e e e e e all right good evening good evening ladies and gentlemen it's now 7 o'clock on Tuesday April 9th uh it's time to call this meeting to order of the Conservation Commission uh my name is Carl Bishoff I'm the chair of the Comm commission um will be folling following the published and posted agenda this meeting is being recorded it is uh also on Zoom um if Zoom goes down we'll continue with the meeting um you can look at this meeting later on if you want on the tele media website and on YouTube first thing is an open session for Citizens concerns do we have anybody in the audience who would like to bring something to the attention of the Conservation Commission that is not on our agenda please come on up to the uh to the podium and give us your name and address and uh let us know what's on your mind hi I'm Lucia PID I live at 24 Freeman Road and I'm here about the Russell Mill Town Forest uh my concern is as I pointed to Mr Co there have been trees getting chopped and to me that represents a double jeopardy because there's someone in the forest with a knife or a machete taking down the trees and there are children in the neighborhood that take advantage of the forest to have their outdoor time and I would hate to see anyone get hurt if matters aren't resolved so so I was I was going to talk about this on my in my report later on the meeting okay okay can you tell us um I've seen some of that uh myself I've been out there and seen that have you seen anything really fresh really recent what I saw was three or four weeks ago we saw the first ones we saw was Saturday and they looked really fresh oh wow okay and I have pictures that I can share if you need me to and I've got a number of calls and emails about the same issue okay if I I know it comes up later but if I could just add thank you for coming forward I I noticed it too the other day and just to put a finer Point um there's a lot of trees have been hacked like once and then a lot appear to have been you know just and then some have been cut but it's not just like somebody's cutting a couple of trees it was pretty obvious to me someone's walking through the forest you know yeah exactly okay so that's probably that put a finder point on your concern thank you I appreciate that so I would ask the commission to do something we will to catch that maybe it's Trail camps yep or someone taking a walk every once in a while see if they can catch what's going on we need to end that yep and I just wanted to let you know that as well I went to the police today oh okay because to me this is not just a tree concern this is also a human concern sure and um I was told that they really couldn't do much unless they saw something happening so maybe a trail cam okay we'll give them that information we will take that under consideration thank you appreciate your your input that is not a good thing all right next on our agenda we are looking at an update and discussion on the eroding slope at 5961 Carlile Road um David uh would you like to just I'll just give the commission a quick background on this um Council onl yes Town Council is here but I'll I'll give just a a quick U background summary um and then turn it over to Town Council pretty quickly so um the the issue is that uh there's an eroding slope and I and and I've seen this myself um there's an eroding an eroding slope at 5961 car carile Road um the location of the erosion is approximately in this red x uh where um that I've drawn here um and and it's in the con the concern is is that as it continues to worsen that it's it's going to threaten the Integrity of the driveway on this property right here this property with a long neck which is which is uh own owned uh and by uh sea and Francesca odonnell uh who also live there uh and they're here tonight so um if if if you look closely you can see that there is there is uh apparently a wetland um here uh and this is the buffer zone um so so the slope is eroding uh in the buffer zone um to the Sweatland uh assuming it is a wetland and that's sort of still in question I think uh apparently and and and the odonald can correct me if I say anything wrong my understanding is the the the odonals uh called in godded um consulting which is which is a company I think the commissioner members are familiar with it they've they've represented some applicants so I I I think it was late in 2021 that the uh Donald's asked um uh G to look at this wet area here uh and and my my understanding is is is that G did delineate it did um did uh put some Flags there delineating the Wetland boundary it's an isolated vegetated Wetland uh when when the surveyor came to map the flags the flags were gone so uh all they all they were able to produce was the sketch plan right here that you see see there there there are no Flags um know the Wetland area is not shown on any on on either the town or state GI database um I I asked uh Scott Goddard of Goddard Consulting to send me you know whatever additional data he has like um you know soil samples that that he took or you know D uh Wetland data sheets um if any that he filled out and I never heard from him so um this is this is this is all we have um to indicate as Wetland I mean certainly if you stand if you stand here I mean you you do you do see land vegetation there um uh again my my my and and and there there there there was some activity on the property um looks like there there was there was definitely I do have photos I probably should have brought them up um photos that the odonald sent me um there was W uh vegetation was cut up in this area apparently uh looks like there was some re regrading that was done uh as well and and the the Donald's tell me that the erosion if it didn't start then at Le at least at least got significantly worse so um those are the facts of the situation um you know certainly I think there's a a legitimate concern you know regardless of any Wetland issues I think there is a legitimate concern myself personally that if the erosion continues it it it it will you know potentially impact the the Integrity of the driveway um so I uh I I I've uh let Town Council know uh Paul hay who's who's here tonight um i' I've let him know all the facts ask asked him to um attend tonight uh to uh advise the commission on whether there's anything the commission can do to try to address the situation so you're there right Paul thank you David thank you David thank you um so my advice would be that first the commission needs to establish whether or not you know there is a wetland and whether or not there's a violation associated with that Wetland um the ways it can do this you know the burden of proof If the commission wants to proceed with an enforcement action is on the commission to establish that there is in fact a wetland and that there has been a violation um you can either do that you know with the information that's already been submitted by Scott gard if you believe that's sufficient um you can attempt to glean some additional information first by requesting of the property owner that you be allowed to go onto the site and do testing if that permission is not granted you can see whether or not you can identify a wetland on that property via the abing property if you get the permission of that property owner and then finally you have the option of pursuing an administrative um enforcement action I'm sorry an administrative search warrant from uh the Superior Court um which would allow you then to go onto the property and do whatever testing is necessary to determine whether or not there is a wetland and whether or not a violation has occurred so that's sort of the options that are available to the commission as part of this if the commission determines that it wants to move forward um with an administrative um search warrant I can certainly assist the Commission in preparing the materials for that can you tell us what that looks like uh an administrative search warrant what kind of timing that is what kind of effort what the uh so the the timing I really I haven't done an administrative search warrant before so I don't know how long it would take I don't anticipate it would take very long um in terms of the materials necessary we would have to submit an affidavit um to the court to support the need um that affidavit would require a detailed description of the property in the wetlands uh the preliminary information giving rise to the belief that there is a violation a general description of what the commission expects to find and whether any soil of vegetation samples will be taken a description of any attempt to obtain permission and or attempts to view the property from another location and a description of the authority to enforce under the local bylaw Okay so I mean I I I don't think it's a particularly long or involved process but there is a little bit of leg work necessary okay so uh Peter you have a question well I don't know if now is the right time but my first question is what town uh bylaws and authorities apply here besides our commission in other words what what's the right Town entity to address the the neighbor concerns right cuz from what what I understand is we're we don't really have authority to protect a driveway that's kind of you know where I understand that's that's the issue that the uh the O'Donald's have that's not our area but um if if it's as caused by a damage to a wetland you know that's where we do have some Authority so that's is there any other insight into that Paul uh yeah certainly so the the 59 to 61 car street property was the subject of a comprehensive permit that was issued by the zoning Board of Appeals um we would have to go back and review that comprehensive permit make a determination as to whether or not any work has occurred that either wasn't yet allowed or wasn't allowed at all as part of that and that would be within the discretion of the Building Commissioner to take enforcement on that okay all right so I see someone standing at at our Podium who wants to uh speak so why don't we go there if I could Mr chair thank you uh for the record my name is Adam Costa with the firm of me tman and Costa with an office in Newport um I'm representing Sean odonnell and his wife Francesco who's in the back here um I know that they were before you uh maybe eight or nine weeks ago to to First bring this issue to the Forefront so I'd like to offer a few points of clarity and let me say I guess at the outset that I I appreciate the challenges um in bringing this to the commission my firm primarily represents municipalities so I'm often on that side of the table and being asked the sorts of questions that you're asking Town Council tonight so I I do appreciate the challenge associated with enforcement and the cost of litigation and things of that sort um this issue was first raised um by my clients to me not so much as a concern with respect to the eroding driveway but with respect to the significant clearing work that was done in the adjacent property I know it was reference that there was some vegetation I want to be very clear it wasn't just some alteration of vegetation or or trimming of Shrubbery or maybe removal of a bush or a shrub the property was clearcut essentially in fact it was clear-cut to such an extent that it was clear-cut beyond what you see is the property boundary there alongside and skirting the isolated vegetated Wetland it was clear-cut actually onto my client's property with dozens of trees removed by the neighbor on the odonals property and we put them on notice of that violation that's of course a trespass violation of number of statutes in Massachusetts that's a private cause of action not within the commission's jurisdiction but it was brought to my attention because the work was being done in part within a wetland and certainly within the Wetland buffer zone um in addition to that and as a consequence of that and as you already heard exacerbating the issue that previously existed this is causing an increase in storm water runoff which is directly impacting the driveway and now beginning to cause the driveway to a road um so what I would say to the commission is I think that your jurisdiction certainly I would concur that if a comprehensive permit issued uh to the 59 to 61 Carlile Street property that that would be a basis for involvement by your zoning board of appeals or involvement by your building official but even separate into a part of that in terms of what's within the conservation commission's jurisdiction um this is a violation of your local Wetlands by law and arguably a violation of the wetlands protection act the clearing outright clearing of wetland area let alone areas that are within 100t of a wetland resource area so um we don't expect you to fight the fight for us we understand that we have a private cause of action as I mentioned before with regard to things like trespass but I do think it sets a dangerous precedent if somebody can simply go out clear-cut areas that are Wetland and Wetland buffer uh and not face the consequences of that um so our immediate concern is what effect that has on on our property on flooding on our property on the erosion of the driveway um i' I've been involved in the process of seeking administrative search warrants before um certainly we were happy to assist as you heard previously we've had not only the survey that you see on your screen done we had GD Consulting involved um I don't know the reason for I know Scott GD very well in fact I've worked with him on a number of projects I don't know the reason for his uh non-responsiveness recently in terms of the request for additional information um I I suspect um and I'll be cautious about how I phrase is this knowing the party involved the owner of record of the 59 to 61 Carl Street property and the fact that the wetlands were flagged and then it was later brought to Mr godard's attention that in doing so he was on adjacent property um that he's probably being quite cautious about how he proceeds and I don't want to put words in his mouth but um that could be a cause for concern and of course those Wetland flags were removed when the clear cutting work was done um by by the property owner so the administrative search warrant process does require um some form of cause it's not quite a probable standard but sufficient cause to persuade the judge to issue the warrant and provide access we're happy because we have firsthand knowledge to assist with that whether it be providing the commission with information from Mr Goddard whether it be an affidavit from my clients regarding what they've witnessed and and seen and and the experiences they've had with storm water runoff onto their property and the eroding of their driveway um my experience with the administrative search warrant process is that it's usually a quick process it's a request for a warrant it's an appearance before District Court Judge it usually issues same day uh or in a matter of a few days that then allows access to the site having said that um you have access and I think my client will confirm you have full access to their property I know Mr C has been out to the site at least once um because of the proximity you can see on the plan of the and I realize it's not flag but because of the proximity of the isolated vegetated Wetland you can literally stand on my client's property and the Wetland is right there you're in the buffer but you can see it with your own your own eyes uh you can't legally take a step over and take a soil sample or a boring or whatnot um because you'd be trespassing um but of course there are multiple ways to to identify a wetland and soil samples are not the only way so I think that you would see with your own eyes that this is uh from our perspective clearly a wetland area uh and the extent of clear cutting is uh is not difficult to decipher it's uh there's not a lot left so we appreciate your your consideration and attention thank you thank you so is there anyone from representing the other party 61 uh he I certainly made him aware uh this matter will be be on the agenda tonight not in the room okay okay so let me ask the commission um my fellow commission members what your thoughts are if you uh have any Chris I guess i' I'd like to make a motion that this commission um authorize our agent to conduct an investigation along two points as suggested by Town Council one that we have him gather information and facts to report back to us whether that we have a jurisdictional wetland number one and number two um if there if it is a jurisdictional wetland has there been an apparent uh U violation alteration of uh of land that's within either the Wetland or within our buffer zone um so discussion on the motion sure so I I've at this point I've really gathered all of the information I can um there's really not much else uh I can do so I I I think it's a matter of now of deciding whether the commission feels it has enough information to issue an enforcement order and go ahead and do that or if there's not commission feels there isn't enough information to uh issue an enforcement order based on you know the a certainty or a fair likelihood that this is a wetland then then I think it's it's a matter of doing what um U Town Council and the adonal council is suggesting is to go to Superior Court uh for A administrative search warrant which which I assume would be then that would be asking for permission for the commission's consultant to go onto the property correct corre gather information so um let me ask David um based on your visiting the site would you believe would you say that uh as the O'Donnell's uh attorney characterized it would you agree with that characterization of the Wetland being right there I think you said that earlier but you you can see wetland vegetation you can you can see standing water but but I mean for instance that wouldn't for for like an RDA filing or or to make it a jurisdictional w line I don't think that would be sufficient but for the sufficient cause I think I heard heard his wording sufficient cause that sounds like that's close enough to sufficient cause for doing this kind of thing I guess what I'm trying to get at is do we want to go visit that or is that kind of like we don't really need to go visit to a site visit and I'm not thinking we need to go visit this site no no I don't think the commission does and we can make our decision on what to do from the information that we're hearing and and have gathered up till now I think you know I think you have all the facts at this point okay anybody else have any other so follow I mean um do we have pictures of the site uh we do I can I can bring those up Mr chair can I add something while he's searching for photographs I should have mentioned it before but I I I agree with the statement by Town Council that the burden proof of course is on the commission to establish that an area is within its jurisdiction um having said that and I I don't want to Discount any advice from Council but my experience with respect to representing commissions and pursuing enforcement orders and maybe this would be different in the case of an administrative search warrant because you'd need to meet that standard and in submitting an affidavit and persuading a judge to allow you physical access onto the site which you know otherwise is a Fourth Amendment violation the courts can can be can be concerned about those sorts of things but in terms of issuing an enforcement order the standard that I would use or or the legal terminology that would be used is the the commission needs to have needs to make a prima fascia case needs to put forth enough evidence to establish that it's more likely than not to use Mr CO's language he said it's first he said certainty and then he said Fair likelihood I would say it's more like that fair likelihood standard if you can see Wetlands vegetation if all indications are that it's a wetland once you then issue the enforcement order that's effectively in practice a shift of the burden approv because the party then that is claiming that they're not subject to the enforcement order or that they haven't done work they would would constitute the alteration of a wetland resource area has to establish that for a court okay thank you I think that makes sense so these uh these are photos of some of the activity that's been going on out there um the land clearing happened in February this picture is from August when he can I'm sorry can you come up to and give us your name hi I'm Sean odonald from 63 Kyle Street the uh land clearing happened back in February this picture that you just saw 20 23 uh 2022 two Okay I uh well I have um this is from August 9 2023 um I have a a January 11th 2024 that August picture is after he's been notified that was Wetland he destroyed all the land he then expanded his driveway at the top for one of his tenants and they drove a bobcat right down into the wetlands that really Amplified uh the situation um so that was the picture from August that was the second he destroyed it twice and the second time was really I mean the first time was obnoxious but the the second time driving a skid St right into it I mean okay right was this wet land existing or did he create it by what he did for work out there here's here that was existing um I had the environmental study because I was doing an in-law apartment uh addition and uh that's when it was determined um and then after that uh he cleared the land and then after that he uh destroyed it further with the skid there so if I have it right this is where I was a little confused the GED Wetland flagging was for your project correct and they perhaps erroneously went on to the other property correct but it was still at least they're claiming it was Wetland from from that now there is a little portion of that Wetland on my property and that was flagged but when he cleared all the trees and brush and debris those flags disappeared Okay so let's go back to Chris's motion and if the first of all there any other discussion or questions comments yeah I mean just a reminder we have the ability to analyze the tree loss if we wanted to go there at some point right okay so Chris uh if you don't mind would you repeat your motion well my motion was that our agent gather information on whether there was a wetland there that was jurisdictional and whether in fact there appears to be alteration of that Wetland resource um whether there appears to be work in in our buffer zone as well to that resource area it sounds like we have some pictures we have information um sounds like he's done it yeah Shi shift your Motion sounds like we're talking um that we do go after this um am I hearing that from my Commissioners yeah I mean I mean what I'm hearing is we have two data points about it being a wetland one is the mysterious Goddard you know that we can't really don't really have a lot of backup and secondly our agent who's been identifying Wetland by vegetation for 30 years I mean I think we have enough evidence to move to the next step as defined by Council and and the next step would be this administrative search warrant or or directly to an enforcement order I mean what what would be the purpose of the search order is it um I guess for uh attorney uh are these two pieces of evidence that we have on it being a jurisdictional wetland enough to jump to an enforcement order or do we need further study on the property so I would defer to David in terms of determining whether or not he has enough information to to make a judgment as to whether or not there's a wetland there and whether or not it's been violated if you feel that you have enough information to proceed with an enforcement order and that you you are able to establish that Wetland exists um then the administrative search warrant is unnecessary if you think additional information is required then we would go down the administrative search warrant um path okay I can I like to answer that so I think I think the the additional information if if if we assume it's a wetland um let just say for the sake of discussion we assume it's a Wetland I think the the additional information that would be needed is and which is which is typically done in these kinds of uh enforcement action situations is is that the the the original extent of the Wetland needs to be ter me needs to be determined and that can usually be done in these kinds of situations if if if wetlands have have been filled um or or or altered usually what's possible to do by taking soil samples is is is and looking at vations determine the original extent and and then and then in the enforcement order say that it needs it needs to be restored back to the way it was so so so that's that's kind of I think the missing information we have that you know assuming it is a wetland we we really don't know what it what its original extent was I mean just just looking just looking at this photo it looks like maybe there has been some filling uh of the Wetland uh over here um you know based based on the photo and the Wetland sketch so that's that I think it would be good to be able to have that information and and and we don't have that information right now and I'm trying to follow this would does that mean you're suggesting that the administrative search warrant would get us that information or something else yeah I I I I think hopefully that's what it would do okay so I think kind of hearing more you know more more of this discussion now and Mr H's input and and our agents seems to me like I I think I think I'd like to revise my motion then that we that we request Town Council to um to prepare and submit an administrative search warrant so we can get that additional information needed for us to be able to make a a you know a good determination as to whether the Wetland one of our jurisdictional Wetlands has been um been violated yeah I'll second that but before you vote can I just get clarification um was the property owner contacted and requested um that we be on the site um no but he he was certainly um begin the opportunity to offer but uh so so we should formally request to be allowed to be on the site before we go for the administrative search warrant because that is one of the questions the court will ask could could could that I mean I I I believe that he I believe he cced all uh on all his correspondence with me his email corresponds I believe he CC his attorney could could you request that permission Paul going through his attorney I feel most comfortable that way sure thank you okay so let's make the motion contingent on that as being a a preliminary step does that me sense yeah so I'll again revise the motion a little bit so I'm going to request Our Town Council contact uh the um the property owners's uh attorney um and request permission for us to be able to uh conduct that site visit that we need to be able get soil samples and make other observations necessary to make a determination as to whether there's been a violation of our of our Wetland bylaw or not um first and if um if the uh property owner refuses to allow us permission then then we would be uh then requesting Mr H to pursue an administrative search warrant to get that information that we would need understood thank you good motion I'll second that second from bill so motion from Chris second from Bill any further discussion all in favor I I motion passes all in favor um I think that um if we can just get an update on that fall at some point uh when you hear one way or another appreciate that certainly thank you uh I think you're here for another one as well but thank you for yes for helping us out and to the adonald thanks for coming to us and to your attorney thanks for thanks for coming up coming coming in tonight appreciate it thanks Chris for lining up that motion thank you it's good good discussion okay next one is uh okay yes this is the next one which is 35 Brick killan Road this is a similar situation I was thinking about this in just talking about the enforcements we have 35 brick Killen road which we um have uh questions on what our options are here as well on the enforcement this one one has been um before us for at least a year last May oh just about a year then yes about year coming up on a year okay and so just to refresh on this this was a situation where the neighborhood was upset because trees had been taken down at this property and there was also uh a fair amount of um landscaping business equipment and um other things that kind of weren't our issue necessarily our issue was the trees that were taken down on the property they were responding to your request for um dealing with this problem and then they've kind of gone silent well right the commission issued an enforcement order um requiring that the wetlands that were altered be restored along with a 20 foot F so we did Issue a yes an enforcement order was issued which I I did email a copy to Paul um so so um so in included really sort of the first step um uh that the en that the enforcement order required was was to clean up the property you know get get all the the the Woody slash and there actually was quite a bit of of trash and junk that was on the property that the owner's claim was from the previous owner any anyway um they they uh made good progress um I thought uh for quite