it is 7 o'clock good evening it's uh Tuesday May 14th 2024 time to call the meeting to order for the CH Conservation Commission my name is Carl bishof the chair of the Conservation Commission will'll be following the published and posted agenda the meeting is uh both in person and through Zoom um in the case of the zoom not working we will still continue the meeting in person uh the meeting is being broadcast in recorded by Cher Tel media thank you very much and will be available on their website and YouTube we have a programming note from our agenda uh the applicant for 10 hildr Street has requested that the hearing be continued without discussion until our next meeting on May 28th and the applicant for 93 brick Kill Road has requested that the hearing be continued without discussion until our next meeting on May 28th so if you're here for either of those um you can make your decision if you want to stick around because we will not be talking about them first on our uh open sorry as you were just microphones talking oh not set up thanks so anything from the public any uh any we have a open uh session here if there's something that uh is a concern that somebody wants to bring up I don't see anything any movement in the audience or anybody online David I guess so we will go to our report of from the liaison from the planning board hello Chris good evening um in case you hadn't uh seen the news the uh MBTA zoning that we proposed at town meeting did pass um and it passed uh pretty uh decidedly um and the deadline has passed for any challenge to that um that uh zoning so we are on target to continue uh with the uh timeline proposed by the planning board with the um development agreement adjustments with in the select board later in this fall um the last meeting we had was last week um we did have some significant technical difficulties with zoom uh so we attempted to do um some discussion on 270 uh related to the storm water um that will be continued uh next week is our next meeting um probably looking to close it out soon uh so we'll be uh nearing that end the other uh hearings uh brick Kil and hildr were also uh continued as well um we've got the uh peer review to discuss next week at Brick hilm and then the um the Board of Health uh results from the hydro Geo study came in for hildr so we'll be probably discussing those at the next meeting um let's see I think that is it um oh the brick Kell one uh we do have the peer review I don't know if you guys uh were given a copy of it so if you need any of those copies let us know thanks yep thanks any questions for Chris nope no okay thank you appreciate it Chris hey good job by the way at town meeting yeah very good job yeah so uh first on our list of regulatory hearings we have any request for determination of applicability for Monty construction 31 Bill recer Road uh Bruce ringwall I don't see here must be online representing GPR rep or from GPR representing the applicant and we have a notice legal notice pursuant to the provisions of the Massachusetts Wetlands protection act Mass Journal laws chapter 131 section 40 in the chelwood wetlands bylaw chapter 187 the chelwood Conservation Commission will conduct a public hearing here in room 204 at the chelsford town offices on Tuesday May 14th 2024 at 7 p.m. to consider the request for determination of applicability filed by Monty construction on behalf of property owners Jeffrey and Mary clevin for proposed work within 100 foot buffer zone to bordering vegetated Wetlands at 31 b r road further identified as assessor map 84 block 334 lot one the project entails creation of temporary site AIS for the purpose of constructing an addition to a single family residence Mr chairman before we get started Pete one of these Zoom screens isn't working Chumps would tell them me can you help get us a zoom screen working is is Bruce on he's uh it's actually Jen basil from GPR is on hold on for a moment technical difficulties no okay great thank you Peter thank you very much he doesn't need to turn his video on though so you there Jim uh yes yeah okay there we are great so um and and and and one one more thing um I I will I will say um just to start is this this is actually an after Thea filing I actually didn't realize um how significantly after the fact it it it is until I did uh the site visit but having said that Jim why don't you go ahead and start tell us about the project sorry um for the record Jim basil G Preston ring wall um if uh it's already with the Conservation Commission I'll just give a um quick overview of the project and then I'll turn it back over to all of you for questions and comments uh would it be preferred if I um shared my screen or yeah why don't why why don't you do that Jim because I don't think you'll be able to see see it if I share mine okay so that let me uh my screen now it might take a second but uh can everyone see the uh plan yes y there we go all right um again for the record jimil Goldsmith Preston ring wall uh I believe in the audience the appin Ryan Montgomery from Monte construction uh is present but uh I'll just jump into the uh review so um the um on behalf of the applicant we prayed a request for determination of applicability for the property at 31 B road for the proposed addition uh the lot's located at the uh South Westerly corner of the uh b r Road in Summer Street intersection the existing lot contains the U existing single family dwelling along with uh an Associated access Drive off of B Road there's also various walkways retaining walls um Landscaping the area the lots of a mix of grass lawn area and um tree wooded areas um over in the southerly portion of the property this uh pink red line uh denotes the flood zone AE that uh kind of runs through and then further south of here there's a bordering Vegeta Wetland that was delineated by uh hand Co Associates in May of 2021 so that projects the 25 ft no disturb area buffer the 30 fot no impervious area buffer 50 foot no building area buffer and then the 100 foot Wetland buffer onto the property um so the owners would like to uh construct this uh addition which is located outside the 100 foot Wetland buffer u in order to um facilitate construction around the rear over here a temporary construction Drive was needed off of Summer Street and uh so this is made up of a um straw waddle shown by the battle line type but um it's located on the downg gradient side of the construction Drive which has a um woven geotextile fabric material it's kind of overlaid on top of the waddle and then it is um you know encompasses the area of this hatched area with a layer of um Graves pack gravel on top for means of vehicle access throughout the site and um this installed or control bearers kind of anticipated to offer protection to the resource areas associated with the project uh but you know while this is um all good it should have been filed as an RDA prior so uh we're here to get this in front of the Conservation Commission for you know review to make sure that you know everything's do done okay but uh continue on that believe um David had spoke with the advant Ryan about um doubling up these straw Waddles for additional protection and it's my understanding that Ryan's in the process of getting additional Waddles out there so that you can double that up there's a uh material uh temporary stock pile staging area over to the Northerly portion of the property it's U outside of the Wetland buffer zone there also kind of serves as a um means of parking a for the construction which is um construction has paus on site until the uh Conservation Commission has had time to review and okay this um but once uh you know the work can you know is able to resume on the proposed addition um when the area back here is no longer need for you know temporary construction Drive area the idea would be that the fabric and the gravel material will be pulled out with the wles to remain um and this would be in the effort so that a storm chamber system could be installed in this area down here which this storm chamber system was sized to account for the impervious area increase from the roof of the addition so that'll be via roof drain lines uh that'll tie in down here with a u popup emitter for um larger storm events just for flow and also in the area would be a foundation drain uh tying into a 2 by 2x two Stone filter pit also for um overflow purposes um while in the area um my understanding the owners uh would like to remove this non-native tree located over here um they'd be happy to if the Conservation Commission would like to um the owners would be happy to U plant a native uh tree somewhere on site to make up for this tree removal but um once the uh temporary construction Drive area is no longer needed uh for construction the fabric and uh gravel would be removed from the area with the straw Waddles remaining in place until a um a landscaper could come in and kind of prep the areas that were disturbed by the um by the drive and uh prep it for um receding to have it returned to grass lawn area and then once that is um been stabilized then the straw Waddles will be removed um but um those kind of the uh big uh talking point so I can leave my screen up or turn it back over to you Dave and then um if there's any questions or comments I'd be happy to answer those thank you Jim so is as I understand it this this is uh uh opening on the fence and putting in a driveway the the building itself is inside or outside the 100 foot yes you see the the green up here that's the 100 foot buffer zone so you see it comes almost to the to the buffer zone so but but not in it um there was there's concern about drainage uh into the D the buffer zone that's that's why I suggested the um the storm chamber here to to manage that um you know as as as I mentioned uh earlier this is an after Thea filing um I don't know how 356 tons of gravel pack could have brought in and no one noticed it and no one called me which is which is surprising to me because um well David you didn't see it out the window it's right there it is it is almost across the street but you know um Bill r road is very busy Summer Street is pretty pretty busy um but but anyway um you know it does it does look like and and it is a significant amount of alteration um in the buffer zone but you know given that it is temporary um again I can I think this can still be done as a negative determination uh of applicability um I I I think that we we do need we do need um just a little bit more detailed on the work sequence to remove it um you know if you if you coulding skip you know how how is that going to be done is there going to be like a dump truck and and a um a mini excavator or something loading it if you if you could give uh some idea of um you know are there going to be multiple Vehicles involved you know and how long that will take I think we need I don't think we need to keep the hearing open for that but I think we just I think we need a little bit more detail on you know the removal sequence of of the gravel pack um just just the one other thing I want to say is down in this area here you see where I'm circling down in the lower right um where the the the mowing the lawn actually is extending into the wetlands um members of the commission may recall that a couple of summers ago the the owners uh filed an RDA for installation of the fence um part part of that was included in that was to uh just cut some invasive trees down in that that area um as far as I can recollect and as far as I can determine they weren't given permission to remove the stumps and um extend the lawn so my recommendation to the commission is as a condition of approval that that at least the Wetland area be allowed no no longer be mowed and be allowed to come back naturally um as you can see here the lawn the lawn I think historically has encroached you know well into the 25 foot no disturb so I don't I don't know if if the condition needs to be to let the 25 foot no disturb come back but but at least the Wetland portion where it's being mowed should come back naturally anything else not that I can think of at the moment so let's ask uh the commission John