um so this is the May 21st 2024 open meeting of the hoofington Conservation Commission being conducted remotely consistent with an act extending certain covid-19 measures adopted during the State of Emergency the new law authorized all members of public body continue participating and meeting remotely the open meeting law requires Law's requirement that quum of the body and the chair be physically present at the meeting location remain suspended this meeting the Hoppington Conservation Commission is convening by a video conference via Zoom app is posted on the town's web meeting calendar and the Conservation Commission agenda identifying how the public may join Additionally the meeting may also be broadcast by each cam through one or many of its channels or platforms please note that this meeting is being recorded and that some attendees are participating by video conference accordingly Please be aware that others may be able to see you and take care not to screen share your computer anything that you broadcast may be captured by the recording supporting materials that have been provided to members of the commission for this meeting are available on the town's website this meeting will feature public comment after commission members and staff have discussed each project application on the agenda the chair will open the discussion to public comment members of the public who wish to speak are asked to identify their name and address three minutes will be afforded for each public comment each vote taken in this meeting will be conducted via roll call of the members so now confirm which commission members are present Jim sillo y Ted Barker hook Ted Barker Hook is here all right Ed is not on I assume unless you say so right now Janine is not here Matt Mo present and Jeff is absent and then myself Melissa Ricos um I'll now confirm staff that are present Kim present Anna present and Joe pres okay great um okay so I guess we'll get started with the work session items who the chair yes I just wanted to announce in case anybody's on the call to hear um 28 Lumber Street hopkington Stone and garden the applicant did request a continuation into our next meeting which is June June 11th 2024 okay thank you Kim all right so documents for review we don't have any draft minutes for review we have the February 27th 2024 executive session February 27th and March 12th did those present have a chance to take a look at those anyone have any comments all right uh hearing no comment um this I'll ask or vote to approve those minutes I'll make a motion to approve all right all in favor uh Ted Ted I I Matt Matt's and I all right and I am an I right set um next we have the h inton DPW Chestnut Street sidewalk informal discussion Kim are you presenting this or do we have um DPW do DPW want to start I'm I can I'll be presenting for this no no Eric this is this is something else yeah I apologize I apologize this is a different yeah not RDA yeah he can you guys hear me yes hi my um I'll just give you guys a little bit of a background and then our consultant um VHB can more are we good oh no yeah you're coming in and out a little bit maybe turn your video good sorry probably turn it off all right we'll try that any better so far little bit um yeah lovely technology um so as a background this sidewalk project was approved at the 2023 annual town meeting so not this previous one the one before it it was sponsored by the planning board and it was a response to a Ser a sidewalk survey that they did where folks were asking for more sidewalk connections to get access to the schools and more sidewalk connections that would do like a one to three mile Loop so they chose this area on chest stre and then um we've since pulled BHB on to help engineer it and that's when we looked into a little bit more and noticed you know just the how close it is to the wetlands and jurisdictional areas and the impact so we want to have this discussion today to bring the con the commission kind of up to speed to where we are get some feedback from you guys on the different options that we're looking at and what kind of mitigation you might look for for this project and with that I think I'll turn over Peter are you gonna take over sure thing that's no problem um so yeah I so we we shared in an email um you know we we put together a couple different Alternatives um so our project area is um you know going to impact two uh Wetland projected Wetland zones um the first one coming off of Hayden row uh you'll see here there's Beaver Brook um just beyond it with an existing Culvert um so we'll be working within that area and then um the next area yep you could see it right there just uh in between Gibbon and Smith um there's another Wetland resource area there so um we had put together an preliminary designs um and that was uh you'll see that as what I put together as alternative a for this which includes um Shifting the curb in towards the road um we you know found this to be the least amount of impact um however in subsequent discussions with uh the town with carrye and Engineering um you know they expressed uh concerns over bringing the road in and narrowing the road there is enough movement for traffic but um just from experience on Main Street and uh other concerns impacting the existing drainage structures there um they express more of a desire to maintain the existing curb line um so the alternative that we show here uh shows the existing sidewalk uh a rough limit of grading from our models as to areas that would be impacted um there would be in this alternative presented is a 6-in granite curb as our roadway Edge treatment and then a five foot um sidewalk uh right up next to it and again so it kind of shows what it would look like in this area um we put together some rough metrics as you know you know uh some rough metrics as to what we think the impacts will be um again you know these these numbers aren't definitive we have an advanced design you know to to final because we kind of wanted to get the commission's input on how they felt about these Alternatives and everything think before we move ahead and try to present something a little bit more final in which case we will be going ahead of the commission uh submitting an noi and obviously these numbers will be a bit more finalized um so this was alternative a like I said with the curb line shifted in um so this is the Beaver Brook area um we anticipate that there'll be no direct Wetland impacts but you could tell that the Wetland is pretty close um to everything and then obviously with the brook and the cvet right there in the head wall um you know things are a little tight um and then if you go on to the next sheet pleas you can see the other area um I know if it looks the scaling between these is a little different I wanted to make sure that both the Wetland the full Wetland areas were shown on each sheet so um when we're looking at Wetland one in Beaver book it's at 40 1 inch equals 40 feet and this one equals 1 inch equals 20 so um just want to make sure in case anybody was a little confused by that um there is a difference in scaling um so again yeah so here we would be doing the sidewalk there's a bit of a steep drop off off the side of the road here so um uh we believe that it makes sense to also include in this area a steel guard rail and again we can tell that the um so we would just put that guard rail right at the back of the Walk um to help prevent uh any significant accidents happening should somebody get off the side of the road um and uh that dash line there is where we anticipate Our rough limited grading so again know some disturbance to the to the resource area there would be a net increase in um impervious area within the resource Zone um but again by Shifting The Curve line in that helps mitigate it um but I do want to emphasize again that engineering does not prefer this um they prefer alternative B which I guess we can move on to the next one unless anybody has any questions on this on this alternative no I nope okay so this would be alternative B um which essentially maintains the existing curb line um and so it's that same essentially that same cross-section but it's just shifted two foot clo two feet closer to the resource areas um so we anticipate you could tell if you zoom in a little bit there we have potentially some direct Wetland impact we could explore some uh different Alternatives some steeper rip wrap grading and things like that to help try to avoid that but again um for the purposes of this meeting we just kind of wanted to show that we you know for this alternative we would be getting pretty close to the resource areas um and you know just kind of wanted to get the commission's thoughts and ideas or comments on them on this when like I said we're the goal of this is to try to get a preferred alternative or something that the commission would likely approve once we proceed with noi um so this would be again a 6in vertical coranet uh curb for the roadway Edge treatment with a 5- foot sidewalk um right next to it again compared to Alternative a there would be a little bit more impervious area added to the resource areas um and some closer grading and potential direct Wetland impacts which we could we will hopefully be able to fully avoid through more engineering but if not we can try to address um through further mitigation can I just ask a quick question can you go over what was the difference between a and b right there so the yep no that's no problem the uh the difference between a and b is just the location of the curve line so in in in a the curb line is shifted in to the road so so the curb line is it's the existing Edge and then on average it shifted two feet in so we're changing a little bit of the road to sidewalk surface essentially okay um and again that helps kind of get us off the resource areas a little bit um but again from talking with uh ppw and Engineering they feel that um alternative B is their preferred alternative um they would like to maintain the existing curb line we could potentially um just reuse some existing drainage structures that are there and not impact them so from a cost point of view that would be better beneficial and um they based on their experience with Main Street Gary feel free to jump in if if if I'm missing something as to your reasons why um it's it's the preferred one but um essentially it's it's because of the some of the experience from Main Street and some of the push back the public gave from narrowing the road in addition to providing further offset of uh pedestrians from uh moving traffic as well so they give them a wider shoulder and there'll be more of a space between the the the public on the sidewalk a little bit more number one reason is that it screws up the drain system and yall have to adjust structures and we didn't want to do that we want to keep the existing drainage system which seems to be sufficient at the existing curve line um and then there has been a lot of negative feedback when we've narrowed roads and we know that there's going to be some traffic impacts around the corner with the new Elmwood school so we were just being sensitive to that just because the public has doesn't like the narrow roads and then the last one like you mentioned is that um if you move the curb line you have like what it was like a twoof foot shoulder it was barely any shoulder which really doesn't meet the new intents in terms of you know having some space for bicyclists um that go along with the other kind of strategic goals of the town and providing more pedestrian friendly bike friendly Transportation so that's why the only reason that we would do option A is if conservation said um you know no way you can't impact the wetlands as much you need to get as far away from the wetlands as possible okay got it thanks Carrie and then um so also and then moving on if nobody has any other questions um for B which I'm guessing is not um we can move on to C which is an alternative that we had again in discussions with uh we we've talked with Kim and Carrie um before this um we've heard that um the commission um for roadway Edge treatments around the resource areas does have a an a preference um to provide some form of burm some sloped burm um in the interest of preserving Wildlife Crossing small Wildlife Crossings um and so they can um you know access the the Wetland or if they need to cross the road so um we when it comes to putting burm and sidewalk us uh for for from a highway safety point of view um and then there's also um some written guidance in Mass Do's project development and design guide it's basically Mass um for those of you who may or may not know um it is just a overall design guide that do submits and generally you know most we try to adhere to all of the standards written in that on roads within the Commonwealth um they that uh design guide provides um guidance that if there's um no roadway Edge treatment so no vertical separation of 4 in or greater then a sidewalk needs to be at least five feet uh separated from the road so while with the burm um you would help preserve um the the small Wildlife Crossings it would also have the largest impact direct impact on the resource areas um because again we would just need that that additional horizontal space off of the edge of the road there so we would provide with this alternative the burm and then a um there would be a 5 foot separation so there with the width of after the width of the BM there would be a three or four foot uh L level landscape buffer some type of grass um of some kind to help uh maintain um pervious area and then the sidewalk and then we would grade down um as quickly as we can but again this this um you know based on our analysis and everything this would have probably this would definitely have the most direct impact to the resource areas but again we wanted to present to the commission that we did um you know we do care about what they would like and we wanted to show that we are did at least consider this and wanted to kind of share and get their input on the thoughts on this so that is alternative C on this and you can tell I tried to highlight the the areas where it would directly grade into the wetlands okay through the chair yes Matt H quick question have you guys looked into mitigation areas within the right away at this point we have not at this point that would be something that we would explore um again we we're trying to avoid impacting the wetlands as much as possible so if you know once we fully ruled in that we would would be impacting them that would be something that we would explore as to where mitigation Could Happen yeah I mean from my perspective I think that's an important factor in which of these Alternatives you know I would be most interested in uh the town pursuing uh there's a lot of value in alternative C from my perspective this is this is lower value resource areas right at the edge of the road um so if we can create a better buffer for pedestrian safety on Chestnut Street which is a a higher speed higher volume Road weather not the speed limit says that while also maintaining some more appropriate Crossings for the critters um I think the the loss of lower value Wetlands along the edge of the road with replication elsewhere U may be worth it yeah um as you know like within the RightWay there's very limited space so you know with the commission be at all amendable to potentially like offsite mitigation or nearby mitigation or would have to be within the project um area right there at chestnuts um I was I was curious Carrie if this is isn't there like kind of like a like a almost like a bus turn off area or something in the vicinity of Where the Sidewalk is going that kind of is that GNA stay if you have a curb and I'm wondering if there's anything you can do around there if it's not staying no we would propose to get rid of it it's not an official bus to turn off that's where they go there is um some eversource um infrastructure there but again like anything else you're right once it's yeah yep so um that's exactly it so that was definitely one of the places we were looking at potential as mitigation um you know we could do some prob well not successfully but some invasive species removal try to mitigate but not a lot of space over there yeah we're also um for future there is a subdivision that is being proposed in around this area so we're also keeping that in mind as we uh move forward with the planning I don't think it's coming before you guys yet but it's on planning board's radar okay through the chair curiosity is that the subdivision that the planning board uh didn't say no to but said you need to provide affordable housing on that site has that developer come back with another plan or is it someone different I don't know anymore I it's probably that but I don't know more okay yeah I guess as far as proximity to the site itself the closer the better but I mean I think I'd be amenable to seeing um you know options if you if you had ideas of somewhere else that creates more value I agree with Matt this stuff right off the road is is tough um but I I guess when we decide how much impact area we're talking about was anything I know the other can you just talk for a minute um about I'm sure you looked at the other side of the street but just for the benefit of Commissioners because all the alternatives are on on the Wetland side yeah so the other I was gonna ask that and then I thought that seems so obvious a question they must have already answered it so not yet so yeah from from an overall point of view just there there's a lot of grading concerns from the other side of the road there's there's um some vertical walls there just from a a building point of view and a and an overall project cost point of view that the other side of