[0:00] to this meeting of the conservation
and we're being recorded. Meeting of the
[0:05] conservation commission of Manchester by
the sea on September 8th, 2026 held
[0:10] under the opices of the wetlands
protection act of the Commonwealth and
[0:14] our local general wetlands bylaw. Our
missions here are to protect the
[0:18] wetlands and to serve our neighbors. And
we're happy to see so many of you around
[0:23] the uh the virtual table to join us
tonight.
[0:28] Uh a couple of notes before we get
going. This meeting is being conducted
[0:31] entirely virtually on Zoom uh in in
accordance with continuing rules and
[0:37] regs from the state.
And uh that means a couple of things.
[0:42] One is that we're recording on Zoom.
Uh two is that because we have had a
[0:47] rash of Zoom bombing on other boards and
commissions uh we have disabled uh
[0:55] participants video. So you'll be able to
uh listen and if when it's appropriate
[1:02] for public comment if you have a
question or a comment you'll need to
[1:06] click the raise hand button in Zoom so
that we can see that you want to say
[1:10] something and we will then unmute you
and let you speak. It's also important
[1:16] for you to use your last first and last
name on Zoom and I see that almost
[1:20] everybody has done that. Thank you. Uh
or some other easily identifiable thing
[1:26] like Red Barn Architect.
Um because we know who you are.
[1:33] Uh and
I think that's it for Zoom. Because
[1:37] we're on Zoom, we'll conduct all of our
voting by roll call.
[1:41] And we have a chat function, but please
don't use it unless you have a technical
[1:45] question. Uh if you have anything
substantive to ask or to comment on, um
[1:50] it will not go into the permanent record
public record if you put it in chat.
[1:57] There will be a time for public comment,
questions, and comments. I'll tell you
[2:02] when that is. And as I said, you'll need
to hit the raise hand button. Once
[2:06] you're uh recognized, please give us
your name and address or affiliation if
[2:11] it's a profession
and uh try to keep your question or
[2:15] comment to two minutes.
Um you you're to direct your questions
[2:21] and comments to Henry or me as co-chair
rather than to specific consultants or
[2:27] applicants.
Um you most of you know probably that's
[2:34] why you're here that we will open a
hearing tonight to confirm the wetland
[2:37] delineations
on uh proposed sites owned by Gordon
[2:42] College and and proposed to be developed
by Jefferson Apartment Group. Um please
[2:47] understand that it's just the type and
location of wetlands that we're
[2:51] discussing tonight. Um and not any
construction or other alteration. So
[2:57] there is no proposal yet uh for specific
buildings or driveways or
[3:04] um other kinds of things that impact the
wetlands. We're simply going to address
[3:09] the question of where are the wetlands,
what kind are they, and what are the
[3:12] buffer zones around them. Um many of you
know this is customary for very large
[3:17] scale projects. We did it for example in
great detail before we heard the plans
[3:23] for the new elementary school in
Manchester. We had peer review of the
[3:28] wetlands delineations. The same thing
happened on the uh cell signaling site,
[3:33] although they only have a small amount
of wetland jurisdiction involved. So,
[3:37] it's not there's nothing unusual about
it. But tonight is not the night to
[3:40] weigh in on the pros and cons of
building on this site, simply to offer
[3:46] your opinions or questions about the
nature and location of the wetlands.
[3:54] Okay. Hey, with that I'll call the role
of the commissioners and staff and we
[3:57] can get going. Uh Dr. Odinger
>> here.
[4:02] » Dr. Turner
>> here.
[4:06] Mr. Hammond.
[4:10] » Sorry, Mr. Hoffman. Why do I always do
that?
[4:14] » I'm here.
>> Thank you.
[4:17] Uh Ms. farmer
>> here.
[4:23] » And uh
we do have uh
[4:30] Mr. Oala, you are here. Yes, you are.
>> I am.
[4:34] » Excellent. Is that why you raised your
hand?
[4:37] » Yes, because I was muted before.
>> Perfect. Yeah.
[4:43] All right. So, we have a quorum present.
Uh we also have our uh conservation
[4:47] administrator Bethany Barstow and
possibly some other town officials whom
[4:54] you may meet as we proceed here. Uh we
also have town council president uh
[4:59] George Pooie.
[5:04] All right. Uh so I'll open the public
hearings and we start with notices of
[5:08] intent. The first of which is a
continuation for five kings way DP
[5:13] number 39-951.
