> Correct. So, Victor did also bring this up to me, so I did come a little prepared. I did pull through some of their documentation. again did a very brief overview just trying to get a good sense of like um volume in flow rates. Um so what I'll at least share with you here is on the 100red-year storm event that they had in

108their hydroad report DP1 which is everything that kind of discharges to the you know existing catch basin if you will into the existing drainage infrastructure on Wavely Street was 2.71 cfs. Um, so you know, in aspect-wise, it's not a whole lot of flow coming through it. Um, to the point of compromising, I think with those flow rates, I wouldn't anticipate any significant compromise, especially coming out of the covert um, that comes off that catch basin right off the street. I get what you're saying. It makes complete sense to me because that that pipe is set up from the road pretty pretty high. Um, so when you're kind of looking at it from, you know, ground view, if you will, let's say wetland side, it is kind of up there. Um there is like a an

109existing for lack of a better term some like stone sitting there and there's a lot of like disturbance. So I do understand that like you're saying that all existing scouring conditions. Um but everything should still want to flow kind of towards the back right by the uh the train rail there if you will. But that it's a pretty significant wetland. So I wouldn't I wouldn't anticipate that kind of situation. I think the concern that I would have in that situation, for example, additional flow rates is if it was on the upgradient side of the wall and was kind of pushing a lot of that flow to the wall itself. But everything that at least that I could see is pushing behind the wall. So the only way you could have like a an a situation,

110for example, that you could have a compromise is if the water got very saturated, the ground was very saturated, the base of the wall, that could be an issue. Um, but again, normally with walls of that size, they have like sacrificial blocks essentially buried underneath it as well as like a little leveling pad to kind of just allow for that. Um, so again, great questions. Um, more of a structural question for the wall and I think that would should be considered absolutely. Um, but when it comes from the site's perspective, I wouldn't anticipate these flow rates that at least they portrayed in their hydrocad report um that have some significant impact to the walls integrity. Again, mainly because it's downgrading and not upgrading. If it was upgrading, I think we'd be singing a completely different

111tune. But that's a great point, Carl. I do appreciate that. When Victor brought to my attention, I was like, "Oh, I'll make sure I kind of, you know, read into this a little bit without getting too involved in the weeds because again, it's a different project and things of that nature." But >> okay, >> great point. >> Yeah. >> To the commission too, I'll just clarify for the audience. Uh what I have shown on the screen right now is a map that uh Sophia put together. It shows the approximated line from the catch basin being tied into for 61 Waverly. It goes down the road. This is 67 Waverly Street for reference. It connects to a catch basin there. underneath that catch basin there's within the catch basin there is a divide um there's an

112upper portion and a lower portion the lower portion goes directly into the culver under the road that culvert in the connection in the road between the catch basins is in the lower portion there's also another connection in the lower portion um of what's listed here as a drainage swale it's the outlet for the wetlands on 61 Waverly Okay. >> And it crosses to 68 Waverly um with an outlet facing 90 Waverly >> which on the if I can get the map to comply with me here um on these plans here and I don't know why it's asking if I want an AI assistant but roughly where the TN assistant is um but closer to the road in this area is where the outlet would be with a channel coming into the wetlands here there's a

113separate catch basin in the road here which is taking water from the northerly part of Waverly Street which also outlets to the wetlands in this area and and can create some channeling through the wetlands. So there's two outlets into that wetlands there. Those, as was stated, head in a I guess that's a westerly direction, northwesterly direction towards the rear of the property towards the MBTA tracks, which has a series of different culverts and drain pipes in various stages of repair or disrepair um that eventually go under the railroad tracks and into the sudbury. Thanks for the care clarification, Becca. I appreciate that. >> Thank you. >> Any any other questions? >> I just wonder, has this been before the planning board? >> No. >> Um, will it need to for the amount of fill that's

114being added? >> That's a great question. Um, so my understanding based on the regulation that you guys have, yes. um based on land disturbance as well. Um so it should go before the uh planning board itself. Um so you are you are correct on that. >> Okay. But you're going through this process first. >> Correct. Um give you a little order procedures here. So what we had originally tried to do is go through border of health first. Um just get you know because unfortunately this whole site is contingent upon two things. The septic system itself and the wetlands. Um, so it made sense to approach both of you guys first, kind of essentially get your blessing and your input as well cuz things moving around. Um, for this site there's really not much room to

115do so. >> Anyone else? >> Yeah, Greg, I have a question. >> Go ahead. >> Um, Becca, can you bring up the drawing again? You you you said that you're not a structural engineer, >> correct? >> Is this and this wall is yet it's going to be 13 feet tall apparently. Is this going to be designed by a structural engineer? >> Absolutely. >> Okay. So, has it been designed? >> No, it has not. I know Victor himself is a structural. I would defer to him on that one. >> Okay. When when you mentioned earlier that uh it might have geog grid, I think it for a wall that high, I think it has to have geog grid. I I can't see how you would build. And this is a modular block wall, correct? >> Yes.

116>> Yeah. So if you didn't have a geog grid in there, the thing would just fall over just from the weight behind it. >> Abs. Absolutely. I'm in complete agreement with you, Jean. And again, not a structural engineer, but based on just wall construction that I have seen, absolutely. That's your typical standard procedure. But I'll actually hand it over to Victor to kind of answer some of those questions here as well. >> Well, one of my concerns was one of the problems with a wall and a wall of this type is when you get water behind it, which is why you have to have we poles and so forth. If you're actually introducing storm water to the backside of the wall, you're probably creating the worst condition that you could because you're actually bringing it

117in when in fact you really don't want water behind the wall. And that was my concern is is this the amount of storm water coming down the hill along the driveway and so forth going into this uh I don't know what you would call that the the rip wrap area right there >> uh and even coming down the diaphragm because that's essentially an infiltration feature that's going to be infiltrating groundwater or water surface water all the way along contributing to the volume of water behind the wall. Uh it it seems to me like and that's why my concern was you know are we are we creating a circumstance here where this wall is going to fail just because we're putting so much water behind it. >> Absolutely. I I totally understand the question here. I

118and it's it's a difficult task for this site mainly just because of the size of the site and the usable area. Um so I agree totally agree with you on that. you know, you normally in normal circumstances, you wouldn't want to introduce anymore, which is why you typically don't want to have a hydraulic connection between that, you know, free draining stone behind the wall as well as this little um, for lack of a better term, just sump, if you will. Um, >> right. >> I'm just trying that. >> Go ahead. >> That was my concern. That was my concern that we're creating a situation that's designed to fail rather than to survive. And I mean the last thing we you're right up against our no disturb zone >> not that far away from the wetland.

