Conservation Commission - Regular Meeting

I'll call the meeting to order. Uh before we get started, let's introduce everyone on the meeting. I'm Sandy Brock. I call your name. Please confirm that you can hear me by verifying that you are present. Uh starting with the com uh commissioners. Travis, I'm here. Uh so Jonathan, present. Uh air here. And Noah, I'm here. And we'll go with staff. Leah, I'm here. And Jan, present.

Very good. This open meeting of the conservation commission is being conducted remotely via Zoom pursuant to Governor Baker's March 12th, 2020 order as most recently extended on March 29th, 2023. Access information for the public has been provided on the town website. Uh this meeting is being recorded. Please remember to mute your phone or computer when you are not speaking. Uh this is done on the phone by pressing star six. As chair, I will introduce each speaker on the agenda. Uh please note that you will not have screen sharing privileges, but staff can display any visuals per your queue. During periods of public comment, participants must use the raise hand icon in the Zoom menu bar to indicate they would like to speak. Uh this is done on the phone by pressing star 9 and then star six to unmute when you are called upon. Participants who raise their hand will be recognized one at a time and will be promoted to speak. Finally, each vote taken will be conducted by a roll call vote. As a reminder, the commission is concerned with state and town wetlands and storm water regulations. Concerns outside this purview uh need to be addressed to the appropriate boards. For example, road conditions must be addressed with the select board and traffic concerns must be addressed with the planning board. Okie do. Any place you want to start, Leah?

Well, our first hearing is at 710, so if you want to jump right into that, it's 711.

Okay, sounds good. Uh, let me just open a couple of things and we'll get right into that. Okay. Go back here. All right. So, we'll be doing 215 Worcester Street. Okay. Um, I do have to make it larger on my screen so I can actually read it. Uh uh pursuant to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, Grafton wet uh storm water management bylaw, Grafton wetlands protection bylaw, conservation commission um will act upon a notice of intent uh for 215 uh for 215 Worcester Street. Um and this is a continuation, correct?

Nope. We're just opening it tonight. Oh, it's just opening up. Okay, I'll read the whole thing then. Um, let me see here. So, um, uh, we'll act upon a notice of intent application for graft and stormwater bylaw and application for grat graft and wetlands permit for the red redevelopment of a the plaza at 215 Worcester Street and one Horththorn Street. So, who is here to speak to that for the applicant? Good evening. Can you all hear me? Yes.

Okay. Uh, I'm Kate O'Donnell. I'm from Ecotech environmental scientist. Um, I'm representing the applicant, uh, Brian Fitzgerald from 215 Properties. Um, I believe he might be here if he could be pulled in as well to be a panelist. Um, and then as well as uh, John Federico from Gary and Hound then who's the project engineer. I don't know if they could raise their hand maybe. Yeah, I just promoted John Federico, but I don't see Brian Fitzgerald.

Okay. Um, that's okay. Um, so I'll just jump in then. Um, so the site is um two parcels that are um abuing um and it's about 2 acres in size. So if you want to pull up the plan, I can go through the existing conditions. Um so the that's proposed but um there are two existing commercial buildings on the property. Um yep and then there's um existing paved areas as well. It's almost entirely paved. Um the site does not have any bordering vegetated wetlands on site um or within 100 feet of the site. Uh but there is a piped stream that does flow underneath the site. Um that's shown um with that D line through the center of the site there. And so the inlet to that pipe is it starts over 300 ft to the north and then the outlet to that stream pipe um is about 300 ft to the south of the site. Um so there's no daylighted resource areas on the site, but there is that pipe stream. So, we're conservatively providing a or applying a 100T buffer zone to that stream pipe. Um, I believe that's kind of how it's been interpreted previously. Uh, I think there was a previous filing about a year ago for some remediation activity on this site, which has since been completed. Um, and so this project, if you want to go down a slide, uh, is proposing to redevelop the site. um including repaving a lot of areas, um new parking spaces, new walkways, um an outdoor amenity space on that first

building, and then an outdoor play space. I think that's um a daycare there. Um, and so on the bottom of this page, if you want to zoom in, there's a table that shows the uh existing and proposed imperous and pvious areas. Um, I'll just wait. So, there's a net um a net reduction in in pavement um by about close to 5,000 square ft. And then in concrete there's a reduction in 12,000 square ft. And then in pvious areas there's an increase in like 7,000 square ft. Um and so that would be like landscaped areas um and uh some some lawn areas. So it's a net um net improvement to the site relative to um imperous area. And then the applicant, if you scroll over to the right, is also proposing as part of this notice of intent, um actually I think if you go up a page, um is proposing and yeah, right right south of that that top building, they're going to be proposing to replace that stream pipe. Um and then there are two catch basins that drain into that pipe. Um and so those would be upgraded as well with um deep hooded sump catch basins which would provide some treatment to the storm water discharges prior to entering the stream which is an improvement relative to existing conditions. Um and so that work would be done in in the dry. Right now the stream is dry. Um it's an intermittent stream and we are in a drought so it would be ideal

conditions right now. Um and lastly, we did receive a DP file number for this uh project this afternoon. Um which I'm happy to go through with you all if if that's something you would like. Um none of them were particularly concerning. Um and I did respond to two of them. Um, would you like me to go through them?

So, that's that's hard for us to kind of react because we haven't seen it yet. And that's and so, um, yeah, I I mean, you're more than uh welcome to present them, but we'd want to take a look at them and so forth. It's Yeah, we don't, you know, it's uh it's the comments and so forth that

Definitely. Yeah. Yeah. I can I can definitely give you time to review them, but I'll just give a quick summary and a quick response to each of them. Um so the first one is about a stream crossing replacement NOI in a limited project. Um and and saying that stream crossing standards should be evaluated and and met to the maximum extent practical. And again this this stream pipe is only being replaced on the portion of the property that the applicant owns. The inlet and outlet are on private property and we're not able to, you know, replace the entire stream. crossing length. So we can't really do any improvement relative to stream crossing standards without you know working offsite. Um the next um comment was about whether the stream is considered a perennial and I I did provide the mapping the 2024 um mapping which shows it as intermittent as well as a stream stats analysis and that that shows that it's intermittent as well. Um so there's no riverfront area on the site and then additionally the the stream culvert's like 700 ft long. Um, so there wouldn't be a riverfront area associated with a p a stream that flows into a pipe over 200 f feet. Um, and then the next one is about the groundwater recharge not proposed due to monitoring existing soil. Um, and that's that's related to the remediation activities that I'm sure you all are aware of. Um and uh we can we can provide more information if if necessary for that. Um but again you wouldn't want to recharge in a contaminated or formerly contaminated site.

