##VIDEO ID:https://videoplayer.telvue.com/player/994DtmGEsi0VDYK3jJI2BJ72GfgNIpU2/media/927722?autostart=false&showtabssearch=true&fullscreen=false## <v Speaker 1>So folks, welcome.</v> This is the Native Conservation Commission. Today is January 16th. This is our one meeting in January, our second. Our next meeting will be on Thursday, February 6th, I believe. Yes. Well, welcome everybody. Just as a reminder for people who are watching at home, please keep yourselves on mute until your particular agenda item comes up. We will go through the public hearings part of this agenda first, and then jump into the, the other items on the agenda, which we'll probably spend a little bit of time on the, the general business discussion there. So, first item on the agenda I've got is a, a certificate of compliance for the Broadmoor Wildlife Sanctuary. So, Claire, do you wanna give us a voiceover of where we, where we stand on that? <v Speaker 2>Absolutely. Let me just get my screen share going.</v> And we do have Elisa Landry from Maban on the line if there are any questions. So in 2019, the commission issued an order of conditions for the some trail work at Broadmore Wildlife Sanctuary on Elliot Street in Natick, a number of areas of trail were proposed for realignment to either remove them from existing flooding or future flooding issues as well as to deal with <v Speaker 3>You need to get rid of the Yeah.</v> <v Speaker 2>Oh, I do.</v> <v Speaker 3>There we go.</v> There we go. <v Speaker 2>Sorry about that folks. Oh, and just a</v> reminder, Mike's for everyone. Yeah, Mike's. So, in November, early November, a number of members of the Conservation Commission did a walk out at Broadmoor to review the completed work with Elisa and some other Mass Audubon staff. I think everyone, I'll maybe speak for everyone when I say we were all very impressed with the work that had been done and how beautiful the trails were looking. And so the project is now requesting a certificate of compliance. We have received the, the image files of all the rerouted trail maps, the request for certificate of compliance, as well as a letter of certification from Scott Chu, who is the regional director for Mass Auto Bond for this sanctuary. <v Speaker 1>Okay. Do we have a, I just wanna make sure we have an,</v> an engineering letter that, <v Speaker 2>So this was not required for this project</v> because there were no engineered plans to begin the project with. Got it. It was just required to get the rerouted trail maps and a letter of compliance from the Mass Aon. <v Speaker 1>Alright. All good. Ms. Landry, thanks for joining.</v> And you know, it's a beautiful facility that you that, that you run as you know. Any, any questions from you Issa, about, you know, kind of where things currently stand or observations are things working to your expectations? <v Speaker 4>Expectations? We are, we're really delighted</v> with the results. The, we've largely moved trails away from wetland resources, enhancing the wildlife value and wetland value for the whole site. We were able to look at the entire site and all eight and a half miles of trails at the same time. And so the result is a really coherent trail system. Visitors have commented continually on the improved experience for them. We're also using this as a model for other organizations who manage trails and are happy to share what we've learned. We've been really delighted with the commission support and with your conservation agents report support throughout the project. It, it's been, it's been a very gratifying project because typically people correct parts of trails and don't take a comprehensive view. So we've, we were very grateful when you initially gave us the permission to cont to look at it more comprehensively. And I, I hope you're pleased with it and happy to share any details with any member of the commission or anyone else who's interested in how we did it and how they can do it on other conservation land. So thank you very much all of your present commissioners and the ones who were on board when we were initially approved and clear. <v Speaker 1>Great. Thank you Lisa. Appreciate that.</v> And thanks for all the work that you do. Any questions from the commission on this before we someone make a motion to presumably issue a certificate of compliance for this questions? Alright, hearing none, would someone make a motion to issue a certificate of compliance for two 80 Elliot Street or Broadmoor Sanctuary? <v Speaker 5>Motion to</v> <v Speaker 1>Thank you Jim. Is that seconded by anybody?</v> <v Speaker 5>Second?</v> <v Speaker 1>Alright, I'll, was that you David? Yeah.</v> Excellent. Thanks David. Any further discussion on this? <v Speaker 5>Yeah, just one comment. I was at the</v> walkthrough was very impressed. I learned a lot about trails from the discussion of what they did and how they did it. I just kind of wonder whether we took this away as a best practices example on a lot of fronts to use, maybe in other cases. <v Speaker 1>Great. Well, we, we have the benefit also of working</v> with some of the folks who are some of the trail designers that Mass Audubon uses frequently. And in terms of some of the construction and the, the bridge project in, in Piro Pond, the, the smaller bridge project in Piro Pond will leverage some of that experience. But yeah, David, I mean I think let's, let's leverage that Alyssa, you know, we may be coming by and, and, and, and picking your brain as we're looking at other sites in the town so that we can, we can draw on those best practices. And <v Speaker 2>We did actually hold a training</v> with our trail stewards on trail construction standards to the same standards that Mass Auto bomb did their trail re rerouting with the same gentleman who's leading the Island Bridge effort. <v Speaker 1>Great. Excellent.</v> So we, we had a motion made by Jim, seconded by David to issue the certificate of compliance. If there's no further discussion that all those in the room who are in favor, please indicate by raising your hand, Chris. Yes, David? <v Speaker 6>Yes.</v> <v Speaker 1>Excellent. Ms. Landry, thank you very much.</v> We'll see you around and if we have any questions we'll come find you and, and ask our questions. <v Speaker 4>Okay. Look forward to it. Thanks. Thank you all.</v> <v Speaker 1>Thanks. Take care. Alright, next item on the agenda</v> I've got is the, a stormwater permit extension for 89 Union Street St. Benedict's School. <v Speaker 2>So it's order of conditions and major stormwater permits.</v> Extens Storm were, they were issued on the same day, but yes, Chris Canton from Metro West Engineering is on the line if we have any questions. But the project is substantially completed. I've been out to the site a number of times this past fall and winter as the project was finishing up a lot of the, the landscaping and final grading work. Chris, I believe a certificate of occupancy has been issued for the site. The, the school I know was hoping to open for winter semester for business, but they're asking for a one year extension of both permits to just finalize any landscaping or things like that, that weren't able to be completed at the end of the fall. <v Speaker 1>Great. Chris, do you just wanna give us a high level</v> status update on where things stand and, and what's next for the site? <v Speaker 6>Yeah, so essentially the order of conditions was issued</v> in January 26th, 2022. And per standard you get three years to complete the work. So it would expire the 25th of this month. The site work has been substantially completed with a few stabilization with growing grass. Basically the, the drought season that we experienced in late August to probably early November, that kind of hindered the growth process of establishing new vegetation and going through, we felt that extending basically an additional year to establish or mature the vegetation that's growing in would definitely help the site and basically address any issues that just come during the springtime when it's the West. And so in this case we'll wanna extend it one year. But other than that, basically the entire site's pretty much completed construction wise. <v Speaker 1>Great. Claire, have,</v> have there been any issues on the site, any non-compliance, any violations, anything that's kind of come onto our radar about, you know, the site that might make us want to think about whether we want to extend it without further scrutiny? <v Speaker 2>Absolutely. There, there have been no violations.</v> There was one slight issue during one of the larger storms that we had in the fall of 2023. There was some unexpected runoff from a stockpile that was substantial enough to circumnavigate the erosion controls. Within an hour of me being notified and notifying 89 Union Street, the project team, the issue had been corrected and all sediment that had gone onto the neighboring property had been removed. So it was a bit of an unexpected issue that was very promptly dealt with. The school has been a great partner in the, the trail work that happened along the back edge of the property. The Eisen manger trail runs adjacent to the property. The school did some vegetation cleanup and removed a dilapidated fence along that rear property line that allowed our trail stewards to then go in and do more of a cleanup on our side as well. The school is potentially exploring some new fencing along that back line, but has agreed to work with the town and look at a more open format fencing to keep that from feeling like a, a cattle chute back there. <v Speaker 1>Yeah, because that, that's, that's a pretty tight It</v> <v Speaker 2>Is, yes. A definitely a tight corridor.</v> <v Speaker 1>Okay, cool. And, and just,</v> <v Speaker 6>Yeah, for further clarification,</v> I believe a temporary certificate of occupancy was issued just, just for reference and then the students are currently in session there, so. <v Speaker 2>Great. Thank you Chris.</v> <v Speaker 1>Alright, any questions from the</v> commission on this? Michael? <v Speaker 7>Do we actually have to offer an extension</v> because of Healy did that whole economic incentive package where anything that was active <v Speaker 2>So that technically we don't have the dates yet</v> for when those things are gonna be. So we are, I'm recommending caution and just recommending that everybody get extensions until we have the full clarity of the sort of permit tolling that will come from that legislation. I'm on clear as well, right? Yes, it's, we're all sort of waiting with bated breath. <v Speaker 7>I was hoping you have an answer</v> for me so I could go back to <v Speaker 1>Work with it.</v> Okay. Okay. Any other questions from the commission on this? Any concerns about issuing another a one year extension to the, to the order conditions in the major stormwater permit? Right. Hearing none, would someone make a motion to issue said extension. <v Speaker 6>So moved.</v> <v Speaker 1>Thank you, Chris. Is that seconded?</v> Seconded. I'll take Jim second on that. Any further discussion on that? Comments? Alright, all those in the room in favor, please indicate by raising your hand, Chris? Yes. David? Yes. Excellent. Thank you. Chris Canton, you got what you need from us. Let us know if you have you have any questions. Otherwise, thanks for your, for your engagement on this. <v Speaker 6>Thank you very much and thank you Claire.</v> <v Speaker 1>All right. Next item on the agenda is we've got a notice</v> of intent for 41 Oak Knoll Road. Do we have any representatives of 41 Oak Knoll Road here or on the call? Yes, we do have <v Speaker 2>Kaitlyn White from Hancock Associates on the</v> call representing the project. <v Speaker 1>Great. Thanks Caitlyn. Let me formally open this then in</v> accordance with the Wetlands Protection Act and Natick local wet wetlands bylaw Article 79, the NA Conservation Commission hold a public hearing on a notice of intent filed by David Cowell, PWS representing Massimo Maston Maston Toronto for property located at 41 Okole Road Map 12 lot 1 58. The proposal is for an addition onto an existing single family home. Caitlyn, would you walk us through what you got? <v Speaker 2>Caitlyn, would you prefer to share your screen</v> or do would you like me to share the project plans? <v Speaker 8>I was gonna ask if I could share my screen please.</v> <v Speaker 2>Absolutely. You should be able to know.</v> <v Speaker 8>Okay.</v> Okay. For the record, my name is Caitlin White. I'm a wetland scientist from Hancock Associates. Can everyone see my screen? Yes. <v Speaker 2>Yep.</v> <v Speaker 8>Okay. So 41 Oak Knoll Road</v> is a, is currently developed with a single family home that was constructed in 1948. The site is bound to the south by Oak Knoll Road residences to the south and the east, I mean to the west and the east. And then to the north is USGS, perennial Stream Snake Brook, as well as a small strip of bordering vegetated wetland associated with the brook. This was delineated back in May of 2022 by Hancock Associates. It projects buffer zones onto the site. You have your local 25 foot no disturb zone, your local 50 foot no build zone, your 100 foot wetland buffer zone, and then you also have the 100 inner riparian zone and the 200 foot riverfront area. The scope of work involves the demolition of an existing garage in carport that are attached to the house. Let me go to this slide. And an in kind replacement of a addition for the home as well as a carport and then a slight extension of the existing driveway. Because the home was constructed prior to 1996, this work is susceptible to the Riverfront Area Redevelopment Act. So it has to comply with those standards. The project has been designed to have negligible adverse impacts to the resource areas offsite. This project is not, does not need to comply with storm water management standards because it is a single family home. The proposed work is farther than existing structures. The edge of the proposed work is approximately 146 feet and an existing 89 feet from the mean annual high water to existing structures. This is an existing non-conforming site because there is approximately 19.5% of the total riverfront area on site already developed. But we are reducing that to 19.2. It's about, I think about 200 square feet of reduction of degraded area on site. We will have erosion control as shown on the permit site plan, and we are expecting no adverse impacts to the resource areas. If anyone has any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Thank you. <v Speaker 1>Great, thank you. I mean,</v> it's looks like it's basically about as far away from the riverfront or from the edge of the resource area as it could be to be Yep. And still be jurisdictional, you know, really right on the edge. Do we, for, for this project, for, for the purposes of of paperwork, do we need, we would need an alternatives analysis <v Speaker 2>Alternatives would be 10.4, not 10.5.</v> So that would be new development rather than redevelopment. Ah, <v Speaker 1>Fair. Okay. So we though</v> <v Speaker 2>I do believe in alternatives, analysis</v> was still provided. He <v Speaker 1>Still provided, right?</v> <v Speaker 8>Yes. He did provide</v> <v Speaker 2>Cover letter, yes.</v> <v Speaker 1>Yeah, good. It but for a project like this,</v> with what's being proposed, there's not many other alternatives in the, the, as far away as it is. I, yeah, I think it's in, it's pretty straightforward. Caitlyn, on the, on the project, you know, is there any, anything interesting being done with roof runoff, dry wells, anything along those lines? <v Speaker 8>I do not know the answer to that.</v> I could ask one of our engineers and get a more in depth answer because we do not have a mass DP file number. We will have to <v Speaker 1>Continue this anyway.</v> <v Speaker 8>Yes. Yeah. So I can make note of that</v> and we can have an answer for you. You guys. <v Speaker 1>That's good. Just, just for completeness sake,</v> it would be helpful just to know if roof runoff is gonna be captured, if it's gonna be infiltrated, if there's gonna be any, any accommodations for that. The <v Speaker 2>Project does not the town's stormwater by law.</v> <v Speaker 1>No, it does not do, no, no, no.