you want to start questions I think it's a tremendous plan as far as you know the the roof everything uh the temporary stockpile everything's good as far as taking the gravel out of there I'm sure they're just going to take it out with a backo load it into the truck and it goes away uh as far as mowing awn has it been mowed for a long time I I think the portion of the wetlands has only just started being mowed within the last last couple of years but is it an established lawn uh only well it's not established now but it's it wasn't a lawn historically I mean it was wooded up until a couple years ago and and I can't find any record that that was proposed as part of the RDA so I my opinion is that the Wetland portion the lawn where it's in the Wetland should come should be allowed to come back so you're talking 25 ft uh uh into the wetlands yeah yeah something something like that this this little you know uh almost a rectangle down in this area yeah oh I don't see a problem with this at all I mean it's already in there well I you know my opinion is they should if that's what if they wanted to go with lawn into the wetlands they should have asked to do that and not aware of the commission ever having allowed that before shouldn't be a shouldn't be a hardship really just to let that come back anything else John yeah maybe they put some blueberries down there yeah they could certainly plant it you know you know something like that yeah they could they could certainly do that and they don't need take that tree out forget the the tree and maybe plant some blueberries down in that lower portion mhm well you can certainly make that decision well I'm not I'm just throwing it out there but no I think it's a I think it's I'm all right with it I'm all right with your idea with the you know the roof drains and everything so I'm good okay Bill I like the idea of putting some kind of bushes or something to we've always marked the 25 ft no disturbance something I'd rather see blueberry bushes or something that looks natural well I'm talking about the wetlands now yeah you going to you just want to go up with the Wetland are you going to go to the 25 well I I I I was I had said you know not necessarily going to the 25 because you see you know in other areas here um where the um the lawn has been historically maintained it goes well into the 25 ft again I think if the if the if the commission decided that you want the 25- foot to come back and remain undisturbed you know I I don't again I don't think that should be a hardship either for the property owners but I'm fine with what you said the first round the wetlands area mhm delineate that so it doesn't creep okay um then they still have the grass they've put in at some point yeah so I think that's a good compromise okay anything else Mark uh well when I cut my yard I cut it right down to the water I do too I'm I'm in I'm in flood plane and I've been you know for 20 years I've been doing that so I don't really have a problem with the cutting but I understand your reasoning due David uh I I I think uh it it doesn't it doesn't show a hardship but it but it makes a nice piece of property I get that uh maybe plant something in there whether it be uh like John suggested possibly blueberry bushes or something just just to keep so it isn't so they know where to stop mowing right and it doesn't encourage other people in the future to right right put lawn in Wetlands without asking permission must have came before you when they put the is the addition on is it all done uh no it hasn't it hasn't started yet okay they just put the put Road the driveway well well well and I made it clear when I made it clear to the contractor at least the office that uh you know is very close to the buffer zone and might and it might be difficult to stay out of it but um you know any any incidental work or any incidental alteration The Bu Zone will need Conservation Commission approval was the building department that went out and did an inspection uh preliminary to issuing the permit and they came back and said hey you know there's already a big road going in there to to build this thing so that's when were those ctech chambers I'm assuming those are ctech chambers yeah I think they are were they were they in the plan cuz that they were obviously in the in the buffer zone then right no they they right they were not on the initial plan okay they're not in no no not yet just the road no I understand but I'm I'm surprised that they didn't have David look at it to sign off on it the well they they did and and that's when I said yeah this addition is really close to the buffer zone I think it's going to be really difficult to stay out of it and I'm so oh we know that not a problem but you know come to find out that actually there is I I think what you said is great and would you know put the blue ray bushes might my okay suggestion I'm done thanks Mark anything else no Chris no I'm I'm fine with the comments I've heard so far so I he yeah so um did did I hear him want to say something no so I hear a recommendation then to uh let the grass uh be left alone loan possibly even put in blueberry bushes I I think I think in condition requiring planning of blueberry bushes I think that's a good place for them I think they'll do well and it's just in the Wetland area we're limiting it to the Wetland area and then the um request you made at also for just some additional detail on the um the removal sequence of the gravel pack okay I can I can let Ryan know a little bit more precisely what look for all that sounds reasonable to me and you want uh not cut the grass in that area again in that specific area you want to leave it right not in the wetlands right where where the blueberries will planted planted yep okay so I'll take a uh public hearing any public that's a good point thank you Chris any uh public uh input on this any any abutters uh or people interested in this property no don't see anything online so I make a motion then that we uh approve this uh this project I have to close the hearing first oh yeah yeah uh I make a motion that we close this hearing motion from Chris to close the hearing second from John all in favor I oppose none so motion passes and now I make a motion to approve this project with a couple conditions one was we're going to have um uh some detail provided to our agent related to the um removal work sequence of the gravel pack and then number two that that Wetland area be um not mowed allowed to you know just kind of go natural we plant it with blueberries and be planted by uh do we have a specific number of blueberries that we're looking for for bushes I think it's to just to delineate it it's you got to plant them 5 feet apart all right so five feet apart 5et apart five six feet apart and just where they go they go okay that'll be planted five six feet apart you know and that's it motion from Chris so that's a negative discrimination with those negative3 negative3 second second from Mark negative two as well any further discussion no all in favor I I oppos None So motion passes um I think we're good to go uh I'm I'm going to assume that all of those conditions seemed okay to the applicant G yes yep okay that's good everything's good it on our part um thank you very much for your time everyone appreciate your time thanks for the presentation good [Music] okay next we have a uh continuation from April 9th a notice of intent from the town of chelsford 20 Pine Street um Courtney is here live and In Living Color and representing the applicant hello Courtney hi how's it going good where are we um we're just here to hopefully get an order of conditions in place to clean a segment of stream behind Pendleton road to prevent localized flooding that we've had in the area add more capacity to that area basically we're just hoping to remove the non-native sediment that's been washed in from the drainage infrastructure in the area and has been not cleaned for probably decades um so we're hoping to use a VOR truck which will stay out of the Wetland um and it's uses suction techn suction at the end of a hose uh and then the material gets brought to the tank of the truck then it will be staged down on Swain Road um sampled and disposed of accordingly okay thank you uh David if I remember there was a d number we were waiting for and I think I heard you say we got that we got it and BAS on their comments the uh the extent or the the geographical extent um of the uh of the work has been reduced a little bit to um make make it easier to permit um if if if the larger area needs to be done and at some point in the future uh DPW will come back okay um but but but hopefully now the the new uh smaller area um will be sufficient to address address the problem so I think I I think the hearing um can be closed and the commission issue an order of conditions approving this work with special conditions that to the maximum extent feasible it be done during dry conditions I mean I unless we get again a really wet summer don't think that'll be too difficult uh condition to meet but if by chance it is really wet again um that that the commission uh require a a contingent dewatering plan which I think you already submitted submitted that yeah but but but but the contractor but I think that's going to be in in the the requirement of the bid and in the contract that they actually draw up the dewatering plan right that they draw it up that that they prepare the or or am I confusing that with another Pro um we have a dewatering plan as part of the contract yeah okay so they'll have a de watering plan as if needed but also in the contract it is written explicitly to do the work during dry weather if feasible we really need to get it done this this summer we had it's arpa funding that is doing the project so we need to have it done by December and also we've had severe flooding issues on that road um traffic unable to pass flooding issues so it's not something that we want to extend through another year and that's people that there's no other way to get to their houses if I'm not mistaken um yeah there's some places that would be imp possible really so yeah okay so it's definitely an issue okay and and then just and then just the the other uh condition and I've already verified with Courtney that it's uh workable just just make sure that the VOR truck is just kept in the buffer zone yeah which is already the plan yeah okay okay can I ask one more well let's we'll go around oh all right go around yep uh Chris you want to start on your end I'm good no I'm um Mike you're in uh the well area of the uh Chums Chums water district I I would like if if you were in that area zone one zone two recharge resource area just notify to water districts okay either east north or Center District just so they uh they were aware of it all right anything else no that's any other Bill I'm fine Mark joh joh I'm good I'm I'm good uh public hearing is there any any uh public comment on this don't see any public hear chairman y I move that we close the hearing motion from Chris to close second uh do I have a second to close it John John close second all in favor I I hearing closed can I just clarify that just just um y that'll be all projects not just tonight's project right you had to notify the water district if we're within their Wells we can do do that that's not not a problem thank you good good comment okay so I move that we um approve this project issue a order of conditions or standard conditions plus some um additional uh conditions uh one being as we talked about that the work be done to the maximum extent possible or feasible during dry conditions or weather that was number one uh number two we just want to make sure it sounds like we have it already but we just want to make sure we have a contingent dewatering plan that's been something good and then number three the um want to keep the VOR truck um in the buffer zone and out of the resource area and then number four and we'll probably be doing this uh going forward but just notify the the appropriate water district before starting a work yeah no problem thank you motion from Chris do I have a