119We don't want this wall to fail obviously. >> In a complete agreement with you there. I mean so when we talk about the storm water side of it the thing that I could at least recommend I mean we could utilize like uh like a clay dam or something in between the two to kind of slow that. Um so there therefore what kind of happens is that sump truly acts as just a sump. builds up a little bit of water and things kind of spill over um during those you know high storm events or when the volume is honestly um chewed up which would be pretty quickly. Um so that you could separate that kind of hydraulic connection that way. Um the other way could be like with an impervious liner as well for that. I

120think both are fine fine options. Um I think just the it just it's a little bit tricky because you don't have much room for storage and then you also kind of want to get it get it away. So my concern would be and again catch 22. It's a double-edged sword here. So bear with me as I kind of try to navigate it. But the the concern would be is that if you if you have, you know, not enough volume to kind of at least hold some of that water to Will's point is then you're eventually going to have water just spilling over the top of this. Um similarly in like a you know the less frequent storm events where you have much less runoff. The plus that you could get out of this is you

121have a little bit of water constantly kind of bleeding through rather than, you know, utilizing all that volume all at once. Um, for structural integrity purposes on that side of it, I'm with you. Yeah, you wouldn't want to normally introduce any any any runoff. I just think for the the amount that I would anticipate, I wouldn't expect it to be that way. But again, I I'll defer to to Victor on that as a structural guy of what's what's the best, you know, course of action for this site. It's just very tight. If I the other thing I know we had talked about in the previous meetings as well just to kind of you know elaborate on that is there was a lot of concerns about groundwater recharge and things of that nature and for this

122site there's really just not too much room to do that. If you were to put like uh your typical coldtech chamber system, I could see a very similar situation like Jean's kind of getting at here as well is now you have more volume being held above this wall and you're trying to promote it to, you know, into the ground, but then that eventually builds up against the wall until you have that, you know, free draining stone to kind of take care of that and and send it out. So it's like a I guess in my mind I see it as groundwater recharge for this site because it's so high up is is not very practical um for two reasons. One the location and two just the the height of this wall and actual usable upland

123area if you will. Um but I think this approach that we've kind of tried to take here helps in in some aspects of your typical storm water standards but not all of them. And I think the biggest thing here with this one is trying to allow runoff to safely get off this wall, get off this upgraded area in a in a practical manner. Um, but Jean, you're absolutely right. I think that's a that's a great point. So I I will defer to to Victor on the structural side of it. But if there's any um I guess water related questions because it seems like the little disconnect here is Victor's very good with the wall stuff, not very good with the you know storm water side of it and I'm vice versa. So if there's anything

124we can focus on for the storm water side, be more than happy to. Um, if it's going to be structural related, I I will be kind of handing off to Victor here. I But I I do agree. I think what Jean's kind of getting at is it's this problem requires both. And he's absolutely right. >> Did rather than just bringing it to the wall and then letting it run down, I'm assuming it's intended to run down the back of the wall and come out the wee holes in the at the bottom. Did you consider like a structural element to bring the water down directly to the bottom and then outlet it through the wall through a like a pipe like a uh a catch basin system say with a with an outlet uh port through

125the wall so that you you're not even bringing that water into into contact with the soil behind it >> was not considered for this um typically wouldn't do that for a single family home but to your point for this specific site It does kind of make sense, but it would be a significant cost by all means because I mean to that point is >> if it were going to try to utilize as a catch basin, right, you'd still want that 4 foot sump so that way you don't discharge a bunch of dirty water out into the wetland because you don't want that either, right? >> Um, >> right. >> But it's it's tough. I I I do like the input. I think that makes sense. Um, but then again, the only thing I could just

126think of is being so close to the uh no disturb as well. you'd have to try to think about like a rip wrap pad for something like that because you're going to be, you know, I I guess pro promoting that kind of flow out and through. The plus you get out of the outlet controlled structure or catch base or whatever you want to call it here is that you get a lot of that velocity removed within the structure from the storm. So, it kind of splashes against the concrete. You're not worried too much about uh scouring erosion from that side, but now it's just that conveyance out. Um, so >> great great point. I I I'm I'm all eyes all ears. I'd be more than happy to kind of look into something like that. Um,

127I could just I just think, you know, significant amount of uh work would be needed to do that. Not only for just, you know, the structure itself, but also installing it for a wall that size. I don't know what size pipe might make the most sense to kind of go through it because if it's a mod block wall, I imagine you wouldn't want to go between the joints of these structures kind of coming up. You kind of want to keep it isolated. Um, but again, I'd defer to Victor on that, but if there's anything else, I'd be more than happy to answer. >> Well, I mean, it's a it's a tough site to begin with, and you say it's going to be expensive. >> Well, you're putting in a pretty big wall, that's going to

128be expensive. You're bringing in a crapload of fill, that's going to be expensive. Absolutely. >> You're your development cost is already through the roof on a for a single family house. So, what's a little more? No, >> good point. Good point. You're absolutely right. All right, I'm done. >> Anyone else? Yeah, go ahead. >> Uh, do we need a engineering peer review of how the water interacts with the wall? >> This planning board thing or planning board? >> I I don't know. >> Yeah. Um, I I have some concern. I was going to ask some questions about how this wall would stand up to repeated freeze thaw cycles if that would move the wall. Um, >> yeah. >> Well, the benefit benefit of a modular block wall is that it's flexible. >> Yeah. I I

129get that. If it's heavy enough, it would withstand um the hydraulic forces of freezing and thawing over and over again. >> Yeah. If the wall fails, it's a major impact to the resource area. Yeah. >> So, it is jurisdictional >> to the commission. Uh, I will add because of the height of the wall, it will require a permit from our building department and will also be reviewed by the building inspector. Um, I'm not sure if the applicant has spoken to the building inspector yet about the design. Um, I know he is aware of it and he has expressed some concerns about the water flowing over the wall. Um, so that will also be reviewed by the building department as well. Could we we approve what we definitely have jurisdiction for subject to review by police?

130>> Sure. Could we review uh and approve what we have jurisdiction over subject to uh review by the planning board and the um building inspector with regard to the wall? Because we're speculating a little bit here. I mean, if we speculated on everything that might fail on one of these developments and how it would impact a wetland, we'd be reviewing everything in the town. uh to the commission, you could do that. Um if the building inspector or the planning board did require any changes in the design, um with this being an order of conditions, the applicant would have to reopen the hearing and come back to you for an amendment um or at minimum a minor modification under your minor modification policy as well. >> When do you plan on going to the planning board?