So yeah and you can get into that and let us know you know what are the constraints to that you know do you have an AUL on the site or is or is the site still in remediation and those type of details you can let us know too. Okay. Yeah, I'll make a comment. I don't know that there's an active AUL on the site, but um I think they were considering it. I think I'd have to get more information from Brian. So, um so more information on

I do apologize for interrupting. Um Brian has informed me and this is John Federico with Garemon. Um that he is um now in the um participation group. um if he could be promoted to a panelist uh just in case if he wants to shed any additional information for that um uh remediation work out there. I might be in now. I'm not quite sure. Yes, you are. Hi. Hi, Kate. It's Brian Fitzgerald and hello to the board. I apologize. Uh definitely challenged on the technology and my older stuff there, but I got a app update so I'm in. Uh I just caught the last part of that conversation. Would you like me to address some of those questions? Uh

so at this Yeah. So at this point we're in just the uh phase of having the introduction to the project. So um and I was just giving a heads up about an AUL, but we'll ask questions once you guys are finished with your presentation. Sure. And we'll go through the commission. Very good. Thank you for acknowledging.

Um so I'll just continue on. Um and then they asked for TSS sheets which we can definitely provide. And then um the last two are just recommendations for conditions which include that the work be done in the dry or that we provide a construction sequence plan. But as I said the the work would definitely be done in the dry if if possible. So, um, and then the last one is a condition for signing an elicit discharge statement prior to the start of work and perpetual conditions for the O andM plan. Um, so if you guys have any questions, we'd be happy to discuss.

Yeah. So, we'll have to look at this and and kind of come up with those questions. It's hard to do that when this is live being shown to us. So, Uh, anything else? I believe that's all on Maya. John, if you have anything to add or Brian. Um, yeah. I'll first turn it over to Brian in case there's anything um specific you would like to highlight. Um, and then I could just briefly recap um some of the um uh more finer details on the construction work if any of the commission members would like me to go over that portion.

Sure. In regards to I did hear you comment on as far as there an a attached to the site. There isn't at this time. I just had a level two audit with the the D and u they did were happy and pleased with the progress that has been making. We've been in constant contact between the LSP which is Adam West and the D. In uh in regards to the culvert, we are doing, you know, with the outcome of this the modification. It's already noted and planned into the uh ram, but we're going to update them with the modification on the ram plan pending the outcome of all this. And I did hear Kate mentioned about how yes, a lot of the culbert is going from uh you know, various parcels of property throughout. We're just concerned with the piece right in the parking lot that's going to that's exposed. Some of it has already been replaced from the front of the building out to the road a couple of years ago. And this would be the back portion in the structure that's out there. The structure is not in the greatest shape. So that wants to be uh replaced over there. And as far as the uh uh site itself, I did hear some mention as I first tuned in about the recharging. There is a concern speaking with Adam Lass the LSP that we don't want to really do too much to try to disturb it. hydro uh hydraologically by introducing a lot more flows. It's noted in the uh the Ross plan which is we're moving to a final closure on the site but because of the uh targeted wells in the ongoing monitoring they don't want to force new pathways at all. They prefer to see natural attenuation take place on the site and we are making it more pvious. Obviously, it's pretty much a asphalt jungle over there at this point, but uh that will be a slow percolation through and it's done through uh you know, grass areas where

we'll be picking up a lot more or you know holding the discharge sediment. So, uh I hope I can uh address any other questions you have. I'm not an engineer certainly, but I have been in constant contact with the LSP and fairly well versed on it. I appreciate the information. Yeah, because we'll probably um we'll we'll chat about it just like what our jurisdiction is, the extent of that um as a you know an extent to um our storm water uh requirements, those type of things. So I don't know if your engineer has a little bit more to add to what was already spoken about by Kate.

Uh yeah, so just to um kind of um briefly touch upon a couple of those comments. Um I know um when Leia was going through our uh submitt package, she did have a few comments particularly about the TSS removal on there. Um based on um consultant feedback that we've been receiving um regarding uh the soil conditions out there and not trying to um force in any extra water. Um we haven't proposed any sort of recharge systems but um through our drainage calcs we are showing that um we do have a uh net improvement on the site by uh reducing our um post-development uh runoff rates um as well as volumes um across all storm events. Um in addition to this we are doing some repairs on the existing structures out there. um they seem to be um from our field observations like handformed structures over the years. Um doesn't necessarily have like a full 4ft sump or anything like that. Um so we are planning to move one of the catch basins offline of the stream crossing. Um add in a new manhole so at least we are going to be getting in some additional TSS where we're expecting majority of the flow to be happening. Um other portions of the uh site um are draining to catch basins located out um within the Worcester Street. right away. Um as well as the uh adjacent Williams and Hawthorne's roads. Um so with regards to any sort of like improvements that we personally can do on those um a lot of the flow and uh treatments is not already be provided by the existing system. Um so that was something we did want to um show at least we are making the improvements but have any further discussions either with peer review or the commission as needed um about um not trying to uh address um surrounding properties concerns just through Brian's project um and at least just uh trying to satisfy specific requirements for redevelopment on this particular

Okay. Thank you. Anything else? Um outside of that um we do um intend to have the amenity space um as um some type of uh pvious or sorry impervious or semi- impervious area. Um that that might be like a paver uh patio type of thing or um the tenant might um ultimately go and have that uh be concrete. Um and in terms of the uh play space u for the southern building that's going to be associated with the daycare. Uh Brian, I don't know if we had official confirmation of what that material will be there. Um but we do note that we will have some landscaping around that portion of the site um to facilitate um any um type of infiltration um via surface runoff um not directly uh recharge related.

Yeah, I mean most uh place structures uh you know they're you know what they have now for surface cover is porous. uh almost all the ones I've seen lately for the last few years, they're actually poor systems. And that has more to do with the all the other regulations around the fall area and those type of things, but um something to kind of look at. Um it doesn't mean it has to be, but generally in around play structures, it is porous material. It it is intention. Oh, sorry, Brian.

No, I'm sorry. I just going to comment in speaking to the owners of or the owners I should say the uh uh lease of that particular building there that will be a per uh perous area that's in the playyard. Yeah. It's just how it's just how the um how the structures and how that that based on a lot of different things. It has generally have transformed that almost all play structure area. ground cover is porous now and it has to do with other things than just storm water, but Yep. Okay.