a while in getting the property cleaned up uh removing the fill from the Wetland um uh the enforcement order uh required that they they they stake and luckily there was already a wetland delineation that had been done on that property so so I I asked them to stake the um the boundary of the wetlands and the boundary of the 100 foot buffer zone and the 25- foot uh buffer zone as well they they did all of that um but the enforcement order also required that they do an after the fact filing of an RDA for the lawn and in the buffer zone which is they said was the original purpose um for clearing it was they want to put in law and so so the enforcement order required filing of an RDA for that um and and and then and then hire hire a wetland scientist to do a restoration plan for for the wetlands and 25- foot uh no disturb setback and then and that's when they went completely uh radio silent they they they did say um a couple of times though before they went you know completely unresponsive they did say that they just couldn't afford at this time okay to uh to do that and just to be clear there's no one representing them here tonight or not that I a knowledge I didn't I didn't let them know this would be on the agenda okay but they certainly they weren't responding in any case right okay so the question becomes what can we do now and Paul do you have any comment on that I do I mean I I think that the the approach that the commission can take is to file um an action for non-criminal disposition pursuant to general laws chapter 40 section 21d so that's an action that would be filed in the uh the district court um that essentially would be asking the district court to enforce the enforcement action that was issued by the commission um my presumption is that the enforcement action that was issued did not get appealed by the property owner so therefore it is final um they are required to comply with it and that's the mechanism that the commission has available to it to force them uh into compliance with the enforcement order so um does it make sense to send them like a certified letter saying we will do this if you don't respond to us something like that um because you know this is It's a fairly big step but it may it may be better for me to send that letter or yeah okay sure yeah yeah I think that might be more effective our behalf yeah okay correct yes but I'm I'm just thinking before we actually do go to the court um does that make sense they may that may wake them up yeah the the the only thing I'll add uh to that though is that and and and and I'm quite sure I I I can verify with the billing commissioner is that I believe he sent a couple of certified letters that were never picked up so uh I mean certainly it's worth to try but so we can we can try to have it served by Constable okay okay that that might be the way which I think you know adds to the effectiveness of of the action makes it look a little more official okay with a short time period before we take the next step sure not six months yeah no so so how short we looking two weeks 30 days I'd say I'd say two weeks okay yeah yeah where so Carl I'll make a motion then that we authorize town Council um uh pursuant to um pursue a non-criminal disposition uh complaint in court and that but prior to filing in court did he send uh a notice over to the um to the respondent um via um Constable service with giving them a last chance to uh to comply with our enforcement order and there's a two-e period of time and if we don't get compliance or or or good efforts to comply then Town Council will then be authorized to file that non-criminal disposition action in court okay I like the motion second motion from Chris second from Peter any further discussion what's the next step that they need to make if they're going to show that they're going to comply what would the next step that they need to do I think the first thing they got to do is call our agent immediately engage and engage with our agent agent and then indicate they're going to comply and then we're going to you're going to need some sort of a time schedule right right but I but I would say to answer your question bill I I would say to file the RDA and get the restoration plan from the Wetland scientist can we put a timeline on that in uh councelor hav letter I I don't see why not no guarantee of compliance but I I I I would say um let me think about uh you know because I mean there's a certain lead time to filing the RG a um uh I you know may maybe a maybe two weeks three weeks something for that yeah I mean my only point is they've been asked not just to file an RDA but to file a restoration plan yes so let's get the restoration plan moving cuz that isn't that the issue yeah to fix it yeah that's yeah that's how we get the get the environment whole I I I would say to I would say to you know hire uh a wetland uh consultant um and and then to have them prepare a restoration plan um I I would say a month okay probably a reason reasonable at this point yeah I think that's reasonable so I'm hearing add the month to this motion yes let me add that to the motion basically that also that the um in addition to responding immediately to our agent that they come forward with the RDA filing as well as well as a restoration plan and those materials and documentation be provided to our agent within 30 days if the applicant or proposed applicant says they don't have the means to do this what is our steps well pursuant to the non-criminal disposition and attorney Hy can comment further but there could be Financial penalties and they could add up significantly with time so it could be costly if they didn't comply you finds as part of this process find exactly findes yeah but we really don't want it to go there it's like there's a public fund for helping people do this so I don't know yeah I I I think the thing that I want to see is is respond to us and engage with us and don't ghost us don't don't disappear that's that's number one but um we need some teeth because it's just been floating for a year and it's very frustrating um the only other thing so so let's let's vote on that does that make sense uh John you have another you got one question have we heard from any of the neighbors has this gone initially there was there lot yeah we heard from the neighbors but not not for a long time you haven't heard from The Neighbors in no no in this year that yeah I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm not sure at the end of the day I'm not sure how how much the wetlands was a concern I think it was more there was more concern about you know operating a business out of there I think that was okay well well their concerns was burning of rubbish which the second time they came before us said that had stopped and their concern was loss of the trees if I was a neighbor I mean what are you going to do you're not going to replace you know the big tree overnight so I I don't know what that means if they haven't come before us I don't know okay let's take a vote uh all in favor not opposed so the motion passes um the only thing I would add just thinking about um the fact that the building inspector you said had two letters Maybe I I believe so I'll I'll verify that with him share that with with Town Council and he may throw that into the bundle a bundle uh a bundle approach here so yeah okay I think we're done Paul I all right thank you very much have a good night every appreciate your time thank you very much pleasure bye all right and also on the zoom next on our agenda here is a report from our planning board liaison Mr lavali I I think I saw him on Zoom hello Chris yes I am yes hey Chris hey guys um few updates for you tonight uh first is last Wednesday we had our first um uh reorganization meeting since the election uh dearra Paul and myself were all reelected uh to the uh to the board dearra is the chair again and I am Vice chair um the uh let's see what else um the final MBTA hearing uh is going to be this week uh before the final uh presentations to select board incom and then town meeting um we do have a meeting coming up this week but no meeting on April 24th that'll be our preown meeting uh presentation to the town meeting reps so our next planning board meeting after this week will be May 8th um this week we are hearing um the projects 191 chelsford Street as well as 270 Bill R um we have continued 93 Brook hilm and 10 hildr to May 8th um the uh at the last meeting uh we did hear about brick Hil and we did ask for a peer review of the mw1 um monitoring well uh so we wanted to get a little bit more information before a May 8th meeting on that um the uh and that's it that's all I've got for updates so you said that you're continuing 93 brick kill and 10 hildr to May 8th yes okay all right good to know thank you we won't be hearing those this week got it okay Chris thanks very much appreciate your sharing that information with us no problem okay next our regulatory hearings we have a new uh request this is an RDA for the town of chst for the uh neighborhood of Manuel Claude Gregory Road and rainbow Avenue and I know that's not Tony Ruchi coming up to the to the podium hello Courtney um hi can you tell us about legal notice thank you yes first the legal notice pursuant to the provisions of the Massachusetts Wetlands protection act Master general laws chapter 131 section 40 and the chelsford wetlands bylaw chapter 187 the chelsford Conservation Commission will conduct a public hearing here in room 204 at the town offices on Tuesday April 9th at 7.m to consider the request for determination of applicability filed by the town of chord for proposed work within in Bank in Associated 100 foot buffer zone pursuant to the provision of deeded drainage easan rights at manwell Road Claud Road Rainbow avenue further identified as assesses map 39 SL block 132 Lots 28 29 map 39 block 152 Lots 8 9 10 map 39 block 155 Lots 5 6 7 8 map 39 block 158 lot 6891 the project entails reestablishment of the drain in Swale to 30 uh in plus minus width between the manwell road and Rainbow avenue using motorized machinery and hand tools as necessary banks will be sloped to help reestablish the 30in width and prevent future erosion Mr chairman thank you Chris hi I'm Courtney Thompson the store motor engineer at the chum for DPW um we are hoping to as as you just stated um reestablish the sale that runs basically from manwel road down down to Rainbow AB um we'll be using machinery and hand tools as Neary necessary just to reestablish that 30inch width with sloping sides to prevent future erosion and to increase storm water capacity and prevent this is a flood prone area in town so um we're hope that our these cleanups cleanup efforts will uh prevent localized flooding and allow the storm water to flow through that area as as it was originally intended is that from vegetation or is it from people throwing brush in there um it's vegetation mostly I believe and um from non-native accumulation of sediment just from from storm water discharge okay thank you so um how how far uh on the on the work what's what's the limits of where you're going is it this is more or less people's backyards right um yeah yeah it's kind of runs runs between neighborhoods we have a drainage easement um and the limit is is basically as shown on on the map a little north of Manuel where the where the drainage uh sell begins down down to a little north of rainbow a the drain St does continue uh parallel to Rainbow a but we don't have an easement down that way and that might be a project for a later later time and date this is just the first step of trying to maximize uh the storm water capacity in that area and prevent some localized flooding that's currently occurring so that neighborhood sees the flooding oh yeah they they're actually asking for this I'm sure yeah there was some really bad flooding actually quite recently wasn't with the last couple of months every time we get the hard Heavy Rain it floods basically there was there was like at least a foot of water on was it Manuel I believe this the whole area has had had different flooding that's occurred so so when you're saying you're doing 30 feet 30 Ines how far beyond that are you working is it is it just uh it would a few feet beyond that that you're clearing yeah I mean we're not going to be really clearing much of that just enough to get the machinery Machinery in so it would just be a temporary disturbance um and we would we plan to use appropriate erosion control uh including a turbidity curtain to prevent fines from from streaming down as we're working so it shouldn't disturb much outside of of the channel itself just so let me just open up to the commission if anybody has questions if you want to ask Johnny I'm good with it I think if it if the neighborhood's flooding out and they can alleviate it by digging the trench out dig it out okay Peter uh no questions at this time thank you I agree with John it's uh if this will help fix a problem we need to do it will this fix work even though the part by moon beam isn't going to be uh done to sh um this will definitely help increase capacity because it clogs up here the most significant this is the worst area definitely um so courney didn't we do some work down here few years ago something similar to this um I'm not sure exactly i' have I have to look back at the records but there is a lot of drainage areas in this a in this region so it's definitely possible that that we did some routine maintenance it may not have been this but I remember something similar to this is kind of a bottom land yeah so it's definitely possible I'd have to look back at the records but I'm not sure if we've done this exact this exact uh strip Mark anything else no Chris I mean yeah it sounds like this is going to help uh flood prone area so I support this yeah great is this how how gentle is this to any of the critters living in that area everything's by hand what's the machine that you're talking about um I believe they bring you know a little skid excavator down there um a little Bobcat was my understanding um just to try and remove it'll it'll be as gent you know gentle as POS but we're not going to be not clear cutting right yeah we're just going to be removing kind of that builtup sediment and overgrowth so okay David do you have any other input or comments um sure um I I think this can be a negative a negative -2 and three uh it's it's it's essentially just a temporary uh disturbance uh I would say the the the the two uh conditions um according you you did mention um having having a silt curtain I mean this is an intermittent stream it does go dry I believe so so so I would say you know if at all possible the first condition should be is do this when it's dry you know at at no flow conditions and that certainly will greatly mitigate any any concerns about impacts to to Wildlife um and and two uh any any um damage to the buffer zone should be um corrected um and and I think in this case you know there there may there may be again some some temporary damage to to Banks but but I mean the the intent is to really fix the bank so that it it functions properly but but if if if if for instance there are any uh ruts you know in the buffer zone and in you know S soft areas that are caused by the Machinery then you say there there should be a condition to require that that be repaired corrected okay all right I'll make a motion then uh if we're ready to move forward yeah I make a motion then that um we approve this work via a negative uh two and three determination with the conditions as our agent explained that this um that this work be done if possible in in a dry time when there was a little or no flow of water uh in this area and number two if there is any damage to any uh any of our Wetland resources areas such as banks that that be repaired uh forth with and I assume you uh notify the neighborhood yeah yeah we'll notify before work's done okay so motion by Chris second by Mark anybody a yeah anybody from the audience uh want to talk about this any any should have kept that nope okay all right thanks thanks for catching me Bill all in favor I oppose none so motion passes uh unanimous um thank you Courtney and uh I'm up again next you'll be getting yeah you'll be getting your paperwork as you know from uh from David uh and now we're up to the next one which is uh an noi uh this is the T of chouns for 20 Pine and one Frederick and again Courtney is here representing the uh the applicant and we have another notice legal notice uh pursuing to the provisions of the Massachusetts Wetlands protection act Mass laws chapter 131 section 40 in the chood wetlands B chapter 187 the choun Conservation Commission will conduct a public hearing here at room 204 in the town offices on Tuesday April 9 2024 to consider the notice of intent filed by the town of chord for proposed work within bordering vegetated Wetlands Inland Bank Associated 100 foot buffer zones and Riverfront area um the River Meadow Brook pursuant to the provisions of the deed drainage easement rights at 20 Pine Street and one Frederick Street further identify as assesses map 95 block 368 Lots 21 and 22 the project entails removal of accumulated sediment via VOR technology thank you Chris go ahead um yeah so this is a segment of I believe it's intermittent stream as well that runs between Pendleton Road and Frederick Street um this area this neighborhood also has been experienced see uh localized flooding issues backing up from from from this stretch of stream which is uh included in at the end of the no noi um it is filled or not filled it has accumulated significant uh sediment and silt from the road as as a as a response from uh storm water drainage so our goal is is basically just to remove the sediment that the storm water infrastructure has caused there um Vector Technology is essentially a big hose so no heavy machinery will be in the wetlands um it will be up to the contractor who we don't have yet uh to to work with the residents on staging the vacor truck but it's a long hose and they will come out and it's allows a lot of precision and removing just that non-native accumulated material and as you can see in the figure there um kind of on the border of Frederick of One Frederick Street Street in 20 Pines Property there's a Jug Handle um that's also filled with or has accumulated significant uh sediment from the road from the drainage from the storm water drainage um I think that that channel of water is actually largely a result of accumulation in that main channel so once we clean it out um I think it would Resort back to uh it's more natural flow and it would allow more storm water capacity so that's um that's the main goal there so there is flooding there yeah again all all down in Pendleton area okay David do you have any other anything you want to add you uh sure um so uh this I mean the reason this is a note is of intent and not an RDA is because of just the um the the scope and extent of of the work and the resource areas and potential impacts is you know sufficient so really needs to be a notice of intent um I I think I think the greatest concern again here I mean although it is really essentially just another temporary um disturbance but I I think the great the greatest potential concern here is impact of wildlife habitat um I I think that again if this can be done when it's dry I think that will be minimized to to a large extent um um if if if it can't be done uh when it's dry um you know I think courtne you mentioned that there would be a dewatering plan yeah the the next page um shows the dewatering plan but okay um Our intention is to do this in the summer when it's as dry as possible but of course if we have a summer like last year we might need a dewatering plan in place um just to allow uh areas to be cleaned so so I think I think in that case there will have to be some kind of conditions to uh you know mitigate impacts to Wildlife I'm not exactly sure at this point what those might be but I I I think because I I mean there certainly will be frogs and probably Turtles out there you know if it uh if if it is wet uh in the summer so um I'll I'll have to think about that talk about some of the potential ways to address that with with Courtney um it it it may mean having to actually you know look for animals and you know take them out of there um at the time yeah with the VOR technology allows def it's definitely uh more it's easier to do that than it would be if you were in there with just an excavator or something like that like dredging um so there will be someone at the end of of that hose of the vector truck so you know you're not going to be sucking up any Turtles can I can I just ask what what your budget is on this I mean if if if the commission wanted you say to hire a a wildlife consultant to um you know anytime the factor is going to be out there to to you know just I know the tech technical term in some cases called sweeps like sweeps for turtles or sweeps for frogs um Mone check into that I'd have to have to talk with uh Antonio or Christine and and see I'm not sure exactly I mean it it doesn't look like this would be expected to last more than a couple days is that correct that would that would be my assumption yeah I think I think it' be pretty uh pretty quick definitely just a temporary you know disturbance over there okay anything else David um I just say that um D hasn't assigned a file number on this so we we'll have to wait and see what kind of comments they have um they I mean there potential they're potentially certain requirements that they'll put in their comments as well okay so that means probably shouldn't approve this uh right now no it definitely needs to be continued y okay uh Peter you have a question or any yeah goad you want to go down the row or John you a question goad I have no questions at all um David this is kind of for you um what time of the summer is least intrusive to the critters well I would I I I would say it's it's more what the conditions are that that the drier it is the less impactful it is is that um if say there was just dry sediment out there which I believe this project can handle it would have to be loosened up first I mean the the frogs really aren't going to hang around too long when it's dry and and neither are the turtles you know es especially if it's really dry conditions okay you know T both Turtles and frogs need water thank you and I just wanted to make a comment I don't I didn't hear this mention this is the core habitat as it's viewed on our town map and it is right next to uh land trust and actually very close to Conservation Commission land so those of you familiar with that area the it is like a prime Wildlife part of town oh yeah River meow Brook oh yeah that's all skunk skunk island is uh right there um as it's known that's one of the land trust properties yeah uh anybody else Bill no Mark Chris anything no I mean it sounds like what I hear from our agent that um he's going to give some thought to some uh conditions to try to minimize any impact on on the the habitat and any of the uh the animal species and stuff out there and number two we still need the D file number as well too so um I don't know if there's any public input but you know if there's no public input we might be able to move it along to a continuance yeah I guess I'd like to make a motion I appreciate what you're recommending to do that with the animals and stuff but if I think we should just all of a the on the commission should kind of vote on that before we go ahead and do what suggestion no he was he was just going to like work his own conditions up on his own if I understood it right no but relocating and things like that I I don't well I think you're just going to draft some proposed condition well yeah and and and and may maybe uh consult with an expert a wildlife biologist um I mean I I think there are probably pretty standard ways of handling this um I mean it it it doesn't hurt to get the information you know may may maybe it won't be so honorous um so is to you know really greatly impact yeah H hire some neighborhood kids to chase the frogs away um so what what is it that you're looking for or I'm I'm I'm just a little confused I think I understand Mark I think you you didn't want him to go hire an outside consultant oh I didn't think we said that yeah well that was he pres he presented that into one of his talking about it I well possibility yeah it's within the realm of possibility that D will come back in their comments and they say you need to do a wildlife habitat evaluation that's possible yeah so we need to wait for them right I I I I would advise that well well I think we we I think this is on the map of the endangered species habitat right uh I didn't check the boundary though but well I don't think so but but I but I'll I will go back and double check I mean if this is in rare species habitat yeah that'll that'll be you know very different situation that'll have to go through natural heritage okay I just want to make sure you're you're good I think what we're talking about right now at the moment is just a continuance um we can ask if there's any uh I'll I'll open it up to the public if anybody has any comment or question I don't think anybody's here for that um but we will continue this we will expect to hear the D filing number and and com if there's any comments as well and then at the next time I assume we'll continue this to the next meeting to and move we continue to our next meeting April 23rd okay all right second so motion by Chris second by Bill all in favor I motion passes Courtney thank you very much thank you thanks appreciate it [Music] okay next on the list uh Mr raisbeck so we have a RDA for the bits and pieace Farm LLC at the Hunt Road property um and the applicant is Mike risbeck and we have a notice legal notice pursuing to the prisons of the mass chusetts Wetlands protection act Mass general laws chapter 131 section 40 and the Chon Wetlands bylaw chapter 187 the chil Conservation Commission will conduct a public hearing here in room 124 at the town offices on Tuesday April 9th 2024 to consider the request for determination of applicability filed by bits in peace Farm LLC on behalf of property owner town of cheler for proposed work within 100 foot buffer zone to bordering vegetated Wetlands at Hunt Road further identified as assessors map 91 block 378 lot3 the project entails Mowing and tilling for purposes of cultivating pumpkins and other field crops that is correct I'm Mike risbeck 85 High Street and I'm representing bits and peace Farm tonight actually I'm half of bits and peace Farm um we what we've done is we've picked up a 6 and 2/3 acre chunk uh on lease from the town it's actually a license this year um that's a piece off of Hunt Road uh it's part of the coolest farm uh land that the town recently picked up uh most of it's pretty soggy uh but there's about about 1.7 Acres of Upland that's reasonably dry and um our hope and plan is to turn it into pumpkin and winter squash mostly um we in terms of equipment and working the soil we wouldn't be doing particularly much we will have to till it um but it's fairly light tilling we try to keep it as light as we can uh there'll be a little bit of mowing done the area is largely open but it's it's beginning to get encroachment from bushes and stuff like that um and we'll have to take some of that down uh we have plenty of space I don't think we would use the entire 1.4 acres this year we've did the you've probably seen the design you've got it right up there uh that's based on the current GIS mapping uh that's all we've got I've been out there uh it is due to be flagged but it has not been flagged as far as I can tell there are blue flags out there but that's not that's not from this oh there are blue flags are there I saw them today oh that that might have gone out I was out Sunday that might have gone out today yeah I went I go by there all the time and I happen to notice them well those those are the Wetland Flags excellent excellent then I have something I can work with uh I didn't go they weren't there Saturday s driving by I I walked in there Saturday I met all the ticks but that the major wildlife in there right now is ticks um so that's the plan we wouldn't be using a lot of equipment in there a fairly light tractor tilling it once or twice until we get it established and our technique for this kind of property is is just uh is H put it in ground cover ground cloth and it probably wouldn't have to be tilled again it is going to need some soil amendment uh I can tell just looking at the uh the uh Moss that's growing there we're going to need some pelletized lime on it uh okay David uh do you have anything else you want to add to um sure so um Mike is well well aware of the concern about turtles indeed I have the book uh okay great and uh we we we've talked a lot about that um and so I I think I think I think it can be done is to sort of work work around the the needs of the Turtles uh as well um you know certainly late late May probably through late June is when they're coming out to Nest um so if any disturb any mowing uh or disturbance of soil could be avoided at that time I I think we can do that in fact the plan would be to