##VIDEO ID:PpaxfI0Y4rY## [Music] f welcome uh to everyone and thank you very much for your patience and my apologies for the technical difficulties tonight um and thank you to Rob Malik Our IT director the town that was able to straighten out whatever the problems were uh as a matter of formality we always uh have we've got two rules one of them we introduce ourselves and the second one we invite everyone to speak and ask questions and make comments but we do ask for recordkeeping purposes that you uh identify yourself introduce yourself uh for the public record uh so my name is John Karan and I'm just going to read across the top Steve can you go uh Steve ivis conservation agent ingred ing B Phillip Philip D conservation clerk Tom Palmer Tom Palmer member Wendy good evening I'm Wendy garpo one of the Commissioners Chie yeah Chie you're on mute you're still on mute I think you're as Adept as I am at computers yeah we still can't hear you Charlie if you can if you can hear me all right well wave that's Charlie Bosworth by way of introduction uh and I'm sure he'll be able to I hope he'll be able to correct that uh arod Doyle called in and suggested that he'd be a little late joining us but I do expect him to join uh so with that introduction um we're gonna change a little bit uh and this is a customary courtesy that's extended to other Town departments uh we have Peter Melo who's Town Council uh with us here at uh my invitation to assist us in number three so we're going to move number three on the agenda to uh the top um as a courtesy to the uh legal department uh and this is 10711 Highland Street this is a review of revised plans U and the superseding order U this is somewhat unusual I know there are some folks here that would like to uh be heard in terms of the the procedure itself uh and we invite that and welcome those comments um but we do have uh Peter melow with us Town Council and we've looked at this and it appears that our regulations um and our bylaws allow for this uh and in particular um the uh regulation uh allows an applicant uh to present to us at any time uh any proposed revisions to the plan and for the Public's benefit we're talking about 10711 Highland Street and the Milton Conservation Commission issued an order on October 133 of 2023 um that that order was uh actually appealed to the um DP uh but during that process and after the Milton Conservation Commission issued its order of conditions uh the Milton Milton planning board uh looked at the plans that we had approved and they made certain revisions and they approved the project with a different set of approved plans those are the plans that went actually to the D um and they looked at it and uh with certain revisions they approved plans and then issued and became part of the superseding order the Conservation Commission is well aware that we do not have a pellet review authority over the D order that's why they call it a superseding order because it supersedes our order that allowed the project however the reason as I understand that the applicant has come back uh to ask us to review the plans that were approved by the planning board and by the Department of Environmental Protection uh is in part because they uh those those plans are more protective of the resources which we are Duty bound to protect under the Wetland protection act and under the town bylaw the reason they appear to be uh in this case more protective is because the planning board uh decided to shrink the footprint of the building and therefore reduced the impervious surface and the public and I know the Commissioners will recall that prior to our approval of the board the fire chief weighed in and asked for a larger driveway turnaround in front of the building and that's the then existing footprint that we had approved and so um in deference to the fire department's wishes uh we allow the applicant to intrude onto the 25 foot non-disturbance Zone and we're going to hear some numbers tonight but we approved that uh by a vote that the uh that the amount of space taken from the non-disturbance Zone that's the 25 foot non-disturbance Zone that we that's part of our town bylaw in exchange for that we uh agreed to a replication and you'll hear tonight that the replication ratio that we approved was basically a two and a half to one Improvement that is we lost one square foot and we replaced it in a replic a area with 2.5 uh Square ft when the planning board reduced the footprint of the building the applicant was able to move the driveway turnaround that the fire department had requested uh and to shrink it thereby reducing the amount of altered land within our 25 foot non- disturbing so the applicant has maintained the replication area and we're going to hear the the square footage from the applicant himself or itself um but the ratio improved to uh three and a half to one replacement to altered area so it appears that there is a betterment or an improvement to the plan from the perspective of protecting the resources under both the wetlands protection act and under the town bylaw now there's a completely different Factor here that we're going to address and that is when we issued the order of conditions we had a special condition number four special condition number four provides that any trees removed that are over 3.5 inches in caliber or that's diameter will be replaced according to our performance standard the performance standard is the party removing the tree or trees shall replace the sum of the circumference inches of all the trees removed and they will either replant that number of trees on site or uh place it elsewhere in the town on public land that is approved a placement approved by the Conservation Commission or they will pay the equivalent sum of 500 $100 per 3inch caliber tree um and that sum total came out to appr approximately $347,000 if all of the trees were replaced by the financial equivalent now that would the money part of it will going was depending on how many trees could be replanted back uh on the site and how many can be replanted Elsewhere on public land within the town but for purposes of you know appreciating what the significance of this special condition is the total amount was 300 approximately $347,000 now acknowledge that when the footprint of the building Shrunk the number of trees removed will be reduced and therefore the equivalent Financial contribution to the town to the Conservation Commission is going to be reduced somewhat ballpark estimate it's going to be reduced by some $ 25,000 $30,000 something in that vicinity but we're still talking $310 $320,000 to the town for the public good that special condition number four was not included in the dp's superseding order it's still part of our order that is on appeal to the Superior Court by the neighbors group and I I see uh Liz pilus here attorney Liz file and she represents them and um so I'm sure she wants to be heard on this issue um but after seeking the Council of Our Town Council Peter Melo who's with us tonight um and in response to the applicants uh application to us to review and they asked us to approve the revised plans that were approved by the planning board and the D they come back back to us pursuant to our regulation for sub a capital E section two and our position tonight is to review the proposed revisions and determine whether or not uh there is a significant impact to the resources that we Pro uh protect or if the re revisions or the proposed revisions are minor so as to have insignificant impact on the resources that we protect then we could vote to approve those uh revisions so it will be a tw- vote step one to determine whether or not it's a significant or an insignificant impact on the resources that we protect from the original plans and secondly whether or not to approve those proposed revisions now this evening as part of that vote we intend to consider a proposed memorandum of understanding that comes from the applicant and I think attorney Ned Corran will be in a position to uh describe that memorandum of of understanding but essentially it encompasses special condition number four by which the applicant agrees as a matter of contract to abide by that condition so we will be able to entertain that proposed memorandum of understanding uh by which we get the commitment that not withstanding the fact that DP dropped our special condition for from its superseding order we would by contract agree that the applicant would abide by that and by the way it's still part of our order of conditions that's before the Superior Court um so that's by way of background and what I propose to do is ask Ned conran to introduce the proposed visions and he may need some assistance the technical assistance I think Paul Avery is here the engineer um but we could we could hear from them as to what the proposal is and then I would invite comment uh uh from I I know the neighbors are represented by uh Liz pil I'd ask her to speak if she so desires uh before we reach a vote on whether or not number one this is an insignificant change number two whether to accept the change and number three those changes would be contingent upon an agreement to the memorandum of understanding so with that introduction Ned could you uh address both the commission and the public be happy too thank you John and members of the commission uh for the record Ned corkran on behalf of um Northbridge communities LLC who is the applicant uh with respect to the permits for the memory care facility at 107 and 111 Highland Street I'm joined by Jesse Alderman as co-counsel Paul Avery as our project engineer and Jim Coughlin and Wendy Noah ksky who are principls with um Northbridge are with me as well um you are right that the the commission voted to issue an order of conditions in September of 23 it was actually signed and dated October I think 13 of 2023 uh but that uh process with respect to the development of this site went on for a substantial while longer um we continued on with the planning board and the application for special permit and received the special permit on April 29 2024 full six months plus after the commission issued its order of conditions as we continue through that process the planning board asked for certain reductions in scope of the project in particular as you define uh a shrinkage of the building um but also a reduction of the number of parking spaces uh in the rear and uh a a shrinking of the impervious surface associated with parking um we went forward with those plans with the uh with the conservation com with Excuse me with with the planning board and then continued in the process with d as part of the the neighbors appeal of the order of conditions that was issued by uh this commission and D issued a superseding order on November 4 2024 so the process involved uh three different uh permitting entities over a fairly substantial length of time um we have a fairly brief but I think powerful uh presentation that Paul Avery is prepared to show that will walk through uh each area where changes were made uh to the plans as they were ultimately approved by uh d with the superseding order and then I'm happy to walk through um the memorandum of agreement uh we noted uh in the superseding order that the D did not have jurisdiction to address the issue of the tree uh removal uh issue and so that the superseding order was silent we understood its importance with respect to the to this commission and so we proposed uh as you indicated a memor of of agreement whereby we agreed to essentially took the language of special condition 4 popped it into the memorandum agreement and agreed to be bound by the same language that the commission uh had had uh input as far as the order of conditions so with that if I can turn it over to Paul Avery uh if he can share screen and show um uh set of slides that will will depict graphically each of them each of the modifications uh that were made with respect to the plans sent a request to share and it's been granted thank you Ned uh for the record Paul Avery o Consulting Group I am the um engineering consultant representing the applicant here um I submitted a letter to the Conservation Commission dated December 17th which summarized the changes which emerged since the Conservation Commission issued the order of condition through two processes one of which was the uh special permit from the planning board and the other one was the superseding order through the uh D what I've got now is I'm just going to go through those but rather than just reading the list I've just got these slides here that I will go through fairly quickly that just graphically show what those changes um were so um not necessarily exactly the same ERS the bullets um we'll start in here um the first is that the as was mentioned earlier the building footprint was reduced by about, 1500 square fet on this Slide the red line represents the uh building footprint as was shown on the plans uh the notice of tent plans and therefore the uh order of conditions uh it's you can see it's smaller and uh generally it is uh within the other there's a couple places in the courtyard where we go outside it but particularly on the uh East Side here um we've we've actually you pulled the the building back and we've increased not only um reduced the impervious area but we've also increase the setbacks uh we also eliminated 15 parking spaces at the rear that we were able to do by entering into an agreement with the hospital the way we selected removing the spaces we removed the ones which were closest to the Wetland in the rear parking so rather than shorten it we just took the ones off that were closest we couldn't take them all off so we still have some in this row but we took out nine spaces here and six spaces down at the bottom you know for a total reduction of uh uh 15 spaces we ended up relocating um some of the uh service appliances for lack of a better word for it we had a dumpster which was off about where this red square is that has been now been moved back to the end of the rear parking area and then the generator and the Transformer have been moved up to this area here near the front of the building um in addition to minimizing the impacts to the neighborhood by getting these out of sight and set further from um Highland Street and spafford Road uh we also gave us an opportunity to change the layout of the retaining wall so these red double lines here that was where the retaining wall and the service area extended to in the order of conditions we've now pulled it back to this yellow line here so that we've basically created this additional area um you know increasing the