Applicant is Ryan Mcsher. Property owner
[5:18] is Matthew Lewis. And this is trenching
and placement of electrical and
[5:23] communication utilities from an existing
transformer location which is off the
[5:27] property u but within the 100 foot
buffer uh to bordering vegetated
[5:33] wetland.
[5:36] And do we have a representative of Yes,
we do. Welcome.
[5:41] » Good evening, everybody.
>> On mute.
[5:43] » There you are.
>> Am I on?
[5:46] » Yes, you are.
>> Uh, for the record, Ryan McShara here,
[5:49] Red Barn Architecture. We're located at
8 to 10 Martin Street in Essex,
[5:54] Massachusetts.
[5:57] » Thank you.
[6:02] Shall I update uh the commission on what
we've been working on since we last
[6:05] appeared in front of you all?
>> Perfect.
[6:08] » Uh Bethany, I just asked if I could
share my screen. I don't know if you can
[6:12] allow me to
>> do so. Let me try again. There we go.
[6:20] Okay.
So since our last meeting uh we've done
[6:25] two main things uh to the plans and
application uh for you guys. Um so one
[6:31] of the things was we had our uh wetland
scientist uh Leah Bazbains head out to
[6:36] the uh site and uh update the flagging
for the wetlands um which has been
[6:42] updated on our site plan uh as well as
the corresponding buffer zones. Um so
[6:48] all of that is uh in updated and should
be in accordance uh with your standards
[6:53] uh for that work. Um and the other thing
that we did was uh you might recall from
[6:58] our site work uh we had discussed some
improvements to be made along this side
[7:03] of the uh common driveway in between the
transformer and our driveway access for
[7:10] five kings. Um we have removed that from
our scope of work and uh the neighbors
[7:15] are working on getting that uh a
separate uh work order permit order with
[7:19] uh the town and working with Bethany to
get that uh squared away. Um so uh all
[7:25] of our application materials have been
updated uh now to match uh the new uh
[7:30] wetlands condition as well as the
updated scope of work statement. Um, so
[7:34] outside of that, I believe we have
everything you all need to make your
[7:39] final review and determination on this
project, but would be happy to answer
[7:43] any final questions the commission might
have or go through any uh of the other
[7:47] facts or parts of the story that uh you
might need a reminder on.
[7:51] » Okay. Thank you, Ryan. Are there
questions or comments from the
[7:53] commission?
>> I'm just wondering if Bethany had a
[7:57] chance to get out there recently.
Not recently, but I did go out there a
[8:04] bunch when this was first started.
>> Okay.
[8:14] » We did have a
>> You looked at the new delineations and
[8:17] you like what you see.
[8:23] » I did not get a chance to review the new
delineations.
[8:27] I went when it was first
presented as a notice of intent.
[8:34] » Okay. Well, then I guess I can ask Ryan,
are there any significant changes in the
[8:39] wetlands delineation?
>> No, there were no significant changes.
[8:42] Uh, it was almost exactly where the
original wetland uh delineation was at
[8:46] the time. Uh, and the flags are still
out there if anybody would like to go
[8:49] out and uh confirm uh their existence
and location on site. We also had a uh
[8:55] professional land surveyor out to locate
those flags. uh and he shared the
[8:59] information with us that we got onto our
site plan. So that's how we got it from
[9:02] the field onto this plan here today.
>> Good. I have one question which is I I
[9:08] can't remember did you specify what
kinds and and scope of mitigation
[9:14] plantings you were going to do?
[sighs and gasps]
[9:18] Um I uh correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm
not sure that we have any requirement
[9:23] for uh mitigation uh for um plantings
here. Uh I believe all of the work is
[9:30] outside of the wetland and located
within the buffer because the uh common
[9:34] driveway technically outside of the
wetland and all of this work is buffer
[9:39] work. Is that correct, Bethany?
Yes, it was a long chat with D
[9:46] discussing this, but technically since
it's already in the disturbed already
[9:51] there existing driveway, it is
technically classified as buffer zone.
[10:01] » Okay. And you're outside the 50 foot no
build, so you're correct. Mitigation is
[10:06] not
uh required.
[10:13] Uh but I remember you proposing to do
some uh native plantings. So I just
[10:19] » any detail on that?