</v> I'm just more just a point of curiosity than anything else. Yeah, that, I mean, that's basically my question. This is pretty, pretty straightforward, fairly low impact. Any, any questions from the commission on this? <v Speaker 9>The, I think the Claire,</v> your team had a question on the driveway. Oh <v Speaker 2>Yeah, Caitlin, I just noted that the,</v> the driveway itself will not align perfectly with the proposed garage in the finished condition. So just wanted to make sure and clarify it. It's a pretty minor amount of pavement, but if there are any plans to realign the driveway with the garage, so expanding it, I guess to the <v Speaker 1>East,</v> <v Speaker 2>East.</v> Yep. Just trying to make sure I got my directions correct, just to make sure that that's clarified, if that is proposed. And then also just any details available about the seed mix that you guys are proposing. I, I sort of assume it's turf grass, but just to get clarity for the order of conditions would be great. Yes, <v Speaker 8>Can do</v> <v Speaker 1>Super other questions, Chris,</v> David, anything from your side? Okay, no, this is <v Speaker 7>A little bit of a nitpicky thing.</v> Go for it. But for the erosion control around the stockpile, I I see that it, it's indicated on the map is the same as the erosion control that you have in the back of the yard. There's nothing in the legend that would indicate that as being erosion control. So could you either identify that as erosion control around the stockpile or put it in your legend please. <v Speaker 8>Okay.</v> <v Speaker 1>Good.</v> Any other questions at this point? We will have to continue this to our next meeting, Caitlyn, we'll come back with just a couple of minor answers just about roof runoff, things like that. But if there's no further questions, we can certainly continue this. I, <v Speaker 9>I just had one.</v> So the, the new addition if you will, I just gonna use the same foundation that's already there for the garage. Is that the case or do you have to dig that up? That's what I was wondering. <v Speaker 8>I believe it's the same, but we can confirm that.</v> <v Speaker 1>Okay. Please do, are there questions?</v> Any questions from Abutters or on this? <v Speaker 2>We do have proof of a butter</v> notification in the Google Drive <v Speaker 1>Folder.</v> Yeah, I was gonna do that. Alright. Here in none because we have to continue this. There's no DEP file number. Would someone make a motion to continue this to February 6th please? <v Speaker 7>So moved.</v> <v Speaker 1>Thank you Michael. Is that seconded? Second.</v> Thank you Jeff. Any further discussion on this? All those in favor of the continuation in the room please, Chris? Yes, David? Yes. Alright. This has continued to February our meeting in Feb, our first meeting in February on February 6th, Caitlin, thank you. We look forward to seeing you back here then. Have <v Speaker 8>A good night. Thank you everyone. Thank</v> <v Speaker 1>You.</v> Take care. Alright, next item on the agenda. Oak Noll is done notice of intent for 11 Porter Road. Do we have any representatives of 11 Porter Road here? Yes, <v Speaker 2>We've got Mike Ette here in the room with us as well</v> as Debbie Anderson, professional wetland scientist and Tom Re professional engineer on the Zoom call. <v Speaker 1>Great. Lemme go ahead and formally open this.</v> So, in accordance with the Wetlands Protection Act and Nat Local Wetlands by Article 79, the Native Conservation Commission hold a public hearing and a notice of intent filed by Debbie Anderson, PWS representing Michael Law Debt No Home Contractors, Inc. For property, located 11 Porter Road Map 32 lot two 17. The proposal is for the demolition of an existing single family home and construction of a new single family home with associated site features. Welcome. Hello, how are you Matt? Good. Alright. Do you want Debbie to kind of talk us through it? Do you wanna go first? Mike? What's your Yeah, Debbie, you get the floor. That's okay. Okay. Debbie. <v Speaker 2>Debbie, do you want me to share the plans</v> or would you prefer to share them yourself? <v Speaker 10>Tom, did you wanna share your plan</v> or do you wanna have them? Tom Rider, the engineer on the project is Hey Tom? <v Speaker 11>Yeah, no, if, if Claire could share, it'll be great.</v> Okay, great. I'm sure if I have a lot of bandwidth over here. So <v Speaker 1>Do we have, do we have proof</v> of abut notifications and all the Yes. <v Speaker 2>Also in the drive folder. Lemme just,</v> <v Speaker 1>Alright, so Claire will call this up? Yes. And,</v> <v Speaker 10>Okay. Thank you Debbie.</v> <v Speaker 1>Debbie, if you can talk us through it, please.</v> <v Speaker 10>Sure. So we did just receive our DEP file number today,</v> 2 3 3 dash nine 15. So this project is a tear down and reconstruction of an existing single family house. The existing house is an 1,225 square foot Cape style house, which was constructed in 1949. It's located on the northeasterly side of Porter Road. Along the rear property line is an intermittent stream and associated bordering vegetated wetlands, which I delineated back in October. Among the plant species that I identified were a few invasive species, including bittersweet vines and garlic mustard. Approximately 40% of the lot is bordering vegetated wetlands and almost the entire lot is within the associated a hundred foot buffer zone to the wetlands. So the existing impervious area on the lot is 1,613 square feet. The proposed conditions will increase impervious area by 1,307 square feet for a total of 3000 square feet of impervious area. No trees or native vegetation will need to be removed for this project. So currently in the 40 foot no build are portions of an existing patio and a shed as well as some of the existing lawn and area proposed. The right rear corner of the proposed house is located within the 40 foot no build setback within the 25 foot, no disturbance existing. We have the shed and some lawn in that area. The existing shed is to be removed. We are proposing a chain link fence at the top of the slope above the wetland, which will act as permanent demarcation as well as for safety for, for children. We're proposing an intrusion of stairs associated with the proposed deck within the 25 foot, no disturbance area. So we're, we're proposing a suite of improvements to the site for the work that we are proposing. We have currently 732 square feet of maintained lawn within the 25 foot buffer. We've proposed a restoration planting area of approximately 1500 square feet in that hatched area. Yep. Thank you. So we're proposing 32 shrubs, sorry, 32. <v Speaker 2>I think it's 36. Debbie,</v> <v Speaker 10>Thank you very much.</v> It's a, the writing's a little small on my computer, but my eyes aren't as good as they used to be. So we're proposing to, to plant the shrubs and also seed it with a New England wetland plant conservation wildlife mix and also remove the invasives that are located in that area, which as I mentioned earlier, we're oriental bittersweet and garlic mustard. I did forward over a, an invasive species removal plan for those two species. I think that's kind of, kind of the gist of it. Happy to answer any questions. <v Speaker 2>I did put together some colored</v> plans just for the commission. That'd be helpful as is a a a bit of a tight lot. <v Speaker 10>Right. Thank you. Yeah,</v> <v Speaker 2>Just to go through some of the areas</v> that Debbie mentioned. So my quick key orange hashed is existing impervious area to be removed and restored to lawn orange is existing impervious area to remain impervious. So that's primarily the existing house and the existing driveway. There is some, a, a portion of the existing patio would technically be considered exempt impervious area due to its distance from the wetlands. So that has a mix hash of orange and pink as it is currently exempt impervious, but will become impervious and pink is the new impervious area. You'll note that the deck is fully pink. It's because it is almost entirely closer than 50 feet to the wetland. So it would not be considered an exempt structure. There is storm water management being provided. I did have some questions about the storm stormwater management. There's a response from the engineer by email in the Google Drive folder as well as Tom is on the call here tonight. We did receive that invasive species management plan that Debbie noted, and it does propose two years of mechanical management of the two species noted. So the, that is the bittersweet and the garlic mustard. And they are intended to do, like I said, two years of invasive species work with three sets of monitoring reports for 20 25, 20 26, and 2027 because of, of the sort of, I don't wanna say late nature, but these were submitted just a couple of hours before the meeting started. So I don't have conditions or anything ready and drafted for, for this particular project at this time. <v Speaker 1>Michael, what's the, what's the topography of the site?</v> <v Speaker 12>It, it slopes back slightly, ever so slightly.</v> It's relatively flat though. <v Speaker 2>It, it's about a three foot elevation change from the road</v> to the wetland edge pretty much. <v Speaker 1>And is is the house, the, the proposed house, is</v> that pulled up as close to the road as Yeah. As possible? Yeah. <v Speaker 12>Within, within,</v> <v Speaker 2>You can see the four</v> to six inches front edge of the house is right on the 30 foot set back line. Yeah. <v Speaker 1>All right.</v> <v Speaker 12>That, that shed is a 10 by</v> that structure is a 10 by 12 structure, 120 square feet. Okay. And that back corner of the proposed equates to about five and a half square feet. <v Speaker 2>There is no tree removal associated with the project.</v> Just as a note, there, there is one tree on the site that is proposed to receive tree protection and is outside of the demarcated erosion control barrier <v Speaker 12>Fence will be a a,</v> a black chain link fence about five feet high and it'll be six inches off the ground. <v Speaker 1>Could we get a voiceover on</v> the stormwater handling on site, please? Comm, I guess from from your side if that's, if you're up for it. <v Speaker 11>Yeah, so the roof drainage will, will collect</v> and go to an infiltration system. There are three Caltech units proposed in the back. <v Speaker 1>Those are the ones that are tucked under the deck.</v> <v Speaker 11>Yes, yes. Yep.</v> Try to meet as many setbacks as possible for these units. So there is, there was a question regarding the phasing of the construction. While these units, so if they're installed, you know, before the house is constructed, they're gonna have to protect them, mark 'em out, and perhaps can 'em afterwards. But if they're installed afterwards, they just have to take care not to damage the deck. The deck is gonna be up fairly high, so equipment can't really fit underneath there. Perhaps, perhaps underneath the deck could be used for storage afterwards, but, but there should be acce it should be accessible for cameraing and, and inspections later on. <v Speaker 2>Yeah, I think, Tom, my, my concern is just</v> how close the footings of the deck are to the limits of the proposed system. So just really making sure, and I'll, I'll, I'll write up some draft conditions for you guys to review to see if they're acceptable for how I think that that sort of inspections and phasing should go. <v Speaker 11>Yes. It, they'll be very close to the,</v> the footings would be very close to the, to the, to the aggregate of the system, but not to the chamber itself. So, okay. <v Speaker 1>Do the, do the stairs have to go on the, at the end</v> of the deck, on the back of the deck, could they not go off the side <v Speaker 12>In light of the bulkhead, Matt, which is,</v> which is not shown per se on this drawing, but where you see the, in the back, the rear of the house where you see that, <v Speaker 2>Is it right where TP one is? Mike? I just thought</v> <v Speaker 1>I was gonna say TP one. Yep.</v> <v Speaker 12>Yeah, TP one right around that area is</v> where the bulkhead comes out. <v Speaker 2>I guess, Mike, the question is could the stairs come down</v> along the side on this side? <v Speaker 1>Just, I mean, it's such a tight site</v> and we'd like to, you know, like to pull back as far as possible. I mean, I realize it's, you know, it's a tight site and you're right up against 30 foot, but if there was an opportunity to pull that stairwell off the side of the deck on the other side of the deck, right where it's going back, you know, it could be going back towards, you know, off to the side or, or there's kind of a side loading set of stairs, if you know what I mean. <v Speaker 13>You, is it you're digging a basement for the house?</v> <v Speaker 12>Yes.</v> <v Speaker 11>The, the only cons I,</v> the one concern I have is that, is that you, you're probably, you, you're dealing with the same amount of steps, but you're gonna be over the inspection port <v Speaker 1>For</v> <v Speaker 11>The co Do we need the reinspection reports?</v> Probably not, but the, the one, what I'm looking to is accessibility. <v Speaker 2>That's a good point, Tom.</v> <v Speaker 1>That is a good point.</v> Yeah. And it's, I mean, it's a, it's a relatively minor, it's, it, it's more of a on principle rather than a, the net increase in impact or the net, you know, the net increase of disturbance within that zone is minimal with the stairs. If there was an opportunity to pull it off to the side, I'd like to see that. But I, I agree. I think that, you know, we'd rather have the storm water system be fully accessible and maintainable and inspectable as as possible there. Where do you stand in the rest of the permitting process? I mean, <v Speaker 12>So ZBA approval, that's,</v> <v Speaker 1>You have that yet or not yet? Yes.</v> <v Speaker 12>That's, you do. That's recorded with the Okay. Registry.</v> <v Speaker 1>Yep. Okay.</v> <v Speaker 12>This is the</v> final candle, if you will. Okay. <v Speaker 1>All right. I guess I've got, no,</v> no further questions at this point. Any questions from the commission on the, from the, from others? <v Speaker 7>I'd love to see a stockpile area</v> since you're digging Yeah. <v Speaker 1>Digging foundations a</v> <v Speaker 12>Foundation</v> <v Speaker 7>And, and where that will be obviously located</v> and erosion control. <v Speaker 2>Yeah. Tom, is that a quick thing</v> that could be added to the plans? <v Speaker 11>Oh, sure. I would, I would put it in the, in the,</v> you know, closer to the front. Closer to the, yeah. Yeah. <v Speaker 2>Yeah. You've got a pretty good open front area here</v> that could, that could easily accommodate stockpiling. <v Speaker 12>Mike, you see that washout area? The circle? Yep. Yep.</v> <v Speaker 1>Yeah,</v> <v Speaker 11>I can, I,</v> I would add another one too. And then, <v Speaker 1>Alright.</v> <v Speaker 11>Right next to it.</v> <v Speaker 1>Other questions?</v> <v Speaker 13>One of the street photos cut</v> <v Speaker 11>Quick.</v> <v Speaker 13>Oh, oh, go ahead. Photo show. No, go ahead.</v> Right of the house, the driveway, there's a, a lot of trees that the property line is right at the edge of the driveway. There's discussion of, no, not having to do anything with the trees. <v Speaker 12>I'm not, there's, because this is in a neighborhood,</v> there's no need for a turnaround. Normally I would take the cluster of trees there down, but there's, I'm not doing a turnaround. <v Speaker 13>Alright. I mean the picture was a couple years old,</v> but it showed that they, there were, it was, I mean, it was right running against the drive the driveway. So there's, <v Speaker 12>If I could go to Google or there might be one. Oh,</v> <v Speaker 2>I've got it Mike,</v> <v Speaker 12>Don't worry. That's sort of over</v> <v Speaker 11>2025 Google Earth.</v> <v Speaker 13>That's pretty, yeah, because I don't think</v> <v Speaker 12>I might trim some of those trees up high to anything</v> that would be overhanging or, or a dangerous limb, if you will. <v Speaker 13>Because I think the property plant says that belongs</v> to the archdiocese too. <v Speaker 1>To the, to the neighbors anyway.</v> <v Speaker 13>Yeah, that native bring property, the abutting property,</v> so it belongs to the archdiocese. <v Speaker 12>I, I rent space over there in the back of St.