All right. Great. Um outside of that, um we do have standard erosion control proposed for the site. Um we are proposing a construction entrance off a Jonas terrace. um anything going around the site. Uh we were proposing um the use of a a mulch sock or an equivalent um where everything is pavement and um don't have a lot of good locations to tow in any sort of silt fence there. Um also with the fact that the site is relatively flat being an existing parking area um we did not foresee the uh need to have any sort of um silt fence you know uh towed in you know six plus inches into the ground for something like that um around any and all catch basins that are exposed there. We are proposing silk sacks as well as a straw bale filter berm um and I believe that uh generally covered everything that we were proposing right now for erosion control. Um we do include details um with our plan set and um everything else is noted on the erosion control sheet.

All right. And this is uh this is this is over an acre. Yes, it is. Yes. And it's so so you'll have to get a general construction permit. Yes. Okay. And again from our from our perspective uh we don't really review or comment on that. It's just more if you're having to do a SWIP, then we'd like a copy of it just to know what the requirements are through uh the the construction general permit. That's all. Very well. Okay. Yeah. Contractor has done a lot of work in graft and he's well known in there. And

yeah, I mean it's just Yeah, it's just kind of standard. Uh it's nothing really um other than just we want the information of what the contractor has to follow. That that's all. Um if that's it for the presentation um Leah uh you want to give your report on this?

Sure. Um we covered a lot of the points but I would echo DP in that we should talk through um procedures for that pipe replacement. If we could see some detail on that would be good. Um and then I just noted that they are proposing temporary impacts of 400 lineer feet to bank uh for that pipe replacement and they also did a waiver request for our no disturb. Okay. Anything else? That's all I have right now.

Yeah. And one other question I had is um just because this came up um actually at the Cumberland Farms right across the street is that they end up having to get an Army Corps permit because it was relocating a stream and I don't remember the details of that to be quite honest. Um, that's one thing uh you we can check in our records on why that was, but I do remember that was a that was a um perennial river. And I'm curious all the different culverted quote unquote streams that are going through here cuz there was one I believe if my memory is correct that was involved with they relocated it for the Cland farms. So, but that wouldn't have that should not impact your site. I'm just curious where it went to and and and why it why it had to have the Army Corps permit, but that was quite a few years ago and I'd have to check the record because I don't want to rely on my memory. Um,

we can dig into that.

Yeah, it's it's more just a heads up and providing you information. Um and again I it's it's a little foggy but we did have to go through it. It was a similar type of submission where there was no wetlands other than um the cover and so forth. And again you know from our perspective you know we're looking at two things which is one um you know one is the wetlands protection act our wetlands bylaw. So that's the wetland side of it and that's pretty confined to the cover and the stream being uh covered at you know since way before your project. Um and the other one is the storm water requirements under the the local bylaw for and that aligns with the MS4 stuff. So those are the the two parts that we're really looking into as you're not within any other jur that we know of. You're not in any other juris jurisdictional locations. So, anything else, uh, Leah? Otherwise, I'll go around the the commission and find out if if other people have questions.

I did think of one more. Um, we have a in our storm water bylaw, we have that commercial uses need to have a shutdown and containment measure for their storm water system. Is this this is technically a commercial site? it. I would I would look at kind of the commercial use of it. So, if you're talking a daycare and I don't know what the other building's going to be, um if it was a gas station or something, yeah, I think that's a good discussion. To be honest, I'd want to read the that section in our uh storm water bylaw again just to see to read what is defined as commercial. Okay.

So, I haven't seen that. I'll go around and see if any of the other commissioners have questions. Uh I'll start with Travis. Uh so the I'm looking at the aerial right now and there's a lot of green space and I did just a rough calculation of area and I'm just trying to figure out is the the existing pvious area just based on what it used to be or based on like it's kind of degraded now and there's a lot of vegetation growing on the site. Uh so to clarify that comment um John Federico with Ger and Helmon. Uh currently we're basing the um pvious uh numbers that we have off of the historical um pvious areas out there. Um some work has recently been done to remove a couple buildings. Um concrete pads have had, you know, uh over time um some dirt and stuff that have fluffed up over it and some sporadic grass growth has occurred out there. uh but nothing that we would truly count as a um ready usable pvious area out there. Um historically for this site going back to even you know 2010 2012 range um everything but um I believe it was approximately four to 5,000 square feet um with most of it down by the Southern Daycare and Hawthorne Road um has been all pvious areas out there and as uh some buildings and stuff have been removed and some of those concrete pads have been removed it's just kind of naturally taken over but again nothing that we would um truly classify as pvious in that original And then thank you for that. Yeah, if I go back to like 2015, I I've got that area. I can see that. So that makes sense. And then the

say could I add to that by any chance? Your question. It's Brian Sher. You have the floor. Oh yeah, go for it. No, I just wanted to mention also when they're doing some of the digging out there, I did find there was a layer of asphalt underneath a lot of what was existing dirt behind the 215 building somewhat near where the remediation work was done. And a lot of that I have taken up where I've been able to expose it and disposed of the asphalt, but that was underneath all a lot of that dirt. It was probably a parking lot at one point right up to the back of the building and then they just filled it in, made a crown there with dirt. So there's a a layer that took place in there.

Thank you. And then one other question, and this might be something for peer review or just discussion next time. The the proposed pvious, it appears to me like it's mostly landscape beds along the perimeter of the site. And I'm wondering if those are designed in a way to actually serve as like water filtration or they just pvious area. Uh right now Brian, sorry about that. Um you can start off.

No, I was just going to mention a lot of those beds I did speak to the town about that. What we'd like to do is they will be, you know, they won't be on top of asphalt. Obviously, those will all be cut beds. And there's a gravel, quite a bit of gravel in there from digging all up throughout that entire site. It was probably a lot of Pete at one point back there and some type of a marsh, but there's got to be up down, you know, four or five feet in certain areas and it's all gravel to that point and I think beyond actually in a lot of areas, but the uh uh area with the beds, those are going to have a lot of stone in them as well. So, they will be open and pvious. And I would assume the stone just gets not only slowing the perculation but it will be some type of a uh uh you know filter effect to that and there will be soap fabric in it obviously to keep material from growing up and out of it.

Okay. Anything else? Not right now. No. Okay. All right. Jonathan, any questions?