>> Yep. Exactly. So uh so we have not uh
[10:23] started that work yet. Uh if you've been
out to the site recently uh the septic
[10:27] system leeching field uh has been placed
at the bottom of the hill. Um, and our
[10:32] intent there is to actually uh infill
this entire area here on the site plan
[10:39] um with uh native grass, native
plantings, native wild flowers uh to
[10:43] bring it back in to have that sort of be
a more natural landscape as opposed to a
[10:48] uh to to a mowed lawn area.
Mhm.
[10:53] » Okay,
>> Steve. I'm I think that I'm I'm
[10:56] confident this doesn't need uh more of
our attention. I'm going to move to
[11:03] close the hearing on Mass D390951
for 5 Kingsway.
[11:09] » Appreciate that. Let me just ask if
there's any public question or comment
[11:13] on Five Kings Way before we close.
[11:21] And I am seeing none. So the motion's in
order. Is there a second?
[11:26] » I second.
>> Thank you, Jim. Moved and seconded. All
[11:30] those in favor? Marty.
>> Yes. I
[11:36] » Arnold
>> I.
[11:38] » Jim.
>> I.
[11:41] » Gordon.
>> I.
[11:43] » Henry.
>> I.
[11:45] » And I'll make that unanimous. Six eyes.
So that is closed. Shall we move to
[11:50] conditions for this?
>> I already have it up. So yes.
[11:57] » Okay.
[12:01] » One second.
[12:17] Does everyone see?
>> Yes.
[12:21] » I included the new memo that was sent by
Ryan on the approved plans and docu.
[12:30] » Good.
>> Um,
[12:33] » stop at special. Perfect.
>> Yes.
[12:38] Since there's no mitigation plantings,
they should
[12:41] » Yep. No plan required.
[12:47] » Bethany, do any of the conditions apply
to the
[12:52] new
placement of rocks or boulders along the
[12:57] driveway?
>> No, I think what Ryan was discussing, me
[13:02] and the neighbor, technically the
boulders, the placement of boulders or
[13:08] like technically the neighbor's
property. I'm working with him on that.
[13:12] » Got it. Thank you.
>> Because it will just be messy if it's
[13:17] like both properties under one order.
>> Yep. Got it. It's the smart way. Smart
[13:23] right the right way to go.
>> These look fine to me. Any questions or
[13:28] comments from commissioners?
[13:32] » No. We look at perpetual.
>> Yes.
[13:42] I'm gonna
>> simple
[13:44] » make it nice looking. Nicer looking.
Sorry.
[13:47] » Yeah.
>> Do we have do we have a condition in
[13:50] there about um um treating the driveway
for ice and snow? It's it's fairly steep
[13:58] and I know it's going to need something.
>> No, but we can add something.
[14:04] » Yeah, I think that's appropriate here.
We I don't think we need to worry about
[14:08] fertilizers and insecticides.
>> Yeah, we always have those.
[14:14] » But it does seem like everything's
running downhill here. So, um
[14:19] » into the wetland.
>> So, our standard condition prohibits the
[14:24] use of of uh
>> deicing,
[14:27] » sodium chloride
>> or limits it to the minimum amount
[14:32] necessary. Can't remember the exact
language.
[14:36] I think there's probably like a other
condition I can find from a different or
[14:42] special condition that has that.
[clears throat]
[14:46] » So I could use this buffer language and
fix it.
[14:50] » Okay.
>> As amended.
[14:52] » So
>> so minim minimal
[14:54] » nothing about treat treatment for um
winter winter treatment of the driveway
[15:00] shall be limited to the minimum amount
of chemicals required for safety.
[15:07] words to that effect.
>> Yes, I will find the exact
[15:13] verbage as
[15:18] » anything else.
[15:23] » All right, I'll hear a motion to grant
an order of conditions with these
[15:27] special perpetuals.
>> So moved.
[15:31] » Second.
>> Second. Thank you, Marty. All those in
[15:36] favor, Henry.
>> I
[15:39] » Gordon.
>> Hi,
[15:41] » Jim.
>> Hi,
[15:44] » Arnold.
[15:47] » He says I silently. Yes, he unambiguous.
I perfect.
[15:52] » Arnold's still muted because he came
back into the meeting.
[15:55] » Um,
>> sorry.
[15:58] » As you are.
>> Hi,
[16:00] » Marty.
Are you an I or an A, Marty? I'm
[16:05] » an I. Sorry.
>> Thank you. And so am I. So it's
[16:09] unanimous.