second second second from Bill PA in favor I I motion passes all right thank you thank you thank you take me a few days to get this out I'll let you know okay thanks David you know the drill okay next on our list we have 10 hildr Street and we need a motion to continue based on the recommendation or the request from the applicant they want to have it continued until May 28th which is two weeks from now so move Carl motion from Chris second from Mark all in favor I I I motion passes P Hill dist Street continued to May 28th next on our list this is a continuation from Mr chairman yes um I suggest you you you just you continue 93 Bill Kill Road right now as well yep you never know I forget to do it on that yeah let's uh I uh we have a request for 93 brick Hill Road from the applicant to continue that one why don't we do that continuation also make a motion that we continue 93 brick Kill Road and till our next meeting of May 28th motion from Chris second second from Bill all in favor I I motion passes thank you thank you David for taking that out of order so that's good okay so we are now at the request for amended order of condition at 270 Bill rer Road this is a hearing continued from April 23rd and um we see uh Casey familiar face is here at the podium um we are looking at the draft of the special conditions that's the main topic of this evening sure so uh Casey Ferrer with Howard Stein Hudson um I do want to note the last time we were before this board uh we had not yet issued the revised set of plans that were dated May 1st um so since last time that we've been here we did Issue a revised set of plans that addressed all the peerreview comments that we told you that we were going to address um and in the time since we uh issued th those plans we have received a clean peer review letter from beta um David I'm not sure if Phil is online yet but um I'm told he should be at some point so he may be able to address that if you guys wish he's he's he's coming at 8 so not sure going too fast so yeah I in the event he does make it um he would be able to speak to that uh if you guys wish Rob Rob is SMI Rob Smith is here though you are right Rob you're there I did see him come in yes I'm here okay yep so additionally we also did Issue a new Ram plan uh which was reviewed by Beta um Rob has also issued an additional letter if you'd like to hear from him um but as far as leaving the last meeting it was um our understanding that we needed to take care of those letters and we could review the draft order conditions and then that's where we would stand so I'll leave it leave it there okay um David do you want to sure um so um a after last meeting um I forwarded um my draft to commission members and I also forward it to Casey um I I received uh comments back from Peter and as we moved down we can see what those comments are also also received um you know a markup from Casey so what what we're seeing on the screen now is sort of the the uh current markup which includes my um original draft um Peter's proposed conditions um I think Chris had a couple as well um and and Casey's um markup and then my my uh subsequent markups as well uh the F the first thing I'd like to say about this because I know K Casey's um markup came back uh proposing to uh change uh conditions that were in the original order um the original order from the back in February so so recall that this is actually a request for amended order of conditions so um and and some of those were outside the scope of the requested Amendment you know the commission is under absolutely no legal obligation to change those those conditions that um um you know they were part of the original that was not appealed out they were outside out outside the scope of the requested Amendment you you you you can change those if you want but you're under absolutely no legal obligation to do that um I think the the the example the first example is is right here uh condition uh 21 uh which originally stated the Cher Conservation Commission conservation agent building inspector Consultants acting as agents of the commission and the Department of Environmental uh protection reserve the right to enter and inspect the property at all reasonable times um until the issuance of the certificate compliance to evaluate compliance with this order of conditions the wet Lanes protection act etc etc etc so uh Casey Casey proposed to uh modify that by saying reasonable times with reasonable notice to the owner and proper release of liability um just and and and then in in blue here is now my my suggest my suggested revisions um I'll just say a couple things the the way this often pans out is that um say a consultant or um you know member of the public or even a commission member will call me and just this slight exaggeration agre with say you know there's a dump truck uh that's emptying its content into the Wetland you need to get down here right away you know I really don't have the time in that kind of a situation to try and make contact with with the owner um and let them know I'm going to be down there I mean I'll do the best if something like happens I'll do the best I can that's why I said with reasonable effort at giving reasonable notice to the owner um now with regard to the the the proper release of liability um I'm quite sure that staff and commission members um already um or the property owners indemnified um if anything should happen to one of us I mean I'll double check that with with uh Town Council and the town manager and and we always check we always make sure in the case of private Consultants that they provide a certificate of liability insurance you know before before any contract is signed with them so hopefully you know these what I what I have here is acceptable yeah that's fine for me okay um just uh going going down to uh the next one here um condition it says 26 I mean some of this this numbering is not completely um consistent at this point this this is this is Peter's proposed condition um I I have somewhat changed the wording I think to make it a little bit more complete and read a little bit better prior to the start of any site where copies of all permits issued by other town of chelsford regulatory agencies relevant to the protection of groundwater and prevention of pollution shall be submitted to the Conservation Commission including but not limited to a land disturbance permit from the chelsford DBW under the town of chelsford storm water uh management bylaw regulations B aquifer protection special permit from the planning board and C Board of Health approvals pursuant to its Authority Under article 7 groundwater protection zone of the town of chelsford uh Health regulations in addition all correspondents from the chelsford water district relating to the Project's potential impacts to cwds drinking water supply well shall be provided to the Conservation Commission so I mean that's that's probably virtually all correspondence yep so that's fine um um so 26 we already discussed that last week and I didn't receive any you know comments or proposed R Visions on that from either KC or members of the commission so I guess that one will stand yep um this what's been called uh condition 28b prior to the start of any site work the applicant and Conservation Commission shall agree on the specific procedures and actions uh to maintain the storm water system pursuant to the requirements of the long-term storm water onm and pollution prevention PL should the applicant elect to defer some of these specific procedures uh of omm and long-term pollution plans until they develop an employee handbook or similar instrument then this permit is not valid until app applicant and Conservation Commission agree on the specific procedures I I I I I had you know a long conversation with Peter about this um is it Peter Peter inserted this word yeah this this this was I mean I modified it a little bit but first first of all you can't say you can't make the validity of the order conditions contingent upon or you can't put that in a condition the the order is valid upon issuance and expiration of the 10day appeal period so um I explained that to him um and I and and and I also try to get a better understanding from him of what what more does he want to see in terms of you know the the onm and long-term pollution prevention plan that's not already in there um I I just was I just felt I was unable to really get a good understanding um from him uh about that um you know obviously he's not here tonight to offer clarification and and and I also pointed out to him that um you know an employee handbook was never discussed for this project so um you know I I I I had to be honest with them and and say to them you know my recommendation is that this condition not be included so okay but but you know it's not meant to Prejudice you well but I would tend to agree we can have well we can talk about that right now let's let's just address this as we go yeah I mean that you know as I explained to Casey I think that this this hearing is likely to be kept open you know maybe Peter could if he's back next meeting he could better explain what his intent with this well I don't see how we can well I mean Chris do you have any comment let's let's just reaction to this um I would strike that 28b okay Mark any comment same thing I don't want to prolong this not what I want to do on this okay B any I'd strike that also okay yeah okay we were at a final vote so if Peter were here and I think unless he had some miraculous uh explanation I don't see it um well I think maybe maybe in future projects you know again he can he can yeah you know better articulate you know what what he really intended in this with this condition yeah I just don't think that wording the way it is now I don't to your point I don't think it's legal um and I and I'm not quite sure what the intent is so that being said let's let's agree I think we just agreed to strike that one uh we can capture that as we go is unless I'm going to guess that that makes you happy the applicant my question was what's the intent of this one so yeah okay I I thought we were at final vote yeah well we're going well we're going through this uh we're going through the changes so uh uh O Okay um just then on 29 um the the original condition said if there are any changes and this and this is pretty standard if there are any changes to the plans to submitted the applicant shall have the responsibility to submit revised plan showing all changes to the Conservation Commission um Casey is proposing to change that to um agent you know I I I usually feel that um unless they're just really really minor change is I mean just ridiculously m i I really feel that you know I should inform the commission I agree I agree so you're proposing to leave it uh as commission yeah and actually I think Chris made made that recommendation as well and again like you know because this was part of the original I mean the commission is under no legal obligation to change this okay and our question Katy on right with how Hut my question regarding the commission or agent is when you put something in there that says commission it assumes we're coming to a public hearing and hearing a vote of the commission which is really burdensome for very small changes so the idea was if if it means a discussion between you and the commission members offline when you say commission this is the body that I'm assuming we're talking to and in this manner whether it be a submitt and a discussion I mean it will Pro it will it will most likely be a uh discussion at a at a public meeting uh that's not necessarily the same as a hearing as as you know um you know and the commission may or may not uh take a vote to uh require you know one course of action or another um you know I think it's within the realm a possibility that um you know if I if I get a revised plan I can just have a conversation with a chair and he he he may say well no I think that needs to go for you know a discussion a public meeting but I but I think us usually it it will at least be a discussion but but that that that will be preliminary to a hearing you know