Um, snow storage. It It's a pretty like we like we've heard it's there's a lot of asphalt out there, so there's going to be snow and ice and whatever you're moving around. Do we have is it planned to put all that snow just more for the storm water when it all melts and you know what what you get as coming off the site? Is that going into the beds? is that specific I don't see an area that says you know snow storage or looks like most of this site can be driven on um parked on etc. So, I don't know if there was an area that was designated for snow storage or is it all getting hauled off? Um,

Brian Fitrol, if I could take that one. Also, the amenity area as it shown on the plan looks like that entire area, I believe it's uh almost 6,000 ft is for all amend. It is not going to be a good portion of that will just be grass. There'll be some type of screening in between that period for the uh the restaurant in the back. There's going to be a little it's a micro brew that's going to be out there. Family-friendly tap room and there will be a small area for them. And then the rest of that I would utilize as not just green space but for snow storage also. And that will be on a probably a grass landscaped area. Not without, you know, not with shrubbery or anything in that area because of the snow removal but probably grasses uh you know that are seasonal that we can cut down in the winter time and be able to push snow and they still survive. So,

okay. I didn't have any other questions. All right. Thanks, Jonathan. Uh, Amamir, are there any questions? Don't have any right now. Okay. And Noah, any questions? No questions for me.

Okay. Sure. And I think I've already asked a couple. I mean, my my big questions are more just some of the uh D things and also just making sure we are all on the same page about the jurisdiction, which I think we are. It's just that I have some questions more so about the history of this area and all the culverts that run through it and what who has jurisdiction on what. I know we have it underneath uh the wetlands protection act because it you know whether it's intermittent or or perennial there's a difference there for this particular site because it's longer than 200 linear feet there's not a lot of impacts from that culver it's really more about making sure that culver is however it's um replaced and one of the questions I have is um when it's I was just trying to look at the plans uh how is it going to be relocated you and what portion of the culvert is being replaced.

Um so John Federico Gerard and Helmon um on this plan view um that you're looking at right now um the southern portion is Hawthorne Road. Um you're able if you were looking at the property line and the landscape area see like a small V like shape um in the parking area that is leading out to one of the catch basins um for Hawthorne Road. Um so the pipe replacement would start at that structure and then proceed north towards the amenity space. And we do have a uh catch basin structure existing uh that is within the drive aisle in a existing manhole structure closer to the building um where the amenity space is located. And essentially uh that existing catch basin is the catch basin proposed to be replaced set offline so that proper TSS through the uh 4 foot sump with hoods um can be achieved there. Um and uh that that entire pipe run which I believe was uh about 200 and change um would would be replaced up to that manhole.

Okay. And then as far as uh I think someone mentioned that uh another portion of the of that cover has been replaced.

Correct. um that's located um along the uh northern portion of the uh the upper building. Um there is a manhole that's uh approximately in the middle of our proposed parking stalls uh right next to one of our handicap spaces and the portion of pipe in between that manhole and the catch basin at the uh Vshape within the parking area um heading out towards the Worcester Street Rightway. Um, I believe that was about a uh 40 foot stretch of pipe that was previously replaced out there. Um, anything underneath the building from my understanding has not been replaced. But Brian, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Uh, no, it has not. It's still the existing condition underneath the building. That would be extremely difficult to try to even address that. Uh, I I've looked at the pipe uh, you know, inside of it. I've looked at every part of it that was accessible and there were a couple of accessible areas. It's essentially 24inch weld liner that was done there. Not jointed, but it was put together pretty well. It flows well. There's not a lot of sedimentation in it. Yeah.

But this is going to be just replaced in place with HDP. And because they're 20 foot lengths, it'll be a quick replacement right in the same bed. You know, we'll just put in some fresh stone to bring it up to, you know, proper grade. And there'll be more coverage than was existing on it prior to that. Again, I'm not really saying that, oh, you should replace it. I'm more interested in um the you know, what condition the pipe is in just because you're you're replacing some of it but not all of it. Just wondering if you had it videotaped to see just and again, this isn't something we would ask. It's more just, you know, for information that you know, you're replacing a portion of it. And if that's because it's in poor condition, then my question would be just make sure that everything else is going to continue to work. Um, yeah, it's not something that we would direct you to do unless there was evidence that it was going to fail or something. But

no, and if I could add to that, Brian Fitzgerald again, the pipe itself is not in bad shape. Like I said, they put it together fairly well. It has stood the test of time, but it is the idea that it's h, you know, what's accessible we would like to. It's mainly the structure that they built on it. They basically did riser. They chipped a hole in the well liner, built rises out of block. That's essentially where there's two structures. One right up on the uh will be the south side of the front building there where the amenity areas and then one just where the pavement meets which is the actual catch basin. And that's what uh you know to replace that. It just makes sense why we're doing a complete you know parking lot over to prevent any failures by going with EDP. It would obviously uh keep the pipe much tighter. As far as underneath the building, there really hasn't been even the floors in that building uh any real cracks or anything. It's been pretty solid. So, I'm going to assume the pipe and what I've exposed in a couple of different areas. It is all gravel. They definitely did a good fill job there. There must have been some compaction that took place before that, whether it's just a natural compaction through rain, but it's uh pretty tight.

And that's fine. It's more than just It's more just asking the questions to make sure you're not repairing everything except for the one area that needs to be repaired, which I get it. Yeah,

just just asking for that. And then um I'm guessing it's probably RCP uh reinforced concrete pipe out there now and you're switching into HDPE. I certainly don't have any issues with that. Um pretty standard stuff. Okay. Um that's pretty much the questions that I have. I think um we do want to have uh some other uh people take a look at it. And again, I want to do a little bit more homework on everything else in this area and what has had to get permits and what doesn't. I just want to make sure we're covering that. Um but at this time, what I'd like to do is uh open it up to the public to see if they have any questions or comments um on this particular uh project. And again, this is this is Concom. What we're really interested is in that 24-in pipe that's being replaced because it um does convey uh a stream, whether that's intermittent or a perennial, that's a different kind of discussion which we'll take a look at um and review. But uh if anyone is online and they have a question, please raise your hand and I'll let Jan see if anyone uh raises a hand and we'll be more than happy to take any comments or questions. So all right. So we just got the D number and um and so in the comments from comments from DP I think Leah is is I'm just trying to figure out if this is something that needs to be peer reviewed because it's

I was going to ask you seemed to be alluding to it. I was going to ask which type you would like. Yeah, because it's not really it's really just um I'm just wondering, you know, if the scope enough is here to have it peer-reviewed. Um I know this is probably going through uh planning. Do you know if planning is having it peer-reviewed? Yes, they are. Okay. So, uh go ahead. That letter, if it's just from planning, isn't going to cover our storm water bylaw unless we ask for it to be added in. So, if that's what you're concerned about, I can add that to it. They were looking under their

reg. Yeah, that's really the only thing that I'm thinking that would need to be added here. Um, and and just to see if there's any red flags or anything. Okay.

