sorry welcome to the riv Conservation Commission meeting for June 4th 2024 for those that would like to Let's stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance all right roll call uh Samantha Woodman she's absent Wilson karea he's absent Nicholas Rudolph here Bernardo here Jilla Valley here Brian abbach here John Shu so we have five members we have a quorum um a majority would be three of the members here tonight so review and approval of the meeting minutes for May 1st were there any corrections additions deletions looks good all right accept a motion to approve the minutes as they are make a motion to approve the minut as they are second second all in favor I all right approve all right so first up is a continuation of a public hearing it's an anrad a resource area delineation D file number 06108 21 the applicant is the city rever this is 190 VFW uh is basically the Wonderland site the anrad is uh asking for confirmation of wetland resource boundaries bordering land subject to flooding and isolated Wetlands not protected by the wetlands protection act um when we get to the point where we seek input from the public uh this is not about the high school this is just about the wetlands the Wetland delineation uh and whether some of these isolated Wetlands deserve protection under the city ordinance or not uh so we welcome any comments with regards to that prior to Us closing the hearing I will review uh tentative motions that I will throw out there for other Commissioners to either uh make a motion or change so that at that point in time the public can also comment uh on those motions if they think they're adequate or appropriate um and then we'll close the hearing and then we'll vote so first up is state your name and address for the record sure uh for the record CLA hogaboom Wetland scientist with LEC environmental Consultants here on behalf of the applicant uh the city of Fall River uh joining me is Dave Conway with Niche engineering they prepared the uh bordering land subject to flooding report uh that accompanied the anrad so so I think the first thing Claire is since the initial application we've had at least one walk down several others and I think you've modified uh some things and maybe you could just uh go over what's changed for the Commissioners uh yes absolutely so on May 6th uh I walked the site with a few of the commission members uh and the peer reviewer David Cameron with Fleetwood environmental uh um Solutions and generally the Wetland boundaries and me anual high water boundaries associated with the Eastern County ditch were um acceptable to peer viewer in the field we just made a few minor revisions so I just went to sheet one this is in the uh sort of Southwestern most portion of the property uh just west of the um former dog race track we have these two uh nonbing freshwater wetlands uh the sea and D series the peer reviewer just asked that we placed a few flags up gradient of the previously delineated Wetland boundary I had no problem with that uh they were placed to include some areas of uh evidence of standing water and some Hydro uh Wetland plant Community vegetation so we made those adjustments survey came out to the site and located those flags placed them on these revised plans uh the other slight rision uh so this plan is the Eastern County ditch sort of in the western portion of the site we have dun Road here um that green is the bordering vegetated Wetland or the E Series bvw that is associated with the Eastern County ditch uh the peer riewer asked that we remove two flags where the Wetland bumped in and just connect two Flags uh adjoining those to include another area that had Wetland vegetation and some evidence of uh high groundw table yellow here where the old flags were so we just made the connection and eliminated those two flags from the Wetland boundary delineation um otherwise very minor other revisions to the plans um I believe one of the commission members at the last meeting requested that we include the 200t riverfront area on site so that was added um extending from the main annual high water boundary to Eastern County ditch and the plan date has been revised I think a previous iteration the cover letter didn't really match or the cover page didn't match the rest of the plan set so the um I believe May 28th date of the plan set is reflected on every sheet of the plan um so we provided that to the peer reviewer to the commission along with a short summary letter of those revisions we received a peer review letter uh from the peer reviewer um and that's sort of been the gist of things since we were last before you all in April okay any questions from any of the Commissioners I'm going to have uh the peer reviewers speak after CLA um so we can to ask more questions in but any for Claire right now so I just want to clarify so the peir of viws will speak after her and then you'll make your comments after the peer review or before I will make comments after the after David Cameron speaks yes okay thank you Mr chairman do you want um Dave Conway from Niche to point anything out with the blsf report or wait until later do we have anything to add to the the niche report I don't think so perhaps the peer riewer will Point things out when he summarizes his findings he did have some questions for Niche that they clarified for him um and one page in their report was revised to include some cross- sections to be clear um on the references there but um you know happy to have him explain his findings and his uh questions and responses from Niche all right yeah so if it's okay you I think we'll let David come on sure um thank you CL stand or no no I'm just turn the mic off yeah hi can you folks hear me okay there we go so Mr Cameron can you introduce yourself and just a little bit of your background um and then kind of go into your findings and summary certainly can can everybody hear me first of all yes okay uh David Cameron I'm a professional Wetland scientist uh founder and owner of Fleetwood Environmental Solutions LLC I was retained by the city R to provide a objective neutral peer review of the anrad that was submitted for this um site which is a collection of six different or six separate Parcels um identified by the assessors at r i as Claire indicated um joined the commission and Claire and a civil engineer from Niche engineering um on a site evaluation in the field on May 6th prior to that I did a desktop assessment first of the anrad and um its appendices and the niche blsf report um then did an independent desktop evaluation that consisted of looking at all sorts of publicly accessible resource maps and online tools to evaluate Watershed sizes and spent a significant amount of time um looking at historic aerial images and historic topographic maps for uh the site which was very interesting um so my report which I sub I believe a week ago tomorrow um is broken down into three primary sections methodology section the findings and then recommendations for the commission to consider um I just outlined what the methods were that I used to do this work oh I should mention that I also took a very careful look at title 16 of the city rev's ordinances which relates to I think it's