the road was just something that we deemed um not not worth uh you know pursuing at the early stages in our design process and this um this is Greg Russell with BHP um one of the other things a lot of the utility polls are on the other side um which results in a more significant impacts both right of away because we need to maintain a 4ot around each each of those utility poles the utility poles have to move or the sidewalk has to kind of weave around them which results in um yeah can result in tan tree impacts right um private property impacts um and we also you know one of the goals of this was to kind of connect some of these neighborhoods both of the you know two of the end points that we were looking at were on the the south side of the roadway um so to kind of minimize the amount of crossing of Chestnut Street um for those development who have to go um across CH Chestnut Street to get to the sidewalk uh we felt all those things being in equal measure the South uh south side of the roadway was kind of the best way best place to start and then with the intent again we're kind of looking at it in sections um so you know with the long-term vision of potentially carrying this all the way out to the traffic signal at Hayden row um but then that you know kind of got um put on hold due to the need to replace the existing culber uh just to the west of wild Road a few different things went into went into that decision um and you know again this is all you know kind of the limits of this is kind of based on funding and the available funding that the town has um you know so depending we may put this out you know one piece as an add all um to the to the project uh to see what kind of where so the limits may change in construction U but we're looking to kind of permit the whole piece at the moment just so that we have that flexibility when we go to construction through the chair yes Matt apologies if I missed this I was on my phone earlier driving um what what are the project limits I see 2.34 miles but we've only got Wetland area one and two highlighted are you guys going from Wild road to Smith Road or where does this begin and end so um our initial the initial plan was to go from Wild road to Smith Road um and then we kind of I think the 2.34 is the title but um um the we're um kind of basing that on again available funding um you know we looked at it based on the funding that was available we said that might get us to a certain point we also applied for a grant uh through the dot shared streets program to extend the limits of the project all the make sure we got all the way to Smith Street um or further if we needed to um and then you know just from a planning standpoint you know it kind of made sense to look at whether there would you know whether it made sense to bring the sidewalk all the way out to Hayden R and tie it to the traffic signal directly um so we took a look at that and there's a the town's having a c assessment done currently um one of those is the cover just to the west of wild Road that's been called out for replacement so we kind of felt that at this time wild Road was the kind of appropriate place to end it rather than build a new sidewalk to have it LIF up when the yeah makes sense and is there uh is there going to be designed incorporated into this project to cross Chestnut Street at Wild Road yes yeah so we'll provide um you know wheelchair ramps of 88 compliant crosswalks um you one of the reasons another reason that we're kind of looking at Crossing on the west side of wild Road just because of the uh the east side is kind of difficult there's a driveway right there there I think utility pole kind of on that corner so that was kind of and that seemed to have the best sight distance on that side um that was kind of why we chose the limits that we did but there's always depending on the funding there's always chances to kind of shift stuff thank you appreciate it yeah I think um my my thoughts on the various Alternatives would um I agree I would not want to see more work done to modify drainage and impact the roadway that that's you know construction impacts the wetlands as far as a goes I think um walking the Ash Street sidewalk all the time I do appreciate from a safety standpoint the granite curb um even though I you know feel for the critters not being able to cross it um for my kids safety I uh do appreciate Granite curb along along the sidewalk there on the busy street um with the highspeed you know that cars do travel so um that's my two cents does anyone on the board have any other feedback through the chair this is Ed yes Ed sorry I'm late getting into this I had all kinds of difficulty and finally had to beg my dear wife to help and we finally got in I'm not really sure what our problem is and I'm not really sure how I got in but my question what is the curb width of Chestnut Street compared to the current curb width of Main Street curb to curb the so you're asking for the existing curb width right the pavement width curve to curve right so it should be uh I think where it's around 30 feet you have about four foot four foot lanes and 11 foot travel Lan four foot shoulders existing in 11 foot travel Lanes 22 and8 correct okay I would just you know had an idea where we narrowed Main Street to put in sidewalks and bike Lanes I didn't know whether the same could be done on Chestnut Street so so option options be and see both both maintain the existing payment with of the road okay um I think if there's no other comments um do you have yes sorry just one one last comment um for the benefit of the engineering team I do think offsite mitigation could potentially be really beneficial uh however I do that there could possibly be some problems convincing D so my recommendation would be before you potentially explore that um explore with d as well to see if they they also would be amendable that's all thank you okay um is that enough feedback do the engineering team have any other specific questions or to get a [Laughter] flavor well I gu yeah I guess we got a flavor I guess if the um I you know I it sounded like you know Matt you had you know you you felt seemed like you felt strong about the you know the the roadway Edge treatment and everything so I guess is that something that could potentially be a sticking point if we you know proceed without that no no I think either option b or option C are both appropriate in my mind I I agree wholeheartedly with Melissa that you know this is the sidewalk project we don't want to turn it into a drainage project as well so whole the existing edge of payment I would suggest evaluating BNC from a impact and possible on-site mitigation perspective and see where that puts you and then certainly if you want to come back I think we would welcome you welcome you back to talk a little further above that's that's where I stand on great no I think that's good that's good thank you I think that's that's enough okay aome thanks all right so I think uh based on the timing we should get over to the new hearings which um is DPW again um for our first application of the night um let me see if I can find so hi everyone all right I don't have my camera on but again Carrie re director of public works thank you for having us so for a little bit of background on this project before you get going do I need to read the notice right Kim yes please sorry that's okay I was struggling to find it but I got it now you bought me some time all right um the hopkington Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday May 21st 2024 at 700 p.m. virtually online to hear all persons interested in a request for der determination of applicability filed by hopkington DPW for drainage improvements and Associated sitework location Wood Street RightWay from Walker Street to Indian Brook Culvert at 83 Wood Street um this application is subject to the Wetland protection act chapter 31 section 40 is amended of the general bylaws of Massachusetts and the Wetland protection bylaw of the town of hopkington all right go ahead Carrie thank you so again K re director of public work um this project similar to last one was approved at the 2023 annual town meeting um so not this most recent one this project came about because the abing property owner um the outfall was discharging directly onto their property without an easement and um they are not granting the town permission to discharge onto their property so we were challenged with having to figure out a way to revise the drainage system um so that that didn't happen so it's still the same drainage system it's still the same receiving water body um but we can't we're not we don't have the the proper easements to be able to keep it the way it is um and then y'all should probably be familiar because it's in the vicinity that's the DPW facility right there where we had some recent work um the construction on the houses that were impacted are it's pretty new um so hopefully you guys are familiar with that but with that little background of why we had to do this project I will turn it over to VHB to explain what the what we're asking to do thank you Carrie Eric Olson here from vhp uh do I have permission to share I think you do I just need to stop sharing and you yep you should be able to grab it now there we go all right can everyone see that okay yes yes all right great all right so as Carri said this is the Wood Street drainage Improvement projects um and so Carrie showed an overview but this is you know another overview this is the uh the project area right here along Wood Street um as you can see it's kind of right in the middle of a you know Wetland complex with the um Indian Indian Brook passing under the roadway here um we have a closeup here of the actual work area between Walker Street and Indian Brook right here and so again the alant is the town of hopk hopkington DPW and as car stated of the project need is uh you know due to the um outfall the existing outfall from one catch Basin along the intersection of um Walker Street and Wood Street um is discharging onto this residential property um it's causing flooding on the property and we don't have permission you know for that uh for that uh drainage easement so the work area itself would be located within the roadway easement along Wood Street um and Walker Street so everything is you know within the easement um the work overview would be to you know terminate that outfall and re-root the storm water underground um through pipes directly to um the the cul underneath the roadway that discharges into Indian Brook um along the way we'd also install um you know this was a good opportunity to add some improvements along the roadway here so we'd install two new catch basins along Wood Street to capture storm drainage um install an asphalt berm along the roadway um to keep um the storm water along the road and and prevent um Overland flow into any adjacent wetlands and then we'd also enhance and stabilize an existing eroded Stone sale as you can see here so um yeah just to back up a bit this is the catch Basin that's discharging in this direction out to this point right here um and onto the uh the existing residential property and causing flooding uh downhill here and uh the enhancement and stable Iz in of the existing Stone soil will be right here as you can see there's some erosion this is a further down this is Indian Brook right here within Wetland one um and you know it's uh we have Overland flow coming right through this uh curb break here and you know little causing a little bit of erosion So the plan is to enhance this with rip wrap and stabilize it so we're not having additional erosion into the Wetland and stream um so the resources in the vicinity of the project are bvw um this is again Indian Brook right here this is wetland one this is uh in what the uh you know we have a triple Culvert right here that goes under the roadway to Wetland 2 on the other side of the road here and this is another Wetland that is um further up the roadway it's outside the project area um so there will be so the resources are bvw Bank land under wetlands and water bodies and bordering land subject to flooding and Riverfront area um all the work would be um on existing paved areas with the exception of the of this um um you know Stone sell enhancement right here I'm adding Rip r there so there'd be no direct impacts to Resource areas or within the RFA there would be no um alteration of the area um most uh most work within the paved roadway minus um the repair of the existing Stone sell within 100 foot be U um buffer Zone and the 10- foot no disturb Zone and the RFA there's no priority habitat of rare species estimated habitat of rare Wildlife any vernal pools within the area outstanding resource Waters or um any areas of critical environmental concern um on the regulatory standpoint um we do uh qualify um as a limited project um under 10.02 2b2 one is installation of underground utilities within the existing paved or un roadways and we're also exempt from the requirements of the riverfront area um for certain minor activities as identified in uh 310 CMR 10.02 um all work is within the Hopkinton sorry excuse me all work within the hopkington 10 foot no Disturbed own is located within um previously Disturbed areas as you can see here um our our improvements would be right within this um this area right here so there really be no change in uh in vegetation it's really just a disturbed area that we'd be um stabilizing um as far as mitigation measures um so when we designed uh our design and construction methods um are made to help improve the storm water quality um the two new catch basins that we'd be installing would be deep sump catch basins uh that will reduce the sediment load into Indian Brook um we will be reducing um Overland Flow by keeping this water on the roadway and also when we when we divert um when we divert the the outfall from its current Overland flow where it you know flows Overland and eventually down into the Wetland that would be reducing any chance for erosion along that and just kind of keeping uh keeping the storm water um on the pavement and in the catch basins um and then we'd also be stabilizing the eroded soil which would also help reduce the sediment load and um when we do the work to install this under the roadway um when we do go to um you know connect to this Culvert under here um we would plug that outlet um into the Culver during construction so there'd be no um threat of erosion into the into the stream as we do our construction um also we'll be installing erosion sediment controls um around the project limits um in in various areas where we're doing earth work to make sure there's no erosion into any resource areas um some of the comments we got um was asking about Alternatives um so so there were several Alternatives that we did consider obviously um the no build is always um an alternative that's considered in this case we are discharging as car said onto this residential property where we don't have permission so the no build um you know was not really an option um we had to figure out a solution on where to um move this storm water um so the first alternative that we did um think about was extending the existing outfall pipe along a new easement through the residential property but um as Carrie mentioned that that's not an option it doesn't sound like we can get an easement through the property so then um the next solution was to get this uh you know use gravity to get this downhill towards the resource area and and follow a natural drain path down through the roadway um so we did consider putting an outfall um over here around Wetland Wetland 2 having it come out and and and um you know right in that area but that would result in you know some impacts to the resource areas uh to bvw uh possibly Indian Brook and we were trying to avoid that so um the you know the solution that we came up with was to directly tie it in um to the cul underground underneath the roadway that way the it would limit um or completely erase any potential for direct impacts to the Wetland um so in conclusion uh you know we we uh the applicant respectfully requests that the hopkington conservation commission finds that the measures prevent um um presented here adequately protect the interests identified in the Wetland protection act and the town of hob cont W protection bylaws and that you issue a negative determination of applicability and with that if you have any questions I also have the plan set if you want to take a look at that we can kind of walk through it any any other questions you might have okay so I'll just uh there's two plan sheets here so this is kind of a this is this is the existing catch Basin right here the outfall um that currently exists is right over here and we're trying to move that downhill under the roadway adding in catch basins along the way and discharging over to Indian Brook so the where the two where the two new catch BAS re are that you're adding um you're saying that that storm water currently just flows down the road yes okay I I'll I'll I'll back up to here so currently um and U I have uh Peter bruzi and Luke Boucher here with me so correct me if I'm wrong um gentlemen but so currently um what doesn't discharge into this catch Basin and go out in this outfall probably from you know just uh east of wer Street just flows down the roadway and goes essentially down um down right here there might be some Overland flow going off the roads and off the road in various areas but I think a lot of it does uh directly flow right to the Wetland through this kind of eroded break in the curb right next to this is the DPW driveway right here so and I'll back up to over here so yeah so it flows down the roadway here and kind of goes right to the Wetland right there through that