Yeah. Um, anything else at this time? So, as you know, it's the applicant that has to request a continuence. Uh, at this point, we just want to get uh have a little bit more time with the information we just received from D, but also do some other background just to make sure that everyone we all have sufficient information for what we're looking at. Um, other than that, it's, you know, our jurisdiction is is somewhat um contained to that pipe um into storm water. So storm water is the other one and and if we get that just the storm water part peer reviewed then we'll we'll know if there's any other questions around that. Is there anything else layer that I'm missing?

Nope. That's everything for now. Yeah. So I'll go back to the applicant um and ask if you would like to uh continue this to the next hearing next meeting um just so that we can um kind of sort out those few things. Yes, I would like for a continuence, please. And if we I would I be able to get on you believe for the next meeting in October 6th. It's the 7th, but yes, that is the next meeting. That would be terrific. Just because I'm now fighting the uh the weather changes and the water changes.

Yeah. Yeah. That's, you know, from our perspective, we're not really looking to extend this too much. We just need to just a little bit more time to make sure we look at everything. No, I appreciate your consideration. Thank you. Um, and then Jan, anyone uh raising their hands? Nothing from the public. All right. Thank you on that. Um, the applicant has requested a continuence. I'm going to go quickly around um the commissions to see if anyone else have any questions at this time and then we'll just move to do um a motion. So, I'll go with the same order. Travis, any other things since that? Nothing else for me. Great. Uh, Jonathan, nope. Nothing for me. Amira, nothing for me. Noah,

no questions. And I have no further questions at this time. So, based on that, um, and no one from the public has uh raised their hand. So, could I have a motion to continue uh this hearing to the our next meeting? So, moved. Uh, do I have a second? Second. Have a motion, a second for continuence. We'll do a roll call vote. Travis, you're on my screen. You get to go first. Yes. Jonathan, yes. Amira, yes. And Noah, yes. I am also a yes. The motion carries unanimously. Thank you. All right.

And yeah, feel free to reach out to staff if you have any questions or if you have any questions on the peer review. Again, we're not looking to do have a whole new one. We're just looking um to have our peer reviewer just add the storm water part just to make sure we're covering ourselves. Um that's pretty much it. Good luck. Thank you. Thank you, Greg. All right. All right, Leah. What's up next? If we skip to the bottom, we have a bunch of folks here from the UPS team for their minor change request.

Okay. Uh, let me get the Okay, so this is my request. So, I don't need to read anything. I'm just checking the lead sheet. So, don't need to do that. So, why don't you uh promote them or if they're already promoted and have them do we can discuss the minor change request uh for so that would be Centennial Drive, 12 Centennial Drive. And who's here to discuss that? Good evening everyone. Greg Hawkmouth from Epsilon Associates. Hey, hey, Greg. Uh, the floor is yours.

All right. So, you may recall um the the UPS project had a uh small bylaw jurisdictional IVW that also met the bylaw definition of um isolated land subject to flooding as well. That was approved to be filled as part of the project. There were two conditions related to that filling. One was that um as soon as practicable um the replication area was to be constructed and a schedule provided to the commission and the peerreview consultant Art Allen from Ecotech. The second condition, I think it was condition 29, required that uh the compensatory flood storage be provided for before the area was filled in. The area was filled in this past spring and uh an area was roughed in um which based on calculations show that it was adequate for the required flood storage. Uh but in between uh the scheduling of the wetland replication area construction and the actual um construction itself, it was determined that it didn't appear that we needed to install uh the liner that was designed for this replication area. You may recall that it was in an area that we weren't sure was going to have adequate hydrarology. So the replication plan proposed a liner to be installed uh to ensure that hydrarology would be achieved upon construction. Uh during one of the visits with Art Allen, he and I took a close look at the site for the proposed replication area and it's pretty clear that hydraology is not going to be difficult to achieve, which I think is is great news. So, uh, this

commission allowed a field change to, uh, construct a standard replication area, but to have Art and myself there to ensure that adequate hydraology is achieved. So, in other words, we'll be out there while they're building it to make sure that it's deep enough. Uh, that was scheduled to be constructed this fall. That's what the current schedule calls for. Um, the project is moving rapidly. Uh they've got the concrete batch plant um in installed at the Centennial Drive access entrance. A few commission members were out there for a tour a couple weeks ago and we walked over and looked at that area. What the contractor is asking for is permission to hold off on constructing the replication area this fall, but to construct it instead this coming spring. Uh it's my understanding that um Art Allen is on board with the idea. Uh he just wants to ensure that the plantings go in as soon as they can next spring to take full advantage of the spring growing season and to avoid trying to plant when things starting start to dry out. Um that's what we're here asking for tonight is just to push this off until next spring. Um, and really the main reason is there's just a lot going on in that area of the site right now and it could be done, but it would be better for everyone if we if we could wait and and I support the uh schedule change as well. I don't see any harm in in pushing it off until the spring, but it's it's ultimately up to this commission and and Art didn't feel comfortable making that uh change on his own, which is why we're here.

All right. Appreciate that. Leah, any uh comments on your review of it? No, he covered everything other than just Art did give a date range. He's hoping for the plantings to be between April 15 and May 15. So, should we approve, I would just include that language in the vote. Okay. Uh I'll go around to the commissioners to see if anyone else has any questions. Uh Jonathan,

does the date range mean when they start doing that? I mean, not sure how many square feet or how many pound of plants, but I'm assuming this is a couple of days worth of planting and or maybe it's a couple weeks, but if it's a month window and they start at the end of that, you know, is that where they're actually taking and and growing and or is it does it matter, I guess, is the question. If they put them all in on 4:15, I guess it doesn't matter. But if they don't start until 5:15 and they take their time putting these things in because they're not available or whatever else and it becomes Yeah.

What what's the cut off? I guess is it. So if that's the ideal, is that what we're requiring is that everything needs to be in by May 15 or is that just the ideal and then you know it would be another minor change if they couldn't or something because I I get it trying to stay out of the heat of the summer and the drier to right. So, I'll go back to Greg if if based on your schedule those dates work.