unless unless unless it's a request for an amendment unless if it's a request for an amendment order of conditions then that will automatically go to a public hearing as you know so there's going to be a lot of during construction obviously we don't know every single bit of information that we're going to see in the ground so there going to be continual little tweaks yeah field changes changes also you know to the plans is there an applicability is there is it within the buffer zone um changes stuff like that or is it any any change to do with the plant that's that's why I I had I changed the wording to agent only because certainly it can go through you to the commission if you feel it's elevated above that but but to say we're going to the commission with every change is is a lot just as far as Clarity you understand what you're saying I do um and I'm thinking thinking allowed a little bit here so it seems to me that if we leave it as agent then you have the right to say I want the commission to look at this but you also have the right to say based on that that you can look at it and say hey this is a small thing I'm not going to go there I'd leave it I'd leave with commission I mean it's a standard provision he his authority comes from our Authority we we have authority out from the Mass general laws for what we do and our bylaw and then we in turn delegate that authority to our agent yeah and that's how we work good point it's never been an issue honestly in the past over gosh 30 years that I've been here so so you're saying the wording has always been the commission yeah I I think I don't problem has never been used that way yeah it's never been used the way that we're discussing using it which is going to the commission for every change I think it depends on the agent and certainly it's never been an issue before because the agent would make determinations on their own and bring it to you only if they felt it was something that modified the work we were doing to the resource area yeah I think to Chris's point the word agent is he's representing us he our agent and that's our agent so I'm good with leaving it as commission uh any other it doesn't mean they're coming back before us at a meeting no no I mean they're going to go to agent first kind of have a discussion with him and and he's got Authority from us to you know things are really minor he you know and he does an awful lot in the office day to day but but he's you know ultimately his authority comes under he's he's vested with our Authority the commission and as I said before I'll check with Carl who's certainly a commissioner is in his opinion you know should this go to the full commission or not and maybe if it's so minor that maybe Carl will say no he doesn't think he needs to okay but so if we leave it so you're suggesting we leave it as commission well I think that's what original that's what I'm think I'm hearing consensus on that's what you want to do and that's the way it's been and that's that's fine as long as it continues to work in the same way it's always worked okay yeah we don't want to change it let's move on next okay thank you um going down now to condition 30b um which uh pertains to erosion control um which which again this is pretty standard just says once once the erosion control is in um you know they and they before they can continue uh with any more site work they just contact me to do a site inspection um Casey just as proposed to to just you know affirm here reaffirm that's to Ru the installation of the ECB I don't have a problem with that that's fine yeah good it's being explicit that's all yeah y okay yeah um okay um under construction [Music] management um so uh uh I presented 32 condition number 32 before um or the last hearing um don't seem any any issues with that so condition 33 um so this is this is what I um put in and and you know again I'm getting some feedback that this was never really discussed um at uh you know prior to this um during the hearing my recollection that it was but anyway this is this this is this is where um the commission has has the legal Authority Under Mass General Law chapter 4 44 section 53g um the commission may hire an outside consultant um to to um ensure or monitor the project to ensure compliance with this order of conditions um in case Casey's comment here was that um we we feel this needs to specify or clarify an intended scope Our intention with the offer was for a third party reviewer to review our work as it relates to any interaction with potentially contaminated soils or inst ation of the focal point if necessary so I I have come back and and proposed okay we'll modify this to uh you know specify that it's that it's it's to review compliance with the construction management section of this order of conditions which is really conditions 32 to through 50 uh so I'm thinking that it would mainly be um to monit monitor the uh implementation of the ramp plan and make sure that's being done correctly and uh and things here like 34 um which which I subsequently put in excavations and installation of all storm water maner B bmps shall be observed by an agent of the town to confirm design assumption for soil texture and depth to seasonal High groundwater elevation prior to system installation and to verify successful installation according to correct design and product specific ations um this may that may or may not be the same consultant as in 32 um but it's it's it's just it's really it's really I think the the intent of condition 33 was really just construction management yep or you know the project during construction well I can add as well that as part of the planning board process we have been they are contemplating basically the exact same condition um and what we've done with that is we're working to provide a scope of that work that beta um is going to review on behalf of the planning board um so if you'd like we can tie this condition to that same scope that will be reviewed and approved by Beta and that's basically going to provide um a timeline and a um series of construction points at which we feel that per the ram plan construction will be getting into areas of potential that potentially contaminated Horizon um so we feel the planning board's going to move towards the same exact condition and we want it to be workable between the two boards uh the commission and the board so um if we could work to tie this condition back to that same scope that they're going to approve then that would kind of be beneficial for all parties I you know that I agree that sounds like it makes sense the reason and I spoke in Evan about this the reason I'm reluctant to do that is because I think you really need the input of the contractor I mean we can we we we we can certainly cont we can certainly come up with a scope um but uh you know I've been through this before with contractors you know they'll see engineering plans that are all approved you know they'll see you know all you know work sequences that were all approved say well we can't do it that way so I we really need to have a contractor involved in coming up with the scope I just met with the contractor on Monday yesterday and we discussed um how they'll build it how they'll construct it in conformance with the Ram plan the timelines that they'll need to be able to do this and at which points that they think that um you know where that we think that we're going to be hitting that so that they understand when they need that oversight so that's how we came up with that scope okay so you'll be working with the contractor directly to prepare we already did we already did and we're ready to provide that to Beta probably tomorrow we're just waiting for our single review of it well thank you I did not know that that's okay that's good and I like the idea it's especially from your point of view that you've got one uh you know one between the two boards so that helps that's that's what we're looking for yep correct I had a question about 34 we can go back to 34 because it doesn't again I'm looking at this just from a practical standpoint excavations and installation for all storm water BMP shall be observed by an agent of the town to confirm design assumptions soil texture depth to seasonal High groundwater elevation prior to system installation and to verify successful installation according to the correct design and product specifications so the contractor getting the plans they're submitting cut sheets to the engineer as far as the different types of materials that they're using we have to review them against the plans and sign off on those then at the end of the project we have to then as built the project and sign off on compliance with the original plans not only that but where we're we've removed all infiltration from the project there is no need to review soil texture and where we've already confirmed groundwater there's no need to confirm groundwater as we're not infiltrating to groundwater so I'm just not sure where there's somebody that's going to be reviewing the site as far as the contamination during aspects of the work that were within two feet of the water table and all of those structures the the rest of the site were we're not infiltrating there there is really no need I guess for soil texture Andor estimated seasonal High groundwater except where the concern was previously and I think it was discussed within the working group it's proximity to the focal point which we then went out and did confirmatory witness testing for a second time to confirm that that was again outside of the water table so this just seems and then I have to on top of this review and as built to make sure things were put in at the end of the day at the right elev ation so I'm not sure what this does um well I'm I'm I'm certainly wouldn't object to taking out the wording that refers to confirmed design assumptions for soil texture and depth to seasonal High groundwater um but I certain I certainly would feel better if if someone were out someone on the town side and this is a standard condition if someone were there again just just to witness it um just to make sure that and and and I know that the depth to groundwater for that focal point of concern has been you know significantly increased but you know just speaking very SL I would I would just feel feel personally better if someone from you know the town's agent whether it be from beta or the DPW just there to witness you know because mistakes can be made you know yeah but we have to have there's so many checks and balances along the way already and especially you're talking about at Fourth party coming in to review it the town is certainly going to review they typically come in and review if we have infiltration to confirm once again for a second time that the infiltration is going to happen correctly but we're reviewing that the materials are being put in part of the plan and that they're being installed by a contractor with a license and then we're checking them at the end to make sure that they were in at the right elevations I guess I'm not understanding what correlation what you're looking for as far as a correlation what the concern is because there's so many checks and balances already it feels like we're paying a fourth party to watch over our shoulders of multiple individuals who are already taking responsibility well how how how so a fourth party because you just said it could be in a different party it could be the DPW it could be other than paying DPW well we wouldn't be paying DPW but my guess is that DPW is not going to have the wherewithal to be on our specific site during the entire installation yes yes I I agree with that that's why I'm I'm thinking that it it would probably be beta's lsse that would be there again my again my PR my primary concern is and and and I've heard this Con continuing concern from you know again at least one commission member but also members of the public is that you're still pretty close to groundwater trying to install at least that one focal point and that you know um mistakes can be made you know so it's also important to note that Ferguson is required to