</v> Leus with my construction equipment. <v Speaker 1>So, so, but your point, Mike, is, is that, that no, no.</v> Trees will come down. Maybe some pruning, maybe <v Speaker 12>Some pruning at</v> <v Speaker 13>Best.</v> Just really no trees are coming down. My computer is, I mean this is no picture in, unfortunately in the driveway. It's like the property line too fast. <v Speaker 1>Oh, he's saying very clearly he is not taking trees down.</v> Yeah. So that's the deal. Okay. Alright. So we, we do have a DEP file number for this, Claire, is that right? <v Speaker 2>Yes. 2 3 3 dash nine 15 was issued</v> via email today. Today. Jim freely? Yes. Okay. <v Speaker 1>Alright. Chris, you had a question?</v> <v Speaker 14>He just, he just nailed it. That was it.</v> I'm looking at a picture and it's pretty lush grove right. About where the house would be, the new house. So I mean, I, I would think that there would be a lot of pruning in order to accommodate the house and not, not have looks like foliage right on the roof. Chris, I'm looking at <v Speaker 2>The wrong side.</v> Yep. I realized it. I saw the 14 I think as soon as everybody else stood. There it is. That's <v Speaker 14>The, that's the picture.</v> I mean that's, that's substantial amount of pruning and you can already see that large tree is kind of hanging substantially into the, <v Speaker 1>But that, but first of all mean that's, that,</v> that's not the property, right? That's on St. Linus property. The, the trees. <v Speaker 2>Yes. Yes.</v> <v Speaker 1>Okay.</v> And then second of all, the applicant continues to maintain that no trees will be removed as <v Speaker 2>Part of this and we can add in condition language Yep.</v> To to to such effect. Absolutely. Pruning is obviously a, a BuyRight activity, but obviously conditioning that if anything is demonstrably harmed during construction activities, that that replacement is appropriate. <v Speaker 1>Okay.</v> <v Speaker 14>That that includes any sort of damage</v> to the tree due to pruning, correct? Yes. <v Speaker 2>Yes, exactly. Debbie, just a quick question for you.</v> Mike Downey noted in the site photos that it looks like there is maybe a tiny tree of heaven sapling growing up along the side of the house. <v Speaker 1>Oh, okay.</v> <v Speaker 2>Just to, yeah, just to raise,</v> I'll probably include a condition that says if any additional tree of heavens pop up during the duration of construction that they, they get addressed as part of the invasive species management. Just to keep sure. Thank, keep that one Buckeyes. They really are. They really, and those ones too, they'll just pop up at anywhere. <v Speaker 1>Yes, right. Will do. All right.</v> Any other questions here? <v Speaker 9>It, it looks like there's a big tree going</v> over the shed too. Am I, is I <v Speaker 1>Seeing that on the left hand side?</v> Yeah, I think it already got cut. Yeah, like it got cut. Looks like it was topped there. Oh <v Speaker 2>Yeah.</v> It looks like it's dead. You can see the, the top of the photo is <v Speaker 1>So I just assume that's coming out. Then</v> <v Speaker 11>I can share with you my screen if you want.</v> <v Speaker 2>Oh, it, it's okay. Tom, I've got it up right here.</v> I just need to pull up the, the sharing again. Yes, I was about to say I guess Mike, that is a good clarification point. Are you guys planning to remove this piece of fallen? Yes. Okay. Okay, <v Speaker 1>Cool.</v> I dunno, it's kind of a nice aesthetic look. The brambles the bramble. Right. Exactly. It's the great horned a home. Alright, any further questions on this? Right? Hearing none. So we've got, this is a notice of intent. Yes, this is, we have a DEP file number we can close. We do not have an order of conditions here this evening, which Claire could draft for our next meeting. Yes. If it's the, is there anyone from the public who wants to ask any questions about this project? <v Speaker 2>I believe the only member of the public on the call</v> tonight is here for the tree preservation bylaw. Great. <v Speaker 1>Alright. Hearing none. Happy</v> to entertain a motion to close. Motion. Close Right. Public hearing is our motion is made to close the public hearing on this, seconded by Jeff. Is there any further discussion on that? Alright. All those in favor of closing the public hearing in the room. Chris? Yes. David? Yes. All right. Public hearing's closed on this. We will draft order of conditions, address that at our next meeting. Go over it. Claire will share that with you before the meeting so you have any chance to comment on it. We'll go from there. Thank you, Matt. Alright. Thank you Claire. Thank you. Motion. Thank you. So would someone make a motion to continue this to February 6th please. So, thank you Jeff. Ten second. Second. Seconded. Thank you Michael. All those in any further discussion? Those in favor in the room, David? Yes. Chris? Yes. Alright. Continue to, or we will continue this to fe February 6th, our next meeting. Great. Thank you. Thank you sir. Thanks Michael. <v Speaker 2>Thanks.</v> <v Speaker 1>Thank you. Thank you.</v> Alright, let me six. All right. Next item on the agenda is the Lake Cochituate path project. And so the applicant has asked for a continuation on this. So we will go ahead and formally open it and then we will continue this right away to February 6th. <v Speaker 2>And just one quick note for the commissioner.</v> This project was not required to notice abutters because of its nature as a linear transit project. However, as the town has sort of served as a liaison with the abutting community throughout the public hearing design process required by MAs dot, I did reach out to all of the abutters whose email contact information. I had to let them know originally that this was gonna be discussed tonight. And then I also let them know that it was gonna be continued so that they did not waste their time. <v Speaker 1>Okay. So it's formally opened this.</v> So in accordance with the Wetlands Protection Act, the Natick local wetlands by Article 79, the NA Conservation Commission hold a public hearing on a notice of intent filed by Marissa Sefer, HNTV, representing Erica Larner Mass Highways for a linear trail project along Worcester Street, route nine. The proposal is for a new shared, for a new shared use path connecting Hartford Street to the constituent rail Trail. Applicant has requested a continuation of February 6th. Would someone make a motion to continue this to February 6th? So moved. Thank you, Jeff. Is that seconded? Seconded. Thank you Jim. Any further discussion on that? All is in the room, David? Yes. Chris? Yes. Alright. Continue to February 6th. <v Speaker 2>And that is, it's a very big plan set for that project.</v> Yes. So folks want any excerpts or colored plans or things like that, I'm happy to put stuff together, so just, just shoot me an email. Alright. <v Speaker 1>Alright. So that is that what I would propose is</v> that we've got a couple of, we've got some general business items. What I'd like to do is to pull the tree protection bylaw draft discussion up to the front and have that now. And then we can cover the rest of these things after. <v Speaker 2>Do you wanna do the invoice really quick first</v> just to get that outta the way? <v Speaker 1>Sure. Okay. We've got an invoice from Premier Fence.</v> Was this, this is, this says at Piro Pond. <v Speaker 2>Yeah. So on the weather Weathersfield side of Piro Pond at</v> 18, at the end of Huntington Street, where our parcel comes up right against the private property, a large, I wanna say roughly 32 inch diameter tree fell from our property onto the residential property. Nobody was hurt, no property damage occurred to the private property except the fence. Our, our, well the fence was our fence, so it was the town's responsibility to repair it. Arts crews cleaned up the fallen tree material and we repaired the fence as, okay. <v Speaker 1>So this the, the, this would come out</v> of our wetlands fund. <v Speaker 2>The, this could come out of the Wetlands fund</v> or it could come out of the Trails Fund it Open Space management. It's a weird alignment. <v Speaker 1>Take it outta the Wetlands Fund to keep our,</v> keep our Trails fund powder dry for trails. Got it. Because, 'cause there ain't no trails right around there. Okay. Would someone make a motion then to pay the invoice to Premier Friends for $1,468 and 95 cents out of our wetlands fund? So, motion to pay, I'll make, take David's motion and Jeff as a second if that's okay. All right. Any further discussion on that? All those in favor in the room, David? Yes. Chris? Yes. Alright, so we'll pay that invoice. Alright, now let's pull up the tree protection bylaw conversation here. So the objective here this evening, I think is to, you know, continue to discuss the outline of the conceptual outline that we currently have. I want to emphasize to anyone who's watching, listening, watching a recording, seeing transcripts, whatever, that this is a conceptual outline at this point in time. It's, you know, really meant as a start of a conversation that we'd have with the community, there will be an engagement process across the, the community to get input, to hear ideas, and to then make some modifications and adaptations based upon what we hear back from the community. We will be, you know, doing this with various groups, people, boards, departments, all of that. And so I expect this to change probably significantly over the next period of time. I think real, you know, realistically, we're looking at probably a, you know, a fall town meeting. This is not something we would be bringing, we're gonna be trying to fast track into Springtown meeting. But this is the beginning of a conversation around how can we as a community think about protecting the canopy cover that we have here in town. <v Speaker 2>And just to note that the town has submitted an</v> application to the MAPC technical Assistance program to provide additional assistance in the development of this bylaw. <v Speaker 1>And so the question that we're, you know,</v> or the the starting point, or the intention or the premise of this, of this bylaw or of this effort is that this, this commission, you know, kind of leading the charge on this tree tree protection bylaw feels that the protection, the maintenance of existing tree canopy in town is worth doing. And we want to find a, a mechanism to make that happen. And there's a variety of reasons for that. I can list my own reasons for it. You know, one, I mean, and we've, we, you know, those of us who have been on the board for a while, I mean, over the past 20 years that I've been on the board, and those who have been here longer, you know, have just seen a steady decrease in overall tree cover here in town. And there's a variety of reasons why we'd wanna preserve that storm. Water is a big reason why heat island effects, I mean, as temperatures are increasing to maintain temperatures at a, at a lower level, and that comes from shade. There are certainly some, some climate effects related to both carbon sequestration from the trees themselves. But it also, you know, related back to this, this heat island effect. You know, it's a, it's a cooler place when you have more shade, more trees also for property values. There's a good body of literature out there that says that communities that have more trees and protect their trees, average home prices are higher. And so all of those reasons in, in my book at least, are reasons why a, a discussion like this is worthwhile. But it has to be done carefully. You know, I think we, you know, in the conversations we've all had here, I think we're all very, you know, sensitive to private property rights. You know, people have their own property and, and they, I personally believe that they have a right to do with what they will on the property. However, the community also has a right to set some regulations around what people do on private property. You know, you can't build a skyscraper on your, on your private property. You can't blast loud music at all hours of the day from your private property. You know, so there's, you know, it's not an unusual thing for a community to set some regulations around what happens in town. The idea is though, is that, you know, this commission would be outlining a bylaw with a whole lot of input and engagement around it, and then putting it to town meeting, you know, this is a democracy. And so town meeting would be the ones who decide whether they like it or they don't. And if they like it, great. And if they don't, that's how democracy works. And so, you know, this is something that I, presumably this commission as we hammered into shape, we'll believe that it's the right thing to do, but ultimately it's up to the will of the voters to decide if that's something that they feel they want to implement in the, in the town. So, so that's, that's that, you know, the way that we are trying to design this law is to basically set up a mechanism so that as trees are removed, there is a mechanism to replace them. So that on average, over time, tree cover stays at its existing level or increases, ideally increases. And this would be a, you know, basically through through replanting efforts. We'll, we'll walk through in a second kind of how this outline is structured. Again, I want to keep emphasizing the outline because this is not decided, this is not final. This is, you know, a starting point for conversation. And we'll go through some of the basic principles here so we all, all on the same page here. So what, what I'll do is I'll just walk through these basic principles as they stand. And just to kind of give the highlights, there's a lot of detail. The way that this bylaw and a lot of bylaws are structured is that the bylaw itself outlines the conceptual regulation or the, the, you know, the, it's the framework. It's the framework. There would then be regulations that this commission would put into place in order to, you know, to flesh out how exactly we do it. And there would be a good bit of conversation and public meeting involved with that as well. <v Speaker 2>Matt, do you just wanna, I,</v> 'cause I met with art between our last meeting in this meeting. Do we wanna do a quick update on that before we dive into this? <v Speaker 1>Yeah. Great. Why don't you, why don't you share that?</v> So, so you know, as part of our early conversations, we're starting to bring in some of the kind of no-brainer folks and art Good behind the town tree warden is one of those. And so Claire, why don't you talk about the conversation you had with art? Yeah, <v Speaker 2>Absolutely.