Yeah. Yeah. It it's not going to take long to construct this. It's already roughed in. Um it's the only thing that could change things is a lot of these uh nurseries, they put things away. They're going to start putting things away soon for the winter. And if we get a very very frigid spring, they may decide to hold off on taking their stock out of the trailers and until a little late. But I think May 15th is is plenty of cushion. You know, certainly between April and May 15th, I think that'll be more than adequate for us to get everything done. All right. Thank you. Anything else, Jonathan? Nope. No further questions.

All right. Uh Travis Um, I mean that seems reasonable with that condition. I think May 15th was the traditional last frost date. So I wouldn't be surprised if we had to push it into June, which I would also be supportive of depending on the situation. But if we want to cut it off on May 15th, that's fine. Yeah, I yeah, I I was kind of on the same page saying that um that that to plant between those times unless the plant material is not available. Yeah. You know, something where that says, hey, because of of weather that planting time needs to be extended, but yeah.

Okay. Um All right. Uh air, any kind of questions on this? Questions for me? Okay. And then, uh Noah,

no questions. Okay. So, just for um everyone on the commission and anyone else who happens to be listening, uh when someone comes in front of the commission to ask for a change, there's actually three kind of levels. There's a minor change, which is what we're talking about now, where there's no substantial change to the PL to the design or anything. It's really about a scheduling uh change request. So, that would we would typically consider that minor. And then you also have the next one would be a major change which we would request that uh the applicant um do this request at a at a actual scheduled public hearing. And then the third which would be hey this is such a big change you have to do a new notice of intent. Obviously this one isn't even close to that. It's really talking about something instead of being done in the fall to be done uh in the spring. It's a scheduling thing and this um having Noah and I were out at the site. Yeah, there's a lot a lot going on. It's understandable that um you know, it's more of a risk uh component for the applicant and it you know, it's more likely that the replication area, excuse me, the the the planting, the replication area would be more successful without 50 or 100 trucks running around um in close proximity to where this basin was. So, all right. So based on that, anything else to add to that? Uh Leah?

Nope. I'm all set. Okay. So based on that and based that this is a minor change, do I have a motion to approve the minor change uh with the condition that uh Leah had included regarding uh planting between 4:15 and 5:15 with a an add-on that says as long as plant material is available. Um is anyone willing to as uh can I have a motion, please? I'll move to approve the minor change with the the planting restrictions between as discussed for 12 Centennial Drive. All right. Do I have a a second? Second.

Have a motion to second. Uh roll call vote. Uh Travis, yes. Jonathan, yes. Noah, yes. And yes. I am also a yes. The motion carries unanimously. Thank you very much everyone. Have a good night. All right. Have a good one. All right. Leah, what's uh the up next for Do you want to just go back to the top of action items and go down the list? I don't think we have any other attendees.

Okay, cool. Uh as far as meeting minutes, uh hopefully people had an opportunity to look at them. Um if there's any comments or questions on them, I'll go around. Uh I'll start with air since she's up on my screen. No, no questions about them or comments. Okay, great. Thank you. Uh, Noah, nothing from me. Travis, nothing for me. Jonathan, nothing from All right. I also have nothing. So, do I have a motion for both of the meeting minutes on August 5th and 2025 and September 9th, 2025?

I'll move to approve the meeting minutes for August 5th and September 9th, 2025. I have a second. We have a motion and a second. Roll call vote. Air. Yes. Uh Noah, yes. Jonathan, yes. Travis, yes. I am also a yes. Motion motion carries unanimously. Okay. Uh request for certificate of compliance for 8 Hudsonav. Uh Lee, I want to give your report. Sure. Um, Jan, did you guys talk through this one before or were you and I just working on it in the background?

Uh, we were working on it in the background.

Okay. So, this was a single family house um that came to us for a certificate of compliance. Um Jan had a lot of back and forth with the applicant um on conditions that they had not satisfied um such as their no disturbed signs barrier um taking some debris out of the wetland plantings they had to put in um so there was a lot of back and forth. She's been out to the site a few times but they have now addressed everything um and we have an asbuilt plan from them. If you have any questions about the details of the site, um Jan can answer those. Otherwise, I recommend issuing their COC. Okay. Um based on that, uh do I have a motion to uh issue the certificate of compliance?

I'll move to issue the CO certificate of compliance for eight Hudson A. All right. Do I have a second? Second. All right. I should do this just ahead of time. If anyone have questions, let me quickly go through. Travis, any questions on it? No. Uh, Jonathan, any questions? No. Any questions? No questions. Uh, no. Noah, any questions? No. I also have no questions. We have a motion in a second. Let's do a roll call vote. Aar on my screen, you get to go first. Yes. Uh, Noah, yes. Uh, Jonathan, yes. Travis, yes.

I am also yes. The motion carries unanimously. Okay. Uh, minor change request for 60 Wesson Street, uh, formally 62 Weston Street, lot 2. Uh, Lee, want to give us the rundown on this?

Sure. Um, and there is a plan that Jen can pull up while I'm given an intro, but this is one of the lots when we permitted three lots uh from the Willard Clock Museum um that they were developing uh into single family house lots. So, this is the middle one. Um it was supposed to share a common driveway with um so this is lot two and then the common drive was going to go into lot three. Um, so this applicant um is developing lot two. In the meantime, lot three was bought by neighbors with the intention to just preserve it. They don't want the house to be built. So, um, on lot two, you have the common driveway, but then it stops towards the lot line. Um he has told us that he's been unable to source such a small amount of porous pavement for this small segment of driveway. He said he's talked to many plants that make the material and they don't they don't make such a small batch. Um so he's

that does not surprise me. He's proposing through his engineer um like rerouting the storm water off the driveway into the trench that's next to the driveway and then like that links to the underllayment of the what what would have been under the porest pavement. Um gota

so I had sent this idea to Jeff Walsh at Graves Engineering our peer reviewer. He said it seemed reasonable. he was waiting for a sketch, which when I wrote this report, you'll see that he hadn't weighed in on it yet. Um he did uh weigh in on it this afternoon. He said he had no issues. Um but it that he did want the vote to capture that um they're going to put a vehicle turnaround at this now like deadend common driveway so that folks can pull back out um straight onto Wesson Street instead of backing out because it's a really blind corner. So he just wanted to make sure that in like if we're approving a change that we just also reflect that there'll be a little turnaround at the end of the driveway now.

Okay. So, just so I'm clear. So, the the the plan that we're looking at, which lot is that? That's that's this lot uh 60 Wesson, aka lot two. And as you can see, the driveway was going to go south into lot three. That's the one that's not going to be developed.

