Conservation Commission - Regular Meeting

I'll call the meeting to order. Uh before we get started, let's introduce everyone on this meeting. I'm Sandy Brock. When I call your name, uh please confirm that you can hear me by verifying that you are present. We'll start with the commissioners. Travis, I'm here. Thank you. Uh Jonathan, present. Thank you. Sarah present. Thank you. Noah present. Thank you. Uh staff Leah, I'm here. And Jan present.

Thank you very much. Okay. 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 in March 20 on March 28th, 2025. Access information for the public has been provided on the town website. This meeting is being recorded. Please remember to mute your phone or computer when you're not speaking. This is done on the phone by pressing star six. As chair, I will introduce each of speakers uh on the agenda. Please note that you will not have screen sharing privileges, but staff can display any visuals for 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, then star six to unmute when you are called on. 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 roll call vote. As a reminder, the commission is concerned with state and town wetlands and storm water regulations. Concerns out outside of this purview need to be addressed by 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. All right. First, uh public hearings at 710. Anything we should uh take up before then, Leia? We can do all the action items if you'd like.

Sounds like a good idea. Uh first up, if I can have um uh just kind of Okay, first we can start with the meeting minutes. The meeting minutes are from uh July 8th and December 2nd. Um if anyone has any I'll quickly just go around if Does anyone have any comments or uh any updates that they'd like to do? Travis? No, I looked at them. I think they're good. Thank you, Jonathan. No comments. Thank you, Noah. Nothing from me. All right. In a mirror, no comments. I also don't. Do I have a motion? I'll move to approve the meeting minutes for 78 2025 and 1225.

Second. Do we have a motion and a second? Roll call vote. Jonathan, yes. Travis, yes. Noah, yes. Amira, yes. I am also a yes. Uh the motion carries unanimously. Next up, Leah is the request for certificate of compliance for five Stratton Road. Want to give us the background on that?

Sure. Um and just before I go there, I just wanted to say that we are now done with our backlog of meeting minutes. So, we'll be back off the schedule that we used to keep. Um Five Stratton Road. This was an order um for construction of the house. It's right next to the tennis club. Um staff worked a lot through the uh the outstanding items with the applicant for the past few months. Um they've now satisfied everything. We have their asbuilt plan on file. The last piece is they just need to get the rest of their erosion control out when the ground thaws. I have complete confidence they will do so because they want to see it gone. So I'm comfortable issuing the certificate of compliance if the commission is.

Sure. Thank you very much. So on this particular certificate of compliance, I'll just uh go around really quickly to see if anyone has any questions on it. Amira, no questions for me. Thank you. Jonathan, nothing from Travis. Nope. Noah, no questions. I also have no questions. Can I have a motion? Move to issue the certificate of compliance for five Stratton Road. Second. We have a motion, a second. Roll call vote. Jonathan, yes. Amira, yes. Uh Travis, yes. Noah, yes.

And I am also a yes. The motion carries unanimously. Next one up uh is for 39 East Street. Uh request for certificate of compliance. Yeah, this one was um they had to fix the foundation of a little cottage that they have next to um Hayes Pond. Um they've satisfied everything. Jan went out and took a look. Everything's stable. They also gave us an asbuilt plan uh ready to issue the certificate of compliance.

Okay. And just as uh for disclosure, I do live on East Street, but I actually am more than the required, you know, um distance. I was not notified of this. So, just an FYI, other than living down the street, that's it. Just thought I'd mention that. Uh, so, uh, does anyone have any questions on this? I'll go around. Amira, no questions. Jonathan, nothing from me. Travis, no. Noah, no questions. I also have no questions. Uh, do I have a motion? I'll move to issue the certificate of compliance for 39 East Street.

Second. We have a motion, a second. Roll call vote. Jonathan, yes. Amira, yes. Travis, yes. Noah, yes. I am also Yes. The motion carries unanimously. All right. Anything else, Leah? Nope. Not in two minutes. Uh, too efficient. Okay, Sandy, could I take 30 seconds and ask a question about it's pertaining to the 710, but it's more about what you just said in terms of distance. Um, or do you want me to get into it after we open it at 710?

