Conservation Commission - Regular Meeting

[Music] Since it's 7:01, we can rock and roll. Okay. Uh, I call the meeting to order. Before we get started, let's introduce everyone on this meeting. I'm Sandy Brock. When I call your name, please confirm that you can hear me by verifying that you are present. Starting with the uh commissioners. Uh, Jonathan present. Uh mirror Noah. He was here. He was here. He's no longer here.

Now he is. Hey, Noah, can you hear me? Yes, I can. All right. Noah's back. Okay. Um, as far as staff goes, Leah, I'm here. and Jan present.

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

We don't have anything that's at a certain time. So um if you want to just go down the list, we can. All right, let's start with the continuations. Okay, so this is one horse on uh street 215 Worcester Street. All right. Pursuant to Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, Grafton Stormwater Management bylaw, and Grafton Wetlands Protection bylaw, the Conservation Commission to hold a public hearing to act upon a notice of intent application uh for Grafton Stormwater bylaw permit and application for Grafton Wetlands bylaw permit for redevelopment of the plaza at 215 Worcester Street. Uh who's here to present this?

Hi, I'm Kate O'Donnell. Um can you guys hear me? Uh, yes I can. Thank you. Um, I'm joined by Brian Fitzgerald who's the applicant and property owner. Um, and then I believe John Federico from Gary who's the project engineer um might be on if they're not in as a panelist if they could be pulled in. And then Adam Last who's the Okay, perfect. and then Adam last. I don't know if he's on his um just to quickly

Okay, no problem. Um just to quickly recap, the um project is redevelopment of an existing developed commercial lot. Um it's actually two adjacent lots. Um and the project proposes to um repave a lot of areas, add some amenity spaces. Um and then in particular the applicant's looking to replace a portion of that underground pipe on the site um that is a um intermittent stream in that pipe. Um last time we did receive the GPU file number and got a couple of um file number comments which we did kind of roughly go through and hopefully we've provided um the information with enough time for you all to review that. Um and just to recap the first two which are related to kind of the wetland side of things. Um one of their comments was relative to stream crossing standards and whether or not those could be um you know evaluated or met. And you know our our kind of response to that is this. We're not replacing a stream crossing. We're not replacing from the inlet to the outlet. we're only replacing um the portion on the subject parcels owned by the the applicant. Um so you can't really evaluate stream crossing standards or or even improve relative to stream crossing standards because you have to replicate the existing conditions um in this way. And then DP's second comment was uh whether or not there was any riverfront area on the property. And um you know I provided the uh 2024 USGS maps um indicating that the stream is mapped intermittent as well as the stream stats report um indicating that it it would be designated

intermittent. Um, and then we did also provide the TSS uh calculation worksheets um and then a construction sequence. And I'll throw that to John if he wants to add anything about those.

Um, as far as everything goes, um, the uh construction sequence, it it is a draft sequence. Um, ultimately we will be uh leaving that up to the contractor to determine um based on field conditions. Um but uh generally we did specify that um all work should be done during a dry period. Um we have discussed with um the applicants um couple of alternatives to be used um in the event that um full dry period could not be achieved. Um but um ultimately um goals uh would be to have it uh during a uh a no flow situation uh for that pipe replacement. Uh in terms of TSS removal, um currently the site does not have any TSS removal. Uh so we are proposing um limited improvements on that. Um and we have um brought that up with peer review um already um as they were uh reaching out for some initial uh discussion points as they're moving through this process.

And then lastly, we um had the Adam Lass who's the licensed site professional. Um he prepared a a letter with some information on the historic release on the property and you know uh some more information relating to groundwater monitoring and why recharge is um is not an ideal situation for for a contaminated area. Um, and I think that's everything that we've added at this point um to address those comments, but if you guys have any further questions or concerns, we're happy to discuss or provide that.

Sure. Thank you very much. Um, Leah, you want to go through your report?

Sure. Um, so they already touched on one which was just that I had asked um for a dewatering or like flow rerouting detail if they can't achieve the dry conditions that we would all hope for. Um, we are waiting on Graves Peer Review and I did pull the file that you were um remembering last time, Sandy, from Cumberland Farms right next door. Um, they needed an Army Corps permit and they definitely relocated the stream and I gave you guys screenshots of the plans. Left is before where it went straight through the site. Right is after um where they kind of turned it into a sea of sorts. Um, definitely rerouted it all around the site. Um, other than that they have a waiver request for work in the no disturb and I just started drafting findings and conditions.

Okay.

Um, so at this point, why don't we just go around to the commissioners that are present to see if anyone has any specific questions of where we are now. Then we can talk a little bit about the Graves peer review and having to get that in and receive that prior to anything. But other than that we can talk about some of the findings and special conditions. Um so uh starting with questions. Uh Jonathan any questions at this point? The the only question I have is and again it's because of that not specific to this site but the adjacent site that we were talking about last time was the reason for the rerouting due to the use of the property being a gas station or was it because there was a structure in the way and I don't know if that's something that we know or we need to understand. I'm not sure.

Yeah, my memory is it had to do with the building where the tanks are. So that's why I got pushed there and and I appreciate uh Leah going back and looking at it. So um it's really a different condition. There's one that was a river and they relocated it which which then triggered the um army core. This is an intermittent stream, but they're not doing anything. They're just repairing the actual pipe. So there's no relocation. But um but that was I was also just trying to figure out why there are two big culpits going through in the same relatively same area. Um and that's that's where my kind of uh question came from. So

okay. No, that that makes sense. Um again, Leah, I appreciate you uh pulling that up, but I don't have any other questions or comments. All right. Thanks. Um, Noah, do you have any questions at the point at this time? No questions for me now. Okay. Amra, do you have any questions at this time? Questions?

All right. Thank you. So, uh, going back to the applicant and we'll start to open this up to uh, the public in a minute. So, you know, we're waiting on Graves peer review. that'll kind of help us kind of finish off the things to some of the the comments that um Leah had had mentioned about you know what is you know what is dry conditions those type of things and the fact that we have a draft construction sequencing I would just say that we'll probably have a special condition that says once you do have a contractor on board if there is updates to that you know uh construction sequencing just submit an update an update ated version of it so that we have it in house um for any kind of site visits so we know that what's going on there. Um Leah, do you want to kind of go through the findings and start talking about some of the special conditions just so that the applicants aware of it and that we're not wasting everyone's time for showing up tonight?

Sure. Um okay, go for it.

So I had two findings. one um that we would be approving the following impacts which is just 400 linear feet of bank for the pipe replacement and it's a temporary impact. Uh the second finding would be that the storm water standards both Massachusetts and under our bylaw were met to the maximum maximum extent practicable um through the use of less impervious surface overall. Um, I believe last time we were talking about that it's going to be a porous surface under the play area. They're disconnecting some pavement with their landscaped areas and putting in a new sump for improvement in TSS. Um, and then I had three special conditions. One, that the work to replace the pipe shall be completed during dry conditions and shall follow the sequencing submitted. And as you noted, Sandy, we can add um with any adjustments to be made by the contractor in conjunction with our approval. Um we would want a copy of their SWIP. And then also, per the discussion last time, snow snow shall be stored within the amenity spaces associated with the buildings or trucked offsite in accordance with DP's snow removal policy. And if you guys had other spots you want me to add to that condition about snow, just let me know.