do the mowing preliminary mowing uh this weekend and uh till it within a week and we can walk it we can we can walk in front of the tractor we can actually sweep it which we probably would do although I don't think we're going to see any Turtles for another 3 weeks uh no Pro probably not um and then then similarly later on in the season um there's a concern for when the H hatchlings emerge um right we'll we'll keep clear of them so so when when would you be doing the harvesting uh well we it's largely hand harvesting really walking in and picking up a squash uh maybe with a light cart uh to toward uh September we'd probably go in there with a small tractor and a small cart because we'd have enough uh we'd have enough pumpkins that we have to be careful uh it'd be a lot of work but uh we can we can simply walk in front of the equipment and sweep it as we go okay so so I I would just say the main condition and again I've talked about this with Mike is just take a tap tape measure you know measure from the blue flags measure the the 30 ft yep that you showing on the plant you know put a steak there and then and then when the Mowing and tilling is done at the right at the right time um not go any closer to the wetlands than that yeah we'll we'll stay 30 feet out I want to give it plenty plenty of Edge and frankly the stuff as you get a little bit lower is what we call a a Sudbury muck and that's that's a little hard to grow things in and and and and to not take down any trees that I don't know maybe greater than 6 in I don't think we're touching anything greater 6 in I think we have maybe six or eight at 2 in 2 and a half the rest of it's / inch caliper brush so um this is 50 ft no disturb right from the well no there's a 25 under the bylaw 25 right yeah and but but he's saying he give a little extra give it 30 okay and and frankly I don't think we'll get that close to it this year uh our plan this year is to maybe get a half an acre of it prepped and planted and that'll be on the high side and then we can see how things develop uh next year to see if it makes sense to do another stripe a little lower can I'll keep you inead Mike the uh parcel is 6 Acres yes 6.6 you want to you want approval to till 1.4 it's about 1.4 1.5 it's the dark section up there side um our our idea is to leave about 100t wooded buffer between that and the street uh that's as much to protect the pumpkins as anything else so so I have a question David David I understand your point about hatchlings and the commission can think about that but if you're going to lay down landscape fabric there won't be any hatchlings well they'll what am I missing we' lay it down at a time when if they're going to walk across it they're going to walk across the top of it not the bottom of it and what you don't want to do is trap them underneath well that's my question yeah they're not going to go underneath if that gets down before they start to move right and uh right but I but I but I think like say next year I think I think turn Turtles can dig through that I mean they do have pretty sharp claws yeah we we we'll see it if they do we'll see it if they do and that's interesting they're welcome they're complet as far as I can tell turtles are completely compatible with pumpkins good plan yeah uh John bill any body else Mike alls I can say after farming all my life yeah okay and growing pumpkins yeah and squash good luck thanks John I farmed right to the edge of the water all my life yeah okay good luck okay thanks Bill anything Mike yeah this is part of the coolest property right yes the task force decided this is what the use was going to be on this this is what it did matter of fact because I'm on that task force I had a recused right I know you are so and it's been the Selectmen have looked at this and that's what they they agree with this this current this year this is on license so uh the town manager can actually do it but come the end of the year when things settle down and we have the complete plan uh we'll probably be looking for a 5-year lease which the board can grant okay beyond that it has to go to town meeting right right um yeah good luck with it I hope you have good luck well we will I mean it'll be grown in chumford pumpkins we the access to this site is by the auto place uh no actually it's uh there may be a back access I haven't tried and I haven't talked to the auto body guy but there's a wall there um you come in from Hunt Road uh you see that sort of small piece between Hunt Road and the darker uh that is wooded right now and that's that's stuff at four five six inch caliper uh and the plan is to make a a tractor wide path through it and I've identified one okay uh but to leave the buffering uh between the field and the street okay all right I'm good KY thank you my concerns of what bill but I'm fine Chris nothing Carl okay uh okay um I'm GNA make one suggestion what's that Sugar pumpkins yeah we are going to do a bunch of sugars that's all I'm going to tell you he knows more about pumpkins than I well you've actually have you ever farmed that Charlie wers and myself grew more pumpkins in this town on over on anybody else yeah okay let's see uh let's see if we can move forward here we have a vote to uh so the wetlands has been marked there's no plan we don't have a plan for uh not yet the the the intention is to have a surveyor map the flags but I don't think that'll happen sooner than Mike needs well I'll I'll stake based on the flags that are there yeah I mean all you have to do is take a tap measure yeah that's all given the limited disturbance that we're talking about I think we're I think we're okay here so I'll take a motion if uh any ne3 uh there'll be a negative3 yes I move for negative3 determination to approve the project Dem chairman negative3 uh motion from Chris uh second from John the farmer uh re any uh so this this is a open meeting are there any uh anybody from the public that wants to comment uh nope okay uh all in favor I I oppose none so motion passes Lu Mike uh off to the histor appreciate it yep thank you Mike how did you how did you do with the uh syrup oh this was a we did get oh maple syrup on right reservation yes we got sap off it I got maybe 50 no probably 60 70 gallons it was not a good sap year this year uh because we had that big long hot spell and that pretty much killed it but I did get I got about 10 gallons of syrup nice of which probably a couple of G is uh is from wri we'll talk about that next year I may come back before you with a more interesting plan next year good good to hear good GL it one well okay next we are at uh the application for uh this is an noi from Mass Electric at 15 conquered Road uh Kellen conx uh is representing the applicant and we have a notice uh Mr Mr G pursuing to the provisions of the Massachusetts wetland protection act Master general laws chapter 131 section 40 and the chood wetlands bylaw chapter 187 the CH Conservation Commission will conduct a public hearing here in room 204 the town offices on Tuesday April 9th 2024 to consider the notice of intent filed by property owner Massachusetts electric company for proposed work within bordering vegetated Wetlands Inland Bank Associated 100 foot buffer zones bordering land subject to flooding and Riverfront area Farley Brook at 15 conquered road further identifies the cessor map 103 block 412 Lot 24 the project entails expansion and improvements of the existing conquered Road number 24 substation including an installation of a new control house replacement of existing fences and Gates expansion of a section of the substation yard and fence along the southern perimeter and replacement of the existing equipment with the substation yard thank you Chris uh is the applicant on so kayin are you there yes can can everyone hear me yes we hear you yes good evening awesome about your project yeah is it is okay I sh my scre uh you should be able to yes it says the H disabled participant screen sharing okay sorry about that let me let me fix the yeah no problem again apologies I could be there in person tonight so as a reminder guys this is conquered Road just as you're going out um from Boston it's right on the right where the I think it's where the power lines are coming in so you should be okay now Kay oh perfect got it Canon see that okay yes conquered Road number 24 substation excellent perfect great so uh again thanks for hearing us tonight um my name is k ktz I'm from dhb uh we're a representative from Mass Electric company and the applicant tend to solve them is all online to uh to help answer any questions at the end uh as mentioned this is for the conquered Road number 24 substation project and located at 15 conquered Road chur so for a quick project overview that Center photo you'll see a red U outline of the project area it's right off conquered road kind of just past the intersection with Boston Road uh downtown chumford is located north of the project era it's on an approximate 2 acre parcel and uh surrounding there are just some photos of the site you can see the street view in the bottom right uh how the substation it is a small substation uh that um there's just a tiny gravel area between the road and the substation then um it's surrounded by uh different vegetation um I'll pull up the resource next slide but um a lot of it is wetland uh we have flood plane as well and you can see that in the top right and the bottom or the top left as well um so for resource areas on site um we do did delineate uh bordering vegetative Wetland with our green flags there in the green line uh the bright green line and then also uh Bank um in Associated 200ft Riverfront area to The Farley Brook um and then we also have bordering land subject to flooding which you can see in that kind of bluish aqua color uh that surrounds the substation to the Northwest and then we also have a buffer zone so the 100 foot buffer zone is shown in the lime green that's the fur this out here uh and then we have our local buffer zones per the um Cher Wetland spy which includes the 50 Foot no build Zone the 30 foot um no impious area and then 25 foot uh no uh and there is no uh priority or estimated Joel and Ruth are there so he's G to take notes for me for any projects we have hey I'll still be listening but but somebody's got a mute whoever's talking awesome thank you so no we don't have any rare species um or rare habitat on site and then no Vernal bolts either uh so you can see the proposed work here uh this red box right here is the proposed new control house um that needs to be installed uh to facilitate the upgrades and improvements to the substation uh so that and the associated uh perimeter fence uh will go beyond the existing footprint public station and also to the north we're proposing temporary construction matting and that's just facilitates construction uh with equipment uh and just need of workspace to help upgrade the substation and then cross the street on CER Road here this is going to be a lay down in parking area where any unconsolidated materials and vehicles will be stored um long term so that is in vicinity and so mitigation we're proposing for the project uh best management practices for National Grids environmental guidance uh it's called an eg303 document and they're also proposing an erosion and sentation uh control program which incl includes non-structural practices such as temporary stabilization permanent seating P sweeping test control and then structural practices like the construction Ms as I just noted erosion control barriers that could include straw a Sil fence compost filter tube and then catch Basin protection U on conquered Road in the viia uh construction and so the bulk of this project um is or I guess my talk will be the Regulatory Compliance section um we did provide a storm water memo um in compliance with a 10 storm water management standards in the application um we are proposing no increase in impervious area there's actually a net decrease of 82 square feet of imperious area on site uh and most of the yard will be open graded Crush Stone which is uh perious um so that's stor water management for the wetlands protection act uh we are proposing uh from the construction matting just over 2,000 square ft of temporary impacts to boring vegetative butland which will be restored upon completion of construction um we are also in bordering line subject to flooding and that's associated with the construction Ms as well um and that is uh just under 5,000 square feet of temporary impact which is allowable under the threshold the production act regulations uh and we are obviously within Riverfront area to The Farley Brook uh it is undeveloped Riverfront area it does include um some maintained lawn in the vicin of the sub station and obviously gravel uh CR Stone Within the substation um and so we are proposing just over 1,000 square ft of permanent impacts uh from that um control house expansion to the south of the substation and then uh just under 9,000 square feet of temporar um which is uh under the wet protection act is allowable of up to 5,000 square feet or 10% whichever be sprad from the impact so we are under that threshold um and we did uh complete an alter alternative analysis this project um our first alternative was to keep the control house within the existing footprint of the substation uh which was deemed not feasible due to clearance violations of existing electrical equipment um our other alternative was a no build which obviously doesn't accomplish the need for the project to upgrade the substation help accommodate um a greater electrical load in the area um facilitate the adoption of Renewables to Electrify the grid um and so we did choose our uh third option for our preferred alternative which included locating the control house on the sou limits um of the project site which is within existing maintain lawn so minimizes environmental impact and also has limited to no habitat uh degradation being maintained on Ara uh so my last portion to talk out is uh compliance with the chumford wetlands protection bylaw uh as mentioned that control house on the southern limits is located within the 50ft no build area uh it's approximately 133 Square ft of the 392 square foot control house um so the control house is a critical piece to modernize the existing conqur substation and cannot be built outside of the 50 Foot no build Zone um and the project has been designated to limit the footprint um of yard expansion on to maintain lawn as mentioned um and for provisions of the bylaw uh we do feel like project uh there is no reasonable uh conditions or alternative to place the control house uh we do avoid minimize and mitigate the impacts from the control house and uh due to the nature of being substation and providing electricity public we do believe that it provides an overriding public interest this project in general uh so we are requesting a waiver from the commission for um building within the 50 Foot no bill Zone I believe it's under Section 187.5 the B um so that that's it for me um happy to answer any questions the commission may have and uh we can put through any any plans or pull up anything that might be needed thank you okay thank you David do you want to uh provide your observations have you been out to the site uh I I have not uh yet um so uh Kay on it's only that one waiver that's being requested is to the 50 Foot no build notice it's it will that so the permanent impact yes in the 50 Foot and then we are also proposing the temporary impact within the uh 25 foot modus serve and then the 30 foot impervious but that's all temporary so it's no permitting in in 25 or the 30 fo um I I don't have anything in particular to say at this time I would recommend the commission get it peer reviewed and we can certainly talk about you know the the scope the peer review the storm water for DPW yep I would I I would suggest DPW review the storm water compliance um and and then you'll probably have the the bvw uh uh boundary reviewed and just probably you know a general uh review of compliance uh with the with the Wetland resource area performance standards okay thank you John do you want to start us you have anything yet I'm uh I'm going to say when you wake up in the morning the lights don't go on they're doing this for a reason they're very professional of course we have had a little issues okay but we work through stuff MH they're very professional when they do things uh I I I really don't see any okay I'm not nothing's popping out to me we need power yep agreed uh three three quick comments uh keln I thought it was a great submitt as they often are from grid answered a lot of questions I don't have a good sense for how big physically the new equipment is you talked quite a bit about the control house but you're replacing some of the other equipment right or grid is yeah we are we are replacing in kind my my understanding is that it is it's just more upgrading uh due to the the age of the existing equipment that's on site all existing foundations will be reused where possible and it's just kind of replacing the above ground U equipment on site yeah I was just thinking in ter not not so much the size of the equipment but how much digging might be needed yeah yeah there there are some conduit uh banks that are U you know understandably to the new control house you need to connect the equipment to the control house so there are some some Cong Ducks um that need to be installed but um my sense is it's just going to be kind of with a mini excavator a small excavation where needed and it's not going to be any substantial um you know Earth moving and excavation Mar yeah and then two other quick questions you probably don't have to answer it it's not probably important to what we're trying to do but I'm curious if the long range plan for this substation is to be bigger and related to that question uh we don't need to debate this but it occurs to me in our RS we talk about an alternative analysis and you address that but I'll bet if you're Engineers were here maybe they are they would say there is no other alternative location to keep the grid strong I mean that that would be helpful for me to understand if this is like the only place that this substation could be and again that may be David helped me out here that may be beyond the scope of this commission but I just throw that out there for what it's wor yeah I think I think I think it's probably beyond the scope of an Alternatives analysis yeah fair enough I don't think the proposal is not to relocate the substation yeah I mean I was kind of I was kind of speaking to John's point we all use power we we use power they're doing this for a reason we got to get back to reality no no there's no there's no argument John it's not not worth talking about anymore you're not going to relocate a substation I'm not saying that yeah I didn't say that we're good I didn't say that John John so Peter anything else that's good thank you okay Bill I'm fine right now Mark no I'm good Chris okay so you mentioned some temporary impacts uh any guess or estimate as to how long the temporary impacts would last or how long the kind of the construction you know how long this project would take in time TimeWise yeah ballpark uh it's estimated to be about a year of construction um I know with like temporary impacts from construction Ming there is a threshold for Army Corp permitting that madting can't be left in um more than a year or else there needs to be certain mitigation um that needs to be in effect um so that's that's obviously outside the bounds of this commission but construction fall park around a year just I answer your question and as far as then you said that that construction matting and stuff like that it's not going to be there for more than a year basically because of the Army Corps rules that's the int yes okay all right now I'm I'm good Carl at this point so um David you made a recommendation for a peer review um yes what does that look like um well I I think just generally and um you know the commission might want to review the actual scope but I think just generally re review review the um the Wetland uh boundary the the bordering vegetated Wetland boundary um which shouldn't take very long it's not not a really long section here um and then and then just a a general review of the performance standards for the different resource areas okay that that are involved you know I can I can I can ask uh I can request the scope and the commission then can review it at the next hearing I think that makes sense is that and and then also forward it to DPW for review of the storm water yeah that would be good and do we have a sense of grids construction timeline and how it would fit that additional review well yes K want to tell us what what what is what is the timeline on this yeah when were you looking at kicking it off yeah uh Tim correct me if I'm wrong but I know um we are planning to start this year uh I believe it's U estimated late summer time but I I can certainly check on that and keep the commission we should be able to get all that should be plenty of time right yeah okay then so we making that recommendation to do that uh do we need to make a motion on that I think it's up to you did you say that you think DPW could do the PE riew sorry did you say DPW would be able do the storm water yeah but not for the other part right yeah no they they couldn't review the other aspects of the noi but they but they can do storm water this this should be pretty simple right it should it should be you think a peer review is necessary from outside Source that's our agent's recommendation I'm asking you i' I'd like to see it I think we're you know there's there's a fair amount of work being done here it's a year-long process this is a this isn't it's not that big but at the same time it's going to be there a long time and this could be quite a while so you you would get us a kind of a scope to look at for our next meeting yeah so he's going to get us a scope to look at and we can I would say vote it up uh down then when we see the scope what what we want done all right so you're going to continue it tonight yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah I I think that's reasonable we just continue get a scope we review that and vote on it based on the scope and you can you can request C if DPW can do it yes in the meantime I think they probably can but yeah find out from them if they can that make sense yeah okay then we we'll just take a motion to continue until April the 23rd so I move do we continue this hearing oh good point is there anybody from the public that wants to speak up on this hearing seeing none I move to continue to April 23rd motion from Chris second second from Bill all in favor I I John you say I Okay so motion's passed uh we will see you thank you kayin thank you for your presentation we'll see you uh in two weeks excellent sounds great thank you thank you okay let's keep going here next one couple more here in front of us here uh we are at 191 chelsford Street this is a notice of intent that's been continued from our previous meeting on March 26 and we see Casey here um we are going to review the draft conditions for stor management and perhaps some other topics as well all right good evening uh KY Ferrar with Howard son Hudson uh so the very first thing that I wanted to address was a question that came up at the last meeting regarding the slope at the back of the site um I was asked whether or not we could review Landscaping it or putting trees or shrubs um I spoke the very next day with the landscape architect um with the two to1 slope it's very steep it cannot accommodate any kind of high story trees to kind of either shade The View shed or uh attenuate noise um he said the only thing that we could really do is is load of the ground Shrubbery or grasses uh that would kind of act more as slope stabilization than anything else uh but he did say the existing or what we had proposed as an erosion control seed mix uh would be better off um in that in that manner uh some of the grasses do grow uh to 6 to 8 ft in height so it can create habitat within the buffers Zone I know that was another concern so um we we did keep the subid as we had it with just the back slop being erosion control seed mix to keep that slope held together um but also provide uh that extra habitat within the buffer zone um and then the other open item was the operation and maintenance plan the long-term pollution prevention plan um we did meet with Mr spawn and uh David last Monday um significant meeting but I think it was uh pretty productive to go over of concerns that Mr SW had um and as a result we did make some modifications to the long-term pollution prevention plan and the uh operation maintenance plan and just to kind of summarize we added a lot of site specifics to to the ltpp um and that that basically made it a plan for this property it wasn't a general template plan uh any further um we added timelines to certain items like litter pickup it basically just said generally litter will be picked up along uh road maintenance and other things like that but we added a timeline that it must be monthly um and that included also within the Wetland buffer zone um just to try and add an uh an item to keep that clean as well um one of David's concerns was or actually was one of Mr span's concerns was how do we integrate that long-term pollution prevention plan with the employees and how kind of how the employees will be managed and and trained on this uh so what we did was we referenced the employee handbook um and also the applicant has uh confirmed that the ltpp and the omm will go in as a separate insert to that storm or to that employee handbook and they'll be trained on that yearly and you know upon uh being hired and so forth um one of the requirements that there is is to add a BMP plan that basically shows um whoever is responsible for maintenance where all the bmps are um so we we highlighted that I will note all the inspection ports on the subsurface infiltration system um are currently to be determined we've laid them out but the manufacturer will will finalize them um so that's that's highlighted on the plan that here's our proposal of them but once they go once it's actually bought the manufacturer will finalize the inspection ports for efficiency um and then lastly a couple items that we added to the operation maintenance plan uh the CDs which is the hydrodynamic separator um we just added how to maintain that and then um basically uh referred back to the manufacturer guidelines uh the rip wrap flare end section and then also landscape maintenance we added um to make sure that those are maintained as well um so with that I believe that that sums up the updates to the omm plan uh we did um we did give you some other items which was a list of chemicals that was previously uh requested by in a butter um that that's a list of all the chemicals that will be used there the MSDS sheets for each of them um and then also we gave an architectural floor plan um basically the all the chemicals will be stored uh within the back area kind of what I laid out last time I can't remember if I did that at planning board or here um but the final location is going to be determined when the building is actually engineered the internals of the building uh so it's going to be along that back strip of the building but Final locations will be determined once the architecturals are engineered I believe that sums it up so um here to answer any questions daveid do you have anything else you want to add um just a couple of things so so Casey um and and and I have to admit I really have haven't had much of a chance to review the resubmission I think we got it like just before 1 on Friday or something like that so I really haven't had much of a chance to look at it yet um but but I I know when when we did meet uh with with Peter on Monday you know a big topic of of the discussion was the employee handbook was did you include a copy of that in your submission um so I did get there there's basically just a the applicant me a general draft of what the title will be the chapters that'll be included um I did not forward that to you I can forward that to you yeah but it basically just say it's called the Buble Bay employee handbook and it's going to have the typical chapters that any employee handbook would have but then he also listed the ltpp and the OM andm um so you know the the handbook won't be officially created until he knows whether or not he's going to have a business here um but for now the the idea is that that will be the name we can reference that name and then if if if you could at least submit the draft um I mean I don't know if that will be its final version we can certainly put a condition in there that you know we'll need the final version you know prior to the start of of operations and you know we'll we'll probably have to sit sit down with um with Ali who whoever is the responsible party and and then review it yep um and as we discussed that you know last Monday we can definitely set up an additional meeting further down the line prior to even prior to construction or prior to occupancy however you prefer it to be but to really nail down on how that