Uh, you can get into it after we open at 710. I I the way I kind of look at it, I wasn't notified. You know, this is down the street from me. it's, you know, it's probably a half a mile away from my house, you know, and I don't get notified. I'm not in a butter. So, that's the way I look at it. But again, it's, you know, it's also up to each individual commissioners whether they feel comfortable, you know, um maybe knowing the person or or whatever. But that's we we can chat about it once we get to the the meeting and stuff. So, I might be able to speak to your concern, but I'll wait till we're in the hearing.

Okay. And just a a heads up, we do have TUS University again. So when we get to that, I'll excuse myself. All right, I see that it's 7:10. Let's rock and roll. All right. Um, pursuant to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing uh to act upon a notice of intent for the construction of a noise abatement wall between Bedford Drive and the Massachusetts Turnpike. Um, who's here to speak to that? Hi, I'm Keith Lincoln from Chapel Engineering, the design consultant working on this project. And with me is Genevieve Lion. Genevieve.

Hi everyone. I'm Genevieve. All right. So, thank you very much. You have the floor. Um, you can just uh ask Jan for anything that you want to bring up for a plan. Okay. Um, oh, do you have something to say, Keith, before I start? No, no, take it away, Genevie. Okay. Uh, I also wanted to mention we do have Angela Wolffield from Mass DOT here as well. Um, so she's here to defer to any questions as well. But,

so I'll just jump into um some of the background on the project. It's, as you said, located on the along the rear property lines of the residences on the south side of Bedford Drive within the I90 rightway. And this project was proposed in response to the neighborhood's request for a noise mitigation for the highway noise produced by I90. Um, several alternatives were considered for this project. um all of which were very large and destructive. Um so the 8-ft PVC privacy fence was the preferred alternative due to its minimizing of environmental impacts and also cost effectiveness and just simple feasibility. Um, so to expand on why we're here tonight, um, the project falls within uh, jurisdictional areas, LEC Environmental performed a wetland delineation in April of 2024 um, that identified multiple wetland resources including BBW, bank, land underwater, and coincident uh, and also the 100 foot um, buffer zone to BBW. you the proposed fence line is completely within that 100 ft buffer zone. Um, and for the installation of that fence, we've proposed a maximum 10-ft work area, but it's important to note that the 10 ft may not be needed in all areas and it'll meander around existing trees um to again minimize impacts. Um, just for simplicity sake, we made it maximum 10 feet the whole way. And we are also proposing a temporary access

point along I90 westbound. Um that will cross the intermittent stream along I90. Um this area will will cross the wetland using 24 foot crane mats that will essentially bridge the intermittent stream. So all of the temporary impacts associated are just from the area we're passing over. There will be no actual ground disturbance of the intermittent stream and wetland area. Um we're going to be passing over 113 square feet of BVW, 45T of land underwater, and 20 linear feet of bank. Um yeah, so [sighs] again this area, you know, we won't actually be disturbing and it's just so that um we can access the fence line to install it and then after everything will be removed, everything is temporary. Um, I also wanted to mention, it's not on the plans or in the narrative because it's not um confirmed uh yet, but there is a possible second access point at 55 Hangingham Drive. Um, a letter was sent to the residents there um to see if we could access the property or the fence line through their property, which then we wouldn't need to cross the wetland. um but we had to propose a version where we're accessing from mass stop property. So that's the purpose behind this crossing. I think it's also important to note that we chose a narrow narrower section of the intermittent stream, you know, wetland boundary area. Um and it's also right near the hydraologic divide mentioned in the wetland report. Um, so the intermittent stream kind of branches

off into a red maple swamp towards the west and then down towards I think it's Route 122 um, Worcester Street I believe. Um, so we're right at that high point so it's not as wet there anyways. Um, so those are just important things to note. Um, yeah, I think I think that's pretty much the gist of it. Um, oh, I also wanted to mention there is um along the fence line, Jan came out with us to a site visit. Um, there is uh accumulated yard debris along the existing um right ofway 5 foot chain chain link fence. um along the highway layout line. Um and some of that will be removed with the installation of the fence. Um only as much as like it takes for us to install it. Um it's impasible for us to remove all of it. There's just way too much. So we're just going to get rid of what's in our way and again meander around any existing trees. Um, unfortunately trees weren't shown in the survey, so I couldn't quite um match the area we're going to be using around trees. That would have been ideal, but it wasn't in the survey. So, um, just know that we are going to try to minimize tree removal and, uh, disturbance in that area. And I think that's all I have, but Keith, if you have anything else you'd like to add, please do so. And we'll take some questions. Uh, no. I think you did a terrific job. I think the only thing we're estimating that it's probably um two trees, two mature trees that would be removed as

part of this um trees over 12 in in diameter. Uh for the most part, there's there seems to be a path along the the upper slope that will enable us to install the fence continuous while uh minimizing the the tree removals. Um but I think that that's a pretty good summary of what's proposed. All right. Thank you. Uh Lee, I want to give your uh summary of your report.