little break in the in the uh in the curb so yeah that's accurate yeah there's there's no all the water is Flowing Overland um and not receiving any treatment or anything like that and so the goal of adding those additional structures would be to um provide some more treatment get some more suspended solids and everything out of the water um and get the water treated before it ends up um in Indian Brook and additionally getting the water off the road as quickly as possible so there's no gutter spread or anything like that or or car splashing it up okay yeah L Luke bu with VHB sorry not to you know pepper you with a four people from VHB but um I just wanted to chime in one thing there there was one spot so essentially like what Eric was saying you know we're running that that trunk line down the road essentially to convey this one catch Basin but you know if you're if you're running the trunk line down the road there were a couple spots where we're like hey you know there's there's a there's puddle in here that you know we might as well drop a catch Bas and and help out with that situation and there was another spot where we're we're we're putting a little bit of BM um and that was a spot where water was actually running along the road and actually you know the it was it was not washing it was not um it was essentially just eroding the side of the the the um adjacent um grass area and essentially kind of picking up sediment as it went you know so where showing that is essentially trying to block off that area where water is is running you know at your edge of pavement between your edge of pavement and your adjacent grade and essentially starting to undercut the pavement so this is just a you know a way to keep that from happening um and and like Peter said you know keep that water on the road there without it going just off the road causing some erosion and then getting back on the road again um but with that sediment load and if you can see my cursor um Luke's talking about this area right here this is a proposed BM on the side of the road okay so I think um the question to the commission right now is this an RDA um application versus a notice of intent um I think the things that I see obiously we're not increasing impervious area you're dealing with existing runoff in in drainage you're kind kind of taking an outfall that exists and I would say moving it to a different location you still of an outfall it's just an outfall into the Culvert [Music] um and I guess I would be curious to know is this in the Charles I should know this um is this in the Charles River or is this out outside of our ms4 area it's uh through the chair it's in the ms4 area but it's not in the Charles River Watershed okay so I was just curious if there were any I mean I know you have the the Deep sum catch basins for TSS is a uh Improvement um do we look at the soils or anything for additional infiltration or any additional BMP improvements or I'm not sure really where we'd um where we'd find any space to do any kind of infiltration I mean we were working within the roadway the only the only spot where we're doing any any work on the you know earth work at all is just you know right here and that's just to add rip wrap to you know keep this from eroding and and and uh you know capture sment that comes down so I'm not sure if there's really like any space available for infiltration especially since we're working within the roadway easement yeah yeah within the right of way there's there's not a ton of space there is like the you know town-owned DPW property right there um but they've they have a um the DPW relatively substantial um uh system already in the front parking lot um and you know obviously there are a bunch of utilities through this Corridor as well um that we have to avoid you there's there's gas and water and so we're through here so you know we're with all those we're we're kind of end up a little bit limited on our our space particularly within the right of way the chair go ahead yeah I was gonna ask if anyone else on the commission has uh a couple quick questions and Luke may have just answered it for me there uh we talked primarily about the south side of the road when that plane came up it looks like we've got a crown section of Road and a bunch of fall also goes to the north side and I see in this picture looks like there's a paved Waterway there was there any consideration about incorporating catch basins to capture that runoff as well as part of this project given we're putting a trunk line in yeah we we we we're only looking at you know initially we were only looking at the the um south side of the road and then when we added the uh those additional catch Bas well really we were looking at that one location um but you know there's there's a p Ling within the right of way on on the south side of the road that and that's kind of the the primary reason that we were incorporating some of those those additional catch Basin there there hasn't been any I don't believe there's any um noted uh puddling on the road at down here at at the brook um at the North End of the Road there if I can also add into that there's no existing Road Edge treatment so there's a large um uh private business across the street from um the DPW and there's no roadway Edge treatment their driveway is a little bit lower um so in order to capture that water we would have to potentially rework their entire driveway opening and everything and add in an additional roadway Edge treatment and all of that I mean from my perspective if we're doing a drainage Improvement project on Wood Street we should be doing a drainage Improvement project on Wood Street half of a drain Improvement project uh so I'll say that piece and then the other question I had was do we have any plans that show the proposed erosion and sedimentation control measures that would be implemented believe they were on the plan set yeah they're right there in turquoise there yeah thank you yeah there they are yep right here right here on the roadway here and then yeah is it compost filter tube Sil fence what are we talking um well whatever you would require straw waddle or um silence and it likely go with waddle unless the town had an issue with that then we could use Sil fence and hay bells thank you um Joe do you have any uh comments on this did you get a chance to take a look at it uh yeah I do actually okay I did have a chance to go out and take a look at the site and U look at the the wetlands and the delineation and um in general I had no issues with the uh the delineation um I did observe and I I know I had submitted some some photos it appeared that the U the erosion where they're opposing to do the um uh sale um repair um uh adjacent to the BBW uh looks like it's gotten worse from from the photos that were submitted there's some pretty significant erosion actually down into the BBW um and that might need another look at um as far as stabilizing uh further uh Dow gradient than what they were initially proposing um but just thought i' note that um a couple of technical comments on the delineation forms which really didn't change anything as far as um where I thought the boundaries were um I did note that the uh narrative was um claiming a minor activity exemption under the WPA or installation of underground utilities um and I talked with Chris about this too Chris Lucas about this too because um it it doesn't mention drainage uh in in the you know um actual uh regulation exemption um it mentions electric gas water um and I think uh our opinion at this point is that the that the strong water drainage is not generally included in that exemption um uh also noted that um the project Sayes it will not increase any impervious surfaces or result in any new discharges to the Wetland resources um the existing discharge uh is actually to you know uh Upland area and then flows Overland I don't I didn't examine that in detail but I think it just more or less flows Overland uh eventually to the resource area however what they're proposing is the new discharg is directly to uh Indian Brook uh within the culbert's under under the street um so that U you know could be considered a new discharge and don't know if the uh applicant has some additional information as far as why they would not consider that a new discharge uh noted a couple things on the site plans the the 10- foot Noti in the 15ot no build zones were not indicated on the plans um same with the 100 foot Inner raran Line the uh stream Indian Brook uh flowing through the culbert's Underwood Street um it is perennial obviously uh and the culbert's actually function as as as Bank um to that stream that point um so you're actually um adding a discharge to to the Culver which is is functioning as the bank um of the stream at that point um which is a little bit different than you know if you're if you're proposing a discharge up gradient of a wetland so um the storm water outfall um uh although it's proposed in in within the pavement it's actually proposed you know essentially on in the bank on the bank of the stream uh with the culbert um and that we we thought that you know a waiver request would be necessary for that and in general um I think we don't feel that um the U we feel that Noti of intent is probably more appropriate for for this type of for what is proposed and I think that covers my comments I'll be happy to answer any questions that goes okay thanks Joe those are those are good comments um I was having the F same same feeling about it's it's not just going to a call word it's actually is going to the brook um directly discharging um does anyone else uh Kim do you have any thoughts on or comments on this thanks Melissa um I don't think I have any additional comments that haven't already been brought up you know I had a conversation with Carrie this afternoon um and we talked about uh is there a potential for additional you know bmps which we kind of already discussed I'm not sure if you know a water quality unit is appropriate here um but yeah I mean it's a tough it's a tough position um I think for DPW um you know we want to make sure that we're kind of meeting the needs of um being in compliance legally for the town but also kind of balancing that with um you know the best outcomes for conservation so uh it's a sticky one yeah uh I will add that you know it does appear and I remember running into this with Carrie again um in Framingham it does not appear that drainage is specifically listed in in the state willing protection act as meeting that limited limited project provision uh whether it should be there or not is a separate discussion but as it's currently written it is not included um it is included as a utility under our bylaw rage is yeah all right um anyone else on the commission have any thoughts or comments or anyone in the audience Melissa one other item to tie back to my prior comment about drainage on the North side you I I would consider that another BMP right if we're if we're gonna take flows that are currently untreated putting them through deep stmp catch basins I would consider that an additional BMP from what's currently proposed and I I do believe while there's not a definitive curb treatment on the north side of the road um I drive by that are every day my recollection is there's a there's basically a hump along that existing commercial development to stop roadway runoff from flooding their parking lot so I don't know that there would be much additional and it looks like the the topography on the plan show that shows that as well Contour kind of jump back on themselves um I don't know that there would necessarily need to be additional curving the entire length of Wood Street there maybe a couple of spots across from the DPW lot where you can see that ponding but really we're talking about three catch basins and another 60 linear feet of pipe to do some pretty substantial improvements to currently untreated segments of Wood Street and if there's a time to do it now would be the time to do that right through the I will mention we do have some major utility as you know like the sewer pump stations right there so we do have some challenges with getting across the street um with other utilities I I don't know if we'd be able to put a deep sum catch Bas on the other side and still get across understood yeah it just sounded like there wasn't much of an evaluation up to this point and if the answer is there's utility complex and it can't be done then that's the answer um so I think for for for now the decision is um either we can vote on the RDA and what the commission thinks whether this meets the criteria for an RDA or whether we think it triggers a notice of intent which it sounds like you know there's a lot of discussion on this so um kind of leaning towards notice of intent of at those Alternatives but um the other thing we could do is whether DPW wants us wants to consider the feedback um for tonight or you would like us to go ahead and and vote um through the chair I mean we have the feedback I don't have a preference one way or the other you know we're stuck between a rock and a hard place so um obviously if you decide that we should submit noi we'll just um take this back rework at noi and then incorporate all the feedback that was from here but it's whatever yall feel comfortable with I mean um I don't imagine that there' be too much conditioned into the um you know for this project because it there's not much else that we can do but whatever the the commission feels comfortable with is how we'll move forward okay um let's let's go ahead and take a vote then um can I get a motion to issue all right so this is the negative positive phone of an RDA right um who can give a recommendation on the motion to make it least confusing um perhaps you might want to take a temperature of the individual Commissioners um or perhaps perhaps you want to take a temperature of the individual Commissioners first and then the applicant can get a feel for if they might just want to um withdraw the RDA without prejudice okay um all right mat what are you feeling I'm feeling like this is better suited as an ny how about you Ted NY all right Ed you're on mute edouble tonight um I'm going to say no opinion okay and um Jim um I'm prepared to vote for negative um uh negative determination meaning you think an RDA is appropriate yes the RDA is adequate okay um yeah go ahead Kim it sounds like we need emotions so let me pull up the um RDA form here make sure I'm doing this correctly for the chair I don't think we got Melissa's opinion split the vote yeah I feel like I no non vote yeah I'd feel like a notice of intent for this so through the chair that's three members feeling like an noi one member negative RDA and one member no opinion all right so through the chair you know with that in mind um it sounds like the best action would be for the DBW to withdraw this and then resubmit as an noi I think so do I have any feedback from the the VHB team on here can I ask through the chair if there's any feedback um yeah any feedback from the engineers uh no yeah we I mean we can we can put together the noi application um but you know as Carrie mentioned it's there there's there's not a whole lot additional we can add to to the design um but yeah we we can certainly we can do that okay um I think the I think the Alternatives um analysis and just going through some of the steps and having that documented would probably help for our our record and and vote so okay so I think we're all set so Carrie if you could submit something just in writing to me and then we can process that and um I think that's the the cleanest way um so the commission can um consider the the noi application without any um prejudice when it comes forward okay we will do that thank you everybody thanks thank you thank you through the chair yes does the commission need to vote to re um accept the withdraw or we just gonna do that based on car's feedback and then just have the followup written who the chair yes uh we I don't believe that we vote on with withdraws okay all right so all set um all right on to the next hearing hle 11 West Main Street and I have to read this one too because it's a new hearing um the hopkington Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday May 21st 2024 at 7M virtually online to hear all persons interested in a request for determination of applicability filed by Carlos hle to replace a failed septic system with Associated site workor location 11 West Main Street cessor map u8 block 48 lot 0 application subject to the Wetland protection act chapter 131 section 40 as amended of the general laws of Massachusetts and the Wetland protection bylaw of the town of hington hi everyone this is Andrew TBO with Godard Consulting hi Andrew perfect thank you Kim I'm the representative for the applicant um Carlos HL the commission may remember um so this property earlier this spring would have been late February early March um had started the construction of a septic system and a cease and desist was issued at that time there was an approved SE design through the Board of Health for the property um it was unknown that there was Wetlands on the prop on adjacent to the property off to the east so work had begun um the Wetland flags that were actually previously there um for a year prior were discovered a cease and desist was issued and the applicant was asked to withhold any future work and file an RDA for the remaining work uh since that point we had gone out and red delineated these Wetlands they were delineated for a different property owner um about a year prior so the delineation that is now up in the field was put up specifically for this job um because all of it is offsite it was not requested to be um reviewed as part of the project um however everything