Okay. And so when you say you're going to have a turnaround, which is fine, the only thing I'm asking is is that you wouldn't go to the property line and do a turnaround. So Jeff Jeff did throw a couple pictures um in there that I put in Dropbox as well um that he's showing the end of the driveway and what that looks like roughly. Um so that should help. Yeah, I think it's pretty easy, but it's again it's it's uh Yeah, if we can see those, that would be great. So, that's the driveway where it ends at the property line. Um, so if we go back to the plan for a second, Jan, sorry. So that is about where the two arrows are in the driveway. Okay. So since this driveway is only going to be serving that house that we see right here, I don't see why they wouldn't just do the turnaround at their driveway and not bring it all the way to the end and put another turnaround in. He had already constructed all the base layers of the whole thing before he went looking for the poorest pavement.

Gotcha. All right. Um just a I mean wouldn't that increase So if they're doing a turnaround, wouldn't that increase the impervious or they just suggest it's very small or whatever? It's going to put more pavement or it's going to gravel. Um and what's the expected use of it? like is it if it's Amazon vans and things like that, they turn around in all of our driveways constantly. So, um are they expecting 18 wheelers to come down the street and try to turn around or is this just Amazon UPS delivery vehicles? Because I agree with what Sandy just questioned, which is why not pull into the driveway and turn around. kind of a it's an increase of pavement area and it seems unnecessary to me, but maybe that's outside of our jurisdiction. I don't know.

Yeah. I mean, I'm just I'm just wondering if the planning board or someone else is saying you have to bring the driveway to the lot line. I guess I'm just looking why it I you know, I get that the the subsurface was there. Probably just as good to you know, put gravel or something on it. I'm just wondering since you can't do porous and since it's not going anywhere, I'm just trying to be practical about not increasing the amount of imperousness. That's all. I mean, I agree with uh Jeff Walsh's assessment that, you know, putting in what's on the edge and having going into the the drainage for that was underneath it. It's just a different method of how that gets there. So instead of having going through the porous pavement, it's now going to go to a swale right next to it and go underneath that I don't have a problem with. But when I look at this particular uh layout of the driveway, it's like, you know, you you have this this is a common driveway. It's not a road. So, you know, um if you had a really big truck, it would not be able to do anything but back up. But if you had a delivery van or a car, you could easily come in. If anything, you widen the uh driveway up into the house a little bit to have a bigger area of turning, but you don't need to put all the other pavement there. I I don't know all the ins and outs of that. I mean, in general, I don't have an issue. It just seems like there's a natural turnaround already.

So, I have a couple couple thoughts. One is I don't know exact square footage figures, but I think the idea was adding a bit of a turnaround here in place of the pavement that's not going to go on lot three because this was designed all as one system, right? Um was kind of a tradeoff if you will in imperous. Um, well, I don't have the exact square footage numbers. The other thing is if we zoom in a little bit, I think that red call out says proposed limit of constructed driveway. Oh, okay.

On that corner. Um, so I might be a little bit off in saying that the end is about where the arrows are. Um, but I do not see a call out of where the the turnaround itself is. See, that makes sense where you would quote end the construction of the driveway, but then go another 20 ft to provide a place that uh an Amazon van, an other type of delivery van, something not large that could be turned around. I think that makes sense. um and not have to construct the rest of it. Yeah, I I agree with Jeff's kind of assessment that, you know, it's a little bit safer and it makes it a little bit easier to do, but that again this got approved, you know, without that consideration

to is he suggesting like a little culde-sac, like a little balloon space where the truck can actually drive around and drive out, or is he simply suggesting that like Sandy just said they drop from the proposed limit of constructed driveway they they 20 30 more feet whatever so it can be a three-point turn yeah just a T intersection to turn around not not a culdeac or anything oh

yeah I mean that's really ultimately up to the owner I can understand the safety but um that's more of a planning board issue than it is our issue. Um, but as far as, you know, as far as the porest pavement, I certainly don't have an issue with that as a as a minor change. Um, uh, as far as the turnaround goes, we just need to see something. I I guess for a minor change, I don't particularly want to put something in that we don't really know what the minor change is. I think it's simple and I don't think they need to do a minor change because that pavement's already on the plan. It's more like they're just not building the entire common driveway, which is less of an issue for us and more of an issue for the planning board, you know. So, uh, let me quickly go around and just ask folks. Jonathan, anything further to add to that?

No. Uh, Travis,

so I think I missed this, but is the is the planning board going to get rid of this common drive? So, like, is there any potential in the future for this third lot to finish off this common drive? Does that make sense? if it was a private. So, this is where the question about, you know, how it got approved and the common driver got approved, which I don't know a whole lot about, but typically, unless the person who bought the lot puts some sort of restriction on it, or something happens with that lot to say they're not doing a building lot there. they can anytime in the future develop that lot and then have that because they have rights to that common driveway and that can be completed in the future.

So are we approving this minor change assuming that that third lot will never get developed? the the the change for the drainage the the change for the drainage is is us saying that instead of doing the porous pavement what you can simply do is you have the the uh section of the porous pavement so instead of the water going through the porous pavement at all altogether it's going to go onto the stone uh adjacent to it and then that's going to go into the stone underneath the driveway. So it's just a different route of where the water So if the if the common driveway is pitched towards on this plan west and you have a catchment area and it brings it down underneath the the drainage, it's just a different route for the water to get into that storage underneath the porest pavement. So to me there's there's the the the question on hey there's a revision to um the drainage simply because they can't get a batch of porous pavement that small which doesn't surprise me.

Um yeah because yeah let me ask it one more different way. Um Sandy, if they were still building that entire common drive, would you have concerns about this alternative plan? So that alternative plan would have to be used to the extent of the of the property line, which is what we will say in any kind of minor change. Then as far as the lot below it, if they go to do something, they will have the same issue of they could put porest pavement if they can get it. for this alternative. Yeah. Okay. Then I think I'm okay with the plan as discussed. Yeah.

But it sounds like we want a little more info. Yeah. It's it's more like we want we don't want to we don't want to go into planning board kind of and I don't know if they make them do the I have no idea. I don't know if they're going to say, "Hey, you have to go to the property line because that's what you own." I don't know. That's not for us to decide. Um, but it's more like, okay, let's make sure we're covering what we need to do, which is the storm water minor change, which just gives them a different way of of um being able to capture and potentially infiltrate the uh the driveway. So, okay. Nothing else for me. Thanks.

