good evening let's call this meeting to order this is Tuesday May 28th uh this is the chel street Conservation Commission if you're in the wrong room uh just let you know that's the meeting here tonight um we'll be following the published and posted agenda um this meeting is both in person and through zoom and in the case of the zoom not working property we will continue the meeting in person only and uh and now we can start Chris is here so the meeting is being broadcast and recorded by CH Tel media and um will be available on their website and on YouTube we have uh beginning with Open session for citizen concerns are there any citizen concerns that are not on our agenda that someone would like to bring to our attention anything on the on the zoom David no nobody there okay don't see anybody coming up so let's go to the first item under this open session we have a uh request for removal of trees on Conservation Commission land located between 44 and 46 Old Stage Road um David do you want to just talk about that for a moment um sure um Greg and Ann are here um and they they called me probably a couple of months ago um concerning some trees that were on the Conservation Commission land um down on Old Stage um you want me to bring up a map see where this is no so it's it's there's there there is a I I don't know maybe a five or six acre piece of uh the commission's land that with a a small strip of Frontage that goes out to Old Stage Road and there's a stream there I think it's Farley Brook um where there's uh five or five or six trees uh right there growing on the land so it's um it's two Spruce one Pine one Ash one red maple and one Oak um on the left side of the brook and then two Pines on the right side of the brook um there um you know I think probably the the majority of the trees are are growing right right on the bank of the stream and and some some of some of the roots are eroding I think there is a legitimate concern that number of these trees will come down potentially come down in a high wind especially the Pines which have notoriously shallow roots so um I um asked uh Ann and Greg to uh get an estimate um of of of of the uh the cost uh to take down these trees and I I said you know well because they're on the commission's land the commission has uh in the past paid for removing trees this case and may do so again okay and this is the estimate was $5,000 okay uh questions from the commission Chris do you have anything I mean has there been any update for from the town manager office as far as kind of the policy around taking down trees and who's who does it yeah it's it's on us it's uh we've got more money in our budget this year for this kind of thing okay well I should say in our coming year uh 20 25 uh 2025 budget okay all right good I'm good then okay Mark if they do the work now we have the funds now to pay it no not no the work would be in July I think I think it's already been scheduled for I think the 16th yeah yes is it prudent to get more than one estimate we could I'm I'm sure it's okay but this is iron tree lot in my personal property I found a wide variance in estimates the same yeah for you know Big Trees crane just throwing it out there see nobody says no I think we should get a couple of bids okay okay you'll definitely find lower bids and we've seen some of those companies in the neighborhood and uh I wouldn't feel comfortable I'm sorry could you come up to the podium please say your name uh yeah Greg Cormier 44 old s so we we have a lot of Tall Pine trees in the neighborhood anytime there's a storm there's you know multiple tree companies around um some of them have knocked on our door and asked to take them down right then and there obviously it's on conservation land this company when they came out they said we won't touch this until you get approval um and they've done work I think for the commission before so of course there's thousand companies out there I'll go get B uh bids if you want but I just I trust these guys where they've done work in chumford on conservation land before so but it's I mean if we're going to go lowest bid you know we might end up with a mini escavator in the conservation land or a tree cut that wasn't supposed to be so what you guys tell me okay thanks I I do think we've seen them before we've had we have had them do work yes um 94 me Brook Road yeah okay do we have are we comfortable with any other companies that they could get some bids from um Arbor East and a marquee has done work for the town for maybe get a bid from each of those three bids and then we can do that I'm not against doing the trees I just don't want to spend 5,000 if we can do it for 4,000 right but but making sure that they're all um not just insured but they have liability and second workman's comp in Insurance you guys familiar with that a lot of people don't understand that who was Arbor and Mar you said AR Mar I've actually had Arbor I do work in my yard I'm familiar with okay that contact we can email you the contact information we'll do that okay uh Bill anything else Peter anything else um yeah I have a couple of questions um first to answer your question Chris uh I have the opportunity to work with our town tree Warden and she frequently gets requests from the public for the town I'm going to say as carefully to remove a tree on the public right of way I'm not talking specifically conservation land just the public right of way and their policy and again some we might want to check this is that they don't want the town or they will not authorize the town to pay for removing a tree unless it's considered a hazard and that brings me to my first question David you've seen seen the property I saw it from the car window but did you get a chance to see the erosion issue yes and is is it I I think if it was your if it was your place would you be worried yeah yeah I would be okay that's that's important um I I don't think we're debating the necessity just debating the price that's all three bids well let Peter let Peter talk well the other question is are all these trees um in that roded condition or just a few of them and a related question are all of them big enough that they would hit the house I mean I I saw the pine trees i' I'd be worried about that too but I didn't really notice that some of the others and I just throw that question out there um um yeah I think I I think most of them would hit e either either house uh e either or both houses um depending on which way they felt but I but I also think there's there's a legitimate concern if like um one can fall on the yard and someone for some reason has to be out there at the time or a car ability or a car yeah take them down yeah and then my other question was what happens to that strip of land you know which is wetland buffer um once the trees are cut I mean it's our land I guess or the town's land it's your your yard you any thoughts on my yeah can you oh yeah I mean we both maintain a lawn on either side of like your buffer or whatever is the proper term for that so we would continue to do that but what about the conservation land itself once you remove the trees and different things are going to grow well which you may or may not want want there yeah I mean once once the once if the if the stumps are left the the ER the bank shouldn't erode any faster than it already than it already is right um what was that the plan leave the stumps yes yes um you know and I mean invasives will will likely come back you know that's just a fact of life these days yeah we have a lot of Bittersweet there you know which of course everybody does yeah Town Flower Town flower oh the town flower maybe that's the approach thank you all right John anything uh I just suggest the three bids myy you know and just check it out and uh they're all reputable companies they all have insurance y y there's no question about insurances with any of these companies MH okay that shouldn't even be a factor and uh they've all done work for the town no just just take care of the problem that's my opinion okay so I think um I think at this point it sounds like we're we're in agreement to have this done I don't know if we need to vote on it but I think um if we just get the V the um get a couple more quotes get that information to David and we can authorize David to um take care of that so so do you wanted to come back to the meeting or you just no I the lowest you you can something you can do right if it's 4500 one of the three we'll know what's lower well he has to approve it my brain is still good to [Laughter] that with no more questions it's easy it's done you may want a motion to auor yeah why don't we take a motion though I think can I comment yeah yeah um while I have the the homeowners here I don't know if we want to do anything as a commission but it occurs to me this is part of Farley Brook which is part of our water shed all that stuff and if it if it were me and it had a buch of stumps left I'd be planting some bushes out there of course it's Conservation Commission land we have to talk about how to do that but in terms of Our obligation to think about habitat that would be an easy you know not that a shrub probably is a tree per se but would we just come would we just go to David for permission oh I would to you yeah I was going to try to do the trees now and then you know come back at some point and talk about what to do long term cuz it's going to be 8T High Bittersweet um and it's also as you come down the hill on Old Stage you know it's a nice buffer now you don't look righted into our house now it's going to be headlights it's going to be everything so I guess phase two would be coming up with a you know getting a a what is it an environmental engineer or architect or whatever you call that to maybe do a planting plan bring that to you um and then talk about you know how to share the cost or something like that yeah and my thinking David you're good at this too my thinking is I don't even know if it's necessary to incur additional cost just go to our list of wetland plants and trees and pick a few but that's my opinion we both love to Garden that would be great you work with Greg and an on that yeah great okay we can come up with than so Mr chairman y I make a motion then that we uh approve the request uh subject to uh three uh responsible bids being obtained and that the um lowest responsible bid be chosen and not to exceed with a not to exceed amount of $5,000 second okay motion from Chris second from Mark all in favor I I I okay motion passes thanks thank you thank you thanks for coming in appreciate it all right next on our agenda we have a report from our liaison with the planning board hello Chris good evening good evening we met last week um it's the last week of the staggered meetings between the two uh groups um we reviewed the decision on 270 Bill rck Road um and next meeting will be likely our final vote after reviewing all the documents and uh Decision One Last Time uh should be pretty quick um we had 110 middle sex Street on our agenda but neither the attorney nor the applicant showed so we continued that to June 26th I mentioned that because we did get a letter from uh conservation agent about that uh project um we discussed brick Hill Road uh we had a small design change to the storm water uh essentially moving the um the uh storm water uh feature that was near mw1 uh to the back of the the uh the property uh and essentially uh combining those two storm water uh features and pretty small design change uh will be reviewing the plans next next meeting on June 12th and likely a decision uh document and likely a final vote so pretty small change and uh decision will be next meeting as well uh hildr we had no hearing at the last meeting um and I believe that's continued to our next meeting on June 12th as well uh that's it questions for Chris anything okay thanks appreciate the update good to hear next getting into regulatory hearings are um noi this is continued um from April 9th Mass Electric uh 15 conquered Road and are we discussing this is it continued we do have a disc okay um so I think Tim Sullivan is here uh on behalf of uh National Grid and Bob harzel who's the commission's uh peer reviewer at CI is also here so um so so Bob maybe maybe you could just um uh describe the the uh the review of the uh of the noi that your office did hell Bob do you hear us I think he can hear us let me go oh it's not very loud hello yeah this that's uh is that Tim that's kayn Ken our volume is really low hold on guys hold on it's really the volume in the room is very low we can't hear you try the light say testing 1 2 3 Bob or uh kayin can somebody on online say something please that's just an for you yeah not hearing it it's not not doing anything we're getting it help hold on [Music] working w really you draw a test patent look at a plan hey go I have a complete set that was a different one yeah how we doing [Music] Pete it's still not hearing it we need to be done with zoom yeah sorry about this um could you guys give me maybe 5 minutes is it possible that you could go to another agenda item come back to this that doesn't have zoom zo potentially I just need a couple minutes to restart the system I think we can find something yeah sorry about that sorry everybody okay folks uh on if you can hear us we're going to he's going to restart and we'll come back to to this agenda item in a few minutes so we're going to jump to something else um so not in our regulatory section um so I can do an update on the preparation of the new open space and recck plan how about that does that sound like a good topic all right that's on our agenda so we have um an open space and recck plan we had a meeting last week um it was uh yeah last Tuesday night so we're meeting the the third third Tuesdays of the month I think it is um we do have a survey that's going to be open to the public for everyone to take and that should be available um on June 1st we're having some last minute discussion on that I think we're going to close on that um and get that out um on this Saturday June 1st