Sure. Um, so because it's a mass DOT, they are exempt from our bylaw. So they're only looking for an order of conditions. Um, I had one question which was, um, when you're removing all of that accumulated yard waste, where is that going to go? So that's back to the applicant. Um, I'm not sure exactly. Um, I'm not sure if Keith or Angela has a better idea. Um,

so it if you're asking I think it would be removed off site if that's your your you know the the main focus of the question. It would not be placed anywhere within a jurisdictional area. It would be taken away from the site. Sure. To a DOT facility. Yeah. So you would you wouldn't mind if we had a condition that just says something like that that those grass clippings would would be have to be removed from the site and legally and properly disposed of. Mhm. I I think that's fine. Angela I

I don't know if she can do you send the attendees. Jan um allowing her to speak just a moment. Thank you so much. Um, can you hear me? Yep.

Thank you. Sorry about that. I only had the agenda to join. Um, but in regards to the waste, we are planning on removing the best we can. Um, and if there's any sort of like really good organic material, we obviously want to leave that to provide any sort of habitat or there's, you know, any special plants, we're going to try not to remove anything that looks like it's beneficial to the ecosystem. Um, and then anything that we do need to remove, we will remove offsite. All right. Thank you. All right, Leah. Anything else?

Um, I just had the the comments we got from the EP. Um, they said the commission can consider requiring an invasive plant management strategy. Um, the applicant did respond to that saying they're following the established practices that Mass DOT has. Um, D asked for the restoration numbers to be added to the NOI. Um, so it it would be good to get a revised just that one page um in the NOI and that the commission may consider requiring a 2-year monitoring period and steps to ensure the restored areas achieve 75% survival of plantings and require additional plantings should they fail. Those were DP's comments. After that, I just have suggested conditions,

right? Isn't the uh you know, two-year um I mean, you you can't get a order of con you can't get a certificate of compliance if your vegetation hasn't grown in. Right. I'm just wondering that one about, you know, the the two-year monitoring period. It's a little bit longer than typical, but Right. because they're saying year instead of growing season. We usually do two growing seasons. Correct. Yeah. Okay. We'll we'll chat about that. Um Sure.

Okay. Uh having uh heard heard your report, let's go around do a roll call vote if anyone has not a vote, a roll call to see if anyone has any other comments, questions for the applicant. Uh Jonathan.

So Jay, if you could go back to the cover page, I can just point it out just so it's clear. Um, and maybe zoom in just a scoch. I live, based on the scale on this plan, I live about 750 ft away from the far end where it says uh, Hangingham Road where the black line is. So, I live in the middle of Hangingham Road about 750 ft away. So, I didn't get in a butters notice, but I also participated as part of the neighborhood group in order to try to get this sound barrier put in. So, I plan to abstain from conversation or voting of any kind, unless I'm misreading my I I I was part of the the group within the neighborhood that was pushing to to to do some work here. So, this is a result of that and I'm not going to consider voting on it as my take.

And Jonathan, that's perfectly fine. Obviously, you know, from my perspective whether that falls explicitly under, you know, the ethics that you would have to recuse yourself. To me, it's it's up to you. And um I've certainly have recused myself even if it wasn't maybe specifically required. Um so, but if you were part of that and you felt you had um an involvement in it, you know, totally leave it up to you. Um and absolutely fine if you recuse yourself. So, yeah. So, I'll I'll abstain from providing any commentary beyond what I just said and I'll recuse myself if there is a vote or whatever.

All right, sounds good. Thank you. Um, let's keep on going around. Travis, any questions? I'd be interested in um adding that suggestion from D about the the monitoring period and restoration, but I didn't find a restoration plan or a seating plan in the material. Leah, is there anything in there?