</v> So I met with art right before Christmas, if I'm remembering correctly. And we sort of went through some of the draft version, the draft version of the outline that we were sitting with at that time. Talked about a lot of the conversation points that the commission had brought up during the December 19th meeting, which I think was one of our really valuable conversations about the bylaw and art is very interested and very supportive. I think like a lot of staff and smaller department divisions here in town, sometimes we're working with limited manpower and limited resources. And so the idea of a tree committee that would be helping and supporting art, doing the work that he's doing now as well as potentially other and new work was something that he was very interested in. I know a lot of times the idea of a, a tree preservation bylaw comes up and it's sort of, well, who's the staff Who's gonna deal with this? And I think with the online permitting systems that we have in place currently and the idea of bringing in this committee as a potential, you know, sort of secondary resource to staff on this point. Really excited art. So I took some of my notes from our conversation, I think that, that were in the draft that you were editing. Yep. And following today's discussion, I hope to take this sort of conceptual outline. Some of Mike's comments from earlier drafts, this outline in our discussion notes tonight, to really try to flesh this out into something that looks a little bit more like a bylaw. Still noting that it's very draft very early, but just something that lives in the format that it might look like at the end to help put it into context for folks as we bring it out to the larger community. Right. <v Speaker 1>So again, just emphasizing the,</v> the early stages draft form of this, a lot of these, a lot of the concepts in here, some of the concepts may survive all the way through, some may change, some may drop out based on feedback, further conversations. There will be multiple public meetings moving forward. There'll be, if anyone wants to sit down and chat and have a coffee, have a beer or whatever and talk about it, you know, happy to do so. Really this is, this is an early stage conversation here. We talk about canopy cover and you know, really one of the premises or one of the, in the intentions of this is that, you know, the town, if the town votes, if town meeting votes, you know, if, if the residents vote through town meeting, which is how Natick does it, then you know, if they wish to enshrine tree, you know, protections for tree cover, canopy cover in town, you know, we would develop a methodology to measure that. There's all kinds of ways you can measure that. And we would be monitoring that on an annual basis to, to, to see how we're doing against that. So the basic principles, so Natick Shalum panel, a tree committee, which would include a member of the conservation commission that the Natick tree warden the Board of Health and four members at large appointed by the select board to administer the bylaw. Again, any, any of that could change, but that's, that's how it's structured right now. The role of this committee would be to oversee the use of the tree fund. I'll talk about the tree fund in a second. Provide support for existing and future tree planting efforts in town and prepare an annual report documenting natick's progress towards achieving the goals of the bylaw ba, basically the preservation or extension or expansion of tree cover, as well as the disposition of all of all fees that are collected and spent under the bylaw there. So who is, or what is, what is subject to this? What is this cover? So trees above six inch, DBH diameter at breast height. So that's chest height are those tree, you know, those, that's the target of this, of this bylaw. So trees above six inches, DVH on private non-public property are subject to this bylaw in any associated regulations. One point of conversation, one thing we can talk about is whether we want to, you know, have townland also be subject to this as well. That's an option. The draft form of this. It's, you know, it it, you know, it would, it would either be private and public or just private. 'cause if the town can manage it itself, but that's all a conversation to have. There would be exemptions, trees that are dead diseased as documented by a certified arborist as being untreatable invasive species with which there's many or trees that present a documented danger to people or property, again, as documented by a certified arborist shall be exempt. And so if you have a tree that's gonna fall down and potentially hurt somebody, if it's an invasive species, if it's dead, if it's diseased or whatever, that would be exempt. It would not be subject to this bylaw. The exemptions would be determined by the tree warden, the conservation, the tree committee and or a certified arborist and documentation demonstrating the exemption needs to be, needs to be provided shown that that is in fact the case. So tree removal and mitigation process. What happens if someone wants to cut down a tree? So property owners of any subject tree that's not exempt, who wanna, who wanna remove the tree needs to, shall apply for a tree removal permit through the community development office in order to proceed with that tree removal work. So if you have a six inch or bigger tree that is not exempt, you come and you, and you, you come to the office here and you apply for a permit to remove it, applications to remove subject trees shall be administratively approved. If the property owner presents appropriate documentation from a certified arborist showing, hang on a second, shall administratively approved, the property owner presents appropriate documentation for certified arborists documenting an exempt tree or appropriate an appropriate tree replanting plan based on the regulations associated with the bylaw. Or pays a fee that would fund a replacement trees to be planted by the town. So to, again, we need to wordsmith this more clearly, but basically that if you wanna, if you wanna remove a non-exempt tree from your property, then you come and you, you can remove it. There is, the way that this is written right now is that there is almost no circumstance under which we, you know, any board, commission or whoever would say you, you know, sorry, you can't remove that tree. You can remove it if you have an appropriate replanting plan on your property or if you pay a fee that would fund replacement trees and that would go into this tree fund and that tree fund would then be dis dispersed by the tree committee for replanting at an appropriate location in town. That's, that's basically the idea. So such replanting plans or assessed fees will be, you know, these fees will be assessed based on the size, the species, the number of trees that are removed and the formulas and guidelines that calculate the fees and or replanting guidelines would be developed and revised annually by the tree committee. You know, prices for re you know, my goal, I think our goal or what the proposed goal is that there's just a very straight line connection between the fee that you pay and that goes to pay for trees to be replaced and those trees would be replaced somewhere else, somewhere in town. And there would be a formula developed that says over X number of years these replacement trees would grow and replace that tree canopy cover of the tree that's being removed. <v Speaker 2>And Mike has provided some good resources</v> that I'm incorporating into the, it's, <v Speaker 1>Yep, it's science, you know, and there's formulas</v> and there's a lot of data out there about how you can calculate, how you can calculate that. If the required amount of replacement plantings for the proposed removal isn't feasible on the subject lot, then the, the property owner could, you know, pay into this fund or they could, if there's only a, a place to plant one tree on their lot, they could pay for, they could have a fee that repla that they could plant one tree and then have a reduced fee that covers a few more replacement trees that would go somewhere else in town. That's, that's the idea there. Any replanting plans that are present that do not comply with the formulas and guidelines referred to above shall be subject to review and app, an approval or non-approval by the tree committee. So that's the one place is that if someone wants to remove a tree and comes in and says, I'm just gonna replace it with half of what the town thinks you need to replace it with, that's where the tree committee, you know, there could be a non-approval of that, of that tree removal. If you come in and you follow the formulas that are, that are prescribed, then you'll be, you can on the spot, you can be administratively approved to remove the tree there property or so enforcement property owners who violate the terms of this bylaw shall be subject to fines equivalent to the deposits that they would've had to make otherwise into the tree fund. So there's nothing punitive about it, it's just, you know, you just have to pay that fee. Yep. That, that would've had to have been paid anyway. Use of proceeds. So permit application fees shall be used to fund replacement tree planting on public lands and or deposited into a tree fund to, to be used only for future tree planting efforts. Or the assessment of trees being considered for removal for eligible properties or canopy tree management throughout town. Canopy tree management includes, was not limited to pruning for health treatment, for pest diseases study or review of canopy status in town. The intent is that the, you know, the funds would be used to fund replacement trees, you know, and, and almost in its entirety, I think there's some room for us to fine tune that, to make sure that we've really got transparency and accountability, that that's what those funds are being used for. Funds in lieu of, of, you know, funds that are, this tree fund may be applied to tree replacement on the subject property are elsewhere in town at the discretion of the tree committee with appropriate landowner approval where needed. One thing, for example, could we use the tree? You know, could people, could residents apply to the tree fund to have a tree planted on their property, on private property? I don't know. You know, we'd have to talk to town council about whether that's, or <v Speaker 2>I think could the tree fund be used</v> to support the existing strategic tree planting program that ha it has a formula in place an application in place that we could just sort of support that process. All, all to be discussed. Supplement arts budget. Yeah. <v Speaker 1>Requirements for replacement trees replacement planting</v> shall be selected to provide equivalent or greater canopy coverage within a set amount of time based on the selected species for replanting and the project. The canopy replacement calculations will be based on credible vetted research that shows trees expected growth rates and canopy coverage projections. Combination of trees and other planting types may be considered based on remaining canopy coverage on the subject site. And the specifics of the project. Replacement planting shall be selected from a list of native species provided by the town. For those who may not be aware, we have a whole lot of, in, there's a lot of invasive trees here in town Norway. Maples is one of them. They would be exempt first and foremost. We just wanna make sure that we're, you know, from the tree bylaw. We also just wanna make sure that we're not compounding the problem and bringing more invasive species into the into town. <v Speaker 2>Though thankfully Bradford pears have now been listed God,</v> and so we are hopefully not <v Speaker 1>Gonna, never gonna use those</v> <v Speaker 2>Again.</v> See anymore of those anytime soon. <v Speaker 1>Replacement trees shall have a five</v> year survival requirement. Should replacement plantings die within a five year period, they shall be replaced by the property owner at their cost with the same species unless otherwise approved by the tree committee or their designated agent. <v Speaker 2>And this was one thing that art had notes about in terms</v> of just being really thoughtful and careful in, in enforcement. We don't necessarily wanna set ourselves up to be, I guess, putting regulations in place that aren't gonna be enforced. <v Speaker 1>That's a great, that that's a great point. Income and age.</v> Age exemptions. Residents who qualify, age related residents who qualify for age related tax abatements or income based relief as determined by the Natick assessor's office, shall be exempt from permit fees and may ac access excess funds from the tree fund to assess existing trees being considered for removal and or provide replacement trees in order to meet bylaw requirements. We want to, you know, carve out again, on, on an income basis, on a, on an age basis that, that, you know, you would get some relief from this. One thing to note, tree tree funds cannot be used to fund the removal of trees on private property. Just as a, as a detail there. So that is the working outline there. Again, the, the nuts and bolts of it. A native, you know, a, a tree that's not exempt. Dead disease, dangerous, invasive above six inches, dia six inches diameter that you wanna remove. You gotta get a permit that, and you, you either have to replace the tree with tree plantings according to a formula, or you have to pay into a tree fund where that the amount of the tree of the payment of, of the permit fee would be related to essentially the cost of trees, replacement trees that would then be planted somewhere else in town. That that's the goal. So, <v Speaker 2>And part of my next steps is bringing in scientific</v> and research citations. Yeah. Into this language to, I've <v Speaker 1>Got it.</v> Mike's, Mike's provided a bunch. <v Speaker 2>Mike, Mike has been,</v> <v Speaker 1>I've got a bunch. You know,</v> <v Speaker 2>I it's fantastic to receive them. Yeah.</v> <v Speaker 1>It can be a very mechanical calculation.</v> So with that so far, commissioner, I mean, is there any, anything that, that, you know, you, you're hearing in terms of what I just outlined, that you would not want to have, be part of just socializing conversations? Just to put this in front of people and to say, Hey, what do you think, you know, what do you like? What do you not like? What would you like to see change? There are gonna, there, there are gonna be some people who think this doesn't go far enough and there's gonna be people who say this already is absolutely unacceptable. You know, that's just the reality of kind of perspectives on this. Is there anything that this commission right now feels, let's not even air that or put that in front of anybody for comment at this point, that you're just not comfortable with that at this point. <v Speaker 2>And just as an overview to date,</v> the public involvement have been the attendance at conservation commission meetings. And there have been a, a select couple of folks who have reached out to provide more detailed feedback on the bylaw to date. But we have not taken this out to, you know, the select board or, or taken it to any of these groups to date because the commission has really been hammering down on the, I think the purpose and intent. <v Speaker 1>Right. And so once, once we finalize</v> or once we get comfortable with the basic concept of this draft form, again, just emphasizing basic concept of this draft form, you know, we will start socializing it. I've, I've started having conversations one-on-one with people sitting with a coffee, putting bullet points in front of people. What do you think? You know, you like, no, like whatever. We will start to present this in various boards and commission meetings just to get feedback. Select board planning, ZBA open space board of health to hear what they think DPW certainly from town departments there. And also individuals, community groups, community, you know, citizens. Just to hear, hear feedback on it. And then to take all that information and feedback, come back and revise and revise. And then c you know, get to a place where we feel like we've got something that addresses the intent that we're trying to acco, you know, of what we're trying to accomplish. And does so in a way that considers everyone, you know, as many perspectives as possible. Anything like this, we're not gonna make everybody happy. Hmm. You know, there's gonna be folks that don't like it, folks that don't think it goes far enough. Whatever, you know, that, that's fine. Let's hear as many voices as possible as we're doing this. So any comments or questions at this point <v Speaker 9>Right now?</v> You considering public and private or just private property? What are we talking <v Speaker 1>About?</v> That's, that's a great question, Claire. What's, what's your, what's your feeling about, I was having a conversation earlier today with someone and they're like, why not have the town, you know, town property also be subject to this? <v Speaker 2>Yeah. So I think that there are a lot of pros</v> and cons to both sides of the issue. The one thing that I think leans more towards not including public property on in this bylaw, and I know it's gonna come off as bias 'cause I am town staff, but all vegetation management on the town. Public property is subject to a vegetation management plan, which is reviewed and approved at the state level. This, you know, goes all the way from herbicide, pesticide treatments. It also usually is integrated with the integrated pest management plan. They're very similar processes and approvals as well as, I do not believe the town can take jurisdiction over state and federally owned properties. <v Speaker 1>I'd love to do. No, I'm kidding.