setback from the wetlands uh we there was a request to change the aesthetic on the retaining wall as viewed from Highland Street we had gone with a ready Rock system and with a finish on it but basically the more natural finish that was uh was requested and we found the kigi arrow block uh program that that did that um again this was primarily driven for aesthetic reasons but one of the benefits of this was that as you can see in the top one this is just for the front driveway cross-section it's not throughout which is why we still have both details but for the front driveway section here these walls Stack Up vertically whereas the the uh the ready Rock ones have batter to them which means that the As you move out it IT projects out further so that this wall depending as it gets higher gets potentially wider so we were able to contain uh the width of this at a uniform width which uh resulted in some narrowing of the of the footprint of the road uh going across the driveway and the front entrance as a result of all of this um we have some changes and we talked it was asked about this earlier that um the Wetland replication area uh was it we were formally filling 1791 square fet and a 2.3 to1 replication as a result of all of this we're now down to 1,400 uh square feet and the replication uh excuse me yeah the fill was excuse me the the fill was 1791 now it's down to 1177 the actual replication area Remains the Same so that the ratio increased it was at 2.3 to1 and now it's three and a half to one this is the uh area of the uh replication of wetlands being filled and uh versus what we're actually creating I'm going to come back to a couple other slides of this plan because there are some other elements on here that uh we're going to talk about shortly uh here's one of them the D requested that Wetland replication area two was originally located where this blue oval is here we put it there because we tried to do it as close to the area of fill as we could the D requested that we move it and bring it out here into the 107 Highland Street site so that's what we did same size exactly we didn't make it any smaller it's just been located to a different place uh the storm waterer management system underneath the parking lot the design of that was modified what we did was we separated the infiltration function from the detention function the infiltration had to be sized to meet water quality and groundwater recharge standards what really drove the size of the system was the detention uh standard so what we did on this thing in order to increase the setbacks from the wetlands for the and uh for the detention practices we made it smaller excuse me I'm sorry in order to increase the setbacks for the infiltration practices we we were able to make it smaller and therefore cre a greater setback from the wetlands which was one of the comment that emerge so this is now a two-phase system um you know all the details are in the calculations and all that it was one system now it's two where the smaller one here on the section on the right is the infiltration component and the larger one which is closer to the wall is the detention component the difference between those two is the infiltration has perforated pipes the uh detention does not it's solid so it isn't doing any groundwater recharge or leeching out uh to groundwater uh we also revised the design of the infiltration BAS at the rear of the property and I've just shown it on this slide here to just remind everyone where it is here is the detail sheet that shows what we did and we did a number of things uh we increased the setback to make the infiltration practice be a minimum of outside the uh 50 foot setback which is a new setback line that's shown here um and comes around here so that the top of the infiltration practice had be 50 ft set back from the wetlands we increased the access by providing access Lanes all the way around this the exception of where we have the Overflow Spillway uh we were also asked by the de to put in an underd drain which we did and to put in a monitoring well so those extra you know bells and whistles were added to the detention system excuse me the well the storm water basin which is both infiltration and detention um for water quality we added two water quality swailes to two of the outfalls one of them being this outfall near the site entrance that receives a runoff coming down the driveway the other one being the one near the service area that's receiving more runoff coming down the driveway and then from paved areas in the courtyards as part of that we also went and separated from this system the rooftop runoff which which is doesn't require free treatment and gave it its own discharge so the yellow highlights there show a separate storm water system that's dedicated to roof drains whereas the remaining of systems in this area are all the surface runoff that go into this new uh water quality Swale number two we added a new sheet c509 which provides all the details for those two water quality SS we were just looking at uh yeah okay so moving down here um we added sheet c302 point1 there's really no new content here this just provides extra details on the replication areas with some baselines and some dimensions and some spot grades uh previously this is where the new replication area too is so that's would be new content but basically the sheet just provides requested details the construction of those replication areas um here is this sheet again we went through quite a bit of back and forth with the D in terms of quantifying exactly what the impacts were so this has got all kinds of different sort of colored regions and things like that the D requested these sort of gold tan regions here or areas of temporary disturbance and it was requested that we provide 5T uh for temporary disturbance uh from the face of wall so that's what all these zones are uh where we weren't doing the wall we were only down to a couple feet at the limits of grading and then we also wanted to include these areas here which are um uh invasive species mitigation areas so we included the areas where we're doing the invasive species mitigation in the area of temporary disturbances uh on the land skape plans we were requested to put in additional screening uh so this planting here has been enhanced a bit to provide additional screening from Highland Street and we were also asked to clarify uh what the mitigation procedures are going to be so on l104 and then just jumping ahead on l105 each one of these has uh specific invasive species procedures that are to be used that are spe specific to that for example here in this area where we are we're doing invasion of species Management in this area here um but it's also where we're constructing Wetlands so rather than getting into pruning and all the rest of that we're just going to dig them up the D also said that some of these areas here where we're not doing Wetlands replication because they're actually in the BBW it made more sense to just reach over with the excavator and dig those out too and restore them so that those methodologies were negotiated and agreed upon with the D whereas in areas like along Highland Street here we're not doing any other work there other than just the uh invasive species mitigation so that's a you know trim them back and and and treat them and then come back and monitor for regrowth so that is it that summarizes the plan changes um all of these is noted uh there's nothing here that increased any impacts we provided additional treatment for storm water uh we enhanced our compliance with all the standards the uh area the roundabout here all of that took place prior to the order conditions and there were no changes to any of that um Beyond uh what was presented uh for the order of conditions issued by the Conservation Commission previously and thank you Paul um before I I ask for questions or comments from Commissioners I just want to remind the public actually that we're here pursuant to our regulations uh section four procedures and our role tonight is to consider uh under subsection e that's a capital E amendments and we're looking at uh subsection two which says that the commission shall review all proposed change changes and determine either and there's one there's a and C uh but we our role appears to be that we need to make a determination and I'm going to quote from C subsection C and I quote that the changes represent an insignificant change in the original proposal and will cause no significant difference in the impact of the activity on the interests identified in the bylaw in which case the person proposing these changes May proceed in conformance with them so I only read that to suggest that this is not a denovo review we're not this is not an appeal of the uh the original order of conditions that was done by DP which ended up with the superseding order our role here is only to look at the proposed revisions and make a determination as to whether or not those revisions or changes represent an insignificant change in the original proposal in terms of whether or not it has a a greater or lesser impact on the resources that we protect so with that perspective stated uh are there questions or comments from Commissioners I can't see everybody here and I so I don't see any hands raised but I'd ask the Commissioners to speak up if they have a question or a comment um I see none um and therefore you know be actually before we move on to questions from uh abutters of the neighborhood association and Liz pile um I I would ask go back to Ned because if we were to approve these um proposed revisions uh we did talk about the uh the proposed memorandum of agreement or memorandum of understanding and so uh Ned let me go back to you and and can you just kind of go through that as to what it is because we will you know I'm anticipating that the commission will want to make that as part of the vote if the revisions are approved it would be conditioned upon the execution of the memorandum of understanding that essentially reinstates a special provision I'm sorry a special condition number four and that that I don't want to talk and code here what I'm talking about is the tree replacement plan that's what we're trying to uh reinstate so Ned could you just kind of describe in better greater detail as to what that memorandum in fact you may want to screen share as to what it says that's probably a good idea um see if I can do that here we are so as I said towards the beginning um we recognize that when de issued superseding order the D process doesn't account for the town's specific regulations and procedures and we understood that the special condition number four was of significance to uh the commission that every tree over certain caliper that is removed uh during construction it needs to be replaced within a certain caliper or an accounting made of the total number of inches removed and the total of inches replaced through plantings and then the Delta defining uh the amount of money that would have to be uh paid uh to the commission so I started off with a series of whereas it Clauses if I can do this you know acknowledging that uh the order of conditions contained a tree uh the special condition for which requires a tree survey count and a tree replacement plan all of which has to be presented to the to the commission um that uh there was an appeal taken to D that the D issued a superseding order the D superseding order uh it has no regulatory ability to impose or enforce the obligations with respect to uh special condition for and once when the uh project is complete D will be the body that issues a certificate of compliance which is a regulatory mechanism to ensure compliance with the obligations of the superseding order and that uh understanding that de would not be able to that the super that the certificate of compliance would not address the issue of the special condition for northb agrees to be bound by its provisions and what we've done is in ter in the body of the agreement which simply cut and pasted the language of special condition for uh which a requires the survey count and B a revised construction plan with a revised limit of work to include the proposed removal of the investive species particularly the Japanese not weed along Highland Street those are two the two uh conditions contained within the special condition we acknowledge that uh in the mo MOA that we will prepare and submit the tree survey count uh including the tree replacement plan and the invasive species removal plan to the commission for its review prior to the start of construction that at the completion of construction and prior to the filing the request for the certificate of compliance that will submit a full accounting of the compliance with the requirements of paragraph 2 including payment of the amount calculated in accordance with sub paragraph a and they would agree to be bound by the obligations here are fully enforcable an action that may brought be brought by the Commission in Superior Court and should be liable for all costs including attorneys fees that may be incurred uh if the if the commission had to pursue such an action I know that you you uh provided some uh comment to this um which we've accepted and this is the final form that we have uh we're prepared to um we're we're prepared to enter into and we agree that it would be a condition of the vote um taken by the board tonight with respect to the section 4 e request all right Ned could you do me a favor um there are two parts to this section uh it's two on the memorandum of agreement but a is a tree survey and tree replacement and B is the uh invasive species uh plan right because I know that that invasive species was was a big deal to the to the neighbors as it should be um but I that that's Prett pretty easy to understand for those that uh maybe have a hard time reading what's on the screen here uh could you read A2 a uh for the benefit of the public and this is as I said it was taken uh verbum from special condition four contained in the order of conditions says that a tree survey count including the total dbh Andor cbh of all trees to be removed larger than 3.5 in within the jurisdiction of the MCC so that would be all trees within 100 feet of the edge of wetland the applicant shall also demonstrate compliance with the mcc's performance standard to replace the total dbh Andor cbh of trees removed which were equal to or greater than 3.5 in in diameter either by replacing the trees on site or an alternative site in Milton approved by the MCC or by payment to the MCC in an amount calculated at $500 per tree calculated at 