there is a farmers market on Saturday June 1st and Saturday June 8th we will have a presence at that uh both of those farmers markets um and this is with the folks from ncog and a couple of us will be there um come on out and say hi um we also will have a open space uh and recck plan open house on Thursday June 20th and this will be at the senior center um at um I think it's 5:00 to 7 o'clock that night it's a Thursday night June 20th so um we will um there'll be a few other booths there we think um soon we recruit a few other groups to be there and um that's uh that's what's going on there so the survey will be open to the public it's an online survey um should take I'm going to guess 10 12 minutes something in that order of time and uh anything I'm forgetting Peter um yeah just a comment to my fellow Commissioners um one thing we're trying to do is get a good response to the survey including uh we had quite a bit of discussion about under representative underrepresented populations meaning people that don't you know normally get involved in the town events and may not you know how do you reach them even let them know so my thought was to the extent you've got interview if you've got a mailing list of town friends you know it'd be good to publicize this it'll be open for what two months I think it's most of the summer into into August I think something it's really sort of important to get a good snapshot of much of a cross-section of the community as as possible comments questions I I can use my V of mailing list that I sent out when I was running for water district good there's 50 60 people on there yeah that' be great two voed for you though right yeah I left myself open tough crowd so everyone in the audience too if you if you want to uh participate I think it'll be Paul Cohen sends out his town manager's um monthly update on the 1 of the month give or take a day um I believe the information will be in there I think it'll be on the town website um so if you keep your eyes and ears open you should be able to see it um and it looks like we're coming back online here what are you expecting from uh hot we treatment um that's just a request for an extension to the O conditions you that you want to do that yeah yeah can so that would be take is that near the end uh that's near the end the approval so request for extension to order of conditions 129 912 this is the har Pond weed treatment um they have provided some annual reports I think is that right yes yes we we've got those copies y okay so um any questions comments how long extension we looking at is it three years three year expires June 17th that'll be till June 17 2027 all I move that we extended again for another three years okay motion from Chris any further discussion second bill yeah just just to comment kind of the obvious we've got a study going on on the other big lake yeah yeah and at Hart Pond they they did hire a well new consultant probably not new but some time ago that's doing a little bit of what's going on at Freeman so obviously when the Freeman that's certainly louder obviously so I just want to point out in my mind when the Freeman work is done then we've got two comparative things and maybe there's an effort down the road to right that's good figure out good to synchronize them and align I mean they may be different I mean may I think there's a little difference I'm not saying it has to be the same just what we've learned right okay so motion from Chris second from Bill all in favor I I opposed none okay unanimous and I I'm not liking that sounds like it sounds the same um Kellen Kellen is that how you say his name Kellen or Bob can you say something know if we've got the should be okay you hear them are they talking nope they are muted though everybody's muted right now yeah you got to un somebody say hi hello hello Bob can you say hi Bob or Kellen just curious I mean do we have to continue with kind of these hybrid meetings with zoom coming in and all that or yeah I think they should come in at least one representative I like to see people in person to be honest that's how I feel I mean we got a lot of folks came in here tonight so this isn't a MAG this isn't a huge project one person can represent this you know yeah we could in my opinion is that David is that you doing that or is that that's you that's Peter that's Peter okay I mean it was it was helpful when we had Co but we're we're past that now we're past it no are we required to do this required to do Zoom now no I think we should do away with it I think we should do away with it think I'm here it's not going to work not tonight I think be broadc they going have to be we should allow with Direction that's different yeah that's different so is anyone online Bob or Kellen can you unmute have we tried to unmute them Bob is not muted so Bob you don't Bob hars will you look like you're not muted so but he's not hearing he's not muted but I'm not is K talking K can you say something for us it's not working right I'm really sorry gentlemen he is talking I think I can just barely is it coming out of your computer is that what we're hearing no it's coming from up there that's not right thisp I got one more thing I can try you guys want to um do you have another item you can do I apologize um cool update well uh yeah that's simple yeah can do that you have one more thing you can do I've got one more thing I can try I'm I'm not super hopeful but uh I'll give it a go all right okay well and the other thing is I think on on this particular one we get some stuff from them late today right yes so yes I know it's pretty straightforward but um in theory we were making the case that we weren't going to be accepting last minute uh right and I and I did just want to hear uh get the responses to some comments at DPW okay had all right let's let's shift to Kess for a few minutes and then and then come back to this if uh if we can and we may have to just continue this if we can't get I I don't really want to have a whole lot of discussion if they can't participate in and and be part of that so um so relative to kulis uh so we had um um voted at our last meeting uh yeah two two or three weeks ago whenever our last meeting was to um accept the uh responsibility for the CR and overseeing the site um all the coolest property um and then last week uh I think it was last week at the select board meeting um Mike risbeck made the presentation of the task force to the uh select board um and they made the point that they were not um voting one way or another on any of the recommendations um and that um we would be uh looking at those recommendations within conservation and trying to decide how we want to make our plans going forward so I think have you guys all seen those recommendations have did they did we get them sent I've seen them I been available I don't think I was sent a copy of the report all right I'll make sure we get copies of the recommendations from the task force to everyone in addition besides the task force there was a separate I'll call a splinter group that was doing some site work and um they've got a list of things that they're trying to do and they've been instructed to work with us on anything they do on that site going forward um for let's just call it maintenance at the moment maintenance the task force is the is the Task Force which they're Rec they're they're um Charter was to create a list of recommendations for uses of the site as a I'm going to call it a splinter uh group of that of that task force and there were some other people brought in that that just did some you know they started cutting trails and you marking Trails friends of coolest farm well that's a Facebook group okay yeah that's a Facebook group but the but there's a um I think it's a maintenance or site maintenance or so we need to get a handle on who's and there's a guy John Ray who was on the both the the workforce and the the test the um the recommendation force and I think he might have been here tonight but he had conflicts or something and he might have wanted to talk talk about some of the things that they had open but we'll have to schedule him for a future meeting and um have him come in and talk to us um I just seems to me he's not available till late in June or something like that I had a number of emails anything else pet yeah I could just add John was on the coolest task force and he now holds the title of uh chief of Trail maintenance or something to that effect and I've had a chance to talk quite a bit with John and he's you know he's very he's asking to meet with us just to combine our interest and you know what he's been asked to do over the summer okay and John yeah uh agricultural meeting as far as the ACT commission goes would like to try to work with conservation and hold the two agricultural pieces of land separate because they are two separate pieces of land okay and have it be controlled by the a commission it's going to be hay and farmed that's all it's going to be it's no no Trails no it's going to be can't have people walking around your your pumpkin field because they'll be just taking your pumpkins so we want to try to keep it with the two boards that's what was proposed by the a commission okay we'll look at that right now is it in our control has it voted to I it wasn't really voted it was just sort of stated in the select board meeting that it would be um under the uh responsibility of the Conservation Commission to do the uh the CR and to oversee the property and up with and and make final decisions with the select Bo on what we end up doing you know we all know there's the new house uh uh wildlife and there's trails and there's a lot of other things that have been brought up but um I think first thing would be to get the copy of the presentation and in fact we could probably ask ask Mike risbeck to come in um as well and and and present to us um on that on what they what they did make sense mhm yeah I think we need to get everybody who's involved so all in the room together all in the room together if we're going to have some say in it bring everybody together so we're all working on the same plan yep and it's not everybody's whim of what they want to do totally agree with that any other comments or questions yeah just just a comment there is a lot of active uh plans and work going on on the trails and and the only time critical thing occurs to me is we might want to make it clear what activities out there going forward are supposed to come before this commission under the Wetland protection act and our bylaws you know for example there's talk about a a walkway to the Vernal pool the conservation value is you know the 100 foot buffer yep I don't know what the right answer is are there probably a few things we might want to send the word out you know please work with us we certainly want to see things get done I'm not proposing we try no a lot of people have done a lot of nice work out there absolutely yeah it's uh it's come a long way and John's all in on that idea when I talked to him last John Ray John Ray right okay good yeah so okay should be easy all right how we doing if we uh don't have this resolved I think we need to I think we need to table this item is this the only one that's on Zoom that we need um don't know I think it's the only one where the applicants on Zoom okay so Kellen and Bob let's give it one more chance I've done all my tricks so if this doesn't work not much else I can a lot of feedback yeah Kellen it's even louder or Bob yeah we're we're not we're not hearing you yeah it it's okay we can tell you're talking but we can't really hear you so we're we're going to have to continue this uh this hearing until the next meeting and I think we're going to recommend that you have somebody come in um and not let's not trust it to zoom we may be moving on from zoom in our meetings from what I'm hearing from my fellow Commissioners so I really apologize um we're having this technical difficulty we haven't had trouble like this in the past but I'm pretty sure we have a piece of equipment that's failed the way it's acting is not I've tried all the settings I've done everything I can so I think something appreciate it Pete all sorry about that all right so um not if you agree or if you understand you can't you don't have to agree but you have to understand we just can't have the we can't have the hearing if we can't communicate so um we're going to have to continue until um I think we'll continue the next meeting is June 11th I make a motion Mr chairman that we continue the 15 conquered Road Hearing until our next meeting of June 11th 2024 motion from Chris second second from Bill all in favor I I motion passes sorry really apologize technical difficulties but we'll have to get you next time are they hearing us can you hear us okay sounds like you can he said I can hear something yeah okay portion yeah so um next time yeah should I write a note this says continued I like hold on hold on send a representative hold up a big sign so I'm just going to end the meeting here here yeah yeah continued I I think I think they've got it yeah sorry but but keep that note we might need some again yeah we going to smoke signals next all right so yeah I think we're going to discontinue the meeting the the zoom call sorry [Music] okay well that was not much fun I'm sorry that it happened but that's the way it is so let's move on um notice of intent uh so this one's 93 brick Kill Road uh this is continued from looks like April 23rd um we were reviewing the uh special draft conditions and anything how how we starting this one off well um Chris let us know earlier uh that um the storm water system management system is being um redesigned but beyond that I haven't heard anything from the app not an update not a request for a continuance uh good evening for the record BR with hog Associates uh thank you David I I didn't realize that Christine hadn't um kind of communicated with the commission uh so uh the last time we were here um we we were reviewing draft conditions and and kind of continued it out