Thank you, Ryan. Good luck with it.
[16:13] » And uh if I might uh really quickly uh
maybe this is something for offline,
[16:16] Bethany, but um next steps will receive
this order of conditions and we set up a
[16:21] pre-construction meeting with you to go
over everything and review next steps.
[16:25] » Yes. Like D number, erosion control.
>> Yep.
[16:29] » The works. I have a whole checklist.
Yes. But email me with any questions you
[16:34] have. I'm always happy to answer.
>> Excellent. Thank you all. Thank you for
[16:37] your time. I really appreciate it.
>> Bye, Ryan.
[16:39] » Welcome.
>> Thank you.
[16:41] » The next notice of intent is another
continuation at Zero School Street, D
[16:46] File 39-953.
Applicant is Jeffrey Ingler. Property
[16:51] owner is Andrew Brown.
Project is construction of a 92,560
[16:57] give or take square foot three-story
multif family residential building
[17:02] with
access driveway to end of the
[17:06] development from school street minor
surface parking parking garage utilities
[17:10] outdoor amenities storm water management
a sewage pumping station and a native
[17:16] landscaping plan among other things.
Um, as the peer review is underway, the
[17:23] applicant has requested that we continue
this to our next meeting, which is
[17:26] September 22nd.
And, uh, I so move. Is there a second?
[17:31] » Second.
>> U, can we I have a question about that?
[17:36] » Certainly. before you. So, there was
some additional info uh that Bethany had
[17:41] sent out a letter from um
>> I guess the state regarding the
[17:50] joining of the water treatment and they
said it it didn't conform. Is that I
[17:56] don't know there were
>> Jim I can answer that.
[18:01] » Bethany, I'm gonna pause you for a sec.
Are we okay deliberating this case or
[18:07] are we
>> Bethany can state the facts but we can't
[18:11] discuss them?
>> Yeah,
[18:13] » great.
>> That D comment which can be found on the
[18:16] website under 40B proposals has been
sent to the applicant and has been sent
[18:24] to the peer reviewer and will probably
be discussed at the next continued
[18:29] hearing. But since they requested a
continuence, I feel like we should
[18:33] respect that and continue.
>> Right. I I just wanted to make sure that
[18:38] we we weren't um you know, going to hit
him up in three weeks with another uh
[18:45] you know, that that they were aware
that, you know, I I I just thought that
[18:49] should all be addressed.
>> Of course.
[18:51] » Good point.
>> Thank you, Jim. Everybody online should
[18:55] if they want to um go to the 4DB website
and read the
[19:02] text of the comments from D on this
project.
[19:08] » It moves us. Oh, sorry. We should vote.
>> Take a vote on continuation to September
[19:14] 22nd. All those in favor? Arnold
[19:19] muted again.
Give us an up or a down.
[19:23] » Thumbs up or thumbs down or the thumbs
up.
[19:25] » That counts as an I. Thank you. Uh Jim,
>> I
[19:29] » Gordon.
>> I'll abstain. Uh Steve, since I'm
[19:33] recused.
>> Thank you. Marty,
[19:35] » I
>> and uh Henry
[19:39] » I
>> and I am an I2. So it is five eyes, one
[19:44] abstension,
and it is continued. The third matter is
[19:49] a a notice of intent also continued from
previous meeting for 195 Summer Street
[19:55] DP 39-952.
[20:00] The owner is 195 Summer Street Realy
Trust who is also the applicant. These
[20:05] are proposed site improvements
um with um
[20:12] building modifications uh restoration of
a wall and um associated features. This
[20:20] is all happening within the 50oot and 30
foot um buffer zones to Coastal Bank.
[20:30] All right. Is there anything uh new or
different that uh you'd like to bring
[20:35] up? Uh is that Tom?
>> Yes. Can you hear me?
[20:41] » Yes, we can.
>> Great.
[20:43] » Welcome.
>> For the record, Tom Saxs, Hancock
[20:47] Associates, 185 Center Street in
Danfirst. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um so,
[20:52] just a quick recap, we our last meeting
was August 11th. Caitlyn White, our
[20:57] wetland scientist, was attending this
meeting and you guys had a few comments
[21:02] and we wanted to kind of push forwards
for a sitewalk. I think it was the
[21:06] following week. Um, my my notes have
August 15th you had a sitewalk with Jay
[21:12] Palakawitz. Um, and there he was able to
address questions, review the design
[21:16] with you. Um, we have not made any
changes to our design. Um, so from this
[21:22] point we were just looking to see if you
guys have any further questions that Jay
[21:25] wasn't able to clarify and um, we I can
pull up the landscape plan if you would
[21:30] like just to review it also.