3 Ines in diameter per tree at least 75% of the trees which are replaced or replanted must survive for two years in order to receive a certificate of compliance could you also read b as well again for those that might have a hard time reading this screen a revised construction plan with a revised limit of work to include the proposed removal of Japanese not we along Highland Street with an invasive species removal plan additionally the revised limit of work will include the site for the planting of screening trees and Shrubbery both along Highland Street and the area between the back parking lot and the winter Valley Property uh thank you very much um and I just want the the public to know that when the Conservation Commission uh considers whether or not to a determine that the uh revised plans are will not have a significant adverse impact on the resources um and be whether or not to approve those uh proposed revisions that this memorandum of agreement will be a condition of of that vote that is the inclusion of this uh and the authority to execute this memorandum of agreement will be p of that vote uh now with that said um are there first any Commissioners that have a comment or question I don't hear any and I don't see all the I don't see any hands raised I would invite uh yes arur yes just at the beginning of the memo I I sent you a note earlier uh this evening uh as to whether or not the address for the Conservation Commission in theou is the accurate address now the reason I asked Ned to read it I mean to to say it out loud is because I was having a hard time reading this um but I are there three because I think it's um it's sometimes referred to as zero in no for the Milton concom 626 oh it's it's 629 you're right it is 629 right ROV Avenue good catch Arthur thank you very much for your attention to detail thank you I just made that change perfect thank you very much arth the sharp eyes that's pretty good any other comments or questions before we open it up um and I know that uh attorney pile would like to be heard so I invite her to address the body Liz I think you're on mute I am I can you hear me now yes we can perfect thanks very much my name is Elizabeth pile I'm an attorney for residents who live near this proposed project and I just wanted to talk with you tonight about the um the matter that's been being uh requested of you with regard to um these new plans and um the commission's regulations so uh rather than deciding that this is an insignificant change we would request that under your regulations Section 4 e2b that you find that this is a substantial departure from the original proposal such that an amended order of conditions should be requested by the applicant they should file for that there should be a public hearing on that where we can provide comment and then you can consider what to do with the amended plans but you heard tonight the Litany of changes which are significant and very different from the original plans and that's alterations to the driveway alterations of the building footprint the replication area has been completely moved to a different location there are different impacts to the 25-ft buffer zone and changes to impervious surfaces this is a substantial departure from the original proposal by the applicant's own terms um now the commission may ultimately decide that they're acceptable or may decide after hearing public comment on that in a form of an amended notice of intent uh open hearing that maybe it's not acceptable but we would like the opportunity for uh the commission to have uh the applicant file an amended order of conditions and we would like you to find tonight under Section 42b that it's a substantial departure and then we'll have a public hearing on the changes later and the community will be able to express their concerns about those changes uh I know in particular um we still feel that the driveway is too wide in the uh non-disturbance Zone and that permitting the driveway with um to to such a large project is a departure from the commission's prior practices of really keeping the non-disturbance Zone sacred and Really Trying to minimize impacts as much as possible within those areas so we would request uh a different finding the uh substantial departure finding and uh that the commission require the applicant to file an amended uh notice of intent for with for an amended order of conditions there would be a hearing on it and then the parties would make their decision and we feel that's the the correct procedure so thank you very much and I'm happy to answer any questions I do have a a a question and that is as I read C which is what we were what I mentioned that we were looking at and again we're not revisiting the the approved plan that we issued in the first place we're only looking at the revisions and I note that in C it says that the changes represent an insignificant change in the original proposal and will cause no significant difference in the impact of the activity on the interest identified in the bylaw um do you agree what I'm looking at is no significant difference in the impact on the activity the activity being the the building of the project um and I when I when I see a shrinkage in the footprint um and an increase in the ratio of replication that sounds like a good thing uh from the from the perspective of protecting the the wetlands and the resource areas do you agree with that do you agree with that I agree that um reducing the impact is a good thing and and that's not what I'm questioning I don't think you have uh the ability to find under SE because of the word and there you have to find both that the changes represent an insignificant change in the original proposal and and will cause no significant difference in the impact of the activity on the interest identified so it's not saying or and I don't think you I agree with you I agree with that so that's why an amended order of conditions is is uh needed and they should file for it and we'll have a hearing and then you may decide that um the impacts are are better than what you had before and and if you uh allow the amended order then we'll go from there but I I think procedurally um you fall under B because you don't have both Provisions in C thank you understood thank you are there anyone else uh H Jesse I see your your hand raised uh would you like to address the the body uh thank you Mr Karan and I I just wanted to briefly Jesse alderman for the applicant I just wanted to briefly respond to attorney pile's comments um with one point of clarification the superseding order of conditions Jesse could I interrupt you just for purposes of the public record could you introduce your yourself and your role absolutely Jesse Alderman from fulley Hoag LLP I'm co-counsel to neg corkran um for the applicant Northbridge communities LLC thank you um just want to briefly address um that the uh scope of what would be permissible under section four of the regulations for the concom to address and the the the scope is that the the superseding order of conditions covers all state Wetlands protection act regulations and this Project's compliance that with those regulations that is um that is has preemptive effect on this commission uh what this commission um with a superseding order of conditions in in place as you uh Mr chair noted at the beginning that that word superseding um what what the commission scope of review is very narrow here and that would be if there's significant changes not to the totality of the project because the operation of the superseding order of condition but if there's significant changes that impact the town uh Wetlands protection act bylaw and and um we would submit that those changes are neither the changes to the project are neither significant holistically nor as they relate specifically to the bylaw nor are there any significant adverse impacts quite the contrary there's a reduction of impacts um so I just wanted to clarify there that this is not the case where there's a plan change in a vacuum this is the case where there's plan change with an overhanging superseding order of conditions which preempts this commission for making any contrary determination except for those that relate only to the bylaw and not the state and are more stringent than the state Wetlands protection act regulations so those would really be that would really just be um the work in the non-disturbance zone uh the very limited work in the non-disturbance zone which has not changed at all and as you said is is not you know really appropriate for relitigate now a second time after you've already had hearings all right thank you sir uh David M Michael good evening uh David Michelle Sharon and La Sorry Miss pronounce your name so sorry not a problem I've heard all variations um I represent uh Karen mccardy of 137 Highland Street and Eugene Irwin of 120 Highland Street we uh essentially reiterate Miss pile's arguments that this plan has gone through several iterations of changes since it was first presented to you and um those changes have been substantial and whether or not they the commission ultimately determines that they are beneficial and and serve the interests or do not derogate from the interests of the Town bylaw it it is still appropriate to find that this falls under section 4 e2b and require a public hearing to evaluate those changes particularly those change the impacts of those changes on the a buers so thank you thank you sir uh B I see your hand raised as well uh thank you Mr chairman let me just turn my video on here real quick I'm B High reai 11 spafford Road um good evening thank you everyone for um allowing us to speak Mr chairman and um you know not to bring up things we talked about in the past but I know I noticed we do have I believe one new uh commissioner so um I think it is important just to to restate why some of these changes are significant for for the neighbors and um that is that so many of us deal with you know a very high water table and real flooding issues and ponding in our yards and particularly those families who live uh along Highland Street and on spafford facing Highland where we're you know waterers draining from the top of spafford towards this site um uh you know these these issues become significant and if we go back to why the process really really matters you know when when the Conservation Commission um approved uh or issued the first order of conditions back in September 2023 um you know the neighbors were in process of doing some analysis of our own through our experts and we had asked to be able to submit um the analysis because what we wanted from day one was a full accounting of the impacts of this project on our properties on our on our safety on our livelihoods and our families um and you know at the time the applicant hit with drawn um their application for special permit with um con with planning board but they were rushing to try to get this through with you and and they they opposed us getting you know any of our expert analysis um you know into the into the public hearing and Mr chairman I believe you said something like well all that's going to do is lead to more back and forth and this you know um assessment from tetr which basically says we we acknowledge some hydrological impacts but but we don't think they're they're going to be sign ific that that was that was good enough you know so I guess what we've been asking from day one is that you know good enough isn't isn't satisfactory for for the town for us for the future generations of people who are going to live here when we're gone and um you know so we we went to Great expense to appeal the uh the order of conditions um and essentially the de DP founded the vast majority of our experts arguments were correct and that these plans as were presented to you did not comply with the the state's storm water standards they did not comply with with various Wetlands regulations and so that you know they took the applicant about 6 months and as Paul as Paul Avery said significant back and forth um to to you know to get it right and so you know to some extent we're frustrated that we had to go through that process and so now to find out that okay well there was apparently a a executive session last month on this project um which we're not privy to and and you know there wasn't a public hearing with notice to all the neighbors you know we did find out um you know I I I do think in the past Ned has been good about sharing information with the neighbors um and so we did find out you know last week that this was happening tonight but it is it is a bit of a surprise and these changes are are significant and largely driven by you know the work that the neighborhood has done to show that the impacts here are significant and that they need to be done properly and assessed properly and analyzed and so you know um you know um you know having a public hearing next month really doesn't do much to the timeline because there are other things going on and that's just the correct way to do these things and so again it just really feels to us like the process is being you know rushed and there's conversations going on that are not fully transparent to the public with all due respect um so um you know I'll leave I'll leave it there actually I have one one more comment um you know the we still don't really know some of the hydrological impacts and I attend did every you know of the I believe it was you know five or six meetings on this for the original process for the order of conditions that was approved um and no point there did we really see any cross-sections of what this is going to look like and you know we did see some of those during the planning board process and as it turns out you know for for hundreds of feet um this building will be sunk you know 8 to 10 feet below the water table and they're going to have pumps pumping water away from their Foundation continuously into the and you know which border a lot of our properties so you know some there's still some impacts that we don't fully understand and I I appreciate the the narrow scope we're talking about here but this is number one significant changes had to be made because the pro project was deficient and those largely came about because of the efforts of the neighbors um and number two you know this process has been rushed and and it does not appear to be transparent for the neighborhood so so we thank you for the time and uh appreci apprciate your consideration thank you very thank you very much for your articulate as usual and gentlemen May presentation uh I think Maggie you've got your hand up yes hi good evening