</v> <v Speaker 2>I'm kidding. So I guess the question is do, especially</v> with art being so on board and this town committee being so on board is, is there a real value for including town property in this, when there are already sort of review processes and procedures when it comes to vegetation management on town property? And also I think Jeff sent around a picture he saw earlier of the public tree hearing notice in Cambridge, the town is required to hold public tree hearings on the removal of any identified public shade trees or on the removal of any trees on a scenic road. I believe there are five scenic roads in Natick. So there are existing approval methods that we could reference in this bylaw as sort of steps that are already being taken to address those types of tree removals. And I think that, again, there's always gonna be exemptions, you know, for public safety issues when it comes to those processes. <v Speaker 1>The question I have is, I mean I've, I've, I've got a lot</v> of confidence in the town and its intentions around, around that. I do worry about the optics Yeah. Of the town of this, this commission for example, put putting forth a proposed bylaw for town meeting to consider and where the town town is saying, yeah, but it doesn't cover us. You know, if the town, I would feel more comfortable if the town could document and say, listen, we have this policy in place that when we cut down a tree, we, we, we, we replant, you know, something like that. Yep. If the town would be willing, even if the town was not formally subject, but it had an operating policy that was consistent with the goals of this bylaw, I, I would feel more comfortable with that. I don't like the, I mean, again, I don't question the intentions. I know that the town cares about this stuff. Yep. But I think optically it would be a bit of an easier sell and it would avoid a very clear pitfall in the negotiation process. In the socialization process if we were to say, yeah, you know, for various reasons the town's not technically included, but they've got policies in place where they, they comply with, with the, the ideas. Yeah. <v Speaker 2>And I, I'll definitely bring that up to art.</v> I think public works should probably be the most appropriate entity to make such a policy given that they're the department that's doing the tree removal work when it's being done. <v Speaker 1>David, you had a question?</v> <v Speaker 5>I, I was just gonna, I,</v> I feel the same way you do. I think it's a mistake not to include the town. Yeah. <v Speaker 1>Fair appreciate that.</v> <v Speaker 3>'cause the people who are gonna be against it are gonna</v> say what's good for the goose is good for theand. You know, it's, <v Speaker 1>Well that never happens. It's</v> <v Speaker 3>Gonna give 'em an excuse to vote against it. Agreed.</v> <v Speaker 7>And it's, I know we don't have a bylaw,</v> but would the town Forest Meadow project have been done and been allowable? <v Speaker 1>That's a, that's a great point.</v> You know, and, and may, you know, I I could imagine there being, would <v Speaker 7>You have an exemption from I</v> <v Speaker 2>Was just gonna say</v> <v Speaker 7>Habitat</v> <v Speaker 1>Exactly.</v> Or something to, right. I mean, 'cause you know, the, the environmental value of the Meadow Project in Town Forest that did cut down a bunch of white pines and a few other trees. There's a significant environmental value to that. And I would argue, you know, I'd argue that up one side and down the other. But, but all that being said, I think we would need to be very deliberate in that and explicit that there are some cases where, you know, a habitat restoration project in a <v Speaker 2>And I think that's a great opportunity</v> for the tree committee to then come in and be a reviewer and an approver in that process. You know, that that would not qualify for the administrative approval. Definitely. Right. <v Speaker 1>And I just wanna emphasize the</v> administrative approval part of this. I mean, again, you know, for me, I mean I'm very sympathetic to to, to private property rights. I mean, I personally would never live in a place that had an HOA, you know, I don't want someone telling me what I can and can't do to my property. But I do believe that communities have the rights to regulate themselves to a certain extent. <v Speaker 2>Well, and I think on an issue like this where it truly is,</v> you know, it's a climate resiliency, it's a public health, it's a, a community value issue. And I think that that is the purpose of essentially the home rule allowance in mass general law, is that communities have an understanding of what those values are within their community and they should be able to put regulations in place to protect those values. <v Speaker 1>Yeah. And we do it all the time. Exactly.</v> Zoning, zoning laws, you know, are exactly, are exactly that. Yeah. Jeff, <v Speaker 13>You know, and I think about just kind of the process</v> of it, you know, Joe property owner wants to take a tree walks downtown, comes in here. Is is every day, is there a line going down the stairs of people wanting to take, well, <v Speaker 2>The beauty is it's all online,</v> <v Speaker 13>But there's an administrative approval.</v> Is that, is that in real time? <v Speaker 2>It is in real time. So when I click complete step on a,</v> a workflow step in OpenGov, the applicant on that filing immediately gets an email notification saying, X, YZ has been completed on your filing or whatever the appropriate language is for the step that's been completed. But it really is, I mean, building permits come in and I would say, you know, peg the office manager in CED or one of the other admin staff is doing an intake review essentially, which would be, I think a similar review process to this administrative approval. And that happens usually at most, within 48 hours. And that's usually because somebody filed it on Friday after we've closed and we don't pick it up again until Monday when we're back in the office. I think that there would also, and I don't think the outline says this currently, but I know it's appeared in some previous drafts, is exemptions for like acts of gods and things like that, that, that require immediate attention is, you know, if a tree limb has broken and a storm and is dangling, or a tree is broken, is dangling over somebody's house, you know, they can, you know, call up the office or take the appropriate documentation, take the action steps that are necessary and then follow up. And again, this is the, the word smithing and the building out of the language that we're gonna continue to work on. <v Speaker 5>Yeah. I lot of the bylaws</v> <v Speaker 9>Even talk about a duration that, you know,</v> like they'll give you 10 days and within 10 days we'll tell you whether your permit's accepted or not. <v Speaker 2>Yeah. That, that's how our, our water bylaw operates 10</v> business days to review and approve or, or issue comments. <v Speaker 1>Hey David?</v> <v Speaker 5>Yeah, Claire?</v> I was gonna say, I think the, I think it's very clever in here that a non-compliant instance is there's no onerous fee. You just have to pay what you would've paid if you'd gone through the process. I, I, I actually think that's very clever. So that if you've got an emergency sit, emergency situation and, and you know, I feel I need to cut a tree down, I cut it down and then, you know, I go back through the process and, and I, and I pay the fee that I would've paid if I'd gone through the process. I think it's very clever. <v Speaker 1>I think the one, the, the one place</v> that came up in a conversation that I had with someone is, you know, in some neighborhoods, you know, there's these iconic, you know, you got a 36 inch oak that's been there, you know, that's a hundred year, 150 years old. I mean, Michael, tell me how old the 36 inch oak is, but some giant tree that's just been, been like a neighborhood landmark. And you know, the way this draft, this concept is outlined, if you own the property, you have the right to cut it down and, you know, there's a, a fee associated with it so that that canopy cover could be replaced or will be replaced over time. But it's, you know, if you're the private property owner, you're the property owner. <v Speaker 2>And I, I, I</v> <v Speaker 1>Think and you get to do it and,</v> and it's, it's an administrative approval. I, I would, you know, my hope is that people would, you know, if you own a big iconic 36 inch joke on your property that kids have grown up under and swung under and gotten married under whatever, that people would have the neighborly decency to be able to communicate with neighbors and all that stuff. But fundamentally it's private property and you get to do what all we're asking for is what, what this would require is we gotta replace the canopy cover for all the reasons that we outlined. And, and <v Speaker 5>In that example, a resident will</v> and a developer won't, let's be honest. <v Speaker 1>Fair, fair enough, David.</v> And, and some, you know, another conversation that I had is someone said, well how does this relate to large scale developments? Yeah. You know, which is, which is one of the motivators for this whole conversation is, you know, we all, I mean, I think one of the things that pushed us over the edge a little bit, you know, we've, we've been talking, we've been talking about this for 10 years in, in some way or another, but there's been instances recently where developers come in and they clear, clear cut just cus site remove every living tree over a multiple acre site. You know, the instances of that happening, you know, over, over the, in the near future are getting more and more limited just 'cause there's not that many sites for development at that scale. At the same time though, it, there is the incremental issue of single trees. Yep. You know, large single trees and multiple large single trees on individual lots adds up to a lot of tree cover that's been lost. And so we gotta, you know, so ev everyone would be subject to this developers, whoever owns the property, whoever controls the property, you know, if you want to cut down 60 trees, there's gonna be a pretty substantial fee associated with that. So we can replace those. If it's a single tree, there's gonna be a modest fee associated with that. So we can replace that. <v Speaker 2>And there is, if,</v> if the commission felt like this was something we wanted to pursue, Massachusetts does have what's known as a legacy tree program where trees can be registered as part of this program. And it doesn't do much except they get listed on the website. But if the town wanted to, we could incorporate prohibitions on the removal of legacy trees as these are generally trees that are being identified as either sub significant size and value in terms of their environmental benefits or have been registered because of their, I believe is it the station tree? <v Speaker 1>The station tree in west Exactly. Natick, western lines,</v> <v Speaker 2>Yes.</v> Is the one that sort of comes to mind when I think about those Right. Kinds of, <v Speaker 1>It'd be tragedy if that tree that's been around</v> for hundreds of years if that tree was cut down by, I mean, who owns that river school, I guess. <v Speaker 2>I believe so, yes. Right away. I I think it's right on the</v> <v Speaker 1>Line.</v> Yeah. It's, it's in the right of way. But anyway, so are there any, any other kind of tweaks or adjustments, things that, you know, the one I wanna note is the, having the town consider, we should consider whether the town is subject to this. And I think that'll take some conversations. That'll be an interesting, interesting set of conversations, but it's certainly worth exploring. Are there any other points that we'd like to see that the commission right now, and then I wanna open it up for comment and question from others I just <v Speaker 3>Have is I think you're going to see is happening in most</v> of our neighborhoods, the small capes, which are surrounded by trees, big trees, a hundred years 'cause the cape has been there or whatever else, and they're being replaced by a house that has almost no grass, <v Speaker 1>Almost no yard. Yard.</v> <v Speaker 3>And all the trees have to come down to build that house.</v> Right. I think that's gonna be one of the major areas of losing some very significant trees. Right. <v Speaker 1>Which would be unfortunate as</v> <v Speaker 3>You see it.</v> I mean, we just talked about it earlier, the McMansions are taking over all the little capes. Yeah. <v Speaker 1>Michael, do you</v> <v Speaker 7>Yeah, I, I think, you know,</v> I I don't want to, I I know the public has a lot to say about this, so I would say the, the area that I see where, where there's going to, we've put a lot of effort into it, but I think where the effort is around kind of the, the survival and the replacement and Right. And that process and, and where my brain goes to typically is, is if the, if the bylaws looking at six inches and and larger, then that replacement tree needs to get the six inches. <v Speaker 1>Exactly. That,</v> <v Speaker 7>That and, and or else the whole concept.</v> It, it doesn't, you know, the five year thing, I, I I think it just needs, you know, but again, it's to kind of art's point and Claire's and others is, you know, how do you monitor that? You know, that becomes rather challenging without some sort of GIS and and and making sure that we're inherently documenting each one of these replacement trees. But that, that's where my brain is like, like most of this is, I think, is it, I won't say an easy lift, but a, a fairly easy lift and but this idea of when that tree gets re when that replacement tree gets planted, what's that look like? Yeah, that's a great point. What does that mean? Yeah, <v Speaker 1>That's a great point.</v> Any other comments from the board right now? <v Speaker 13>I think there's gonna be contention always around,</v> you know, give people money, watch 'em act funny. Right? So there's gonna be, we've always had that if, if it begins to generate money, then it's like, what are you doing with it? How are you spending it? You <v Speaker 1>Know, I think that's where the community tree report</v> and the tree committee to have a 100% transparent. Here's <v Speaker 13>All the spent on ongoing.</v> Is it only, does it come together at certain times of the year? Is there gonna be people coming in, you know, if there's money spent linked to survivability at five years, and then if there's, you know, you multiply those out too. You spend money, you buy trees, you buy more, you five years, some of those fall in and you have to reinvest that money. You could be, you know, do you, do you go into a hole, pay, pay into a hole? If you lose you, if there's some reason why all of a sudden they don't take, you don't want to just keep lending into that hole and never, you never get it back, you know? So I think the management of the money would be the most challenging thing other than the administrative appro the process of keeping the flow going so people see that, okay, I can make it, make the request to hang around for a long time. And then there's the money aspect of it. Yeah. <v Speaker 2>I think,</v> <v Speaker 3>Well it behooves the commission to</v> look at every one of those and brainstorm every question we think is gonna be yes. Because we, it's been basically this commission that has discussed it at the moment, you're going to have people, people who listen to this commission are gonna be in favor of it for the most part when it gets out there. I'd be surprised having gone through it in the seventies when the developers hear about it and start campaigning, it's gonna be a whole different ballgame. Right? <v Speaker 13>Yeah. There'll be a box of</v> <v Speaker 3>Kleenex, I think.</v> Right. At the, <v Speaker 9>To me the, the biggest challenge is this mechanical</v> cost estimate that you're talking about. Right. To do replacement. That's, we've seen it, I mean Massachusetts, most of the places use the real simple method. Yeah. I think we want to use the more canopy method, which I've seen different variations like in Virginia or wherever scientific Yeah. Whatever you want to call it. Right. The, the, the person that's going to vote for the bylaw wants to know, Hey, I take an oak down, how much? Right. 