titled in environment but it's um related specifically to Wetlands protection so I did take a very close look at that as well um as far as my findings went um and I expected this based on the desktop review but the site is um almost completely level it's very disturbed um based on looking at historic historic aerial photographs and topographic maps it looks like the entire site was a title Marsh um probably until the late 30s late 1930s the oldest map goes back at least the oldest map that I was able to access goes back to 1892 and it shows the entire prop entire site as a title Marsh back then with some mosquito ditches um in it um I looked at aerial photo photographs that started in 1938 I believe that was the earliest that went all the way to the present and I looked um with specific interest at the interior of the former dog track I'll come back to that later but that's that's an area that was looked at pretty closely by Niche and LEC in terms of whether or not it met the criteria to be a resource area under the white L's protection act on this isolated land flooding and um I was surprised to see no evidence of standing water in the dog track in any of those aerial images um when we did see standing water in the dog track when we did the site evaluation so that was curious um as far as the review of the anrad form goes I didn't find any errors or emissions in the form everything looks complete um again the site is very disturbed it's relatively level in many places it's dominated by Common Reed Latin name is frag medes Australis which is um as I'm sure most of the commission members know is an invasive exotic species that roots in wetlands and then can spread all over the place including on top of fill piles well into Uplands and on top of pavement and cement so it makes for delineating the legal Wetland boundaries for a site like this um it can be extremely extremely challenging um overall I think LEC did a very good job um finding the legal boundaries of the resource areas on the site as Claire mentioned I found three small areas associated with Wetland C Wetland D those are isolated wetlands and then Wetland e but I thought the boundary should be bumped out a little bit we talked about that we delber deliberated about those areas in the field we came to consensus and those changes were made in the field and subsequently they have been reflected on the revised site plans dated May 28th 2024 um bear with me I'm looking at my notes I did have some questions um as Claire alluded to for Niche engineering about certain elements of the bordering land subject subject of flooding evaluation um I think the commission members understand this but for the benefit of them and the public um if you look at Federal Emergency Management agency flood insurance rate maps for this site um it shows the entire site encapsulated um by the 100-year storm event um but it's a combination of the coastal storm surge plus overbank flooding from the Eastern County ditch and so niches evaluation was intended to try to tease those two things apart because they're recognized as separate individual resource areas under the wetlands protection act one is a coastal resource area and one is an inland resource area and that's what the bordering land flooding report outlines in quite a bit of detail um I'm not an engineer myself but I've had to review many reports just like this so I understand how the calcul ations are derived I understand how the modeling works and um the way most models work is you know if you provide good inputs you get a good um output and good results and if you have junk that goes in you get junk that goes out so what I really focused on was looking at the variables or the factors the model inputs that were used to come up with the blsf um elevation as well as the ilsf calculations that they did for weet B which is the former dog track and um I found that that work was done in a technically sound manner I had a few questions um for bordering lands of Def flooding I wanted some clarification on whether or not LEC or Niche had found any connection between the um I guess it would be the the north western edge of the Eastern County ditch on the site and whether or not there was any hydrologic connection beneath the um MBTA tracks to the marshes north of the site I did not see an apparent connection when I was at the site and based on the work that the two firms did they they were not able to find anything either and I believe they reviewed City utility records as well so that's important because the calculations that were done were based on a specific Watershed and that watershed or that drainage area did not include areas north of the MBTA tracks and so that's why I asked that specific question I had a question about how they came up with the the so-called curve number from one of the subcatchments subcatchment 1A um I'm not sure how familiar the commission or the public is with curve numbers but it's basically um uh it's a value that's assigned to a specific type of land form or land use that helps calculate how essentially how quickly water moves across a surface how quickly storm water moves across the surface based on whether it's vegetated what kind of vegetation it is whether it's a roof or pavement or a driveway or gravel um and Niche provided um um good clarification on that question so that was answered and I also asked them to update the crosssections that they prepared for the Eastern County ditch they did a series of cross-sections I believe they did might be 50 um to help determine the blsf elevation and the stations just weren't labeled um in in the report and oversight so I asked them to to label those they provided an updated version of that report with labels on those stations and they all look to make sense to me um and as far as ilss goes I asked for clarification um for how Niche came up with the determination that Wetland B did not hold the minimum requisite um depth of water which is 6 in uh their determination based on the modeling was that it came out to be 516 in which I think correlates to 0.43 Ft um and they provided clarification to me on how they derived that number too so all of the questions that I had were answered um in the revisions to the anrad and um I guess that brings me to the recommendations that I provided in my report I had five separate recommendations um the first recommendation was that based on my review of the materials as well as my on-site evaluation that I think the resource areas have been adequately delineated and that an ored is probably warranted to be issued um I suggested that the map that LEC submitted to the assessor's office when they requested that the certified of Butters list which I included in appendix a of my report um be used as a map that would be attached to any orad and that that polygon that encapsulates those six Parcels be called the study area um I've seen a lot of um an RADS submitted and a lot of or RADS issued that don't clearly Define a study area especially when you're talking about multiple parcels and that can have um really uh confusing implications for subsequent hermit applications and work so that's why I had that suggest Su um I indicated to the