be on site during the entire installation of the focal point or they will not certify the system and at which point they will not certify that the system is functioning are they the manufacturer Ferguson is the distributor of it distributor and they they help us through the design they help us with everything so Ferguson's already required to be on site and if this the main focus of this condition is for the focal point then I think that's basically taken care of and our requirements to purch it from them anyway well commission M know my opinion yeah I if if Ferguson is going to certify it and it's their responsibility I'm I'm okay with that myself I don't know what anyone else is [Music] thinking I hear you David but I'm understood yeah I mean I guess my question is is you know we see the language that's up there was that did Peter suggest that language no no this is standard so that's a standard this this is a standard condition yeah okay every catch Bas every I mean a catch Basin is a BMP so every catch Basin it's every construction site gets witnessed by a town employee um yeah I can see how how you could interpret it that way and I certainly wouldn't have a problem tweaking this language say to um to uh you know thing things certainly infiltrators subservice infiltrators which which aren't right I know they're not included in this project but but again it seems it seems to me reasonable to um include like uh you know a BMP um like focal point um now I now I had specify that in this wording is that something you could do well I would I think yeah putting putting in putting in that Ferguson well can I add as well that as part of our scope that we've defined for uh thir 3 we've also added the focal point as the potential for something to be reviewed by the third party consultant so that would already be taken care of by the scope if if agreed to by the commission as part of 33 that sounds reasonable okay I'm good with that everybody else yeah I'm good I mean if we can tweak the language a bit so everybody's happy with it I'd be good you okay so so I think remove 34 remove 34 as the the scope for 33 will include that focal point okay and then Ferguson will be on site for it anyway yep so that's that'ss understood okay okay um going down here so um just 47 had to had to do with um dust control um again this is this is a standard condition but Peter wanted um it to be revised to say in there in the second to add to the second SE uh sentence dust control shall be performed as the work proceeds or whenever a visible plume of dust is observed on or coming from the site um vria Road Route 129 she'll be kept free of dirt dust originating from the project site I think that's a general requirement of like the dpws permit anyway I mean the the language that was there before is pretty much the typical that we run with usually but I don't really have any concern with the the additional language okay okay so um going on to the next one so uh not of commission members recall that with in the original notice of intent there there was a proposed invasive species management and um so that's that's what the next condition that KC would is proposing to change um pertains to uh the condition d uh uh let me see that would be 51d uh which originally um read the certificate of compliance shall not be issued prior to the end of year five the monitoring period and the Wetland scientist overseeing treatment and monitoring certifies and writing that invasive species are controlled and new invasives are limited so he um he his comment was we feel requiring a 5-year monitoring period before issuance of a COC can be very problematic from an ownership standpoint the invasive species management can be a Perpetual condition and is below so invasive species does not need to hold up a COC um again just want to remind the the commission the commission is under no legal obligation to change this condition because it was in the original was not appealed um I I would be okay with um just you know clarifying that the full certificate of compliance shall not be issued prior to the end of year five the monitoring period etc etc um so that that that allows for the possibility of a um uh partial certificate of compliant or partial certificates of compliance you know I just want to remind the commission that you know all the times recently where we've gotten like requests for certificates of compliance that are like 5 years old uh or 25 years old um and and and you know to put it to put it in as make it a Perpetual condition um I just wouldn't really be confident that again if it's a matter of you know two or three decades in the future a request for a certificate of compliance um was was received by the commission you know the commission might at that point say oh well you know invasive management we're not going to worry about it you know there there's a closing that's scheduled in a week you know that needs to be issued um I going to point to a specific example where um I guess I'll make it nameless but but but our our one of our favorite projects on Cushing place you know there were promises made there about invasive species management that didn't even make it into the order of conditions let alone any anything you know any conditions put on the certificate of compliance so my recommendation is this be left in we can add the full we can add full to certificate of compliance and I think that should address the concerns well so the reason that we're concerned about this and I don't know I I think I was on leave the first time this went through so I didn't catch it but um the reason we're concerned about this is because in the event that DH wants to do something with bank whether that's refinance or even if they want to sell the property they're going to be required to have the COC and if they have to wait five years just to be eligible to even get it um that could hold up things from an ownership standpoint and that can be very problematic where it's already a Perpetual condition um I just don't see the need for the CC to hold to be held up on it well you know my my experience in that kind of situation in those kinds of situations and I've had a fair amount is that number one a partial I mean you usually a letter from the commission or the agent is is sufficient to just say you know everything is in is everything is in compliance you know we we just can't issue the full certificate of compliance or or the full certificate of compliance will be issued you know upon you know year five or whatever or or a partial I mean in 99.9% of cases that's going to be sufficient okay for the purpose you're referring to I'm inclined to go with David on this one any any other thoughts commission I have no problem leaving was a false certificate yeah that's the way we had it originally I we don't have have to change it i' preferbly leave it leave the original learning yeah yeah would that make it eligible for a partial and that that would still yeah it would still be for partial okay okay we like the situation you brought up just L us with no bite we couldn't do anything about that you know it wasn't it it was well I mean at the end of the day yeah let's let's keep moving we all agreed let's keep moving we're agreed okay so yeah so so now we're getting into Perpetual conditions so um condition 51 which I know again I know that the the numbering is out of order um this is Peter's condition the Conservation Commission shall be copied via email or applicable on all correspondents sent to and provided on receip with copies of all correspondents received from masty EP Bureau of Wayside cleanup pertaining to mCP release tracking number um etc etc I think we already offered that so that's uh that's fine that's fine okay okay so um so so the so the next one uh condition 52 and it you know shortly I'll I'll turn this over to to Rob um and and this and this actually this is this is um this is actually language that I inserted sort of a placeholder I I just did some draft language i i i i later later on this afternoon I actually got um some more um you know definitive and precise language from um from Rob and Phil uh on this condition but but just but just to um brief briefly describe um and remind commissioners of the background here that is that is the the the concern is that for what whatever reason um whether whether whether it be that the storm monor management system was installed incorrectly to begin with OR it was damaged incorrectly or it deteriorates uh over time after the start of operation the the concerns about groundwater leaking into it and specifically contaminated groundwater leaking into it and then discharging on the surface so this this this condition is meant to try to address that um in in speaking with Rob and Phil um they they uh propose um that the best way to do that um or at least conceptually the best way to do that and which sounds good to me is that is that uh after uh installation uh of at some point after installation of of the system is complete then then it be monitored during dry weather for discharges with the assumption that if it if it's dry if it's been dry at least for some period of time that any discharges out of the system or observed to be coming from the system will be due to groundwater that's leaking into it um and then and then further if any such um discharges are observed to then sample and Laboratory test it for concentrations of pasas um so I that's that's that's additional information um that if if the discharges observed I mean right there we know that um ground groundwater is getting into the system to test it for pasas is you know additional information and I think sort of is sort of at the heart of what the concern is and you know um and and again I'll I'll turn it over to to Rob um and maybe Phil well could I ask a quick question first yeah um I think we're fine with the the monitoring for any discharges during dry season MH uh in the event that there is a discharge we'd have to fix that anyway because that would mean that the Ser the system is not functioning properly and we'd have to fix it so instead of going down the rabbit hole of Let's test it and provide this let's just make it that we have to fix that and make the system compliant with the design plans mhm but um I I guess I guess um my question is or my thinking is and Rob if you could jump in there is that is that the the concentration of pasas Might determine how you fix the leak in other words how you correct the problem you have any do you have anything to add on that Rob yeah no I think uh one thing we did want to add in is is not just sampling the outfall really we wanted to to sort of you know and it's borrowing from procedures that exist for ms4 sampling um you know for storm water systems and that we want to again that be in that period of dry weather where but where the you know the springtime where the the groundwater elevations are are going to be higher and so again at those times of year if we're if you're seeing uh you think there's groundwater that discharging I agree with what you said Casey that uh yeah that that should be sort of rectified I mean we want the system to be watertight and I do agree that um with David I think I think it's important to you know to monitor for posos at those times and I think at those times that takes out of the equation sort of you might get some background posos from precipitation um we know that you could see some Trace levels so I think it gives you is a way to differentiate U what you're seeing you know in the system at those times Well if we're seeing that the system is intended to be completely watertight there's no infiltration so everything that is within the ground is wrapped with a non-permeable um material and then all the pipes are supposed to be watertight as a as their construction conditions anyway so if we see water coming out we just know that there's a leak anyway and we know that's going to be groundwater because if we're observing in dry times and it's not going to be storm water so if we see a leak we're going to know that that's groundw and we have to determine where the groundw is coming in