[21:35] » Thank you, Tom. I don't have any
questions. Anybody else on the
[21:38] commission have a comment or question?
>> No.
[21:43] » Good. Anyone in the public have a
comment or question on 195 Summer
[21:47] Street?
[21:54] Doesn't look that way.
>> No, doesn't look that way. See, Tom.
[22:01] » All right, then. Commission, ready to
vote to close this hearing?
[22:06] » Sure.
>> Yes.
[22:08] » Let's have a motion.
>> I will move that we close the hearing on
[22:11] D 0390952,
195 Summer Street.
[22:16] » Second. I
>> second. Arnold.
[22:19] » Thank you, Arnold. All those in favor?
Gordon.
[22:23] » Hi,
>> Marty.
[22:26] » Hi,
>> Jim.
[22:28] » I
[22:31] um Arnold,
>> hi.
[22:34] » And Henry,
>> hi.
[22:37] » And I'll be an I as well. So, that we've
closed that hearing. Shall we move to
[22:41] conditions?
[22:45] » Bethany,
>> I have it open. Yep. Just give me
[22:48] » has done her homework.
>> Yes.
[23:03] Let me scroll back up. Sorry.
[23:11] Where it was? We just passed it. Yeah.
Sorry.
[23:26] Okay. 75% survivorship. Is there a
reason we dropped that from our normal
[23:31] 85?
>> I think it's just a typing error.
[23:37] » Fixed.
[23:41] That's why we triple check these things.
>> Thank you. Any
[23:51] comments or questions from the
commission on these?
[23:54] I I have a question that is not directly
related to
[23:59] » the special issues we have, but the uh
the the gardens uh it's an Mstead garden
[24:05] and I wondered if there is any plan to
make those um
[24:13] visible occasionally to the public.
[24:19] » That's outside of our scope.
>> Yeah.
[24:22] » Yeah. I think we'll hold that for
another time.
[24:25] » Okay.
>> Um Steve, I had a question. Um
[24:30] » Mhm.
>> is does the commission feel like the
[24:36] plantings at the top of the bank will be
sufficient to help prevent erosion? Do
[24:40] we need to specify anything in these
conditions that would um
[24:46] you know be for greater root depth or
anything like that or are we comfortable
[24:50] with the um proposal as is?
>> Good question. Um [clears throat]
[24:58] maybe uh Tom or someone can review what
materials they're planning to use on the
[25:03] steepest grades.
>> So I think John's I'm looking at John's
[25:08] landscape plan. Um it does look like we
are proposing uh to seed the slope with
[25:14] New England erosion control restoration
mix for dry sites. Um I don't know John
[25:19] if you want to speak to that um what
that mix entails but I I don't not sure
[25:24] if that's typical for for coastal banks.
>> Uh thank you. It is. This is John Pate.
[25:31] Um I'm a landscape architect and head
head gardener at the chimneys uh 195
[25:37] Summer Street. Um that's our our has
been our most successful seed mix um in
[25:43] adjacent areas that are of the same
sandy material. Um uh for establishments
[25:51] is a lot easier than plants um for sure.
>> Okay.
[25:56] And if I could ask, is that is that the
plan then for that area that has the
[26:02] small I I believe it was a wooden
material retaining wall that was being
[26:06] removed and replaced and regraded.
>> It is. Yes.
[26:10] » All right. Thank you.
>> Else on the commission.
[26:17] » I see one hand from the public. That's
Greg Lewis.
[26:22] » Yes. Levis. Um I'm from um Brookson Hill
Builders, the uh the general contractor
[26:28] on this project. I'm just reading number
17 on the uh conditions. Um it says
[26:35] trenching for utilities should be
shortterm backfilled at the end of the
[26:39] workday. Given the extent of these
trenches and the conduits that need to
[26:44] be uh placed in them and inspected by
electrical inspector,
[26:49] » I don't think it's reasonable to to
backfill them within uh a single
[26:53] workday.
>> Okay.
[26:57] » Um we can certainly make it short term
and there will be we'll put erosion
[27:02] control around them and you know uh
fencing for um safety. Um, but I I I I
[27:10] do need more than a day.