employee hbook will shake out to address these stormw water items um we're definitely happy to condition that we have that meeting and and go from there okay um now the the the changes to the long-term pollution prevention plan that you just um uh talked about so is there is there an itemize a list of those somewhere essentially our markup of Peter's comments so we what we've addressed is we added um timelines to items that require timelines like the litter pickups and the the all the onm how often they need to be done uh we added the references to the employee handbook and the spill kits um we added where the spill kits well how to find the spill kits per the employee handbook um we added the BMP plan um and then it was basically just modifying and word smithing language throughout to kind of site make it site specific can can can you just just like send me an email with those with those things CH bued that that would be helpful um another another um issue that we talked about um and I've actually put put it in the the draft order is is is a complete prohibition against using uh pasas containing products correct and we are totally open to that condition now we don't anticipate we don't want to use past we don't anticipate to use past the vendor has basically clarified that they don't even sell any products that use past so that is totally we're happy with that condition okay so that's all I have to say at the moment certainly be curious to hear your reaction Peter to made pet one you U you were at that meeting jump in yeah um Casey good summary but I think the simple takeaway what we were trying to accomplish is the following these storm water systems have to be to work to keep stuff out of the zone 2 drinking water they have to be designed properly but they have to be operated and maintained in a certain way so really all we were trying to do is get from our experts the design engineer into this employee handbook or whatever but get the key parameters going forward that need to be watched by the operator to make sure the thing works as designed and a couple of great examples are you know make sure the employees are trained that they shouldn't be spilling these chemicals on the ground because then it ends up in the storm water system or could that's an example there's a lot of those examples we don't need to get into so really what we were trying to do is make sure that we got the expertise from the design engineer into the owner's hand because the owner is going to end up having a maintenance contractor and staff at the facility implementing operation so the question becomes what what do they need to know dayto day and post that in the in the control room and have a little bit of training that's really you know all these things about ports and all this stuff that's really what it boils down to in my mind um very simple um so I have not had a chance to review it I apologize I just got it too um Carl the only other thing that really struck me well two things one is um Casey I'm not sure this is really the on andm plan but uh some of us are still wrestling with this question of no posos in the wax okay and I am still not comfortable that we you you guys submitted the material safety data sheets but my understanding from some experts is those material safety data sheets which list the chemicals don't always list Trace Amounts of chemicals well the the promise of no past wasn't just from the material safety data sheets it was a a a note that came a direct uh document from the vendors that says they don't use it right so I was going to ask you as the engineer to give us some additional Assurance of some sort and maybe it's that kind of thing but what really struck me was uh the manufacturer of the waxes and the materials that that you guys want to use the manufacturer doesn't brag no posos and posos in wax is such a big deal that a number of states are looking at Banning it though not not immediately so I was just a little confused on how we as a commission can assure the town that there isn't another yet another source of posos should there be and again let's think this through it would have to be a spill that ended up into the storm water system so again the commission needs to think about this but we have asked you guys I'm sure you'll do it make sure there's worker training on what to do if there's a spill and secondly there is a Department of Health regulation about containing the stuff which we don't need to go talk about now but that is a recommendation I have is we make sure we work with the health department on that rag which is designed you know to to prevent spilling and I guess the bottom line is if you're comfortable if the commission's comfortable there's not going to be a spill this posos and wax thing isn't that big a deal if on the other if let me just finish and I'll shut up if if on the other hand we are concerned about the possibility of a spill then we need to talk more about you know this no peos and let me let me just say this isn't like spilling oil you guys maybe have read on Posas it's it's ridiculous it's like a couple of molecules put you into a health problem okay I'm exaggerating but it's a tiny tiny tiny bit like a few drops on the pavement rainstorm ends up in the storm water system the stuff goes right through the storm water system in that scenario and ends up in the drinking water so again if we're talking about old school pollutants like you know petroleum and oil and stuff that isn't quite as toxic in tiny amounts we wouldn't have this conversation posos is different um so anyway we can talk more about that is needed Casey I'm sorry I I do think one uh point that maybe I should make to the commission because Peter you have the benefit of knowing this where we discussed it last Monday but I don't believe the commission has been told this yet the deliveries come in you know 3 to five gallon jugs um by FedEx Amazon UPS directly into the facility so employees of the employees of the facility aren't handling them outside to spill them and and you know basically spill them into the storm water system they're delivered directly interior of the facility where if there was an employee spill which Ali says he hasn't had um but if there was it goes to the trench drains where they're going anyway um which is out to the sewer and and not going to the storm water system right um so I just wanted to give that benefit to to the commission that you know we're not talking about 50- gallon drums being dropped off and and rolled into the facility or whatnot but yeah and I think there was a 30 gon one of say there was a was a bigger one but one of them which is not as often delivered y but again what I would encourage fellow Commissioners to think about there is a Department of Health rig I can send it to you if you don't know it that addresses avoiding spills and having secondary containment around the containers and you know as long as that rag is is executed you know our concern shouldn't be getting too wrapped around the axle on how you design that part of probably makes sense then to prepare the employee handbook by reverencing or at least Consulting that regulation right well I also think there's a pretty significant you know Financial incentive to not spill this stuff sure um so it's in Ali's best interest that he does do these trainings that the employees know how to handle the chemicals because these are basically concentrated amounts which are very very expensive um so if it's definitely in his best interest to make sure that his employees are not spilling them and handling them uh ridiculously and and then there was one other quick thing I I was contacted by some residents that sort of raised a question and I did a little bit of digging I don't know I think the Department of Health under their regulations has asked for one of these environmental reports I think that's true I don't know have they the Board of Health as part of the groundwater protection Zone we do have to we have to uh go through the Board of Health process for the groundwater protection Zone which is going to be the next step which which their rig I don't know if how well I don't know if they've pulled the trigger but their rig requires something called an environmental report we've talked about that before but that would address if that report is done that would address some of these citizens questions is there any source of contamination I think somebody was worried about the gas station next door we did well we did do a phase one analysis on the site um there is no I believe there was and I'm sorry I'm looking back as we did this months ago but I believe there was one spill on the on the gas station site that was away from our site towards more of the hotel and moonstones um I don't know if it's still moonstones but yeah um yeah so but it did not affect our site and they did not see any other reason to uh engage a phase two on our site based on the information that they had yeah and that might be helpful if you submitted that to Dave Coons just because I'm getting some questions from Neighbors and that would be the that's the way it would normally be handled is that phase one assessment mhm okay so if that's done that's great we can put that to bed if you can submit that please absolutely thank you anyone else have questions uh I just had a question kind of looking at what might still be open in the hearing process but uh and you know the fact we're dealing with a Zone 2 uh to the aaer type situation with the water district do do we get ever get any letters or comments back from our water districts with anything that not that I know of and they're aware of I mean they they know about the whole well they reviewed our proposal and we had to basically come to an agreement with them on how they would serve our property so they're definitely aware of the proposal um we have a signed agreement for them to provide water to the site um can can can you supply um a copy of sure the plan board has it but I can forward it to you as well but that's just for them to service you as a customer correct but it's also it's reflects that they have an understanding that the project is taking place well my understanding of the way the town is supposed to work [Music] all right try now everything okay over there yeah it's not me I think it's me Mission so so just quickly uh my understanding of how the process in town works at least in an ideal world is the Board of Health has a rig for the applicant to do this environmental impact report which includes assessing contamination I mean you can read the rag it just says assess contamination and assess the hydro geologic impact on the wellfield or the zone 2 and so that's why I keep asking if if the health department pulled that trigger and that report has been done the water district uses that well part of their their I thought it was I thought it was just the opposite I thought that the health department uses the Water District's sop correct that's correct yeah yeah corre so so both both both statements are correct it's a little bit weird because the water department isn't part of the town it's a separate utility they so they don't have the town they rely the way they explained it they rely on the town rigs which are owned by the health department in this case but anyway the answer to the water district question is I understand it isn't I mean it's the right question for this commission to ask but as far as making something happen to assess that those Rags appear to be with health and and water district well I think the water water district answer the by had they had no concerns with the with the uh storm water management they didn't address anything with the uh with your concerns were inside the building that's outside of his Zone internal of the building is a separate pering process through the Board of Health that doesn't include the the water district intern build a trench what's that that's outside of Zone 2 the building well it doesn't discharge to the zone two so it wouldn't be addressed as part of the zone 2 that gets that gets permitted separately for trench train through the Board of Health but the groundwater protection Zone basically relies on input from the water district per their sop their standard operating procedure um that we have to follow and you know we'll basically meet with the water district and ensure as part of their aquafer that they're not concerned oh so so you still have yet to do that we have not engaged the board with the groundw protection Zone yet but but but the but the water district do you have anything you know in writing from them um just regarding their their agreement to for sale okay I think you need something from the water department to say there's no impact to the Zone too well that'll that'll come as part of the Board of Health process right so water district didn't notify you with a a written letter saying that they had no concerns with not we have not engaged the Board of Health process yet the Board of Health process well well Mark I think I think that's part of it as as Casey and I and your team reviewed this whole thing there's a whole bunch of those little questions that we should probably talk about offline but I would think this commission would want the results of that analysis right not that we have to do it but our mission is also to protect groundwater and it seems to me we should rely on the parts of town that have that in their RS stronger than we do I agree thought it was addressed yeah no but I guess where we anticipated this going was there would be a condition in the order that we must comply with the groundwater protection Zone order of the Board of Health so that we can allow the Board of Health to do their process which you know they have to engage the water district they're you know we have to work with the water district there and we have to basically satisfy all the board of Health's concerns if there are any um which will in turn address your condition which is doing the same thing so so when the planning board is part of this the site plan approval cor when they solicited um comments uh on the project from you know different town agencies and at different town departments did the water district submit any thing the water district only submitted their agreement with us that basically acknowledged that we want to do this project and how much water they would have to sell for us and then their rules and regulations for doing such okay so we need to um yeah I'll I'll work on that tomorrow okay uh okay so going forward what do we need we need a draft we need a draft of the omm right well the employee the employee handbook yeah that's the main thing I'd like to see um at this point i' still also like to have uh some time some more time to review the most recent submission could the draft of the employee handbook be addressed as we're going to submit that and then have the meeting with you prior to construction or prior to occupancy uh it could be although although believe that's what we discussed at the meeting on Monday um I thought I thought I thought we were going to at least again get some bullet points of the sorts of things that would be included in the handbook it would it would I think it would be nice to have at least some sort of idea you know uh at least conceptually of what is going to be in the handbook and we don't have to you know drill down to all of the details right now but um I mean here's the challenge our our our job is to ensure groundwater quality it's kind of hard to do that if you don't know the details of how the facility is going to be operated if the applicant has said that they're and promised that they're going to include and if you can condition that they're going to incl include the ltpp and the onm that's the extent of storm water that's going to be in the employee handbook so as long as you know this the omm and the ltpp are revised as as required then that if we're saying that's going to be in the employee handbook and it's conditioned as such and we have to have a meeting with you ahead of time I don't know what else you want to see so so so he doesn't already have a handbook he hasn't already done this in the past not for this site specifically well his project hasn't been approved so if I he doesn't own the site do it yet either yeah that's the problem the challenge I agree with that it's he he doesn't want to invest a lot of money in a handbook that a project that might get declined so I I just thought he he might have had one from other sites but well that's true cuz he does run other facilities he said we're pushing this they're not site specific push a little bit so it sounds like to me though what I think I'm hearing here the question is do we want to move forward here with any kind of a a vote on on the application with some conditions or do we want to wait until we see for ourselves some of the things that we would put into that condition and that's kind I think that's what I'm hearing and one option question that I was leaning towards was to close the hearing up tonight not take any action but allow time for our a to be able to go through the final I heard you hadn't gone through been able to go through the final I I I I I I would really need the hearing to be to be kept open just to review the latest submission so I think we need that then I mean you know and we have the Water District Health Department question is there more information on water quality I mean I'd like to you know I'd like to see something from the water district says they have no questions or concerns period that would make me feel more comfortable well again couldn't that be addressed as part of a condition of this that you will receive that prior to any occup or prior to any construction because that's going to be taken care of as part of a future process that the choun's own Board of Health has yeah I mean I know it's been done that way in the past but the problem is we would like to have input in other words just receiving that letter I mean it could be a clean letter I guess that word's been used before but if that letter says whoops we have problems then it doesn't do us any good to get it after the fact well well but then I think what you're proposing is that the hearing be kept open until the board of health study is done I think so and you also have the planning board Aqua for protection permit that I don't know if we know the status of that either I don't well that status is they were contemplating voting at the last meeting but then held it open just to receive the omm and you just said you wanted to see the need yeah you need the time I need some additional time to review the latest submiss I think very least I'm thinking we have someone who wants to speak from the the public but on top of that I think we're looking at continuing this for um the purposes of allowing our agent to do some more research and for us to maybe our connection with the water district to get some kind of uh movement on the Water District to know directly that hey the Water District's okay they don't have concerns also the Board of Health uh at least to get a better read on when that might happen but I would like to be able to close this up too soon yes yeah y I'm with you I'm with you so in the interest of letting the public speak um um Casey if you could let our guest here hello thank you lari Meers 7 Pine Hill Avenue um so thank you for time on this um I know there has been a lot of thought put into this and and we really appreciate it um 59 trees still being removed um close to the highway um that's doesn't seem like anything there is going to change um but I do appreciate Casey's work on that um the board of health environmental uh impact report um from an engineering firm I know that you have addressed that so I look forward to seeing that as well I did read the Board of Health regulations um and it doesn't appear that you know that's a something that that should be avoided or can be avoided and I hope uh the Board of Health will take um some action on that um you know no and correct me if I'm wrong they will be in in ground storage tanks containing oil antifreeze gas um that that comes from you know these drains inside the car wash um that's going into a tank into the ground in a Zone to acfer protection Zone even though I keep mixing up the the language on that um so is that is that true there's a tank that goes into the so where does it go where is so when it drains off where is that going from inside Car Wash how about how about if you finish your questions I apologize Y no problem if you have more questions let them let them go and and finish up and then we'll have case resp okay so I'm I'm just I just want some clarification on that this is not my area of expertise um the chemical storage issues um I can tell you right now that was not in the original plan it was not presented to the storm water folks they don't know the the type of chemicals that will be stored on site um you know if there's and I think they should be aware of that I mean that given given the area you know we have the river river medow Brook the hillbrook right behind there you know there's a lot at stake here um the chemicals they all have different cleanup recommendations some are flammable all are are are very harmful if they're if they go into the water um nothing within the documentation mentions that they're past free so thank you for bringing that up as well um um not all the chemicals are listed you know I I get the you know the reasons for that that manufacturers do that um the one pager on the the the storage and cleanup spills I hear there will be training there will be handbook you know there's it it's just concerning you know I'm hearing a spill kit you know I mean the the so the protection from a a spill on site in a Zone 2 araer protection area is you know basically a a sham wow you know there there that that does not give me Comfort and that should not give you comfort as well um again boards talking to each other you know I'm hearing the planning board they they really want to they really want to get going on this they're you know they're antsy they want to get this past um that's concerning you know the the rush to get this through um once those spills are cleaned up where are they going in the dumpster there's a spill inside the fac facility in the dumpster you know we all know that dumpsters are not waterproof so I I really have questions around chemicals um so I know I've you know th thrown a lot at you um and I appreciate your time and and you know you've all been very responsive to me um so I look forward to hearing your your responses thank you Casey if you want to address whatever you can attempt to to address the questions as they came in um so uh to attempt to address at least my understanding of the first question which was what happens to everything internal of the building so what happens is it goes into the internal trench strains of the building uh the that building then runs through the recirculation tanks which is what feeds the water back into the building um it then goes into an oil grit separator which is just required as part of any internal floor drain going to a sewer um and then from that oil grit separation which is a closed tank watertight um it then just goes directly to the the sewer which goes out to lull um the all the chemicals are internal of the site of the building so anything that um is basically kept if it were spilled it would go through the same exact procedure as if it were used um it goes into the trench strains through the recirculation oil grit and out um it does not come into contact at any point with the aquifer unless it was spilled outside of the facility if it's filled out if it's spilled outside of the facility there's still several spill protections that are in place all of the catch basins have hoods as are required to so basically any floatables can't get through uh the storm water system if there's a spill uh there's a spill basically um a spill response action which is basically you have to clean out the catch base and make sure that it's all and it's all locally and uh you know state federal regulated for how to handle these chemicals so if there is a spill even inside this the building uh you can't just throw it in the dumpster you have to follow the proc proper procedures on how to basically um get rid of it um I do want to just address um that that I wouldn't say the planning board is ansy to get this approved it's been in their hands for four months five months um so it's not really a huge rush they're just I think they feel like they've had all the information that they that they asked for so I believe that they feel um as long as the other the commission and the Board of Health are uh we're going to go to the Board of Health as long as that's all set they feel like they have the information they need to make an informed decision okay thank you can I can I just respond just quickly just for general knowledge one very good example if there is a spill and the stuff is soaked up in spill kits and thrown in the dumpster and it rains and you know whatever that whole scenario that uh M Myers mentioned um is exactly what we've been asking for in the onm plan and our jurisdiction is the stormwater handbook that's a good example the stormwater handbook says the onm plan needs to have specific procedures for Good Housekeeping is the general term and and Casey we talked about that the other day so I'm hoping that the plan you developed is giving specific procedures for Good Housekeeping which would address some of these comments about what you do when there's a spill and what do you do with the stuff that has posos in it um so again I haven't seen what you guys wrote but to me that is within our jurisdiction the part about chemical storage inside the building go I go back to the health department rig I don't think that's it affects what we're trying to do but that's kind of like you said gone too far a field I think from this commission even though it does matter it's not our really are so there's a lot lot of those issues still hanging here okay thank you okay I think we've any any anybody else from the public that wants to speak okay so I will take a motion to continue I move that we continue this meeting to our next Conservation Commission meeting which is April 23rd motion from Chris second from Bill in favor wait a minute discussion any discussion okay what are we asking him for to deliver to us for the next meeting so that we can close this or move or whatever we to do well I don't know if we're asking for anything what I heard bill was that that our agent needs some time to review the latest submissions so we need that to Happ definitely need that and and and I can and then I can continue to draft the order of conditions and and a draft of the work of the employee handbook even if it's a early draft well I'm hearing that he doesn't want to do that thought there was a draft like chapters well what I can give you is the the tit I can forward it to you right after this meeting I have it in my email it's just what the title is going to be example chapters that'll be included which basically includes the omm the ltpp we've said we're going to do that we can condition it that way um the one thing I do want to address is the Board of Health process the reason why we haven't engaged that is because that can get costly depending on how they want to approach it so we wanted to have some semblance of whether or not approvals would be received before investing money into that process because an environmental investigation can get costly and quickly um so that's the reason we haven't gone through that process yet because we don't want to all this money if it gets turned down that stages that could happen prior to that yeah and then the third thing was the you said you had a manufacturer certification on which I believe I've actually submitted if I haven't submitted to the commission i' definitely submit it to plan board but I believe I did submit that to the commission at the very early beginnings of this when it was first brought up um it was just a letter from the vendor that basically promised or certified that there's no past within their product okay let me let me go back and and look for that and if I haven't I'll go back to the plan board stuff ask for it again uh why don't you just send I'll just I'll go back to the David would you have the order conditions ready at the next meeting uh I I should be able to have a draft yeah I like that idea bill you know getting that draft ready so we can look at that next meeting I don't want to over tax you what you have to do but no no I think that's reasonable I mean I again I can't guarantee it's going to be the absolute final that's why we want to talk about it I want to review it right right but yeah I can I'll get you a letter from CW from Chums of water district so that'd be good get that all this stuff who is what is the entity that's going to be responsible for this in the town for what compliance on on the yeah on on the o andm the there's two there's we have to submit all storm water onm to the DPW as part of our approvals with them through planning board and then it's also a condition