so I'm Maggie Oldfield I live at 397 Hillside Street I'm a town meeting member from P5 and I am also a planning board member um so I I'm here to ask that you consider reopening the public hearing with a limited scope um so the abuts have the opportunity to present their comments on the new clan um as I recall and as I sat through many meetings it was my understanding that the Conservation Commission didn't fully understand the amount of fill that was being brought in and even though you said that the fill in the Wetland replication areas is going to be reduced the overall Bill to be brought in is over 16,000 cubic feet which is significant and I think that's a a major piece of information that was missing for to help the concom make their decision so I think you open the public hearing for under limited scope I think that might help satisfy the neighbors um what I learned this past week from the Supreme Judicial Court is the importance of process just like the office of housing this concom I think has failed to take the necessary steps uh to allow for public input again agree with Bard um I don't see what the harm is going to be this is a 60,000 square foot building which is about the size of our new fire station and I think the neighbors deserve some consideration and I just hope that um you know you follow the Milton the Milton way and the Milton way has always been about public process and um consideration for the Neighbors so thank you thank you uh manette uh your hand is up there you are welcome welcome thank you good evening manette Donovan 16 spafford Road in Melton just briefly um as a neighbor and I know there are many neighbors that you will see on um that um may not necessarily be speaking tonight but but absolutely we all care very much about this process about this project it's going to be there long after we are gone um we are going to see it every single day our basements are going to have the effect um and so we would I would implore you to protect us and take this slowly as um Maggie indicated um these these processes are there for a reason and even if you could move forward tonight I would say the right thing to do is that you should take it slowly and give us the opportunity to comment because by everyone's admissions these are major changes whether they're positive positive or negative we have the right to comment on them and I would request that you provide us with that opportunity thank you thank you very much uh Nadine hi nting Hannah um 11 spafford Road thank you once again for um your time and attention to to this and everything else you do for the town um I just wanted to expand briefly upon um something that Bart everything that Bard was discussing in in that as you said he is articulate he's also modest um I want to specify for the record that all of the neighbors who have been actively participating in these proceedings are all um in agreement and represented by what Bard spoke to tonight so he doesn't just speak for himself he speaks for um quite a quite a large group of people a large group of Milton residents um we also concur with um the opinions and facts set forth by attorney pile attorney Michelle um in addition to Bard Maggie Oldfield and also everything that manette just spoke to um and that's all thank you so much oh thank you very much Ned could I ask you to take down the screen share because I I can't see all the participants and I I I don't want to miss any raised hands is that possible n it is possible I've just got to figure out how to do it is that there you go thanks all right so I I do not see any um other hand so one one thing I'd like to do is um Peter Melo if if you're available I I just want to uh you know get your view on the scope of our review because um you know some of the things uh some of the comments from the neighbors have indicated concerns with uh things that may go back to the original you know order of conditions and the several what do we have six hearings on this um and I I'm just concerned with that because I I don't want to go outside of the scope of our review because as I understand we're looking at an amendment um uh which can be filed at any time uh understanding that it's already gone through the appell process uh at D and it's in the process of the Superior Court review uh but could you comment on um a the the timing of this review and um perhaps more importantly the scope of our review what what do we what are we entitled to look at sure happy to John and and I think you've stated it well um the timing of the review is laid out in the regulation and it it's um it's right it's embedded within 42 um and it requires that the commission um make its decision and notify uh the applicant um or the person making the request within 21 days of receed of the request and supporting information um in terms of the scope I I think you've summarized it well I I I take attorney pile's um point about the um about the you her interpretation of subsection C within 4 E2 of the regs I guess my my thought about this is is that um the word and can be construed um conjunctively but also disjunctively and I think that in this context uh particularly in so far as the D is already issued the superseding order of conditions and reviewed the matter um and considered um impacts to interest protected under the Wetland protection act I think it's it's reasonable to interpret that that in this context to be construed as a disjunctive use of the word and so that um if if the commission determines that the request or the the new um proposal wouldn't would cause no significant difference in the impact of the activity on the interest identified in the Bon I'm quoting from the verbatim from the regulations that um that it can make that determination and that I think it's it it particularly in this context in my opinion it's more reasonable to conclude that it it's uh you know at a minimum implied that if that the the phrase changes represent an insignificant change in the original proposal I think it it's reasonable to construe that again in this context to to mean um in in significant change in the original Proposal with the with the um with respect to the matters that are the subject of the commission's jurisdiction and that you know that are um addressed under under the bylaws distinct from the ACT especially where again the this follows the D super issuance of a superseding order of conditions so um so I I guess that's my perspective on um that question um at least initially and and I think it that's that's a reasonable interpretation all right thank you um before we we get to questions or comments from Commissioners uh which would be necessary preceding any kind of a motion or vote uh I now Jean I just lost you I thought I saw Gan Irwin's hand up and I didn't want to go there you are um Jean did you want to say something you're you're on mute there you go okay can you hear me yes sir yeah I apologize I had my hand up before but Ned screen saver was blocking my access to raising my hand um he didn't do it on purpose well and again thank thank you all for your time and you know I understand that you're looking at the scope of whether this is significant or insignificant and but when this earlier um these hearings were terminated I I felt personally as a neighbor that the Conservation Commission had just eliminated a whole bunch of rain Gardens over by the bardi property and we had just um decided to put a new retention Pond for lack of a better term in front of the barn and that Barn uh or in front of that barn now the house next door at 95 Highland that has a a granite block Foundation that I thought was going to get um wet you know those Granite block foundations have cracks between every stone where the m is missing and I thought that house would get flooded that's owned by the M but also when you talked about trees when you put in that retention Pond where the barn area is it was never discussed that's a there's a line of trees down the right hand side of that driveway leading up to the barn that no one ever talked about and those trees all have to come down as I understand for the new retention pond so we need to replace those trees but when you take down those trees it changes all of the view from Highland Street when you're coming up from the uh police station and you look to where this memory Clinic's going to be those trees that line the driveway in front of the barn would obstruct the view of this me Clinic when you take down all those trees to accommodate the barn we're going to be missing all kinds of buffering and uh screening and so I I I think um just basic fairness uh on everyone's part that this needs a little bit more work and I would and I think the changes um I consider the the changes that were presented significant and to me as a neighbor they're very hard to understand you know we're not hydrologists and you know all these different professions so so for so for the average Layman myself and my neighbors it takes a little time to absorb this and I say we never had a fair chance to even talk about relo relocating all those um rain Gardens to this one massive uh retention Pond I think it's bigger than every other retention pond on the property now in front of the barn so I I hope just from a basic fairness standpoint that the commission would find a way to H have this vetted a little bit more I thank you for your time all right thank you Chan um all right any comments or questions from commission members or or concerns I I don't see or or hear from anybody I I I would like to U respond perhaps a little bit to Jean ens um because once again he's articulate and in in fact there were some changes that I believe that you uh the neighborhood group had asked for that were accommodated by the the planning board which is part of the new plan if I can call it that the revised plan and you also had the opportunity to address these issues with the DP and they issued the superseding order so I think a lot of these changes were actually done to accommodate your requests as an example the shading along Highland Street um um certainly another example would be the uh um the approach to shrinking the footprint uh I think I thought that was of a benefit to the neighborhood actually to the town as well and I say that having acknowledged that we had approved a larger building so I I think the changes that we're looking at are beneficial uh both the neighborhood and to the interests that we protect um I maybe I'm wrong on that and I you you may have a different view of that but um see I I think we're headed in the right direction not the wrong direction um but again I and I know a lot of what you said uh actually might suggest that you'd prefer that we go back and look at the whole project again and that's really not within our purview because that scope is really pretty limited uh at this juncture um but I understand you have a you have a different View and and as B was very articulate and I know he was he was always concerned with the the hydrological effect on spafford road um but that's really in our we did consider that we did have our our our consultant that we had a hydrology consultant and they came in and they I thought they had responded pretty articularly to that that the spafford road neighborhood is really in a different Watershed uh because that was a legit legitimate concern and I I think we addressed that at a public meeting or or a couple of public meetings and that was a specific request that we made to our hydrology consultant um so I again I think that's getting outside of the scope of what we have here and I believe that the commission's task at this point is to see whether or not there is any kind of an adverse impact um on the resources that we protect uh or whether or not the changes are insignificant uh or even a betterment uh to the resources that we protect I I believe that's the scope of our mandate um but that's just my view so I I invite any comments from uh other commission members Mr Kon can you hear me yes I can J okay if if I just may respond briefly I know everyone has a lot to do um as far as the planning board we had no opportunity to raise these points I attended I think every planning board meeting there was the last three or four meetings um the planning board to use the phrase deny the neighborhood any Oxygen on the matter we weren't allowed to speak we sat up at the Council of Aging on about three different nights and we sat there from like 7:30 to 11: and we never got a word in and when we did there's like you know 20 of us and we got in you know maybe you know 30 seconds a piece this stuff was never vetted what I'm bringing up to you regarding this retention Pond not by you folks with the neighbors not by the planning board I didn't know the neighbors we could go to the D I don't think any of the neighbors know that process um so as I say i' respectfully request that the Conservation Commission help us out here because I say we weren't allowed to bring up these points the apparently the planning board had you know exhausted its time on this thing and these new issues were never addressed so again I thank you for your time and your consideration all right thanks Jean um so I I'd like to move to a vote I um I see two other hands but I I think there manette I think you left your hand up from when you spoke before and nine I I I think you did the same thing yeah I just I did have one more comment if it would be okay at this point in time sure please um nting Hannah 11 Stafford Road um um yes the many of the changes in the plans that you're reviewing tonight um are improvements to the plan and are uh somewhat many of them are definitely um the result of the hard work and digilant efforts of the neighborhood um and you know the time and resources we put into it um but we're still looking at a a a terribly negative impact on on our neighborhood and on this site so while you can improve a bad plan it doesn't necessarily make it good um it doesn't necessarily make it a good fit and so you're still talking about um greatly impacting the environment where they want to you know make imp create impervious surfaces build move Wetlands etc etc etc um so well there's definitely a valid point towards this this is better than it was it's still not good it's still not great and there the process has been greatly flawed um at the direct Financial impact now to this neighborhood in addition to the changes that we're going to be forced to live with um you know if and when everything gets the you know the check marks all the way down so um that is why we're saying it it inherently by making these changes they've