'cause Right. It's pretty expensive to call up stump be or whoever it is, right. And say, Hey, that's, that's $2,000 to take that down. Oh yeah. But I I gotta pay it 2000, another 2000. Right. To, to get, I don't, it'll the replacement. I don't think it'll be that much. I hope not, but no, I'm just giving Yeah. Examples, you knows well taken. So, so yeah. The simpler we can make that I think and present it so it's not so bad. But then for a developer it would be interesting too, on a big development. They come in and they're gonna clear cut this, what's the <v Speaker 2>Multiplier?</v> I did hear from, from one developer who had been listening because he was on an agenda and he said that the way that we were talking about this bylaw did not make him as nervous as a bylaw, like Wellesley's bylaw would make him, because the reality is, it's, it's not a punitive process. I think as Matt mentioned, like it's intended to be streamlined, it's intended to hopefully not be a burden on folks who are applying for it. But I think that the, the cost factor is gonna be less of a deciding factor for a developer in terms of cost of permit fees and removal fees and things like that. Because in theory, they're building that into the sale of the home. At the end of the day. I think that potentially the folks who are gonna raise more concerns about the, the cost and the fees associated with the bylaw are the residential homeowners who are, are already potentially paying $2,000 to a tree removal company who are like, well now I gotta pay this on top of it. So I think that there's gonna be, there's gonna have to be a balance. And I think the reality is like every bylaw, we're never gonna make everybody happy. But I think it's about focusing in on those objectives and those goals and, and how can we with the least burden to the community protect those. <v Speaker 7>Yeah. You're replacing trees</v> and the, you know, if this is done thoughtfully, then you're going to start to get ahead and get more trees in the ground in places where there aren't trees. Right. Which is the goal. The whole, the mo probably the most important part of this is getting trees where they're not right now. Right. <v Speaker 2>Best time to plant trees</v> <v Speaker 1>10 years now.</v> Alright, so with, with that, what I'd like to do is open that up for, or just open this up for a few comments. I know there's a few people I see Ms. Mackley had her hand raised. If, if you would just kind of introduce yourself and then let's hear your, your question or comment please. <v Speaker 15>Yes. Hi there. Good evening.</v> My name's Lauren, and first of all, I really appreciate you all. I just wanna say that you all have put a lot of thought into this. Obviously it's a lot of expertise it sounds like on the commission. And I just wanted to thank you for doing what you're doing overall, and especially that you're bringing this bylaw to the forefront. I walk with my dog four miles every day and I am, it, it, it's really just shocking to me how few trees relative to where I've lived in the past. And most recently before I moved to Natick five years ago or five and a half years ago or so, I was in Newton for 16 years and while I was listening, I looked up to see, you had mentioned that Wellesley has a tree bylaw and I was curious, I looked up while I was listening and sure enough Newton does as well. Yep. And both, both places are so much more lush. And I was shocked when I, when I came to Natick and I've always like wondered what what's going on. And I've heard a mixture of things. I've heard that there's a lot of disease trees in Natick. I also heard that it's a, it's a lack of maintenance or maintenance issue and, and resources, you know, for maintenance and things like that. But I can walk an hour with my dog and, and have absolutely zero shade. And, and then on my street I live on Capitate Street and all of a sudden I, you know, I I went away for a couple of days and I came back and the, all the green area that was behind the, what used to be Stones Auto, I don't, I can't remember what it's called now, but that whole green area, I don't know if any of you have noticed is com was completely destroyed and it's all just like a, a dirt road, dirt area and they use it for parking. And I was just like appalled that there was no notice, there was no input from the residents or the town that they could just destroy, you know, all these trees and all this greenery and, and it just broke my heart. And so every time I see another tree cut down and I see them all the time because we walk all over the place, it, it really just disheartens me. And I promoted this meeting tonight and I I posted it on the Ick Community Group page and I tried to post it on the Natick Talks and they declined it. And I was, I'm kind of shocked that I seem to be the only resident. I think some, I'm the only resident on this call tonight. And it, and I know that more people care about this and feel like I do and are really concerned because even with the replacement program, it's gonna take so long for those new baby trees to provide any kind of coverage. And as you know, as, as we've all seen, I think last year was the hottest year on record. And the, the climate just seems to be changing at, at a much more accelerated pace than I think was sort of predicted. And, and I think it caught even the, the scientists by surprise how fast it's, it's going. So it concerns me while I'm thrilled that there is a replacement, you know, program as part of this, but I, I think that, I don't know, I I personally would be more toward you. You said it's kind of punitive in Wellesley. I don't know what that exactly means, but I, I don't think it's bad to be a little bit hard handed here because we are really in a, in a, you know, pretty grave and dire situation and there's no shade in in town. You know, walking around through Natick Center, there's just no shade. You know, you get over to Coolidge, you know, over that by the field and, and the, the park there, not the the hill there, but even the park, like, there's just, they just cut more trees, you know, the Verizon building, they just, they just cut three more trees down. Thank you. And I asked the, the man that was cutting 'em and he said, oh, they, they're dead. And I don't, I mean, if we have all these, these trees that are sick and natick, I guess one question I would have is why are, why were our trees? So, you know, diseased and Wellesley had, has not had that issue or, or Newton hasn't had that issue. Or at least to the degree that na nata calves, but maybe Natick didn't have as many trees to begin with. I don't know. 'cause I'm new, but anyway, I'll be quiet now, but I just wanted to kind of weigh in a little bit and tell you I'm thrilled that this is on the table and I also want to just say, I really, really hope that the town is gonna be included in this. And and I think, you know, I also have concern, and I know this is not, this is off topic, but I'll just throw it in here. I also have a lot of concern about the herbicides that are used and that we're still, you know, allowing pesticides. And I had a guy on my street spraying in the gutter on the public street roundup this summer. And you know, I, I tried to get him to stop and he wouldn't because I lived downhill from there and I have a pet and I didn't want it on my property, you know, and I just, I would love to see Natick become more environmentally sensitive around these things than I think we are currently. And so I'm, you know, I I want to contribute and support and thank you for doing this. <v Speaker 1>Great. Thank you for the comment. I appreciate that.</v> Other comments would, yeah. Thank you. <v Speaker 2>Would you mind coming up the podium? You talk to</v> <v Speaker 1>The podium and, and, and, yeah, yeah.</v> No, all, all, all official. And introduce yourself and then, and let's hear what's on your mind. Sure. <v Speaker 16>Gosh, I, I I had</v> done a little research and made some notes. <v Speaker 2>If you could just introduce yourself for the record.</v> <v Speaker 16>Yeah, sure. My name's Glen Opel.</v> I live on Pond Street and I think it's, this is an admirable goal to increase the canopy in town. I, I think it's a wonderful thing and I've, but I'm concerned about the approaches and, and I want to be really thoughtful about how we do this as a town. First of all, Matt, as you had mentioned, you know, the whole question about property rights, I think we need to be really thoughtful about that and make sure that we are not overreaching the law and extending into areas that we may not, that the town may not be comfortable with. One of the things that that is, is mentioned is, is that one of the main concerns is that construction projects, either demos and building new places or additions, just construction projects in general have led to a lot of the loss of the canopy. It seems to me that this approach though isn't addressing construction at all necessarily. It's addressing, it's being levied against all property owners in the town. And it's very broad and that's one of the reasons I think the property concerns would be there. So I think the scope is huge because it, it does encompass every piece of property. And because of the large scope, I'm concerned that enforcement would be difficult as well. Trying to cover every single lot in town would be very difficult for the tree warden nor anybody to really manage. So I have a concern about that and something to be thinking about. Furthermore, excuse me, the, I have a concern about the proposed implementation and the economics not necessarily working as we might expect. And that is because it places an overdue burden on people in the town, property owners in the town who actually already have trees on their property. Right? Because if you don't have a tree on your property, it doesn't affect you at all. But if you have a lot of trees, you will be looking toward taking some down at some point in the future just because that's what trees do, right. And so to some extent it incentivizes cutting of trees before this goes into effect. <v Speaker 2>Just as a quick note, so the stormwater bylaw does require</v> permits for any land disturbance over 3000 square feet. And that does include tree clearing. So there are some mechanisms in place. <v Speaker 16>Okay. Additionally,</v> I think there may be an incentive in going forward in the future to cut trees as they're approaching that six inch diameter, so that they don't necessarily need to deal with, you know, the regulations that, that are in place. So just some things to think about and I, you know, as we're approaching it and kind of coming up with ideas and approaches, let's be really thoughtful and look at not just our intended consequences, but the unintended consequences of our <v Speaker 1>Actions.</v> Yeah, fair. I appreciate that. Thank you. Very good. Yeah, good points. Very good. Other, any other comments at this point? Yes, please. Good to see you. Welcome. <v Speaker 17>Good to see you too. We've gotten older, haven't we?</v> <v Speaker 1>We all have.</v> <v Speaker 17>My name is Irene del Bono</v> and I'm grateful to Lauren Mackin for posting this on, on Facebook. I have a whole lot to say. Some of it good, some of it bad. I think I'm going to start out with, I've read a lot about the history of Natick. I'm, I'm a wicked history buff and one of the first things that I noted was a description that the Native Americans used for the trees here in Natick. I think probably because we have so much ledge and they called them 100 year oak trees. And that is stuck in my mind. And they called them 100 year oak trees because after a hundred years they start tilting and falling and dying. So, and you know, we've experienced that in our own yard and every time I see another tree tilting, I'm like, oh, there's the a hundred year old tree again. So let me start off with my presentation. My first section is healthy trees, healthy habitat. And when it comes to trees and forest, one size fits all, such as focusing on the canopy is not necessarily a good idea. For instance, keeping intent on keeping a canopy intact, ignores that forest to be healthy, need to have multiple species of trees, multiple ages of trees, multiple sizes of trees. And in fact, the critters that inhabit the forest and the edges of the forest need that in order to survive. And one of the ways to tell a healthy forest is the diversity of habitat that you have. And you create that diversity by thinning forest, by actually leaving with foresters, a large open area for the sun to get in so that the new seedlings can grow and that new size trees and younger trees will get, will get up, which they can't do if the forest isn't thinned. And there's no sun that gets to the interior of it. And I'm no expert on this, but these are things that are recommended by, and I just have a short list and I've worked with a lot of these groups for a lot of years, which is why I know a little bit about it. DCR, urban Forestry, new England Forestry Foundation, international Nonprofit, forest Stewardship Council, Harvard Forest Nature Conservative Conservancy, mass Auto Barn, which has a, a nice little booklet, forestry for the birds, managing forest for trees and birds alike. So I think that it should be considered that maybe just looking at the canopy may not be the best way and as, as we just heard another speaker say, native trees aren't necessarily healthy and maybe we could focus on more healthy trees, then also planting them in the right place, the right tree in the right place. The AADE Foundation, I contacted them many years ago about this and they agreed that was should be the, the mantra of anyone that's thinking about planting trees. And of course we know we have trees where their roots squished in between a sidewalk and a road and trees under utility wires. The utility companies say that 90% of their outages during storms are due to trees. And that leaves people in their homes with no heat and no electricity sometimes for weeks, if that's what it takes to clear all of the trees that, that have taken the wires down. And let me see, I I also had a section on liability, but I think we all know about liability for, for trees or many, many different things when they fall, when they create problems, when the roots get into storm systems. When unfortunately we have a friend who lost their child when a tree fell on them. So I also had a client on a lighter note who had about an acre and a half of trees in her backyard and she wanted to cut one that was leaning because with, with climate change, the soil was getting wetter and wetter and the trees were all starting to fall. They were like dominoes in some places. And she saw this tree that was leaning toward the neighbor's house and she wanted to cut it and she went to the conservation commission and the neighbor objected. So she didn't cut the tree, it was a healthy tree. She had had people out to look at it. It wasn't, two months later I got a call from the neighbor and he wanted to sue my client because the tree had fallen on his fence and the roof of his house. And with some glee I did tell him that that was all of, he was responsible for all of it, for repairing the fence and for repairing his roof. And that thanks to him we knew the tree was healthy. But the other thing is because trees are taller than their surroundings, they can tend to be hit by lightning. So I would be, I would be an advocate of exempting people from this if the trees that they wanna cut are close to their house where they could fall on their house, fall on their driveway. I posted on the Natick talk site, one of the crossing guards at Lja, and there were two huge pine trees that crushed her cars and it was incredible. And had there been people walking on the sidewalk and school had just gotten out, that would've been very dangerous. But if, if there's a safety issue, even if the tree is healthy, it may need to come down just for safety. I know people who have had to do emergency renting to people whose houses the trees have caved in their roofs. So I would urge you to think about that. A lot of people can't afford what it costs to take down a big tree, much less paying to replace it and paying for a certified arborist to come and determine whether or not the tree is healthy or, or disease. I don't know if you've done anything to find out what the cost of that would be, but I have hired arborist who determine the value of trees that are damaged by certain things so that the property owner can get reimbursed. And it's not cheap. The larger the