planning board had raised some concerns or questions about storm water management and our Hydro Geo study that was done with um some past levels that fell outside of the Zone too uh in order to move the planning board process along we agreed to consolidate one of the underground systems that was in that was um um there was concern about um do you happen have the plan handy D do I have a what the the plan handy I can just the most recent yeah the most recent one we haven't issued anything uh I guess what I'd like to do is just very quickly describe what we're revising which is just a very simple consolidation of two storm water systems so any of the grading sheets would be F so four or five yeah this will work um so the concern was with respect to the underground system located right here there was a monitoring wall that had some low levels of he pass in it hyd down gradient so the coner migration of any of the be pass within the soil um you know into essentially the wetlands and then out to the conrete river uh so by removing this system we're essentially going to be putting all the storm water back behind the building so our revision is going to eliminate this larger system and put it into the system in the back now in terms of of design it's a redesign but it's very very minimal essentially we're just adding volumes so say there was 50 Chambers in that system we're going to be adding that into the system at the rear we had confirmed with the planning board that they did not feel that this had to go back out to peer review um you know my my hope is the commission feels the same way uh we'll be issuing that revised plan set this week uh so likely tomorrow or tomorrow is what Wednesday Thursday um to the planning board so that they can they can review it and as as Chris had indicated uh we're looking for closing of the public hearing and hopefully an issuance of site plan and special permits on the 12th um you know I'm happy to answer any questions that the commission may have um but again with everything uh really resolved at this point and this simple consolidation happening it would be our goal to uh kind of mirror what we have going on with the planning board and hopefully um have the commission be able to uh close out this process as well uh and like I said that that simple consolidation will be a revised plan um and hydrocad uh calculations it'll be submitted in the next day or two um and outside of that uh there's there's no additional changes on the site so the planning board has kept the hearing open pending they have receed of that plan so I would I would recommend we kind of keep it open but if there are any concerns um if we could just have those identifi this evening um so we can those at the same time I mean there's there's nothing that really jumps out at me um i' like to actually see the plan yeah ex have I would have to know how this fits in with construction of the turtle nesting Management Area yeah so no impact to that we were very very sensitive to the fact that we're keeping everything exactly the same that was discussed that's all outside of the parking lot the storm water falls under the phase 2 parking lot or the infiltration Basin so it it doesn't have any effect to um any of those potential conditions and everything that has been discussed to date okay questions for the applicant uh I just said we we had this letter that was addressed uh the community development director back on May 3rd and it was from beta basically saying that beta recommends a proposed storm water management system be off Al to avoid infiltration in areas where dissolve pasas have been identified are likely to be present um is that have there been modifications since this May 3rd letter no the modification is what we what I just described so it's just moving the system that's located to the plan right of the building to behind the building kind of absolves um any of those concerns so I guess I just would like to be sure that that beta um you know is review the latest plans and is okay with advis plans and is no longer concerned about some sort of a negative PS so just to expand on that a little bit um there was no consensus between R rlsp and beta um this was a discussion that was somewhat out outside of that to resolve the the concern uh and this is not going back to Beta for Rie why not I mean I guess personally just speaking as one commissioner I have a letter from beta raising to my mind some serious concerns about possible pest let me let me make sure I understand though that letter is what your redesign is addressing correct and discussed during the meeting last week with the planning board with beta present and our LSP pres so what you're saying is you're responding to their to the to the um the the peer reviews recommendation or their their finding however you want to word it and this is your response but then you're saying but we don't you don't want to have that be reviewed so it's not that we don't want it it's that it's not part of the process right now this was discussed at length with the plan planning board and no additional peer reviews are part of the the remaining process so what I'm DAV I think what I'm hearing Brian say is that that um what he what the proposed change that um is being made right now was was made at the last planning board hearing with beta present correct beta concurred that this change in location is consistent with what they they recommended I guess to add a little more detail to it by moving the system from the right side of the building to behind the building we're now moving our point of discharge hydrologically downg gradient of the well that had p in it so none of that infiltration none of that that migration of groundwater is going in that area of monitoring well okay okay I could I could certainly send an email to to Rob Smith you know asking for his concurrence on that so why we do it that way have that done as well as we get to see the the new plan in the meantime um which will give us you know the ability to see what what the change is it sounds like it's in the right uh in the right direction there's a huge Nuance here that um so I'm reading it beta recommended the system be designed to avoid infiltrating where where posos was found dissolved posos so presumably that's what happened but beta report also says clearly that there has not been enough testing to identify where the posos is so the question I have is is the the the new storm water system uh ALS Al located in an area of dissolved posos because what beta is saying is if it is located in an area of increased posos the infiltration is going to increase what gets discharged to the drinking water I I can speak to that yeah so that's that I think that's the technical Nuance here uh so I can speak to that a little bit a total of five monitoring laws were put in um PS I believe was found in two of them all below reportable concentrations monitoring well one was on that right side of the building and the rest of them kind of hesho around the entirety of the property so the comment about not having enough testing is the distance between monitoring well one on the right hand side and monitoring well two was about 150 ft and it wasn't enough to provide a hydraulic gradient like calculating exactly where the groundwater level was at and and the direction that FL we're basically saying all right we if you don't think we have enough data there and you have some kind of concern about monitoring well one um we're just going to move it into an area that has efficient testing that is hydraulically downg gradient um from the past Wells so that's why we're moving it back behind the building so the only concern on the side on the on the site was on that right hand side by monitoring well one which happened to be basically in the location of this underground system yeah so so Chris to your point I mean this sounds like a great solution um I personally want to hear from our peer reviewer and if he said that clearly at the plany board meeting and it's in the minutes that's let's not re let's not repeat what they went through uh but if it wasn't clear that our expert our peer reviewer said clearly yeah that resolves uh the issues and remember there's two issues one is well let's not get into the bug dust but you know that just a simple solution is for us either to hear from Rob directly or if it's in the minutes or on the PB recording his opinion that's that's good too but we can ask yeah we can ask him John when he comes back in I want to see a plan right we all discussed it at the work session we want to see a one-page plan of what we're going to be looking at in fact if we get a plan earlier you can probably go see David you know next week and see it in his office uh because they used to bring PL D size or a larger you're talking about a full scale no I'm talking about a simple 11 by 17 A Simple Plan okay I have this to go by I've had this since day one yep okay this project have been changed changed and changed other people had plans not us I would like to see the plan but but do you want it 11 by 17 or just a simple this right here yeah yes 11 by 17 I mean it it's common people come in and they give you a set of plans okay all right we discussed it and I thought we no I think we're we're going to be adamant about if you don't have your plan in front of us well as I I I didn't even know that a new plan was being correct we can't vote on something we can't see in front of us yes so that's that's the point is where that's what I'm trying to say get this new plan we'll get this in front of us we'll get a confirmation from from the peer reviewer and um and we'll see you in uh will we have all the AO conditions for based on the new plan so we can vote on this at the next meeting it should be I mean it should be as simple as just referencing a new plan in that that the plan title line should be unless Ryan can you make sure we have hard copies to look at please yep and and so the draft permit conditions you put out now like a month ago is is still the what we're I don't I don't see why they should change and for Brian is saying the same thing okay if if if I when I see the plan if I have any questions I'll ask Brian okay we all saw how technology work tonight it didn't work he's talking right okay okay set of plans we'll look at it we'll vote yep so I think that's the plan so Brian it's June not a full set June 11th is the next meeting um which is the night before the planning board meeting so I think that's the plan so I will take a motion to continue this hearing from tonight until June 11th Mr chair I move that we continue this meeting hearing with respect to 93 brick Hill Road until the next Conservation Commission meeting on June 11 2024 and we're looking for a a letter or an email from beta and also some hard copy plans for us to look at and we'll have the special audit conditions Avail ready to go that we've got well I I think the commission has already reviewed yeah yeah we've got that so we're all set there I want to be in a position to vote on this next time yep I think we should be yes okay motion from Chris second from John all in favor I I I okay thank you thanks thank you thanks Brian thanks for jumping in I don't think you had it on your radar okay all right uh uh but don't go too far next on the list is uh uh notice of intent continued also uh this is 10 hildr Street and um we um so let me just start by saying we have received a lot of communications from residents I won't go through them in detail but we have 1 two 3 four five six seven different Communications at least that I've kept track of um since well let's just say in May um and the general tone of the um I'm just trying to make sure that we everyone is aware we're getting a lot of input from from our fellow citizens of chelsford um the main concerns are about Ral pool protection um the tree uh habitat the tree uh canopy um the Upland habitat um that's the that's the main area of of issues of concern and we've got lots of um lots of very really well- written um uh documentation so that's as a precursor thank you uh for the record Brian G with anok associat so very quickly before I turn it over to David Cowell our senior Wetland scientist um can we get copies of all of those uh butter concerns and letters I don't believe that we've been provided any of that um so the last time we were before you uh we were tasked with uh identifying habitat surrounding the Vernal pool uh and David and and David went out uh and did that and I'm not going to talk anymore I'm going to let Dave kind of discuss exactly what what they did yes thank you Brian for the record David cow senior Wetland scientist with Hancock Associates um uh yeah again I um I I haven't seen those letters hopefully um some of the the conversations that we have tonight will address some of those and if there's there's uh ongoing comments regarding tree protection and FAL pools I'm happy to address those um since our last meeting I did have opportunity to go out uh David and I were able to um flag on the ground uh I believe a more accurate depiction of forested Upland habitat with our our initial submitt we had um estimated based on reputation of aerial tree cover so so if I can just reference the plan quickly so so that up plan habitat is you see these these little symbols here they look like uh short arrows pointing downward so that's that's the existing up planed habitat that we mapped in the field so um I I think that should be fairly clear um what that is and then and then the this uh this red line here uh which is which is the the Vernal pool buffer zone that that I mean let's just say for the sake of discussion right now that was the the original Upland habitat um uh and would be assuming this was a pristine area and all of the Upland habitat um was uh intact uh around the Vernal pool so really the only the only areas where that are are not a planned habitat within 100 feet are this that I that I've uh outlined here in the light blue and the um the the dark blue so sure thanks dve go ahead um I I would to make a soft