agreed and under to the to to the fact that their original plan was not appropriate they because they're not saying oh we're going to quit it from the very beginning the developers said it has to be this size the building has to be this size the parking lot has to be this way the plan has to be outlined specifically with the trash in the front and the receiving docks in the front and we have to take um this many trees out and we have to encroach this many feet and and etc etc But ultimately when they were told that they didn't have a choice they reduced did they reduce significantly enough for my opinion no but that's not the point when they were told by someone with more Authority than me as a you know a general civilian that they had to make changes they in fact did and that is why we believe that this should get kicked back to the beginning and let them start from scratch bring in an appropriate plan if you want to be an active member of this community of the town of Milton and you want to be a good neighbor don't start off on the wrong foot right and that's why we asked thank you very much manette somehow I think you put your hand back up so about what we're getting close to uh time to call for a vote so uh please be brief yes just briefly I would like to say there by everyone's admission there were some major changes as a result of this going to the D things are changing there is a right for opportunity to comment whether you think that they are positive for the neighborhood or negative for the neighborhood we have the right to comment and look at these changes that I'm learning about many of for the first time tonight and determine if how they will in fact um impact our neighborhood and many of those things were brought up this evening when things are moved around there is a change so we would request the opportunity to comment thank thank you thank you very much all right uh I think we're gonna move to a vote unless there are any questions or comments from commission members um can I can I speak John yes of course um I have a question about I guess what plan we're talking about we know that we approve the plan and the plans Chang to the planning board and then if I'm right other plans or those plans were approved by the DP in a superseding order is that really the plan we're looking at now the current plan yes um okay uh as far as section e of the bylaw amendments I do get the feeling that uh from reading that that we have to act although I would always say in a bureaucratic position you should never act unless you're forced to and uh I wonder whether given that the bylaw approval is currently under appeal if we were to make some kind of finding as suggested under e I wonder if that makes any difference because in my mind the whole thing is kind of at a standstill until there is some decision from the superior court regarding the appeal of the bylaw approval so my option of saying let's wait till that comes out I don't really think that's feasible because of the language of the bylaw that we've all been quot so we have to choose between whether we think these changes in my view are substantial or not I don't think it's a question of beneficial um are they substantial that's hard to say I mean it is true that the same amount of uh Wetland replication will be done but in a different place when we were shown by Mr Avery the plan of uh the detention under the parking lot that was confusing to me because I don't even remember that from the original plans he said some of these voids will be used for infiltration and some will simply be for detention but when he showed the larger plant I couldn't find the parking lot where those uh subsurface facilities were supposed to be at any rate those are major pieces of infrastructure and there are changes to the surface Basin at the rear too so if someone says to me those are substantial changes it's hard for me to argue that they're not uh so I'm feeling as if right now that uh the neighbors have made a good case for these changes being large enough that they should have an opportunity to to comment in a hearing about them um that's my take right now I realize it's not very well formed Etc but it's just my reaction what I heard tonight all right well let me respond to you know making comments at a public hearing that's exactly what's happening so they had an opportunity to talk to us in our six hearings in 2023 they had an opportunity to address the planning board and it looks like they got some of what they wanted they had an opportunity to speak to the D um and the the benefits that were uh suggested by the planning board were adopted by D so they've had that opportunity and this also is a public meeting and we've been sitting here for the last whatever period of time listening appropriately to public comments um so I I think we've done exactly that I'd only go back and reiterate that what's our scope of review here this is not a denovo review we're not going back to the beginning and I know there was some you know articulate uh requests to do that but that's not within the purview of our our uh Charter our our mandates we have to look at at what we're doing and uh when you said that you know from the timing I know the superior court is still pending but it says in our procedure if at any time after a determination of applicability or order of conditions has been issued there's a change in the proposed activities that's exactly where we are that's in 100% conformance with the regulation and then we go and the decision that we have to make I think youve pointed out is whether or not the changes represent an insignificant change in the original proposal and will cause no significant difference to the impact in the activity um and I think there's been at least a tcid acknowledgement that um I know Nadine was probably most Artic he said you know it's an improvement to a bad plan um but from our perspective we approved that plan and this is a betterment this is an imp it appears to be uh a betterment and does more to protect the interests that we protect than the original plan that we already approved so I I'm I I guess I'm responding to the public comment that's exactly what we're doing right here right now John uh any other comments or questions from Commissioners then hearing on I would propose a motion but the motion is going to have two components to it which we've addressed uh and that is um the the whole revision component under Section e is that it requires two votes one is whether or not it's significant or insignificant and then if it's deemed to be insignificant then we go on to uh vote whether or not uh the changes would be approved uh to an amended order of conditions but when we're considering that first one of the conditions that I would suggest in the motion is that we um authorize the memorandum of agreement with the applicant um because that is the the best protection that the Conservation Commission and the town has to make sure that we are in a position to enforce special condition number four is that the big issue for me is that D dropped it and without this memorandum of agreement uh or or and uh this revised plan we want to make sure that that special condition for gets put back into the requirement for the applicant otherwise we we'd be we'd have a plan a project approved by the state that does not have the tree replacement protection that's a huge issue by the way it's a huge issue for the for the neighborhood uh so I I I feel pretty strongly that uh if we get to the the point of voting is this an insignificant change under uh e2c that's been quoted both by me and by by Peter Melo that we we take a look and make sure that the uh memorandum of agreement is appropriate so what I'd like to do is make sure that everybody's comfortable with that and then uh make a motion that we accept uh the revised plans U both of which were both accepted by the planning board and approved by the uh D that are presented to us today uh as being minor revisions to the Milton conservation commission's original order of conditions that that we approved in October of 2023 um and that we deem these to be minor revisions without a significant impact on the interests that we protect that vote however would be contingent upon the adoption of the memorandum of agreement with the applicant um and have an authorization that uh the chairman be allowed to sign on behalf of the Conservation Commission to to make sure that we have the effective law to support and our ability to enforce that memorandum of agreement so that would be my motion uh that we uh make a that we vote to determine whether or not and I suggest the motion would be that these are not significant changes and they do not have a significant adverse impact on the interests that we protect and that we take that vote contingent upon the inclusion of the memorandum agreement with the authorization that I sign on behalf of the conservation that memorandum of agreement that's my motion is there a second can I a comment on that after the second if if there's a second then yes of course you can is there a second John if I if I could interject yes just I I would suggest that you track the language of the regulation and and the motion um all right so specifically that and I'm gonna quote this and Philip I'll make sure you have a copy this I'm quoting from C that the changes repres present an insignificant change in the original proposal and will cause no significant difference in the impact of the activity on the interests identified in the bylaw in which case the person proposing these changes May proceed in conformance with them that's a quote that's the motion and it's conditioned upon approval of the memorandum of agreement with the authority of me to execute it on behalf of this commission Mr chairman with that wording I will second your motion thank you sir Tom you had a comment yeah um regarding the memorandum I don't disagree that it's favorable to our uh scheme to mitigate for the loss of the many trees in jurisdiction that will be cut I agree it was a good condition what's confusing to me is that is there a need for the memorandum because we approved the project under the bylaw and uh the state Wellness act now we have a superseding order from the state that has different conditions and removed condition four but we still approved it under the bylaw and does the state superseding order remove that condition from our bylaw approval I don't see that that is necessarily the case maybe some attorneys can enlighten me about that but it seems to me the condition might still be in effect because it's part of the bylaw approval that's correct and the legal definition is belt and suspended May maybe we don't need it but if you want to be assured that it is an enforceable agreement from the applicant then the memorandum of agreement answers the problem because you raise a question is it still effective if it's under the bylaw but not under the D State regulation this removes any concern and it confirms the obligation not just the agreement but the legal obligation of the applicant to conform to special condition number four um thank you John that's a good uh response I think I agree with that it it it it's a belt and suspenders re reinforcement I I agree completely and John if I may the reason we proposed this memorandum agreement is that we question whether or not this condition would be enforcable going forward and we wanted to make sure that the commission retained its ability to enforce that condition fair enough all right any further disc the provision with respect to trees is not contained in your bylaw not contain in what in your bylaw well it would the bylaws are very general right it's a condition that was specific to this project correct and that's true for the wellness protection act as well that we have a broad range of discretion to to put terms and conditions on a permit but that's exactly why we need the memorandum of agreement so that we don't have these kinds of hypothetical discussions this is a confirmation process that will obligate the applicant to conform to special condition for so we don't have to worry about this we don't have to you know bring in a team of lawyers to argue you know know how many angels dance on the head of a pin as I see it we have to decide whether the changes that have supervene since we approved the project whether they're significant or insignificant that's really the wrestling and and whether or not they have an adverse impact and the language and I I quoted it so it's clear it caused no significant difference in the impact of the activity on the interest identified in the bylaw well as as Peter Melo suggested is H it puts in context these changes that's why Peter correctly pointed out that the the motion should track exactly the language of subsection c um discussion or comments before we kind call for a vote Wendy yes um thank you thank you John where I'm struggling is is that I I do not understand how D defines significance to me it's it's such a this a town Town regulation so it would be how does a town and the regulation came from the Conservation Commission so H how do we Define it the the easiest answer to that question is it better or worse do the changes protect provide greater protection for the resources that we protect or less protection but John is that your interpretation or is that the towns and is it is it Quantified somewhere is it articulated somewhere that that that we can all all interpret well the rules of construction say that you you apply the you know the the normal definition significant means significant uh you know having a a larger impact than a minor impact I mean what I'm suggesting to you is that the Conservation Commission actually submitted these regulations many decades ago and they were approved by the the select board and that's a significant adverse impact is a that's a phrase that's used in the wellness protection act as well so these would be given their these words would be given their ordinary meaning that's why I tried to simplify it by saying is it better or worse I mean then you don't get into the you're trying to quantify how big a change is it if it's better then how how could you possibly say that it's uh cause no significant difference in the impact of the activity on the interest identified in the bylaw and our our job is to protect the resources so do these changes help us or do they H does that may be overly simplistic but U but they I guess the answer legally answer you to question is that the words given their their their normal definition um May Peter Peter mow do you wna weigh in on that I was