commission that based on the small uh watered size of the Eastern County ditch that the commission Andor the applicant might want to consider monitoring stream flows in that ditch to determine whether in fact it's actually perennial it's presumptively perennial based on the way it shows up on the most current USGS Mount um and this is just a recommendation but I found um title 16 um to be you know fairly simple um bylaw for for Wetlands that could probably use a little bit of clarification um and that comment was based on the I guess the struggle many of us had with what to do with the former dog track that clearly is showing um Hydra ology and a wetland plant Community known whether or not areas like that were intended to be captured by this bylaw and um my final suggestion was that although the wetlands on the site especially the qualifying Wetlands or the isolated wetlands are clearly Disturbed they're very they're highly Disturbed um based on the setting of the site in its proximity to Romy Marsh um um it's one of if you if you look on Google Earth and and then you kind of gradually zoom out you can see that it's one of the only pieces of real estate left in rever that has any open space or green space left on it and I think the it seems to me that the carrying capacity of the surrounding natural um wetlands and waterways are probably at capacity and there's been spillover and there clearly usage of this site by why life when we were um walking around the site uh there were even U breeding pairs of malards playing in the puddles on top of the asphalt or using those for Habitat there were there was a breeding pair of mards in um I believe it's Wetland sea which is one of the isolated Wetlands um again that they're very disturbed but they do provide habitat aquatic habitat wildlife habitat as well as number of other functions and there are certainly opportunities um on this project site for ecological enhancement if that's something that could uh be compatible with any subsequent site build out and I think that's all I had all right thank you any questions yeah I have a a question for you so two things one I just wanted to make sure that you said that just to confirm you would approve the anrad and I want to know if you could just talk a little bit more about the perennial stream um as you mentioned with this project if you think that it would be fine the way the ined set up everything set up um with those because I saw you mention that and reading through the report um everything from the mosquito ditches from a 100 years ago and things like that it was very interesting but um that was the part that I really wanted some more clarification on if you don't mind yeah so that would depend on what the applicant wants to do it the applicant wants to move forward and have the commission issue in ored based on how things are reflected on the site plans right now the opportunity to um refute The presumptive Perennial nature of the Eastern County ditch would would be lost for the duration of the orad that's issued so that's something the applicant would need to to consider it's hard to say whether or not that thing flows year round or has water in it year round or not I saw fish in it small fish when I was on site generally that's a sign that something doesn't dry out but it's also got a really small Watershed um it's difficult to to know exactly what the hydrology is that drives that ditch is it a combination of groundwater discharge or high high groundwater and drainage coming off the site in the Watershed or the combination of those things and other factors it's difficult to say I just wanted to point it out that you know in a lot of settings in the Commonwealth when you have a a stream with a contributing drainage area that's as small as the Eastern County ditch does at least at this reach that often those turn out to be intermittent they dry out you know in July in August so I just wanted to toss that out there for consideration any other questions for David so just kind of make sh clear David the wetlands BC dnf um they are isolated Wetlands providing some value but the whole area is pretty disrupted uh do you agree with that yes okay all right Claire did you have any questions for for for David or no or okay so before we go to getting input from the audience so let me just get raise a hand is there anyone in the audience that wants to speak to this delineation no all right I I'll keep the hearing open just for the time being so our task what we were ask in the an red is all these wetlands have been delineated and identified do we agree with those delineations um then we have four freshwater wetlands that are isolated Wetlands they are not protected under the wetlands protection act but they because of the vagueness of the title 16 environment ordinance they do fall under that um now it does provide the commission a lot of latitude because it's kind of vague but also provides the applicant a lot of latitude also what they can do with things like that so we need to discuss and then vote on should those Wetlands be protected under the city's ordinance and then if we're going to protect them some of it or all of it or none of it if we protect some of it or all of it then what we were asked also in the an red was what would the commission want for mitigation uh if those isolated Wetlands were filled in the future we're also going to approve the extents of the elevation for bordering land subject to flooding uh I've looked at that report I lost a whole day going through modeling and um we're going to approve that because that is important in this uh we're going to approve the delineation of the Eastern County ditch in the associated 200t Riverfront area um and then we'll have a discussion on the mitigation aspect of those Wetlands if we decide to protect them or not um since I don't think anyone's really going to speak to it I'm just going to kind of go ahead Joe uh Mr chair may I is David still on yeah hi I'm sorry I didn't get a chance to ask this uh was there ever any evidence of vernal pools in the area David uh I don't think anything was identified by LC in their report there's nothing that's mapped by the natural heritage and endangered species program on the site is either a potential Vernal pool or a certified Vernal pool um and I didn't see any um overt signs that any of the isolated Wetlands on the property uh currently provide verle habitat I mean physically they you know they have the characteristics that they potentially could but if the species aren't there they're not vernal pools and I didn't I didn't see any apparent signs that they're functioning as vermal pools okay all right so just the these are my thoughts and you guys chime in and this going to be our discussion before we close the hearing and then actually formally vote um if I look at all those isolated Wetlands they're kind of degraded they perform some function and value uh it's kind of happened over time through lack of Maintenance but they are providing habitat they are providing some function and my personal feeling is is that there should be some mitigation required if those are filled in the future secondly and I've kind of felt this since the beginning