Okay. Um the only the only thing I have to add as far as the findings go is that um the site does have contamination and to the client uh to the applicant. Um I don't think I think I we touched on this last time. Um you don't know if this is going to have an AUL yet. you don't know what the kind of final I know you're remediating it and you you're working with D. Do you have a sense of what's going to happen and what's been done to date as far as the contamination uh on the site? Uh Brian Fitzgerald, the applicant to 215 properties. I do uh as we're moving to final closure, it has been mentioned, but it has been confirmed that they probably will impose an AUL on the site at that point, but the cleanup itself is done. The remediation work is completed and we're just uh in the mode of uh you know monitoring and natural attenuation and that's how it will stay. It's been very successful. Adam last uh he couldn't uh come tonight but he would be available in the next meeting uh after peer review if you request uh just to you know help with any else what you might add to it but the uh site itself EPA did a full review on that level two audit of all of the uh reporting methods and all the standards were taking place they essentially as you probably know Sandy they rely on the LSP for the guidance of the site and they just confirm it, back it up.

And uh and we are moving in the right position with this. The site levels, the chemicals have broken down substantially into some of the sister components which shows we're really good degragation.

The material itself has been removed. So it's really just what's left in the natural ground and we've been reducing the footprint of our testing and we're going down to an annual basis versus by annual basis. uh we feel that confident and the EPA had concurred with that conclusion that yes it's all moving in the right direction. So I think we're on a pretty promising note. The part about some of the recharge that came up though even up gradient they do not want to introduce any extra flows if they can avoid it and part of his recommendation was a low impact development which came to the conclusion early on knowing some of the impact environmentally. Uh the site as you know was a VMU which allows for an increased density. There could have been many more structures on it. I made a decision early on just to try to repurpose a couple of buildings that were in good shape and not overbuild the site and try to really shoot the moon on it. Uh so we are following that practice and by trying to recharge create more impervious areas uh I'm sorry areas uh I think we're on the right course for everything and Adam has been very helpful and some guidance with me that even on the development stage I concur with him all the time. So

I appreciate that. Yeah and I was just going to say and ask uh Leah to add to where we're talking about the storm water stand. that's where we're meeting it to the maximum extent practical to add another one of those list of why certain things are being done is the fact that you know it is a previously contaminated site and that there will be an AUL on it and again it's just for the record um we don't obviously we don't really have anything to do with that that's all D that's fine it's really just one more reason why we wouldn't want to promote more infiltration that's all

correct yeah okay we can provide Okay. So, um, those are the findings. Go ahead. For anyone who might not know, what is an AUL? Oh, it's an Yes, it's a use limitation on this on a site. So,

so basically it it's something that they actually would record at the registry of deeds and then um you know it would I don't know what this AUL would have but an example is like um you know an example maybe um if it was in such an area the use restriction maybe you can't have you know certain things there like drainage or septic or maybe a play area or something. So there's all different quote unquote use restrictions and that's in the AUL. So in this case here, we're not saying there's going to be a specific use uh limitation on it, but what we're saying is is that that's one more reason not to really push on the kind of in infiltration side of things. That's all. It's just one more finding. That's all. So,

all right. As far as um special conditions, um these are fairly straightforward. I'd go back to the applicant. Is there any um particular uh special conditions that uh that Leo went through that you have any issues with? Um just to you know, if there's something there, please let us know. We can have a discussion. Otherwise, it's fairly straightforward. No, there there really isn't. And I appreciate the considerations and the input. It's pretty much the direction we've been pushing for on the site uh uh in order to uh repurpose it and redevelop it as of existing conditions. The AUL uh Sandy is explicitly about you know not removing material if you don't have to and if you do it's to remain on site. Anything shipped off site has to be tested. So that's why by not doing a lot of major digging, you know, surface things are all right. The levels of contamination are down fairly deep at this point and minimal, but they are also uh where the daycare is, they're obviously uh the daycare is upgradient of any of this, but you still don't want to disturb much over there if you can avoid it. So we're trying to really have that minimal impact in the conditions that you're speaking of very doable. So I do accept them and appreciate the considerations. Okay, I'm just going to go around to the commissioner, see if anyone else has any other recommendations on what uh Leah has for special conditions or if they think of any anything else. Um air, do you have anything or any comments on what we've discussed so far?

No, no comments for me. Okay, that all sounds good. All right, thank you. Noah, no questions. and Jonathan. Nothing else.

Okay. At this point, I'll open it up to the public. If anyone has any comments or questions on this particular project, uh please raise your hand. We'll be happy to uh call on you and uh answer any questions if we can. Uh and Jan, you can watch that. Um, I guess what we're really looking for is kind of the final um, you know, letter from Graves, just a peer reviewer, so that we can kind of include that in any final decision. Um, I can't think of anything else, Lee. Is there anything else? Nope, that's all I have.

Okay, Jan, anyone from the uh public? Nothing from the public. Thank you very much. Um, anything from the applicant? And would you uh are you going to be requesting a continuation to Oh god, it's already October October 21st. Yes, if we could have a continuation to October 21st to allow time for Graves Engineering and peer review and us to uh be able to respond to that would be terrific. All right, that sounds great. Having said that, at this point, can someone uh make a motion to continue the hearing to October 21st?

I'll I'll move to continue the hearing for one Hawthorne Street, 215 Worcester Street to October 21st. Thank you. Do I have a second? I'll second that. We have a motion to second. Roll call vote. Jonathan, you're on the big screen. You get to go first. Yes. All right, Noah. Oops. I'm sorry you didn't unmute. Yes. All right. Thanks, Amar. You keep disappearing on me. So, uh, you're up. Yes. And I am uh also a yes.

Thank you guys. So, that means Yep. The motion carries. See you in a couple weeks. Thank you very much. appreciate everything. Thank you. Have a good night. All right. Uh just a quick check. Is my my voice okay? My volume okay? You sound a little in the distance. This a little bit better? Not yet. Oh, really? I am purely off my computer. Okay, I will just speak a little bit louder. Do you have to change in the audio menu where it's coming from?

Yeah. So, it it has to do with whether I'm on a remote system or I'm on my on my desktop and everything is set up differently. It's just whatever. And I did not spend any time ahead of time checking that. All right. So based on that, we'll uh move to the next continuation for 162 Old Upton Street. All right. Pursuant to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, uh the Grafton Wetlands Protection bylaw, the Graphen Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing to act upon a notice of intent and application for Grafton Wetlands bylaw permit for the widening of driveway at 162 Old Grafton Road. And who's here to speak to that?

Good evening. This is Norman Hill from land planning. Can you all hear me? Okay. Floor. Yeah, the other floor.