and fix that so I don't think it's going to help us differentiate between storm water and groundw because we're going to know that that's groundwater if there's no storm water falling but but I think it does it helps determ if there's a if there's an uncontrolled discharge potentially to the the surface water I think that's important you know so like and if if you did test if it's it's sort of trace or um if it's a low level it's sort of less like a concern that it's just sort of there's something coming in that has to be addressed any well well I anything that's coming out of the system in in a dry time would not be supposed to be coming out so I'm still in the camp that if there's anything coming out then we have to fix it regardless um right but just not but my my question is again um if if there are pasas and and and in some sense we're able if we have sort of a background level and we're able to to say that say this is a relatively High um level of pasas um in in in in the in the discharge um and and knowing where the higher levels of pasas have been found on the site already could it could it potentially be important to know then where the leak is taking place and if it's close to uh a higher rather than a lower level of PS might that influence your procedure for fixing the leak I guess that's my question I don't think so because I'm pretty sure the groundwater levels of past weren't that substantially different and I'll let Ed speak to that but um Ed Weagle from R Associates for DH um I think you know one of the questions that I have that I'd ask like to ask Rob is um you know the the ground we're on the site um you know my assumption is that it's discharging to the stream that runs past the site I mean Rob what do you think about that is that that's usually what we see in cases like this um thoughts on that and Adam not sure your question as you so so so the so the groundwater is discharging to the stream and if the groundwater's uh impacted across the site which we know it is I mean if the groundwater discharges to the stream or if it discharges through the storm drain uh the storm system which um as I understand it can't anyway it has to be it has to be watertight I mean isn't the water all going to the same place to begin with I think um I don't think You' demonstrated a discharge to the stream and I I think you know sort of bypassing I think I see what you're getting at is that it's sort of it's getting there anyway so what's the problem if if more gets there is that I think that's the point you're trying to make that's not necessarily the point that we're trying to make um the point that we're trying to make is the past levels getting there are going to get there anyway but if we notice that storm water's coming out then we have to fix it anyway so we should leave it at if we if we have storm water coming out of the system during a dry time just make the condition that we have to rectify that so we need to as we're going to have to anyway because the system we make a decision here how we want to move forward we're back and forth I think um do you do you have a suggestion Thena uh Casey how how we yeah I I say we leave in the monitor during a dry during dry time and we can leave in that it must be monitored during dry time every May or something during a high water season we'll look at the outfalls make sure there's nothing coming out right cuz that's a high water season and if there is we have to fix that just leave it as the S water system must be rectified to design yeah bill when you you everybody's talking about having it monitor who's going to do the monitoring the storm I would assume the St storm water onm we can just include that as a condition of the storm water system the site M maintenance I believe we have a rip WP outfall operation maintenance anyway um so we can add to that operation maintenance that it must be and specific locations we already have that maintenance for the ri to that out okay yeah because yeah who do specified who's going to do it when right thank you okay um are you okay with that David um yeah I i' i' like it um you know I'd like I'd like to think a little bit more um so so it sounds like um so but so it would it would still be better to do it at estimated seasonal High groundwater and right High Water season so right yeah so April or May and we can add that in the omm that it must be checked um so I so I I'd actually I'd like to review their their changes okay um and keep the hearing open I think given all of these changes and I think it does make sense to have one more look at this there's just a lot here but it should be very um we should be good I don't know I'd like to close it tonight if we can I think I thought we were close how much more do we have here um couple more yeah let's keep going on that and then we'll then we'll get there but um so so anyway Rob I mean do you I mean are you are you really have serious concerns about not doing the posa testing I I do have some concerns about not testing I mean I appreciate you know the argument that's being made yet you have to address the issue anyway if if you don't sample it's just sort of you know that's you're not supposed to discharge posos uh you know to surface to surface water if you can help it um and if you don't test it you won't know what you're discharging so I I think this sampling again the sampling is only conducted if there's a if there's a if there's a problem and groundw is getting into the system any uh Conservation Commission members have have ideas on this topic I I got a question there's monitoring Wells on site right yep isn't that how they monitor it um well and and yes and actually rob you are proposing some additional monitoring Wells right um I can I can bring that up um hold on a second here okay so um this is probably a little bit hard to see let me enlarge that a little bit so yeah so so what I what I what I did suggest and and certainly the locations I didn't I didn't put that on the plan where there may actually be monitoring wells in some of those locations but um my thought was that it it would be helpful to have if there was a monitoring weld near portions of the system that were installed in the you know below the water table having a monitoring W there I think could help a lot as far as diagnosing like it you know is the water level at at the time you're conducting your evaluation you know is it above the the elevation of the structure um I just thought that could be a a useful Diagnostic and and and in in tracking down the source of any leakage if it's observed yeah exactly I mean and you know part of that is sort of looking in um looking at each manhole you you may have to do some camera work but again having you know some key locations where you know if you let's say you're seeing a discharge and but the water level doesn't support that that the water level is actually below the you know structures in that portion of the system um so it's actually it's these it's these blue dots where Rob has proposed additional monitoring Wells near near certain elements of the the drainage system so it's three four let me see there's one there's four modit okay this this is new information for us understood understood I just got this this afternoon yeah no and I appreciate that but I I think certainly it's within the purview of the owners if they want to make life easier for them to propose different aspects of the project but we've done so much work to guarantee that were looking at every aspect of the site as if there were pasas I think what Ed was trying to say Phil to you earlier is that I'm sure the groundwater contributes to the flow in the Stream otherwise the stream wouldn't be flowing um therefore the groundwater is getting there eventually I'm not saying that we should we can't test or shouldn't test but if there's water coming out of it after a significantly dry time because we are discharging water through a retention system because we aren't infiltrating we are going to capture the storm water we're going to let it out slow that's what we're required to do because we're trying to maintain the flow to the stream there's water coming out of it after all of that flow has dissipated then there might be a leak might be a leak after we've seen it installed we've checked that it was installed correctly we've checked that the things were installed that we said were supposed to be installed as builted the system the contractor has left and then secured the system for I'm sure a certain amount of time thereafter to prove that they did their job um it just seems you know we know that there's a base level of P that's coming out of the atmosphere coming out of the rain there's a pre and there's a post I get that but in in what instance are we I just don't understand what at that point we're just checking and checking and checking and checking and checking and checking and checking for eternity um where there's pasas on on the site who knows how many other sites there's pasas on it's coming in and we've enclosed the system we've gone above water table we've checked water table we've taken out infiltration we've done all of these things but but I think I think I hear what Rob what Rob is saying and please correct me Rob if if I'm wrong I think what I'm hearing him say is that these proposed new mons will help track down the source of any leakage if one is found regardless the posa issue is that is that what you're saying rob yes and I mean there could be a situation where you've got a monitoring well near certain structures where it might actually help you know the applicant where maybe you don't need to sample because you can say hey we've got some discharge here and uh you know but but we know the water level is below our sort of lowest structure of this portion of the system I mean I might actually avoid sampling um and again I think those locations are you know we want to get them sort of near different structures and you know those could be are likely cooc with existing Well locations and I think the last thing I would just say is that yeah we understand about sort of background levels P are pervasive there you know there's some elevated levels in the site and I think want to make sure that things aren't made worse you know there's a lot of effort on other fronts and uh you know it's just not sort of a Perpetual thing it's sort of like it's just part of your annual check the dry weather um uh screening basically and to you know to look and just to be a part of that effort so I'm not hearing a a positive response to the monitoring Wells I mean that's fine we don't I mean if we want to install them for I mean we're groundwater monitoring that's what we're installing them for and that's what I want to understand is we're installing them not because we're going to have a Perpetual testing protocol through the Conservation Commission so I don't know that I would be looking to have those as part of our conditions I think if you want to do that as your um with that that you know we we certainly wouldn't prevent you from doing that you know if it's going to help you and your your applicant in the future I think that's kind of where I'm thinking on this especially where it's come so late in our in our hearing process do it yeah so so where are we where are we stuck well um so I iess I guess you know what is the consensus of the commission with regard to the P additional monitoring Wells for purpose of detecting linkage okay all right um spoke with Michael so the monitoring Wells I I see that some of them land like directly on a drain line so General location we we we can them in those General locations but not those exact specific locations um and you know if the past testing only when visually seen coming out when it shouldn't be MH um we can do that too okay that's good I I like that but I guess I just want to clarify the level I mean we are going to find P correct and we want we want to have it compared we want to compare it to the the levels that have been seen during the previous testing to Ure that it's you know where it's from agree well you know then then I I guess I would feel more