To my knowledge, I don't think there is like an active restoration plan put forward. I think they're just figuring take the mats out and let everything rebound. Um when we've had that kind of um when we've had that sequence in the past like with utility work um we usually add a condition that like should they need to they will recede with the appropriate seed mix. Um we do have Angela raising her hand though so I'll let her speak to that better than I can.

Hi. So I didn't mean to raise my hand middle of your sentence. [laughter] Um but so typically in these projects and since I've been at Mass DOT for the past five years and previously at my previous positions um in these areasly when we leave the organic material um from a simple removal of these wetland track pads and other materials like these um they do grow back quite rapidly um actually usually better than our normal restoration plans where we actually plant the plants for some reason. Um so I don't see personally I don't see an issue um in my experience with any regrowth or restoration in this area. Um and that's another reason why we want to try and leave as much natural organic um debris that belongs in the area because that does protect the current ecosystem and help develop um the plants from regrowing back. So if the the area disturbed regrows and it's just uh invasive species, how does the other comment from D play into this about following MASDOT's invasive plants management practice? Does that have does that carry over post construction or is that just during construction that invasive plant strategy or practice? So for um district 3, we do have um a vegetation yearly operation plan for invasive species as well as our regular um vegetation that we're working on. And so if there are invasive species as I believe it is in the typical um special conditions and conditions from D as well as the wetland protection act that we would have to take care of the invasive species and treat it um depending on the area. For example, if we know if it's bittersweet, how to remove that versus if it's Japanese not weed, we're not going to cut that. Um, we're going to take care of that the correct way. Um, depending on what species there would obviously cover what kind of plants we can what method you use, Keith?

No, I didn't have anything to say.

Oh, sorry. I was I couldn't tell. Um, and then I just wanted to comment on I know D had made a comment about the two years versus instead of the typical two growing seasons. Um and and I was a formerly a conservation agent for 5 years and I worked very in-d depth with restoration areas and region. One of my specialties is replication areas and typically that tends to be um misspoken and I've had experiences in the past where I've spoken with um Denise Child and she was like, "Oh, I meant to say two growing seasons." Um she's like, "But it is up to the commission's decision." And so if they want to choose two growing seasons, you know, spring and spring or spring and fall, whatever they decide, um versus two years, that is up to you. But I would um presume that's probably a mis, you know, they were just misspeaking or just switching the words out.

Travis, if fragmitees show up after construction, Masot would come back and treat those fragmitees in the disturbed area. So you know if it's like 10 years down the line obviously we would like say like within like within our construction period well let's say within the two the two growing year the two growing seasons.

Yes I believe that's um that's part of how we do restoration plans um is that you know if there is some issue we do deal with it. you know, we go out there, inspect it in the monitoring, and we'll see, hey, you know, there's fragmitees, there's XYZ. Um, and then we reevaluate it with our contractor, whoever we have the contract with for this, and we go through and we'll remove that. Um, but I can't say that, you know, oh yeah, we're going to treat the fragmitees there um for the etern, you know, the eternity of the stream because that's just not reasonable. I get that. So, I guess one follow-up question, Leah, is this conversation sufficient to document that there will be a two-year or two growing season monitoring and treatment of invasives? I would say we

you need something in writing. So, we the commission needs to decide if they want it to be two years or two growing seasons and then we just need to capture it in our conditions. Yeah, I I would I would think the two growing seasons. I mean, we do probably have as far as regrowth for the two growing seasons, but I think Travis, to your point is to add the um invasive species kind of monitoring within those two growing seasons unless and and we're going to be going around to everyone on the commission unless anyone has a specific reason why it should be two years and not per the regulations as two growing seasons. So

that's it for me. Just to make it clear that the invasive species is linked to the two year, two growing season restoration. All right. And Travis, do you have a preference on the two-year or two um two growing seasons? I'm fine with two growing seasons, but really no preference. Okay. Thank you. Uh all right. Next up, Amamira. Do you have any questions or comments?

No questions. Um, I think everything that that Travis has said pretty much what I'm thinking as well. Um, and I am in agreement with you guys uh, regarding the two growing seasons versus two years of monitoring. All right. Thank you. Noah, do you have anything any questions or comments to add?

No further questions, but I agree that two growing seasons should be sufficient. All right. Thanks. And so, and just for me for just a couple of quick questions more for clarifications and when we're saying, you know, um, you know, Mass D's established practices, um, can you just reference what manual that's in so that we can just, uh, you know, actually, uh, mention what it is that you're going to be following instead of just a discussion, uh, during the meeting. So, that's back to the applicant or the owner. I can speak to that unless Keith knows off his top of his head or Jenny if you guys remember off the top of your head what the exact document name is.