Okay. Good evening. So, currently there are three houses that use this section of driveway. And the section of driveway I'm referring to is the section that passes between the two stone walls down there at 140. So, I don't know if Leah could zoom in on those two stone walls. You can see the gray the gray area near the route 140 is at the top of the screen and and the three houses. Okay, that's good. So, there are three houses. So, first there's a house right off of 140. It's number 236. So, they start on this driveway, but you can see where that driveway leaves almost immediately and goes to their home. That's 236. That's the first lot in on the left. But then it this driveway continues through those two stone walls and then it splits. One goes to my client at 162 and the other one goes to the house at 164. So those two families have to share this section of driveway that's between the two walls. You can see where they fork and each have their own driveway after that. So we're looking to widen the part of the driveway that they all share. Now, our clients went to the Grafton ZBA uh and uh were granted a special permit for a common driveway for these for these homes. Uh one of the conditions was the fire department wanted it to be 24 ft wide and they wanted it done by next fall. So, my clients would be looking to do this work next spring and summer and and and that would be in compliance with that special permit that they were issued by the Graphen ZBA. Now, I'd like to focus on that driveway. It's uh right now when it rains because

we D asked about storm water. Right now when it rains it comes downhill from the entrance to where the there's you can see where the brook comes down and it joins and then there's a 42in pipe that goes under 140 and dumps into Silver Lake. So at the entrance it goes downhill towards that low point which is near that brook. There's a head wall right there and there's a there's a box with a catch basin grate on top of it. But the catch basin grate is about 3 in higher than any of the surrounding dirt. So no water goes into that catch basin great currently right now. And then from my client's lot at 162 and the other house at one at the other house, it comes downhill all the way to where it where the two driveways merge. Then it goes downhill to the low point. Instead of going into that catch basin, the top of that box, it actually overflows the the head wall and goes around the head wall and dumps into that brook and goes through the 42 in pipe into Silver Lake. Town Beach, by the way, is just across the way. So, there are no storm water facilities here and now. Now, um, what we're proposing is to lower that that grate almost a foot and put a barracuda there. So, the barracuda would clean the water coming off these sections of driveway. Um, 80% TSS removal rate and and so we feel that'd be a huge improvement to right now there were no storm water management facilities. Now, we don't believe that we trigger your bylaw because there's very little area impacted and very little dirt being moved around, but D did ask that we do a storm water management report, and we did one. We submitted it

last week. They probably haven't had a chance to review it yet at D. So, I'm going to be requesting a continuence tonight. Um because nor do we have a D file number yet. Leah, did you get a D file number? We did not. I don't believe we have one yet. No, it has not come in yet. No. So, we're going to have to ask for a continuence, but I'd like to schedule a site visit, too, so we could all meet out there and go over this. This is uh not your usual um project. And I think it'd be best if we went out, we looked at this. And that that's all I have to say.

Okay. Uh Leah, you want to go over your report? Sure. Um, so this is within the um, ACEC in town, but they are not proposing any wetland alterations. So that should be fine as long as the footprint doesn't change. Um, we received one interdep departmental comment from the town planner that this work may require permits from planning in the ZBA. Norman touched on that a bit earlier. Um, we do need the NOI to be revised to not check off that it's a single family house after the conversations that have been had um with Norman and D. I believe it's the meditation center back there and that was the reason D pushed on storm water. So we need we need a new NOI uh reflecting that change and also the checkbox that you do need to meet the storm water standards. Um so in your storm water report I also noticed that you stated TSS um and TP calculations are not applicable because it's a dimminimous peak rate. That's something uh if the commission wants to talk about that tonight or at a future meeting. Um they requested a waiver for work and then no disturb because it's right up near the driveway and we will need to capture um they mentioned about sweeping the the driveway to keep it clean as part of the storm water um on and m so we'll need to capture that in a special condition when we get there. That's all I have.

Yes. One key key thing, Sandy, I neglected to mention is that we're doing work within 25 ft of the wetland. So, we did ask for that waiver. Um, yep. So, ju just I have just a couple of quick questions. So, um, so what is the current width of that driveway? It varies from 11 to 13 feet paved. 11 to 13. Okay. And you're basically adding 10 feet. Yeah. Maybe 11, you know, about five or six feet either side.

Okay. And that's that was requested by the fire department. Yes. Okay. And so on this plan here, basically the shaded areas is the expansion of the driveway. Yes. Okay. Um, let me go around first to the other uh, commissioners to see if they have any questions or clarifications. Um, Jonathan,

the area right along 140 where the driveway hits the road and 140 at that intersection, it's also shaded. So, is that also going to be driveway or is that vegetation? I think that that yeah that that's a proposed removal of vegetation to improve sight distance. Okay. That's not to be paved. Not to be paved. The existing curb cut is quite large and so there's no proposal to change the existing curb cut.

So where the line splits that h that shaded area, the driveway is going to to widen in that area. So, you're going to remove part of the vegetation, pave it, and then remove the remaining vegetation along that other the the little sliver, if you will, along 140. That's correct. Yep. Okay. Um, no other questions. All right. Thank you, Mayor. Do you have any questions? No, I the only thing I was wondering about was um what Jonathan just mentioned. So that that makes sense to me. Okay, great. No, any questions?

No questions.

Yeah. So, yeah. I mean, I'm thinking, you know, um you know, is there any poss I'm just trying to think of different ways to widen this driveway to that width? I mean that's that's not for us to determine why the width is if there's you know there's a lot of different approaches you can make um where you you know uh and and so maybe I have a question on this is is that you know what kind of um number of vehicles are going in and out of here on a regular basis. So up in back you have one homeowner and and I think the manual says six and a half trips a day and then our client um that' be another six and a half trips a day. So you're looking at 13 and then you So you got 13 trips per day through this shaded area then another six and a half at the entrance. I I I my clients on online I bet Oda is online. I think you probably answer that. But I asked him, "Do you ever meet someone coming head on the other way?" He said, "Really, but so I I it's not like typical road traffic, but but you're going to have people going to the grocery store and going to work and

Yeah. So I have a question in that regard. Is there when we first started having these conversations in development team quite some time ago, there was talk about the meditation center out back and possible expansion of that center and offering more programming. Is that what's driving this or you keep talking about just homes now?

So, they have dreams and and and they have to raise a lot of money, but that could could come forward in another year or two. Um, a meditation center. Right now there's just a house they meet there. I don't know how many people they have in maybe six or seven once or twice a week. It's not a not a big business. I had this go around with DP. They said it's not a house. It's a business. I said well I guess so there is they are dreaming of of a facility here at some point.

Okay. So, and the reason I'm asking that is that's what I'm thinking of is there's different ways to to to accommodate the 24 foot wide and but not have to do, you know, 24 foot uh pavement the entire width. So, and again, that comes down to function. How many cars are going in there? I mean, if they're going to expand a business, you know, further, they're going to have to go back to site plan anyways. You have no parking, relatively little parking and all this other things. So, we don't want to get into that. I think we just want to stick to what is under our jurisdiction, but I'm just wanting to make sure that or to have a better understanding. So, cuz some of the, you know, type of approaches that I was thinking of is instead of doing a 20 foot wide roadway into there, you keep the pavement and then you put the edges. There's a whole assortment of type of reinforced turf or, you know, or you know, you know, different types of grid systems that would be, you know, that would be porous. But it's it's used for when you have that rare occurrence of someone, you know, having two people on there or you have a fire truck that needs a wider width. So whether that's grass, I mean, there's so many difference. Not saying to use one or the other, but just because, you know, you're talking about, hey, yeah, you're doubling the width of that, not quite doubling the width of that driveway. It's x number of feet. It's you know from a you know uh you know runoff perspective it's not a huge increase but it is directly adjacent to the wetlands and if there was some other type of way

to edge it so that there's you know a width there but you're also then providing some very passive not only water quality but also potential infiltration and capacity to kind of mitigate any type of changes and it might be less expensive than trying to dig up that whole driveway and repave the whole thing. So Sandy, we thought about using um pvious pavement, but um our clients are having trouble buying it in small quantities. I know.

I Yeah, I've heard that. That's why I was saying like a grassrete or something like that where where it's it's more of a PA system but it's not it's you know it it provides it provides um uh an opportunity for infiltration but you don't have to dig up everything and it's you know there's a there's so many different um systems out there.

Yep. There is some slope issue. There is a slope issue here too though. That's why it's important we go look at this site. Um it it goes uphill um about 6%. So we we got away from uh from paper blocks, but uh we do have a burm. It's all going to be sloped to one side. Um run the burm down the side so that the water would uh sheet flow to the burm and then stream flow down to that barracuda.