was delineated that would issue a buffer onto our project so the property that we see here is 11 West Main Street it's located um at the corner of West Main a couple properties down is whan Road it's about a 3/4 acre lot with an existing U three-bedroom home a one-bedroom detached apartment it has an impervious binus driveway and an existing um gravel dirted driveway um off on the Eastern corner of the property the property has been developed for a while and they're previously on the property um were two cess pools which are now failing um the cess pool that was designed for the existing three-bedroom home is currently contaminating the groundwater um it's a failed system and so the goal has been to replace it with a Title 5 compliance system um that that compliance system is located greater than 50 feet from the wetlands it's between the 50 and 100 foot buffer zone it's roughly about 75 ft for a limit of work as you see here on the plans the the system itself um of two different T apartment tanks I'm associated with the existing house and the existing detached one-bedroom apartment and it's a stone leeching field they were able to get a 4- foot separation to groundwater on the property um so no variances were needed and this system that you guys see here has been approved by the Board of Health um but no construction has continued since that season assist so this application is looking to get a negative determination to allow that work to continue and install this system um there's no other work on the property with this RDA application it's purely to replace the failed system with a Title 5 compliance system so if you guys have any questions I'm happy to answer them okay um Joe did you have any comments on this yeah just a couple um I did have a chance to go out and look at the site um as Andrew had mentioned that the delineation is off site so I didn't do any um intensive inspection of the delineation but I did look at the flags that uh pretty much control the buffer zone um uh in the proposed work area and uh based on vegetation and the slope there I had no issues with the the flagging in that area um that was roughly flag 15a through 21A um as was shown in some of the photos there's a erosion control has been uh installed the Waddles are installed I know the application noted there waddles and silk fence as erosion control but probably the Waddles are sufficient um unless there's a stockpile that's moved closer to to that location um also did note that there's um a large debris pile on the site um and some invasive species and just recommending that those are um handled appropriately and disposed of appropriately um when the work is occurring or at some point in the future um just a quick note on the uh stream on the adjacent property was is was reported as perennial where I I think actually um it is mapped uh as intermittent actually and um stream stats uh uh review would find it to be intered also so there's no potential for Riverfront area on the site um see I did note in the application that no proof of mailing to Butters was included I don't know if the commission did receive that or not also noted that the plan uh was not stamped uh being an RDA that commission has discretion as far as what they want to accept for for plans so that's uh for the commission to discuss and just one other thing that was noted as um uh exemption um uh uh see presumption uh shall apply for in installation of a septic system titley septic system um there's an exemption that is noted in the narrative and I just want to note that that exemption applies to the discharge from the septic system but not to the actual construction of the septic system so the construction work would not be included in that presumption um under the title five exemption and that's it for my comments okay um how about you Kim do you have a do you have anything um I'm wondering as you comment if there's anything here in regards to um that we can do with the RDA for pibs on the tree line there given that we didn't know the Wetland buffer was there had to stop construction through the chair yes yeah that was that was one of my comments as well is um can we get some pibs um they're probably going to have to be on the property line uh along the property line here but um that might be a good visual barrier moving moving forward and then uh my last question for the applicant is uh what is your dewatering protocol moving forward I I can answer to both of those um as an applicant team we we're happy to install pibs I think that's a great um idea for the property there's anticipated to be future work on the site under you know a separate application in the future so we're we're happy to install that uh at this point I have not been given a dewatering plan by the on-site crew but I'm I'm happy to provide that prior to this work I'm resuming yeah I would just add that it's very important that the onsite crew understands the uh proper dewatering protocols absolutely thank you um does anyone else on from the commission have any questions or comments no okay so I think we can go ahead and take a vote um is looking for a a um motion or a negative determination and Kim do we need to incorporate any of those um conditions with an RDA or you'll yep yep I'll take of them negative3 so um negative RDA with conditions and I'll throw in the um PS along the property line and um dewatering protocols prior to start a construction okay I'm happy to make that motion second second from that all right do the roll call um Ted hi Jim hi Matt hi Ed hi and myself M and I who the chair yes can I also get an authorization for a signature PL page please yes can um I'll make that motion all right and the roll call again Ted hi Jim Jim yes hi Ed hi Matt hi and I am an i okay so I'll thank all thanks um all right we'll move right along to our continued hearings um town of hopkington 90104 Hayden row notice of intent continuation do we have someone on the call for this hi good evening yes uh CLA hogaboom Wetland scientist with LEC environmental Consultants representing the applicant hello hi um so I'll just keep it brief we uh submitted an initial response addressing peerreview comments that were provided by Lucas environmental uh that memorandum was dated April 5th and that included some responses uh to comments provided by the Conservation Commission at the April 9th public hearing where we last presented the project uh that initial peer review response excluded some comments and requests for information on the storm water um as we were still waiting on peer- review comments for storm water uh in relation to the planning board site plan review as well uh so we ultimately wanted to get this initial review response into the commission just to knock out as many comments as we could in the meantime um we have since received the storm water peer review comments about a week and a half ago maybe a little less so the team is working on uh preparing responses to that and revising plans to um address those comments so prior to the next meeting with the Conservation Commission the team intends to prepare a second peer review response report that includes responses to all of the storm water uh peer review comments as well as comments provided by the commission at the last public hearing uh it'll include responses to De comments we had three that were uh all related to storm water as well and of course that'll all in uh include revised plans that show um any storm water changes in addition to I believe the commission asked for um pib locations and some educational signage around storm water features and um along buffers um and a few other items as well so since we provided that initial response we did receive a memorandum from Lucas environmental dated May 16th uh indicating that many of the comments were addressed um satisfactorily that we provided in that initial response one somewhat outstanding item remained uh in regard to how the contractor will remove an invasive species that is within our proposed restoration area uh we have a small patch of autumn Olive located in that area um so at the moment we're proposing you know just mechanically remove the plant itself the root system as well bag it and dispose of it offsite um so no on-site dis osal of that um and knowing that the sort of seed dispersal of that species happens around Autumn um mid to late fall um ideally we would be doing that you know prior to August uh when that happens so uh Our intention would be to include a specific note related to that uh removal methodology in the landscape plans in our Revis plan as well um and we also just had you know post construction monitoring protocols for that invasive species outlined in our initial narrative submitt so that'll be included in our post construction monitoring of the restoration area overall to ensure that if any uh invasive species do recolonize that they will be you know uh removed appropriately and continued to be monitored uh and one last item I just wanted to put out to the commission since we are all here um discussing this project ahead of the final revisions uh through the site plan review the project team was asked by the planning board to prepare a snow storage plan and for the most part uh Sam Odis the civil engineer has been sketching out areas to place snow around the site oh that's a perfect plan thank you Kim oh yeah that one um the one area in particular that we're having a little trouble with finding appropriate area for snow storage is to the west of the uh parking lot expansion sort of between the parking lot and the athletic field that area in particular I think is the best location that we found because an alternate location would have been just to the north and that's you know our restoration area we're going to um place a lot of really nice plantings there and improve um that area within Riverfront area and buff Zone um so the area directly to the west of the parking lot expansion is also within Riverfront area partially um and a little partially within the 100 foot buffer zone um but that is existing manicured lawn so I just wanted to put that out to the commission while we're talking about this here today before we finalize the plans for planning board and commission just to you know gauge your um input on a allowing a snow storage area to be located in that uh area so with that um happy to take any questions and uh many team members are uh in attendance tonight if you have any questions we have Chris Eberly with vertex uh Claudia Pony Leon with Samy Odes the civil engineers joining Ashley Kon with Traverse our landscape architect um we have Rob Blanchard with Commodore the contractor um and Tim person from the town of Hop tenis here as well so plenty of folks to answer questions if you have any others okay through the chair if I could just add in with the snow storage uh the DPW does do snow removal at the schools if the piles become too high as well so just keep that in mind as we're moving forward or if there's questions on that okay um I think for myself as far as snow storage goes I would as long as it's in the the manicured lawn area um and that's what's designated and if it gets if it starts to exceed that it gets taken off site I'm I'm not opposed to using that as snow storage any other um commission members have any thoughts on that um through the chair I have a thought um I assume that that parking lot is going to be salted as well which means the snow storage is also going to contain salt and I assume that the contour line have melting water going north into the wetlands so that actually concerns me a little bit I don't know what the answer is but it concerns me a little bit to have piles of melting salt snow right there and whatever else is scooped up from the pavement through the chair could the project team help us better understand where snow storage is done today at Hopkins school what other areas are being considered for snow storage as part of this project uh it's funny you should mention it it's been so long since we've got snow um so I think typically what happens is we'll pile it kind of we'll steal a couple parking spaces pile it there and then again the DPW comes in and removes it when they're doing their snow removal routes through town so it typically sits there for potentially a couple of days up to a week depending on on you know what kind of storm we got um and then they come through and scoop it all out at night and bring it to wherever they bring it to for melting um so typically it's staying in the parking lot and stealing a couple spaces through the chair and are we adding parking spaces in total or are we losing with the big parking lot by the athletic field being cut down significantly we are adding parking spaces through this project I C I can find that number if you just give me a couple of minutes and we can uh jump to another topic while I dig for that but I believe we're we might be adding somewhere in the high 20s low 30s of parking spaces for this project I don't for myself through the chair I don't need an exact number it sounds to me like I would rather keep the current plan than um I live in that neighborhood I know it doesn't take long for the DPW to come scoop up snow um if we're adding that many parking spaces um I'd rather the snow melt in the pavement and then have storm drains deal with it then have it possibly melt into the wetlands okay unless there's a current problem with the current system like if that's causing huge issues um but even so so for adding 20 to 30 spots taking up three or four for a pile of snow on the few occasions we get snow seems like it ought to be workable okay we'll take that into consideration through the chair just one other quick thing to add um about potentially keeping the snow on the pavement certainly a benefit for any debris that gets picked up with the snow but the salt is you either going to run through a pipe down to the Wetland or it's going to run Overland through the Wetland um I think we want to also be sensitive to the safety of the students that are going to be navigating around the site so if we do cons continue to pile snow on the paved area it's important that we put thought into a location that doesn't create a pedestrian Hazard for those couple of days before the snow's removed yeah I would say typically in a plowing operation we're probably putting it into the closest kind of corner type of thing you know trying to keep it as compact as possible to take up the least amount of parking spaces and typically out of the way of where pedestrians uh children you know would be navigating so we'll we'll keep that in mind as we go through our plowing operations great appreciate that okay um I guess in what you said that um you're working on addressing comments from the storm water review and other other comments so you're working through those I don't know um Joe did you have anything in particular to add at this point in time or um uh no I think really the uh one of the few comments that I had remaining was regarding disposal of the inv basis which um Claire addressed um and just noting that we haven't the got reviewed the uh the final revised plans but U I think pretty much all of our other comments uh were addressed okay and um I guess to that you're addressing the storm order comments Claire did you have anything you wanted to clarify in those peer review comments with the Conservation Commission I Know It ultimately goes to the planning board but um you did get some feedback from us on test pits um I think in monitoring Wells and things like that so obviously there's an interest from this board as well so um I didn't know if there was anything in particular in the peer review that you wanted to throw at us I have not had a chance to look thoroughly into the peer review for storm water uh B I don't know if you have anything to add to that if there was any uh elaboration on what the commission had asked for with the test pits but uh we did note in our uh response that Commodore did install two monitoring Wells within the infiltration Basin location I believe they collected at least one reading um immediately when they were installed I'm not certain how many more they're planning to collect or if they they need to collect anymore if they've already collected enough data to understand where the system is going um and that it's an appropriate location um but we're certainly prepared to you know elaborate further on the very you know brief information we provided in our initial letter in the next one coming up um but Claudia from Sam Odes is on the call I don't know is there anything else to add Claudia from the peer review comments um to the chair my name is Claudia Pon de Leon with samis Consultants um and currently I don't believe there's anything we would like to clarify but in our peer review responses we are going into detail um regarding the collaboration we did with Commodore to install the groundwater monitoring Wells um that are still out there currently um and we were able to confirm that the um estimated seasonal High groundwater is more than two feet below the bottom of the proposed um infiltration system and we will be including that in our response okay that's helpful sounds good Kim do you have any other uh anything else to add on this one I do not at this time okay um so I think if if the engineering team there is all set um thank you for the update uh through the chair um as you all likely know this came before town meeting and um appears to be headed towards being funded as part of the ballot vote we are working towards a um plan to to try and begin some enabling work this Summer that would begin to expand the um parking lot um with the hope of having that move forward as early as July um could the committee speak to anything any steps that we can take