>> Do you have a proposal, Greg, for how
[27:14] many days?
>> Um,
[27:17] » you might need
>> I mean, I think a week is reasonable.
[27:20] And if it takes longer, you know, these
are pretty long trenches. Um, we
[27:24] [clears throat] can do it like segmented
as well. Um, but I think having a trench
[27:28] open for a week gives us time to dig,
install the conduits, and also have them
[27:34] inspected by the town, which is a
requirement.
[27:37] Yeah, barring storm events, right?
>> Yeah. Certainly plan around weather
[27:43] [clears throat] for sure.
>> The second half of the sentence is more
[27:46] important than you have a way to protect
them from cave-in or erosion.
[27:51] » Yep.
>> Should we get rid of the back fields or
[27:54] keep the
[27:58] » I mean, I would prefer that that was not
included. [clears throat]
[28:01] You know, the duration to backfill. Um,
I think just saying that they're
[28:06] protected um for the environment and for
safety.
[28:11] » We say backfilled or protected from
storm events
[28:16] » as appropriate. [clears throat]
>> That works for me.
[28:20] » Sooner or later, you're going to have to
backfill them.
[28:22] » Yeah. No, exactly.
[28:26] » The ore instead of and
>> Yeah. Backfilled or protected from
[28:30] erosion during storm events.
So if they happen to be open, they you
[28:37] arrange protection. Yep.
>> Thank you.
[28:41] » So Mr. Frank had you had your hand up as
well. You still have a comment?
[28:50] » Evidently not. Okay.
Um
[28:56] perpetual conditions
[29:12] There's a deicing
word.
[29:16] » Mhm. There's language limited the amount
necessary to maintain public safety.
[29:25] I think I have to add um the mitigation
survivorship on it
[29:33] » as a perpetual.
I think once that's satisfied, it's uh
[29:38] it's okay. All bets are off.
>> Oh, okay. Okay.
[29:42] » Sorry.
>> It's a two-year condition.
[29:48] Although
given the skill of the landscaping or
[29:52] gardening there,
>> we could probably meet it perpetually.
[29:57] » Were there any other perpetual
conditions on this particular property
[30:04] » prior to
>> from from prior u
[30:07] » Mhm.
>> orders?
[30:09] » It's a good question. I imagine we
duplicated the uh [snorts]
[30:14] » the correct toxic substances
>> and the additional alteration, but I'm
[30:20] not sure what else
>> I can take a look.
[30:24] » You can just say that you know other any
other perpetual conditions from prior
[30:31] orders of condition remain in effect.
[30:37] I don't think they would anyway, but
yeah,
[30:44] » I certainly, you know, commend the uh
the owners for protecting all the trees
[30:49] along the um the drive. I think they
went
[30:53] pretty far to
protect a lot of those uh trees close to
[30:58] the road. Yeah, that is it's actually a
brilliant example of cooperation between
[31:06] landowner and conservation trust in this
case MECT because that's all um CR
[31:14] protected property except for the house
and the gardens.
[31:23] All right. Um any other comments,
questions?
[31:29] Commission ready to vote on this order?
>> Yep. Y
[31:34] » that we close the hearing on 19 D
0390952
[31:41] » 1 9
>> um
[31:43] » sorry we're on Eaglehead, right?
>> No, no, we're on 195, but we need to
[31:47] vote the order with these conditions.
>> We're at order of conditions to approve
[31:51] order of conditions for D 0390952
195 summer.
[31:56] » Perfect. Second.
>> Done. All those in favor? Marty.
[32:01] » Hi,
>> Arnold.
[32:03] » I
>> Gordon.
[32:05] » Hi,
>> Jim.
[32:07] » Hi,
>> Henry.
[32:09] » I
agree. I'm an I. It's unanimous. Six in
[32:14] favor. Thank you, team, Tom,
and
[32:20] company. Next is uh a new notice of
intent at 21 Eaglehead Road, DP File
[32:28] 39-956.
Applicants are Steven Kelly and
[32:32] Christine Goutier Kelly saying the same
property owner and this is for
[32:38] installation of a septic system
replacing a a failed system in the
[32:42] buffer zone to BBW.
[32:46] » Hi, good evening. It's Bill Emanuel from
Wetlands and Land Management.
[32:51] » Nice to see you. the wetlands on this uh
property and I did the permit
[32:56] application for a voluntary uh effort.