131as we finish this one. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I don't know the planning board is covering the structure of the wall though. It's just for the >> whoever whoever is got jurisdiction over the wall. Where are you going to them? And can we put this on hold as far as what we definitely have jurisdiction over contingent on what they say about this wall? Is that would that be something that's >> so if they approve the temping final device? >> Well, the only thing that seems to be a hangup here is is the wall. So, as far as I can tell, >> the thing is that we're going to go after the next design. I don't know how long you guys wait to get to that point because it's not feasible to go for a whole

132structure design based on wall >> and you talking about approving an order of condition closing hearing and proving an order of conditions. >> No. And then they would be required, as Becca has said, if there was any changes to the design, they would have to come back. >> That's not what I'm what I'm suggesting is that we table it if there are no more questions until we get a ruling from the buildings >> and then you would have to come back to us and we'd say, "Okay, he said it was fine." >> Okay. Yeah. So that how long you guys are waiting to wait? Well, We've already waited a couple of years, so I don't think it's problematic. >> It's uh it's it's more of a matter of how um how long you're willing to

133wait. >> I mean, as long as we getting approval after approval, we >> Well, right now it seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, we're talking about the wall. We're not talking about and and we're speculating on what happens if the wall fails. Other than that, I think we've covered everything. >> So, if you can get some kind of a a definitive answer on the integrity of the structural integrity of the wall from the building inspector that that the conservation commission is is uh okay with, then we can vote uh on the notice of intent. Does that work? >> Makes sense to me. I mean, is like I think the the point here is kind of this it's victory. There's really two options here. There's the option of getting it over for conditions,

134getting it approved if the commission is willing to. If that is the case, you'll still have to come before the commission again to try to eliminate that kind of um constant repetition, if you will. Carl's point is let's just hold off on everything till we have all the answers and then have this commission make a decision. I think I think both um avenues are fine. Um so, Victor, I mean, whatever you whatever which one you would prefer. >> Yeah, we can do that. We can I can come back later. >> So, we'll go with your plan, Carl. We'll table this and then we can kind of go from there when we have more definitive answers from everybody else. >> So, we need a vote. >> We had to open up the public. >> Well, we

135need to continue to a date certain. We can't just table it in depth, >> but we have to open up to the public first. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Just to be clear, so we're we're going to see um a detailed engineering plan of of a wall that highly um likely to withstand Yeah. the vigors of being 13t tall and water and all that. Yeah. >> Okay. So, just for the the record, yes, according to Victor, what he's saying here, because he doesn't have the microphone, you guys will be receiving a full design build out for the wall to make things a bit more clear. >> Okay. All right. >> Good. >> Sounds good. Okay. I'll open up to the public. Sure. Why don't you >> Johnson Roberts Road I'm right down the street. Um I

136was just a comment. I'm no engineer, but have you ever considered stilts >> with It seems like the wall would be very expensive and the fill and everything. I don't know when you you know down on the uh coastline a lot of houses are mean you know >> just just a thought. All right. Well, thank you for that. >> And if I will, Chair, uh through you, of course, thought about it in in certain instances. Uh for this site, uh the only hiccup would just be the septic system itself. You do need to have a significant amount of fill just to make sure you don't have too much leeching going out, especially due to the proximity of the wetland. That would be my concern with with something like that. But by all means, great approach.

137I like it. I >> I don't think that would work for the driveway either. >> Good point. Okay. Um, so we have enough information. >> What's the earliest date that you might want to come back? >> Can we push like two months? I'll have to do some homework on that. I'll try to see what I can do. >> What? What' you say? A month >> for two months. >> Two months. >> To the commission. you don't have your schedule out for next year until you vote to approve the schedule on the end of your agenda. You could either continue this to your December 22nd meeting and continue it again the the month or two from there or you could continue this until the end of your meeting to re open the hearing at the end

138of the meeting and then continue it out after you have voted on your new agenda. Why don't we continue to the 22nd and if you're not done, we'll continue again >> and give it give us a good idea at that time. Uh you could just tell Becca ahead of time of what date would be the earliest date that we should continue to so we don't just go next meeting, next meeting, next meeting because we got too many of those that that's what always happens. >> Right. >> Thank you. >> And for the record, this has been one of them. So I appreciate that. That's a good point. >> Okay. But for now, we'll we'll pick an earlier date just to get us going on this process. Okay. Uh, so we're done with the >> Okay.

139Do we need emotional? >> Yeah. Do I hear a motion to continue the notice and intent 90 Waverly Street, map 10, parcel 70, Victor Mario, D file number 95-103 until December 22nd at 7:05 p.m. >> Moved. >> Second. >> Roll call vote. >> I. >> Crow. I. >> Crouch. I. >> Echinson. I. >> Molton. I. Juan's I motion is approved and we'll bring it up again on the 22nd of December. >> Thank you very much. Thank you for your time. Have a good >> All right. Thanks for working with us. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Next on the agenda, notice of intent and request for storm water management permit 30 Memorial Memorial Memorial Drive, map 13, parcel 178, Rick Merson of Metro West YMCA, Cara Bowler LLC, DP file number 95-10009. And it's my understanding

140the applicant would like to have a continuence until December 8th at um December 8th, 2025 at 7:05 p.m. Do I hear a motion to continue this hearing until December 8th? >> Second. >> Roll call vote. I >> Crow I >> Crouch I >> Atinson I >> Mold I >> Juan's eye. Motion passes and the hearing is continued until December 8th. >> That's what we don't like every meeting. >> Thank you guys very much. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Next on the agenda, notice of intent and request for storm water management permit Alangquin Trail and Captain A Circle Thousand Pines Development Corp. care of Crocker Design Group LLC D file number 95-1011 and the applicant has communicated that they would like to have this hearing continued until December 22nd, 2025 at 7:05 p.m. Do I

141hear a motion to continue this hearing until that date? >> So move second. >> Roll call vote. Crow I >> Crouch I >> Atinson I >> Molton I >> Jan's eye. Motion passes and the hearing is continued until December 22nd 7:05 p.m. Next on the agenda is request for storm water management permit 240 to 260 Pleasant Street map 13 parcel 108 and 109 Metro West Facilities LLC. The applicant has requested a continuence until December 8th, 2025 at 7:05 p.m. >> uh a slight correction to their continuence date. Um they have requested a continuence to December 22nd um and will request another continuence at that point. They their next meeting with the planning board is not until January. >> Okay. Uh, so modify that to a continuence to December 22nd, 2025 at 7:05 p.m. Motion to