gonna ask if Peter could please sure yeah absolutely um and I you know I think maybe another way to more directly articulate what the point I was making before but my initial interpretation of the of of of subsection C is that if the commission were to decide that the proposal will cause no significant difference in the impact on the of the activity on the interest identified in the bylaw then the only result um or the only outcome that could result from a new hearing would be to disturb something that D said in superseding in order with respect to the interest protected under the act so I which I don't think would be appropriate so I guess that's how that's how I view it because the DP has issued a superseding order of conditions um relative to [Music] to you know the subject of the wetlands prot matters that are um within the purview of the wetlands protection act if the if the commission were to conclude that this proposal wouldn't cause any significant difference in the impact on the activity of the interest identified in the bylaw um then the only thing that the only result of a new hearing would be some decision potentially to disturb something that D said in issuing the superseding order of conditions which again I I don't think would would be appropriate so that that's really um I guess how I view it any followup or concerns Wendy um yeah my my concern is that it still feel feels uh clear as mud in my mind yeah um could um um could I ask Steve as our as our agent if you have any any thoughts that you'd like to weigh uh yes Wendy um I have asked numbers of the EP staffers over the last 35 years plus about the difference what is significant what is not and they always put up their hands sort of like that George in Every Which Way but Loose just like this way up in the air and don't have an answer for me period sorry that's exactly why the legal standard of the rules of construction are words that to be given their ordinary meaning yes sorry it's frustrating anything else any other questions we have a vote on the table um and the vote is as stated I don't want to restate it because I actually quoted from it but essentially it's to determine whether or not this is an insignificant change without uh uh impact on the resources that without significant impact on the resources that we protect conditioned upon the approval of the memorandum of agreement to enforce the uh special conditions on the tree survey and tree replacement with the authority that I can sign on behalf of the commission to effectuate that agreement that's the vote we'll take a roll call vote um uh Arthur Doyle how do you vote sir yes ingred how do you vote yeah you're mute you're still mute ingr there you go I I didn't hear you yes oh thank you very much all right uh when how do you vote Yes Tom Palmer how do you vote Yes and Charlie how do you vote Yes and I John Kieran vote Yes as well um so the second vote U would be to the motion as to whether or not to approve these revisions uh to make an amended uh order of conditions and I so I so move that is there a second to that second thank you uh is there any discussion on the second vote hearing none um uh how do you vote Arthur yes ingred how do you vote Yes Wendy how do you vote Yes Tom how do you vote yes and Charlie how do you vote Yes and I vote Yes as well John Kieran thank you so that's the unanimous approval of the uh uh we had two votes one insignificant change uh second one conditioned upon the approval and authorization for me to sign the uh agreement memorandum of agreement uh to make special condition for um an obligation an enforceable obligation and the second one is to accept those changes thank you very much for your time and uh all the folks that participated in this and thank you for your patience it did it was a lengthy discussion but a worthwhile one I believe thank you uh next on the agenda is uh one Wentworth Farm Road order of conditions uh this is continued thank you for your patience Folks at least I was here I can just have one moment to rearrange some files of course again for the record uh Ned corkran on behalf of Jordy STM and best uh cutter who are the owners of the property at 24 Wentworth Farms Road uh this matter has been continued uh for various uh reasons uh associated with sort of looking at a redesign of the um infilt the infiltration system storm water system managing storm water from the driveway and from the roof system uh as well as uh review of the weather and how to modify the stone wall that was installed instead of the manufactured uh uh painting wall for the um uh the septic system uh I'm joined by Jim Burke uh on behalf of the applicants he has produced a preliminary plan we didn't have time to share it with you but we thought we'd do tonight is share that in Draft take your comments uh and then produce a what we hope would be a final plan uh for the February uh meeting and so with your permission I would turn it to Jim uh if he could share screen thank you de and welcome Jim good evening um nice to see everybody again it's been a while um I don't have a lot of experience with the Wentworth for Road except for 11 I picked up some information with regards to uh the surveyors and Engineers that were previously involved I use their information to kind of generate um a revised Watershed and uh revised stor water control for the roof runoff in the driveway um as it turned out um and I have the plan I can show it to you if you want to share the screen um that the driveway is basically almost the same size as the uh impervious area of the roof um so it basically it made sense to really kind of just double up what was originally installed and uh what was originally proposed which was two ctech Chambers and I doubled that to four and then built a um you know a detention Basin if you will on top of it to kind of allow it to overflow and then release it in a laminer fashion towards the Wet Ones um the proposed work we're doing is still J can can I interrupt you were you looking for screen sharing from Steve um let's see if I can I may be able to do it okay I've made Jim a co-host would you like me to make Ned a co-host think I try that Ned please we all see that yes now we can yes okay could you blow it up a little bit is that possible let me let me uh get zoom in uh I know but I get okay said you need some more I wear glasses now too problem is the everyone see that yes okay the um so the the plan that you're seeing is all asilt uh information from um dun Kenzie and uh the 77 Contour uh in the backyard with a 76 uh it shows you know the uh the uh proposed drainage control for the additional runoff uh the additional runoff is really Jim I I apologize for interrupting you but the as built that we first saw was off by about 4 feet um is this a corrected as built or is this the original as built this is the as built um from dun McKenzie that was I mean it's pretty representative of what's out there now um well we had a mistake in the one that we first observed Ned yall recall that and I thought it was going to be corrected I don't recall that Deb uh is Deb Keller uh still on see the retain retain the retaining wall was there was a mistake there but it was about a 4 foot mistake and I thought somebody was going to correct that yeah I think if you look at the spot shots Deb Keller from Merill um sorry to interrupt uh the spot shots here um near the uh Boulder retaining wall you're you know looking at a about 74 74 1/2 at the toe and up at the top the shots are 82 1/2 to 83 so you're getting your 8 to n feet height now for the wall with the spot shots that are being shown on this plan that's right that's that sounds like the corrected one because the first one we saw they were off there are a lot of plans uh generated by this site um that includes the as built for the the septic um but I I held on to the dun McKenzie guys I got uh you know um I'm familiar with their firm and uh they've always done good work and and like I said I've walked aside a couple of times and this seems pretty representative of what's out there um that being said I mean this is really kind of um you know to correct uh uh that that additional catch BAS that you see in the driveway that additional runoff that's contributing to that area uh and I'm not surprised that uh there was that would uh cause a a concern in the backyard for the homeowner uh but you know like I said I think if you double it up and you have a flow emitter at the top and allow the storm water to Bubble up as you have additional runoff that needs to be handled U this is uh one alternative that would take care of it talked on a couple of hearings previously that there may be a way to have like a lateral pipe going across the backyard to a level spreader because when we were there we were there in a big rainstorm and the sheet flow across the backyard was concerning you know did you consider that um I did I I took a look at the grades I was surprised how it's actually pretty flat out there you're probably running back at like a 2% grade um you know to get the level spreaded to kind of work correctly in my opinion you kind of need a like a a steeper slope to blend it into it giv that was that was the point of the lateral pipe to get it away from the whatever that pop top drain was I thought we were talking about having a lateral pipe take it to the backyard where it where it meets the hill and there's a significant Hill there when you get out to the back but once you get into the the do not disturb area sure um I'm trying to keep it all within the you know the the areas already Disturbed and and outside the 25 foot buffer I mean we can look at the the the horizontal pipe I don't have a problem with that alternative I just think that you might experience a little bit more um backup on that uh in that particular situation all right Wendy and I think yall recall this because we were standing in the backyard and the sheet flow actually ended up in a a channel it was channelized it was running from like as we're looking at the diagram from the bottom to the Top If you're looking with your back to the house it'll be to the right but it was a a real channel of water going there that's that's why that concept came up Wendy do you are you I don't see you but do you know what I'm talking about I I'm trying to remember exactly exactly where that channel was but it was it was more than than just just one channel I I remember seeing it um in multiple places um in including coming down through through the stones of the wall there was a channelized uh erosion when the last time I was out there um it was at pretty much right at the erosion control barrier and and it's right next to uh the the emitter of uh you know where it is now uh what I'm proposing is basically a a 10-inch depression that allows that water to kind of fill up that 10inch depression and then spill over that burm um across I believe it's 20 feet I have uh so it would actually shed across in a laminate fashion kind of I trying to accomplish exactly what you're talking about John but there's there's certainly a thousand different ways to skin a cat I've heard that thanks okay what what what about the wall I didn't mean to cat as far as the wall goes I mean I certainly understand uh the commission's you know alteration with regards to in order conditions you you know they should have came back and and asked for a change and use but it's a you know not necessarily An approved equal but an equal I mean based on the structural engineers letter um you know I I don't have and I agree with it I mean you have a fairly large you know Rubble wall uh stones that are uh you know at 165 lbs per cubic foot uh holding up saturated soil um that's at 120 lbs a cubic foot um it you know that that wall isn't going anywhere um that being said you know it's it's something that the the the homeowner uh chose as an as an alternative and and and it does the job that was you know proposed originally so it comes down to exactly that I mean they didn't ask for and this is just me talking John I think it's fine it's it's what the homeowner wants and and it's not U you know an issue with regards to protection of the conservation commission's interests I I I it sounds like we're we're kind of going backwards because we've we've had a number of hearings on this and I thought we were getting close to a resolution and the resolution I thought we were going to get a plan with a horizontal pipe leading to the to the U the slope and then a a level spreader plan and you've done part of it because you know we needed we thought we needed a you know an increase in the size of the ctech chambers we did that we had we had a a lengthy conversation about that and with respect to the retaining wall I thought the only question was um the ability to inject Under Pressure uh concrete between between the larger Boulders not every hole I think that be oh that that okay that that's what we because we had talked to Deb Keller who's here tonight and I thought that's what we were going towards we're going to get a plan tonight to see if you could take care of at least the lodge holes because we did see some evidence of sedimentation coming through the holes granted some of it's coming from the top down but I know I saw and I think some of the other commissioner saw some evidence of sedimentation coming through the wall so we thought the most practical way of doing that was um to inject concrete or some kind of cement in between not every hole but the you know at least the larger one so I was expecting that to come forward as a plan but again you know injecting uh you know cement concrete as a you know kind of a slavy hold for um a rubble wall is just going to be a maintenance nightmare um from a standpoint of of that that that concrete's just gonna break apart and and and add to you know ultimately it's G to erode away it's going to break apart um why why would it erode away I mean the the original plan that was approved was a essentially a concrete wall I know it was it it may have may have been it could have been gravity block but but but it's essentially a concrete wall so yeah I mean but you're taking you're you're assuming that the concrete's going to adhere to the the the Rock and and make a a seamless form that's not going to happen not will happen is that you know the water will get behind it and and and it'll just fall apart but our biggest concern was not that the the the size of the boulders are huge and they're not going to wash away in a in a rainstorm I we get that our concern is that this is holding back a leeching field and we don't want the leech eight to be seeping through