It's not a failing system at at present.
[33:04] The owners aren't sure what they're
going to be doing with the property and
[33:08] uh they are undertaking this effort now
as opposed to perhaps under the duress
[33:14] of a a pending closing or something like
that.
[33:18] Uh so uh this is a for an septic system
upgrade. I can share my screen and show
[33:23] you the design.
>> Yeah, that help
[33:35] me to do that so folks can see that.
>> Perfect. Uh so 21 Eaglehead Road. Uh
[33:46] this has been approved by the the board
of health and we do have a D file number
[33:51] with no comments.
So uh the wetlands uh meander along the
[33:57] property line. Here's the property line
here and then it it takes a a uh a hard
[34:03] right turn, but the wetlands sort of
meander initially just offsite and then
[34:08] come back onto the property and loop
around the backyard.
[34:12] Um the 100 foot buffer zone is all the
way out here and this is the 30 foot
[34:18] line and then the 50 foot line existing
home driveway.
[34:24] Uh the existing system is right in here
and the as a designer found there's a
[34:31] reason why that system is right there
because that's essentially the only
[34:35] place on the property it can be. If you
notice all the uh notation on the plan,
[34:42] uh there is ledge outcrops or shallow
ledge all around the property, uh this
[34:47] area is a high point. Um it's probably
what the glacier left it. Uh and uh is
[34:54] that's as I said, it's where the
existing system is and the only place on
[34:58] this site to upgrade will be to
basically rebuild uh remove the old one
[35:03] and rebuild the new one. So this will be
an advanced treatment type system
[35:08] because it is closer to the wetland than
uh uh than the regulations.
[35:14] Uh it is uh the field is only 21 ft away
from the wetlands at its closest point
[35:20] right here. Uh the tanks are uh 28 and
35 ft uh respectively at 28 uh with the
[35:29] uh the bol or the the waterlue bofilter
and then the septic tank pump chamber.
[35:36] Uh it is a raised system and it will
require sort of an extension of an
[35:42] existing low boulder retaining wall
right here. It's about uh you know
[35:47] basically one to two courses of Boulders
High. U the the beauty of all this even
[35:52] though it is in close proximity to the
adjacent wetlands is it's completely
[35:57] within the existing lawn area. Uh no
vegetation is lost. Here's the existing
[36:03] tree line that runs right through here.
And and as I said this is just a rebuild
[36:08] of basically the current system.
So, uh I I have asked for a waiver for
[36:16] work in the uh 30-foot no disturb zone
and um since this is a voluntary effort
[36:23] um and it is there's no expansion of
bedrooms or anything like that, I'm I'm
[36:28] hopeful that the voluntary effort is
sufficient for mitigation for being in
[36:33] that zone. Um, I'm confident that when
the house was eventually sold or put on
[36:40] the market, this sort of upgrade would
have been necessary. So, uh, the the
[36:45] owner is taking that advanced step to
just, uh, take care of the the, uh, the
[36:50] work now as opposed to when they're
under the gun. So, uh, that that's it.
[36:56] If commission has any questions.
>> Thank you, Bill. Yeah, I'm inclined to
[37:01] agree with you given that it's already
disturbed terrain that the impact is
[37:06] going to be temporary, not permanent.
Um, questions or comments from the
[37:12] commission?
[37:18] Just maybe just a very very quick
overview of the imaginations or how the
[37:23] waterl system works. It seems to recycle
>> uh a portion of the water of the effin
[37:30] through the uh through the main septic
tank.
[37:34] » That's right. Uh the the treatment train
is that you know the effluent leaves the
[37:39] house. It goes through the septic tank
and then is uh flows into the waterlue
[37:47] bofilter tank.
Half of that effluent is split and goes
[37:52] out to the field and then half is
returned back to the septic tank for
[37:56] which would pass again through the
waterlue bofilter. There's this
[38:00] continuum 50% split going out to the
field and 50% going back to the the tank
[38:06] for retreatment.
>> And then the mechanism within the BOF
[38:10] filter itself is there a particular
fiber?
[38:14] » Yes, there's there's like a sponge
medium. The tank is filled with uh
[38:20] numerous small sponges which increase
surface area for beneficial bacteria to
[38:25] grow on and that's where the advanced
treatment is coming from.
[38:31] » Thank you.
[38:36] And uh just for our general information,
Bill, is this something that's used only
[38:43] in specialized settings or should we be
looking for more applications of it in
[38:48] general use?