142continue to that time. >> Second. >> Roll call vote. >> Crow I. >> Crouch. I >> Atinson I >> Molton I. >> Wes I. Motion is um hearing is continued to the 22nd of December 7:05 p.m. Next under general business request for certificate of compliance 26 Hardwick Road James Duchett care of Highpoint Engineering D file number 95-536. Do we have a representative for this item? >> Uh yes sir. Uh Jesse Aguilar of High Point Engineering. uh is on uh remotely uh representing James Ducet, the uh the applicant and the homeowner. >> All right. Hey, the floor is yours. Why don't you take us through your request? >> Okay. Thank you very much. So, um, High Point was retained by, uh, James Ducet, uh, back in October, uh, to close out an existing order of conditions,

143uh, that was, um, that was issued by the Ashlin Conservation Commission uh, for the construction of the the home at uh, 26 Hardwick Road uh, in 2000. um and home was constructed in 2000. Uh the order was never closed out. There was a subsequent uh request for determination of applicability uh submitted in 2011 uh for the construction of a wood shed at the rear of the um at of the property uh near the uh near the wooded edge. Um the commission issued a negative determination uh under the pretense that um a portion of an at the time existing um gravel uh playground swing set area um that existed partially within the 25- ft uh no disturb buffer would be removed from set buffer and used as the uh as the structural base uh for the

144shed. Uh that was uh that was done uh at the time that the the shed was constructed and the previously existing uh playground was uh was removed and the um and the area was uh redressed with uh with wood chips or um left to uh revert back to uh to wooded area. Um so just for some additional background context uh the original uh site design and the wetland delineation that was um that was the subject of the order of conditions um was performed by uh GLM engineering and given that GLM engineering is no longer in business uh Mr. Ducet uh contacted High Point to help uh close out the order um as a uh as a prerequisite step to uh his selling of the property. Uh so uh High Point retained uh Metro West Engineering

145to prepare uh in asbuilt um survey plan uh that High Point reviewed in the context of the original order as well as the um as well as the plan that was the basis of the negative determination. uh to determine that the site was built in substantial compliance uh with both the original order and the negative determination. Uh we found that it was uh with the exception of a approximately 325 square foot um paver uh patio area that was constructed uh off the rear of the house. um which uh is located within the uh the 100 ft uh wetland buffer zone. Uh but it is uh it is at the edge of the of the buffer zone immediately adjacent to the house between a retaining wall that extends off the rear of the of the home

146and a uh and a a raised uh timber uh t raised timber deck. Um, so the um so the patio is no closer uh to the wetland than the uh than the retaining wall um or the uh or the deck. Uh so you know given that um given that one deviation from the uh from the original plans as well as the plan that was the basis for the negative determination uh we're um respectfully petitioning the uh the commission to uh issue a certificate of compliance for uh for 26 Hardwick so that the the sale of the home can go forward. I'm happy to answer any questions or address any issues uh that come from the commission or the general public. Thanks. That's all. >> Any questions from the commission? Pretty good. Technically, wouldn't we norm

147wouldn't we sometimes ask for an after the fact RDA for the patio, but I I'm not saying we necessarily want to do that, but that's some in some cases we've done that. >> Well, you you mentioned we uh we did a determination or negative determination, right? Um >> but yeah, I don't think that would be necessary in this case. So, I just wanted to point that out that that would be a theoretically we could go there. >> Well, the negative determination was for the shed, right? >> Yeah. Yeah, >> that's correct. >> Okay. But not the patio. Okay. >> So, the Yeah, the patio was constructed um at some time between September 20 September 2015 and March 2016. Um so it's been it's been in place for uh at least a decade. Um for what

148that's worth to the commission just to add uh additional context to the history of the uh you know of this site and you know subsequent projects they were on. >> I don't have a problem with it. I just wanted to Yeah. just make sure we had thought through it properly. >> All right. Yeah. I wasn't clear if the patio was part of the other uh RD Well, it was an RDA for the shed at least. >> You've got two wetland lines. You've got two 25 foot no disturbed lines and two 100 foot buffer zone lines. A purple one and a green one. >> Correct. So the the green one is the one that was uh the basis for the original notice of intent filing uh and the subsequent order of conditions uh that was issued

149back in 2000. The purple one is a subsequent delineation that was done to support the RDA filing for the shed. So, in order to contextualize everything on site uh relative to all filings uh that have occurred uh with the commission uh over the over the lifespan of this site, um we opted to we opted to show uh both delineations. >> Uh and I'm here to and I'm here to explain all of that and contextualize all of that. Becca, do you have have you looked at the site >> uh to the commission? I believe Sophia was the one who did the site visit on this, so I will pass it off to her. >> That is correct. I did go on site >> closer to your face. >> I did go on site um I believe

150it was either at the end of September or the beginning of October. And I think that the wetland line that they have provided does confirm what I saw in on site. >> Well, I'm assuming that we confirmed it back in whenever if that was part of the RDA, right? >> Yes. >> To the commission. I will also add that what I saw in the wetland area, there's really no debris left back there. There's no any other structures that haven't been shown on the DOA plan or the asbuilt. It all looks pretty good back there. >> Okay. >> So, the question is what do we do with the structure that's not previously authorized? Although obviously we would be issuing a negative determination for that. and car uh um I I I think you're right that we

151normally would issue a determination to bring the site into conformance with what is permitted before we issue a certificate of compliance saying the site which essentially is saying the site is in conformance. Um this is but back I mean Sophia you've had this in September, huh? So it's been around for a while. >> Yeah, the homeowners have contacted us when the um order of conditions came up in the title search. And as I see it, the you know, the homeowners have already spent a good bit of money on this and they done a pretty good job of documenting everything there and it's it's just a matter of us doing going through a paperwork process to say yes, it's okay. I I can't see any way we wouldn't say give a a negative determination on an

152RDA. Uh is there any way we can just take care of this tonight? >> Can't issue an RDA tonight is >> No, we can't. >> But is there any way we can issue the certificate of compliance tonight and let >> mean like a partial? Yeah. >> Contingent of an RDA being filed for the porch. The whole question detains consistency with everything else we do >> to the commission. The COC form does not allow you to create new conditions. You could only continue the conditions that were on the original order. I will also add for the commission's consideration, the regulations say when issuing the certificate of compliance that you're looking at substantial compliance with the order of conditions. It does not define what substantial compliance is. So if the commission feels that the patio is minor,

153you can still issue a complete certificate of compliance. But if you feel that it is not minor and it needs an additional filing or mitigation, you would either have to require that filing or do an enforcement order for the mitigation. >> The RDA that we issued, what year was that? 2011. >> All right. So, that's expired. We don't have any active filings on the site. >> We do not. >> So, I was thinking we could at least come back next week or the next meeting and have a do a minor mod to allow for the patio, but we don't even have something to modify. to the commission. If you were to require an RDA and the applicant filed it before this Thursday, it would be able to be put on your December 8th meeting. >>