counterargument that the the light blue is still habitat it's not forested Upland it's forested Wetland but we we had talked about the species needs that that amboid salamanders require for us that Upland wood frogs requ forested Wetland but the the dark blue polygon um while David and I were out there we actually occurred to us that there was a second potential Vernal pool out there um providing uh additional breeding habitat it's not over wintering habitat but that blue polygon is a second potential veral pool providing be um breeding habitat so the breeding habitat is actually a bit more than just the single FAL pool that we had done in the first place so we I'm sorry on that map I don't believe I've seen that or if I did if you sent it and I missed it where is the current identifi Vernal pool we we got this Friday right yes yes so I'm sorry I didn't get to it and joh to your point earlier forgive me I I 11 by 17 it's handouts you guys have something in front of you exactly so yep so moving forward any anytime we submit the revised plans I I'll come in with 11 by 17 hand outes so it's it's a fun so again we don't expect the hearing to close tonight we want to introduce this and and talk about it if you need additional time to to review this I I think we're we're fored that um so to your question of what what is the the Vernal habitat um for the purposes of our our quantitative analysis for our impacts we've qualified that the red um David has the polygon at that light blue um connection there there's actually there's like a a wetland hydrologic connection between the two potential veral and then there's a second Vernal pool but there's clearly two uh depressions yeah right and in that hydrologic area it just um it there's water in there um it's obviously with there too connected but it doesn't retain enough surface water to be considered um Open Water breeding habitat it's just shallow of water at at that point so all right in in this study so we did the the the quantitative analysis we did we we looked at the 100t buffer zone surrounding the the potential veral pool that we're we're working within 100 ft of the total surface area of that is about 83,000 Square ft is is the 100 foot barer zone so after um David and I were able to to delineate forested Upland habitat within that um we discovered that there was 40,000 square ft in change um what that does is that represents that of the of the um 100 foot buffer zone um 50 I'm sorry 48.7 of the 100 foot buffer zone percent of the 100 foot buffer zone is uh suitable habitat um one of the points uh I I just want to point out is that most of the percentage that is not forested habitat is within um 10 it's within Hilder Street itself where the 100 foot barford drone projects into the public roadway in the um in the home that was off property as it as it pertains to where there limits of lawn and driveway are in proximity um so with that in mind we we went back to the drawing board and we looked at our our design um and we're making uh in this quantitative analysis we're making efforts to avoid minimize and mitigate to the maximum extent practicable so in what we had let's see let's in in terms of avoidance I just want to go through systematically avoidance minimization and mitigation in avoidance we're we're kind of confined to the footprint that we're in now with this five lot Division and that has a multitude of um factors leading to it it has to do with where we have roadway Frontage we have a clustered lot that's centered over um existing altered development it's where we have access to our utility tie-ins it's also the configur of these Lots is also driven by um zoning ordinance building code uh we still need to have title five uh septic systems inside these laines um based on the plan that that has been in front of you the the plan that you guys have been reviewing to date we had uh a total of 8,000 square ft of um proposed footprint within the 100 foot buffer zone and that would result in a take of 31 trees um and that would reduce the available forested habitat by 9.9% and that would reduce forested habitat from 48.7 as it exists now to 38.8% coverage um now we get into minimization so what we've we've done since the the plans that you guys have had in front of you all along we actually have moved our limit of work line northward as far as we can and still remain a viable project with that reduction we've reduced from uh again I said we had 8,000 square feet um plus uh proposed we've got that down to 3,300 square fet and with this reduced impact it would be instead of a 10 10% reduction it would be a 4% reduction and instead of taking 31 trees we're proposing to take Seven Trees so we've made every effort to minimize the the associated impact to reduce that impact and then um that leads us to uh mitigation um one of the things that I pointed out to David while we were out there is in the forested habitat not not all of the forested habitat is ideal habitat there's an area in the forested habitat that's uh quite degraded it doesn't have as much tree cover as the rest of the forested habitat does it's um really poor nesting habitat as it pertains to ground cover it's invasive species the under story in this area is all um honeysuckles Asiatic Bittersweet pretty degraded species so as as mitigation what we' propos to do and this is um just under 3,000 square ft of surface areas that we would do to a Vernal pool habitat restoration enhancement plan where we would go in there we would remove the invasive species from the under story The honeysuckles and any of the Woody um invasive vegetation we would plant um I think our planting plan had there was an there was a quantity of trees we're proposing to plant 30 trees this is a surface area of 2,300 ft and what we do is we would plant trees in there to to supplement that tree cover the root structure to afford better um um nesting habitat or over wintering habitat for these species we would um it' be a native seed mix that we would broadcast onto the ground and we would put if we were to take the trees where we're taking them we could cut logs out of those trees and broadcast them into the restoration area to increase wooded forested um debris in ground cover for those species so so that that's where we stand now that that that is the results of our quantitative analysis and that is the results of our efforts to further avoid minimize and mitigate for for impacts okay David do you want to you were you were out there with David y David so so um so Dave just for the sake of clarification because some people may still have this question 83,000 Square ft um that you refer to in Europe evaluation is um is is the area within this this red line This outer Red Line um exclusive of these areas that's correct that's the 83,000 square fet um okay and I'm sorry those areas are included in the 80 but they're not included as habitat that's the total 100 foot circumference around the right but if but if we're talking about Upland habitat these areas should not well you feel the light blue should be but oh no but we we did um uh omit those from that's that's what I'm asking okay so these the light blue and dark blue areas were emitted to arrive at that 83,000 does not no the the 83,000 is the total but the the the the surface area of that was deducted from the total um 40,000 ft of available forested habitat so okay that's where the the the total 100 foot surface area is what it is it's 83,000 ft but for available forested habitat yes those areas were were not counted okay so so I I I'd like I'd like to know what what what um the 8 the 83,000 or or the total buffer zone is minus the area of these two are the are the light blue and dark blue areas included in your evaluation did you give those numbers they no I didn't do those separately when um I I I sent you three three points the first was the initial one that I submitted and that was based off of the um tree interpretation off of The Arrow you and I went out we feel delineated I sent you a revision to when I sent you revision to it occurred to me when I was doing you asked me some questions to to button up the plan with the shading and when you had ask me that's when it occurred to me that um my uh my cad drawer had mistakenly kept those in there so with rev 3 that the vision that you guys have in front of you now that area has been deducted from the available Forest in it's been deducted from the 43398 or well previously that that we reported that that was like 53,000 and that's come down with the deduction it was about 15,000 ft for for for that surface area sorry what's that you you deducted it from the 53 to get to the 43 yeah what I'm reporting now is that there's 40 40,000 sare ft of available for us to over wintering habitat in that 100 foot barfa Zone and that excludes the the blue the blue polygons and any of the surface area that that okay so by our means deter so if you so if you just deduct the light blue the sum of the light blue and dark blue areas from the 83,000 then then you'll get the total amount of the original my habitat that's what I'm trying to get at I don't know that that's accurate how how I just try to explain your logic or well yeah I'm trying to understand where we're where okay because because and and I probably should have said a little bit more about this at the beginning is is that the the bylaw regulations allow both the bylaw and the regulations allow the commission to take into account a cumulative loss right so so what I'm what I'm trying to get at is we we start out with what was the original if there no development no alteration of any of the Upland habitat within 100 ft MH and then and then you know what was that that to try and get down to not only the existing from that that loss but also then to the uh additional cumulative loss proposed by you know the development right keep saying yeah I should so go ahead Brian yeah please so I think one of the nuances here that that we do need to recognize that this this habitat was created by roadway drainage so by taking that 8 83,000 Square ft you're including hildr Street you're including Plum Street you're including a budding um Parcels across the street uh is that what we're driving at well uh I can just tell you my personal opinion is that is that I my personal interpretation of the bile on the regulation says yes that the commission is allowed to take that into consideration in determining cumulative loss obviously that's up for the commission to decide side so I think there's a fine line there because this resource area potentially wasn't even a resource area without that roadway so that was never Habitat to begin with I guess what what is the end goal of of the numbers exercise well it's it's uh trying to get a sense of or as quantitatively as possible you know the cumulative loss now now um yeah maybe maybe the Vernal pool wasn't always there and maybe when after it was formed that um the road was already there maybe there was already some development so but I but I think that that that burden of proof is really on the applicant to to do that I I I think I think the presumption the commission's presumption should be is that that Vernal pool uh existed and at at some point in in the past it the buffer zone was entirely uh Upland Forest um exclusive of the light blue and dark blue areas M so so if if you if you want to reut that I think you know again the burden of proof is is on you okay uh oh go M so I guess then what what we've done and happy to run those numbers we can subtract out exclusively Wetland areas from the 83,000 to give you a baseline number and then what we're representing um as habitat today and what we are proposing for Habitat now the question um I guess I have is in relation to the habitat modification that we're doing or we're proposing now and whatever this potential cumulative loss is I mean this this is the conversation that we had regarding tree clearing on the site previously and we were willing to consider any and all forms of mitigation specific to this fernal pool and into that tree clearing so if the commission has a desire to to create uh or or influence our uh restoration kind of enhancement plan um you know we're we're open to that um we just need to understand what that that concern is um so uh okay um you know certainly can talk about that I guess I guess just you know thing I would say immediately but I I think probably should put that off to a little bit later is that you cannot do a like kind replication in this case of the Upland Vernal pool habitat I mean these are these are at the very least decades old trees not going to be able to replace those so so if if you know I think that's an issue that the commission has to take into consideration that it really it's not practical to do a like kind of replication of the existing habitat but but anyway let's want to put that off to a later discussion um the so the but so the second the the second numbers said numbers or additional numbers that that I would like to see is is actually may maybe getting a little a little bit more to the the point we we just discussed was what I would like to see is the the existing UPL habitat on the site on the subject property um and look take take also look at the the original Upland habitat so look look at assuming that this was all UPL habitat in the buffer zone so so look at at at that number the the total amount of existing up land habitat within the buffer zone look at the existing um uh percentage uh or the existing fraction of that that's existing habitat and then and then the ex and then the the further fraction that that it will be reduced by the proposed development so so yeah we we can just res restrict what's on the property to the subject property you I you know it's ultimately it's up to the commission what they want to do with those numbers but at least we'll have them we'll have that information so see what I'm saying yeah can I can I just point out a few like um nuances in this exercise with the the I'm sorry I want to point to the plan um in in relation to what so