those H that's already taken care of with the geotextile fabric that was you know as built it installed maybe it wasn't expected but we we saw the photographs I I think in either case um the leachate is being held back by Filter Fabric um if it moisture is going to leech through the wall whether it's the con the manufactured concrete wall or the boulder wall um it's not going to hold back all moisture otherwise the hydraulic pressure could blow it out I I agree but that's why we we were talking about a plan I thought I thought there was a consensus John I didn't have a consensus in my mind what I asked Jim to do was to take an independent look at this and Des and redesign it as he would if he were designing this project and that's what that's what Jim has done and what we thought we'd do tonight is present his preliminary thoughts so that we could move forward to finalize a plan that was consistent with what the commission wants to see if you wanted to take U maybe some uh some rip wraps some you [Music] know and you know take a couple of barrel fulls of it and and the larger stones with larger Rock the smaller stones with the smaller rock um you know and and take a hammer and and Bash it in there I mean that would have some use to it much more so than the than the the concrete um I think the only real maintenance for that wall that you need to do is just keep the Woody vegetation out of it um and uh and that's about it um there's not a you know if there's if Leach flowing through that wall that's that's a failure of the septic system not the wall um and that's a totally different issue but the you know border of Health you know excepted the as I assume that uh that it was installed correctly and in conforms to Title 5 um but I mean I can there there significant different size holes along that wall given how the rock fits together we can C I can certainly propose that um that did you have a proposal to do anything at all to the retaining wall now I'm not i' say I'd say if you wanted to if you're worried about um sediment from flowing through there I'd say you just you know close up some of the holes with you it you armor that wall like you would uh uh you know Marine wall you just you know tighten up the the orices so the stones have less chance to to move around above the major Boulders uh John you've got Mr st's Hand raised by the way oh sure go go ahead uh hi there um and thank you for um uh recognizing me and thank you for discussing this matter we are the the homeowners and just wanted to to chime in here um this is December is about a year uh going on and living uh in the house and you we've seen this place now through several different snow snowstorms and rainstorms and uh you know not once have we really recognized significant flooding out in that that back region um you know obviously there the the the the particular storm you know you saw and I can't you know you know more about the uh erosion than than we do but um you know we really have been living here for some time and not only has the the the rock wall been you know very sturdy and stable um and and we haven't seen erosion through it but also we haven't really seen any erosion in in the backyard either U for for what it's worth um our preference as as homeowners would be to try to um given this it's been a year to try to um get a sort of finalized plan and move on if we if we can um in the short term time period but but uh you know we ultimately accepting of whatever plan the the committee decides oh thank you thank you Jordan um any other commission members maybe um I I thought that we would be looking at a a specific plan tonight and I know it's draft and Jim I know you came in somewhat late in the game um but other Commissioners is your memory different than I thought we were going to have some kind of a specific plan to do and it may may well have been you know just chinking uh some of the larger holes as Jim just said but um um I don't know what was the expectation from the other commission John I remember that the final state of the discussion as I recall was yes they would increase the ktech and back double in size and yes they would proceed under the assumption that there would be concrete placed on top of the boulders um my own reaction to the chinking idea versus a concrete is I would be okay with that too you know I I think that Burke has a point that any concrete you put there will crumble maybe not right away but that ultimately that's what it will do I don't really see that having to maintain that concrete really is that great an advantage all right let let me flip it back to the ctech chambers we we've established that they're going to increase the capacity uh which is good but what about as Jim and I know preliminary but Jim was talking about some kind of a detention Basin on top of it yeah so you the you see the 77 Contours it wraps around yes that's a that's basically you know a 12inch berm above the base of top of the U the ctech chambers now H in between when it wraps around on itself there's a um a 2inch drop so it drops down to 768 creating a 10-inch uh uh Basin so that allows the water in that particular location to fill into that Basin fill up an you know a 10-inch tub if you will and then spill over that 768 across a 20 foot wide wear um and I did think of the uh the the pipe the the horizontal pipe acting is a you know a a release uh but the problem I have with that is that 76 Contour is what you'd have to bring back you'd have to grade that backyard and and and and pull that 76 back and I didn't want to mess around with that 25 foot no disturb um so instead I uh kind of created that uh that Earth burm um and Earth wear for the water to fill up and and spill over and then uh flow across uh the backyard into the woods got all right so when when do you think you could get this plan to us um I mean it's if I was really looking for feedback from you guys now I mean I I can put together the the the chin uh uh wall I can do a section of that um with the like I said you you you'll need a lot of different size uh uh Rock um that you you we' have to that wall with but it's all it's all by hand and Hammer uh to fix the wall and then this maybe I just need to do a detail I could have this for you next week well we we wouldn't consider it until yeah the next time our next meeting um yeah so other Commissioners comments questions Charlie what what do you think about um well maybe you maybe you haven't seen the uh retention wall have you no John I haven't been out to the site I'm not I'm not familiar with I am familiar with Jim's proposal we've we've performed it in the past to CH in the larger holes with larger stones and and and the smaller gaps with smaller Stones I I have pictures if you want to see the wall did you guys see that sure sure if you want to pull them up Jim I don't yeah we see then I should I'll stop share if I can figure out how oops I'm still sharing I've got to I've got to unshare would it be possible if I made a couple of comments while we're moving plans yeah thanks thanks please okay um ju if we're moving forward with this as um this plan being the as built just a couple of things um looking at it quickly if we could add to that plan the trench drain that's in front of the garage as well as the um pipe size and possibly material known um for the pipe coming from the catch Basin and the roof leaders into the subsurface uh chamber system just so that um we have that full system documented and then possibly I I know it's an interim so it's not final but if I recall correctly in the backyard there was a row of plantings along the edge of the lawn um we might want to know where those are located so that if you're putting in the new base and we're not you know regrading the same area where those plants are planted we might be okay I just they're not on the plan so we can't see them right I I I was out there very recently and I eyeballed the area it's all lawn and there's um really nothing uh that would be in the way I might have a picture of that as well do you guys see the picture now yeah yes okay so I mean you know uh you can see you know a lot of opportunities to kind of uh smooth that rock out with uh with various size uh uh Boulders and and rock and the like um let see if I yeah I mean we we've been out there a lot I know Chie has not but the rest of us have been out there pretty frequently um I yeah there's a there's another shot of it yeah so I let me ask a real basic question it probably goes to Dr STM but um this Basin you're creating it's just going to be like a I know it's temporary and the assuming the water is gonna recharge uh fairly quickly you know 48 hours or 72 hours or something but just from a enjoyment of your backyard if you got little kids and Jordan I don't know if if uh you do have little kids but uh why wouldn't you want to get the water out put aside the 25 foot non-disturbance on there's a pretty significant drop off in in elevation when you get to the back of the lawn area wouldn't it be better for the for Dr stom and his family to not have a like a a little pool sitting in the back I I would have as ask the Dr stum to answer that question himself I I asked him that specifically and and and if you know he wanted a flat backyard if he minded the detention Basin and and uh the Basin version they say they use the the other um field on top of the uh the septic field as a is what they've been using with the kids and stuff like that but I hear what you're saying John I mean um yeah I don't think it's cost factor I mean it you're just putting a like a pipe in to a rip wrap yeah I mean I I I I honestly um we don't see too much flooding out back um so I mean I'm we are happy with whatever solution is least expensive and is willing to um uh to work in this particular circumstance and and you know we do have uh we we have a a five and a halfy old and she plays out on the side lot and you know it is uh pretty flat out in the that back lot there and we do use that a lot um so it would be nice to keep it sort of relatively um uh relatively flatter but I understand um you know what what we whatever we need to to do to to to move uh ahead and and if it's going to be significantly more expensive um to to keep it flatter then we're we're happy to go with whatever grading I I don't think it's a cost item Jim I'll defer to you or Deb but I I just want to you know get something that works right and and uh I agree so do I um that's why I I didn't go with the pipe I just didn't think the pipe you you'd end up having to do too much grading um and you'd end up in that 25 foot5 okay all right I got you all right any other thoughts comments questions from commission members Butters anybody members of the public Deb anything else do you have any comments on the chinking versus the concrete number one or number two the uh whatever detention Basin as opposed to the pipe and level sprea sure no I would just add that I I did get a chance to to look at the concept briefly today and just so that the commission members know I did look at the volume of the chambers as as designed in it does um retain the full 1 in uh of runoff for so from a water quality treatment standpoint you're getting um that treatment from that system um with respect to the wall I think that I I agree with Jim that chinking might be better I think originally we started out with maybe infilling some of those void void areas or open space areas between the larger Boulders with you know smaller stone or or gravel to try to um close those off but I I do recall us talking a little bit about like um what you had mentioned is that we don't want to close off all the voids because we need to allow for some free flow of uh water behind the wall not from the septic system because that has the poly barrier but behind directly behind the wall so you don't have that Frost um freeze thaw I conditions happening with the wall so um I would concur that um chinking would be satisfactory as well okay and and the the the pipe to the level spreader is that just a a coin toss I I think it's a coin toss but I do agree with um Jim that it looks like um so far on the plans that's why I was kind of hoping we H we're getting a little bit more topography on that backside the lawn um but my guess is is if it's level up to where they're showing it it's level all the way up to that 25 and then it Dives down so if you're going to put a pipe in there you are going to be in that 25 uh foot uh buffer zone so it kind of goes to yeah do they have a depression in their backyard if they're comfortable with it it's still one way of um addressing the runoff if you are willing to allow them to put the pipe in that would be a way for them to um keep the lawn more level but would that be more of an impact uh to the wetlands because it is in the 25 foot buffer okay any I guess I guess that's that would be the commission's um opinion and and and if I if I may say one more thing um I I think uh it would be our preference to uh have a a pipe if it's um you know able to keep our backyard flat understanding that if there's a lot of upset to the wet lenss or or if there's a lot of cost to the construction project of then doing that um and placing it then then um we would prefer the other option and I appreciate that I will uh I will look into uh designing something and if it ends up uh being a little bit too aggressive towards the wetlands um I'll abandon it but I'll certainly look at it and um make sure that I am heading down the right path on behalf of the client okay good and the reason Jim I'm actually trying to make it cost effective for Dr Strong I understand yeah and my concern you know I know you brought up the 25 foot but um when when we were out there we saw the a lot of channelization right at that slope and if that's within the 25 feet um I I think the rip wrap would be a good thing um even if it's in the 25 feet because it would eliminate what I saw as the sheet flow causing channelization you know I would see it as a net benefit we uh well we could certainly add the rip rep and on the other side of the burm as well um to prevent channelization as it exits the Basin so I'll look at everything okay again and I'll have something for you guys to to vote on on February and uh can I say one last thing of course Charlie Bosworth a conservation commissioner yeah are you kidding me wait what about you you used to be our agent yeah how did that happen for saving me from having to come in on that with just just 30 years ago I didn't forget well as always always a pleasure thanks Jim all right so we'll continue this until February yeah Philip what's the date in h