154What was your first option? >> Backup. first started to speak about substantial completions. >> If the if the commission determines that the patio is minor compared to the original plans, you can determine that the project is still in substantial compliance with the order and issue a complete certification regardless of the change. I would say given the time that has elapsed, the fact that Sophia has inspected the area and it's clean and they're trying to sell the house. That's what I would suggest. >> Yeah. >> Is the patio on It's on pilings, right? >> Ground. >> No, it's on the ground. Yeah. >> Yeah. It's flush with the ground. >> Is it stone or concrete? >> Uh they're concrete pavers. like the separate little blocks interled. >> Yeah, they're like handtight handtight joint uh pavers laid

155on a laid on a granular setting that in the scheme of things the the order conditions was for the house. So that include the deck stuff. The amount of area that the patio takes up and it's right adjacent to the house is really not um that significant in the context of the whole property being developed. You know, food and lawn and driveway. So think we could >> and and if I may, the um you know the house and the patio are at the absolute outer limits of the 100 foot buffer zone for what what whatever that is worth to the commission. >> If it were right next to the buffer zone, we'd be having a different conversation, I think, >> right? >> Substantial completion. The term would be substantial compliance. >> Substantial compliance. >> Yeah.

156>> I'll make a motion that we issue a certificate of compliance. Um or >> 26 Hardwick Road um D number 95536. >> Second. Oh, sorry. No, >> that they met um substantial compliance the order conditions. >> Second roll call vote. >> Aman I >> pro I crouch I >> I >> Molton I. >> WS I motion passes. So we will uh certificate of compliance uh is granted. So, we'll get the signature page uh signed this week and mailed out to you. >> Great. Thank you very much. >> Yeah. You're welcome. >> Have a great night, everybody. >> Good night. >> Thank you. >> Next on the agenda, request for certificate of compliance, 299 House Street, Peter Beis, D file number 95-976. I see Mr. Beis is on the line. You want to >> Yes. Good

157evening, Peter Beamis, engineering design here. >> Sure. Why don't you uh take us through your request? >> Uh, sure. So, so this is uh 299 how um this is a uh a drainage improvement that we uh completed on the town property as part of mitigation for uh storm water improvements as part of the trails um condominium complex. Um basically all the storm water from this project in its phases one through four and we're in phase four now would um traverse through various water bodies to get to a existing um 2 and 1/2t by 3t high box culvert that's um made out of masonry units and spans uh how street Wilw Wilson Street in um the two towns here in in Ashland. Um, if I can share screen, I could have a plan in front of

158me to show you folks. Uh, would that be available or can I can I do that function? Becca, >> you should have permission to screen share. >> Okay, thank you. And did that come through? >> Yep. >> Okay, great. Uh so so again Wilson Street uh continues to this is the municipal boundary line and this is how street um the area of improvement that we're asking the certificate of compliance for is in this area here. This other area is is part of town of Ashland as well. Um this section here is is owned by Ashland and we did improvements here as well but this is in Hopington. Um we had submitted a certificate of compliance for this in uh 2024. Um at the same time we submitted for this um this area is complete but

159we have a number of other um tasks that are still ongoing in Hopkin and we told the commission that we would not seek this um until we had the other items uh completed in this uh portion of the project versus seeking partial certificates. So um we waited a year as you know uh for submitting this area here. Uh we wanted to make sure that that everything was viable in our vegetation um was also viable um during the uh course of the 2425 growing seasons. Um it has uh done well. Um there was uh questions about some of the grass seed that we use for slope stabilization. Uh that was a annual seed mix. Um I will say that you know grasses can be somewhat persistent and there are some grasses still there but not very

160much. Most of that grass has has died back. Um we had planted um ascented fern throughout this whole slope and we actually supplemented that uh with with more. There's over 100 um ascented fern plantings that are in this uh work area. uh along with uh various woody shrubs that we had also planted uh far more than what we had originally specified just to make sure that this area was uh was reinforced and stabilized. Um and what's also um happened is we've gotten uh oak saplings to to propagate through here just through u the natural um um acorns that are that are dropping through this area. So, um it's mother's kind of healing herself here. Um all the erosion control barriers have been removed. Um I do have um some pictures um there were pictures as

161part of the the plan set. So I can just refresh your your memory on this. So this is our covert. Um that is the head wall. So this is the masonry units that were there that we tied our mud slabs into. Um there's a over two foot depth of concrete that uh underly this this channel um that protect the 18-in water line that crosses through this area and about this position here. Um again various points this was going downstream. This picture was taken back in 24. So that's why the ECB is still there. U and then these were the channels on the other side of the street. So this is on town of Ashland property but in the town of Hopington as part of a separate uh order of conditions and I think the pictures

162will just show I don't know if I have to stop the share. I think I do have to stop the share and start the share again. So bear with me one moment. >> Uh oh go ahead. >> He's current. Okay. >> Yes. Yes sir. This is this is more current. So, this is one that I had taken back when we filed the request. Um, so you can see the ECB is still here, but we wanted to be able to give you a sense of the vegetation and then the the section going out towards the reservoir. And then I can show you the other photos. So, this is after ECB removal here, here, and then further downstream. So, you can see everything's been removed. Um the uh the reservoir is still pretty low. That's why you're

163seeing the shoreline here. Um you know, hopefully there's some some snow uh coverage. I guess I guess somewhat hopeful for for the town sake to have the water supply replenished. Um because I don't see it uh returning unless we get an awful lot of rain and and some snow. Um but that's uh that's our request is to issue the certificate for this. Um, if I go back a photo, um, you can definitely see the, um, the hayscented ferns that are that are here. And then, um, I know there's a lot of leaves that are here, uh, but there's there's a lot of oak saplings that have just propagated um, this past year, so they're they're doing well. And then these are the woody shrubs that we have put in. So, the area has um has

164definitely stabilized and and naturalized. So, I I would ask for the certificate. If there's any questions that you have, uh please uh feel free to ask and thank you for your uh your support and your your patience with this project. >> I was by there on Saturday and I believe I saw a landscaping crew removing the erosion controls. Is that correct? >> Yes. Yes. >> That last picture you were showing us was taken within the last two days because it didn't there were still erosion controls when I was there on Saturday. Yep. Yep. I talked with Becca about that and we, you know, we we had uh my son actually met with her out there on Friday and uh we went ahead because it the site is stabilized. So, we did remove them. Um I'm