the red polygon is is the 100t bar Zone that's the 83,000 Ft most of the the the absence of habitat is occurring here as it occurs within the hild RightWay and off property to the property to the right so of course we're not going to have habitat here it's it's Hiller street it's off property it's not it's not it's it's nothing our property owners could have done and then secondarily a lot of the other open habitat is down here within the polygon that the again is off property and associated with the limits of driveway on on an abing residence so what we we we could calculate the total forested habit on property and then and then give you the bait on what the the reduction would be I I I think we need both sets of numbers both both offsite and on-site again It ultimately it's what the commission wants to do with it I think it will ultimately come down what is the interpretation of cumulative loss is that is it restricted just to the subject property or or is commission can the commission take into account offsite loss and I don't know the answer to the question right now I can tell you how I personally have interpreted it right maybe the the members of the commission would like to opine on how they want these numbers reported comments from I with this point I'd support what our agent's asking for I think it's going to be helpful data okay joh I think the point he brings up a replication is near impossible what they want to use replication so I don't I don't I don't feel comfortable about that have the houses moved since you've re done the uh I don't believe the houses have it was at limit of La Brian you're the Eng so uh this goes back in iteration originally we had a six lot uh subdivision we had a lot tucked away in the back and then that got revised down to five um since we went down to five we had a subsequent revision that revised the limit of work on Lots five four and five which are the ones closest to Hill Earth closest to the fal pool what we did is um lot five which is the house on Hilder Street or closest to Hilder street that one's on sewer um so we were able to pull that as far um up to the right of way as we could because there is no septic system on lot and you can see sorry too much paper um you can see kind of in this area here where we did an inventory of trees of large caliper trees so this being lot five and this being lot four on lot five we had significantly more tree clearing proposed previously um and we were able to to tighten up our limit of work line and go down to just the clearing that you see with the red axis on this one we were able to make smaller tweaks um and move the limit of work Line North slightly to eliminate some of the tree clearing but we still have four trees on this lot that that need to be clear so we have gone through the exercise of looking at the two lots in closest proximity to the potent to the vernal pools um to limit our impacts to do everything that we can to tighten upgrading uh minimize yard Behind these houses um and to to move them physically as close to the proposed roadway as we could but from what was staked out the day we did a sidewalk that was what was staked out when we did the sidewalk that was the original before we moved the line before you moved the line limit of work but the houses haven't moved the houses are where they are right the houses did move on law five and law five significantly four slightly since we've looked at those Stakes out there that moved since you were out in the field correct and from the limit of work line how far is the closest point of the house uh 20 ft less than 20 ft so we have if can we shift to the the design plan daveid sheet five would work that's the grading uh of of the most recent of the most recent plan I don't know I don't know if you gave me a plan showing the hous is moved but you can tell me who was part of the last full revision um the April 19th re revision or the submission 411 is the last date and what sheet did you say that I'll give your things are they gummies so the these are the two that I'm referencing here these are the two houses so this this is our limited work line which is the same as what was going on that that colored sketch these are the trees that were located so the limit of work line to the back of the house is I would say less than 20 ft I don't have the exact Dimension um basically we have Decks that are pulled into each side of each unit of the building with steps going down and then there's a little bit of lawn area before you hit the The Limited work line here this house was in parallel with lot for to kind of maintain the streetcape as you come in we just took that up as close to the right of way as we could and moved the limit of work line accordingly to try to save as much of the the vegetation in this area as possible so how far is the limit of work line from the Vernal pool that's so this is this is your 25 this is your 30 this is your 50 so that unlaw five is probably halfway 75 ft and then on lot four this is the 50 that's probably 40 45 ft to the house uh to the house well to the house it's it's it's beyond 50 20 more so so house on lot five is roughly 50 ft from the Vernal pool the house yep 50 ft and then 75 on law four but of course the lawn is approaching closer than that right now was the the 40 to 40 yeah and so it's really it's really the loss of the habitat that's the right The crucial issue right and and by the way just if I could just comment um I went back to the map that was sent out on Friday and it's not the same as what's on the screen and I mean it looks similar but there's some differences uh and it would really help me I mean it would help you guys help us help you if these drawing showed where the houses were I mean that's you know I don't know if that's let me just say that's a real problem because between the different drawings to John's point between the different drawings the last minute submitt you know the challenges in finding the latest drawing and then of course without showing the houses on some of these drawings it makes it even harder for us and that's just going to drag this hearing out so that would be helpful I I don't know where the where what we could do to fix that but it's just it's getting a little bit complicated for a volunteer to keep track of all these different drawings and different changes okay I just want to say that it's important sure Brian will do that but again I think the most important most important point to focus on is the loss of Upland habitat well that's the point I'm trying to figure that out and and let me just ask one more quick question I I mean I appreciate what yall are trying to do by the way I think that's the name of the game can you mitigate the impact but a couple of quick questions um I'm interested in more information on the trees you know new ones versus old ones and the total habitat value and an assessment of an expert whether that's more or less comparable um but the second thing is um I'm really confused over a major topic um this calculation that that you guys were presenting I read what you wrote before the meeting this 50% 60% you know the the the plan only reduces by whatever but isn't it true that there were alterations in the past on this property within the 100 foot buffer yeah and isn't it true that any changes any land disturbance within that 100 foot buffer that may have occurred previous owners isn't it true any disturbance within that 100 foot is I'll use the word not in compliance with the Wetland bylaw so we have to my attitude is we have to look at what this property looked like assuming when you guys started your design work the thing was in compliance and it's not so you can't look at you can't say half of that 100 foot buffer is gone already somebody else did that and now we're just going to try to replicate part of that 50% and I'm like wait a minute wlaw is clear it's 100 foot protected well that's that's that speaks to the second set of numbers that I just asked yeah I think that's what you were asking but I just wanted to and and again get right yes we'll get the numbers first then the commission can decide how you want to use them okay well I just want to be sure everybody I didn't totally understand that until I really thought it through and I wasn't even sure if I was right because the drawings aren't I'm having trouble with the drawings yeah and and and again I think I think it's it's um it's an outstanding question at this point was was as the alteration of the buffer zone again you can see it's pretty substantial it's basically clearcut right I mean a lot of it's just sand you know and dirt was was was that done within recent memory where it should have gotten permission of the Conservation Commission right and that and that ra an open question right right and that raises a question I know we talked about briefly but I went back and watched our last hearing on the question of trees and we sort of glossed over it um we have as a commission started asking applicants to tell us or our peer reviewer what trees were taken down within the buffer zones and I think we need to go back and look at that because we're really talking about habitat and we need to look at the whole picture not just we're going to save a piece of what's left in the 100 foot and and just one more quick comment um have we have you guys determined with your analysis and forgive me if you have this notion that these vernal pools are only from Street runoff like that hasn't been demonstrated has it I mean it may be obvious to an engineer when you're out there I realize that um but you know being right next to the river and uh so but but anyway that's a moot point isn't it it doesn't matter how the Vernal pool was formed it's still a regulated Vernal pool oh oh that's that's definitely true I but I I think whether it came into existence only 50 years ago when paved hrth was already there and and there was already houses doesn't matter it it may not it may not again that's ultimately for the commission to decide now is the time I'm I'm I'm going through everything I was going to say so one more thing that's why reason I'm asking for that is the the calculation y'all did said that there is a reduction in water flow you know sheet flow over the land into this Vernal pool under under certain storm conditions I realize it depends on what level storm we're talking but that's related to this whole discussion how we changing the hydrology and I hope I'm throwing that out there because that's going to become a big question for me we might as well tackle it sooner rather than later yeah I think right now we're still discussing the upline habitat issue well but it's all related because if you change the water coming into that Vernal pool by definition you've changed the habitat right that's a potential direct impact to the Vernal pool itself but right right now connect think on the discussion about the Upland habitat yeah that's all connected to the health of the Vernal pool and the critters I I agree um just a couple of other questions so so why are you why you still hold on David can we um I just want to make sure that we all get a chance build were you able to finish your questions or no okay sorry that's all right um you've got a veral pool there with 100 foot buffer that we're allowed to do what we feel is required right why don't we just go 100 foot from that Vernal pool and nothing no disturbance within that area there a question for the applicant because and I'll tell you we're looking at the wetlands part of this issue you implied before that the driver for this project the five lot subdivision is the planning board the board of appeals setbacks different things like that where the first thing should be looked at are as as important as those other things are is the veral pool so what we're doing is well we have to have these two duplexes lot four and five because that's what the plan requires that's what this makes as a viable project that shouldn't have come into play with our committee we should be looking at the veral pool and whether those two duplexes are built or not isn't our problem it should be we're looking at the habitat and that 100 foot buffer now whether we want to give up a little bit of that for whatever reason it looks like a big math problem that and in you do the big math problem but when you ask whether you move the houses or not uh a little bit this way a little bit that it really didn't in the scope of things if you go out there the are pretty much in the same spot and to me they look too close to that Vernal pool habitat area when you build a house you're not just from that house foundation you've got to get equipment in there you've got to dig a foundation you're going to disturb a quite a big area around that house to put those houses in and at this point the way it's designed I can't support this plan I'll just put it out there uh don't feel that we're looking at the Vernal pool and what we're required to do with that and what our bylaws require us to do I think we I think we're going backwards we're we're trying to get a a five or six slot subdivision of duplexes into a place that maybe you can't put them that's it okay thanks Bill John we're we when you stepped out we were kind of going around for some questions do you have anything you want to no I I agree with Bill but I also agree with what created that b but it's there now it's there now but what created it mhm that's what I'm going with what does it matter if there's a pipe from a catch Bas that runs out into the property just put in there back in the 30s w PA project whatever you could say that about anything though and and exactly and it's happened around town everywhere still a veral pool no matter how it was created it's still a Vernal pool no matter how it's created okay and we're supposed to protect that y in the habitant in it yeah yeah lots four and five is a reach I agree but okay anything else no David you were yeah just a couple more questions so so why are you still calling it a potential pool is that because your feel the