Okay. Um, so as far as uh you've already talked about doing a continuence, um, and as far as, you know, your request of having the commission go out and take a look at it. I think that's going to, you know, we do do that sometimes. Um, I don't have a problem doing that. It's just, you know, we have to if we're going to have um all the commissioners go out there at once, there's a process we have to go through because that's a quorum and we have to post it and all that kind of good stuff. Even though we wouldn't be deliberating there, it's still something that we would want to make sure we cover. Um I guess the other alternative is it all right if individual um commissioners show up and take a look at it?

That'd be fine. That'd be fine. Yeah, that'd be fine. People go at their leisure and take a good look, I would suggest that they look up to the to the to the fork. It's only, you know, two to 30 hundred feet just from the 140 up to the fork. Yep. Okay. Leah, is there anything else to discuss tonight? I mean, we still have to see if anyone in the public has any comments, but No, I don't think so.

Okay. So, at this point, I'd like to open it up to the public. If you happen to be online and you have any questions or comments on this particular uh application, please raise your hand and we'll be happy to call on you and try to answer any questions. Um, just as an FYI, uh, this uh this hearing will be continued uh until until uh October 21st. Um but uh if you do have any questions, please raise your hand. If we don't see anything, then we'll we'll move to do a continuence. Since I'll wait for that, I'll do a quick round. Em, anything else or any other questions?

No other questions for me. All right. No. Any other questions? No questions for me. And Jonathan, any other questions? I was looking at the plans. I don't know if I missed it or not, but do we know the edge detail of that pavement? Is it just So, you said there's a burm on one side. Um, yeah. So, the water is going to sheet flow across down and to this barracuda storm water structure. Um, is there any curbing or anything on on either side of the road or is it just going to be a pavement edge down to to gravel or how's that going to what's that going to look like?

Well, there there's a type A BM down one side. So the burm's almost six inches tall. So is that a Cape Cod BM that you're putting in or just a Bitcon BM? There's a there should on sheet two there's a detail that shows it. No, I meant I missed it then. Yeah, if you could pull up sheet two, Leah, that would be helpful. There you go. Um top right there's a cross-section there. You can see that's a Cape Cod style drum. There you go. Got it. That's it. Yep. Okay. All right. No other questions. Sorry, I missed that. I didn't see the uh the detail there.

That's right. All right. Um uh that kind of and I don't have any more questions. I do think it would probably be uh useful to go out and actually look at I mean we're talking a driveway here, but if you're talking kind of a you know a house driveway then increasing it to be a roadway width that's a that's a pretty significant change. So, uh, but we'll let you know, Norm, who's going out there, um, and when, just so that you can let the homeowners know, just so that, you know, they won't see strange people walking around. Okay. Driveway. Okay.

Um, other than that, do I have a motion to continue to uh October 21st? I'll move to continue the hearing for 162 Old Upton Road to October 21st. I have a second. I'll second that motion. Thank you, Noah. We have a motion to second. Roll call vote. Jonathan, yes. Air still on mute. Maybe she stepped away. Noah. Yes.

All right. I'm a yes. And I'll go back to see if she's has come back. She did turn off her video. There we go. So, we're looking to We have a motion to continue the hearing to October 21st. Um, do you have a vote? Yes. All right. Thank you. So, uh, motion carries and the hearing will be continued uh until October 21st. Thank you everyone. Stay well. Thank you. Okay. All right. Leah, what's next here? We got a few action items. We can just keep going in order is fine.

Okay. So, next one up is request for certificate of compliance for three Leland Street. Uh so you have kind of your action items on it. So this is so this is basically um the site where some of the drainage wasn't uh installed or some of the work was not installed for the plans. Um why don't you kind of um give us an update?

Sure. Um so you guys opened this discussion at the uh meeting that I was not at but following up with the documents that they have provided since. Um they fixed the wording on the no disturbed signage. So that piece has been taken care of. Um, I am unsure of the new location of the no disturb signage because they turned the no disturb line off on the redlinined plan that they gave us. Um, the engineer says that the 12-in pipe under the driveway should be sufficient and they provided calculations for that. They noted that crush crushed stone was put in place of the swale around the barn. Um, with respect to the encroachment within the no disturb, the applicant is proposing invasive species removal as a trade-off. And we do still need to discuss that they didn't get a waiver request at the time for the no disturb and how we want to handle that now.

Okay. Um, the engineer says that the level spreaders are functioning even though they're hidden and they don't see any erosion issues downhill of them. I do still have one outstanding question about the southeast corner of the barn where Jan saw erosion starting and and what their take is on that. And once we talk through the commission's comfort level with these items, we do have the quote from Graves. We just need to decide if we feel like it's needed still or if we have enough to go on here.

Okay. So, yeah. Um I'm just curious. Um so, they submitted updated calcs. I I looked at the plan. I didn't look at the calcs. Um, I think it's going back a second. [Music] And I'm just looking to see order of magnitude as far as, you know, the, you know, uh, there's a significant difference between the 18inch pipe. I think it was an 18inch pipe and a 12in pipe. However, the key is what the, uh, catchment area is to it. So, Just

Sandy, I'm having a little bit of a hard time hearing you. It sounds muffled still, but it it feels a little more muffled.

No, I appreciate that mentioning that. I help in the future switch out my headset so that I it's clearer and so forth. Boom. [Music] Yep, that's what I was looking for. Okay. If you if you go down to I think it's the last sheet. Um so just just as a kind of a a quick kind of look at this when you look at um you know when you look at the uh CFS which is the first highlighted in yellow this is for 25 year storm which is typical for closed drainage um the actual flow based on the 25-year storm for rational method is 69 uh the sign flow of the pipe in CF CFS that that basically means the capacity of the pipe is lot 10 CFS. So, and I'm just looking at this just to see in the comparison um just how much flow is getting there just so that you know I think as far as the question about the Braves was you know this is what they'd be looking at.

Yes.

And Yep. And the intensity of the rainfall is 8.77 inches. So, okay. All right. Thank you, Jan. That just lets everyone know. So, so basically, you know, what you're looking at is that, you know, the pipe is has a lot more capacity than what the actual flow is calculated by the boundary engineer. It's not even close. All right. So, as far as um uh next questions, we have as far as you're concerned. So, one of your questions is if we think we should have Graves take a look at this.

Correct. Okay. So, let me go around to the commissioners to kind of get their input and then discuss what they would be doing if we did ask them to do a peer review. So, um Jonathan, what's your kind of take on whether we should send this to get to Graves for that peer review? Are they are they kind of running would they run through all the questions that it sounds like the the signage had fixed wording? Unsure of the new location. And so is that something that they would they would look at as location or is that something else

like the or is that just a comment for the designer to show that on their plan so that we can match it up for the notice? You can answer that one. Did you say I can answer that one? Yeah, it is getting harder to hear you. Um

I'm sorry. if yeah I mean if they could add no disturbed signage locations to the asbuilt is the ideal and we always ask people to do that. It doesn't always happen. The other thing is we can revisit the site as staff and figure out if it where it falls in relation to the no disturb line. It's just that on the asbuilt if you look at the plain asbuilt without the red line they have the no disturb line shown. But then on the red line one where you're able to gauge where the signs were installed, the no disturb line is turned off. So it's just hard to tell with the relocation where they are now.