165not sure what the timing was as far as the removal, but I can assure you those were on the ground photos as of today. So, there it it has been removed. >> I just happen to be bicycling by there, so Okay. then you probably have a better sense if you know that area that you know the the the the transformation um of that and and and how it stands. So I'm I'm actually pleased with the um the way the vegetation has come in on both sides. Um we planted um a fair amount of wildflower, but that's a north facing slope even though we put in um natives that will grow on with lower light. Uh but they're they're not doing as well as they are on the on the other side of the road. whereas

166there's a little bit more of a um there's a little bit more of a um exposure to the sun. This is just all north facing. And to the commission, just to add to that, I've added a photo on screen of the slope that Mr. Bemis was showing um more from the downslope side so you can see it a little bit better the vegetation there. I don't see any evidence of erosion. Looks good. Yeah. Anyone else? >> No. Boy, I Some of us have sat through this project for five years and weren't quite sure if it would ever come to fruition. A lot better out there now. It was five years. That's >> I think this was on my very first Conservation Commission meeting. I remember meeting out there in the middle of the first year

167of CO. But anyway, I'm I'm I'm good with it. >> Okay. Does everyone else feel that way? >> Yep. >> Okay. Very good. All right. Um, so let's uh go here. A motion to to issue a certificate of compliance 299 House Street, Peter Beamis, D file number 95- 976. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Roll call vote. >> I pro I >> Molden abstain. >> W's eye. So the motion passes and so >> thank you very very much. I again appreciate your patience and um and your support for um well but we had to all pass through here because yes it does go back to that early COVID period and u there was some difficult times but >> we came out the other side with a with a good with some good improvements. >> Yeah

168it certainly is. >> Okay well signatures out this week and appreciate you staying the course with us. All right. Good evening. >> All right. >> Next on the agenda is emergency certification ratification 198 Cville Road. Claire >> Jajari >> Jar Jajari emergency removal of one tree >> to the commission. Uh this was an emergency certification uh that Sophia signed uh but we jointly wrote um which was for the removal of one 28inch white ash tree. It is in poor condition. Uh the live crown ratio is very poor. The tree is leaning towards an existing house. the uh homeowner did have their tree service with the certified arborist with their tree service do the level one risk assessment which confirmed the above and gave us the letter. Once the letter was received um the emergency certification

169was issued. This is just to ratify that document. >> Okay. Want a motion? Greg? >> Yes, please. Motion to ratify the emergency certification for 120 uh 198 quarterville road clear emergency removal of three. >> Second roll call vote >> I >> pro I second I >> Molton I >> Jan's I motion passes. Okay, we'll sign those sign that as well this week signature page. Okay, next on the agenda, enforcement order update 220 Oregon Road. Michael Kai. >> So to the commission, I believe uh Mr. Kai is on the meeting tonight. >> Okay. >> Um this is on the agenda after the commission's request to get a status update from Mr. Kai on the progress for the plantings. To refresh the commission's memory, this was a substantial um restoration from clearing that exceeded um I don't

170remember the exact amount. I know it was over 10,000. It might have been close to 20,000 square feet. Um and so there was um a very large number of plantings proposed. So, Mr. Kai, I see you're on. If you would like to provide your update to the commission. >> Yes. Yeah. We've been trying to save money for this project uh because of the high cost of this project. So, and uh we we just simply don't have the uh enough money for this right now. and we try to save the money and hopefully uh in the spring we can you know uh we can start. >> What was the um mitigation? >> I'll pull up the plan and I'll apologize. The quality of the scan is not the best. It's also on its side and I

171cannot figure out how to get it to rotate. Um, the red dots in the back are the stumps of trees that were cut. The black dots, um, are the locations of proposed plantings. I'm going to scroll up off of that for a second to show the listings. Um, it was five black willows, five red maples, nine high bush blueberry, nine sweet pepper bush, nine spice bush, six white pine, six northern red oaks, 12 low bush blueberry, 12 witch hazel, 12 sweet fern, and six more white pine, and seven more northern red oak. And then overseated within the wetland area, a New England wet mix and within the no disturb zone, a New England conservation wildlife mix. >> Can we set up some kind of at least starting point for this? You know, it's probably overwhelming

172for for kind of overwhelming just listening to you. But it was an overwhelming egregious cut. But u if we could have a good faith effort of at least making a first step towards replacing something that would >> yeah make some headway. >> Yeah. Do one component first, maybe the wetland component and then work your way out as you as you go along. Uh, I would think the overseating with the the different mixes would be one of the first things to do that that usually >> I know it's >> usually you seed it after you plant everything because you're going to disturb everything to plant it. But but given there's no planting going on, maybe that would be a good start. >> Have you been to the site recently? I have not been to the site

173in the past couple months. Um, however, my understanding is some of it is beginning to grow in, and Mr. Kai can correct me if I'm wrong. Uh, but I I would think that Preston's comment of putting the seed mix down, um, if it's going to be a slow planting of trees and and bushes, having the seed mix down now would at least provide some benefit while the plantings are slowly placed in. I would be in favor of that and and any kind of uh segmented plan that you might come up with uh Becca with Mr. Kai to to do this in um segments instead of all at the same time. But at least we have start one growing season next year with with some of this stuff and uh just keep us uh updated on

174what you can agree on. It wouldn't have to all be done at the same time, but it would be good to at least make a good faith effort on starting something. >> Obviously, we've missed the window for the fall. >> I think we need more than a good faith effort. I think we need a concrete effort um to start getting plants in this spring. >> Uh so through the commission and to Mr. Kai, maybe it starts with the wet mix seed in the wetland area and some of the 10 trees that are going within the wetland area. Um, >> yeah, even for that I already checked it's a substantial amount of money and I'm not sure whether I will be able to do that uh in one shot. Okay. I I wish I can do

175and also for this plan, I didn't really pay too much attention to this when when this uh guy come up with this plan and this uh this so-called this when when we cut when because the shraps I don't know where that come from because originally on that plant there there's really no shraps in there. uh and uh the trees which he come up with all these trees I I don't think we cut all these trees because I actually did not cut because this two gentlemen two old guy live nearby and he he need they need wood for for heating so they come up to to cut this because >> well yeah >> maybe he can pay for these trees then because he got the wood I wish it can but I I don't know just

176because >> sir sir this is not a laughing matter. This is a violation of >> No, I'm not laughing. Okay. Because I I got I I feel very bad about this because I didn't know this is wetland. Okay. I wish I can do this uh because we are on limited income. Okay. I wish I have the money to do this so that I don't have to endure this this whole thing this nightmare. Okay. It's not a laughing matter. It It's not actually. So, so I I wish I I think I hope that as you said that maybe the the phased approach which I I can do something in this this this spring. Okay. Uh come up with some money because we are you know senior citizens in social security you know so we don't really