in David's order that's going to say that we have to submit them to him as well Mark at the risk of like blowing everything up um they do have to get I believe a land disturbance permit from DPW which is part of our somewhat new stormw water rags and in those DPW Rags once again are all of the same storm water on andm questions we just raised okay so we need to do some internal coordination so we're not making the applicant like doesn't get push in the closet and left there no because that that also requires a storm water pollution prevention plan that takes you through construction as well so we'll basically have the construction cover and then also post construction and occupancy covered at that point and believe I've been working very hard to coordinate closely with DPW on issues good question bill I like it okay okay so I think we know what the deliverables are we have a motion we have a second from I second Bill all in favor I I motion passed Casey thank you very much appreciate it okay next one up take a break uh that's okay yeah sure let's um got a request to take a five minute break I know it's getting late but um let's take five minutes we will start right sharply at 9:15 we'll start back up e e e e e e e e e all right let's get started here we are now uh we are now uh up to the notice of intent continued for 93 Brick hillan Road yep and um representing the applicant John Higgins with Higgins environmental I met you the last time I'm here Mr Higgins with Ender from DND and Brian from Hancock and Rich uh from LC may be on Zoom have any questions for us okay so I know that we had the planning board was getting a site assessment peer reviewed um there's also we have peer rreview on storm water on this uh I that's been complete completed I think um I I I I I believe there may still be some um remaining concerns about the uh the off pavement storage of uh snow storage so I think we'll probably hear about that that uh from the members of the public but uh I you know I I think mainly what's going on right now is is is the peer review of Mr hegan's uh report by the planning board or by their consultant so I'm a little confused what are we looking for well um what what I was thinking um was that may that maybe the commission wants to keep the hearing open pending the completion of the peer review yeah okay um you know particularly as it might potentially uh impact uh storm water on on the other hand if Mr Higgins and Brian says no no no there's no way storm water can ever be um you know impacted by that maybe you know that's not a consideration I'll go back to the last applicant do we have any letters from the water departments concerning any issue with pasas and if this if it's an issue for them nope um but but I but I think it may be the sort of the same situation as with the last hearing was that the Board of Health or or or still the environmental impact report has to be done for the Board of Health no if I if I could yeah okay so just a quick update so yes we did after our meeting with you we met with the planning board uh they had some concerns that we talked about uh for a while and we also met with the Board of Health last week uh and the the water District um I had early on met with with Brandon and Lisa and they did Issue a letter saying no further actions you know with conditions that the properties connected to Municipal sewer you know holistic use of any herbicides pesticide kind of General practices uh the Board of Health had no other typ no other conditions other than just a normal conditions about some kind of annual report of how we do things once a year um so so we met with the planning board they had some questions uh and we tried to address those as best we were able to uh and we met with the Board of Health they had no other questions and you have a letter from the the water district and and just in summary we did early on they met with the Board of Health and developed a hydrologic assessment uh and environmental testing of the property which was completed and I got involved to review that data as LSP well it would be nice to know why then the planning board is requiring a peer review of your report well I don't actually know I mean I understand what their I I understand what their what their questions were David but but they actually aren't consistent with the storm water management handbook so the the question they had was on so they recognize that where the zone 2 boundary is and where our wells are because we had a map that we could show them and their their primary point of focus and this is just a summary for them I have a is was mw1 which is one of our upgradient well it had concentrations of pasas that were below the reportable concentrations for that area but the question they posed to us was and if this is what they're actually looking for peer review assistance was uh is um whether's expected increased spread of contamination into Zone 2 due to infiltration and thus plans should be adequate as is that's kind of the one thing so so if there's no expected increase to contamination the plans as is should be fine and the second part is kind of the alternate of that if if there is a risk of increase spread of contamination into Zone 2 then maybe relocate some or all the infiltration would be recommended and so I I spoke to them for for a while and I don't want to you know that contamination has a definition under the massachus contingency plan as well as the storm water management handbook so we're not within the zone two and what what the storm water management handbook does is that for some really and this is actually how I'll read actually what it says if there are some areas of contamination that can be considered Near The Zone 2 if if they have this this it's a dis a discharge is near a critical area if there is a strong likelihood of significant impact occurring to set area taking into account SES specific factors and I talked about that for a while and and later on D the storm water management handbook actually says Mass DP recognizes that on some sites there is a risk that infiltrating the required discharge volume because it's part of the storm water management may cause or contribute to groundwater contamination uh consequent consequently they required this maximum extent of infiltration to the extent practicable um specifically first areas that are classified as contaminated which is this is not and it goes on to say where contamination has been kept in place where there has been an activity and use limitation none of those things apply here and then later on they say or sites near a location of a solid waste landfill none of those things apply here so the tenant of their question and to request an LSP review it doesn't meet the classification of contaminated by Rags so recognize their their concern as as we've gone through with each of the boards today including the Board of Health yourself and the water district but so what is the peer review going to look for well that's the question they had so they developed their own their own questions and you know so there is no expected increased spread of contamination into the zone two due to infiltration and thus the plans would be adequate as is so if there's no expected increase everything's fine and the second part is if there's a risk of increased spread of contamination into the zone 2 which is about 100 feet away from mw1 uh due to upgrade infiltration we should Rec considerer relocation of some are all the infiltration galleries of which there's five infiltration galleries spread across around the as you as you folks all know okay so so if I could just add um uh I was not involved in the planning board's decision so I can't really speak for the planning board but just as an environmental engineer it's actually simpler to me there's two things going on you've got the rigs that were developed to for us as a guideline and I think you're you're referring to the the RS and but the second question that really isn't addressed very well in the rags you're changing so let me make it simpler there clearly is a source of posos on the site or you wouldn't have found it in the groundwater so the question I think that's being asked is once you change the hydrology of the site know that you're going from a wooded site where the trees absorbs groundwater or rain water now you're Paving it and changing how the water percolates through that sort of P so I think the technical question forget the RS the technical question is since you're changing the whole site hydrology because you're changing the whole site are you going to be drawing more posos out of that source and somehow transporting that into the wells the drinking water wells and you know that's not I mean you you you it's not an easy question to answer but I think that's a simple at least the way my brain looks at this fundamental question there's a part of it I can answer too so that's the source part no indication that there's a source here commercial or industrial which should be orders of magnitude greater than like what I would consider to be almost a background this is our hydraulically upgrading well um and the concentrations we have here are well is the 40 million well below the pest levels that are in this area so this is what you would expect to find is background so you can't exacerbate background because it's cons it just all around you it's like the air you breathe you can't blow it and expect better quality or Worse quality to come in behind you right and and one question I have Carl is and I don't know what the I don't know the scope of the Board of Health and the chelsford water work but the way the Board of Health regg for the environmental report reads is to do a hydrogeologic study which in my mind should answer these questions I but I'm not familiar enough with how they actually do that process so maybe we could look into that a little bit while we let the planning board process play out but it sounds like you've already been through the Board of Health process yeah we've been through the Board of Health we've been through the water district and uh if you have any questions on the hydro Geo that's my that's my area as in LSP as well um you do know which way to groundwater is traveling yeah so we talked about this actually in the Conservation Commission so you know it's it's that it's actually it's Board of Health but so essentially the property is like a half Circle and and the center part is all Upland bedrock and basically it's dry there's no water there it's like dry Rock and you have a perimeter around the property which also has uh surface water around the perimeter as well and so you have this interplay of surface water coming in which is you know technically groundwater when it's in the soil but it's just this direct feedback that we have and if you look at those locations it shows hydrog loic Hydro geocycle did a a a uh a groundwater flow map it was like ground um um it was um a modeled flow path basically the nearest point two nearest points basically so okay and it showed it flowing from the Uplands toward the Wetland on the Northern side and then as you move toward the center uh southern side and Eastern side it was flowing southeasterly which is actually consistent with the direction of surface water flow it's a riverine wetland um which is toward the South Southeast that's where that conquered River Basin is that the direction that we head well eventually it goes that way so I mean it's the middle sex Canal that's that's where it flows it doesn't hasn't changed since then although that that that's been I don't even know if that's really in but it it goes toward the conquer eventually that's that's where it goes so it doesn't go toward the well it does if you look at a map on like a micro scale and that's the terms I used but on a larger scale one thing there's no water flowing from the dry Bedrock behind where the the groundw flow is shown there's no water flow that way it's just kind of draining back with that into the Wetland back and then toward the southeast but but this is my point for this commission I would expect I haven't seen it but I would expect this h Hydro geost study that's part of the Board of Health to look at that very question MH and I think again I'm don't quote me in this but I think basically the water flow the groundwater flows to L not towards the well and if that's documented MH in this I think that's what that Board of Health Report in my mind would would would do and then it would make this commission's job a lot easier if we had that information that's actually part of my report Peter if I don't if if I can that's part of my my LSP evaluation opinion through all my supporting data review stuff in there if you're looking for it that's where you can find it okay yeah so I mean all that kind of went into the comments I made at our last hearing but it doesn't sound like the board of health is going to require anything more at this point right no they're not well I mean they'll have like they expect to get annual reports of you know I expect to see a letter saying here's our conditions but there was nothing else required they were sticking to the rules and regulations which is how they termed it um but I did like everyone else I spent we spent time summarizing what we've done what our findings are and answering questions that we're able to um it's part of our D andd team here of people professionals was there a board of health environmental study well how about a simple motion there was yeah yeah how about a see that yeah how about a simple motion that we ask our agent to collect the Board of Health info and then see what the planning board's up to on that plan to do the peer review see I'd like to just close the hearing up tonight I think I've heard enough honestly but that just be but you can make your motion could do that either way I thought I would like to hear public input though before we did too much sorry I well I I see one of our usual suspects uh I mean that in a good way in a good way right um Ruth L let's take uh uh comments from the public thanks Ruth Luna ten Carter Drive um I just wanted to say on that that the um the numbers that you're talking about on this site are basically the same numbers as we're also talking about on 270 bulla Road that's why I first started looking at it and that's why I raised questions last week the difference is on Buria Road that's in zone two this is just outside of Zone 2 which is an an approximate line it looks to be about um 90 ft up gradient from from The Zone 2 line and the question what was prompting it is on the other side 15 ft further up gradient from that is the one of the large infiltration basins and so the question is what happens when you route water through there that that's not been the normal pattern of groundwater movement are you moving it toward this imprecise line that if it were located in that area it would be a reportable concentration so saying it here it's not reportable you move it a little bit that level would be reportable and we've already been at the verge of having had too high of a past level so like was earlier said about the car wax I think that we do want to look at it so that's at least I I can't speak for the planning board but that's my understanding of part of why they're wanting it peer reviewed as far as because you're changing how the groundwater is moving with the infiltration and with such a large one and I I think they all Al asked the a question of whether additional testing is needed to identify what's going on there and then the the comment on the snow storage it was just something I I had been um looking at um some earlier files and I had noticed on another site um where um um for 243 riverneck so that might be coming up for you at some point I noticed that one of the conditions that was asked for by the commission as a settlement on that was that they said that there any snow that is not stored in parking areas they wanted removed from the site they didn't want any plowing toward Wetlands they didn't want any snow stored on planted areas um they wanted any snow that stayed on site to go into the storm water management system so I I sent the wording of that to all of you as far as I didn't know if that was something you wanted to be considering as either a standard condition or as a condition to use on sites that for whatever reason are more environmentally sensitive and so just to be clear that was um a condition from years ago yes okay I'm okay now I'm following and if I could just add something quickly so uh there there is uh I noticed there is a standard condition um and I don't know whether whether it ultimately originated from that project not but it it does say that um all storms greater snow from all storms greater than 6 in shall be uh removed off site so I mean that sounds kind of like what you're saying um that that that condition has already been included in a couple of conditions that this commission has issued since I've been here your concern was runoff I mean if I were on the commission I'm um I would want to wait until I know that is the storm water going to have to have a change or not I mean it's not like it's going to hold up a permit cuz the planning board is waiting for that answer so but that's just my opinion Ruth was was your concern runoff on is that what your concern was the in the run the snow when the snow when you said it's uh uh build out material plan regularly inspect vertical that's not where it is but you talked about stirring snow you didn't want to see it on site and it was going to be taken off site when David brought in that other over 6 in uh yeah that's the first time I mentioned that um that was going no I was I was citing an earlier condition that I saw the commission had used that they had requested the include in a final decision um and I thought that it made sense as far as as at least on sites that you have environmental concern as far as since snow the snow melt is a contaminated water source that you would want to be sure it's getting treated if it's staying there as opposed to just having it go straight in the ground and so that's I thought it made sense when I saw the condition so I just wanted to put it out there for you to be considering um on any sites that you think you need to have that level of concern you're asking the the tenant to clean his water but the town's dropping salt everywhere I don't I don't understand what the purpose of this is just a just a thought okay and and not to belor the point but all of the uh highways that's what I'm talking about the highways of it's all straight salt now there's no sand at all no sand I could maybe some one of her questions in terms of groundwater flow so the groundwater flow direction is limited as it is wouldn't change it would still flow outward from the Upland dry area of Bedrock toward the surface water Wetland which it does now the gradient might increase a bit but you know this part of this is management of storm water is to equally distribute it and maintain as much as we can on the property which is what what they proposed to do um so but I think I think the main point I was hearing and and maybe I misunderstood but I think what I heard Ruth saying was that you know it to the extent that that the the zone two line is arbitrary youve you you you you've got reportable concentrations um very very close to to that and and and sort of um you're saying you're saying they're not reportable but but I mean the the the difference in in the physical locations to some extent maybe just arbitrary so I mean can can you can you address yeah z z are not arbitrary well there's a there's it's just and the analogy I gave was it's kind of like roads that have speed limits you know we're doing 50 miles an hour the speed limits 55 and that's set based upon like a similar kind of logic to like the zone two boundaries line of sight road condition proximity of residences there's all these kind of criteria hydraulic permeability the gradient foundary conditions for geology and you know if you're driving 50 then you know how can you hypothetically say well what happens if you drive 65 why you wouldn't be following the rules in that instance speed limit but you know we can't change the geology and the limits are set based upon State methods for determining those I haven't reviewed those to determine if they're correct but I I think they're they did follow the rules they have to be approved by the state so they're not arbitrary there State approved Zone 2 limits and and and chelmsford's acord Protection District adopted those same limits so that you know that was your opportunity to to look at it you know yeah and and and David it's even more complicated my understanding which is kind of limited but my understanding I had this validated with the chelsford water district on a different project a year ago we're not necessarily drawing drinking water from the entire Zone to that's not what that means means that's like a potential and so that's the other question that's why I keep coming back to these Health Department Hydro Geo studies we want to know under the current permitted water withdrawal of our town Wells is it drawing from what part of the Zone too and our Rags don't address that our Rags just force us to look at Olive Zone too so it's there's a lot more to that for another day so I see uh another member of the public who also happens to be maybe coincidentally a member of of the planning board yeah Joel Aluna associate member of the planning board the only reason I got up to comment is because the disc David's question um and no Zone zone two boundaries are not arbitrary but they are a general approximation just like you delineate wet Wetlands on every application that comes before you but there are Wetland maps that exist so there are there already designated Wetland areas but because those are General sorts of designations that are made that you want them specifically delineated to know what are the specific Wetlands on the site so in this case this Zone 2 was established through you know however means they establish a Weston Samson I think designated The Zone twos I don't remember exactly it was done a while ago and in this particular case because of the proximity of this well the direct gradient towards the zone 2 and the knowledge that the zone 2 was not necessarily specifically known then it raised for us a question and also because you're concentrating water in infiltration UPG gradient which is a higher concentration of water than it is currently now because you're putting in a very large infiltration bed we're just taking the water from the whole subcat area and infiltrating in that particular place upgradient of this well where you've got identified pasas that is then subsequent upgradient of the zone 2 was the cause for the concern and that's why there was a vote a 4 to three for the peer review so whether you want to hold your meeting open so we get the results of that or whether you don't that's up to you but for us it was a concern we want it answered that's very helpful thank you Joel I I do have one part if I could add to that so the stone water uh so past are soluble in water this is not a source and the water that's going to be introduced there should be past free and much cleaner so we're not pushing it with a higher load we're not causing or contributing which is another metric under the storm water handbook to the contamination that's there which which seems to be a background for that area um and you know as as Peter says it's the zone 2 boundary is includes a larger area down gradient of that well um that's you know not part of where this flows it's flow's not going to the well the answer is it's complicated yeah yeah but we also have the planning board is chasing it so um so then the question becomes do we want to close this hearing um Chris I heard you mention that um I'm looking around to see what you guys have well if we close it we David we have what 21 days to put out the permit conditions so that's part of that question are we ready to put out permit conditions without knowing the results of some of these other activities I I don't have an answer to that I'm just asking question do you have a recommendation here um well on the SP I was I was I was more or less assuming we we the commissioner do the same thing with this hearing as the other um was to maybe keep it keep it open one more time while I draft um conditions similar to the previous hearing yeah yeah I mean makesense there certainly will be common common conditions they won't all be exactly the same right let's do that you be able to do that by the next meeting um try your best should we're stacking them up here yeah true like true and and there new fil is coming in all the time but uh okay all right then I I think that's a reasonable approach it's consistent um yeah I make a motion then we'll hear we'll hear more information in the meantime and you'll be able to put that together yeah so we'll be voting next meeting probably almost certainly yeah yeah so you going to be back from your trip then I don't know maybe not okay so I'll make a motion then that we continue to our next meeting and that we have our agent come up with draft order of conditions for us to review then okay motion from Chris second second discuss any further discussion so so so going back to what Peter was asking for so so um I mean I I could I could request all of those reports from the Board of Health but you you could you already have them actually that's in my in my I was haa report um you said I thought you said I thought you said there was also a groundwater model modeling analysis no the groundwater Contours yeah they use they use um Surfer it's a it's a groundwater modeling they don't they don't include the model just it's displayed on the map is that included in your court as well the map the map of the groundwater Contours that Hydro geocycle prepared is included in the map that's the output of the model but it is a um um nearest neighbor modeling so two points and then it just linearly interpolates okay so so your report is everything the Board of Health has yeah and now there are two one has all the lab data so you may not I think the Board of Health is the one with all the lab data so if if you need that I can provide one but the report that's out there before the commission is has the hydro Geo cycle in my own assessment uh in there so I just have a question if I can y go ahead okay they do the peer review the uh planning boards as a peer review we found out we find something out from that what's the the next move would be to move the infiltration basins is that what the outcome of that would be or something something like what well I think it's a hypothetical question I don't think it's appropriate well it's CU you're looking at I think a background condition or up from an upgrade radient Source in that area I where you going to move it to it's it's not going to make things worse that's my whole point we're going down the with yeah everything's a science project here where we're yeah we're going around in circles well you can n degree like split the difference between Wells I know we're going around in circles I'm not saying I'm saying with all these different opinions everybody can have an opinion the peerreview could have a different opinion than you whose opinion do we you go by you go by mine right so it's true it's true we could go on for I but no I I have I I have a huge amount of respect for the lp program and but but having said that you've you've also got we've gone through the Board of Health the water district which is not typical uh that we get that feedback as well in other towns um and yourself uh and and and they actually did do a hydrologic assessment of what historically was a residential property this this is not and I think one of the cleaner type of Residential Properties I've seen and I'm just saying we need to decide one way or another what we're going to do with this project instead of beating it to death every meeting we beat it to death we do have a motion I'm sorry I want to keep moving okay there discussion with the motion I'm having a discussion so I want to make sure that we put this thing to bed at some point in my lifetime feel healthy done no more questions for me no more questions a motion the and it includes the uh the continuing with allowing David to write up the order of conditions draft and we'll review at the next meeting uh all in favor I I oppose none thank you thank you thanks sorry yeah no it's all good it's all good next one notice of intent this is continued from March 12th property possible 10 hildr Street and um hello Brian uh good evening for the record Brian goodro with Hancock Associates along with David cow uh our senior colist also with ancock so very brief before I turn it over to David uh we were kind of tasked with two a couple of different things one was to flag the Vernal pool that was conducted um this week Dave can um dive into what he saw out there and and where the flags are additionally um my office uh we hung flags and are locating the trees within kind of the buffer from the limit of work on Lots four and five so that we could show that on the