So I what I was what I was getting at was that might be a pretty straightforward revision that wouldn't need graves if the engineer of record was able to provide that is my thought there. Um, as long as it conforms to what you're seeing, Leah, I So, hitting the the next thing, the the pipe, it sounds like they provided data and backup there. Would they be weighing in on the crush stone, the invasives, the level spreaders? Like, if they if they have to weigh in, if we're looking for them or looking for more data on all of these additional items, the erosion, then I would think that we may want to get Grapes's input there. But again, if it's just clerical things that are straightforward, I wouldn't want to go through that process unless we need to go through that process. I wouldn't want to go through that process. So, it just depends on how many questions we need to ask. So, I think

the crush stone, the invasives, the level spreaders, and again, the engineers saying that they're functioning. I don't know if they have data or something that they can do like with the pipe. Um I'm just saying how much how much is needed versus how much have they provided or could they provide being the the applicant and the um and the engineer. So those are all kind of good good questions and those are what I'm trying to get to is you know

so um Graves was not hired at the at the you know at the beginning of this particular uh project right um and really what it is is really for having them to go out and check the existing conditions and look at the different things. Yes, they'll check the you know the pipes and so forth and and that's they can confirm that. I think the the bigger part of that is going out to the site and looking at um you know the condition of what the you know the level spreaders are and what you know kind of the potential u beginnings of erosion or something. So it would be more of that and then taking a look at the calculations. They wouldn't you know it wouldn't be like a whole redo of this of the design because the design is done. design is really what the asbuilt conditions are. And and Lee, I'm guessing that's what you asked them for.

If Yeah. If we were to pull in Graves, Graves would be basically double-checking the claims made here, the calculations that everything's functioning as it should. But if the commission's comfortable with the level of detail they gave in these answers, and you know, it's it's an engineer going on record saying these things. So, if we're comfortable with how they've addressed them and we just need to step through a few decisions, then we don't need graves. It's up to you guys comfort level at this point. Yeah. So, Amamira, what what's your kind of take on this?

Um, I mean, I think both you and and Jonathan have a good point. Um, so I don't I don't think it's necessary at this time. Okay. And Noah, do you have any comments on this? Um, my first question is where did we come up with the 24 in pipe? If these calculations are saying 12 in is more than adequate, where did the 24 in come from?

That that was on the original plans. So, it's a change and they did not come back. You know, I don't you know why it happened, what happened in the field. We're really not that you know, it it happened. So now what's being actually built was a 12 in and not the 24 in. So that's that's the difference. Yeah. So they they came in with the 24 in pipe idea at the beginning, I believe. So I think it was was it 24 in? Yes. Oh, okay. So they came in with a larger pipe. Um and then that's not what got built. So that's why we're having this conversation. Okay. I'm just making sure that the 24in pipe wasn't something we asked for.

No. No. Yeah. We would never direct design like that. Um that would only you know um that would only be if like you know our peer review or we you know reviewed something and said it's not of capacity that type of thing. Um and if they want to have something oversized it doesn't really matter to us. So, but that's kind of in in kind of looking at um you know, that's why I looked at the the the actual calculations and if it was close, if this was a lot closer, I probably would say, let's have Graves look at it. It's less than 10% of the volume of the pipe. So, it's only going to fill up an inch or two in an intense 25-y year storm. and that's more of the the thunderstorm type of storm. So, it's really that's what you design pipes on is that real intense rainfall and so forth. So, that's one of the things. That's a pretty easy one. I think the other one that Leah mentioned is just the erosion. And so, from our perspective, what we're concerned is if there is issues with erosion erosion, then that does that get down to the wetlands? So, that's that was the only other one that I was looking at. Um, you know, it's to me it's it's a it is a tossup. It is kind of having this discussion um and making sure people are comfortable by saying, you know, we have a professional engineer that gave us the updated information. He's stating on his uh license that, you know, that that pipe is of the correct size, etc. So, that's what he that's what he's doing. And then it's up to us. Usually if it's a big enough project, we'll have it peerreviewed no problem as we're not, you know, experts so to speak on this

information. So, um, this is this is a house. Yes. Is a, you know, a a large barn comparatively speaking for a house got built, but again, it's it's not a very complicated site. So, so that's kind of why I'm asking everyone. So,

and for the record, John Federico with Durier and Helman. Um, just to provide a little additional information um for the members of the commission um as they deliberate this um essentially since we were requesting several waiverss initially from storm water standards um our engineer um Dale who had uh stamped the plans um wanted to be a little bit more conservative in his initial design assumptions. Um, so he did go with an oversized 24-in pipe, uh, knowing that that would pass capacity without any sort of substantial issues whatsoever. Um, in terms of some of the other assumptions that were made like the, uh, rip wrap swale that was at the top of the slope um to capture any offsite runoff and direct towards either the level spreader or to the flared end section. Uh that was again something that uh without you know fully going into a storm water analysis for all of the off-site flow he just understood that uh the rip wrap swale would be able to convey water without any sort of potential for erosion out there and that's why that was being proposed for it. um ultimately based on what we had observed during field conditions um that we did not expect or anticipate the level of flow that we did have out there. Um so ultimately the smaller pipe size um upon review of the asbuilt wasn't anything that we flagged initially as problematic and uh essentially with the extra stone and gravel that was added in uh essentially on the northern side of the proposed barn um that in our opinion is um acting the same way the swale up at the top of that hillside would be um where it would allow some type of infiltration in there and also just capture any runoff and and get it into the ground for recharge um versus just running right out to the wetland area. Um but as far as the

concern on the southeast corner goes um we do acknowledge that um during construction there was and at least in terms of grass stabilization a few rain events that we did have that um did wash away a little bit of the lumen seed. U Mr. Johnson did try to um get that um replaced and and stabilized but it might not have fully taken. Um our recommendation would be just to um add in a little extra loom um just to make sure that area is flowing and properly graded towards the flared end section. Um have topped with um some seed and then in the event it's needed um possibly something like a juke matting um just to prevent any of that seed from washing away um during any future rain events until everything in that area is fully established.

Yeah. putting down some erosion control mat whatever whether jute mesh or whatever um we'll find out tonight right tonight tomorrow supposed to have pretty good rainfall so um okay thank you very much that is helpful I mean that's kind of the decision um that we're trying to make so um yeah

as far as just sorry to interrupt um the uh placards um locations we're we're more than happy to provide you folks with an updated asbill plan on that end. Um I know Mr. Johnson is present tonight. Um I don't know if he can um briefly describe the location um while we do have a plan up and and maybe that might help um at least the members uh get a rough idea of where those are located. Yeah,

sure. I'm more than happy to do that. Um over the weekend we put the um the new placards at uh flag A19 on top of the hill or on top of the um retaining wall and then we went back on the site every 20 ft. I put another um placard sign in on a metal post uh down about a foot and a half into the ground and I put four placards up. I did send some photos to Jan. Um and I welcome anybody to come out to the site and take a look at them if if I did them correctly or not. I tried to follow the uh certificate orders on the um on the paper that we receive and I believe I did it correctly, but again I welcome anybody to come out and take a peek at them.

I appreciate that. Um, so just as as kind of a question to kind of wrap up the question as far as you know, having Graves and having a peer reviewer kind of um, you know, look at some of the items that um, you know, we still had open kind of questions on. Um, I think uh, the offer by the uh, applicants engineer of, you know, actually putting in the locations of the signs and so forth, that's an easy kind of process that we can look at. um their kind of um you know testimony that the 12-in pipe is sufficient. That's on record. Um and also about the comments on the erration control. Um, and then the other question was as far as Leah was the work within the 25 ft uh, right?