177have much money. Okay. So, so I I think that uh uh in this spring I I can maybe I can do we can do something. >> All right, >> Mr. Kai, why don't you stay in in contact with Becca >> and work something out and then she can bring it back to the conservation commission for approval. >> Okay. Yeah, sure. >> All right. >> And that will start next spring. >> Yeah. Becca, does he know where to buy these plants? I mean, don't go to western nurseries. Yeah, it's going to be really expensive if you go to Western nursery. There are plenty of sources of plant material that are a lot cheaper than that. New England plants for the shrubs. They're 12 bucks a shrub. >> Well, she can she can assist him. She can

178assist him with that. >> I I didn't see $12 straps actually for this size, but uh if you could recommend it would be good. Yeah, >> I can try and locate some um different nurseries, see if there's any lists online and provide them. >> New England wetland plants will ship them to you bare root and they're like 12 bucks a shrub for a three-foot shrub. >> Okay. New Can you say it again? New England. What? >> New England wetland plants. They're out in Amherst. >> Okay. It's online. >> Yep. They have a They have a whole catalog online. >> Okay. >> And that's where you're going to go to get the seed anyway. >> Hey. >> All right. We have direction now. Can we uh we have agreements? All right. Very good. All right. We'll

179move on now to the next item. Thank you, Mr. Kai, for joining tonight, by the way. >> Okay. Thank you. Goodbye. >> Enforcement order ratification 11. Diane Lane, Joe Notkin. Are you going to take this one, Becca? >> Uh, yes. To the commission. I will give an overview on this one. Um, so a bit of history going into this. Back in uh September, the previous owner of this property was looking to sell their house and had contacted our office several times to determine what could and couldn't be done on the property um because they were having some issues with selling the house due to the proximity of the wetlands um that were there. During that time, I had personally gone out and looked at the wetlands. While I did not do a full delineation, there

180were measurements taken of where the approximate edges were in different areas and and the proximity to the house. Um the no disturb zone basically came up right to the edge of the house in several locations. Um if you're looking at the house from the road, the left side is a stream and the rear of the house um there is another expansive wetlands um that is bordering that stream. Back in August, the property was sold to the current owner, Mr. Nutkin. And in October, um I think the sorry the when I said September before it was back in July. Um it was sold in August and then back in the end of September, beginning of October, the current owner, Mr. Natkin, had reached out um to see what could and couldn't be done on the property.

181Um at that time, I was unable to do the site visit. And so Sophia did do a site visit and informed Mr. Notkin that he would need a permit for just about anything he was doing out there. Um then on November 14th, uh Bill contacted us and let us know that um he had seen activity out there with some significant landscaping and some cut trees. Um I went out the same day and did confirm that um significant clearing had taken place. So, I will hopefully get these pictures to show up on the screen here. So, these were taken on November 14th. Um, the houses to the right here. The stream is just off of you. In this picture, you can see some mulch, some lom, some wood chips that have been put out here. From

182what I recollect from when I was out at this site, the wetlands came roughly to where my cursor is now. And so everything basically to the left of that tree um would have been the wetlands. And this area up to the retaining wall is the no disturb zone. Um off to the right of the house, the lawn area there had been torn up as well. um that was within the 100 foot buffer zone. This is a better view of that area on the side and you can better see the stream channel um in that picture. And then on the deck looking back, you can see the patio. You can see some grading here. The rocks on the back here was the edge of the wetland. It drops off at that point. And you can see

183again this is in the back. Um this is looking off to that left side and then this is on the rear. And so this large boulder um was the exact point where I said the wetland was um maybe a little bit beyond it was very marginal. Um and so this area that has been cleared and graded um is no disturb zone. This patio is in the 100 foot buffer zone because of the sequence of events where the um property owner had been previously informed that they needed permits um and they had gone ahead and done the work without the permits um instead of just doing a notice of violation and having them come to the commission. Um, a notice of violation was issued with fines in the amount of $400 for $100 for each violation

184of four violations. And an enforcement order was issued under the state act. Um, both the notice of violation and the enforcement order had the same requirements. Um, which normally I would leave some of these for the commission to determine, but given that the ground is freezing and we want to get the mulch out of the wetland sooner rather than later, um, I did put in the enforcement order, um, and the notice of violation that the mulch is to be removed from the resource area by hand rake immediately, that all disturbed areas should be stabilized with a straw layer and um, mulch or compost socks with a minimum of 8 in diameter should be installed along the perimeter of all of the disturbed areas and staked into the ground for stability. Mostly to have something in

185there when we get to the spring free thaw that since there will not be growth there um something is in there to help protect the wetlands. Um it was also required that they come to your next meeting on December 8th because this was issued on Friday. it was too short notice to require them to come to this meeting. Um, however, because there is an enforcement order involved, you guys are required to ratify at the earliest possible meeting you can, which is why it's on tonight um for that. The property owner did contact us uh today and um express that he thought that the restriction for needing permits was only for structures and that he was allowed to do anything else. um and that this is his first time owning property and he just did not

186understand. Um I explained to him the need to remove the mulch and told him to just remove everything to the left of that little retaining wall by the deck. Um and to get the straw down and the compost sock down and if he has any questions to reach out to us and that he should probably retain a wetland scientist to help him with the process. Um I think he's still a little confused on the process, but hopefully we will get somewhere with this. Um so this is on here tonight one as the update and two to ratify the enforcement order. >> Is there a language barrier here? >> No. >> Were you able to see what it looked like before? Uh yes, I have limited photos of the pre-existing conditions back in July. Um Sophia

187has some photos from October which I should be able to share as well. I'll start with the July photos and unfortunately they're not in all the same spaces. Um but this is that left side of the fence. The rock wall comes right here. Um this was all English ivy growing here. Um there had been prior disturbances in this area. You can see a swing set. Um this area was largely left natural though I think frequent movement from people. Um may have caused some of the um lower vegetation, but it was characterized with ferns. Um there were some deweries um closer to the wall, but it very quickly um switched to more wetland species. There were some royal ferns in there as well. Um I don't know if I have photos in the wetlands. I have

188photos of where I was auguring. Um and this was the measurement from one of the wetland spots to the foundation of the house. So it was 17.9 ft to the house at that spot. Um some pictures of the soil conditions. So we do have some um baseline soil conditions. Um this is actually a issue further back in the wetlands that may be on a budding property. And if I can find Sophia Sophia's photos from October. Uh hopefully I can find them. One second. >> I think we probably got enough to verify that there's a problem here. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. But you were there before all this happened. So the homeowner did reach out for guidance and then just basically Yeah, I Yeah, stronger language. Yeah, but sort of. Yeah. >> Well, why don't