updated plan we also conducted additional soil testing for the new location the storm water management system underneath the culdesac um we did that on Friday the results were witnessed by DP W I had let David know that we were heading out there uh and the results of that testing was consistent with all of our original testing from storm water from the septic systems in Title 5 so there were no surprises we will be revising the plan set to indicate those those testing logs but we're not materially changing the storm water design and then lastly um we it was requested that we uh share the natural heritage habitat kind of restoration plan we sent that to David as well last Friday and um Dave cow had kind of gone over that in in some level of detail last hearing but you didn't have the plan before you now you have the plan um so I will turn it over to David to kind of tie dive into uh those couple couple items sure thank you Brian for the record David Cowell senior at colleges with Hancock Associates um yeah to provide update uh I did get out and I flagged the extent of the uh Vernal pool habitat out there based on um limit of standing water that would retain water for 6 to 8 weeks um the flags did at some points coincide with the bordering vegetated Wetland Flags but at no point did I find any locations that were beyond the extent of what we had already flagged out there um those flags I imagine are going to be picked up via survey and located sometime in the following week um as Brian implied we had flagged the trees that would be um uh proposed for removal and uh I did provide an introduction to the um where we stand with natural heritage is that natural heritage to this point has um said they were comfortable with our footprint of of development this goes back to the the loss of that six lot but um one of their um conditions that they have for us is that we need to provide them with the habitat um enhancement protection plan which we um have uh under review by them um I went over it in some detail at the last meeting um but you guys hadn't had privy to view it ahead of the meeting um I can go over it again with you guys tonight if you'd like me to go over the the merits of that if uh you have it available to pull up on screen well is there I'm I'm confused so there's another plan coming from natural heritage or not coming from natural heritage coming from us two natural heritage so don't shouldn't we just wait and look at that plan when it's available um well but but have you received anything in writing from natural heritage yeah we've received the the the there there's still in review of this um plan but they did affirm that yes you're you're you're at the point at which we would permit this if you gave us the restoration plan um uh Turtle protection plan which is standardized we talked about that it's premature to to put that together now but that's expected that's routine of any of these projects well so so has that um information writing from natural heritage been given to the commission I don't recall we we have that via email um from Lauren Glorioso okay because because I believe the regulations WP regulations say that the commission can't issue an approval until we receive something in writing from natural heritage approving that's right the plan that's right so we haven't seen that yet okay any idea when we'll see it I don't know I I know that natural heritage has affirmed this to date natural heritage is currently in review of the the restoration plan that we had provided you and we're waiting on that that that official finding from them okay y you're right I mean I find it a challenge you know you you kindly showed us out on the site and we've been looking at this for a long time but I've been waiting for this natural heritage feedback for a long time well looks like we'll be waiting a while longer so well that's you know we don't control that but right I know I don't know how much time we all want to spend until we see what's in writing uh so if I may uh we are waiting for that approval letter but we have submitted the plan that we submitted to natural heritage to this Commission last Friday so if there's any sort of discussion that the commission like to have any kind of additional mitigation now is the time to do that no because no excuse me we can't we need to talk about this internally but I can't I can't do my job when I get the data you know two days three days before this hearing so we can't have that conversation I can't have that conversation tonight I haven't looked at it and what happened David I don't know what happened I sent you a note about this but I think that plan you're referring to was emailed to this commission like I don't know Friday night or Monday morning but it was a link that didn't work oh it wasn't displaying on some on the screen right now well I don't know I couldn't see what was sent to me I don't I don't know if it was I I I from my point of view from my point of view I don't have access to this plan did anyone else have that problem what I certainly what I intended to send was the the PDF of this plan understand that there was some your email I could show you after but you know I looked at it three times and gave you a call but missed you but uh well anyway my only point is I don't you know you're putting me in a bad spot as a commissioner in general to ask give me two or three days as a volunteer to review a complicated plan that's all I'm [Applause] saying so um I'm not seeing it either David um you're not seeing it either but you know I mean you I you know you guys got to agree you get something Friday afternoon three days over the weekend to review a plan in our critical habitat yes I agree with that that isn't working yeah we've been waiting for this one so so I just want to confirm so so the so the entire perimeter of the Vernal pool has been delineated um yes it is yeah there's uh there there is an opening where it hydrologically continues on to the abing property well beyond the extent of what I felt comfortable delineating um there's a series of 17 flags that goes around full circle concentric there is an opening between butland 114 and 115 which has it's not a closed feature that it it does continue on to that property yeah um so so um and and and and I want to again say again to the commission because this is in the regulations in the BW regulations the commission is allowed to take into consideration cumulative impacts so that means the Upland habitat around the entire pool around the entire delineated pool is going to have to be mapped as well not just in the area that's being proposed for development in my opinion that's how I interpret the regulations well they say that cumulative impacts right are bylaw can I bill yeah Bill uh so you you delated the the ver pools how far to those two houses what's the buffer I it's no different than the buffer zone that's shown on the plan now it's no closer it's no closer the in the I went by it the other uh Sunday all the trees that are with the yellow uh ribbon around those to come down yes that's okay the orange orange the orange the orange tape yeah around the trees is so that is as the limit of work line is shown right now on the plan obviously we've taken into consideration commentary from the commission the public we are looking to revise that limit of work line when we issue a new plan that shows the Vernal pool flagging um so we'll be able to explain what it what it looks like where we had X number of trees being proposed to be cut currently um we'll be able to definitively say how many it is is with the revised plan so Brian with the Vernal pool and the the buffer that they Upland buffer of that Vernal pool say it's 100 foot buffer no disturbance how does that affect those two houses so if it was 100 foot of no disturbance um we'd have to wholesale think both of those lots I'm sorry we we would have to rethink both of those lots if that was 100 foot no disturbance but it is but it's correct the the local BW does not have 100 foot no disturbance extending around vernals it maintains the 25 ft no disturb 30 foot no impervious 50 fot no build but the bylaw protects the Upland habitat well that's my concern is the the habitat you know for the you know for the species in there that Upland habitat that's that's a concern that needs to be addressed but we first have to map it we have to map the existing and proposed um and and also as I say the existing around the entire perimeter of the pool understood so and and and I would like to remind everybody that the existence of these Verno pools was not part of our couple first hearings so this is in my mind a new issue I mean not today but in the last whatever few weeks in ins significant and well it's an EV because of the the natural heritage mapping of endangered species but it's also our core habitat it's that same thing we're talking about earlier yep and and that is we are directed by our town bylaw to consider in fact we have the authority to ask you our bylaw for a wildlife study of our own but there's a fair amount to think about here David do you have a recommendation um well I think I think we uh we need we need to see once once the veral pool delineation has been um mapped and put on a plan I need to go out and review that um and then and then we can uh I think at that same time also uh review or or at least start to review the extent of the Upland habitat see if we can reach agreement on that um and then and then then you know look at it sounds like you're sounds like you're going to revise the location of the houses we're looking at increasing the buffer okay so so then so then so then again we look we we look at the existing um uh a planned habitat versus the loss the proposed loss and and and how and how that figures in to the cumulative loss around the whole perimeter of the Vernal pool that's that's happened you know over over the years I mean again my my interpretation is the Bogue gives us the author gives the commission the authority to do that so we if that's not understood we can talk about that more detail and not not to make it complicated but weren't some of the Lawns proposed to be in the 50 Foot no build Zone on on the W land itself right right now so you're rethinking the house let's I throw that out there just so I don't surprise anybody with throwing that Comet out there down the road and don't want to don't want to drag this out no but we but I think we need to get it right and you know it it is a little complicated were we waiting I'm so you guys well there was one other we're talking about the whole big picture um somebody mentioned something to me I hadn't really thought about is changing the hydrology of the site affecting the Vernal pool and I don't know if you want to bring that up or not but you know there's a resident photo of some of these Lots as I understand it being under a couple feet of water and there's other testimony or comments from residents that when other development happened up above it changed some of the water flowing through the site and we know that can impact the Vernal pool and that's also protected that that's a legitimate concern uh in fact um I guess shouldn't be a problem with me saying that uh the the next day after the last hearing where where the concern was raised about the change in hydrology to the Vernal pool uh the town engineer called me said that's absolutely correct the hydrology of that Vernal pool is going to be uh impacted he he told me that he would write that up uh in uh in a letter in in in correspondence so so um you know I think I think at this point I probably would recommend to the commission that that needs be quantitatively analyzed you know H how how how much is the hydrology going to be uh impacted uh now again maybe maybe there'll be some slight changes if the locations of the houses are going to be uh changed um but you know I I think that's the possibility that and and excuse me Bri is probably a good time too just to throw on the table um DPW does have to issue a land disturbance permit those Rags have pages of things about storm water and whatnot and so you know I know that in your mind it's Brian it's probably a separate permitting process but it relates to what we're trying to do here so I think it's good if you're talking with the town engineer because because again I'm not trying to make this harder for the applic yeah and and I and I don't think again I don't think the town engineer is going to quantify anything I just I think he's probably I mean we'll wait and see what the letter is but I think he's going to I think he's going to say yeah the the amount of water going amount of surface water going into that pool is going to be reduced and then I think we'll have to understand from you Brian is you know quantify that how much is it being reduced how is that going to affect the mean annual high water level and hydrop period of the Vernal pool correct so that information is in the storm water report right now you can see volumes and rates it's just standard procedure the only question that I had is does did DPW issue a letter because this is news to us nobody has communicated not not yet um T Tony's uh out for a few days yeah that's why he wasn't here tonight right but he he he did tell me that he would send a letter okay so so yeah I mean the information is probably already there in some form but it's going to have to be translated as as I say into you know the impact of the mean High the mean annual high water elevation of the verle and the mean annual Hydro period so I think the the critical piece here is is the return frequency of the storms right so we designed for to 10 25 and 100 and you're talking about something that's a one year or less yeah potentially yeah under increased rainfall or under the existing numbers you know so DPW requires Noah 14 numbers yeah which are the increased right but I think we're seeing more than that it may not be in the rags but yeah that's what's happening well I'll happy to let Brian choose which he wants to use and and and and it it may be just again I I may suggest that it be peer reviewed you know whatever whatever results you come up with okay so Mark yeah go ahead did you uh get any feedback from the uh Board of Health and auto jumps of water district um not to my knowledge not yet no that's still are we have we done a phase one we have not I thought the Board of Health had was going to have you do a phase one study so they sent a letter to the planning board indicating that they would require it but Board of Health has not communicated that to us nor have we had a public hearing on it yet so it's in process we're working through it could I suggest David in your spare time we also chat a little bit so we don't make it any more difficult for everybody in the room yeah okay the sequence here is a little weird it just really hitting me all of these hearings it's very there's a theme there's a theme y okay so do we know uh what we have for I presum yeah I presume we're going to continue this but is there anybody in the audience that wants to come come up couple people yeah hello hi Ruth Luna tin Carter Drive um so I just wanted to add on to that as far as the the talk about impacting on the habitat so the yes there's a 100 foot buffer zone there's nothing that says that you can automatically do what you want in the 50 to 100 fet it says that that has the potential for impacting a wetland so you need to look at what's being done there um and as the commission earlier dealt with a Vernal pool situation you were looking very seriously at at impact well into that 100 foot buffer zone um so this site has multiple pools as well as that one um that would have um species for vernal pools and so it's important to consider in that habitat area that those trees they both um the leaf litter that they're providing is both habitat for them throughout the year but that also is sort of like the foundation of the food source in that FAL pool itself and that that's like the bottom layer and that everything builds off of that and it's it's Bas it is an accepted statement that when you impact a the surrounding Forest to a Vernal pool you could so impact that pool area that you could basically Wipe Out the species that are there they they have a set pattern and that's what they know and that's what they do um and then my other would be to go along with a question about cumulative or incremental activities um if you look at the aerial photos that are on the town GIS I sent links for um a few of those if you compare the 201122 to the 2021 you'll notice um a significant that one I thought really stood out in comparison that there's something has changed on that site I don't know your files as to has someone been to you for permission but it looks like activity both in the buffer zone to the bvw and in the BLS F and then if you look from 2019 to 2021 there's a building that's been put in the in blsf so presumably that's displacing flood water so those are questions that there's already been things being done out there as far as vegetation removal and what has that impact been so that yes you do need to look at more than just what's proposed here you buy the bylaws you should be looking at what's been happening all along and you may want to also consider are there there are things that were done before that need to be undone and when you talk about replicating or fixing something that usually you look at what's there in two years well obviously if you take out trees two years later you're not going to have a mature Tree in its place so it's not something that lends to replicating in that way so thanks thank you Ruth Carl I if I could just add I mean my understanding is yeah there's these 100 foot and 50 foot and all these hard numbers that we love because they're easy but our bylaw also requires us to consider the habitat value and that's kind I think what you're saying Ruth is those UPL trees that were cut in the past were part of the critical habitat that supports the Verno pool and you know not a lawyer but I believe our bylaw specifically says we're supp that's right there absolutely it's Crystal Clear yeah okay next hi I'm Chrissy wood I'm from 16 HR street so thank you for letting me speak tonight um I had sent a letter to to the commission and I did so to bring forward some conflicting statements by David Cowell the Wetland scientist and Wildlife senior biologist for Hancock Associates in regard to the vernal pools adjacent to 10 HRA Street um during the Conservation Commission meeting that was on September 12th of 2023 um David Cowell stated that there were no Vernal pools found while doing the wildlife habitat study um commission member David coun asked if they looked at whether there were any vernal pools and David Cowell responded and the following aners a quote there was no sanding water that could have the capacity to retain water for 6 to 8 weeks that would allow Vernal pool invertebrates and amphibians to complete their life cycle I did not see any Vernal pool habitat so in contrast to that statement and during the last conservation meeting on March 26 2024 David cow was in agreement that there may be vernal pools David Cowell went on to list his many qualifications um and he has in regard to he has in regard to his being a wildlife biologist um although his extensive list was impressive the fact that his original impressions of there not being any vernal pools brings forward a concern of unreliability in his Judgment of the past and certainly for going forward I would like to suggest that the chelsford Conservation Commission utilized peer reviews to ensure that the outcome of all the studies are without bias and with this lens I would like to also suggest that the commission use their authority to order a full wildlife habitat stud for this area as well and thank you for continuing to support um preserving chelsford um if you would like to find that meeting we have it listed in the letter like the time and the exact moment um I have a sign copy if you would like that or is it does it suffice give it to our agent but I think we have the email so okay thank you thank you thank you yes sir um Paul wood 16 hill Oh paulwood 16th Hiller Street um just a little qu clarification I know this confusion those pictures I gave they were U actually Nate's house at four Hilder Street um of all that water well I guess what I was trying to uh show potential he n can say but when he moved in he couldn't see the house that was originally there they stripped the land regraded it now he's fled it you know he's you know he I don't he he's it's awful situation that's my concern is they they four and five very similar houses they want to put up next to him strip the bands are red by the way around the tree not yellow and all they're and when you see how close they come down to the pools once you strip all that land that's going to rush water right down into those veral pools and wash all the debris into them they're just going to it's just going to wipe them out they'd have to build like a structure like Nate has a 10,000 his is only a few feet long so that's I just want to clar clarify that point on that that those pictures weren't from lot four they're from his house at number four but just showing you what the potential would could happen very similar very similar situation it's doubled so and then I'm on the other side it's going to wash into my yard all those other concerns so thank you appreciate it thank you very much one more sorry hello hi Linda Carney at 17 Hilder and 19 Plum and I just want to say that just Johnson who owns the back lot who's not here tonight did submit pictures of the property at lot four and lot five underwater and he just sent those in this past week pictures or a video a video there was both there was both there's a hyperlink for pictures and then there was an attach video okay yeah but that is the actual okay 10 hildr Street not to be confused with number four hild 10 h but what we're calling Lots four and five on hild got just for clarification sake because there was they were on both lot four and five were underwater and he videoed them and sent you that hyperlink of pictures so if you haven't seen those those are of the actual property at 10 hild Street okay so if I can State the obvious the neighbors experience with that flooding is going to create a flooding problem it already for a house that would be built there I mean I that's what you're saying but right correct that water's just going to rush right into the basements for the right two duplexes third house down Beyond 10 Hill absolutely okay thank you thank you okay so we're at um we're getting late here and we still have another couple of quite a few things on our agenda so um we are what do we have in front of us here on ten hildr um so I think we we we need to wait for we need to continue it pending the uh the preparation of the Vernal pool delineation plan and me going out uh and reviewing that on site okay with with um the applicants Representatives uh and then and then essentially needing the same thing for the UPL Habitat to be delineated okay okay so so hopeful hopefully we can sort of tackle that at the same time time okay and move that we continue Mr chairman to our next meeting of um the 23rd April 23rd second motion by Chris second by Bill any further discussion all favor I motion passes ten hildr we'll see you in uh couple of weeks thank you appreciate your time hey Carl anyway maybe we can take these guys earlier in the night next time uh perhaps do what take them earlier in the night yeah I mean they're a large group lot of lot of folks H in until 10 you know after 10 yeah David let's let's look into that get it's a lot of lot of to folks so next one uh this one is a request for amended order of conditions continued from this we this has been since November 14th 2023 is that right that's the last time we've heard this this is 270 Bill RAR Road um who's who's representing the applicant all of us all of us see familiar faces so good evening Mr chairman uh for the record Douglas Des Shan from fer and Nicholson representing DH Property Holdings I'd like to introduce the team that we do have this evening uh Michael Bennett who's the head development director of DH Property Holdings uh Ed Weagle from row Associates our LSP and uh Casey Ferrera from Howard Stein Hudson um yes this has been a long process ignore me um we have been um working with uh the the town uh the planning board the Board of Health the DPW the Conservation Commission and everyone else that will hear us or work with us uh with respect to this site as you know we are before you for a modification to the um order of condition uh to address a change in the drainage uh design um as you are well aware um in dealing with P issues on the site we have had to radically redesign the uh uh drainage system uh storm water system so um as I understand we did just receive last week a comment letter from your uh peer review consultant beta um and so at this point I'd like uh Casey and then Ed will come up and discuss the uh results of that peer review and our response there to I'm just curious David do do you know if Phil or uh if beta is on this call uh I they were earlier yes I expected both of them are they okay Phil Bob are you here I guess not Rob Smith here from beta and we got Steven borgatti as well yeah hello this is Steven borgatti here hello thank you I just want to make a point though that you know we did get the Ram plan um but we did just kind of get it late in the week again similar to an earlier in during the weekend during the weekend yeah sim yes so we're a long time ago what's that that was submitted originally a long time ago a month or so at least mono what was submitted the ram plan no no he's talking about beta's peie betaw sorry okay okay so go ahead okay so um I guess what I wanted to do was you know Peter and Carl probably are pretty inep on on what we talked about over the past few months but I kind of wanted to give an overview of what the drainage changes were um just to rewind a little bit the amendment came from um reducing the site elevation um this was to kind of balance cut fill a little bit um in the past eight n months or so um we've kind of incurred a lot of changes even since then uh I think the the big change that we have done in the past well since November the last time we saw you was removing the infiltration from the site um that was one thing that was brought up and agreed upon during our deliberations uh in the work working group um was to remove that infiltration um so just to kind of describe what these changes are um I want to remind the group that we are a reduction in impervious which allows us to develop under Redevelopment status um and in losing the infiltration really what we've lost is phosphorus treatment um we can do without the infiltration and still meet storm water standards but the the local regs require phosphorus treatment and that was what that infiltration was was gaining us um so in turn what we have to do is add proprietary systems that will treat that phosphorus to allow us to continue to meet the local storm water regul ulations um we are maintaining for phospherous treatment we are maintaining the focal point that we've had um from the beginning of the project but that is treating that left-and side of the project which is that employee parking um kind of that main entrance of the building on the left hand side um where we've lost our impervious treatment was is mostly on that right hand side of the building with the loading bays and then the excess parking that goes around the perimeter of the site um in in place of that infiltration what we've done is all those basins we fitted with what is called a Fabco storm Basin um which is an insert to the rim of the insert to the rim of the structure it holds a cartridge which treats for different you can either get a nutrient cartridge a suspended solids cartridge um since we need phosphorous removal what we're doing is we're adding in the nutrients cartridges size per the runoff to each catch Basin and what that does is it provides um 60% phosphorus removal um for each catch Basin and all the sizing calculations are provided in the supplemental data report um for the roof runoff we've also lost that infiltration treatment um so we've added proprietary subsurface structures that the roof drains will tie into uh be treated through basically a a box of they're essentially just more of those filters but all in a box um they'll be treated fully for phosphorus size adequately calculations in the supplemented DAT report all of that now instead of going to an infiltration device is being piped out and discharged um um basically through a flared down section uh to its previous Outlet point which is along that that um where we have the rip wrap Hill down to the to the resource areas um we still meet all of the total suspended solid requirements again since we're Redevelopment the local bylaw says we have to meet 80% total suspended solids um we're at 87% uh total phosphorus again the focal point gets 76% and I don't recall if this Commission um I don't believe we had this document the last time this commission heard this project but in the recent months