when we received the ored I think it's too early for us to decide on what that mitigation is um I think the developer when they get ready to submit the notice of intent for whatever is going to be built there uh in pre-application meetings they should be able to sit down and present and say you know after we've done our whole design and we've complied with all the other agencies that we haven't yet really met with and done this is what we're left off on the site and this is what we can do in mitigation fulfilling this and let them present to the commission uh what their plan is to mitigate at that point in time and then have it as a discussion and a negotiation with the commission um rather than vote on it tonight it I think it just boxes Us in and it's going to box the developer in um Cher Shu I would just ask is there currently an ask from the city and from the developers specific to what you're saying of what they want or is it more currently vague they have not asked us what they want they've not presented us with anything that they're would potentially be willing to do on a future project so left left to that um what they asked is if if indeed the commission's going to say these Wetlands should be protected under the ordinance if we want to fill them what would the commission want uh to be able to fill them could could we ask of the city if they wouldn't mind discussing that now would that I feel like if if they do have that answer and they're here it would make sense to at least help our decision- making now and in the future yeah I I don't think they're prepared and and really my intent is to kind of pull this out of the anrad because it's really not part of an anrad process the anrad process should be for resource area delineation um and then they go and they do their design then they come to us and says here's what we can do for mitigation could I possibly ask of the chair of the allowing the mayor to speak on behalf of this so this is for the delineation yes and determining should these be protected or not um whatever future projects plann for there is not is IM material all right thank you Mr chair uh and I just wanted to State can we know Mr chair John Shu Patrick Kee uh 44 kurn Street 281 Broadway um mayor of Rivier also chair of the school committee uh like um the commission uh sorry the chair has stated the this is it's not the project in in the scope that's really up for discussion you're all doing a wonderful job of in working with the peer review and and uh Consultants to ensure that the the the proper area and the property is protected I think that everyone agrees with that that's the intent for all of us uh the great news is is it's a city of Riviera that's the owner and the eventual developer so we have that um we have every every intention to make sure that we maintain that site uh what the future building is going to behold but also preserving uh wetlands and and making sure that it's also an ecological um learning environment so I know that you're going to uh agree upon your delineations tonight uh which I don't think there's any dispute on um nor nor would we have any justification and leaving uh leaving it a little bit open-ended for the um Rivier uh and Rivier Conservation Commission rules uh for later discussion I think is actually that flexibility we we we very much appreciate because it gives gives us an opportunity to really show uh the Conservation Commission what the project is going to look like in in full and uh I think that it just shows what how much restoration on the entire project uh that you'll see and and really um amplify the entire environment so I appreciate your flexibility with this uh commissioner or chairman Shu thank you very much so I think the mayor kind of summed it up um I mean indeed the developer could come up with design and say if we put a number on we want you to replicate x amount and then they get to their design where if they can't just but they could offer other things it it's going to put the ball in their Court to be Innovative and come back at us what they can do to enhance existing wetlands and to mitigate you know the filling of these four things that were never really meant to be a Wetlands um chero I would ask is this the point where we would make the vote on the or make a motion for the vote for the delineation of the wetlands of approving it I will we're coming up to that really quick um but that's kind of my plan is to get one of you to make a motion to delay and wait on determining what the mitigation should be for a potential future filling of wetlands BCD andf so I would speak to the rest of the commission and see if anyone has any opposition to me making that motion well let's let's go in order and we'll come to that last okay all right so I'll need someone to make these motions we can discuss them uh first of all does anyone else want to speak before I close the hearing all right I need a motion to close the hearing oh Claire hi Mr chairman I actually just had a thought um in relation to the peer reviewer's comment on The Perennial stream status and that you know it would be locked in for 3 years through the oad I'm curious if the commission would be open to including some language in the oad that allows the applicant to present information if we're able to collect it uh during the lifetime of the anrad if if we have the 4 days of uh dry conditions observed if we'd be able to return to the commission and present that in order to sort of prove an intermittent status during the lifetime of the oad I just sort of came to my mind after Mr Cameron brought that up so my inclination is that should have already been determined as you know we've had uh on and off moments of site uh access to the site so we currently have not been able to collect that type of information we can vote on a motion to uh not confirm the delineation of the Eastern County ditch and then I don't know what the difference is if happens if it's perennial or not or intermittent all right I just thought I would put it out there but um I think we would probably prefer to have the boundaries approved and move on from that yeah I mean the other way to do it would be to continue this hearing and give you a month to sort it out I can't imagine we could find the data in the next month so okay just thought I'd put it out there okay all right thank you so I'm going to read a draft of a potential motion feel free to discuss it change the wording make it your own if or say that you want to make this this motion or not I can't make motions I can only entertain them and suggest so so this first one reads is a motions requested to approve the delineation of wetlands BCD andf as depicted in the resource area delineation plan of land eight sheets prepared by BSC group dated May 28th 2024 so BC dnf are the isolated Wetlands uh both LEC and David Cameron agree that the boundaries are correct uh so if we can get a motion to approve the delineation of those Wetlands BC dnf I'll make a motion to approve the delineation of BCD and F second all in favor I I all right second motions requested to approve the determination and you interrupt so I need a motion to close the hearing I'll make a motion to