I I do not Angela. There is one. Okay, that that's kind of what I was I know having looked at a lot of different mass dot manuals and stuff like that. I'm just not familiar with one that that specifically does that. So I think if it if if you could is to um let our staff know what that what that reference is just so um just so that we can reference it um in in the order of conditions you know just yeah when it comes to storm water I know all your references I do not know them for planting so well that's better than me at the storm water I need my manual open at all times yes [laughter]

so for sure And I'll even um I'll even forward over the document to you so you guys just have it as well um just to refer to so it's always accessible.

All right. Appreciate that. Uh anything else Leah? Anything else as far as like um you know you have a couple special conditions. One is you know uh the temporary crossing shall be removed and all disturbed areas shall be restored to pre-construction conditions following completion of work including any necessary regrading stabilization and seating. The other um special condition any work occurring within the wetland areas shall occur during dry conditions. So I will go back to either the applicant or the owner if you have any issues or questions regarding those two special conditions. I am so sorry. My cat meowed right in my face as you said the last one. Could you just repeat that for me? Sorry.

Yeah. Well, I got one too here. But um so the two special conditions that we have is temporary crossing shall be removed in all disturbed areas shall be restored to preconstruction conditions following completion of the work including any necessary grading stab stabilization and seating. That's one condition. Uh second condition is just a pretty standard one we use a lot. Any work occurring within the wetland resource area shall occur during a dry conditions. So we would consider dry conditions you know a week of no rain or there's no um I believe this is an intermittent stream. I think you know that you know you're going to have um you know periods of that. We're just looking for any of those any of the work being done especially the crossing to be done during dry dry times. So again, any kind of comments or questions on that?

Okay. I don't have any issues with that. I just wanted to make sure I heard it correctly before I agreed.

No, no, no, that's fine. Rather take care of it at the hearing than have something come up afterwards. So, uh, the the next thing, uh, or the next couple things I'm going to do is I will open up to anyone who happens to be an attendee who has any comments or questions and would like to ask questions on this particular project. And again, this is the Bedford Drive and Mass uh, Turnpike. This is the, you know, the uh, sound barrier that's going in um, along the Mass Pike rightway. If you have any comments or questions, please raise your hand and you'll be promoted to ask them. Other than that, I'd like to go around one more time to our uh commissioners and just see if they have any other questions other than what's already been done. Um so uh Amira,

I have no further questions. Thank you, Travis. Um so we're saying they're going to go out there for two growing seasons, check for invasives, and treat said invasives. Do we need some sort of a metric of when they treat and when they don't? like what's the percentage of native plants that we want to see? Yeah, I think that's why I asked for the reference. And if it's not in there, do we need to state it now? Because I can't find it online, Sandy.

Yeah. Um, probably a good idea. I mean, I don't have a problem referencing a standit manual, [snorts] but if it's, you know, depending upon what's in that manual, we don't have it in front of us right now. Um, so why don't Yeah. So, do you have a suggestion on a condition on that? I think I'd put it to the applicant.

I mean, I have an opinion, but I'm not sure it's reasonable. So I would look at the uh applicant to ask if you have even though we don't have the reference in front of us if you have a general kind of outline of what um kind of the you know what what the goals of whether it's you know um as far as you know making sure that the invasives are taken care of. Um, I can speak to that if Keith and Genevieve are okay with that. Um, [clears throat] so what I've typically done in the past when I was an agent was we had these kind of issues where we didn't want to come back to we didn't want to continue to more meetings. We didn't want to keep coming back to it is um actually putting in an additional condition to include um as part of that condition for the restoration to include that document with it. So then it's in there and you follow all the regulations, all the rules for this policy. Um that way if for example we decide to dump Japanese notweed and fill in the entire intimate stream with all these invasives um and we decide to go back and say okay we only planted we only fixed 50% of it you can say well the document that we included in the special condition says you have to do 80% or whatever the actual number is um that's what I would recommend um or be able to do for you. I know the document is online, but unfortunately um the Massachusetts Commonwealth Massachusetts does not have the most easy to find document libraries um even for its own employees, but um I can for sure have that sent over to you before I go to bed tonight. Um

Okay. I don't Yeah, I guess I guess I guess and and Travis, you can tell me if I'm wrong. I guess the the kind of the question is is if um if that document and whether it's light on the percentage of what has to be taken out or something and because we don't have it in front of us that's should we put in a backs stop of saying you know the minimum should be this. So that's yeah that's my that's my question because if that document doesn't actually have a minimum standard then this is a condition without any right no point

so um so I don't we could say we could say 90% right now if you want we yeah we could we can say um we can say you know uh 90% um um or yeah just without the without even some just general restoration notes and the plans it's hard to right to prove it. So Leah what have we done previously on something like this?