to ensure that when we come before you again in your next meeting I think it's in early June um what you'd like to see from us to be prepar to take action at that point so that we can um hopefully come to a close in this process and have our no intent issued just trying to understand the timing so that we can factor that into the broader um project schedule and get this moving um sure I think well our next meeting is June 11th I don't know if you'll have your comments resolved before then that we could continue to that meeting or not um in your interest of time but I guess the biggest thing would be I think the storm water um responses and if there's I know seot plans to address the storm water responses this Friday and our next meeting with the planning board is on the 3D so we expect that gives them time to review the stor responses and um I know we have already met with that per peer riewer to establish um what or to respond to their comments informally and make sure that our uh follow-up um package addresses their questions as um comprehensively as possible so I expect that that will be largely addressed by the time that we get to the June 3 meeting planning for okay Kim do you have anything that you need on your end or would be looking forward yeah just what we discussed with Claire so the um statement or um addition of some kind of um invasive species plan for that mitigation area um and then the like you said we're waiting on the the storm water comments to make sure that that that is all clear um if we close on June 11th our next meeting Conservation Commission Mee meeting is June 11th then the team can expect to have a permit in their hands by the end of the week on June 2 like the week of June 24th so you'd have it right before July 1 okay we we'll certainly make that a goal of the team to answer as comprehensively as possible okay um one last question will the permit include the full order of conditions or is there a period of time where that's drafted and has a review process that includes the draft and review process so you should be permit in hand like I said by the very end of June there is a 10day appeal period I'm sure you're aware of it to work at your own risk deal and that's from the 24th that's from the date that we issue you the the order all right so we will look forward to seeing you on June 11th yes we would like to continue to June 11th okay the chair yes can the Miss commission please vote to continue the hearing to June 11th I will make a motion to continue the hearing to June 11th all right uh um Ted hi Jim hi Ed hi Matt hi and I'm an I thank you very much have a great evening thanks thanks everyone um all right next up we have um open play uh zero East Main Street notice of intent continuation commercial bill Recreational Sports Court um I believe that last time we just opened this and continued it right away so I don't think we got any background yet uh that's right because uh we didn't quite get the uh the comments from Lucas at that time okay but now we have and uh we have an opportunity to respond to that as well so my name is yav um it's a brand new construction and uh um I'm planning to buy a piece of land and be build uh pickle ball and paddle club uh with uh 19 courts some of them are going to be inside indoors and some of them are going to be outdoors um three courts up north and uh six courts down south and um I invited to this meeting a couple of uh people who helped me draft Ani Mitch and uh uh Matt also who helped me put together sty plan and storm water management so I'm I would like to pass the word to uh Mech to present um the comments and the response to comments from um the peer review sure yeah thanks for the intro you have so Mitch M Lanka with got our Consulting Wetland scientist uh so I helped you have put together the notice of intent for the proposed building and paddleball Court facilities so just to give you some background on the site this uh this site is adjacent to the uh retirement living area off to the right side of that plan and where this building and parking and paddle Court area is proposed is in a a large field adjacent to that retirement living area and it's currently utilized as a a mode area for a a leeching field and then other portions of the site are um are regularly mowed in a meadow habitat area and then as you get closer to the the wetlands which are shown off to the the uh top left uh corner of the screen those are our Wetlands oh thank you perfect um so as you can see uh that green area is a uh Wetland connection from north of East Main Street comes a stream and then goes under the road and then enters our site goes through some forested wetlands and then down towards the left side of the screen goes through a a wet Meadow area and then eventually leaves the site off to the bottom left corner of the the site so you can see the majority of the area that the uh building is proposed and the paddle ball courts are proposed is in an already Disturbed area majority of it like I said is is lawn underneath there is the leeching field and then um other portions are are Meadow habitat so uh off to the top right of the screen you can see that's where the entrance is going to be it's a shared driveway with the retirement living area and and then that'll eventually connect in to the facility's own driveway and then parking spaces down at the bottom right of our site um then to the left of our parking area that's where six pickle ball SL paddle quarts will be proposed um so people can go in there and and play their games and then off to the left of those quarts we have a a fence and then we're going to have some a line of trees which we can get to the landscape plan in a bit and then um to the left of that that rectangular looking uh polygon is a subsurface infiltration system which um will manage the storm water runoff from the impervious surfaces of the site uh just up to the um plan north and east we also have another part of the storm water system a a um surface infiltration Basin which will also be assisting in managing the storm water runoff and then uh furthest planned South is another aspect of our storm water management um a more linear fashion going um parallel to the bottom property bound down there um so up at the top right we also have a couple outdoor pickle ball quarts shown there um the one in the top left is in the buffer zone between the 75 and 100 foot buffer zone uh to the bordering Vegeta Wetlands so uh additionally within the buffer zones uh we have the proposed building that top left corner of it is sticking into the 75. 100 foot buffer zone as far as impacts closer to the wetlands between the 75 and 50 foot buffer zone are where the storm water management features are which under the hopkington bylaw um the storm water management features are allowed between that 50 and 75 feet so um that's why we have those proposed there um but there's a a lot of um open space that the um the devel vment takes advantage of um to reduce our impacts in the buffer zone as much as possible um no impacts within the 50 Foot buffer zone so that's that's a big plus no structures proposed in the 75 foot so between the 75 foot and 100 that's where we have some pickle ball quartz proposed the corner of the building and um and some storm water management um also to to mitigate impacts to the to 100 foot buffer zone um we're taking advantage of the existing Meadow habitat and we're going to replicate that in a a way over the um the subsurface infiltration system down at the bottom left of the screen there so that area once the systems installed will be seated with a New England uh Wildlife Conservation seed mix so that the area can be naturalized on top of it and just be mowed maybe once or twice a year to keep it in a meadow habitat um and like I said before that area will be separated from the the the pickle ball quartz by a row of evergreen shrubs uh right now they're proposed as white fur Evergreens there's additional plantings elsewhere in the buffer zone between the buildings and the the wetlands as well um so there's several white pine trees and several red maple trees proposed as a uh as a mitigation measure for impacts within the uh the buffer zone as well so I think that gives a pretty good overview of the the project we did um receive comments from Lucas environmental which we appreciated um we read through it uh had some discussions uh internally with the team and then uh just shot over a very brief uh response letter today I feel like we don't really need to go through everything um there's a few documents uh Lucas requested um I'm happy to provide those as far as plan revisions we can go through a couple of those um and um have some discussions like about the permanent immovable barers um which I know hopkington usually requests for for projects um and so maybe I'll I'll let Joe um from Lucas kind of chime in with any of his um Main comments that he wants to but before that I just want to maybe ask Matt if there's anything um Matt U ler from our team the civil engineer if he has anything to add about the storm water before we move on I think you covered it uh fairly well Matt lien our civil Design Group uh good evening everybody uh no I think Mitchie covered it fairly well um of course if there's any specific questions I'm happy to go into any aspects of it in in detail great thanks Matt so yeah um Joe do you do you want to go through some of your main comments and we can kind of comment on those for you for the chair would you like me to go through yeah I don't know if you um got a chance to look at their letter I don't necessarily expect you did today but if you want to go through whatever comments um you feel sure um and I did have a chance toh to look over the uh the response um not in detail but um but I did have a chance to look at it so um and I think a lot of the U my initial comments um were addressed as far as um indicating that revisions will be submitted um so as Mitch mentioned there were a couple of document uh issues um missing documents well the Affidavit of service was not included and the uh WPA form was an older version so they've indicated that they will revise those and submit um I did recommend I I noted that there were some invasive species um mentioned in the in the uh project narrative um and I would recommend that the construction phase invasive species mitigation and monitoring plan also be submitted um for the uh mitigation area I had noted that uh there appeared to be a fence located at the southern portion of the property um which was with appeared to be within the 75 foot um no structure Zone um based on the responses I received today that appears that the uh the buffer zone lines were mislabeled uh and the fence actually remains outside the 5 foot no build no structure Zone the uh project is proposing uh the U uh Meadow U mitigation area um I recommended that some additional detail be provided regarding the uh area of metal that's being disturbed and the uh relative to the area that is being uh proposed for mitigation um uh recommended that the uh plans include uh locations of any proposed temporary strong water measures um such as U construction phase settlement basins or stockpile locations uh the applicant indicated that U that will be included as part of the Swift I recommended that the uh sequence the construction sequence plan that was submitted uh to be included on the site plans um it was noted that those would be added Mitch mentioned that they're proposing a line of um white fur um along the uh edge of the uh proposed work uh I had no that uh go abouton the web page indicates white fur is not being native in Massachusetts um the afcan responded that the the USDA plants database shows it as uh Native in Massachusetts which is true but if you zoom in on that uh that map it's actually only shown native in Hampton County it's not shown native anywhere else in Massachusetts so my recommendation would still be um something else other than U white fur be proposed in that location uh and noted that no pibs uh were noted on the plans um and the commission should discuss what they're looking for for pibs couple of minor items were the plans mentioned hay instead of straw and those are being uh revised according to the information we just received and I think that pretty much uh includes all of our comments okay thanks Joe yeah um Kim did you have anything to add through all that yeah thanks Melissa so um I did have some PR minary meetings with the applicant and his team which is really helpful thank you um so some things that we went over in the those preliminary meetings that I guess I just would still put emphasis on with this site um the pibs and obviously having that discussion but also um storm water out here so um I believe it's Weston and Samson is contracted under the planning board to provide a storm water review so um when we receive that that's definitely something that we also will want to take a look at uh this site is definitely unique because of the leeching field that is under a lot of the Upland area you can kind of see it here it's roughly in this location so the existence of the leeching field really limits the drainage infrastructure that can be installed so what the applicant is proposing is that um runoff flow uh southerly into a sale kind of an open sale and then it and then it flows into the subsurface CeX system so my concern and my emphasis I guess is that I want to make sure that the operations and maintenance plan is robust such that we don't have any issues with the sale not being maintained or backing up or you know transporting excess debris if for instance you know a snow plow comes in and plows into it kind of thing um and then the other item that I want to emphasize is that this infiltration Basin should not be used as a construction period uh BMP construction period detention should not flow to it that being said you know I'm sure that the site has a really great infiltration rate which will confirm soon because of the um placement of the leeching fields but there's not a ton of other room on the site for temporary construction bmps um so I think it's important to include that in any kind of phasing plan or erosion and sedimentation control plan where we're going to put temporary BMP structures for runoff and that being said I would love to see the Swip or erosion control plan ahead of um issuing the order because not saying this is going to happen but sometimes when we we receive uh Swifts at the point of the preconstruction meeting they're not always sometimes they're done a little hastily so um I would love if if we could have that information ahead of time just to kind of keys out um a little bit more thoughtfulness yep oh that that makes sense um okay yeah so the are there any catch basins um or collection system you know on the site I saw a detail for a catch Basin but yeah so in the in the driveway um I don't know if you can zoom in cim yep there's a couple there okay so those three M Matt would it make sense for you to address uh some of Kim's comments uh because we did update the uh uh storm water management plan with um operations and maintenance guidelines um as per your Kim recommendations and also was snow management and so we added some additional um guidelines that we're going to be following right so um so just answer to add to what Mitch just said about the catch Basin first yeah so there are some catch Basin in the driveway up there uh as well as a yard drain up to the north of the building um but to to just reiterate what what Kim had mentioned um due to the presence of the existing leech field beneath the parking lot and the six uh ports to the left of the parking lot um that limits our ability to use a a a traditional you know catch SP and structure and pipe system uh to drain that area which is why um we're proposing that th those areas she flow to the South and then get intercepted by that conveyance swell along the bottom right and then get picked up treated and um brought into the the infiltration system um so so while there are some catch faas on site there are not as many as you would probably typically you know associate with this type of um of of development with a parking lot uh and that's because of that LE field um and far as the omm plan um so the storm water management report that was submitted with uh as part of this project includes an onm plan um I thought we had captured uh the the comments that we and the feedback that we received uh preliminarily uh at the at the meetings that we did have with Kim um but certainly if there's anything else that um that we missed that should be in there we can certainly um update that and and submit an updated version um I think it's a robust onm plan uh We've provided um the the maintenance uh access ways to get to the the infiltration systems both the subsurface and the uh the above ground Basin to the left of the building uh as well as the the treatment area um that that pre-treat the water uh before it gets into those systems um snow management is addressed uh in onm but also on the plan here uh the the row of parking spaces furthest to the left on this plan uh that's sort of above the six pedel courts right those are uh where we are proposing to um Place snow and the reason being uh where're able to do that in the parking lot because in the winter time when it's snowing those outdoor courts will not be utilized so there will not be as much uh demand for parking so we're able to um use a portion of the parking for snow storage and the the good thing about that but it's required but you know and provided is that it will under the snow melt water will undergo the full treatment system uh of the St Water Management that's proposed uh so it won't uh you know it's not proposed in areas that could bypass