close the hearing hold favor second all in favor I all right hearing is closed all right so here's the second motion motions requested to approve the determination that Wetlands B C D and F are isolated Wetlands not subject to the Wetland protection act but are subject to the city rever title 16 environmental ordinance as freshwater wetlands this would pull this into we would say we would protect that under the ordinance which would imply we would want some mitigation at some later data if they're filled um oh now if you want to do all four or if you don't want to include F in that or D I mean this this is what's up for discussion do you want to turn turn your open discussion I would say that three of these Wetlands that we've observed and have delineated at this point serve real no real function to the enhancement of the property they are in some cases in concrete depressions they are in areas that are very broken down so I would say that three of these excluding the dog track would not be viable Wetlands moving forward there there are wetlands of opportunity in in a sense so you would not include in that motion c d and f f was very very tiny C had the Little Pond on it where we saw the two birds and D was that little the sliver that was up near yeah yeah no that's yeah that is exactly what I would say so your tion is excluding D C and F E is the dog track correct all right so let me reord the motion and then someone can so a motion is requested to approve the determination that Wetlands B is an isolated Wetland not subject to the W protection act that is subject to the city rev title 16 environmental ordinance so you want a motion for that yes I'll do my best to remember this um I'll make a motion that uh B is subject to say one more time the the title 16 title 16 um environmental environmental ordinance ordinance I'll second it second all in favor I I I I all right and then we'll follow add up a motions requested to approve the determination that Wetland CD and F are isolated Wetlands not subject to the wetlands protection act and also are not subject to the city rever title 16 environmental ordinance make a yeah I'll make a motion that cdnf are isolated Wetlands that are not subject to subject to the WPA WPA the city's ordin and the city's ordinances I'll second that second all in favor I I a motion's requested to approve the delineation of wetlands A and E um so maybe CLA can you point out A&E so this is basically the Eastern County ditch yes so the a Ser is on so the motion is to approve the delineation of wetlands A&E as depicted in resource area delineation plan of land eight sheets prepared by BSC group dated May 28th 2024 so I need a motion to approve the delineation of wetlands A&E I'll make a motion to approve the wetlands delineation of A&E all right I'll second it second it all in favor I I all right so those are protected by the Wetland protection act um a motions requested to approve the delineation of the Eastern County ditch and the associated 200t Riverfront area boundary on either side as depicted in the resource area delineation plan of land 8 sheets prepared by BSC group dated May 28 2024 I'll make a motion to approve the delineation of the Eastern County ditch and the riverfront area Riverfront area second second second all in favor hi all right this next one's in regards to bordering land subject to flooding um so this is kind of important because some of this bordering land subject to flooding if it's ever filled in a future development um There are rules and regulations about having to replicate that lost storage somewhere else uh at the same elevation that type of thing when we heard from both LEC Niche and David you know our prer reviewer agreed with with the calculations so here's the motion motions requested to approve the extents in parentheses site elevations up to 4.55 ft and this the reference is navd88 it's elevation reference of the bordering land subject to flooding as calculated in the niche engineering bordering land subject to flooding study dated March 6 2024 and depicted in the drawings blsf D100 through 106 dated 229 2024 that were included in the anrad application so I need a motion to approve basically the calculation and the elevation of 4.55 for blsf I'll make a motion to to approve the calculation and the site elevation of 4.55 ft all right so anything up to that qualifies is bordering land subject to flooding so let me reword it a motion to approve the elevation I'll make a motion to approve the elevation 4.55 ft 4.55 ft which will be anything up to that elevation of bordering subject to flooding yeah give me a second I'll second it all right all in favor I and uh the last one is going to be request and entertain a motion to delay determining what the mitigation would be for any potential filling of wetland B which is the racetrack uh until a later date when we have a more fleshed out design and see what developer can do does that make sense we're going to we're not going to determine what the mitigation is tonight on Wetlands be I'll make a motion to delay Wetlands B delineation second mitigation mitigation excuse me you got a second got a second y all right all in favor I I think that's all of them do we need to vote on or do you need to vote on the ilsf uh acceptance that the ilsf calculations determining the RAC trck does not meet the criteria okay yes I I think you may have already done that it's a good question Claire I I was asking the same thing but I think the commission made a motion and approve the motion to not consider Wetland be a resource area did it not we did okay yeah yeah okay I just wanted to okay double check and thank you uh is is it better safe from sorry to do it just in case there's any opposition I'm just I just want to cross the wouldn't hurt to be explicit about it do you do you want to do it just to be sure sure um so entertain a motion to approve the determination that the racetrack is not isolated land subject to flood I'll make a motion to approve that the racetrack is not isolated uh due to flooding isolated land isolated land subject of flooding right second second all in favor I all right okay that's toor ad so later on down the road I think the Commissioners would expect to see along with a prea application meetings and discussions on if there's going to be potential filling of the racetrack what would the developer propose to mitigate that completely understandable we expect to do that okay we appreciate all your time and consideration thank you very much thank you to David Cameron for his thoughtful peer review as well great thank you David you're welcome my pleasure thank you everybody all right that's kind of [Music] brutal all right I apologize everyone else in the audience we do have a rather full uh agenda but it should go much faster uh next up is a continuation for the determining the request for determination of applicability from the massachus its Bay Transportation Authority to confirm the Wetland delineation along the mbta's rideway in rever as part of a new vegetated management plan uh if the Commissioners remember we didn't get a chance to walk this down prior to the previous meeting uh also there was some concern about the