species is uncertain or it hasn't it's not certified so it's always a potential until certification okay but the bylaw explicitly says it doesn't have to be certified I'm not questioning whether or not the bylaw is applicable just the fact that it's not certified um next question is so what what what do you mean by overwintering habitat or the salamanders what do you mean by what over over wintering habitat sorry forested habitat specifically I thought David can you oh sorry yeah yeah let me take this stand for forested Habitat so for for these species um the the it's specifically the Vernal um obligate amphibians uh amboid salamanders and wood frogs amboid salamanders require forested Upland habitat and wood frogs uh require forested Wetland Habitat to over winter they go into hibernacula their breeding cycle is they go into the vernal pools they breed in the springtime and then they depart the vernal pools and they amboid salamanders are considered mole salamanders they they they um burrow underground into Duff and detritus and Below um chipmunk Burrows is a famous habitat for those down roof but but so it's not just during the winter that they need the upan habitat it's it's it's all of the Year outside of the breeding season when they're in the vernal pools so yeah it's commonly referred to as overwintering hibernacula just want to be clear okay about that okay so um it seems to me that we still have a lot of questions we need to see uh a plan um we're talking about having a plan that has has buildings on it uh a lot of questions that are still open here uh we we talked a little bit about looking at a peerreview of this yeah so I I would certainly recommend uh peer review so I I think that the peer review should actually be divided into two aspects uh the first a aspect is to verify the numbers which case I think we need an engineering piew so I I think you know once once we get the second set of numbers then that I think should should go out to an engineer an engineering peer review to verify those numbers then the second then the second aspect uh would be a um a review of the the biological aspects you know the habitat aspects you we can certainly talk a little bit more about the scope if you want to do that right now or I think should okay so so I think just in a very general sense I I think that that the that second aspect needs needs to um cite scientific references I think it needs it needs to cite um uh guidance documents from um a agencies uh and organizations that have a knowledge and um have an interest in the subject and and I think it also should do a review of case law um that pertains to protecting uh plan habitat for vernal pools under Town bylaws I think that's very general I can certainly write up something that's a little bit more detailed but I think I think those are the the main points and on the engineering it's really looking at the numbers yeah yeah so that's that's pretty simp they're in agreement on getting the numbers updated yes yeah so I think it probably would need the digital survey data but I'll let the peer reviewer okay so I look to my to the commission to see what you're thinking about from for a uh for peer review uh John what do you another time start down your and hold for now guess I guess we always go to the peer review so okay Peter um I'd like to see the peer reviewer look at the hydrology of the site and tell us what the impact is of losing half the water during heavy rains um secondly um the cumulative effects question I'd like an expert to give us some advice and thirdly I like your idea of looking at other organizations I'm thinking in particular uh the Army Corp who does Wetland permits has uh a whole Vernal pool program and a lot of research and I realize it may not fit our bylaw but from what I've read uh if we are really trying to protect the habitat it's more than 100 ft now we may be limited by the 100 ft that's in our bylaws or it turns out it's you know the certification question but I'd like when you say some scientific input I'd like to take advantage of other programs not not some Professor that's done some research but what other entities like the Army Corps that has enforcement responsibility under the Wetland protection act you know what's their program saying about this kind of situation I just comment on that sure so so I think um the you know the cumulative loss question and you know I think that's really really important in some ways that's really the heart of the matter um you C certainly ask a peer reviewer to weigh in on that but I think ultimately that's that's I think a legal question that have to be probably run by special counsel just my opinion so so Council that's environmental uh yes yeah okay right and and the Hydra hydrology review we're going to be asking that question down the road of ourselves yep you know how does the development effect even even even without all the houses is going to be an effect I mean I don't know how we do that but okay I mean what's the effect of the current plan I guess would be the peer review scope yeah I think I think we really should first hear from Brian what the impact to the hydrology is um and I and I'm and I'm pretty sure that DBW has looked at that question to some extent but I so I'm happy to well excuse me before you start yeah I mean I read the DPW review and they just said yeah it it's reducing the water coming into the Vernal pool for certain feel free to I'm not trying to take your time but my question is does it matter to the critters in the Vernal pool that's exact peer review that we're talking about right yes okay excuse me no I mean I'm I'm happy to say that the hyd ology question was brought up prior to our our latest uh revision so when we went down from 6 to 5 and then five to a revised limit of work line we revised our storm water calculations to mirror the existing conditions at a 2-year event so we're not reducing by half volumes or rates we're meeting what's what's happening right now what's shedding offsite to this veral pool well I think that's the problem I'm referencing earlier I very clearly read what I thought was your latest submitt maybe I wasn't and it talked about a almost 50% reduction during I didn't write it down a 2-year a 5year storm event whatever of water 50% almost 50% reduction of the water coming into the Vernal pool so my question isn't so much those calculations although it could be my question is what is the impact on the Vernal pool of losing water well I if I have up on the screen here um the definition of Vernal pool and you can you can see here the last sentence the boundary of the resource area for Vernal pool shall be the mean annual high water line defining the depression so the the question then is how how is the mean annual high water line affected by different size storm events that's really a question for an engineer to answer maybe maybe the answer is if if it's anything less than the two-year storm or or should say greater than the two-year storm does not affect the me annual high water line that seems to be logical to me but I'm not an engineer so is that something the peer reviewer can look at sure but I but I'd like to hear Brian's right and and we had that discussion when hydrology came up um during the hearing a couple of hearings ago where when we deal with storm water and the hand book we Model 2year 10e 25 year and 100-year return frequency events a 100-year event is not going to create a Vernal pool 50 year 25 years is not it's going to be your annual events so twoyear and less would be representative of a hydrologic change which is why we focused on the 2year and mirroring existing conditions and we can cly ask a peer riewer if that's sound reasoning yeah but that's not the question the question is does it matter to the critters our job is to protect the habitat I'd like to know if this reduction in in flow I mean I read your CS when it rains a lot there's going to be less water coming into the Vernal pool my question is does it matter my question isn't defining the high water mark or whatever it's our job is to protect habitat I want to know if it impacts the Vernal pool am I am I off base no but I think in the context of the definition of you know the resource area of the Vernal pool um you know I think I think that's the context you have to look at it in and so but but anyway Brian Brian has expressed his opinion we can certainly ask a peer reviewer I we put that to the peer review and try to have that as part of the statement of work so I want to keep moving I'm good yeah uh which we going Bill you're okay Mark this so let me rephrase the question because we've we've been talking we're talking about having a peer review for both the uh biological survey uh information and for the engineering uh and so are we okay with doing that and is the scope that David described uh reasonable I would oh yeah I would like to see what Peter's expressing not in the world they're creating but what was existing in the world to protect that and that would be part of the part of the assessment I'm sorry Mark you didn't quite Follow That kind of the the historic I think right the they're creating an area that's not what's existing when they when they get into the buffer zone I I want to like Peter said I want to know what's going to happen with a new area if it's going to create the same kind of okay yeah understood and and and I think that scope has to look at past tree cover and changes over time yeah which is gets to the cumul it's kind of a little bit what mark saying not exactly but what was it like before obviously trees were removed you can see it on Google Maps but mhm what does that mean yeah okay Chris I got to be honest I mean I'm I've got a lot of concerns about this project I'm a lot of concerns about about habitat loss I mean we can study this more and get a lot more data but at the end of the day I don't I don't I mean maybe my opinion is going to change but I'm certainly would agree with my colleague Mr Vines I I'm not at all comfortable with supporting this project as it's design with the houses and the positions they're in now so be honest about it if I could jump in I mean I I didn't say it clearly as you and build it I feel the same way I mean you you've got a 100 foot protected Zone that's been damaged in the past and will be damaged further and given what David said is the rep replication is you know not as easy as it sounds um do you want to close the meeting do you want them to come back I wasn't looking for that to close the meeting I thought we were I thought we were moving towards getting these uh peer reviews unless we think we should not what are all these questions going to answer for you to make what a decision one way or another or or to change how you feel or what's it going to do for you to get all the information yeah I'm not personally I'm not sure yeah at theend spending a lot of money right of somebody else's money to do something and you get all this information you need to do something with it or it's a waste of time well I guess I guess I I would say that um whatever information um uh is obtained through well the applicant study and the peer review can can only help but support whatever decision the commission ultimately makes but but I think certainly maybe the abant should be asked can you get those two houses out of the buffer zone I think that's the bottom line question now without eliminating them okay so you either so you're saying you don't have a viable project if that's not what I said I said you asked if those houses could be removed from the buffer the only way to remove those houses from the buffer is to reconfigure the project that's less than five Lots okay so is is that something the commission cares about I think that's where I'm hearing my fellow Commissioners and I'm somewhat pretty pretty close to being in the same I don't I don't see it so I I it it it's a good question why would we go after all this peer review if if if even in the best case it comes back we're still like disturbing the 100 ft of the of the Vernal pool uh buffer we should we ask the question to them so do you have a thought on this uh so my thought would be why don't why don't you draft the scope for the p I can confer with my client the applicant about you know everything that's being discussed one one point of clarity that I would like to have is where in the bylaw it establishes 100 foot no disturb because I only understand that there's 25t no disturb 30 foot no impervious 50 foot no bill I can uh I can answer that yeah it's there so um clearly states 100 ft notice there no hold hold on so uh that's reviewing activ so the conservation the commission shall presume that vernal pools incl including their buffer zone perform essential habitat functions um so that's I mean that does not establish 100 but but there's all there's also um language about so this this can be all part of the the peer review process so I guess what I would what I would request is that David develop that um scope and then um you know share it with us obviously and I like I said I will be happy to to talk to the applicant about this and and figure out exactly how we would like to pursue it given um the concerns that were expressed okay so if I can summarize where I think we want to go first going way back in the meeting um we will send you David will send you copies of the citizen concerns um that we got there was a number of them so we'll get those to you we'll get um a statement of uh work uh for the peer review uh for both peer reviews and get that to you you will in the meantime go offline and talk with your applicant with your client I got one item which I think is significant there was an April 10th letter that um that came in from the Brandon Canada from the uh superintendent of CH water district raising some significant concerns um so I think we want to get that letter if it hasn't been get that in front of the applicant so they can look at that and be able to address concerns are raised in that letter didn't that go to them or I I think I would yeah we we