that system it will it will go through the system and get fully treated um also there's to the north of the building um the runoff from the three pickle ball courts uh is proposed to undergo pre-treatment through a vegetated filter strip and one of the comments that our um pre-application meeting was to to label that so it's documented on a plan or on the plan that it is a treatment area um so that is labeled on there uh to to ensure that that does get maintained uh accordingly um so if there's any other specific questions I'd be happy to to try to address those okay through the chair y go ahead Kim I guys Matt I have not re-reviewed the onm plan so I will do so ahead of our next meeting and make sure that um you know I can get if I have any additional comments okay very good yeah we're happy to to work with you to address those if there are anym thank you um I don't know if we want to talk about the pib for a minute uh there's none proposed at the moment right by the applicant correct yeah there weren't we didn't show any on the plans okay um Kim can you go down to the I think it's the last sheet and it kind of has an aerial behind it it um so I'm curious to to see what others think but um obviously there's a big space that I guess the the concern would be landscapers potentially over zealously mowing um into the buffer zone and and what's I don't see a lot of trees to where there would potentially be a pib line um also whether anyone on the commission has comments as far as the extent of the development on the site in relation to the the buffer zone um lines where that Pi should land I don't think I don't think the pib should be um I think it should be outside of the storm water infrastructure infiltration system and basin yeah most I agree I think um you know ideally tow slope it's sounds like from what I was hearing earlier there's some proposed plantings um I don't know what the the plan is for that first 50 feet of the buffers buffer area if that's going to remain uh as is today and just allowed to grow in or if there's plans to maintain that going forward but if that's going to be left to grow in I think we want our pibs right along that that TOA slope so it's clear um as landscapers are coming through like you said that they're not overzealously mowing down to the Wetland Edge whether that means we you know we suggest a few larger tree plantings along that line where we can hang the PS or some other measure I don't know what the best approach is but that's my feeling on it so the chair this is Ed yes eded yeah I'm the the buffer zone intrusions into the buffer zone are one concern but my my bigger curiosity is that we're creating surface over and offsite leech field if I understand this correctly so the leeching field is for the housing old folks operation next door or do I misinterpret uh through the chair Roy McDow if I could speak to that please sure okay the leeching field is part of the overall Legacy Farms development we have three or four of these located in various locations so this is not just for the a senior living it's for a good portion of the housing throughout the development as we do have other fields as well and we've been working very closely we do have the right to do this Visa v d on top of these fields because the fields were constructed originally with H20 loading which would allow this type of use on top so it's not really any specific piece of the property but generally one of about four leeching fields that we have so to continue my question then is this a precedent setting where we're we're doing something like this or is it really limited to these parcels that Mr mcdal will just outlined well I if I could I would say that this is done quite frequently over leaching fields and that's why D does approve it if the fields were constructed to take this into account okay through the chair yes Ted um um I I Echo Ed as far as a buffer zone incursion and I wonder how much of it is necessary um but I'm curious about the um the mitigation the suggested mitigation that on top of the subsurface infiltration that there would be some plantings what's there right now isn't that Meadow right now so it's a a mixture of meadow and Lawn space um and I think this is kind of what Joe was was getting at is you know where does that lawn space end and how much Meadow space are you guys going to be impacting so I I did do a a walk um along those buffer zone lines and um the the meadow stops about at the um so I'm looking over at the bar plan left at the subsurface infiltration system so the the meadow stops somewhere between the the um the 75 and 100 foot um buffer zone there so there is going to be some Meadow space that's impacted and just to comment on the condition of the meadow space it's uh it's very um or it has a lot of invasive species it has Oriental Bittersweet it has Autumn Olive popping through um it does have some native species it has the um the Blackberry the raspberry uh there's a couple of Aspen species coming through um so if the area was let to to go it would probably take a few more years to to develop into a a young successional Forest um but um I think it would make sense for us to just proide just a little sketch showing where that Meadow space begins and ends and I don't know if um Kim actually has available availability to go back to that mass mapper um aerial because that can kind of show better where the um the lawn ends and where the meadow begins uh as far as the top um portion of the site goes all the pickle ball ports up there and even the vegetated Swale will just be within existing lawn area that area isn't maintained as Meadow up there yep and then as you go down you can kind of see this curvy line going in the the center of the site there yeah so that is actually um to the bottom yeah yeah that's our that's our line right there between lawn and Meadow and that white pine tree there that's going to be our only tree that's impacted that guy is just barely going to get clipped by the construction needed for the um the subsurface in filtration system so you can see there's probably a a 15t swath of of meadow that'll be impacted um throughout the um that bottom left corner up until the the middle of the site so I I guess my comment is um maybe I'd like to hear more numbers but it doesn't feel like mitigation if Meadow is being removed and then replaced that feels like like trying to recreate what was destroyed and when I look at all of the buffer zone incursions all along the development whether it's lawn or not um those kind of incursions to build pickle ball courts versus other types of building we might have give me pause I'm not a designer of a pickle ball development place but I'm curious if we look at the set of six pickle ball courts to the furthest south I'm looking at at one of those last pictures that you guys had up that exactly why is there so much space between the North and South pickle ball courts there but it's not necessary on the Northern three it seems to me if you squish them together a little better then you get rid of some buffer zone incursion that's problematic the chair may I may I address sure uh so it's y um again it it it's it's a really good observation and it would be true if at the bottom it was these six quarts were pickle ball courts these are not pickle ball courts these are paddle courts uh the club that I'm building has two different sports one is pickle ball the other one is paddle the cords for the paddle are a little bit larger and as part of the play the ball can get out from the court and people on the other side could run out and bring the ball back so uh um we couldn't really squish them together because that would uh uh hinder the the play um and maybe Matt can also talk about um uh the design solutions that we had to make um kind of from the storm water management perspective that's another reason why we space space them out so yes so um so spacing between the courts sort of left to right um is related to storm water management uh because again it's there these are over top of the leech field and so we need to have a conveyance system to get the water to sheet flow and drain to from north south so we need some space between the courts u in order to do that as far as far as this this the spacing between them the north to south the bigger gap between them uh that really was a um a function of really yev I think your your operation and um what you wanted to achieve in that area so um I can't say that's necessarily storm water related I think it's best if you you speak to that that spacing yeah so there were two two reasons why we created that space one of the one of the reasons actually is related to the leing field right because um there is a slight slope to the space but the leion field itself is completely kind of parallel like completely flat right and you need to have certain amount of coverage on top of the leing field from 2 to 3 fet if I remember correctly right so if we space them um the way how we did it allows um a slight slope to be created and that would be uh ADA Compliant uh if they were close that would create a step potentially so it would be difficult for for people with disabilities to access those uh lower cords and uh U and it would create kind of bigger discrepancy between the um the various areas above the the pipes of the leing field itself right and we needed to maintain this two to three feet everywhere thanks that's helpful um if I may through the chair one other option might be have five paddle ball quarts or paddle quarts and that gives more room for mitigation to make the other mitigation area a little bit more acceptable perhaps and gives more room for pibs further from the actual uh uh border of the we so generally My worry is how much buffer zone incursion whether it's previously Disturbed or not it's not the same as I don't know a a playground or a parking lot previously Disturbed there is some naturalness going on that's going to disappear so anyway those are my thoughts at this point okay thanks Ted um for the chair I'd like to um respond as well why six courts is critical actually U for the for the club for the club operations okay the chair Roy McDow if I could respond to the concern about incursion into the buffer zone yep so it's a very good question and many times we've seen where something like this is built and all of a sudden somebody's mowing that whole field to the west and I know the town doesn't want that so A previous project we had approved through a concom was about every 30 feet along the perimeter of that edge we put a wooden post a 4x4 wooden post sticking out of the ground about 2 feet and it with little little tiny little signs on that say do do not mow a disturb in this area around that attire perimeter All the Way East Main Street so everyone is always aware that you can't touch that zone m yeah I think that's definitely something that will look for to be um added to the the plan and proposed um and the beefier the better I think as the commission has found out over the years on the the pib um I want to you know we're going to have to to to move on I think we got a few more things on the agenda and we still have the storm water review um you know that needs to be worked through and and get com back on um one question quick question I think maybe for Kim or Roy is was there any um was there any limit of disturbance established from the Legacy development on the site actually the original permit allowed us to build a building almost twice about twice the size I think it's over 404 45,000 Square ft okay the chair yes Kim that's an excellent question um I can definitely um you know look up the old the old files and confirm what um Mr Mel just um shared I guess it be more yeah I guess it would be more now that the the septic system was when the septic system was built in that approval like you know was there a line associated with that and the other question that I have too is um single incomplete projects cumulative buffer zone impacts so I know that there is some language in our bylaw about common development I'm not sure yet if this applies um but it's something that uh I should probably look into the history a little bit of so I can certainly do that for our next hearing okay that sounds good um so I think if it's okay with the applicant then we see if you want to request a continuation to the June 11th meeting or yeah through the chair I'd like to respond really quickly about the need for six quarts at the bottom from business perspective so you can have an understanding and appreciate that so there are very very few facilities that offer uh six pattle courts and uh that actually allows high level National and even International tournaments to be hosted five courts wouldn't be sufficient for that so with six courts we could invite literally number one players in the world to play on these uh on these courts and tournaments uh so that would be really beneficial for the town and and and and for the club and for promotion of the sport just wanted to uh share that oh thank you appreciate that but in response in response yes of course and in response to your question of course uh let's uh continue on June 11th June 11 okay can I get a motion someone I'll make the to continue I'll second all right um all in favor Ted hi Jim hi Ed Ed looks like you stepped away okay Matt hi and I'm an I thank you commission yeah okay um next up we have the mass Labors Training trust fund 37 East Street notice of intent continuation um do we have anyone on the call yes hi there uh good evening Ryan Rosine with da Consulting hey he so um I think while Kim pulls up the latest plan that we submitted I can sort of just briefly go through what um since the last meeting so we did respond um to uh Lucas environment comments um we did make a number of uh minor plan changes that were requested in that letter as you'll see in just a second on the plan uh we did add some stuff so we still have um you know that drainage area going down to that area we are proposing to uh put in four new red Maples um because four healthy pine trees are being removed so we are mitigating for that that in addition to that um I think the biggest thing that the commission asked for last time was a cumulative uh Riverfront um you know numbers for the entirety of the site uh since there's a lot of projects and everything going around so we did have our engineer provide those numbers um for for us and uh to prove compliance with the Redevelopment standards I'm not sure if Lucas um had had a you know chance to review the revised materials that we sent in last week or not um but we are actually proposing 170 square ft of Riverfront mitigation um as you can see on that plan it's sort of that shaded area directly adjacent um just to the right of the proposed um drainage pipe and outfall um so that basically counts for one tree two shrubs in a in a wildlife conservation seed mix in that area um and just to reiterate so the entirety of the the project especially on the south uh western side of the road there is a overall decrease in impervious surfaces within Riverfront area about 530 square feet and then we are improving the storm water management I mean this is the storm water management plan um and there is that detail there for the rip wrap apron which was one of the things that was asked for um As a detail for that and I think the other main thing was you know looking at other possibilities for removing uh or or moving the location of the the drainage pipe in there the drainage structure in in all so as you remember we first did this as an RDA where the pipe went basically along you know that northeast side of the roadway almost all the way down to where the bridge is located right up to the River's Edge um so we pulled that back in this iteration of the plan um the only other option that the engineer said would um you know be feasible but is is not um a practical alternative for this and I'll get into in second is to put in a surface storm water basin in that area um but that would require a much larger surface area of disturbance we'd have to do more work in the buffer zone and more work in the riverfront area and take down more trees um and so for that greater disturbance we decided to stick with this plan as you see here um it's pretty minor in in impacts and and we believe that we're fully mitigating those impacts um so I'll just keep it at that and if there's other questions or comments from the commission I'd be happy to answer those okay um Joe did were your comments addressed or did you have anything that you wanted to bring up yeah I did have a chance to look over the responses uh didn't have a chance to respond formally um and I think um many of the uh our comments were were addressed a couple of things I just wanted to note um regarding the uh River front area um analysis that was provided as far as disturbance um on the site um I think uh it would be helpful to have a little more detail in there as far as um what was Disturbed if it was breakdown of um uh developed areas uh degraded areas and and undeveloped areas um just because if you look at the numbers that they that they provided um as far as the overall site development alteration within the riverfront area um given the numbers that they are providing it's um over 133% um you know which is which is over the 10% um and I don't think that that was previously presented as being over 10% um in some of the the previous filings um I think part of that may be that a lot of the work uh that occurred um was in uh degraded areas either paved or gravel roadways and that may be being lumped in with the alteration um numbers here I don't know um but I think just some additional um breakdown of the areas that were Disturbed would be helpful um for this and and moving forward