extent of the maps that they had delineated the maps have been changed it only includes Wetlands that are immediately along the their rideway and I have gone and looked at all that and um the the boundaries look fine so is um Calvin here yes um I'm here as well as Alicia from the NBTA is here as well all right do you have any comments or anything Goin or Leisa um no just said this is a you know a we're here every five years with the new VMP and the big change this year was that we um we had a uh redid a full delineation of the wetlands and really um I think the BC did a good job and that is reflected in the the the detailed maps giving us a excellent boundary for our um V vegetation Management program okay so what you're looking for in the RDA is a affirmation that the boundaries are correct right that is that is correct okay so entertain a motion to approve the request for determination of applicability that the boundaries for those Wetlands along their rideway is correct as depicted make a motion to approve the applicability that the boundaries are correct as mentioned second second all in favor I I okay passed uh we'll get that out probably early next week that's great thank you very much all right thank you yes thank you very much appreciate your time and your efforts all right thank you um I didn't get a response is someone here for 102 Summer Street okay all right so next up is another continuation notice of intent D file number 061-16 owner Steven lakus 102 Summer Street this original notice of intent was for the removal of an inground pool garage and replacement of a retention wall we've had several site visits um the owner had to go back and get engineering done for an engineered retention wall and then because work was being done on adjacent property that the owner did not own we also had to get uh something from those owners giving permission to move forward on this did you did you so you can state your name and address for the record yeah uh Ryan Rosine I'm with gter Consulting uh 291 Main Street in Northboro um so we have not yet received um the signed application forms from the three owners of 96 Summer Street we've been in conversations with them and we actually Jamie who's here tonight Who's is going to speak in a little bit um me uh and applicant and Jamie had a call earlier this afternoon um to discuss some of the outstanding items that you know of are their concern you know with the new uh retaining wall so we're going to be working through that um so we're not expecting this to close tonight so we will want to put P us off to another meeting but I did want to just show you this proposed retaining wall since you guys have not seen this plan yet um so I can I can go through it so just to ref familiarize the commission um there's the existing single uh detached garage shed and Landing um that's being removed and then the swimming pool and the concrete around it is being removed and filled in um and so basically we met with the Building Commissioner and he was sort of unsure he basically said we need he needs an engineered plan to determine if the existing wall you know that's made up some of you guys saw it on site um that's up against the street if it's structural enough to stay our engineer our project engineer um basically said he's not comfortable with it um so that's why we have this proposed retaining wall so there's basically two sections of the retaining wall these darker lines here on either side are basically go from you know ground level the current LEL level of it up to 4T and then over 4T as you know it needs a needs to be a structurally engineered wall so we have a pre-cast bin block wall which we have a detail up here for um as you can see so those are the much larger uh pre-cast concrete um stones that is going to be put in here so it basically goes from 4 feet you know at the lowest point here at the top of the wall is 4T and then up to the street level which is about 7 and half 8 ft um so that's that's what we're proposing and so this is this is along the property line and as you guys remember you know there's this area here is about 9 or 10t that's technically on the other property which is why we need the signature of the other property owners um which we're working towards so that that's going to create a gully though right so so well yeah yeah because so basically this this wall obviously has to be properly backfilled as shown on the detail so that whole area is going to be back Fields even you know the shorter wall is just a regular versalock retaining wall That's all going to have to be properly back fields you know to the existing grade you know to match their driveway because that's the driveway side and them so it's going to match that existing grade um so it's going to be properly back filled with um proper material I mean the the detail here calls out you know the correct sort of stone it it recommends like 3/4 inch gravel uh or crushed stone and then obviously compacted correctly and the contractor will you know know all that and everything um so yeah that that whole area will be filled um and then here is here there's going to be some fill against the street just for the structural Integrity of the wall and then but that's basically going to be at the wall so that's that and the plan is still to remove the swimming pool all the concrete and then to to fill it fill it and then and then top it off with top it off with LOM and Seed it with just grass it's just going to be so basically once this is all done it's going to be the two walls and then this whole area is just going to be La okay any questions yes uh what are the dimensions of these concrete pre-cast concrete yeah so they in here it's hard to see actually I have I have um I have a copy of plans if you want them I have 11 by 17s if you guys would like to look at them now um if you guys do you guys I I'll I'll take one 11 did you say 11 by 17 it's going to be hard to read there's two full size as well uh so so the the detail up here in the upper left corner PS out 4 by 16 that it's so the ones on the bottom are larger ones and then as you get taller it goes to the smaller one so uh 39b that's basically a 30 39 in yeah 39 in wide by 16 16 in tall so those are the bigger ones and then you know they get smaller they get narrower at the top but the big and they reinforced interior by rebar or something like that to give them cohesion are they just SOL how they how they're stacked but there's there's no there's no Rebound in within the block itself inside the block I don't exactly know I can get probably some details from from the manufacturer on that I don't know exactly how they're you know they're made but I can get that those details for you but but basically they have these um on this detail you see they sort of have like a it's sort of like a Lego where they stack on top of each other and that's how they lock in but on the ins you're talking about the inside of the concrete then I can find that out I'm not exactly sure to be honest it's just a by past experience particularly with areas that get in undated with water occasionally that eventually if there's cracks work their way into the cement and there's nothing kind