comfortable with um Katie and Casey proposing that language um okay and and which again I think means that we should really keep this this hearing well I I think we were offering to just maintain it as you have it written here um but you didn't want anything about sampling and I mean there is no said we'll do that we'll do that if it's sampling but dictated only by when we have water coming out of it which is I believe what that condition is saying yeah yes I just want to ensure that that's the intention of the commission that when there's you know if we're inep a high storm event and there's water coming out I don't to go sample it right no no it'd be only only during U dry weather yeah yes okay okay okay so I'm a little confused does that mean the wording that's in there now stays or are you twe okay good only part we were going to tweak was what we just talked about related to the P levels like it just says P so the only thing we were saying is if it's I guess if it's is there some language that we can just add instead of just say p because we know there's going to be is there is there just a modifier to P to say consistent with levels found with levels found at the site per and groundwater at the site that's reasonable that's all well but right right now the language doesn't say what to do um you know based on the level of pasas so so it it just says to test for pasas that's all it say all saying I don't have it in front of me anymore I don't know where I left it but it does say um may require submission to the commission for a plan of corrective action that's to what the intent is to correct the leak right with so it doesn't say anything about what you're supposed to do with the Pasa level I think it's I I my understanding is it's just it's just for informational purposes that that may help you determine the location of the leak it's yeah I think I don't think we're doing locations still fixing the leak yeah so I think in yeah that's fine okay okay all right let's keep moving um so the next one is uh what's now um e going down there uh again this this this was in the original where it said the commission reserves the right to require an amendment to this order of conditions prior to a proposed new use and or change in an existing use of the property should the commission determine that the proposed new new use SL change in use is not consistent with this order of conditions and as it may be amended including but not necessarily limited to land uses with higher poll uh potential pollutant loads so KC um made the comment the bylaw already requires that any change to the site within the buffer zone would force the site to go back before the Conservation Commission for an amendment this condition could cause any change of uh use Allowed by right uh by zoning without any change to the site to require further conservation permitting the local Wetland bylaw and WPA provide enough jurisdiction to determine when a site uh should go back to the commission so um I I just then uh chimed in uh I recommend this condition remain in the amended order perhaps the wording a proposed new use in or change in an existing use should be revised to say a propose new and or change in an existing physical use uh to distinguish the intent of this condition from a change in use under zoning um the the motivation for this condition originally was concern at that time anyway that what was actually going to be warehoused in the warehouse was not definitely known and the concern was uh suppose suppose what when that was definitely der determined it either involved you know you know highly toxic chemicals or or it involved um you know storage uh and use on site of a lot more uh vehicles that then uh might cause again to be classified as a land use with higher potential pollutant loads and the concern was that then that should come back for an amended order of conditions to specifically allow that use you know with any with whatever changes Associated storm water might be required so that was the concern that was the motivation for the original but but if we're changing the use to something that would classify as a loople or something that is we we'd have to come back anyway well but so what's wrong with putting in the order of conditions because it just says use any use and that's it's just a wording issue again like I think we're on the same page but it says use and therefore like any use would require us to come back here in order change an existing physical use that really any change change in physical use of the site wouldn't it be well I feel like the the bylaws AR would require us to have to come back if that were the case why you know why muddy it up but but then but then I would go back to uh the earlier Edition which say that any proposed you know change to the plans she shall be submitted to the Conservation Commission so um there has to be some rights of the owner to be able to like if a different company comes in and it's operating in a similar fashion but but you see it as a change in use because maybe they I don't know do something in the corner that's a little bit different than just warehousing and distribution like it has nothing to do with the commission has nothing to do with Loop ball we're going to be standing here before you asking for an approval not necessarily again I go but but but I but I go back to the early condition it says any proposed change in use you know submit the plans to the Conservation Commission or the agent that the case may be and then the commission will make that determination um you know again just just trying to emphasize what the concern was for the original inter conditions maybe that concern is no longer there um well wasn't that concern taken care of by the fact that we'd have to come back anyway whether this condition was in here or not or say a use that would constitute a loophole you can specify that yeah you can specify that and then just make it extra clear in the commission that could work maybe what do you think just add a little more wording like your proposing just qualifying use that's all I'm sorry can you repeat what the qualified wording would be just that would constitute a Lo land use with higher potential pollutant loads already ConEd about yes it already said not well it says including but not limited to land use with higher potential bluten load so we should just say if it is changing to a a use that would be classified as a land I'd be okay with that let's go with that I'm good with that so uh so Phil uh has joined us um okay hello Phil good evening and do we have anything specific for him that we were holding off um and and are we near the end are we at the end I think I think we're very I think I think we are pretty pretty close uh at this point the only other one the only remaining thing was uh snow um storage um where that's just language change right yeah um I'm uh I'm okay with the proposed change okay um so Phil are you there yes yep uh so you just you just missed the the discussion uh regarding uh potential leakage of groundwater into uh the storm storm water management system um in in my uh conversations with you and Rob uh earlier about this I think you had actually mentioned that the leakage of of groundw in the storm water system is actually rather common is that is that what you said uh I I wouldn't necessarily comment that way uh it it does happen uh typically uh depending on the system used there are uh boots and uh boots and and or mortar associated with pipe connections to structures and uh gaskets for uh pipe connections themselves so you want to you want to keep the infiltration into pipe system pretty minimal uh although it does happen and it's not that critical normally if it does uh in this situation it's a little obviously a little more uh important to control that so uh how how how important do you do you feel it is um to install uh the proposed four monitoring Wells um toward helping with corrective action in case you know leakages are found well I I think you want I don't know if you need more but uh you know obviously if you know what the the high groundwater elevation is relative to your system uh then you can know you can be of certain that that what of the pipe connections are watertight and or uh you if you do have float and dry weather that the flow is groundwater related so um so those are the things you that are helpful to to have uh round want you know monitoring while okay but I think I heard can you agree to put them in they agreed to put them in they agreed so let's let's keep moving let's keep moving on we done after that snow storage comment yeah I think I think that pretty well does it okay so so that means that we have an order of conditions with um I think we're agreed to in principle everything there's still some smithing I I think so that's what I heard I think we're in agreement y okay and that was was that the remaining item on our I I think it was we got our peer review clean peer review letters we got uh the sgmp and ramp plans so I think we got everything and we're in a in principle agree that there's a little bit of word smithing here yeah and and if and and if the commission authorized me again to you know do back and forth with Casey just to you know nail nail down the final wording um the the only the only comment I will make is that though the planning board has continued their hearing and and why why was that Chris the draft order or the draft decision to do the same thing just just a draft in order so I mean issued that really major outstanding issues with the planning board at this point so we we wouldn't anticipate some dramatic thing from the planning board okay then I think I'm hearing that we're we could take a motion to close the hearing I make a motion to close I heard bill first Bill's quick Bill's quick motion from Bill second from Mark okay motion from Bill second for Mark to close the hearing on 270 Bill rer Road all in favor I I okay so we are closed that's a major step okay um so now so I make a motion that we um issue an order of conditions and it be the draft document that we've agreed to tonight but with the understanding that our agent could work with the applicant if there's a few minor tweaks that have to be done to the wording to you know to to get the intent that we all agree to okay any other uh conditions on this uh approval oh I think we've thrashed them out pretty thoroughly at this point just want to be thrashed is a good word to describe I I just realized we closed the hearing but we didn't ask well we had public comment we had plenty of public comment we had plent great public comment yes so we'll we'll we we had plenty of opportunity for that so I'll take them we we have a motion from Chris second on the motion from Bill all in favor I motion passes thank you sir yeah thank you very much have a good thank you very much to I'll be in touch again shortly Phil and Rob thank you very much for staying with us really appreciate it and to the applicant uh Casey and and uh everyone thank you very much appreciate itone thank you thank and to my fellow Commissioners thank you for working through this and especially David um I think that was a good back and forth yeah no it was I mean it was detailed but you know we talked about this last week in our in our meeting we we got to go through these together as a team I think that's I think we that's what we're going to experience but that's okay that's it's a give and take well and I and I hope what I show an appreciation for is that you know the commission you know isn't is I know the commission members aren't working with the same issues every day like I am so so I I I hope that i' I presented them such a way is that it's easy to follow what the concerns are and you know what really the is we obviously Look to You for yeah we don't know you know yes but but I don't want to I don't want anyone to be snowed really there's there's really no need for that so I also want to thank Peter he's not here but he he had a lot of good suggestions for that order conditions I think we have a very good order conditions um on this I think it's a very strong robust