for you know anything else that might happen um or be proposed on the site um see I did have a question on um I know the the described that there's 530 square feet of degraded area um that's going to be converted to lawn and I couldn't find that on the plan I it's I'm just maybe overlooking it but I wonder if um if um that could be pointed out just in where that's happening um also there's um in one of the responses uh they talk about um degraded area and altered area um again um not necessarily the same thing um degraded um being those areas that are impervious or um devoid of top soil um altered could be developed um so just some additional detail and breakdown uh on what's been done on site um in those categories would be helpful and I think that's that's pretty much my main comments um based on my initial review of the responses that were submitted okay um Kim do you have any uh any thoughts on on that yeah um agreeing with Joe essentially so Joe and I did have a um a conversation about the riverfront area calculations this afternoon we connected about um you know Riverfront area impacts cumulative impacts previously developed Riverfront area and kind of what we were expecting to see so the numbers that the applicant provided did result in 13% total impact of river FR an area on the site which does exceed the 10% threshold um I do expect that a lot of that area was degraded but with the current the way it's currently broken out it's it's not specified for us clearly um so I'm still kind of in the camp where I would I would really for our information moving forward with this applicant and all the project on the site would really love to clearly understand what the impact numbers are in Riverfront area um per the regulatory definitions like what what percent or what square footage is degraded what square footage is altered what square footage is actually previously developed meaning it's devoid or absent of top soil um so for me that's still kind of an important detail that I think just needs to be extrapolated again I think that they are going to meet it based on Meet the performance standards based on my knowledge of the existing um conditions of the site that have existed for many many years um but that information is is going to be something that we need as we move forward okay it sounds like it it would be hard to close it out having that 133% unidentified um tonight otherwise does anyone else have any uh comments questions I think um the plan looks improved with the um the plantings and the the pullback on the structure to me through the chair just a quick refresher been a little Lou this one um Can the applicant clarify where we say relative to this project specifically is this a net reduction FR area impact and what's the breakdown if so yeah so so currently so to go back to Joe's first comment about um you know the lawn area being just so decreasing impervious surface and all for for this section of the project um there was a graphic in you know the last meeting and that was provided in the noi side by side of a of this area shown with red and an area shown in yellow and that was sort of the area that showed um the decrease in impervious surface um yeah see there you go so that area right there that's marked on the right hand side in 530 so that area that's currently part of uh the driveway is going to be lawn so that's where that comes from so that's one of the net decreases of impervious within Riverfront area for this project um you know the the the outfall to the storm water basin is a slight you know has a slight amount of impervious surface about 68 square feet which is what we're mitigating for um with that 170 square feet you know we're doing actually two and a half to one ratio um so I I do think that even though we don't have the exact numbers as you would like them to be broken down um which we don't have a problem um providing for that um I would ask the commission to consider um you know we are providing the mitigation for that even if it is over the 10% we are providing the mitigation and that if you know the possibility to possibly close in tonight while after that providing you know the break the detailed breakdown uh for the entirety of the site um which we can provide and that sort of will be a much clearer picture of the you know what you were talking about degraded versus previously altered and that and that sort of um work in for the whole site does that help answer your question Matt or are you looking for something more specific no that helps I just needed a little Refresh on where we were in terms of impacts through the chair Kim I I don't mean to put you on the spot here so I'm going to apologize in advance um from your perspective are are the numbers in terms of the footprint of the numbers adequate and we're really just looking for a breakdown of of how those areas fit with the definitions or are we uncomfortable with the actual area that they've provided in terms of the riverfront does that make sense I think I can try to answer that so okay as it stands the applicant has provided impact numbers that indicate that they are over the threshold yeah I don't think that in actuality they are because a lot of that is quote unquote degraded meaning it was already impervious surface before the time that the that the ACT there's a day in the act I don't know if it's like 96 or 83 it's old it's old um it existed before whatever the regulatory date is um so I don't think that they are over the threshold in reality but based on the numbers that were presented they are that being said this applicant has many many projects open with us and I would not be surprised in fact I do know of more projects that they intend to come forward with um and I have been asking for these calculations for several projects um so I just you know I there's definitely like a there's a push forward next time next one keep going next project kind of um pattern and and it gets to a point where I'm wondering if at some point we are we are going to exceed that threshold um so without getting you know the breakdown I won't know when that happens and that's my that's my fear okay I understand where you're coming from I was just trying to wrap my head around that so really what boils down it to is we we want to have some documentation in hand that confirms this project and other projects moving forward are in compliance with the regulations is that a fair way to put it yes yeah okay thank you yeah and I I think like I said I think we can provide that and and just going off with that you know there is a there might be a good chance that we're below the 10% threshold in which case we don't need to provide the mitigation that we're currently providing um of that 170 square feet so I mean we can still provide that we can go forward with what's what we have now even providing that mitigation and then give you the um you know those those detailed numbered breakdown of Riverfront stuff um you know after this if if that would work I know you said you you've been looking for this for a while but um just we're just looking to uh sort of get this get this Clos and get the get the work going all right um so the question being do we go ahead and uh close it out being that they're providing mitigation and reducing um prvious area in the riverfront on this particular project in the good faith that before the next one we get the numbers um or do we want to continue it out again that's the question to the commission Melissa this is Jim yes Jim I have a question I guess for you and Kim uh we we've not completed our uh review of application for the other projects so it's possible that the other projects could be you know changed or modified if those numbers that come in uh seem necessary you know so if we let them go with this um if we approve this they still have to come back to us for several other projects that um may involve uh mitigation so we might have to add to those in the future if we were to approve this now right uh I think we don't know what we got until we get get the breakdown well yeah I'm in client to say that we need to wait until U we get the uh cumulative numbers okay of disturbance yeah I think I think that makes sense um so applicant am medicable to continuing to the June 11th with getting those numbers squared away and the sooner Kim gets them and Joe gets them um the sooner they can comment on them and have some dialogue so that we could absolutely close it out before the next meeting rather than getting it you know the day before and having to try and um review it at the last minute yeah let me George Connor is on the call I I would defer to him I think you know he may have some comments on that or if you know we may be good or anything sure George yeah okay we've um provided these um Riverfront analysis numbers on each and every of these projects last building to be built in this campus was in 1988 the Coya building and all the work um in that area including on the other side of the pond where the crane building and the headquarters is going now um it a driveway system and Open Fields and uh work staging areas all around the uh stream the uh utilities that go through the site um and every one of them water sewer drain electric and Communications and now some fire lines have a footprint in Disturbed roadways which are either pavement or gravel within the riverfront area um B and gas is a uh judicatory hearing that had decided that any disturbance in the riverfront um that puts a pipe underground in a disturbed area doesn't constitute another disturbance we've talked about the um amount of disturbance on this site with respect to these pipes including when we went down uh proposing an alternative on um uh Clinton Street I believe it was for the gas line um we simply tabulate those I don't believe for one minute that they are disturbances and I think that's able to be corroborated with the alonquin uh gas um decision by the adjudicatory hearing officer the area where the crane building is there you have it right right there um where the leach field is between it and the river that was a mind out area uh no no uh further to yeah right in there you see that kind of a hatched area with little plus signs all through it that was a um that whole area was mined out back in probably the late 70s and it was planted as a field with a lot of uus um around and through it those have all been removed for this project as we discussed back in the early days of the uh campus so all of the work really in the river Zone on the site uh with the exception of that little field area there uh was in roadways and driveways um the area in that field was a large gravel null that was mined out material uh was used Elsewhere on the site during the construction of some of those buildings so it's my position not withstanding that we give you this uh breakdown because it is work in a quote River area but it's Disturbed I don't think we're anywhere near 10% the project that we're proposing right now is um the pipeline that is going to pick up drainage that here to four was not ever picked up um and treated before it went into the uh Pond or into the uh Cole Springs Brook at the Crossing just below COA um we discussed that back I think in November or maybe December on site that um we would for the work that was going to take place on the renovations of Coya on the pond we would um be happy to implement some storm water um cleanup and um treatment prior to the dis the discharge to an uncontrolled discharge to Cold Spring Brook which I think this is um it's fairly costly it has storm scepter um so I really think that um a we have provided these numbers B I'm not sure that they apply uh with the exemption for not changing the surface of the riverfront area as a practical matter throughout this site and um see that we are improving drainage um in an area that for years uh has not had anything it comes all the way from just about where the entrance of the site uh breaks off in behind the dormatory building that whole stretch of driveway from well say the pool area down was um not captured now it is okay I think um I think we would we we would love to give credit for you know these type of things but um I think right now we just have you know a number or a table and I think what we asked for in the last meeting and what would be helpful to kind of finalize this and have a document to move forward with is to provide you know the breakdown that's being requested and a graphic that's associated with that so that it makes Kim and Joe's job easy to see what you're explaining um you know in one package and we can just build off of that going forward I think that's really what we're looking for and then you know we don't have to bring it up all the time [Music] um so you know what it was how many square feet it was and what it turned into um documenting that is is really what the commission's commission's looking for so it's you know not going back through these explanations um to try and figure it out and then you can get credit going forward um so I guess again if the applicant's amenable to continuing to June 11th and providing that what it was how many square feet it was what it turned into um you know that type of a breakdown with the associated sitewide plan um then we can stop having to to go through this every every time um we have an application and it'll be a lot smoother I think going going forward when you do bring projects um does that work'll have to okay um can I get a motion from someone to continue to June 11th I'll make a motion to continue to June 11 I think that was Ted give it to Ted um all in favor Ted I Jim I Ed I Matt hi and I'm an I um and I think just the the sooner we can get that into to Kim's so she can take a look and provide some feedback um hopefully at the next hearing we can just slam dunk this um an issue okay thank you we'll we'll provide that as soon as we can okay thanks all right um next up we have Wall Street development told North Mill Street continuation on the abbreviated notice of intent resource notice of resource area delineation sorry um Kim do you want to start this one off where we're at I can't remember yes I can talk to this one um so two hearings back uh we reviewed the updated plans with Wall Street development and Gard um Wall Street development felt that that enough um expenditure and time had been devoted to this project and um the commission agreed that um they would not have Lucas environmental back out to the site to review the flags associated with an internal intermittent stream on the site which is located here um otherwise Lucas environmental and G Consulting as I understand it agreed on all of the other BBW boundary Flags Joe let me know if that's incorrect um so at this point we are good to close from my understanding um and I'm just going to recommend that we use language hold up I would um do a motion to close and issue the oad based on the boundary lines reviewed and confirmed by the commission's peer reviewer and the way that I write the oads up I specifically name uh the flags that we are confirming so there should be no confusion as to that aspect okay um does anyone have any questions comments or concerns before we make that motion this one good um anyone from the public don't see any hands or anything okay um would anyone like to make that motion as Kim stated I'm happy to make the motion along the verbage of uh Kim okay let me get a second second all right um all in favor Ted Ted is an i Jim Jim all right Ed hi Matt hi Jim is and I too by the way sorry Jim is and I and M isn't I all right Mr pety will be very happy I hope so through the chair signatures right yes please I make a motion that Kim can sign on behalf of the Commissioners and I second okay and all in favor Ted I Jim uh Ed my feet are still wet from when I walked it but I Matt I and Melissa's and I um okay so that's all for our hearings down to work session items we got to um I think we're on number four oh we get Wall Street development number two 810 12 Leonard Street request away fees for certificate of compliance um is Mr Petro on the call for this or uh are you taking it Kim I am a little surprised he is not here but I will take it for him in his absence so Mr pety has filed a request to wave fees for certificate of compliances pursuant to the option in our bylaw to make a request um if you recall Mr Petro is the developer of addresses 810 and 12 Leonard Street um so he would like to file coc's and he would like um he is requesting that the consultan Fe of $480 per certificate of compliance be waved and instead um he is proposing to provide $680 um the argument being that the consultant only has to go out to one site not three so that is his ask tonight all right um I would say that the commission does not typically wave fees or um make modifications to fees that are uh required I know that um you know billing is done based on time spent so I think if there's any cost savings or um you know whatever's not spent on reviewing the certificate clients would eventually be returned to him if that makes sense so um in my mind I would deny that waiver request I don't know if anyone else has feelings one way or another I just have a question have we ever done something like what he's asking for because we have a lot of developments where properties are right next to each other I don't remember ever doing it or being asked to I have not done it in my tenure as agent through the chair Qui question uh there are three orders correct so we would need to issue three certificates of compliance correct correct then I tend to agree with you most of that there's really no reduction in work because we are issuing three separate certificates of compliance and if it does prove out that the consultant fee in its entirety is not necessary then