No disturb and then doing the invases invasive species removal as a a trade-off for the uh, no disturb encroachment. Can we just go back and just look at how how what that encroachment was? That should be on this plan. Correct. Yeah, Jan just pulled up the one that's easier to tell. Okay.

In terms of the disturbance numbers, John Federico with with G&H, um we were looking at about,00 or so square feet out there um with the closest encroachment I believe occurring around um I think it was wetland flag either 16 or 19. Um, and that was uh I believe about um 14 to 16 ft off of the edge of the wetland at the base of that armored slope.

Okay. So, when something like this gets not put in for the plans, there's a kind of a decision from our perspective of like, you know, we could simply say rip it out and do it the way the on the plan is. That's what's approved. That's what you got to do. and no, we're not going to allow you to do anything else. That would be kind of one um one kind of approach um knowing that you know having to do something like that the impact to the site you're going to be doing a lot of disturbance and there's you know potential of having other impacts to the wetlands based based on that kind of corrective work. Um what the applicant is is saying is is you know about doing you know one we'd have to take care of the uh you know work in the no disturbance but that's a waiver and we would have to discuss that. The other thing is to do invasive species removal. Uh Leah did you see any information on that?

No. And that was one of my questions. What species are out there and what methods would you be looking to use? Uh and correct in terms of that um we haven't um hired a wetland consultant to to fully go out and flag the site. Um we wanted to at least see if that would be something amenable to the commission. Um if the invasive species removal is appropriate um we will obviously get in touch with um you know either a wetland consultant or um arborist landscape or anybody who can uh properly identify those um have them put together a report and then uh typically I know in the past when it's been um situations say for instance like a Japanese knotweed that um a chemical treatment is the uh more appropriate way to go about and handle those. Um so whatever the recommendation for removal from from that consultant would be um ultimately what we would go with. Um if any of the square footage numbers um weren't lining up as like a 1:1 um ratio um you know we would uh start to look into maybe offsetting um some of the buffer zone or adjacent to the buffer zone with some additional plantings whether you know abroades bushes that might you know um allow some wildlife to to come in. Um we have looked at a couple other options in the event that uh the invasives was not enough.

Okay. So um so there's a couple questions that we as a a commission have to deal with is you know um you know as far as understanding the type of invasives that are there. Um just to for you know for the homeowner just to let you know this is not something you go out once and do to do invasive removal. It's a you know a multi-year process and it's very difficult. So you know we have to make sure we set expectations correctly right on both sides. Um depending upon the type of plant it is it can be pretty stubborn to get rid of. Uh obviously those are some of the things that we would appreciate something happening like that as kind of you know an offset of of trying to uh restore the you know kind of the the buffer zone. Um having planters plantings along the buffer zone is also a help just because that helps to protect the wetlands. So, both of those things are kind of uh potential as a way to kind of say, "Yeah, okay, we're 10 feet closer, but you know what? We're going to do these other things to kind of mitigate." And again, our role is to protect the wetlands. You know, uh that's the key thing. So go around the commissioners now and just talk really about, you know, the location of where the that armored slope is versus the the wetlands as far as um you know invasives invasive species removal or adding some plantings if you feel that that is kind of a way to kind of offset how close that armored slope is. So,

could I could I actually throw in one thing before you go around? Yep. Um, how would we like how would we wrap that into this process? Because unless they're willing to not get their certificate of compliance for a while, correct? Like, how do we set that up as an ongoing condition or something like that? That's a great question. Um, which is one reason I wanted to go around and ask people. Yeah, go for it.

Yes. That's just No, no, that's a good question because the whole idea is to get through that and that's why maybe doing plantings might be kind of I and again I'll go back to the applicants engineers. What's what's what's between the wetland flags and the slope? Is that previously lawn or it was uh all natural vegetation that was out there and um from photos that were shown at the last meeting um it seems like all that vegetation has fully grown in up to the base of the slope. Um and then at the top of the slope it's just natural um grass that uh Mr. Johnson has been mowing and maintaining.

Right. Yeah. And that's that's fine, you know. So uh so let me kind of go take the temperature of of the commission just to see as far as you know what people are more comfortable with and and also what things uh are more likely to happen without having to stretch out years of not getting this certificate of compliance kind of sorted out. So, Jonathan, any kind of questions or any kind of um suggestions and so forth? So, if I'm hearing kind of the line of thought here correctly, if if the applicant chooses to remove the invasive species as some type of a trade-off for encroachment or something, then that process is going to drag out because of the repeat treatment of that invasive.

Yep. So, it sounds like the shorter version of that is to put plantings in or offset it with plantings. Is that the way I'm following the bouncing ball or

that's that's potentially it? And that's why I asked the question of what kind of if it's, you know, um if it's more herbaceous that has just filled in from there to that. I mean, really what we're trying to do is create a buffer, create some sort of positive impact on the wetlands. And so, there's a lot of different ways of doing that. Um, I'm certainly not a botonist or or someone who's really up on all my plants, that's for sure. And there's definitely certain things that you can do along a wetlands to, you know, promote and and provide whether it's habitat or, you know, or a source of food or something like that. So those are the type of things and a lot of that is done through vegetation. So that's kind of one thing. I think one of the things where you have the armored slope it's pretty clear that you know I don't think that the area at from the bottom of the slope to the wetlands are going to get disturbed again that's I don't know go back to the applicants engineer is you know what's the height of that that's like three uh two three four feet high that slope

I believe it's between four and six feet depending on the location Yeah. So, and it's probably 2:1, 3:1 slope in those areas. So, it's not like anything's going to happen to that armored slope. So, so Jonathan, yeah, it's kind of like um the applicant has offered to do this. I just don't want him to get caught, you know, having to wait a long time or having something that, you know, at the end of multiple years still be fighting against an invasive removal. And it really depends upon what's there and how much. If it's just something new, then maybe you can catch it without knowing kind of what that those plants are. You know, that's we're guessing at this point. So,

right. it. I mean, I think it's up on it's up to the applicant what they're proposing, but if if they're just looking for any intel, I I don't know what the the proper way to say that would be, but it seems like plantings may be a a safer bet to keep this a positive impact on the wetlands and then keep it moving and shut it down in an appropriate amount of time as opposed to making it a multi-year, right, process. That's my take, but I'm not the applicant, so that that's just take.

All right, what do you what do you think as far as kind of getting something and kind of direction to go into and so forth? So, I guess I'm not fully understanding what the um issue would be with having them do this invasive um plant removal and having it be kind of a a longer process. And that's a good question. And really what you're talking about is is not being able to have a certificate of compliance for to be honest I would have to look into it on how we would set up a condition an ongoing condition that would cover that. Um I haven't done something like that. uh you know typically for invasive removals it's more I think the bigger question I'm having right now is um would I be surprised if there's any not you know that that that there's invasive plants in in the wetlands probably I mean they're all over the place um depending upon what it is is how easily or how difficult it is to remove so maybe one of the things that the applicant can consider instead of you spending a lot of money to having a full invasive plant removal plan is to have a wetland scientist to go out there and say here's what's here this is what we can do this is a reasonable approach I think that would be very helpful I don't know I know that you know John had indicated that hey that's what the plan would be but maybe instead of going all in on just doing that you can get some sort of kind of feedback from a wetland and scientists to say, "Yeah, this would take years to do or this is something, you know, again, having been associated with projects that that happens with, I

haven't had I would not design an invasive uh plant removal type of plan. So, I don't know if the applicant engineer has anything to kind of add to that."