That's a good question. Um for some reason the 75% number is sticking in my mind but I think that's for 75% success of plants you're planting. I don't think that's removal of invasives, right? Let me do some looking in the background. See if I can find an example. Okay. If why don't you do that in the meantime, uh Jan, did we have any anyone raise their hand or ask a question? Nothing from the public.

Okay. And I think what you you you're trying to see what we're doing is is not having to continue this meeting because it's it's you know um I think we all understand what this kind of a little bit of a um hiccup is and we just want to make sure that we don't create a problem by trying to solve a problem. So I don't know if um you know the applicants representatives have any kind of thoughts on the percentages.

I do not have any thoughts on the percentages. Um, I did find though, I'm not sure if this is the exact um, policy document, but I did find a mast general recommendations for invasive plant management on roadway construction projects. But skimming through it, I don't see any numbers jumping out at me for percentages specifically. Okay.

So, I have I have one thought, please. Um, you guys could set a number and then you could say whichever. You could say the number that you pick or what's in the manual, whichever is greater or whichever is less. Um, I forgot that we still don't have a VPN option, so I can't get into all my files right now.

Gotcha. Uh so I'll go back to the applicant as far as if that type of um uh type of kind of safeguard so that we can have something have a have a percentage in there but not you know but have it set up in such a way that whatever percentage is in the document we could go with that. I think that's a good idea. I think it makes sense. Keith, what do you think? I yeah, I'm in agreement as well and um I would defer to Angela on that.

I keep hitting raise my hand because I feel like I'm in school. I'm sorry. Um so I do believe I do agree with that and I was actually just looking through really quickly through what I have on my desktop because same thing with VPN, mine never works, especially if I'm in a meeting. Um but I did find right here. It's going to let me It's going to keep freezing. Um, so it does say that the they recommended scroll approach is to have 75% coverage with indigenous wetland plants. Um, that's kind of the exact verbiage on here that I'm finding very very quickly perusing this 45page document. Um, but I would say typ I don't know about I'm not super familiar with rafton and how much success you guys have had with um replication areas or how many issues you guys have had with um invasives.

[clears throat] Yeah, I'm sure it's it's it's similar to um a lot of places a little mixed but we have definitely had success in some areas and even the commission who who is in control of uh you know a lot of open space has has done some work with that and we actually have programs so we do have some experience with that and do have had you know success. I mean, we also understand, you know, it's it's an uphill battle and it's it's a long-term kind of commitment and we're looking for what what's reasonable uh for this particular project.

So, I wasn't sure you guys had lots of issues with um invasives that you were kind of like we're really worried about this. Um but I can send you the documents that I do have here and it looks like 70 I think um Leah was correcting the number 75 is the general percentage I'm seeing for indigenous species. So Travis, you know, instead of saying 90% of invasives have to be removed, which is a percentage of a percentage, is it better to take this approach of saying that 75% of native plants and non-invasives need to be established. That's fine, I think. Okay. Yeah. Potato potato.

Yeah. Yeah, Travis just has a little bit has definitely a better background in wetlands and so forth, plants and so forth than I do. So, all right. I'm fine. I'm fine with that. Okay. Um I guess my big thing, we don't want a bunch of disturbance and then not weed to just fill in or fragmitees or bittersweet. Correct. Yeah, 75% that works. Okay, good. That sounds good. So, one quick uh around the uh around the commissioners. Uh Noah, any questions on this particular condition? No questions for me. Yeah. Amira, any uh questions?

Yeah. So, um could you guys explain the difference between the 75% native plants versus the 90% n uh invasive removal.