would have any correspondence from the water department okay so we're actively working with them uh and the Board of Health okay their addresses their concerns have been addressed uh I did not say that I said I'm just ask yeah okay so you're you're a lot of information going on tonight you're working that with them and we'd like to hear the outcome of that exactly well the letter their letter is clear very clear that significant concerns were recommended and recommending that project not proceed unless a viable plan is to buy so well mean meaning hook up to the Sewer yeah is what the letter says yeah as I mean spells out what they they're thinking okay so I think that captured what we're looking for did I miss anything so then I think we're continuing probably to the uh we going to continue I don't know if we need if there's someone in the public that really wants to talk tonight I'm okay with that we keep it really short because we've got a lot still in front of us okay I just um would want to encourage you to make sure that you do get a peer review for this and just to clarify on what Peter was Raising I've in the research I've done I have found nothing that restricts when there's a change in hydrology to only being to the 2-year storm and this would um be applicable um because it's within a wetland resource area the pools it would the wetlands protection act would come into play there if there's a hydrology change you're not just looking at the bylaws but you're looking at the WPA as well and um the letter I sent you I was basically quoting from experts to give you quotes so that you would have as far as so there like Matt burn explains that hydrology is what he'd consider the most key thing for a Vernal pool and as Peter mentioned and I had sent um from the Army Corps since when you often when you issue a decision you are acting on behalf of the Army Corps so I looked at what the Army Corps has so Army Corps for New England does have very clear standard for a Vernal pool and one of them spells out that that first 100 foot buffer area which they call an envelope is not be touched now granted there's been something here in this area but that doesn't become then a reason to further impede on that and then in that letter it included as well saying that basically what starts to happen with development around vernal pools is you end up starting when you let it Chip Away chip away you start to protect this pool area that no longer has the creatures so you've lost the point in protecting it um and then I agree with David as far as the need for looking at accumulative loss and if you look at the Aerials on the town GIS I'd written before from the 20112 to the 20121 you can see a noticeable difference in this Northern Area and at that point that was already mapped habitat with Northern area of the site yes the northern the buffer zone for this um and so they should have come both to the commission areas where they changed things and to Heritage in doing that so I just wanted to make that and definitely encourage that yes you do want to get the peer review and have them look at give an opinion on the hydrology change because it does change with all the other storm events um and what I was able to find that it doesn't constrain it to just the two-year storm event that you would look at um and then just the other questions so I was glad to hear that you were looking at perer riew because that will help you going forward okay thank you thank you Ruth appreciate it so I'll take a motion to continue to our next uh Brian I David presume the next meeting meeting I think so move to we continue to June 11 uh um so we're we're continuing the planning board until the 22nd I believe which is two weeks out so we can take we can take the continuance to the second meeting in June so that'd be June 25th I move that we continue to June 25th okay all right uh David you will well just as soon as a second to like discussion second second second from Bill discussion so so does the commission want to review um the scope of work before I go out with the rfps or is the commission okay with me drafting it and sending it out um well you heard heard what people's concerns were and you can always ask us offline if you want clarification so I feel I have a very good idea I'd be happy with you doing it yeah I'd rather stay away from offline stuff but I think you heard a really good discussion of where we were coming from yeah you heard it yeah you fair enough okay got to be said in the M yep okay uh so motion made by Chris second by Bill all in favor I all motion passes you raise your hand right no no you didn't good meeting thank you for your time we passed we moved it okay got a point um motion pass one one did not vote did you vote no he voted no Mark did you vote I voted yes for I can't vote no if I if I'm I have to vote Yes for against isn't that what you said all in favor to continue the meeting right I didn't vote right but if you should have asked are youing I'm just trying to figure out what your vote is so are you an abstention or a a no uh you you voted against I voted I I want to see the meeting closed so vote for that we didn't we didn't vote for that but you vot you voted for to continue yeah so are you upstanding are you I guess yes I I yes he's abstaining yes he's abstained he abstained okay I already clear I I mean okay all right thank you next is uh 48 Central Square this is the uh town of chord DPW and I believe they have asked for a continuance to June 25th so I'll take a motion for continuance of the 48 Central Square to June 25th so move Mr chair move by Chris second by second second by Bill all in favor I I'm watching you motion passed all right so that one's there now now we have uh discussion on the request for Conservation Commission comments on the proposed 40 B project at 199 and 2011 River riverneck Road so Dave do you want to preface this at all you want me to talk about it or um well I think I might have been remiss in not forwarding the plans to the commission uh I no I uh why I sent stuff out to everyone that we got from Paul like two weeks ago okay so I think thank you where are we to discussing something that's not even be for I think the idea is that the select board uh is going to be looking at this and and or the planning board I'm not entirely sure not planning board select board select board uh sure this is for 199 uh yes 199 28 love it Lane the select board um has to provide a comments letter to the state and that letter will then go in the package or be be part of the state package that comes back to the zoning board of appeals to process the application because it's a 4 B right because it's a 40b it goes to the zoning board of appeals so we are scheduled for a site visit in June and also for um public comment at our June 24th meeting and then we'll be Prov providing a letter to the state by I think it's Friday June 28th whatever that Friday is so the the departmental and the commission comments go into the package in support of our June 24th meeting okay and so you're looking for any commentary from the commission on that site yes okay thank you Virginia appreciate it so Carl I thought David already wrote a letter no this is a this is a different s so different site okay thanks from river river river okay this is the Davis property that was going to be at a a warehouse distribution center mercur compter it was Mercury computer whereas the one we did a few weeks ago was it's just a house on some property with some land adjacent to the water district okay yeah yeah so they're in that same neighborhood but they're they're two different properties they're they're both on the edge of uh River wild I mean I'm assuming we may have S similar issues it's an En very environmentally sensitive area down there with a lot of habitat we went through a lot here with the Davis property it's over a year ago now that we went through that but we we had a lot of discussion we even did a site visit I think on the site as a commission right we went out there and there were a lot of stor water fill and everything else but I think David you and I talked about this is it correct that there is already a storm water drainage from that site to our conservation property adjacent uh there is so I think that's certainly should be a primary concern if if the storm water management system is proposed to be reconfigured um that maybe there needs to be new permission to to drain onto the town owned land you know in particular the Conservation Commission land so that should be I think that should be something to be looked at very closely that that whether whether or not the existing permission runs only with this particular but and because it's a change of use then you it would trigger that we don't we don't necessarily need to it might whether it's whether it's currently legal or not becomes kind of moot it it's kind of the change of use means we may or may not want to continue um with that drainage okay that's my opinion I I mean ultimately it's a question for an attorney but I think that that's really important because because if the town isn't going to Grant permission to do it I don't think there's a project there if the permission is needed yep so the other notes I had here were that there was a um as as we know from previous discussions this site well before the development of the Mercury site was almost certainly a fully or mostly Wetland site that was filled in to some extent in the 80s and prior to that it was largely Wetlands um so we should be making a note of that in our in our letter we should be looking at Posas I think um maybe doing some testing for posos on the site um it is right on the Zone one well head um on the edge of that right I mean it that was brought up in the last time and I think we would recommend a hydrogeology study um in monitoring Wells uh for pasas for any anything that's happening there all of that resonate um and they proposing using a uh subterranian water treat uh treatment plant was that where was that going to dump off to which has a discharge that I assume well or infiltration right we have a lot of questions can I can I add um we had quite a discussion with the previous development on Turtle mitigation and there were some recommendations made to try to protect the critters I don't think there was anything on Turtles there uh oh yeah there is yeah a parking lot no no right next to it just beyond it and um that's right John we'll have them plant willow trees you can have plant Willows all you want um and I was just going to I don't know I don't know if we want to throw this out at this point but um in my mind the environmental impact of this development by definition should be less than a warehouse because you don't have all the trucks and all that question about posos and truck oil that drips and whatnot but having said that a lot of cars yeah well there are a lot of cars but but but having said that if there's any way to put in the letter I don't know how yall want to spin this but to my way of thinking it's a great opportunity for what's in our bylaw maybe it's in the board uh something called low impact design which is you know like you know Green spaces in the parking lot and there's a whole list of stuff there's whole manuals on all this but it might be a good good opportunity for us to send the word uh to the state and to Davis that assum we all agree that we would look favorably on anything in their design that meets the definition of low impact development and a lot of the stuff they do already does meet that definition but there's some other things things and again their engineer knows what that guidance from the state looks like best practices and all that okay so the question then becomes David is this something you're going to write or am I going to write it when when the deadline is June 28th uh I think Virginia if I'm not mistaken you need it sooner than that um you need to be able to compile this into the package that the select I don't I don't I didn't see the request that came to you I believe the board is discussing this on June 24th so it would have to be in the packet for that meeting so it's the it's not on our agenda for Monday so our next me so it's the Wednesday Thursday before the 24th yes might be kind of tough for me to do that Virginia I'll see if I can take a take a you know what is it town houses or apartment buildings or do you know what it I don't I don't I haven't looked at it in detail yet oh okay what kind do they want from us an opinion or do they want us to I think I read it up to provide concerns that we have with any kind of a development but we don't have a plan no but there's a concept I mean the documents that I sent you you should have got yeah it's it's got some general yeah and so this is it's just like preliminary saying do you have concerns with this project I'm sure they're going off what we had concerns of the warehouse okay what's the same developer it's the same developer they're going to use everything we said about the warehouse and their language no yeah okay I I understand that I think Peter mentioned about the uh less no trucks going down here but there's still going to be a ton of Motor Vehicles L cars 1.67 is that what it is for uh per unit or per 1.67 cars per unit PTA yeah you have a bu come yeah so you're talking hundreds of cars versus a lot of trucks but yeah okay so I me I think we certainly have environmental concerns and questions and we're concerned about the impacts potential impacts on the key interests we're looking at right public water supply groundwater Supply erosion storm damage habitat particularly the rare species habitat so we've got concerns and questions about that yep I think they're going to use a lot of stuff from that's fine the warehouse yeah that's fine but I think we can so they know what they're coming in with okay I I will I will draft a letter I'll circulate it um I think that uh we can probably review it I'll try to get it so that we can review it at our next meeting um June June 11th and um and then we can submit it