189we ratify the enforcement order and and continue to pursue it, Becca? That's what I would suggest. >> Yeah. >> Any other discussion or we ready to >> do I hear a motion to ratify the enforcement order for 11 Diane Lane? Joe Notkin. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Roll call vote. >> Hackin I. >> Pro I. >> Crouch. >> I. >> Hackinson. I. >> Molton. I. >> Won's eye. Motion passes. Enforcement order is ratified. We'll sign that this week. All right. So, um, we'll be seeing Mr. Nokin at a later date. Next on the agenda, wetlands violation zero Pond Street. uh to the commission. I do not see Mr. Orifice on the meeting. Um I believe the commission was expecting some further update on him on the status of getting the wetlands delineated. Um to

190my knowledge, we have not heard anything back on that. Sophia did go out on the site and meet with Mr. orifice and had agreed to have um an area that she had determined likely to be the no disturb zone um have the dumpsters removed from that area and move to a different location on James Road there where storage was also being done but outside of Wetland's jurisdiction. Um the road was also agreed to be swept. I'm not sure if the road was swept. The dumpsters were moved from the no disturb zone. Uh but it is my understanding that afterwards more dumpsters may have been brought in to the area. They're still outside the no disturb zone, but there's more in the buffer zone. >> Uh to the commission, I could add to that. So on

191um November 8th, I believe Carl was over there. he saw them unload a dumpster onto the property of Zero Pond Street. I went out on site. It did look like more dumpsters were placed. Um I have not been in contact with Mr. Orifice on that matter. I was hoping he would appear before the commission tonight as that had been required on an amended notice of violation that I had handd delivered to him on November 4th. You all had required him to give you an update tonight regarding the delineation of the wetland resource areas and a schedule on preparing an after the fact notice of intent. >> Is there another notice of violation need issued with fines? Um, if you all would like to go down that route, we can definitely do that. >> No, nothing

192seems to be getting his attention >> to the commission. The previous fines, from my knowledge, have also not yet been paid to the town clerk, >> which means if he doesn't pay him, we'll put a lean on his property, right? I would have to check with the town clerk, but I believe that is um an option that they can pursue. >> Well, maybe he'll understand that. >> Yeah, >> he seemed to be agreeable at the last >> last time he was here, right? >> I mean, it sound like he had he had money. >> Yeah, his business was thriving. >> Do we give him a chance? notify him that he has to definitely appear be at the next meeting or he'll be facing additional fines on a daily basis. >> Sounds good. I I do

193not get the impression that uh this is somebody who's going to uh be very proactive that uh that we have to stay on top of this or nothing's going to happen uh favorable to the commission. We can issue another notice of violation requiring them to come to the next meeting or face daily fines. That can be accompanied with additional fines for not attending this meeting in violation of the notice of violation. And uh as well as additional fines for continuing to put dumpsters in violation of the cease and cease and desist. >> Yeah. I mean adding dumpsters Yeah. That's a real slap to the face. Yeah. That's real disrespectful because uh he made we thought we had an understanding and >> that clear. >> Yes. I I think we have a way forward and uh

194with that one being a notice of violation rather than an enforcement order. No vote is needed. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. Okay, that's it for general business. So, the next is other business review of the 20 26 meeting schedule. >> Yes. Give me one second to get this up. >> It looks pretty simple that we've actually got two meetings every month. Uh if you consider June 1st to actually be May 32nd, I seem to have lost my meeting schedule. I will just pull up the annotated uh PDF because I cannot get my Excel sheets. I don't know where it has gone. So, I'll take ample notes. Uh so uh we did manage to keep this year with the proposal uh basically two weeks between every meeting with very few exception where it will be

195three weeks. Um the first meetings in January are earlier to uh or sorry are regular but the submission deadlines are earlier to accommodate the holidays around those times. Um the first real change is June 1st um as Preston called out. Um which is shifted to avoid Memorial Day. Um and then the rest of the meetings in June. You would have three meetings in June, but those are also shifted to avoid having a back-to-back meeting as a result of the Memorial Day one. It would then result in just a normal two-week difference to July 13th, which um would have you back on regular schedule up until September, where in September you'd be switching to the first and third meetings of the month or Mondays of the month um in order to shift everything for Indigenous People's

196Day in October uh which would continue to November and then in December um rather than having the second and fourth where you would be having a meeting very very close uh to Christmas and New Year's kind of right in that middle. Um it's shifted to December 7th and December 21st so that you get all your December meetings in before the holidays. This of course does not account for any 40b meetings you would have off cycle. Um >> so basically be meeting every month >> maybe three times a month >> except for holidays. >> Gene you might have four in that month. >> So the uh this avoids the major Jewish holidays. >> You none of the Jewish holidays actually landed on Mondays this year. So you guys are in the clear on that one. >>

197Oh, lucky us. >> Well, we're only meeting every week. >> Just approve them. >> Just kidding. Just kidding. >> Clear schedules. >> Um, okay. Keep going. I I I have a question that's unrelated, but do we have signing sheets ready to sign tonight? >> Yes, I do have um everything that you voted on I have a copy of and ready for you to sign after this meeting. >> It's like old time. >> Okay, continue. >> Uh I don't think I had anything else to present on the schedule. So, uh, if the commission is all set with that, uh, we have a formatted version ready to go on the website. We just need a vote from you guys to accept, uh, these dates. >> Okay. Motion to accept the, uh, schedule for, uh, next year. >>

198Second. >> Roll call vote. >> I, >> Crow I. >> Croach, I, >> I, >> Molton. I, >> Jan's eye. A motion passes and the schedule is approved. Okay. So, got we're going to table the minutes. >> Yeah. For next time. Yes. Two of them >> to the commission besides the late hour. We unfortunately wrote the wrong dates on the meeting minutes including today's date. Uh so there's nothing that you can vote on because we don't have the right information. They will be at your next meeting. >> Okay. Very good. >> Now, are you collecting these folders? >> You can take them home if you would like. We just ask that you bring them back before your next in-person hybrid meeting so we can fill them. >> Reusing any of the paper? >> We would

199keep everything that's in there now and put a divider between the meeting so that you have everything from a previous meeting to look back at. >> Oh, >> you guys got folders. I didn't get a folder. >> It's right there. >> Wait, we have one for you. Not here for it. >> Okay. So, we can sign after the meeting after we adjourn. Correct. >> Yes, you do still need to adjourn. >> Okay. A motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> Roll call vote. >> Aman I. >> Crow. I. >> Crouch. I. >> Hackinson. I. >> Molton. I. >> Juan's eye. Motion passes. Meetings adjourned.