So, it's a numbers game. So, the way I look at it is very much from the engineer math kind of standpoint. So say if I'm going to use a very simple, you know, kind of expression. If you have 10 square feet of wetlands and of that 10 square feet, you have half of it 50% of invasives and then you say you have to remove 90%. Then you're removing that percentage of it. where by flipping it and saying instead of saying you have to do a percentage of the invasives, what you're saying is you have to establish 75% of natives which mean that in that 10 square feet you definitely have to have natives that covered and again it's more by plants than areas but like 7.5 ft. So, it's just it's just a which way and how you're approaching the numbers, but it's a really good question because it's very important and we don't know how much invasives invasive plants are there, you know, you disturb that area and if there if you have an opportunity there, you could have 100% invasive come in. So, obviously, they would have to come in and and deal with those invasives to establish a minimum of 75% uh native plantings. So,

Got it. Yeah, that was my question whether it would involve any removal of invasive plants in order to establish the 75% or whether like Yeah. So that that makes sense. Yeah. And yeah and again the big thing is is when you do the disturbance depending upon what's around there invasives are called invasives because they are opportunistic and they'll come into that area and so that's what we're we're kind of saying. So no. All right. Appreciate the question. And Jan, any no one has raised their hands in the participants? Nothing from the public. All right. Thank you. Uh I'll go back to the applicant. Do you have any other questions? And do you need a recap?

I I have no further questions. Okay. All right. And now the key key one is you do you understand what we just talked about for the last 10 15 minutes. Yep. I'm good. Okay. So you'll be able to get the the the essence of the conditions down. Um having no one from the public uh having talked about the conditions. Uh next step is to have to do one quick last one. Amra any other questions? No other questions Travis. Good. Good. Noah, no questions.

I also have no questions. So, next up, do I have a motion to um uh to issue the certificate of compliance with the conditions as discussed during this meeting? Order of conditions. Order of conditions. Sorry, I'm stepping ahead here. I'm being a little bit futuristic here. So, thank you. Um, I'll move to close the hearing and issue the order of conditions for Bedford Drive and Mass Turnpike. Uh, the the conditions at as discussed. All right. And do I have a second? And it can't be Jonathan. I'll second that.

Thank you. So, we have a motion, a second. Roll call vote. I'll start with Jonathan since he gets to go first and tell us tell us what he wants. I will be recusing myself and not participating. Thank you. Um, uh, so, uh, Noah, yes. Ara, yes. Travis, yes. I am also a yes. The motion carries with one abstension. All right. Thank you very much. Good luck. All right. Thank you. All right. So, next up,

um, is tough. So, I'm gonna Lee, I'm going to open it up. Um they're actually are they requesting a condition a continuence to the next meeting? Uh it depends how the conversation goes. Yeah.

Okay. Then then um similar to uh Jonathan I will be opening up uh the public hearing and then I will be recusing them as our company my company that I work for uh does do a lot of work with TUS and per the ethics code I need to recuse myself. So let me go back to here. I'll open it up and then I will turn it over. So, pursuant to the Grafton Storm Water Management bylaw, the Grafton Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing uh to act upon an application for Grafton Stormwater bylaw permit for the demolition and construction of a building at 200 West Westboro Road on the campus of TUS. And as previously said, I am going to recuse myself and uh who would like to kind of take over uh and run this meeting? Do I need to pick someone?

I was giving Jonathan a moment. I I can do it if you want or someone else wants to. Yeah. Yeah, that's fine. I appreciate it. Um and then I'll recuse myself and um and I will take an eye and if I see people waving me back, I will rejoin you. All right. Thank you.

So, who is here for the applicant to give us an update? Hi, good evening everyone. This is Kelsey Kern. I'm a water resources engineer with Niche Engineering. I'm joined um by Eliza I'm joining me is Liza Perry from uh Tus University. Uh as well as Chris and Julie from the project team. Uh so just to update everyone from our November uh 18th meeting. Um Mitch received peerreview comments from Graves Engineering which we felt were pretty minor. Uh we did address those comments and sent a revised package back to Graves as of last Friday. Uh so basically we're asking the conservation commission what the what the path forward would look like. Um maybe you would consider closing the hearing um with the condition that Nich and the project team received that clean peerreview letter from Graves. Um what would that path forward be a possibility essentially?