tree, you can't even get the larger trees unless you've got, unless you're probably a hundred thousand dollars. So I would urge you to also look at that when you talk about replacing, like for like, we also have some elderly people in town that we help. They're not on assistance, but we help with their yard and their trash and things of that nature. And there are trees there that are like blocking a driveway. They don't use the driveway, they're not an assistant. So they wouldn't be eligible to not to be exempt from this. And then what if the tree is diseased? Where does that leave the property owner? So I can't take it down because it's diseased, but treatable. How much is that going to cost? Who's gonna help with paying for a tree that's diseased but treatable? And it also takes a long time for the tree to be benefited by the treatments that are used before it starts, you know, coming back to life if it's going to come back to life and during that time, that tree is considered a nuisance and under the law, if something happens and it falls and damages property or hurts someone, the property owner is liable because it's a damaged or disease tree. So I would like you to think about that. Do you have any figures on how much it costs to treat a tree? I know last time I checked was probably 25 years ago and we had this amazing oak, I was gonna submit it for the largest trees in America thing. It was, it was so big and it was same thing. It was getting its roots were getting waterlogged and I wanted to restore it and it was gonna be a minimum of $20,000 a year. So it's not cheap. And we have a lot of people in town, like I said, they can't afford to take a tree down. That needs to come down much less pay to replace the same size tree and or treat the tree. <v Speaker 1>If I can just, just interject for one second, the, the way</v> that this is currently formulated, maybe not clearly, but certainly the intent, there's not, there would, there would not be any requirement for a like to like, you know, if you're removing a 36 inch joke, you ain't replacing it with a 36 inch joke. You know, that's just simply not feasible to here. It would be, it would be a sapling that would over time have the potential to grow to replace that canopy over years, over many years obviously. But that would be the intent. I just wanna be clear about that. So, so people don't latch onto, you know, to to the idea that the requirement would be that you have to replace the like for like same size For same size, <v Speaker 2>We've specifically leaned away from formats that have</v> that kind of replacement requirement with the understanding that there are not a lot of lots in Natick that could reasonably stand. You know, if you're removing a 36 inch tree and you're being required to replant 36 inches worth of trees, there's not many lots in Natick that would be able to withstand that number of plantings. Okay. <v Speaker 17>That is good.</v> And then my concern is if, if the tree is diseased but treatable and whether an owner can pay to treat it or not, are they gonna be indemnified if that tree does come down? Because as I said, under the law, those are considered nuisance trees and there is liability associated with that. <v Speaker 2>So just to note that the bylaw currently,</v> the language states that diseased trees that are determined to be untreatable are exempt. Homeowners can still apply to have diseased trees removed. They would just have to provide either the replacement plantings or the fee, <v Speaker 17>Right?</v> Well they would have to, even if it was diseased, they have to pay for a replacement <v Speaker 2>If it's diseased, but determined to be saveable</v> by a certified arborist. So there, there are multiple pads in that kind of situation. <v Speaker 17>Also, I didn't notice anything about this,</v> but maybe I just didn't catch it. Under the, under the law, if a neighbor's tree is partially on your property or hanging over your property or large branches on your property, under the under law, you have the right to cut back to your property line. You do, especially if it's causing damage. So if they're going to do that, does, does this bylaw apply only to total removal of the tree or if someone has to like say there's a V-shaped trunk and they, they cut off like a third of the way up on that trunk, would that come under your bylaw? <v Speaker 2>So the way mass general law works when it comes to,</v> to abutting trees on property lines is that the, the tree pruning work or tree cutting work needs to be done in accordance with standards and that it needs to be done in a manner that does not jeopardize the health of the overall tree. If the tree is going is a shared tree on a property line and it is looking to be removed, it actually requires the approval of both owners for that tree to be removed fully. <v Speaker 17>Okay. But the, if you're on the neighbors</v> and you're having part of it cut off, I'm asking does that come under the bylaw or only if the whole tree is being removed? Not <v Speaker 2>Pruning is a by right activity.</v> Right. So it would not require approval under this bylaw unless <v Speaker 7>The pruning was so substantial it,</v> it harmed the trees overall health and it died from that. <v Speaker 17>Okay. Thank you. All right.</v> And I would like, I, I don't know what your fee is. I don't know if you've determined what the fee would be at this point. No, not yet. Okay. I think it would be very, very helpful to have a list of the fees, what the range of a certified arborist would charge, what it would cost to have them come out and certify it. I did see something in there about, for instance, the tree warden. Does it always require a certified arborist or could someone ask the tree warden to come out and take a look at it? <v Speaker 2>So the tree warden is a certified arborist.</v> However, the tree warden as an employee of the town cannot make determinations about trees on private property 'cause it's in conflict with his position as a public employee. <v Speaker 1>But the way that it's formulated right now,</v> again at this very early stage is that it would be a certified arborist. It could also be a member of the tree committee, it could be a member of the conservation commission, it could be the tree warden in some cases if it's not in conflict with his role. So that's open right now. Your point's a fair one and you know, and I think developing a picture of what the ranges of costs, the cost burden would be for an arborist and for what the potential fees could be, would be a very important data point for us to provide as part of this conversation so people could calibrate because you know, it's not going to be a hundred thousand dollars replacement. You know, that's not, which is what a, I mean if it was even technically feasible to do a giant tree, you know? But that's a good point and that needs to be considered as part of this conversation. Certainly. Thank you. <v Speaker 7>I'd say the vast majority of tree companies</v> to removal companies have a certified arborist on staff. <v Speaker 2>Many of the ones that I engage</v> with in my role in ick do have arborists on staff. <v Speaker 17>Right. But I think people are interested in</v> what the total costs are going to be. Absolutely. And as you said, there'll be a lot of people with questions, so I've got a lot. <v Speaker 7>Absolutely.</v> <v Speaker 17>Okay.</v> And I'm going to read part of what I posted on, on Natick talks at a time when people cannot afford medications for their own health, it's take into consideration the cost because natick property owners who will be required to do this, who don't even have the money to take a tree down, should be thoughtfully addressed. Especially if it's a tree that needs to come down. I don't know if that, I think you said that the fund wouldn't go towards helping take a tree down. However, keep in mind the fact that there are people in town that are not, not at all well, well off, who do own their property, but they're property poor, so to speak. Okay. I'm just gonna quickly go through this because I think I've already asked everything. Oh yes. There seems to be a movement by the insurance industry to send out notices to people canceling their homeowner's insurance for things such as trees that look like they present a danger to the house. So I'm wondering if you could address that. Usually. Well, in Massachusetts it's usually 30 days that the insurance company has to give a a person before they can cancel the insurance. But that's if they get caught up in an administrative process and all of this other, and, and they just, alls they wanna do is keep their home and keep it insured. That would be really good to address as a way to try to find a way to not have this person also have to worry about having costs and buying a tree for someone else when they might not even be able to stay in their home. If they call the mortgage in because their insurance was canceled. <v Speaker 7>Would you consider that an exempt</v> as a potential exemption option? <v Speaker 17>I think, as I mentioned</v> before, if the trees are really close to the house and, and present a danger, I would say with, with this, that would be why the insurance company would be sending out such a notice. <v Speaker 7>But in that specific example, would that be,</v> would you believe that would be a good use of an exemption? Yes. <v Speaker 17>Okay. Yes.</v> <v Speaker 1>Yeah, I mean, something like that could certainly, I mean,</v> you're, you're raising a lot of thoughtful and interesting points that need to be considered as part of this conversation. I just wanna be very clear about that. I think that specific issue absolutely. You know, that I could see that being an exempt tree then where this, this bylaw would not get in the way or would not add to the cost of a homeowner needing to keep their home insured. You know, I think that would be very clear in, in my mind <v Speaker 17>Also, if a tree was hit</v> by lightning or from an accident, say a, a vehicle hits it and and damages it, would that still come under this, this bylaw if it needed to come down? <v Speaker 2>I, I think we did briefly discuss the sort of act</v> of Gods exemption and, and that would definitely be something that's built into this bylaw. <v Speaker 7>But isn't there a system of, you know,</v> that's why we have court systems, right? So the landowner could go after the person who ran into that tree with their car for that. Correct. <v Speaker 17>If the person was still around in insurance, yes.</v> But they can't go after God. <v Speaker 7>Well, no, they, the lightning piece, I, I get your point.</v> But in terms of somebody ramming into a tree with their vehicle, there would be an opportunity for that because there would be a police report more than likely. Right. And that's what courts are for. I think <v Speaker 1>In that case.</v> You know, I mean, that's another one where if the tree was damaged to a point where it wasn't going to survive or it posed a danger to, you know, it was deemed dangerous, then, then it would be, it would become exempt, exempt again. You know, I don't, I don't feel a need to argue about every, every of, all of the great points that you're making that need to be thought about and chewed on. Right. <v Speaker 17>Oh, I'm not arguing at all. I'm,</v> <v Speaker 1>Yeah, no, they're, they're all great points.</v> <v Speaker 17>They're all questions that, that arose when I,</v> when I was reading this <v Speaker 1>Very worthy questions.</v> <v Speaker 17>And I think it would be important, and maybe it's just</v> because I'm not sure, but when you say exempt, I think, I think we're, are all exemptions still required to do a replacement tree or are there exemptions where you're not subject to that? And if so, that should be clarified in this, <v Speaker 1>The concept right now is that if the tree is exempt,</v> it wouldn't, there would be no fees nor any replacement requirements. <v Speaker 2>They would be exempt from the requirements</v> of the bylaw, essentially. <v Speaker 1>That's the idea. Okay. Great.</v> <v Speaker 17>Great. And I think I'm almost done.</v> I, yeah, I think, I think I'm done, but I, I think it would be really helpful to a lot of people. I mean, the list that I had of replacement trees is so old that it's not even relevant anymore. But I think if, if people looked at it and said, oh, that's not so bad. Or if they looked at it and they said, oh my god, I think that would make a huge difference. Yeah. <v Speaker 1>Yeah. Very thoughtful comments. I really appreciate that.</v> And that's, that's what this next phase of this process is intended to do, is just to have people just lay 'em out there as, as part of this. Yeah. We need to hear it. Thank you. You <v Speaker 17>So thank you.</v> I know how hard it is to work on this. I know when I was on the open space committee, we, we were all about the land and everything else and someone came in from recreation and said, well what about our playing fields we like? <v Speaker 1>Right.</v> <v Speaker 17>Never, you know, so I know what it's like.</v> Thank you and have a great night. Great. Thank you. <v Speaker 1>Thank you. Appreciate your time.</v> <v Speaker 2>We do not have anybody else on the zoom call. Okay.</v> <v Speaker 1>Well I think, I mean this is exactly the kinds</v> of conversations we need to have, you know, and I'd like to have more of them. I want to, you know, personally, I want to hear all of them pro con you know, let's just gather data and information here. You know, I still believe that the goal of protecting Natick's canopy is a worthy goal to consider how to pursue. There's a lot of, you know, the devil's in the details and that's what we gotta figure out how to do that. So prepare yourself. 'cause we will have more conversations like that. Alright, so with that, why don't we, we can shift over to more of our general business discussion. So Claire, do you have an update on the pickle pond connector bridge? This is the big bridge. This <v Speaker 2>Is the big bridge.</v> So folks will have seen in the Google Drive folder, there's a, a spreadsheet that's been uploaded that shows the full design, or I'm sorry, the full construction cost, price breakdowns, the design or the construction options presented. There's five different options that we've gotten full quote breakdowns for, including ones that we hadn't previously considered. Like we do have quotes provided for floating boardwalks similar to the ones installed in Lake Williams. The reason for this is because Kyle, like the, our, the designer on the project got back the quotes for the prefab and the stick build boardwalks and they were much higher than anybody anticipated. So, Matt, Kyle and I met last week, <v Speaker 1>I think. So</v> <v Speaker 2>I really can't keep my days straight.</v> Went through the breakdowns, looked at areas where maybe we can bring costs down through volunteer labor being involved, what are maybe some line items that we can, that might be overestimated just until we have, you know, full construction bids prepared. But even the lowest cost option is more than what we anticipated. So I spoke with Melissa Kreon, who's the grant program administrator on Monday. I had a call with the Marlborough conservation agent on Tuesday to talk about their floating boardwalk. I was supposed to have a call today with the Franklin conservation agent. She had to reschedule. So we're speaking on Tuesday next week. But just trying to get ideas about what these installations look like in the field, not only from a permitting perspective, but also from a maintenance perspective to figure out if a floating boardwalk would be an appropriate installation for this location. Kyle is also going to the company that, that designs and install these to ask some additional questions as well because this isn't a true sort of open water installation. You know, we have those wetlands that come up pretty close on the opposite side. We, we really just wanna make sure that not only the installation but the long term maintenance costs for something like a floating boardwalk makes sense for this location. Melissa Khan's advice was to go with an option that we have money in hand for. Essentially if we were to move forward with the street floating boardwalk alignment, we could make due with the existing appropriated money through town meeting along. <v Speaker 1>Just to be clear, I mean the existing appropriated money</v> that we have is, we have a $300,000 allocation from town meeting, which was used, the MathWorks mitigation money, which is earmarked for projects like this. Yes. One of the, one of the questions I asked is I reached out to the town administrator to say, Hey, you know, at this point in time when we're talking about an override and all of this, is this an appropriate thing to be talking about and doing? And he said, it actually is because these monies are earmarked for exactly these kinds of projects. <v Speaker 2>They cannot be used for other things, can't be used</v> <v Speaker 1>For anything else.