with any further changes after that does that make sense you guys okay with that okay all right Carl just just can't we had a great meeting on how to streamline these hearings and when I think that through doing this ahead of the game to me is the number one way to streamline the hearings and the follow-up peer reviews if the developer can design to our questions before they come to us with a completed design I think that would streamline the process so this makes a lot of sense I know it's a little different different situation understand that but to me it's like good to get it out on the table for Part B does It Go by the state it all goes by the state correct yeah yeah yeah the I think the bylaws in town are not apply applicable we do we still have our conservation jurisdiction that's not over Wetland Wetlands protection act for Wetlands yes but not the bylaws correct the state Wetland protection act which is very similar the the the zba administers the Wetland bylaw yeah okay all right but they still got to get a permit from us under the white lines protection act yes exactly yeah okay okay let's keep moving we're making good progress here we already did the next item on the agenda if I'm not mistaken uh we already did the open space discussion the Warren poll CR discussion so you all had such a good time reading the CR it was uh wonderful reading any comments you guys questions I thought it looked good you guys put a lot of effort into it year or so I don't think three or so years years so I don't think you could add much to it okay we're good we're good you need to vote or anything all right yes I would like a vote that would say you are supporting the uh submitting the CR to the state uh the the select board would be the ones uh but we recommend the CR to the select board you go ahead all right I make a motion and we approve submiss submission of the CR as currently drafted to the state of Massachusetts for Warren pole for Warren for Warren pole you motion by Chris second by by Mark all in favor I I thank you okay motion passes um next is the uh let's see update anything else on Warr oh so David actually on Warren pole you have been talking with Matt at Oxo and I know there's some progress being do you want to just do a short update on uh sure so um commission members hopefully recall that he did a uh Botanical uh survey and inventory uh last year of Warren pole um he uh he sent out the report um and part of part part of that was to not only just do the the survey and inventory but to do some some management um recommendations you know based on habitat so um he I I think the ne the next step in the process now is to um actually get get a get a little bit more specific about um and this and and particularly with regard to invasive species you know decide on what what species does the commission want to manage um or control and then develop a management plan or management plans addressed at those Target species so I think that's that's a matter of um sitting down with him to do that maybe maybe you know Carl and Peter and I uh probably that might be the best way to do that if if the commission is okay with that um so I mean obviously you know we'd come back to the commission with you know whatever whatever he's proposing um so that's so that's followup to that that study um then we' we've asked him to uh submit a proposal for delineating the wet the wetlands uh in well particularly in the meadow although although including you know putam Brook is it's going down toward Boston Road because because in in the CR since there's the obligation to preserve the meadow or conserve the meadow whatever that means um I think before we can you know really come up with management plans for doing that we we need to have a better understanding of like the um the the the the Flora you know the the the plant species and you know the soils um because what what the commission might decide to do um in the wetlands and and Uplands will be dependent on you know where where the wetlands and Uplands are located so um he's he's going to uh submit a proposal for that which oh I think the thought will that will come from CPA funds right right right also um the delineation of the wetlands of the brook um near um near the kiosk and the driveway so that we can look at putting in a 88 compliant trail that would go in that area but we need to know where where the wetlands are and what our limitations are there cuz that's a another um I think it's a really good opportunity to do something like that that's site is just really really good would be really good for that kind of a kind of a trail I don't think it would be a enormous cost I think it's um it would be reasonable maybe within there but we got to start we got to start with the Wetland delineation that's first upep so we trying to get that done so anything else uh not an orang pole okay think of um so then we did Kess um and then agents report um so I've um just approved a few events um I I know I know there was I think on on the weekend of was the 18th and 19th there was event at Russell Mill Pond that that actually was one that I had approved think I it was at Thanksgiving aren't they close to no they still on the pond it's it's the same it's just Upstream but it was Thanksgiving was it was a bike uh bicycle race well that that that was in the in in the event registration form so um and then and then there were I think three three other events like in the middle of July August and September prove those as well um then then there was a uh another another one at Russell Mill Pond for Ninja uh NBA well no this one is ninja it's ninja this is ride like a ninja okay which is another mountain bike Mountain Biking Club that's are they the one are they the one with the machetes that are tagging the trees maybe that's it might be a good question what what does ninja mean um well Teenage Ninja Turtles remember that one mut Ninja Tur is that a splinter group N can you name them all n is the other mountain biking no it sounds like it's a different group it is a different new nemba is New England mountain biking Association ninja is R like a ninja which is just another club I think they're actually based out in Oregon he's he's giving them permission yeah so that's that's coming up I think in in early July and then e e EPA um at D Brook um somewhere along deepbrook uh I I approved a um um they they do training once a year they do training for their staff to take samples so um I I approve that um then and then i' Al I also approved uh three emergency tree cutting permits um one one which the town had already agreed to pay for which is um uh the land next to 94 meow Brook Road Commission approved that back I think in April um C that's right yeah yeah so a couple of others um are on private property um that they also approved they're just within the 100 foot right there within the commission's jurisdiction okay okay great um I got a call from a concerned citizen up at Freeman Lake again okay wanted to know the status of the survey if that's still on your list uh it it definitely is I just you know I I just we we need to get War the Warren pole wrapped up so I yeah I'm just saying if you could keep it on your list yeah no it's definitely on the list um hopefully get there sooner rather than later I told that person I would ask okay I got a call from a a concerned constituent up there as well Bill really same topic really talk later yeah yeah well well I did too but I have a question for the commission um the photographs that were sent around with a little Tiki Hut and fire pit and whatnot very nice looking further that's not this part that's not the conservation all the way the end that's some sort of other issue it's way down the other there's not there's not a whole bunch of structur I drove dealt with that we've already dealt with that one yeah that's ancient history right okay okay thank you and the other thing I can I bring up one more thing yeah the zoom meetings they don't work I mean they work but is it a time to move on from that so i' like to see people come I do like I definitely like that and this is the first time we've really had a problem serious problem we've had some glitches but I mean I I I I think the option should be there um but it should work um you know I mean it's as a practical matter you know some some Consultants I think especially really don't have an option like I know beta they're based they're based in Rhode Island it's just so much easier for them to approve by soon and if I could just add you know a couple other Town committees I'm on that have zoom options allows traveling committee members to participate like if you're stuck in a hotel room need to know that you may not you may get continued right yeah but that has that's the first time I remember that happening let's local it uh expert jump in here as well I just wanted to say so um we had a couple issues I believe it was the week before last I think it was was it the planning board yeah um we had an issue with zoom it wasn't working it was basically the same thing you guys witnessed tonight and the protocol since then has been for me to come down and test everything ahead of the meeting I did do that today we still had a problem so at this point I'm pretty confident we have failing equipment back there we'll be working this week to try to solve that um I don't know if it I don't know if that influences your decision at all but you know I do apologize I take full responsibility and it shouldn't happen again in the future it's your fault that that thing broke yeah I know I know right thanks Pete appreciate it appreciate the help in the work so I'm I'm kind of mixed either way I I I do I do see the convenience for a lot of people that they can do this remotely but on the other hand I'm with you I like having people in I'm old school too I'm old school I like having the people there there was one representative here National Grid one rep yeah that could answer a question and three of them up there you know I mean one just one person yeah but but the counter to that I I agree that makes sense but the counter to that you know for any of you still working the business world has completely switched to almost exclusively a hybrid kind of thing thing zoom and in person um that's just the way the world has changed it wasn't a pandemic thing it was happening before the pandemic but it accelerated old school you can't do old school when your technical staff are two hours away that's all yes you can will a creative problem we stay with zoom and they don't John brings a good point once set of plans that's I I'm not asking for a full set no I know one sheet I'm not fault you you're right I agree with you right yeah is that is that applicant going to be able to get PL to us or is that going to fall on you to get distribut it's Mark um you press the button and it spits out six copies that's how easy it is my point John I'm in favor of what you're saying but we'll put more on Dave would distribute them get them up here well well it's really on the really on the applicant I mean the applicant understands I mean like like on um 93 brickhill Road did total of eight revisions and I think the only the only actual hard copy that we that IED from them was like the first the initial filing yeah I it it is work for me to then print them out myself you know print out seven you know copies but it really the they should bring them in to you the week before by Wednesday night bring you that's my point that's what they used to do I don't want to get it on him that's what used to be done it's not on you okay so regulations say that I'm going to ask that we hold off on the zoom uh for the moment and um but I would ask that you recommend people come in okay um that you recommend at least some one one person come in but I get the point that some of some of the you know especially the the peer reviews they're they're a long ways away necessarily you know they have a lot of meetings that they have to go to sometimes they switch back and forth in the same meetings they have let's let's look at it again in like a month or so but how do you have somebody from Ni from our office drop off plans how does that get done well that's not the same that's two different things yeah we're talking two different things one is the zoom and one is right but if they're on zoom and we all want to see a single copy plan they need to have the plans by the Wednesday before the meeting to to David's office FedEx them to David whether they're in Zoom or not that that's two different things yeah yeah and a lot of the Consultants are local right here in chelsford very easy for them to do so that's my that's my proposal Logistics to make sure it can be done yep yep um are you okay with that give it another another just on probation yeah yeah I like that I like that on probation say is it possible to have them like call in on a phone do the remote participation that way because I've done that with historic district that's that's somebody can't whereas as a backup if if the zoom had not worked they could have I don't yeah we don't maybe we can look at that as a backup but it's not like put them on speaker phone phone out on the table I mean the old pcom speaker phone things you know have a couple okay we talk once so we have meeting do we have me we don't have any meeting minutes okay no meeting minutes to approve but we will get them for the next meeting I'm quite sure of that I'm not going to be here the 25th I'm not here uh the 11th okay all right just telling you no on the 11th no bill on 25th okay all right take a motion to adjourn the meeting move we got an update from John yeah yeah we did coolis he did yeah we did coolis okay yeah it was wonderful you did a good job really nothing really changed no apparently well that's we got that about the Splinter that's right oh okay that task force is gone now okay oh it is let's close no no it's not we vote yet can we can we adjourn the meeting we have I move do jur motion all all in favor thank you thank you chos tell me thank you Pete please