Okay. Um, who Jonathan, have you have you already you already in? Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Uh, Amamira, any questions? No, I don't have any questions. Okay. And then, um, uh, Noah, any questions on this? No questions for me.

Okay. So, yeah. So I think I think um Leah I think like uh you know voting on you know having a motion and voting on the change in the drainage I don't have any issue as far as you know putting the turnaround in that sounds more like a planning board type of issue than it is a concom issue. Um, so I don't know if we need to, you know, it it's just that maybe we just need to make sure we say that if a turnaround is installed, then the drainage needs to make sure it meets this requirement, this change.

Yeah. Okay. So based on that, do I have a motion to approve the minor change which encompasses um uh the kind of rerouting of the water of the uh previously porous pavement which is now going to be standard pavement into a swale then into the uh storage underneath the driveway. um as an alternative to not being able to get porest pavement. So moved. Okay. We have a motion in a second. Roll call vote. Uh Jonathan, yes. Uh Travis,

yes. Amira, yes. Noah, yes. I am also a yes. All right, moving on. Any discussion items? No discussion items. I have one question out of curiosity. Yep. What is the minimum amount of porous pavement a plant will provide?

That's a great I would think it would have to be a batch which means it would so it depending upon it's getting into uh the fall season. So I don't I know the I know standard pavement a little bit better than I know porous pavement. So, first of all, not all plants do porous pavement. So, you have to find a plant that's doing it. And I don't know if there's a different calendar. Usually, it's like November 15th for regular pavement. Um, that's purely based on, you know, temperature and all those type of things that you will have most of the plants closed down in November. So it may be just due to the fact that um you know where the plants are and what they do for batches and where they have to go to get um you know to get a batch of porous pavement which isn't going to be as available as regular pavement. Um I haven't seen this specific issue but you're talking about a common driveway which was going to be excellent feet is now like much smaller much smaller. So, it doesn't surprise me, but I don't have that information specifically.

But in in your opinion, you figured it would be feasible to have done if they had done the whole driveway. It's not like I should have on my checklist of things I'm looking for to flag if someone wants to do a driveway with porest pavement. I would I would say to is if someone wants to do a a porous pavement, then they should make sure that it's available. So, it really comes down to the company doing the the porous system um and whether they do it. I don't know to be honest. I haven't seen a lot of private like short shorter driveways right with porus, but I don't know what those numbers are. Okay. So, okay. That's all I have. That's all you have?

Yep. Okay. I had so I I saw the note about the select board. So yeah, I'm may I should be able to be in attendance there. Um I didn't respond to it yet, but I should be able to be in attendance there. Didn't know if there was anything is does that mean that folks that are presenting like is that going to be an in-person everyone meeting including just that's a new one in my five something years. It's we could talk about it briefly.

It's new to me, too. I don't have a ton of details, but I know they intended to have a joint meeting, so each of us will post an agenda. The select board still, I believe, meets hybrid, so you guys could choose to come in person or on Zoom. Um, and they're just looking for they're they're doing this with all boards and committees. It's not just us. and they're looking for like a general overview of like our current projects and what we have going on. Um, as I have more information, I will definitely let you guys know what that should look like or materials we should prepare. Um, that's all I know at this point, but they do meet at 7 in conference room A. Okay. So, as far as I'm concerned, I don't have anything booked at the moment. there is only one possibility for something work to show up, but that would be I don't think so. I don't think that's an issue. But from my perspective at this point, I don't have an issue with that. Um I will probably show up in person.

Yeah. You know, uh just uh to be present and so forth. So, uh I think we need to just think about uh you know if people are going to show up in person just how we would do that with having other people you know having it hybrid. I don't think it's a big issue. We do CBC hybrid a lot of times. So, um it's just being aware of you got to make sure you include the people online and make sure that you know and I don't think we would have a problem um whoever's running running it, you know, we can watch that to say to make sure we get everyone's input. So, I'd plan on going in person unless I'm sick or Yeah.

Yeah. Same here. I can I can probably go in person. Well, yeah, we'll simplify it. I've never done an in-person meeting in my time. I missed it by I think one or two meetings. So, I actually kind of miss the inerson meetings. I wish we could do kind of alternating or something. I actually enjoy going to CPC and actually see see people face to face. Um and I'm, you know, we're all what 5 10 minutes away other than staff um who are not as adjacent as we are. But, um you can be remote, right?

I'm not gonna I'm not going to complain. we do fine. Um, you know, I think, you know, I know there's a lot of discussion on the state level. There's a lot of advocates that say everything should be back in person. There's some people that say everything should be, you know, hybrid or people that say it should be, you know, remote or whatever. I I think, you know, it's really about having giving people access. I like the hybrid just because you do have some people who for whatever reason can't make it out or whatever. I think gives them the opportunity if they really want to listen in or something or participate they can. I don't have super strong feelings other than making sure you know uh you know a public hearing or meeting is available to people. That's all. So um but okay. Uh, anything else? I just like to finish thank Leah for inviting us out to go look at UPS.

Yeah, that was cool. It was, you know, it was as big as I thought it would be.

I kept saying that. It was like I was stunned at the uh progress and at the um uh size of some of the retaining walls and the efficiency of their having the site and how it's working and the whole um earth moving efforts on site. So it was uh it was um I don't know I like going to construction sites. What can I say? So for me I enjoyed it. But it was good to see. I was also impressed with um how well they have it planned and how attentive they are to all of the um all of the different considerations of being an efficient construction site. It's clean. It's organized. It's safe. Safety is a big issue for them. So I was impressed with their professionalism, which I think helps us, which is why when they had an issue, they came right to us. So, I think that's, you know, that's something to, you know, uh, appreciate the professionalism on how they run their their site. So, I was pretty impressed with that.

I agree. Yeah. But it was fun. It's a It's a big site. It's really, really a lot of earthwork. It's one of the largest earthwork projects I've seen in person. I've seen a few big ones, so, but it was all good. So, I appreciate that, Leah. And and obviously right down the street. And yes, I still can tell when they're they're blasting when I'm home. Uh it is what it is. It it doesn't impact me at all, but you can tell when they're blasting because they're doing big charges. So, all right. Uh other than that, one last thing. I'll move to adjourn. Second.

You have a motion, a second to adjurnn. Roll call vote. Amira, yes. Travis, yes. Noah, yes. Jonathan, yes. I am also a yes. So, thanks. Thank you everyone. Thank staff.