the EPA has actually issued a directive regarding focal points and said if you meet these criteria you get this much treatment for phosphorus that's EPA Boston specifically um so we list out in our supplemental data report those requirements Meeting those requirements and how that results in that focal point um getting 76% removal um I do want to add that all of the catch basins within the loading docks are fitted with an oil boom as well as a backup um so in addition to having those nutrient cartridges it also has an oil boom to protect against any potential spills from the trucks um as previously mentioned we did get a peer review back with comments um all of those comments are acceptable to us and we will address and revise as necessary um they are minor in nature so we are comfortable with saying that we can address each of them um at the with with you're talking about just the storm water the storm water storm water comments and with that unless I should we just move on through the environmental presentation or do we want to talk stop here for a moment and see if we have stone water questions um David do you have anything you want to add uh not at the moment no okay anyone else Stone water with I figure this out you were saying you reach 76% on the focal point I'm sorry on the focal point phospherous removal right why are you treating this the roof runoff does that give you the 76% no so the the roof runoff doesn't go to the focal point at all the roof runoff goes through a proprietary system the roof runoff is required to be treated for phosphorus only not total suspended solids and that's part the local storm water regulations I wasn't aware we we we required roof water just for phosphorus that's the phosphorus requirements I okay Bill anything no Peter um Casey let's not spend time on this but you know what I'm going to say about the onm plan if you guys are willing to incorporate what we've learned on some of the other projects that would make our job easier to move this forward absolutely thank you John I'm good okay let's move on to on to environment environmental thank you case Casey yeah um hi Ed Weagle uh LSP for uh Rue Associates and um you know again just sort of recapping a little bit about you know where we've been um you know last year we had we pulled together a working group um where we worked with beta um to come up with a sampling plan to help sort of inform us um about you know how we were going to manage um soil and groundwater um during construction of of the proposed facility and um you know out of that working group you know we you know implemented a pretty rigorous uh soil sampling program uh a program that um the peer reviewer uh felt was adequate you know to address the concerns um that were raised by the commission here and um all that information uh was provided um I don't think we had any um negative comments from from any of that um you know the the other thing that I I just wanted to bring up of course was um you know the D did call us and say Hey you know we'd like to see some more information um so you know in response to that we sent them uh the information that we had collected as part of the working group process um we provided that and we provided um a letter to you folks you know indicating our transmitt uh D also asked us um to to perform another round of groundwater sampling um which we did and we also provided that um and again our the base the um the data that we collected as part of the working on group process and D's request uh in our opinion continues to support you know the the statements that we've made previously that the site um can be um redeveloped uh in a safe and appropriate manner um through the the implementation of appropriate soil and groundwater management um so we have developed a ram plan with the soil and groundwater management plan you know that we've presented and has been uh reviewed by Beta um I I also um wanted to say that um as part of D's request out here um you know we provided them additional groundwater data and on that basis um D has asked um one of the upgrading abutters to do their own investigation um you know we really know what the status of of that is yet um I took a look online uh on D today there's no new information um to indicate you know that the upgradient butter there is cooperating or not cooperating so we don't really know the status of that yet um and and I think you know this is a good time to also s to sort of point out you know the way that the D operates which is you know their job is to point out work that is inadequate and ask for more um D in my experience rarely if ever will issue a determination that says okay we like what you did you know we're happy I mean I you know i' I've been a was site Cleaner professional for 30 years and um you know I haven't seen anything like that been issued from the Department on a specific project um generally the way D works is they leave that up to um LSPs and um developers um you know working together to come up with uh appropriate uh measures at sites and to the extent that they disagree with those measures they let us know uh to the extent that they agree they go look at somebody else um you know so so that having been said um you know we took a look at um beta's comments uh relative to the soil and groundwater management plan and and we don't really think that there's a lot of substantial comments there I mean they would like to see a little more information and you know I think you know that's something that we can provide you know certainly with respect to you know how we're going to design the groundwater treatment system um you know that's pretty standard you know we know that um the the groundwater that we would need to treat um as part of installing different structures or or foundations it has a certain concentration that we can assume we can assume how much um water we're going to run through it um the the carbon vendors provide ISO terms for how much U removal efficiency there is um so you know sizing a carbon treatment uh system you know is is not particularly complicated and um in addition to that you know the the carbon the the treatment system that would be sized it's it's basically it's it comes with a a a an in a primary vessel which is appropriately sized for the duration of the project and it also comes with a secondary vessel which is the same size which the water is then run through again um so there's two treatments um whenever we do carbon treatment of of groundwater um so you know that having been said um you know we don't think that there's you know significant or serious uh comments with respect to you know some of the construction aspects of the management of the groundwater um because treating water is pretty straightforward and the amount of water that we that we think we're going to need to treat isn't really all that great because the excavations that we'll be doing that are going to go into water are generally small um and temporary um beta did have some comments uh with respect to whether we're going to recharge up gradient or downg gradient and some of the requirements and the regulations um with respect to that um we are going to propose to um put the water right back into the hole from where it came um so therefore my interpretation of the regulations is that there are no additional requirements if that that's what you're doing if you're pumping um water out of the ground so that you can put gravel in a structure in um once that structure is set the water once it's been treated and gone through the carbon um and we've done the compliance testing to show that the treatment system works um we can put that water right back into the hole out of which it came um that's really the best place for it um that has the least impact on hydrologic conditions because we're basically taking the water out running it through carbon and putting it back in from where it was extracted um you know so that having been said um you know we feel that construction of this project can proceed um safely and in accordance with um the state requirements the Massachusetts contingency plan under D's regulations um safely and effectively without U further impacting or exacerbating conditions at the site okay so um appreciate that um Ed um we have as I said we we've only seen the peer review in the last couple of days so we haven't had a chance to read through it um I don't I'm pretty sure you haven't looked at it David no no I have not I I don't I I know it's late um I don't know whether you want to ask Rob to um sort of summarize his comments or could I could I make a suggestion given the hour um I did read through it to the extent I'm not an LSP and and Rob you're still on the phone on the on with us I think so yeah I'm still here sorry sorry it's sorry it's so late I Think We're all sorry it's We're all sorry it's so late aren't we um I was going to offer a simple suggestion to the commission if if uh my view is simple Rob did a very thorough review I only had one question at this point if if Ed you and and Mike and team the question is do you agree with what he's asking you to do and from our commission's point of view we've got now two LSPs reviewing the thing if they those two agree I me that's kind of the spirit of all the separate meetings we had and not to put you on the spot rob you don't have to answer the question now but my thought was um Ed for you to have a chance to go I think you already gone through the comments but figure out if there's any sticking points and we could do that now if yall want to or do it separately I think I think we should do the typical processes we you got to get have Rue submit a written response to beta's comments I mean it's it's being done by Casey on the the tell us how they're modifying it that's standard procedure yes yes and then and then I did have one question though Rob while I have you i' like to ask you and Ed um the current Ram plan with your modifications that you suggest suggested Rob are we asking the applicant to sample all soil that's excavated to make sure they're not running into posos soil and and putting it somewhere inappropriate or are we only going to be asking in the ram plan to take a look at the septic area in yeah in your opinion what would be the right way to do this Rob right so the ram plan there's no soil sampling actually specified of the plan it's basically it focuses on areas of known uh posos contamination in soil uh where construction is being conducted so we're back to that whole question was the site adequately characterized or is there a risk and and and Ed you should respond but my read of what's in the D file and my communication with them is they're not in agreement that we've identified where the contaminated soil is or is not on the site so my logic is are we at risk of digging up contaminated soil without knowing it and should this Ram plan require some sort of P sampling or does the commission want to go with that risk that we may be digging up stuff that's not being sampled and to figure out if it's it's a hazard do do I have that right Rob that's kind of the question before us or would you say that differently I think it's a good question I mean you know I think that's a good question for for Ed to address like to hear his response um yeah so as part of the work that we did out here um we collected a lot of soil samples I think there were 24 soil samples that we analyzed for 4 p f and I think three of them had concentrations that exceed D standards and we looked in what the working group and Rob and I talked about and agreed upon a sampling plan and we looked at what we thought were appropriate and representative locations to look at and I think what the data um are telling us in total that is that there's very little p impacted soil out here most of the soil is not impacted um that having been said um we have already proposed to manage the soil that we take out from the water table area where we did find our impacts um as if it were all impacted right primarily excuse me primarily in the septic area and we were going to and we were going to yeah basically manage the soil oil as if it were all impacted we would stockpile it separately and then we would analyze it you know once we have right you know the the the the material that we've determined or decided that is not appropriate for reuse on the site right but but the idea of of stockpile and sampling was only soil removed in the part of the site where the old septic was or or the whole site the the entire site you know where wherever we read that though okay okay yeah really that was my only real question that's good and I don't have an answer of what the right approach is mind you I'm not trying to drive this in One Direction but Rob does that make sense to you if all the soil that's excavated is stockpiled and I know there's D reg rules about that well again it's not all the soil well that's what I'm asking I thought you just I asked you if it was just the septic area and you said all the soil all the soil in the horizon where our sampling is which is basically in that upper V in that lower Vos Zone in the capillary French that's that's basically where we're finding this we're not finding it anywhere else I wish I was a geologist I would have caught that thank you so so Rob at some point it doesn't have to be now but I think we'll be asking you if that makes sense to you so in terms of a process we can keep discussing it if yall want but I would be happy if if Ed you did what I think we suggested respond to the comments and if you don't want to if you don't like something tell us why and then just have a final I don't know something so we don't drag this out yeah does that make sense I think that's the right approach and I think you know one other thing that um we should add here is that you know we've offered to have um a third party review during construction you know if if you know folks felt that that was going to be beneficial to the process yeah you know and again I just want to say this I don't think any of us at this table are in a position to really assess the risks so we appreciate Rob's help Y and your guys help it's not our job it's not but it is our job to protect the groundwater so there's the conflict we have the challenge Rob did you want to add anything further I mean I know you made a ton of thoughtful comments and thank you for that I think I think if the applicant follows your recommendations from what I can tell you know I'd be comfortable and we'd have a a stronger plan um it does have to be submitted to D by the way right Ed correct they have 21 days to either I think right to either comment or if they don't comment because they're too busy it's presumed to be approved it's presumed approved upon receipt yeah and it has not been submitted right correct we generally we wouldn't submit this until we were ready to actually undertake earth work yeah so I think our agreement was that you'd submit it to the town and and D at the same time so so we avoid a case where D moves faster and then everyone has 21 days to respond sorry Michael Bennett DH Property Holdings for those that haven't met me it's it's nice to see some of you again um so there was a letter that we addressed I believe to the commission to to David and also the planning board to Evan um where we essentially said you know one that we'd do the third party testing um of the soil as that's being excavated and replaced um and that any communication with the DP going forward that we'd be providing that you know as it happens um when we submit anything to the DP you'd get a copy obviously that copy we want it to be final from kind of your perspective as we submit it to the DP not you know everybody making comments at the same time well that must acknowledge that's torture for everybody but to your point um Peter that we would provide that when each of those submissions is made that that's been our commitment appreciate that so thank you okay Rob uh Peter started to ask if you had a comment uh anything to add Let's uh see if you have any anything more yeah just I mean I I think Peter to address your question as far as I think unknown contaminants that was one of the ideas that Ed and I had worked out and sort of coming up with the conservative brand plan so I think the comment that I had which was would help address that was really the aor and controls I think just just showing that and we do note in the for the rest of the project there's there is a robust plan in place and I think those controls really would help as far as uh you know mitigating any if there was some unknown contaminants you know that getting into into uh storm water into Wetlands so okay okay no sounds sounds good to me so I think we we're continuing because we want to be able to view the the beta report ourselves and and and get the responses yeah from the applicant side um head to provide the response we'll add an Casey yes yeah and we have a member of the public who would like to speak a frequent flyer hi Ruth Luna tin Carter Drive um I haven't read the the the beta thing the so I'll I'll not comment on that part for now um but I did have uh I started going through the storm water report and I did have a few questions on that as far as um I had earlier sent to you a letter I think in December um asking if you wanted to consider having monitoring Wells at the points of where the storm water discharges toward the wetlands um and CED there as far as where if you had any concern on that to be sure of what there is I have that explained more in there I had some questions as far as seeing their um the where they had the large infiltration on the on the one side that it um now they're using a nutrient filter lining a catch Basin um and so I I wasn't quite sure on that as far as um for example a catch Basin it gives you 25% TSS removal but that's when it's being used as pre-treatment but if you look at their treatment train It's the final thing on it so I don't quite know how that should be interpreted um I didn't you as a commissioner you're not to be designing a project I had earlier on I'm glad to hear that they've cited EPA as far as saying that the phosphorus level removal is is good on the um focal point because I had cited the EPA early on saying that they said you shouldn't be infiltrating on contamination and I had at that time written I don't know why they just didn't go to focal points through through out but um I um so I would like to know that I noticed that they don't identify themselves as a lple and so if that's the case then I would want to be sure that you condition it such that everything that can't happen if it's a lple that you make sure that it's conditioned accordingly that it can't function as a lple if they're presenting as not being a lle and I can give you a list if that helps um but I um I I wasn't sure about the the maintenance to that they provided I started looking at the nutrient filter and what they were proposing for maintenance wasn't corresponding to what I was seeing but they basically um said that um what was their language um I'm sorry I thought I had it oh well what they had it's in my letter but the language they were using F did not correspond with what I was Finding and and I I just think that you you want to be careful what you're doing throughout the site in that sense Ruth just to be clear early in your comments you mentioned a a letter from December but did are you also referring to a more recent I sent a letter tonight before I came in here so yeah just trying to make sure we're not chasing something from I can resend the actually I copied that paragraph into okay then we good so so I'll forward that to Casey for his response as well okay all right thank you anyone else all right so I'll ask David if you want to summarize or do you want to yeah I just wanted to address one of her comments or actually a couple um the monitoring at the discharges I thought we talked with a working group um with that EPA certification I thought that kind of went by the wayside with the fact that we now have a certified kind of um approval from EPA that stated what it would get for phospherous I know before that we were questioning how do we make sure what it would get but with that EPA my personal concern because I think I first threw that on the table at one of our work sessions and you might think about this because this might end up in a permit condition somehow and we'd like to avoid surprises um we're looking for some assurance that the storm water system isn't drawing P from the groundwater through leaks if you will in the piping um and putting it directly into the Wetland because the filtration isn't going to remove posos and that was at least my concern more than the phosphorus but I think you're right the phosphorus question seems answered you know uh there is standard practices on how to install piping and how to install all drainage structures um so all of these are going to be followed as part of this construction so whether or not groundwater leeches through them over time ground water may or may not but the the standard practice of how you install them is going to be followed and we have already offered that as far as the lining of the system itself goes the Conservation Commission is more than welcome to witness that lining if if that is deemed you know what would be appropriate uh or we can have a third party um witness that install cuz I know ripping the liner was of a previous concern um and also it's it's important to note that the manufacturer has to be there while it's being installed so the manufacturer will also make note if there's a rip or something wrong with the system prior to its installation that would affect ultimately the treatment or the correspondence of the water through it um secondly the only other thing I did want to address was the TSS removal treatment train that she commented that was also a letter in the um beta in the a peer review uh we will address that yes we will remove the 25% um it removes the total from 87 point something to 86 something um but we still meet the 80% required so we will address that in the next supplement of that report okay thank you thank you some sumbody I don't if you can well I think I think we need I gu very much the sort of the same situation as as as I I uh need to go back and review the revised plants um although I know we we we've had those for a while but but in particular I um I want to just review the um you know the the additional focal points or whatever I mean if I have a couple of questions I can I can communicate those privately with Casey um but but I but I do I do think that that um that is a a question that uh or or an issue about you know sampling some kind of sampling or monitoring Wells you know that the commission should think about um since that that has been raised um you know I I I don't know at this point whether I'm prepared to make a recommendation on that but you know I it's worth thinking about if you put that on your list to think about and make a recommendation for our next meeting yeah next hearing or for this assuming this is at the next meeting or but I but I I I think in the meantime it's it's it's a matter of getting the responses to betas y PE review Y which and Casey are working that and we'll we'll in the meantime some of us will get to review it I haven't looked at it yet there's a desire to close the hearing maybe not tonight but if there's some remaining issue on sampling or a monitoring well couldn't that be put into the draft permit uh after the hearing's closed we got that window yeah it it could be that's kind of where I was at I mean I I'm I think we're really close to closing the hearing we've got to have a little bit of time to look at that beta which just came in but I think we should be in good position we come back next time to close be able to close the public hearing I think we need to yep move ahead exactly will we will we be at a point where we could vote next time or would that be at the following meeting well I guess the question is going to be is kind of what are there any special conditions uh that are needed I mean if it's not too complicated on the conditions side we might be able to close the hearing and then take a vote on order of conditions um yeah I mean there's still a couple of questions um Casey I think Casey I think you committed to uh taking a fresh look at the onm plan kind of like what we talked about hours ago and we ought to look at that so I don't drill yes so I mean I'm not entirely sure about the sequence of closing versus draft permit condition that that sounds I think that's manageable honestly I mean we had a good dialogue earlier about that input so you know it should be doable yeah I was just going to offer up that you know I've spoken with Ed and both of us are in agreement that there's nothing in the the beta letters that we would be rejecting or fighting back against so um with that in mind we're uh if we could draft an order for review at the next meeting and that way if there are special condition that you want to add you'll have a draft order in front of you um to review and and add those special conditions too yeah does that work David he's a little so you you don't have you're running out of time unfortunately there's only there's only one David Coons at the moment here there's so three three draft orders um got four new filings in for next week next time I think they're all rdas but but still I mean there's I know we got to get through some of this stuff on yeah okay Ser I mean I I think I I think a lot of it depends do you are you comfortable with the new design the new storm waterer design um and and how and the the S SMP and RAM PL you know how how the um the groundwater is going to be handled um you know if if if now I if if it's true that um on the applicant side they're in agreement with um betas PE Rie then I think we're close we're very close okay we're relying on beta to guide us we're not the ones that going to decide whether it's work or not we're going to go to Beta and beta's happy with it we want to move on so so let's try to put some boundaries on this I have an opinion personal I'll share is I think I said it earlier I mean if if if if the applicant is comfortable with the beta comments I don't personally have a whole lot more to say other than that question on the onm plan that we're sort of moving ahead but isn't that complicated doing the carbin with the uh P which part of it are the ding not really it's carbon balls that have to be changed regularly well they do but but there's a whole process and I think Rob made some comments about that you're right but it's kind of standard and if you stop and think about it this is one thing crazy about some of these environmental rules I will say you're taking dirty water out asking them to treat it and put it back in a hole that presumably has dirty water in it right right so to me the the that treatment system needs to be designed and run right but you see this at other projects it's like it's not for us to decide that we just none of these rules are perfect right okay all right soild I'll make a motion we continue to the next meeting of April 23rd and I know I'm personally will be ready to make a motion to close the hearing after our discussion that night can can we put this in a an order like who's first at the next meeting oh out of all these hearings yeah out of all these hearings who was here first we can we can talk about that I'll talk with David about oh who's been waiting the longest who's been waiting I like that we'll talk well you got you guys right but on the other we had a we had a big uh public uh attendance too so I mean maybe but seriously these guys were here to the bit end tonight so I think that it's worthy of a it would certainly make it easier for me if these guys were made the highest priority exactly yep okay so motion from Chris uh comment from John well taken good good point good point thanks John good uh any second on Chris's motion second second from Bill motion to uh uh continue to April 23rd all in favor I I None opposed motion passes we'll see you on the 23rd thank you very much excellent thank you appreciate it Rob and uh I've the other person night beta wherever you are good night where Stephen that was it Steven Bugatti thank go right through these discussion items real quick right yep let's keep moving let's keep moving real fast I think we can um hammer through here so that is the end of our uh well more or less the end of our our jurisdictional uh regulatory but we do have a certificate of compliance so this uh is Central Square 28 Central store this is this yeah 2001 yes and so here's um for the U here here are photos that were submitted um for that notice of intent um 2001 in 2001 um I don't know exactly where um these these were taken from what they're viewing I I don't know like this one in the upper right is if that's the back of the building and then this is this another is that the cleaners Dave what's that is that the cleaners yeser cleaners yes it's it's pulling out an old septic tank or I went down there it looks nothing like that now it doesn't it looks nothing like this tires everywhere y y there's all sorts of junk now now I have been