it's a kind of a we're looking at setting a new uh a new level so anyway I'm I'm thinking that's good let's keep moving um that is it on our regulatory hearings if I'm not mistaken um we don't have anything listed under discussion that I saw um I think and uh we are on continual business so this is an up update on the open space and recck plan so that is is um let's see we had a meeting a few weeks ago and we have our next meeting next week and I don't really have anything new to add to that other than we have a meeting next week scheduled in this time slot next week so um we'll have that um we have ongoing work at 255 Princeton Street um okay so this is this actually now is one of those situations where they propos to uh make a change in plans um um that sounds pretty minor but I said I would have the commission just I said I would just run by run it by so this is the commission not the agent right right yeah I mean it's is this the agent yes it's a perfect example um exactly exactly course now that I'm looking for the actual plan can the the the the proposal is to sub to a retaining wall there's uh is is as you go into 255 Street the Wetland is on the right yeah currently what's being proposed you know and it's down it's lower elevation what's currently proposed it's on the approved plans um is a guard rail and and what the um the applicant wants to do is um replace that with now a retaining wall looks like it's about 3 feet high um and they're just wanting to know if they have to come back for a formal approval to the commission for that is the three-foot wall is that a safety issue or anything or why it's it's aesthetic apparently it's it's that help alleviate the possible flooding down there uh no change that's not the intended purpose not good or bad either either way right it won't do anything um so why can't we bring it back for that should that be addressed here huh should that be addressed my my personal opinion is that it's it's what's called a minor field change um and could be here here it is here's here's the plan um this is the slope that you had a bill you had to carry Dave up this yeah right we remember it well right that's right so can can you see on this plan yeah so this this line right here that I'm pointing to is the guard rail uh that was on that was already approved they want to do the retaining wall um where the uh uh no I'm sorry the the guard rail is the red the guard rail the approved guard rail is the red this this line right here is the proposed retaining wall now I know this shows wet lands right here but it's actually it's actually just buffer zone here's U here's here's an image of the proposed wall so um I I I I did tell um Mr baransky who's the the project manager that um I we would need a plan for the wall and and uh a detail construction sequence proposed by the contractor but I thought that again my opinion was that you know with that information you know I knew filing would not be necessary with the commission but said I'd run it by the commission I'm good with that I'm good with that I'm good with that too any other anybody David if you get the the plan uh I think we're we're good with as long as we see you see a good plan we're good to let you okay be our agent do you have any information on the water in the pond um yeah they say it's not their fault they say it's coming off the street right yes yes say you do nothing they're doing okay so of course know if that helps okay anything else on um not 55 okay next is is the warrant poll reservation so um did you hand out copies of the CR so you all have a copy of the CR so your homework is to review it in the next two weeks and if you have any issues or comments come back to me with those comments but otherwise I'd like to vote on it at our next meeting to approve it and to recommend to the select would that it be submitted to the state so Carl anything we you want us to look at closely or does it look good to you the to me it looks good after three and a half years of working on it um there's the I mean you're the lawyer so you can look at the boilerplate if you want but the key parts are there is what's allowed what's prohibited and then the What's um what's mandated U obligatory which is that we do a Land Management plan for the meta which we were going to do anyway that was the last holdup and we came up with some wording on that and they said that's fine we're going to do that we were going to do that so it's just looking at really the key thing is looking at what's allowed what's what's prohibited those are the main the main things but there's nothing shouldn't we yeah okay yeah y okay so I know you won't be here but in spirit in spirit all right next is uh on the coolest property so we had a conversation about this last week prior to our our off cycle meeting last week uh it was not on our agenda uh Paul asked me just prior to our meeting if we would determine uh if we are interested in developing the CR and managing the coolest farm Parcels um that he wanted to make the recommendation to the select board we voted on that last week uh Chris made the motion we voted it but David made the comment it wasn't on our agenda we should do it again so um uh we should have that same discussion which we had last week which was essentially that we are the conservation commit with responsibility for open space in the town of chelsford and this property is under that um broad topic of open space and so the fact that we've done uh conservation restriction which is going to be signed off hopefully soon um and that we've got all many most of the other open space in town is under our responsibility so the suggestion is that it makes sense for us to take on the um responsibility of that so I would request that we take another motion and um vote on the same uh topic that we discussed last week based on the fact that we now have it in our agenda I make a motion Mr chair that we um vote to indicate that we support the con the uh conservation commissioning assuming the care and management responsibilities with respect to the coolest property thank you uh from Chris second from Bill any further discussion okay all in favor I I I okay thank you very much anything else on coolest John that you want to nothing I was at the work session okay yeah you were with us I was with you so I don't know what they even okay uh thank you very much so next we have agents report and I know the robin Hill I went up is that the first thing on your list or oh yeah so I did go up and look and there are seven eight n trees that they tagged and um they're spread out they look reasonable to I mean they're nice trees but I get that it's blocking their view they all seem to be on the East axis from the tower yes they need a line of sight view for this this microwave so I don't know if anybody else got up there and took a look at it but um I I wouldn't recommend I'm glad Dave didn't drive up in his Porsche there's not a lot of clearance up there Porsche but uh I I recommend that we allow the state police to get that done and make it happen okay and I'll just I I will forward that to them just you know ask them to give me you know a certain amount of notice prior to the start of cutting okay so that when I get the calls about the cutting trees they'll be able okay anything else on agents report uh just the one other thing is at U seven uh 7 talit um there was there was some work uh done in uh the buffer zone without authorization a lot of a lot of not sure exactly what they were doing actually um part part of it was to uh construct a small addition it's actually more of a bump out uh in the back of the house um and and but I mean there was there was a lot of disturbance for that they all they also were planning to put in a basketball court so um I told them that you know either had to get the basketball court out of the buffer zone otherwise they'd have to do a filing so they actually did get it out of the buffer zone and I I will be first chance I get I will be issuing them an enforcement order to uh to fix the the buffer zone you know to restore it re you know replant it it it was basically just grass to begin with but at least restore it back to lawn and uh you know deal a deal with um I've already given them permission to um to tie in the the drainage from the bump out to the the existing drainage for the house that was already there and based on you and I had a conversation the applicant um the resident's been very um very very helpful very Cooperative Cooperative okay it it turns out and uh I only just learned this from uh one of the residents of the neighborhood is that the Conservation Commission holds a conservation restriction or at least or at least I I was provided with copies of minutes from I think 2011 uh which which showed that there was um a CR that was proposed the commission approved the draft you recall this at all Chris um I have no idea though whether that was ever followed through whether whether the um the CR was ever recorded I I know for sure that you know there's been no monitoring of it since then has been for if it if it's recorded it would be on our list I don't remember looking at the list of CRS that we're responsible for holding I don't remember seeing yeah I I don't I didn't see that one either but this is um just if you don't know where talet is it's in my neighborhood it's actually across from Dave McLaughlin's house and up the hill behind the house is across from his house there's a development right behind there that went in right around that time frame 10 15 years ago so when I have a chance I'll do some research see if I can track down whether CR was that record interesting interesting okay all right but that's progressing and again applicants yeah they're uh they're doing everything I'm asking okay we have anything else on I do yep uh we're going to look into uh survey for Freeman Lake the small piece of yeah I mean that's probably a ways down the road uh because want want the surveyor first to finish up Warren pole and and he hasn't done that even though he keeps promising me he's going to do that and then and then and then the Wetland flags that the the coolest property need to be surveyed but it's on the list of it it is on the list definitely it's the third priority I'm only asking because I'm getting emails and calls yes yes understood I can only imagine okay all right good thanks for bringing that up yeah good reminder okay anything else uh we have meeting minutes um so there are three sets of meeting minutes February 7th March 26th and April 9th um the fourth set is not ready yet um so February 7th take a quick look at that this was um uh we that was uh our friend Dave had just left I make a motion that we approved the minutes of February 27th 2024 motion from Chris I get a second second second from Mark in favor I I okay thank you let's look at March 26th meeting minutes this was a long meing it looks like I that was the 11:30 this was not the 11:30 oh was yeah this was only a this was 9:30 9:30 nothing this was an easy one a quick night any motion on this one I move that we approve the minutes of March 26 2024 motion from Chris second from John all in favor all and finally April 9th there we go that was more like it 11:26 p.m. oh my God we had to pay you double time didn't we Vivan oh my God that was one 40 hours okay a good thing good thing David's your salary David good thing Vivian does a good job I get over time you don't get overtime I know I'll take a motion on the march on the April 9th um Marathon session this was our High Watermark take a motion it's one way of phrasing it move to approve move to approve by Bill second second by Chris all in favor I I oh you get quick down there you quick draw over there okay motion passes so we have approved three meeting minutes we have one still open that uh Vivian will be getting to us soon enough I'm sure to open to uh to open open right right right so all right uh I'll take a motion to adjourn the meeting moved moved by Chris all in favor I thank you thank you chel with Tel media thank you everyone and nice to get one another one closed it was good another one closed 191