Um, I'll I'll leave it up to Mr. Johnson if he has any objections to um just doing plantings if the rest of the commission um feels that that would be appropriate. Um I'm not specifically sure what types um would be preferable to the commission. Um but I would think a a row or two of um some type of planting at the top of the slope would be sufficient enough um to kind of help buffer also provide some screening on Mr. Johnson's end. Um, not sure if you have any thoughts or uh comments on that, Mr. Johnson, at all. No, I'm fine with that. If if the commission wants me to put some plannings in, just give me some direction and I'll I'll certainly try to follow at this time.

Um,

so can could the applicant please explain, I guess, what um you guys had in mind in terms of invasive species removal? Um, so in terms of what we would have in mind for it, um, several other projects that, um, we've had in various towns where, um, we've had these type of impacts. Um, a lot of commissions have been in favor for it. Um, depending on how much is on site, it it could be a one:1, uh, ratio for removal versus impact. Um, sometimes that's done at a a different rate. Um, unfortunately, I don't make that type of call. that would have to come from a botonist or a wetland specialist on that. Um but uh generally from what I've seen on these type of plans, it's uh two years or essentially two full grow seasons. Um first time could be done in the fall. Um and I believe there might be some additional cleanup and or treatment done the following spring, one more fall, and then by that uh next spring I I've seen most reports um cleaned and issued at at that time. um without knowing, you know, specifically any types of plants that are out there. I don't know if if that changes and that becomes, you know, multiple grow seasons or if it's just, you know, one or two in that case. Um but at least initially without getting some feedback from the commission, we didn't um want to go through and fully contract somebody to kind of put together a recommendation um if it wasn't going to be anything that the commission felt was appropriate in this type of situation. So I I think we're both uh suffering from lack of information and the lack of information is having a you know a botist or a wetland scientist go out and look at it and I'm not suggesting that you know you need to go out and have a full plan done and all that stuff. You

might want to just have you know whoever you're going to be using as far as a wetland scientist to go out and say listen you know they this is what they do. So they can go out and do an assessment, just a simple assessment, and say, "Here's kind of what's here." I mean, they'll be able to identify, you know, the the species, the density of it, the difficulty of of trying to clean it up or remove it. And removing is is doesn't mean it always has to be removed. Sometimes it's cutting and using the Q-tips to swab it with, you know, uh, different chemicals and those type of things. There's a lot of information. the state has a lot of information on that or maybe they would have a recommendation to say hey you know here's a different option that you could do that would have a positive impact so I think you know we do not want to direct the applicant on what to do we want to give them guidance and I think what we need right now is a little bit more information not knowing what's out there um I don't know if there was anything in the wetlands report when they did the wetlands I don't know who did the wetlands report for you who did the line. I don't remember that. Um, but it's just one of those things where I'm sure they would have a good sense of it without having to go through a full, you know, uh, plan creation, but just to get some, you know, a a one one page letter to say, hey, this is what's out there. You know what? We can take care of this, no problem. Or no, that would be Yeah. And I've definitely seen depending upon the the density of what you have for invasive species, it's a multi-year thing and you chase it for you can chase it for decades, but it depends upon how large it is, is how much it's there, all those type of things. We don't know that right now. So, I guess I'd go back to the applicant and just to say, is that something you'd be considering to do is just to have whoever maybe did again, I don't know who did your wetland

delineation, have someone go out there that that's what they do, take a look at it, take a look at what the plants are out there, an invasive wetland scientist would know right up top and they would have a very good indication of what effort it would take to get. And then as far as like you know matching up you know square footage to square footage that's great and that's fine. That's one approach. But I think it's more just figuring out what's there and what's kind of better best for um you know for the health of the wetlands. You want to you know what you're trying to do is increase um the health of the wetlands as opposed to doing a onetoone kind of a a thing on that. So, I don't know if that gives you enough direction on that one.

Um, as far as it goes on my end, I I think that that works for us. Um, you know, if if it's not at the through the wetland consultant if um they don't have any particular recollection on invasive species out there, um, we can consult the botonist in that case. Um, they could check for the invasive species removal and then if if there isn't anything or or they don't find it to be substantial enough, um, we can then have them make the recommendation on plantings. Unless that was something that the commission likes to see a specific type for instance like a blueberry bush or an arborite in that case. Um it yeah it should be yeah I'm sorry it should be just an enhancement of that

that type of wetlands and it should fit into that wetlands and so forth. So, okay. Um, yeah, we we can definitely um speak to somebody to get a little bit more information on that. And um if ultimately we need to provide an updated plan that that shows um proposed locations, we can do so. Or if um the plantings um is sufficient enough um we can get that contracted and just have it reflected on an asbill plan. Not sure if the commission has preference one way or another on that. Yeah. So, does that kind of help you with kind of what we're trying to figure out and maybe that we need a little bit more information?

Yeah. Yeah, that does. Um, yeah, I'd like to just get a better understanding of of how long it might take to do the invasive species removal. Um, because I think that'll help us better understand what Yeah. what we should do here. Yeah. And it and it's probably just the size of the projects I've worked on when they do it. It's a really large size and it's it it's a pretty big effort. This we're talking about someone's yard and we're not looking for the whole, you know, wetland system. It's really just in this area and so forth. So, um, so Noah, do you have any questions or anything else as far as kind of this specific discussion?

Uh, I don't think I have any specific questions. I'm pretty clear on that. There seems to be two options we're looking at and I think we've made some good questions about them. Yeah. So, I guess the final thing to the commission is just to make sure, you know, we're kind of giving direction for the homeowner to go down a certain path and I want to make sure that everyone's okay with that path at this time. I mean I you know obviously they encroach they'll have to do a submission they'll have to do we get a request for a waiver for the encroachment um Aaliyah that would be the process right to get a waiver or is that not

so the timing that doesn't work normally that's what we do as you know part of the NOI and part of the hearing this being after the fact they could certainly still do the request there is a fee with a waiver request And I don't I guess we would I don't know that we're voting on it, but it's just kind of closing the loop on allowing them to be in that area.

Yeah. So, we want to close it out. So, um from a legal standpoint, there's nothing against the um the property that this work was not done according to the plans and it's missing this cousin. Yeah. So we want to make sure that we kind of clean that up for the the homeowner and have it documented at least. So So I think you know so at this you know so I think at this point I think getting a little bit more information kind of looking at it you know maybe this is a perfect place to do invasive species removal. I don't know. I'm not the person to even go out there and look at it to be honest, you know. So, you know, getting that additional information and if not get someone who's a wetland scientist to maybe give you some other alternative kind of enhancements either adjacent to it or wherever. You know, uh we don't particularly want to direct you to do X, Y, and Z. We just want to make sure you have direction enough so that we're not we're not going around in circles. We kind of want to get to an end. So,

anything else on Yeah. Leah, anything else that I missed? So, it sounds like we're leaving it leaving them to address how they want to make up for the no disturb encroachment and they have a couple things they'll explore. Right. It also sounds like after discuss after dis discussing all the points that were left outstanding from last time with their engineers additional feedback tonight, it kind of sounds like the commission does not feel the need for Graves peer review, but correct me if I'm wrong.

No, I think that's a good question. Um, I don't think we do. Jonathan, your kind of take on that? I don't think we do. But do we need a formal response to any of these things as part of that process for you, Leah, that says here were the things in question and then here's the formal response from the engineer that closes it out or is that just part of the COC? I don't know.