in communication with one of the trustees and and their attorney who is Jim Harrington who says that that um the property is very very small that the the the building occupies probably 95% of it they um the trustee did give me his his thinking or his guess as to where these um uh photos were taken from I mean if if if if most of this area is outside of the property then I guess you know there's the commission would have no issue with these applicants um but like it doesn't it doesn't even say where is the Cesspool so what is it that the certificate of compliance is certifying they put an addition in the back of the building and in the process of putting it on they removed a cesspool that was somewhere in that space uh I I I guess so I don't the notice of intent didn't talk about in addition of the building it was just to decommission an old Cesspool uh maybe it was a sequence thing or something um and so what do what is it that we're signing that we're certifying I mean well well I mean in in in theory it's just whether this the Cesspool work was done uh in compliance which you probably was but but but I think as as a general rule I've always approached these well but if you see something else really egregiously wrong okay that maybe you know the commission can not issue this if the property isn't necessar neily even their property right right right agree I agree and and that's and that's what I'm trying to ascertain yeah I I'm a little bit there like a closing imminent or something for um yes yes this is for sale of the property um you know I mean the the commission could I mean I I I think I'm I'm I'm well on my way to understanding um where where you know in these in these views what is the property and what what isn't um I don't and in this one right here that probably all of that back there is probably not on the property um but and and and I think I can probably um resolve that by the next meeting so the commission could vote to um approve it conditionally tonight um unfortunately I don't have any paperwork to sign but um I could send an email asking members to come in and sign it sure as soon as as soon as I'm comfortable that that that works the right that we conditionally approve second motion by Chris second by Bill all in favor I I okay thank you very much motion passes next one on the list is Chris uh you'd asked about providing an update on the5 yeah Princeton Street uh I know Billy and I have been by multiple times I don't know if you other guys have I mean that was a huge project that was approved you know hundreds of units going in there it's a a big operation they really kicked off the construction project now uh when when you drive by Princeton Street you can see there's um you there's all types of water you know that's just flow down off the site into where there was a pond down by the street and it's it's really overflowing the the banks of that pond and almost coming on the street now could moving trees causes that well it's a perfect case study of what happens when you remove trees so is it silty water it I didn't get close didn't see that I didn't I didn't see it but it definitely something given the scope of the project this was a big one with the meeting you know was voted in a couple years ago but it's it's great for I think if you have you know you got quite the docket of stuff going on but it would be a good one for you to drive by kind of take a look at it maybe take the order conditions with you and just see it might all be in full compliance but it just a good one I think well the the DPW is uh supposed to be doing regular inspections of that project it's it's Jack Branson at DPW I will I will touch base with him on that I think he's supposed to be doing it like once a week yep um so I will I will you know just uh double check with him that everything is in compliance one thing that I know is not in compliance and they're not doing that they should be doing and and I have reminded the project manager this is they're supposed to be submitting regular reports Swip reports yep you know they have the storm water pollution protection plan that from nipy where they're supposed to be submitting the regular reports they're not doing that and and it's right in the order of conditions that they should be doing that sending the results to both the DPW and the commission so I have I have reminded the project manager um and you know it's pretty well I have to chase these guys the only one I don't have to chase is Alan costos he's been doing it but pretty much everyone else I I have to so I'll just continue to chase them if you can chase that down and then if you haven't already just do a quick driveby up princess street loop around come back around The Other Side by Drum Hill but it's it's quite the site when you're out there I grew up right there there was two distinct Pawns in that field occasionally maybe every five years there'd be water in the field from one Pond to the other if you go by there now the low point on that site where the water is is right where weed street where the Glen View Lounge used to be and they build condos that's the low point and if you look there that was always wet even 60 years ago when I was a kid now that water is right up oh yeah to to the Road close to come into the road wow really yeah it's the the pawns have never been as high as they I've never seen them as high as they are right now and I I don't know why maybe it's like Chris said they they're cutting trees down they're doing they're doing it's TRL Crow they're doing a nice job on all the uh silt Finch and and Waddles that look nice and I've seen them I actually saw the guy walking around the site looking at them all and they look like they done correctly but I think maybe and I'm not you know it's my opinion that they've cleared a lot of trees up the top on the H on the top of the hill and there's nothing up there to hold the water the runoff we used to be caught by the grass and by the trees and just the way the road used to go there's a lot more water coming down to that it's a bowl it comes down to that but if you look by where the weed street is by the uh on Princeton Boulevard and Weed Street that spot is the lowest spot and all that water is right up to the road right it I have to say it really makes you wonder about their storm waterer calculations whether whether they they were correct um because if if the pond is that close to overflowing oh yeah I mean it sounds like it could easily overflow with with with you know three or four inches of rain which is entirely possible right but we need a Our Town engineer here the rainfall is different it's different and our rsch set up Forge I I don't disagree with that but I I don't know if that's the whole story oh I agree so let's um let's I want to keep moving we still got we still got more on here that was the one you did the entire s sidewalk as he remember I walked it I walked it where that gate was you came through I remember and Billy rescued our chairman at the okay off so uh David you're you have uh another thing for your list here to I don't know if it's to connect with the DPW guy and uh yes yes um and and and and I'll be watching it too I mean if that pond overflows then you know commission needs to decide what to do anything else Chris on that no no all right um next thing is um I would like um as as evidenced tonight in many of the themes of our conversation tonight um I think it makes sense for us to have a what I would call an off-cycle Conservation Commission meeting public meeting but probably not with tele Media or any of the other stuff it's more or less for us to go through some of our operational concerns things like um the peerreview process uh requirements for engineering plans we've had questions about that on andm plans and monitoring uh storm water management a lot of the things that we talked about tonight and just to kind of step back a little bit and talk through this as a commission and try to like help help David how can we help David how can we make it so that if we can hopefully not be here at 11:00 at night nobody wants to be here this late how do we streamline things so I'm open to anything else I this you know if you look on the agenda you'll see what I listed that's kind of what I've been Gathering from talking to each of you and my observations if you have anything else you want to include in there please let me know I'd like it to just be kind of like a twoh hour um uh I don't want to say a session but uh how do we get yeah working session do how do we make when can we do with the John's going to be here too yeah well I'm I'm looking uh May 7th is the first Tuesday of May um whereas our next meeting so we'll have one meeting coming up April 23rd and then it would be two weeks three more three more weeks after that it would be yeah well three three weeks later would be our follow one meeting right but two weeks later would be this meeting now the week before that is town meeting and we'll get enough that week I don't I don't want to do it that week and that's too soon but May 7th would be my proposal or perhaps two weeks later which but May 7th to me makes sense I'd rather do it sooner I mean we can see in these meetings I'm I'm hearing from all you guys you know hey it's taking too long with you know all that you know and so I think that makes sense yeah and could I just add something the way my brain goes is yeah we can list everything bothering us but I think in two hours we can identify a whole bunch of solutions we don't have to pick the solution but I think let's let's try to make get some action out of it so we can make things easier for everybody applicants Town departments and us right right so I don't know if that works for you yes and Viv that' be great yeah appreciate it um it it's still an official meeting um certainly the Public's welcome but I'm not expecting it's not like it's not like ten hildr or some of the other some of the okay so let's keep moving if we can David if we can um I can give you something for an agenda but um sure and I'll I'll I'll reserve the room reserve a room it doesn't even have to be this room um and uh tele media and no tele media no okay but it is a officially posted public y y That's not a requirement yeah good but anybody who wants to come they're welcome to come in um continual business commissioner input on the man master plan implementation committee Peter um I I think we identifi that there's a lot of things that we're not doing which um yeah two two two quick things um I didn't realize this when I talked to the committee but um in the master plan someone on the committee assigned a bunch of stuff to us it's not necessarily assigned to us in the master plan so I got to unravel that because that list I gave you last week has a couple of things where I think we all look at and go we're not in a position to do that I think somebody just assumed so there's that piece um and secondly I'm just going to give a simple report I'm going to tell them what we are doing but point out there's a lot of room to advance the town's approach to all this stuff and I might reference you know our working session as a starting point and I think the Board of Health is doing a reg review for at least the groundwater protection and and there's some other stuff in my head that I need to put together but I'll I'll keep you guys in the loop okay yeah I'm not making any commitments or saying anything outrageous okay good thank you um open space and recck plan we will have our kickoff meeting I think it's a week from tonight uh yes yes we from tonight um so we do have a team or a committee and um we had a short call with ncog this morning just to kind of figure out how that how that meeting will go next week so I think we're getting ready to kick that off um and uh I'm Peter and I talked about maybe there is an environment Fair coming up at the library in May and because the open space and recck plan is something that the whole town is involved in that we might want to um have a table at that environment Fair it's Saturday May 4th if um I'm I'm willing to sit at the table for three hours as long as I get to go to navigation Brewery afterwards but uh I might want to go before yeah I might want to go before or in the middle so we're asking fellow Commissioners to come come by in the last hour so um assuming everybody's okay with us doing that and getting a little concom visibility and the open space plan um will do something I don't know what what exactly that looks like and and I might I might ask um is he oh hi Dave sper Dave sper I think invited the land trust because I invited Dave if they wanted to stop by or be part of it more form if they're going I'm not sure you know Phil's going to be representing the TR okay all right oh excellent okay good good thanks for the warning no that's good all good um okay then um uh update on okay so Warren poll CR so we have an agreement um I am and and I've shared the um the wording with uh Dale we we met in here a couple weeks ago and I think we're we're all good yeah um it's it's essentially it is an obligation on on the town but the obligation is to do a Land Management conservation management plan specific to the meadow which we were going to do so it's like I'm good with that that's fine we're done I think we're going to get that um ratified but I am just delinquent getting a copy to you guys so yeah here's a copy want to get a copy to you I will get that and um and we'll we'll uh be able to vote on it hopefully at our next meeting um pess update John you said you're not going to be there Saturday and uh oh the next meeting when's the next meeting is it next week it was while I was gone I I can talk oh well then it would be next week because you're well I can talk to Mike and find out yeah I may I told I told Mike you were going to be there you didn't check with my my control tower I got to talk to the boss at home so all right all right I'll talk with Mike cuz I know he knows the schedule I think it's a s sidewalk this weekend yeah I don't think I can do it can you can you go all right yeah Mark's gonna at least there if there's somebody there and you said 9 o' I don't know it's on the I looked on the tablet I can't make it by myself hey all right hey Carl I don't know if this is relevant I've had a couple of s sidewalks one with a DPW and one with cost really through the tree committee but I feel like I understand the parcel pretty well do you want to go not really okay I might be able to is it you or me you were joking that you couldn't go I'll go to the what time is it do we I don't know we'll find out okay you come yeah I I'll let you know bring you're bringing the copy again right absolutely C agents report so I know David actually you got a few things on this list this is why I'm pushing guys is David has three or four five things so I'll I'll just make this as quick as possible so you call the National Grid uh certificate of compliance for the work in the main power line easement in town um that the commission approved that contingent upon verification from an grid that they had either removed the um what was shown in the photos they submitted um or confirm that it was outside the buffer zone it turns out that uh they were illegally dumped mattresses oh so I don't you know it's I don't it's not National Good's fault they're not responsible for that so I guess I would ask the commission to authorize release of the COC uh to them so right I move that we release the COC to yeah second motion Chris second by Peter all in favor okay done uh great uh get that off our backs anyway uh six Tuttle Road um there was uh an anonymous complaint was filed with DP when uh about some um you know re regrading um actually I think someone was pushing some yard debris and you know may maybe storm damage um uh into the wetlands uh on across the street from that residence uh the May the initial thinking was maybe that was the sewer division that had done that because it was uh Jason to the the sewer pump station up there but but uh I know apparently Su neither sewer nor Highway did that so that was the homeowner it looks like they did that um so uh and and and I have no contact information from them I just I'll have to send them a letter which is what I typically do unless is that that parcel that's adopted a strip of land along the y Wetland to store construction stuff yep I I think the pump station was probably Wetlands were filled for that so but anyway so um you know I'll just add that to my list um I'll try and get on it as soon as I can yeah actually though you know if you're yeah so there's also 120 conquered road so 120 conquered road we've we've got an AB butter notification there for uh proposed Forest cutting um have not received a forest cutting plan which is required I call DCR asked them about that never got a response um now in the about notification letter says it's scheduled to start April 15th which is like next Monday is that what are they going to log it that's what that's what the ab clearcut or just thinning or he's probably log he's probably gonna y can you reach out I'm not going to be around he's kind of a strange guy markk that's public here I'll call that's underneath the tree farm Yeah well yeah we just I know they've logged it in the past okay oh yeah and they do selective cutting they do it okay well they need a forest cutting play haven't seen well the foresty usually in well well that's right and as I say DCR is not returning my call so so I think if if the logging does start uh on Monday I think a season deis should be issued you know because they're not complying with the regulations yeah so if you if you know him if you can connect and just have them reach out to David yeah that would be great the Forester if he's actually using a Forester the Forester is well if he m m will know yeah I'll talk to you when this is over okay all right uh next thing actually you already covered was someone whacking the trees at uh Russell Mill H yeah I'm going to talk to nemba also cuz they're there a lot but I I'm going to go back there and look I was there a couple of weeks ago and were a couple of couple of slashes um the lady tonight made it sound like there were quite a few more well I I made it sound like there's quite a there there's over a hundred really oh it's awful when you look closely yeah I noticed it like a week ago Thanksgiving far I noticed it a week ago and I saw a few R Russell rather I noticed it a week ago I was walking through then I went back the other day and I started looking closely okay you know some was just walking through whacking trees oh it's not it's subtle but no well in some cases it's not subtle they've cut some but obviously no one's seen them so yeah but it's more than just if you go there there's a few that were cut and they were you could tell they were cut by somebody just hacking away taking like 20 minutes with a dll something but that's not the issue in my mind I mean that is an issue but the issue is they're whacking the Big Trees yeah slicing them well and and and as the lady said you know it's not just the the harm to nature but the risk of somebody who's not what are we supposed to do I'm not being fous no no I mean we could look at possibly like she said a trail cam I've got a trail cam set up at Warren Pole right now I think I mean the smart thing yeah I mean the smart thing would be to do that but you know a trail cam put a sign up so people know might lose it but uh I mean I think that tra is a great idea yeah in fact I've thought about we should probably buy one or two CU um there's so many places we could be using them for everything for monitoring for wild life to um this kind of a situation okay keep going Dave uh last thing is I got a call from the state police they apparently have some equipment on the fire the DCR fire tower at Robin Hill um and they're telling me that they're antenna yes yeah and they're I I guess these are microwave antennas that they use to communicate um and he was telling me that now some there's some trees up there that now are interfering with their line of sight because I guess it's all direct line of sight you know that they communicate back and forth with so uh they they want I think he said Seven Trees that they want to remove so um I said uh Mark the trees um and I'll go out uh maybe with some commission members take a look at them um you know I I think it's probably something the commissioner will have to let them do you know this state police Communications but um but I think it'll have to coordinate close closely um maybe shut down the reservation that day wait this is up on the top of Robin Hill yeah it's not a reservation there aren't many people there it's a it's just conservation land well it's under the the care cuty control of the commission yeah but we it's not like there's a we we don't manage that like we manage any of our other sites okay is there a trail system is there a mark trail system no not a mark there's a there's an informal like the mountain bike kids ride the bikes there but because because he told me he told me he told me one of the trees has a blue marker on on it so he was assuming that was a trail system okay not do they want permission or they want us to take him down uh no no they they they want us to approve it they they they will hire the tree service can can they just top them yeah I was wondering that why don't you get them to I mean we could get let's go look we get yeah let's go yeah we we can ask um he's going to let me know once they've got them marked um I'll I'll let the commission know and I mean I have like some giant pine trees in my property honestly I just lost a top third came down and they're they're doing great B go okay all right um so that's all I have on the report uh for the next there this is another one of those situations where there's a couple of orders of conditions and original and amended that probably were approved probably 15 years ago the properties being sold um I I this is Lady Slipper Lady this is eight lady slipper um it actually not it that wasn't for construction of the house it was actually for a swimming pool a deck or something like that addition I remember doing that s sidewalk uh what's that I remember doing that s sidewalk it was an addition stuff so I was I was I was originally going to recommend the commission uh uh conditionally um approve this um contingent upon a site visit um and the engineer certification but I would say let's not even do that I'm I'm scheduled to walk the site with Brian goodro on the 16th um if um uh everything everything looks okay I'll recommend at at the next meeting after that should be the 23rd the commission approve this if if they have to delay closing or they have to do a a set aside at closing then they'll just have to do it you know this is not a crisis on the commission's part you know after 15 or 16 years you know okay thank you meeting minutes for March 12th uh there's nothing done March 12th we have right here March 12 12 the 12 is did I do one of them March 12 you're amazing you don't even remember you did it Carl I move that we approve the minutes of March 12th motion from Chris to uh move the minutes for March 12th do I have a second I have a second from Bill any further comment all in favor I I have one more thing yep uh we can put on the agenda for next meeting uh up at Willis Drive Dave oh right right oh that's right yes went up there you talk to you lady on six Darlene Ferell yes thank you what it is on the site there's couple issues she had there's a in front of 75 Willis Drive which is right at the beginning of our property which is comes to a point if you look at the gis to the plant there's a dock an aluminum dock in the water and she's concerned that the dock is on conservation land it's right you'd almost have to survey the site because it's so close just based on looking at the houses and the road and everything it's right on the edge if it's on it could be on our our property it may not be but it's close so that was an issue she had the other issue was there's a car parked in front of 75 Willis that parked on the conservation land it's it's not on the street they're actually parking on you know a couple feet from the lake so she's concerned about that car using that as a parking spot sure and then the other issue was she brought up that the uh the boats that were supposed to be removed in November on the main part of that property have haven't been moved the same it's the same as it was last year so uh what was that we're getting a constable for the uh earlier can we get the Constable again you know keep that Constable busy yeah so I think what she asked me to if we could possibly put some more of those round conservation uh signs up on the the little ones on the trees down by where the car is parking because that's definitely our land I have them I'll meet you there if you want to let's do it and then up uh on the main part of that property going up Willis drive this some more trees we could put some on cuz right now we've maybe got one or two right where the canoes are okay so just to delineate that as our land because she's concerned that people are using it as their own yeah and not as conservation and restricting people who might want to use it from using it what about getting a survey to to well that's yeah that might make sense this just keeps coming up and this and if you look at the at the plan it's kind of an odd shape at the at the end near sixth it's odd and if you I don't know if there's cars parked on that part of the property there know is it ours or not yeah yeah so maybe maybe it'd be worth it to have a a survey done I think it might be and what about asking DPW just to get rid of all the the junk that's up there the boats yeah yeah we could do that hello you know I remember we did give somebody approval to do some of that but they were supposed to remove everything nothing nothing was removed of boats it doesn't look bad gpw the uh authorization to go move that stuff out yeah but I'm saying the people that we said you can put your stuff here but you got to take it out every year you know so that was from April to November yes something like that we allowed it but the stuff it wasn't removed so come this fall do we take it away yeah this fall we'll deal with this fall yeah okay so if you want to do if you want to request a survey I'll meet call update to put the things on the trees that we know as Z land and that would be a step just don't slash any trees no no I get the machete though okay just in case let's let's let's meet I got I got a drill we can do it and take five minutes one last thing before we go um uh 243 riverneck Road some of you remember that from many years ago it did get mentioned I think it was Ruth mentioned it from the snow uh thing that is coming back to life um it's was in front of the select board on Monday night um and they're using what's called a local initiative project which is friendly a f friendly FY B yeah and so um David provided some some input to the select board for this but um you know he was kind of under the gun to provide something and so in the meantime the select board and Virginia just sent me this email and I'm remembering now that we had talked about this so um this will be on our next um agenda for the next meeting because the select board wants to hear from us again by their May 6th meeting so so anyway if you want to we don't know what the real problems are going to be yet because we don't know if they're available to use servage or or private SE I can tell you if you want to go watch the Monday night select board meeting you'll get some of those questions answered but you'll also have 10 more questions from that too so so so is the select board asking for us to kind of do a pre-screening of what we think our issues would be if and when it came before us um essentially which is a great idea but it's hard to do because you got to dive in I think Board of Health will be a first one to take a look at that oh because of the septic thing yeah yeah you could always look at the project that was approved that to they going by 20 years ago and see I mean that was that that was quite a process at that point to see what was approved at that point this they're hoping that they issued permits for uh for servage there didn't you have like all types of turtles and stuff out there well there's a natural heritage piece I think the the commission didn't approve anything the denied it twice really yeah it's right next to our Wildlife refug we were we were overruled or whatever yeah there was uh the commission denied it and then um based on I guess a revised plan DP sent it back to the commission for a remand saying you know uh you know do you think you can approve this one and the commission said no and we rejected it again right so so so that's when D issued a superseding order of conditions and and that was the point made in my comments so I'm not sure what additional okay the select board wants to hear I make a motion to close the hearing yep uh so anyway that's just a heads up motion from Mark to uh close the hearing adjourn we can adjourn too Jour the meeting we getour toj yeah adjourn the meeting I second that all all shut the TV e