it won't be necessary but at this time it's not clear that that's the case Okay do we have to vote on that Kim or is that just a let's vote on on it just for good measure okay just in case um can I get a motion to deny the request for a waiver of fees I will make that motion go for it Ed I did great Ed second that's what Ed going for it looks and sounds like all right I made the motion Ed second um all in favor Ted uh this is in favor of denying the request yes I am in favor of denying the request all right Jim I Ed and I am in favor of denying the request all right Matt I and I'm and I all right um next we have Burton 178 Ash Street request for certificate of compliance um Kim do you want to give a background on this or yes I can um I can give a little background up for us so there's a lot of plans I hope that this one is close to the right one um so this was permitted in 2018 for um the construction of a single family home it's 178 Ash Street there is an intermittent stream to the southeast of the site that runs this way um the site generally grades East and um east and south and east towards Ash Street so in 2018 the concom permitted uh the single family home including clearing and Grading of the lot and uh Associated driveway septic system the limit of work was the 50 Foot no disturb Zone uh in 2021 the construction began and the agent myself this was the transition time um issued season assist so there was uh clearing that was clearing and grubbing that was observed beyond the limit of work the uh applicants contractor who was hired to do the clearing and grubbing I think started work before the erosion control barrier was installed so there was a bit of a miscommunication there and according to the plan submitted the Disturbed area toled 5,830 Square ft within the uh buffer zone so in January of 2022 the HCC issued an amended order of conditions the Amendments consisted of a reduction in the footprint of the dwelling the addition of a deck and porch a shifting of the location of the septic tank and Grading adjustments at the rear of the home the amended or order also included buffer zone mitigation which consisted of 54 native trees and 26 native shrub the applicant has completed the work at the site the construction of the single family home and uh they have submitted a request for certificate of compliance the applicants engineer did note some deviations from the approved plans currently the driveway is gravel instead of paved the diversion burm is not installed this is the diversion burm here so in the uh proposed plan the some runoff from the driveway would come down hit a sale and then be diverted into this SPM so that system was not installed there is a slope near the septic tank that is not stabilized with rip wrap the area behind the house is um only partially stabilized with lman seed and the engineer reported that there was some tree clearing inside the 50t and 100 foot buffer zone so at this point I would um bump it over to Lucas so Lucas environmental went out and did a review as well and uh the applicant has had several follow-ups with us in response to Lucas's review so perhaps we should have Lucas go through their comments and then I'm sure that the applicant um also would like to um speak up and and give some updates as well because there have been updates after uh Lucas's review so I will um send it over to Joe okay okay um I was out on the site uh on April 25th um as of that date much of the site was stabilized however as was mentioned by Kim there were um some areas um that were noted in the uh as built description uh that uh we still not stabilized and I saw some areas of thin grass cover and some areas that needed further stabilization um and I recommend that recommended that the sil fence stay installed until those areas become fully stabilized um there are some old uh erosion control Waddles um in the areas that were uh Disturbed that are now revegetating um they're pretty deteriorated they're not performing much of a function right now um those could come out unless there's additional work that needs to happen in those areas the um buffer zone mitigation area um is regrowing naturally um based on what I could see it was never replanted as um was required in the order of conditions um I did not do a detailed inspection of the mitigation area other than just noting that there was uh fair amount of uh natural native vegetation uh regrowing some from tree sprouts stump Sprouts um um some areas are are remain fairly thin as far as of any shrub or tree vegetation um and there's a fair amount of uh invasive vegetation coming up in those areas also so um so my recommendation there was that the applicant provide um detailed um monitoring report essentially of of those areas um it does not appear that any monitoring reports were uh submitted um for for the mitigation area since I don't think it was planted but um I think a status report or monitoring report of those areas would provide the uh commission with information uh that they would need to determine if um additional plantings need to be uh need to be done or if invasive species management needs to be done um which I would recommend um or if the uh plantings the regrowth is sufficient and I think that's for the commission to discuss uh and that pretty much is uh are my comments for the site okay thank you Joe um with that Kim you said the applicant was on the line and had some updates to share with us since Joe was out there um is there someone on the phone wants to chime in yeah I'm right here um in the last month the uh obviously uh things have started to grow I've planted uh six red endms of various types all Native according to the University of New Hampshire's native plant list uh two spice bushes in aelia and a paper birch um according to JD marquette's uh plan um there are numerous old growth trees already on the property which weren't accounted for in the original Plants the original plant were um I don't know maybe based on the idea that it was absolutely nothing there but obviously there are trees there full siiz trees according to the Department of Environmental Protection there's critical root zone so uh where the um settling Pond was going to be um the contracted the seic system was supposed to do that never did it however I have managed to make grass grow there um I observed it during the last period of 24 hours of rain which was just a couple days ago there was another period of 24 hours of rain about 10 days ago um right now there's no erosion um there's no running over all the erosion barriers are in place that were there before um you know I would if I have to put the uh settling pond in I will but however it will be within the root structure of all those trees uh basically the only section is right there in that video right by that rock where uh there was an absence of vegetation so that's why I did all the planning so I spaced them out according to whatever uh spacing that came with the plants um and they're easy enough to take care of too from watering them right over the fence uh the driveway I will have paved I just don't have the U money for it right now so if that could be a conditional element to getting this order removed that is fine um I will get it done by the end of the summer okay this video was done today um there was some other pictures I pulled from the video but the video pretty much tells us story okay so it sounds like there's been progress definitely some progress uh made since obviously we're in the height of growing season to um since April um that's my objective is to take advantage of the spring rains um there is straw I did throw straw quite a bunch of it all along that burm right there which is compacted Stone blue stone there is uh that zip wrap stuff underneath the stone it's much of it's buried because I excavated out all the dirt that had eroded down against the fence and threw it back up onto the hill they loomed over it so um it's hard to see but it is there um okay it does look like it's still I I forget um if it's specified or what the standard is for percent cover to determine the um but the the backyard there looks like it's the front yard looks like it's growing in the backyard looks like it still has little ways to go before um I have two dogs so I have to be careful with what I do with it um so that they don't get U you know if I if I do that spray grass on there I don't think that's really good for the dogs yeah so it's growing naturally on its own I water it twice a day yeah no I get it I also got rid of all the erosion that was in the street running from there all the way down to the edge of my property on a street which is about I don't know like 150 ft down to where the stream is okay um I think the as far as the outstanding items for the the order I mean you can definitely see the water comes down your driveway pretty good there um which I think is the point of the the burm at the bottom the intention um for the the designed to have that BM at the bottom so it's not all washing into Ash Street um so I don't know in my opinion that that's something that um we would want to see I understand we wouldn't want established trees um not a fan of cutting down trees um it's nice that there's trees that were maintained on the property it sounds like rather than um cut down when it was built um so I don't know if there's any opportunity to move that move that burm a little higher on the driveway to avoid um impacting the the root structure of those established trees and still have the same effect that we're kind of looking for because you do have a very steep driveway um and and it is a big area coming down there not established in the back so that would be one of my concerns um before closing this before closing this out um I I do like your comment Joe on a monitoring report for mitigation errors because that mitigation areas um to make sure that those are planted you know sufficiently and growing in and and what was intended um or close to it um think what the other couple items were identified it was the it was the BM it was the mitigation planting and the cover is that right Kim yes um yeah yeah the cover and I you know I think from my perspective I'm more concerned about the cover on the side slope trying to find a part of the video or a photo um like this slope oh it disappeared um rather than you know the backyard because this is kind of that area that kind of drained straight um closer to the the intermittent stream down here um yeah I mean I think ideally little vegetated that's the area that I was also suggesting that the sil fence remain in place until it's stabilized um so that yeah I think we need a little more time um to get this buttoned up before i' be comfortable issuing um a CO I don't know if anyone else on the board has any comment on that uh through the chair I concur the driveway has me worried the lack of the um I don't know the hole at the end of the driveway to take the water I I think I heard the applicant say that he scooped out runoff from the street so clearly the reason for that pit there at the bottom is needed and we're just going to have even more runoff likely when it once it's paved um about that Hill that Joe and Kim pointed out is grass ever going to grow there it looks like it's fully shaded is there a different plan for stabilization of that side yard because I'm I'm just wondering if grass will ever grow there yeah go ahead Kim I'm I'm thinking I'm this maybe more of a question for the applicant was there a point in time during this application when it was proposed to be rip wrapped on that side that slope um that's that um nylon mess stuff correct it's like a little squares of the nylon it is there it's buried but it's there so maybe that we um conditioned for J J matting until it get there is there is grass growing now it's but it's only been growing for like a couple weeks because uh the last frost was around the 23rd of April so really not much as grown because it's been so cold but now that it's warm and sunny it'll grow we can just check it at some point in the future you'll see that there'll be grass there through the chair yes Matt it appeared in those pictures there were some down spels tied into I assume a dryw well are there gutters along the roof Edge where that exists and they're all cleaned up yeah I so you know it would be great to see some vegetation starting to grow even if it just occurs naturally over the the next few months into the fall um I I tend to agree that without the driveway being paved um I'd be I'd be uncomfortable issuing a COC so that's really the primary concern on my part is is getting that driveway pave so we can eliminate the source of the primary source of those the sediment leaving the site and going into the right way most of the sediment um ended up in the street during the initial construction phases before um a lot of the erosion barriers or any vegetation was in place or the gutters were placed on the house um I've observed it during periods of extreme rain and it's uh most of the loose blue stone is gone so now it's just large rocks pretty much in the driveway uh so there is really any more erosion okay [Music] um yeah I mean are are you amenable to letting things grow and um you know continuing like Matt said till till maybe the fall yeah that's fine as long as we have a solid plan and expectations of what needs to be done that's totally fine yeah and I mean I think like I said on the the I think the burm is important when it's paved and if you need to make modifications as far as um how that gets handled when it comes off the driveway so you're not you know sacrificing trees then we can have that conversation um too so that that would be my thought do you have anything else to add Kim uh I just want to be absolutely clear on expectations uh is the commission requiring that storm water some type of storm water BMP is installed at the um bottom of the slope of the driveway I think so I think I think we need to be consistent with what was approved on the plan um that there was a BMP at the bottom of the driveway to prevent water from discharging directly onto Ash Street instead is infiltrated in the front yard um just the actual you know if it needs to be slid to the whatever that is can't see away from the street yes um that doesn't bother me okay um we can yeah perfect thank you through the chair yes I I may also suggest to to the point of the some type of mitigation measure at the the street Edge there that the engineer take a look at you know in addition to potentially sliding it page left um um instead of digging a hole and potentially killing those trees along the street line um diverting the runoff behind the stone wall in a manner that it can can run Overland more naturally either through the stone wall or along the edge of the stone wall with some type of stone control at the at the Woods Edge to distribute a sheet FL that may be a more cost effective and least impactful uh solution to to our concerns here where you accomplish the goal of not letting the the runoff just scream down onto Ash Street but we also let that stor water run over natural land um down to the intermittent stream Where It ultimately wants to get anyway so you know it's not going to create as much impact to that front yard as tearing it up after it's vegetated May otherwise do if you follow what I'm saying Melissa I know you've got the you said in a better way you said it in a better way than I did because I don't I don't necessarily know that the volume provides a whole lot of benefit here as as much as giving the flow an opportunity to run Overland through the vegetation before it gets down to our resource area right yeah I was thinking the same there doesn't need to be a big excavation in of the front yard J James do that make sense to you what we're saying yeah it's totally fine I mean I put um actually I found a pallet of um straw that was in the nylon and I ran it along the driveway just to keep U dirt from going on to the lawn for the time being till the grass could grow now that the grass is growing I was hoping to just pull all that up um then a lot of the water will actually go across the yard then hit the erosion barrier that's currently there and then work its way towards the stream versus going down into the street so right now it's sort of channeled into the street but that was just so I could get the grass established yeah yeah so so to that point when you let it run through the front yard going through the temporary erosion control barrier what I'm suggesting is when you take that barrier out you put down some stone or other permanent linear quote unquote filter that'll dissipate those flows as they enter the Woodland and then once they're in the Woodland they'll they'll kind of find their path and there's opportunities for some Overland treatment that won't require you to rip up the front yard makes sense okay okay do we um need to vote to continue or not I'm sorry Kim I'm getting tired okay um we do not need to vote to continue it's a discussion um not a hearing so um when the applicant is ready uh you can reach out to me and we can get you scheduled for for a hearing okay I'm good um I do drive by your house all the time and I really like the architecture and the look of it I thought it was really cool like it's just well placed I think it turned out really nice for that lot thank you it'll be a lot nicer when my driveway is paved so I don't track dirt into my house okay um I think that was it unless we have any public forum requests Kim we do not okay awesome then can I get a motion to close the public hearing so mov second all right all in favor um Ted Ted is an i Ed hi Jim hi Matt hi and I'm an i all right that's thanks for hanging in there good night everyone good night everybody Melissa thanks for