</v> And so he said, keep going. You know, because this is an appropriate use of the money. This is consistent with what the town's plans have been and these monies can't be used for anything else. So it, it's irrelevant with the override debate that's going on right now. Absolutely. I, I was glad to hear that. 'cause it would be hard to push forward with something like this in, in light of an override conversation. But, you know, I guess fortunately it's, it's not relevant in this case. <v Speaker 2>And so the original intention was</v> that the total project cost was gonna be around 300,000 and that, that out of that $300,000 appropriation, we would maybe be able to return 150,000 back to the, the mitigation pot after we received that reimbursement from the state. The thinking at this point is that because there's been no pre-programming for that additional a hundred, there's no, you know, plans already set for that money that it, it may be valuable to use that 300,000 with the additional money that's coming from the state, bringing a total project cost up to around $450,000, which would cover that lowest quote option. This is something that we're still debating internally, not only from a town budget side of things, but also with the grant administrators. We still have some questions that are up in the air, Matt, Kyle, and I'll be touching base after I speak with Bri, Eli, the Franklin agent next week to talk about what the next steps are. So if folks take any time to review that, have any questions about it, please feel free to reach out by email. I don't feel the need to pull up the spreadsheet on our screens given the hour, but it, it was a very interesting breakdown and it, it's very interesting to me how quotes provided at the end of 2022 can be so far off. Just <v Speaker 1>It's crazy thing called inflation.</v> <v Speaker 2>And I think it's, unfortunately it's not only inflation</v> and material costs, but also labor costs absolutely have just increased so much. So petty factors, we are definitely looking at every opportunity to supplement with volunteer labor where we can, but just a, an interesting conversation that we're going through right now in regard to that project and I'll be sure to keep the commission updated as we, as we continue moving forward. <v Speaker 1>Alright. Public lands for preservation re regulations.</v> <v Speaker 2>Yes, some folks, oh,</v> and I am just noticing one typo that will need to be corrected. It says mass DEP instead of EEAI believe I updated the commission last year when this legislation made it through the Senate and the House. The state has worked to codify what had previously been policy that lands under the protection of Article 97, which is a state regulation that protects lands set aside for conservation purposes. Specifically it's <v Speaker 7>A constitutional article,</v> <v Speaker 2>It's,</v> thank you, a constitutional article. And so essentially codified a prior policy that any changes in use or dispositions of Article 97 land require a two-thirds vote of the state legislature in order to pass. So folks in town might remember the Kennedy Middle School project where there was a bit of a trade in land between the school department and the con com because of the, the location and the footprint of the proposed building. A very similar process like that. But at the state legislature level, we may have talked a little bit more about this tonight. The Lake constituent path project actually required an article 97 disposition approval because the installation of a paved path on land preserved for conservation constitutes a change in use <v Speaker 1>According to who, according</v> <v Speaker 2>To the state,</v> <v Speaker 1>Who in the state</v> <v Speaker 2>DCR.</v> So, and also the the legislature. <v Speaker 1>So that's codified though, is that paving,</v> paving Article 97, putting a little bit of paving on Article 97 land automatically is a change in use. <v Speaker 2>It's not quite that as specifically as I'm saying it.</v> And I will clarify that. Yes, that's, and so it, it is a number of things. It is the proximity of environmental justice communities. It is a, what is known as a change in use change in land cover type that is the consideration in this particular instance as well as the temporary and permanent impacts that are being proposed on state owned conservation property. <v Speaker 7>Yeah, that storm water feature</v> that's on North Main Street, right on the capitate Natick line there triggered an Article 97 vote as <v Speaker 1>As did the dog park.</v> <v Speaker 7>Yes.</v> <v Speaker 1>Which was a, not a, a</v> not a non-controversial conversation. That <v Speaker 7>Was, that was a pretty tough one.</v> Yeah. <v Speaker 2>So these regulations were passed by the legislature.</v> Currently the state EDA is developing the, the actual language and regulations that will go along with that. They are open for public comment. Right now, a number of the sort of larger agencies and professional organizations that I'm a part of are providing comment letters and have strongly recommended. I think anytime when the state is soliciting comment letters, the more individual letters that they're receiving, the better it's gonna be for, for the folks who are looking to put those comments into effect. I've written a fairly general comment letter that really I think hits at some of the, the highest hat items within the article 97 language. I will note it was called the Public Lands for Preservation Act while it was moving through the legislature, it's now being referred to as the Open Space Act. Just if you see that terminology bouncing around it is really referring to the same thing. And so just looking for the commission, these letters need to be submitted by, I believe January 22nd at the end of the day. So next Wednesday. So folks wanna take some time read through. <v Speaker 18>So, but the intent though is</v> that this would be a letter from the commission? Exactly, <v Speaker 2>Yes. Okay.</v> <v Speaker 18>So would, so would</v> <v Speaker 2>What's in, let me do a quick share.</v> I'm happy to read through the letter as well right now if Okay. <v Speaker 18>Why don't we do that? Okay. Yeah.</v> And then what I'm thinking is that maybe we could vote to authorize you to send it on our behalf. Yep. Yeah. At at at that point. So, <v Speaker 2>Absolutely.</v> So the introduction is that the Natick Conservation Commission greatly appreciates the opportunity to provide comment. We sincerely appreciate the effort that EEA and the state legislature put into creating these draft regulation changes and commend the state and seeing the value of providing more clarity when it comes to changes in use of Article 97 land. We're excited to see existing policy be codified into regulation and have some comments on the draft regulations and reg Oh that's a, alright. There may be a little bit of wordsmithing that needs to happen. Draft regulations, I was doing this in PDF, so spell check was not applied. Draft regulations to ensure that the regulations are clear in their requirements of public entities, which is terminology from the regulation and generally refers to towns and the state. The NA Conservation Commission has the following common on the draft regulations. State the goal of no net loss right up front in section one. Purpose and applicability make explicit in the regulations the requirement for the public entity to declare the land as surplus to the article 97 needs. That is a required part of the process. But under the current regulations it's not super clear that that's part of the process. The quantum of vote by the public entity to dispose of the article 97 land should be clarified and clearly written into the regulations, the current policy languages for unanimous vote. And this should be maintained for <v Speaker 18>A disposition</v> <v Speaker 2>For a disposition, not a change in use.</v> Yes. Ensure that regulations include a framework for meaningful evaluation of natural resource values for the compensatory land and require the opinion of the public entity on the compensatory land. Recommend using the riverfront alternatives analysis assessment framework as a model to provide decision makers with a tool to determine compliance provision of the in lieu fees. So there is provisions in the language that fees can be paid in lieu of applicable property exchanges. So just noting that these should be the exception with every effort made to find replacement land during the process, the regulations should be more explicit about what efforts are needed to document that in lieu fees are the only feasible option. And finally the, the regulations must clarify the enforcement options available to EEA who would be the enforcement agency on these regulations. It's clear from the recent Supreme Judicial Court decision in the MBTA communities case that the Attorney General's office plays a key role in the enforcement of state laws, even when their role is not explicit in a given statute. And just for folks who haven't been following the MBTA communities requirements are something that was being placed on all towns and communities with subway or commuter rail systems. Natick voted it in at fall town meeting. There are several communities in the Commonwealth who chose to not vote it in. One of which is Milton, Massachusetts and the attorneys general. Yes. Needham's another one. Weston also voted it down. A lot of these communities were waiting to see the results of the Milton case before they made a decision, which in essence of the state's view was voting it down because there was a required date of compliance, which has now passed. And the Supreme Judicial Court did rule that the attorneys general has the right to sue the town of Milton for non-compliance with this regulation. Which essentially means that if towns do not comply with the state regulations, that they're opening themselves up to legal action. And so that then we just close it out with thank you for the opportunity to provide comment and for all the work today done on these updates. So like I said, maybe a couple of little wordsmithing spell check things that I need to go back and double check. But overall, like I said, just the real high hat notes of, of what seem like they're the most important things. Any <v Speaker 18>Comments or edits</v> <v Speaker 13>There?</v> There's a page, a third page. Yeah. You need to just delete that I <v Speaker 2>Think, right?</v> Oh yes. I was using a prior letter and I will delete that. <v Speaker 13>I I it was, I didn't, it was stood alone</v> so I just wondered, there's a drawing <v Speaker 18>I think on my, those</v> <v Speaker 2>Were for the, the shopping list,</v> DP wetland regulation updates. <v Speaker 18>Are people comfortable with Claire sending</v> that on under my signature on our behalf? Sure. I'm good. Okay. Yeah. Would someone make a motion to do that? <v Speaker 13>Motion to do that. Second.</v> <v Speaker 18>Thank you chair. Any further discussion on</v> that all is in the room. David? Yes, Chris? Yes. Only if we the code chair. Alright. Good job Clay. Good job. <v Speaker 2>Just a couple of quick other updates</v> 'cause I know everyone is probably ready to head home. Folks may have seen on the website and on Facebook, but we have a flooding survey out right now. This is in relation to the Natick High School stormwater treatment feature project trying to identify primarily focused within that watershed that drains down to Doug Pond. But we're using the survey as a tool to report flooding anywhere in town because the town will take ownership of that data and be able to use it in the future for projects as well. So the survey is open through the end of next Tuesday. I'll send around the link directly to this group. It, it's just an opportunity to, if you know of a spot that regularly or even irregularly experiences flooding a chance to report it to the town. We do make it very clear in the survey that this information is not going to the public works division that is responsible for repairs and correcting issues. So if there is an issue that needs to be reported via c click fix, it should also be reported there. The survey is also has internal translation, so is available in English, Spanish, Brazilian, Portuguese and Mandarin. So really trying to make it as accessible as possible to the Natick residents. And I'll, I'll just send her a big email to the commission tomorrow. There's, we are kicking back off again, engagement around the South Natick dam parks project. There'll be a public engagement meeting on January 28th, zoom virtual that will be going over the designs that have been developed following the past year of public engagement and public comment. This first meeting will be specifically on the designs for the existing park areas and where they, we've sort of landed after all of the engagement. They're probably pretty close to permit ready plans at this point. And then there will be a second meeting in March on March 18th that will be focused on presenting the future waterfront concepts that are being developed. So we're not designing anything for getting into the water because we don't know exactly where the river's gonna end up. We have estimates and we have projections, but water is gonna do what water wants to do. So Weston and Sampson is developing a number of concepts for waterfront activation that the town can then pursue once the river has fully rec channelized itself. And the wetland boundaries have sort of settled out a little bit more. And last but not least, after two and a half years of patient waiting, Natick has received our updated letter of determination regarding our FEMA flood zones. Woo hoo. So the town, myself and Amanda we're such nerds. We really are the town myself, Amanda Loomis. We're working on updating the floodplain bylaw under the zoning regulations currently, not only to update it with the updated map effective dates, but we are also slightly out of compliance with this new state model bylaw from last that was put out last year. So along with a majority of communities within the Charles River Watershed. We're all gonna be going through this process in the next couple of months. And so I will have a draft of that bylaw at the next commission meeting for us to review. And it will be before the planning board for the required public hearing as a zoning bylaw update on February 12th. Great. <v Speaker 18>Just one, one kind of related thing.</v> So I, I am on the board of the Upper Charles Conservation Land Trust. That's as, as one of natick's representatives and we will actually be hosting a talk by the executive director of the Charles River Watershed Association. <v Speaker 2>Emily Norton.</v> <v Speaker 18>Yeah.</v> And so, and that will be in early April. I'll forward around the details as the, as it, I, I currently have a room at the library reserved for this just to talk about the Charles River watershed. So I'll, I'll let you know when that, when the details of that are finalized. <v Speaker 7>Great.</v> <v Speaker 2>Please tell Emily I say hello</v> if I'm not able to join. Alright. Those, those were all the other updates that I had for tonight. Great. <v Speaker 18>Excellent. Anything else? Happy</v> to entertain a motion to adjourn. <v Speaker 2>So</v> <v Speaker 18>Thank you Jeff.</v> Is that seconded or do we keep going? <v Speaker 7>We got a few more minutes.</v> <v Speaker 18>Second, thank you.</v> Thank you. Any further discussion? Those and favor, Chris. David, <v Speaker 7>See you, Chris and David. See</v> <v Speaker 2>You guys.</v> Have a good night everyone.