February February 11th 11 okay good thanks all right thanks all thanks for your patience with this and I know thank you next one do you have the next one 211 one wor who's got that Jeff oh that's me yeah that's me John all right good thanks Jeff you're on oh I'm on okay um we'll try to keep it brief but this is uh based on 11 wwth Farm was based on a uh a minor change we made to the plan um just about a little over a year ago I believe and it was a driveway change and this stemmed from the Builder having the house a little a little too low than initially designed at and so we had a low point that was going to be in front of the garage uh we redesigned that area to make a a sale sort of in the middle drain it from the street and from the garage to keep that water from going in the garage we also provided a small French drain to the side of the um driveway that was to catch that water and drain it out back via a uh 4-in PVC pipe to the rear of the lot there was a Swale that takes it down takes the water down to the back um into the um existing storm waterer system so there was no change to quantity or quality or anything like that it was just an idea how we're going to get this water out of this gentleman's driveway um so we did again put that sketch plan in you folks approved that uh there was one commissioner who's I don't think's on here tonight Hans wanted to take a look at that he was okay with the construction uh or at least a design I'm sorry that we laid out um that was put in again the homeowner made a slight change apparently his landscaper didn't want the French drain to be flush with the driveway so he raised it up slightly uh he put up a little row of cobbles about what 8 in high or so and the French drain was located under that more on the lawn there was some opening in the cobbles such that it would the water in the slow point will get down into that French drain but at a much slower Pace now um I did meet Steve out there on the site to take a look I think Steve you kind of concurred it'll work but it's not going to work great it's going to be increased maintenance on the homeowner um that said it's not going to change anything overall in the design of the system it will still function as designed it will get the water out of that driveway it's just going to be more of a maintenance issue for the homeowner uh if if it was to quote unquote fail he'd have ponding water in the middle of his driveway but again it doesn't change the quantity or the quality of the water that would be exiting this site and ultimately ending up as always designed in the rear of the uh with the um subdivision storm water collection system is so that's said everything was put in as planned except for that one little French train area and we're here tonight looking for a uh certificate of compliance all right and I I've got in my hand um this is uh the certifi that the work has been satisfactory completed in substantial compliance and that's who signed that who's the um that's my colleague Cliff Carlson we both out there okay Steve have you been out there and I sure have with with Jeff and I concur with what he his statement all right do we need to put anything in the uh uh certificate of compliance that uh requires some kind of an onm plan I I heard what you said Jeff I I just don't know whether or not we should be concerned with the maintenance and operation joh honestly this is this is just a driveway maintenance issue it's outside the 100 foot it's not a storm water control issue it doesn't change the runoff all this water coming off this site has already been accounted for it's more of just was just a convenience for the homeowner um there's there's no need for an onm plan it's not part of a storm water system it's just getting water out of the gent's driveway and if he wants it there or not it's going to come down to him really I I would not think you'd want to generate an omm plan that really has no ability to be enforced anyway I I agree John completely yep all right any uh questions from commission members uh any bus members of the public all right well we've got the uh the attestation that this is completed in substantial compliance with the plans uh which is our requirement and we've heard that the onm plan would be um unenforceable and like more of a homeowners problem than a uh discharge problem for us so with that is there motion to issue the certificate of compliance so all right thank you author is there a second thanks Wendy any discussion uh we'll take a Voice vote Tom Palmer how do you vote Yes uh Wendy yes Arthur yes ingred yes Jolly yes and I John Kieran yes okay so you've got your certificate of compliance thank you Jeff excellent thank you all nice seeing you take care all right good to see you thanks all right next on the agenda is approved minutes um uh I did some edits uh and they were um approved or accepted or whatever it was by um Stephen he sent it around today and everybody had a chance to read the um revised minutes revision three joh John RIS all right so just and Philip just make sure you you've um got version three there were amendments made whatever it was last night Steve my my system wouldn't open three where I was today it's not a problem from your end it was a problem from my end technologically so did the continuance change that you recommended get Incorporated yes thank you yes appreciate that sure all right uh any other comments on that so we we'll try to keep up with our minutes because we've been woefully uh behind um so on this one is there a motion to approve the minutes from December 10th of 2024 so moved thanks Tom second second thank you ingred any discussion hearing none Tom how do you vote Yes goly yes Wendy yes author yes ingred yes and I John K and vote I as well that that's good uh next one is DCR signage several locations within the Blue Hills reservation uh this is a discussion um and I I don't know if there's anybody here from DCR um I don't think so but this is when they want to put up a dozen or so basically they're the signpost uh bulletin boards that are similar to the one that the eagle scout put at the end of Mark what's it called U Parkway Crescent right near the bridge that goes from Parkway Crescent up to the high school um similar to that and we got into a discussion I involved Peter Melo and he's a gentleman to put up with all of my questions but um under the town bylaw an RDA requires a butter notification um it's a little bit different on the state RS and the problem is that this is the uh Blue Hills reservation and Tom you probably know how many acres what are we talking six or 700 Acres of 7,000 Al together 7,000 it's it's well that's that's big because under the state regulations the abut notification has to go to uh everybody within 100 feet of the property line unless the project is um 50 acres or more then it defaults to the project site so you have to be within 100 feet of the project site that's the state RS unfortunately in our regulations it's worded differently and it says the property line no matter how big it is and it says no matter how many municipalities are involved so if you take the the entire Blue Hills reservation you're going to hit denam Canton uh Randolph brindy brry Bry brry Milton it's gigantic so what uh Peter suggested is that we utilize uh section nine of our bylaw that says that when you know if there's a public good to be achieved by this and there are um you know inhibiting costs uh to have strict adherence uh we use that as a mechanism to not wave but look for mitigating a way to mitigate the impact on we'd be talking about hundreds and hundreds of homeowners in six or seven different towns so what I suggested to the DCR representative that's Al Ali ishi uh and she was very grateful for the suggestion and that is that we look at this when we receive the uh rdas um because they have to they should file rdas for each of these signposts just as we required that we do it and so the you know author's signposts that I I give you full credit for our author that you know getting these signposts out and about uh we had to file an app an RDA to ourselves which we approved and I said to DCL look it's a good project you know it's public education part of public education um so you'll get support from us but we can't just wave it arbitrarily so what I asked DCR to do and they've agreed to do was to do a public notification um in the I guess the Quincy Patriot Ledger or Milton times or whatever uh which is just a different mechanism and it gets us around this uh bylaw that we have or it's a regulation that actually requires that we we go not withstanding the municipality and not withstanding the project site so I thought that would be a good option I just wanted to we don't have to vote on this but uh we will have to vote on it when it comes up before us in February because she is going to file rdas for each of the locations for the signposts um all right so this is just really informational uh and if anybody had an objection to using section nine of our bylaw which is the the the way to get around as long as there is a public Ser public good to be served then we can use section nine to to not require strict compliance with our notification so if anybody has a an issue with that um say so now or for forever hold your piece because we'll have to address it in February when they actually submit the ID excent opportunity John um I I will say that over the years a number of people have asked uh why um they can't understand where DCR properties are located in the town of Milton and that includes the properties down along granted Avenue as well as properties in the vicinity of the Blue Hills all right good so if everybody's okay we we don't need a vote but it's it's just something that will come up on U uh February 11th and at that time we will have to take a vote that we we can utilize section n to limit or mitigate the the requirement of notification and accept the public notification in the newspaper all right um a new business Steve anyone new business um yes I just want to report that I was out with Mr um pasquantonio over on the excess Road and the work to begin site development for that 40b at 728 Randolph have yes will be beginning in the next couple of months um two things about that that's interesting there is um a requirement for some some erosion controls along the north side of the which is you know heading toward Boston and then on the out on the South Side Steve you may have a microphone problem it's you're fading in and out oh I'm very sorry yeah now you're clear we'll try this again I'll direct my my voice to toward the machine um on the south side of the access road um there's a fence required uh for uh for snakes uh buy fish and wildli just just so you know he didn't want to put that in in the snow because it might be uh superseded by snow uh by others who are Paving not Paving but snow plowing so he's going to wait until after the snow to put the snake fence in it's a special fence there's only three in the state of this type right now so we'll be sure to look look at it when we when it gets put in that's all I have for Mo the moment a snake fence yes anti snake that's because of the Rattlers in the Blue Hills and the rocks in that area is that are there Rattlers in the blue hill yes yeah yeah we no I was just thinking about it because we had a snake study that was required when uh the town was the applicant for the wind ribbon yes and they they did I met I met the Snake Man up there many times yeah I knew they were there but I I just I've never heard of a snake fence yep snake neither had I frankly so Isn't that cool I guess is that to protect the residents of uh so the S don't cross the road it's it's also no human beings aren't stay listed human beings aren't in danger of extinction right it's it's to protect the snakes from us out oh jeez how tall is that fence 22 inches above ground interesting because just beyond it is the new animal shelter yeah that's right I hope somebody's informing them uh yes I think I think somebody have has to Snak to come out on pavement they like rad it's warm they warm their bellies that's right that's right if you want if you want to see one of these endangered snakes a good way to do it is to Mid August walk up and down chick topa road you can of and find one that was squashed yeah sadly that's all I have all right anybody I have one thing yes um uh DPW director Marina Fernandez uh told me in relation to some work on the climate committee that uh the town has uh just hired a new environmental coordinator that person will begin on February 1st and um I gave Marina the uh date of our February meeting in case uh she and the new environmental coordinator want to U be introduced to the Conservation Commission we've done that in the past that would be great Aur what what's uh her name I do not have her name or background information oh good all right we should be aware that one of the job responsibilities as I understand I could be wrong but I think that uh looking for state grants or federal grants is one of the responsibilities for that uh position as environmental coordinator and that's something I think we should be aware of and sensitive to and take advantage of if there are Grant applications that are available to us just like when we were at U was it uh what's the name of the housing uh down by the river uh you know the end of Elliot Street what's it called an house house house right that's m m um and we're about getting a grant to rehab that back parking lot and the the discharge pipe coming from somewhere uh and I think that uh the uh engineer on the on the case uh was going to take a look at state grants because I somebody came up with a grant proposal I I forget who it was it Wendy was it you that suggested a Grant application yeah I believe it was I I I think that that that that site would be a great opportunity for a 319 Grand from well we should discuss that that opportunity in um another footnote to the position description for the environmental coordinator is that it cites explicitly a direct relationship with the Conservation Commission yeah good idea good okay any other new business I think we're good we don't have any site visit uh right no no we're good until February 11th right Perfect all right good news thanks all I know it was a a long discussion tonight uh but I think it was an important one so thank you all for participation all right good night all God bless motion to adjourn Mr chairman oh yeah motion to adjourn all faor I good Peter melow would be proud of you thanks thanks Arthur have a good night everybody ni good night [Music] okay