of act as a a bridge of reinforcement inside yeah I'm I'm assuming they have um some sort of reinforcement in them as it's you know a concrete block but I I'll get that information for you um I have a question for you um has the neighbor that lives next door has she seen and approved this so yes she's seen this plan they've had it for a couple weeks now um they had a a meeting uh yesterday and she can discuss this um you can hear from herself um but she has seen it and that's what we're working toward she they have some safety concerns obviously um with this being their driveway and there's been basically a you know 7t to 4T drop right here so they're concerned you know putting a fence you know along here to prevent you know liability wise so we would end up putting a fence you know obviously along the street side because that's about a 78 foot drop and then you know we're discussing putting one on here and basically this is just coming down to um who's paying for it is is it you know the applicant is it a combination of you know the next door neighbors and that so that's sort of being worked out right now but they have seen this and then once we get all those details worked out they'll kind of basically their signatures on the WPA form is their sort of stamp up approval of this sure I mean my opinion on this and how I honestly plan a vote is a lot of it is based on the neighbor's opinion of how she feels about this as um it it's I mean hugely impacting our property so um just kind of putting that out there to make sure that whatever you do has their approval yeah no absolutely and that's that's what we're working towards and and you know in the long run it is giving them back you know the portion of property that you know was always sort of theirs so any other questions for Ryan So based on the plans that you have put forth the stones that'll be resting will be pinned individually or each layer will be pinned essentially to the next layer to reinforce it so there would be if the internals of it are not uh with rebar and whatnot it would still have some sort of pinning inside of it to hold it all in place yeah yeah so those so those bigger ones yeah they'll they'll sort of you know connect sort of and that's that's why you don't need to use I believe that's why you don't need to use any sort of adhesive or like pins like the Versa lock wall you use pins to connect those two so that for the bigger one it has those large sort of pieces like puzzle pieces basically and my last question is uh in according to the plans the top layer will be impermeable is there a reason for that or is it to so there won't so erosion won't take place as you have water events in the neighborhood I believe I believe that's the reason why but I can confirm that with the engineer for you any other questions for Ryan all right so if you sticked your name and address Jamie rhagen 96 Summer Street I'm the trustee of the condo association so we have looked at these plans we do have some concerns especially the fence the railing um because at the top of our driveway there will be a significant drop and at first they weren't plan dep on putting something down that line there's also talk of where that fence is going to go you know we talked to the owner today he seemed to think it should go on our property so then it should be our responsibility I'm not sure it really should be on our property since it's to protect anyone falling into their property so that's something that we need to work out as well is the backfill that is happening what is going to be placed right now it's our driveway are they extending our driveway or is it going to be gravel like we just we haven't we have no answers for those questions so we're unwilling to sign until we get those answers can can I ask what do you want them to extend the driveway do yes that would be our ideal preference with with gravel or um right and our driveways tar I don't know what would be approved to use I mean right now we have a tar driveway so it would extend so you have you have 10 ft so of that 10 ft I'm just trying to my head would the fence be at the end of the 10 ft and then you would have the extended Drive was that what you want yeah I mean I thought it could go along the retaining wall cuz that's how the fence is right now it's along on the wall but I don't know that he Ryan was saying he wasn't sure a fence could go on top of the retaining wall it seems like there's a lot of stuff that still still needs to be worked out on this I mean we did have a productive conversation with the owner today um and you know we we will continue to talk to him but at this point we're not willing to sign off until we have the stuff answered I think that's reasonable it's a very it's impacting our property the swimming pool area is much lower and it's in land subject to Coastal storm Plage uh there it's probably Riverfront part of it and some other things resource areas I don't know that your property is in our jurisdiction other than the piece that's low right where the pool concrete is so if you decide yeah so we try and avoid black top we would prefer to see pavers if you're going to extend the driveway U wider or something but that would be yeah you just need to make sure that gets included can I just has a clarifying question on that um so you said you'd rather have if we were to you know extend you know the the driveway you would prefer pavers over asphalt right we would not want to create more impermeable area Okay so those pavers you would want to see as permeable pavers could be perme it could be permeable asphalt it could be okay you have a whole slew of stuff you could use I mean um okay I just wanted to that clarification and we can't so so Jamie we can't do anything until you sign on to the noi um and it'll be you in your capacity as the trustee or okay great great to no so so with your guys' permission we're going to continue the hearing yep Y and you let us know when you're ready yeah no that's so we'll um we'll go to your July meeting I don't know exactly your date for that but we'll we're we plan we hope to have everything worked out by the July meeting if we don't we'll let you know beforehand but yeah so the meeting in July is July 10th okay you got an you got an extra week okay that sounds good okay everyone agree all right okay I'm glad you guys are working it out all right um Lena just got out of a lot of work uh next up is a request for certificate of compliance D file number 061 0741 uh for Mass Electric National Grid rever to RNR 23 KV cable replacement this has been a long ongoing project they actually came in and got an extension uh we walked this down the other today everything's in place it's all covered up my recommendation would be to entertain a motion to approve um the certificate of compliance I'll make a motion to approve the certificate of compliance second all in favor I all right next up is a request for determination of applicability at mcmacken field uh from the city rever uh they want to do a bunch of demolition work uh this had actually come up before us last year and we held off on making it negative determine of applicability because one of the Commissioners wanted to