They've they've provided documentation and a letter walking through most of these things. What you're seeing in my report is just the quick summary of it. Um, I would still though ask that the no disturbed signs sign locations get added to the red line plan. That would be helpful. And potentially adding a com. So the comments that were reflected earlier by the engineer about the erosion remedy on the souththeast corner of the barn might also be a good thing to close as well if that was something that we noted. But Yep. Okay. I don't have anything else.

Okay, great. Uh Noah, anything else to add or any other kind of questions? And are you okay the fact that we're not going to really be going uh or we're not going to be recommending to do um to have uh Graves could do a peer review on this? Uh no further questions and I'm comfortable with the stuff they've submitted. I don't think we need a peer review. Yeah. Amera, are you the same with the peer review? Yeah, same.

And I might have I might have asked that to you already, but I'm trying to just clean up everything here. So, um, so back to, you know, the applicants engineer and the applicant. Do you have enough kind of direction now to kind of get some more get some more information and then maybe come back and then have a little bit more um a specific kind of uh kind of mitigation, let's call it that. Um and then um just feel free to reach out to staff about um uh the waiver for the um the you know the encroachment into the no disturb. What is what's the I'm sorry. Go ahead.

I was just going to say um as far as everything goes with the uh the waiver, we'll definitely reach out to the commission on that end. Um as far as um the information we've received and having enough um to kind of digest and move forward with it. Um I think we do in this case. um would the commission need us to come back in to present any options or um knowing that either invasive species or planting um is going to be the route we're going um you know possibly just talking it over with Jan or Leia um would be sufficient enough um for us to get um started on that process and then we would just come back with um any updated asbuilt plans um once all the plantings and or removals have been finalized. I think it would be good to come back and do a quick say this is what the wetland scientists or whoever you get botnist whoever does this is what their recommendations are and they're recommending this not that and this is the reason I think that's something the commission needs to just to take a quick thing and then we can kind of shift it back to staff and to execute the rest of it.

Sure. Yeah. No, no problem. And then at that point, we'll make sure that we do have um the uh new marker locations reflected on an asbuilt plan as well as the red line overland play plan for you all. All right, that sounds good. Um Leah, anything else? I mean, at this point, we're not making any votes or anything. This is just going to come back. I don't have anything else. Sorry, I just got to plug in my laptop. Okay. Hopefully my sound is a little bit better because I switched um to headphones. Yeah. And that was just having to change the settings. No biggie. Um All right.

Do we need to continue this to the next hearing or is it just going to remain an action item that doesn't need to be continued? Uh I believe an action item, Leah, and that we just, you know, we had a discussion. It'll show up in the minutes. Um and then when they come back, that's all we really need to do. Yeah, we can just uh you know, as needed, have it on the agenda or skip one here or there. We don't need to do a continuation vote. All right. All right. Hopefully the next time you come back, it's a quick 5 10 minute conversation and we can kind of wrap this up. But all right, please reach out to staff if you have any other questions. Great. Okay. Thank you all for your time.

Yep. Byebye. Byebye. All right, Leah. On to the next one. So, we are on uh partial certificate of compliance for Clear View Street. Yep. Um so, we've had a couple of these come up recently. This is another lot in the subdivision known as Grafton Hill. Um so, it's another individual lot that needs clearance from the order for the subdivision. Everything's all set on this lot. They have lawn established. um any of the conditions we had that would be relevant to the lot have been met. So, I'm recommending issuing a partial certificate of compliance.

All right. Thank you for that information. Do I have a motion? I move to issue a partial certificate of compliance for 18 Clear View Street. Do I have a second? I'll second that motion. I have a motion in a second. Roll call vote. Amra, you got the big picture, so you get to go first. Yes. Uh Noah, yes. Uh Jonathan, yes. I am also a yes. The motion carries. Uh anything else? Oh, we still have the one request for certificate of compliance for release the bond. What is this one for?

So, 8 Millennium Drive is over in the science park. Um they've been done for a little while, but they needed to pull out their erosion control um and their file number sign. They previously also had to put in no disturb signs. Uh so we've been working with them in the background, but they are good to go. Now for this one, we do need to both issue the certificate of compliance and release the bond. Okay. And Millennium Drive is the one right up near the uh train station, right? Yes. Millennium is off of Centennial.

Okay. Okay. Um All right. Uh unless no one has questions, uh do I have a a motion to uh request for certificate of compliance and release the bond? I'll move to issue the certificate of compliance and release the bond for 8 Millennium Drive. All right. Do I have a second? I will second that. All right, we have a motion, a second. Roll call vote. Air, yes. Noah, yes. Uh, Jonathan, yes. I am also a yes on that. The motion carries. Okay, one last motion, Leah.

Correct. All right. Can I ask one question before we Absolutely. Not to prolong this meeting any longer than it needs to be, but are we meeting in person on 114 or we or is that still that's hybrid? Correct. But we can show up in person or with the select board. Correct. I believe that was the 114 meeting. I just they're hybrid. They run their meetings hybrid. It would be great if we went in person, but it's, you know, everybody's personal preference. Um I'll be there in person.

Okay. So, yeah, I I I will probably go in person. Um, and it's, yeah, I would leave it up to individuals. Um, all right. The only other thing is as far as the site visit to that, um, uh, the driveway off of, you know, I don't know if you want to go out together. I'd be more more than happy just to swing by it at a certain point. I definitely would be by that location at some point over the next week or so. I mean, you guys are welcome to observe what you want to observe, but we can also Jan Jan or I or both can visit and get pictures and stuff for you guys. Um, I I think it would be great if you you did do a site visit and so you can get photos.

Um, I will probably swing by. I I probably won't be there that long, but if anyone else uh wants to do a site visit, you know, let me know. I could probably go out there with you if that's helpful. Um or you know, it's not mandatory that you go out there. So, it's it's for some projects it just makes sense. That's all. Sounds good. Yeah, I'll probably um want to go out there. So, I'll I'll send you a message, Sandy.

Okay. Yep. So, yeah, just as an FYI, Fridays are probably the best for me because I'm usually at home. I have a couple meetings in the morning and I'm usually not working the rest of the day. So, I can be pretty flexible in that unless you want to do the weekends, but I'm not always around on the weekends. So, Friday afternoons works. That's good. So, I'll send you a message. Um, probably not this Friday. Um, that's fine. Yeah. Um, so, and anyone else, Noah, Jonathan, whatever your schedules are, you you can choose and so forth. There'll be pictures and other things, so that's that's an option, too. I might swing by there tomorrow in the rain and take a look at it and see

that's actually that's actually a pretty good time to go. I have to be in the office tomorrow. I do too. But lunch is lunch, right? So Yep. No problem. So yeah. All right, Leah. Anything else? That's all I have. All right. Uh everyone stay. Yeah. We have a motion to adjurnn. Do we have a second? Second. Uh roll call vote. Jonathan, yes. Amira, yes. Noah, yes. I am also a yes. So, Noah, how are you liking it so far? I am learning a lot more about civil engineering than I expected.

Yeah, that's kind of Yeah, that's Yeah, that's And then wait till you get into certain things. You learn about regulations and legalities and all this other stuff. Trust me, there's still a lot of stuff that comes up I'm clueless on. So, it's all good that it's it's always something new, which is cool. Yep. There's always something that comes up that has never come up before. So, all right, everyone. Have a great night. Thanks, everybody. Thanks, Leah. Have a good one. You too. Bye. Good night. And good night.