Um before we go around to everybody else, Leah, I'm going to lean on you. I personally would prefer to have Graves take a look at it and okay it before we close it out but if so I done this before that's sorry go ahead no I was just going to say I don't know that we received what you put out on Friday okay um so we need to be forwarded that information if you wanted to step through the graves comments for the commission we could do that I know the ones that pertain to us four, five, six, seven, and nine. Um, if you guys wanted to, you know, all talk about it.

Yeah, happy to do that. Um, is that is that what we want to do here? That would be great.

Okay, great. Uh, so first up was uh the comment from Graves was about rainfall amounts used in the hydrarology computations. Um, those needed to be based on NRCC Cornell data. Um, we thought we found the right data, but we're pointed to the correct data. Uh, oh, perfect. Thank you for sharing that. Um and so we did modify our storm water report as well as our design plans to reflect the uh greater rainfall amounts used from the NRCC Cornell data. Um and we are still meeting uh we are still producing or meeting uh peak rates uh in all storm events that are required there. Uh any questions on those or should I keep going? Uh

let's go around everybody. Jonathan, sorry, trying to find Yeah, just any any questions on that response? No, no questions. Noah, no questions. Amira, no questions. You can go to the next one.

Great. So the next comment from Graves was u modeling of the outlet con outlet control structure uh and the outlet pipe that was shown on the plans that didn't match that that was modeled um in the storm water report. So we have since updated the hydrarology computations uh we upsized that to a 15-in pipe uh which is being used in both the storm water report computations as well as the plan set uh sheet 6.0 of the plan set uh has been reflected or sorry been updated to reflect that design update. Uh questions on that? Seeing none, you can keep going.

Okay. Uh next was the outlet control structure uh construction detail on sheet C7.0 uh needed to be revised to include width and height dimension of the two orififices and we did um make sure that that was correct and and functioning in the stormwater report. So the dimensions were added to the detail on sheet 7.0. You can keep going.

Okay. Um and the last one I have here was GI recommending that the deeper confirmatory soil testing be performed at the start of construction to verify that the required groundwater offset we met. Um we acknowledge this um comment and a test fit uh will be scheduled to be performed at the start of construction. Any other questions? So Leah Graves has not reviewed the revised plan or these responses. We don't No, we don't have a response back from Graves yet.

I mean, my initial thought is we'd let Graves take a look at it and make sure there aren't any other issues. Otherwise, wouldn't we have to reopen this hearing? Um, I mean, your options are keep it open, wait for Graves review and letter, and then, you know, if that's fine and there's nothing else to take care of, we easily close next time. That's what the sixth, I think.

Yes, January 6th. Otherwise, we could do like a prior to commencement of work, we have to receive that satisfactory letter from Graves. But the, you know, if it comes back with, I don't know, a a significant redesign needed for some reason, it kind of leaves us in a gray area. Um, especially cuz at that point, it's at the staff level. So, it's never my favorite thing to add things prior to commencement of work or like close conditionally, but it's ultimately up to you guys.

Um, I think my thoughts have been made clear. I'll go around to everybody else starting with Jonathan. Jonathan, do you have any questions, comments, thoughts on this? No, no, no questions. Amira, um, I think it I also agree, Travis. I think it makes sense for Graves Engineering to have an opportunity to review this. Noah, any questions or thoughts? No questions. So, I'll put it back to the applicant.

You want to continue this? We can't make that recommendation. That has to come from you guys. I'm trying to read the room here. I think we would request a continuence then. Leah, we do we need to pause for public comment? Yes. And what are the words that I need to use? Jan, [laughter] is there anyone from the public? Just say you're you're opening it up to the public if anyone has questions. We are opening it up to the public if anyone has questions.

All right, Jan. Hearing nothing. Nothing from the public. Do I have a motion to continue this to January 6th and hopefully close it out quickly? I'll move I'll move to continue 200 Westboroough Road, Tus University to January 6th, 2026. I'll second that. Got a motion and a second. Roll call vote. Amira, yes. Jonathan, yes. Noah, yes. I'm also a yes. The motion passes. We will see you in a couple weeks.

Sounds good. Thank you all. Have a great evening. Thank you. I made it. Sandy, do we need her to Is there anything else, Leah? There's nothing else. Um, and you know that we have enough to vote to close, so that's fine. Uh, do I have a motion? Motion to adjurnn. Need a second. Second. Second that. Okay. Roll call vote. Noah, yes. Jonathan, yes.

Aamira, yes. I am also a yes. Motion passes.