make sure that this property was not considered isolated land subject to flooding I don't if you remember that so there's specific criteria for that it has to be isolated hydraul uh hydraulically from from anything else well it's not uh water's fed from two places it comes from a gully and there's an apartment building that's much higher and there storm water drain from the parking lot and all that goes right into mcmacken field and that's where all the water's coming from so even though there are Wetland species there I walked it the water was not uh more than 4 in high I think it has to be 6 in high uh or 5 in like that but it didn't come to that so my opinion is is after validating it's not isolated it doesn't meet the criteria for depth it's not in the flood plane this is just kind of part of the city's drainage and it's not in our jurisdiction um so I would request a motion to approve the RDA saying that it's basically not in our jurisdiction uh I would like to propose a motion to say that this is not in our jurisdiction and you the second second all in favor I I all right so we'll get that out it's not in our jurisdiction it's going to follow the normal stuff otherwise um um Chris chair superintendent of Public Works 319 charger Street I just want to thank you guys for that um we had a crew out there to start a site survey in borings and we just wanted delineation from you guys before we move forward with our project yeah yeah you guys are doing a bunch of stuff and it should be be a park again yeah that's the whole plan this back into park I don't think we want anything to do deteriorate right now we want to improve the whole situation so thank you all right um so determinations of applicability just for general knowledge are have to be discussed in a public setting but it's not a public hearing it's just we've decided it's not in our jurisdiction so we don't have anything much to do with whatever else goes on if there's other things are going to be happening as part of they're going to build a stadium or something you need to get involved at the the other the planning levels uh and uh you know discuss with them your opposition or uh for it or not all right this is a request for determination of applicability Lieber Bank Highway Boston gas company installing a new natural gas pipeline along Libra Bank Highway and into Parcels located at 101 and 51 Lee Burbank all the work is going to be completed underneath existing asphalt um if you want to state your name and sure yeah my name is we still have a lot of people on who is it yeah I just hold it up just kind of just show us you know where it's originating from and where the Spurs are going oh yeah turn your microphone on there you go awesome great thank you I'll repeat my name again Ken con from BHB uh we're representing Boston gas for this project so the proposed project focus on this one on the left uh or my left your right hand side uh it's a propose gas main that's going to run along Lee Burbank Highway uh it's going to be located I did get confirmation on this since the site visit uh along the north back found side of uh route 101 here uh from where it connects to an existing main uh it'll run south to uh two Parcels 101 um Lee Burbank and then 51 Lee Burbank uh 101's the northern parcel 51's the southern parcel and it's approximately 2,000 U linear feet within the highway and then uh it is 460 ft uh on the southern side and then 670 on the Northern side and so as mentioned by John uh this is entirely underground uh no permanent impacts above ground uh it is located within land subject Coastal storm Flowage as you can see here um with the flood plane and there are wetlands located on around the perimeter of the 101 Le Burbank uh so we are in a little portion of buffer zone here so I'll flip to the site plan here which might be a little difficult to see but outlined in red are those um gas Ms that are coming into the private parcel and then in green here is our Wetland with the associated buffer zone that we just barely overlap um and so Boston gas is proposing mitigation measures including pavement sweeping um appropriate soil stock piling um I know there's more in the RDA that are eluding me right now but mitigation measures to make sure we are not impacting resource areas throughout this project and um this is a minor activity within buffer Zone and exempt from um essentially permitting um for the portion within buffer zone and as explained the portion within land sub Coastal storm Flowage um will have no impact on the resource area because it's entirely underground um and that's the reason we're requesting a negative determination from the commission yeah so happy to answer any questions commission may have so we walked this down last week it's all underneath existing asphalt there's no they have a fairly detailed standard they do the work towards so I'm recommending a motion to approve a negative determination based on that's not going to alter uh the resource area motion to approve negative determination second all in favor I I all right great okay thank you all appreciate it thank you so last um are three certificates of compliance Excuse me while I get so on 89 or uh 29 Avon Street was experienced some flooding so the city did a project to improve the drainage there and they had to go and get rideways from a couple of owners three owners to go underground with this drain line improve the drainage so when we issued the notice of intent we simply said make sure you get a RightWay of agreement from all the owners before you start to work the city did that I found that on registry of deeds it was kind of a notice to those three owners but the other thing they did is they recorded the order of conditions on those three properties 29 Avon is selling uh this has held up a closing um the work is complete it's it's been complete this the city should have come to us much earlier um so I'm proposing someone make a motion to approve the certificate of compliance for 29 Avon and also because it's the same project for 1064 norra Road and for 18 Bay Road all at the same time so that we can send these out and then those owners can clear up their deeds so I'll make a motion for a certificate of compliance for all three properties right second all in favor I I I all right where's my agenda I got it um really nothing much on enforcement correspondence only thing I really want to bring up on open discussion is uh again thank you guys that was a long meeting thanks for being flexible for tonight our next meeting is July 10th uh there are a couple of things uh we've been approached about that are going to require us to meet um I don't have anything else you have anything Lena the hybrid meeting go okay yeah we want to Contin it doesn't impact me it just requires someone to manage it um and so that means technically as Commissioners you know when you're in Las Vegas you could carve out a couple of hours to attend a meeting via Zoom I'm just kidding yeah yeah I prefer attending in person personally but the zoom is a nice option if you just can't so does anyone have anything else entertain a motion to adjourn motion to adjourn all in favor second toour all right we're journ and for