>> Uh when when they cannot uh achieve the
[38:53] setback to the wetlands horizontally, uh
that's when this application is is
[38:59] utilized. It's expensive. So if folks
can be more than 100 ft away, it's not
[39:05] necessary. Uh there's also some relief
vertically from the estimated seasonal
[39:10] water table and that's where this was
applicable.
[39:14] » I was just going to say we've seen it
previously where groundwater levels can
[39:18] become very high.
>> Right.
[39:22] » I think we've even seen it as an above
ground u installation.
[39:28] Is there a special maintenance schedule
to this to this BOF filter or is it
[39:33] similar to that of the uh maintenance of
the septic system?
[39:38] » Um I I'm not a septic system expert so I
can't tell you what the maintenance
[39:43] protocol is on the BOF filter. Um
[clears throat]
[39:46] so but there is a deed restriction uh on
the deed that this is uh you know an
[39:53] advanced alternative system so any new
owners are aware that uh whatever the
[39:59] maintenance protocol is they're aware of
it.
[40:04] » Thank you.
>> Thank you Bill. Any questions or
[40:08] comments from the public on
21 Eaglehead Road?
[40:16] » I don't see any, Steve. I'm going to
move to close D 039095621
[40:23] Eaglehead Road.
>> Second.
[40:28] » Second.
>> Thank you, Arnold. All those in favor of
[40:32] closing this hearing, Henry.
>> I. Gordon.
[40:36] » Hi,
>> Marty.
[40:39] » I
>> Arnold.
[40:42] » Hi,
>> Jim.
[40:44] » Uh, I can't uh vote.
>> Yes, that's right. You're in a butter.
[40:49] So, you will abstain and I will vote I.
So, it's five in favor, one abstension,
[40:54] and the hearing is closed. Do we have a
draft of
[40:59] » Yes.
>> conditions for this?
[41:01] » Yes.
Boy, props to Bethany.
[41:05] » Bethany is the greatest.
[laughter]
[41:09] » Doesn't always happen, folks, that all
this work is done in advance. Sometimes
[41:13] we're scrambling around in venting
conditions on the fly.
[41:19] » Um, hold on.
>> Don't let it go to your head now.
[41:25] » I'll try not to.
[41:43] I have a question regarding the soils
that will be removed. Uh I assume these
[41:49] are considered to be contaminated soil.
what uh kind of where does that kind of
[41:56] material get moved to and what kind of
precautions do you have to put in place
[42:02] during the uh removal of contaminated
soil?
[42:07] » Well, the these are not necessarily
hazardous soils uh but it will be a
[42:12] combination of
um you know piping
[42:19] uh crushed stone sand and the like. So,
uh I imagine um you know it's generally
[42:26] taken back to the contractor's yard and
they they may uh segregate it uh put it
[42:33] through a a screener
and they might incorporate it into you
[42:37] know some other backfill.
>> Okay.
[42:47] » All right. And what are the perpetual
conditions?
[42:50] Okie dokie.
[42:55] » Boiler plate.
>> Mhm.
[43:08] » These look fine to me. I I I just feel
that I'm not sure if there's we just
[43:13] have to be ensure that the maintenance
of the system is there so it doesn't
[43:19] if it breaks down does it create a worse
problem. So is there anything that we
[43:22] need to add regarding the maintenance of
this particular system? So when it's
[43:27] working it's going to be great. I think
it's going to really get that uh
[43:31] effluent to a clear almost drinking
quality from what I'm researching and
[43:36] read. But um but it has to be
>> first.
[43:41] » Yeah.
Uh you're absolutely right and and it
[43:46] given what Bill said, I assume it
wouldn't be a burden to put in a
[43:50] perpetual condition that the owner
maintain the facility
[43:56] in accordance with uh its operation and
maintenance schedules and be ready to
[44:03] document that for any successor owners.
[44:12] maintain
[44:15] » operations and maintain
[laughter]
[44:31] proper maintenance of facility and
>> the facility in accordance with the
[44:35] manufacturer's instructions and make
documentation available to any successor
[44:39] owners.
[44:47] I can't type. I'm so sorry.
>> It's all right. The pressure would get
[44:52] to me. [laughter]
[44:55] » I will fix it.
[45:00] » Mhm.
[45:06] » I can't type in front of people. I'm so
sorry. I guess.
[45:22] » Yeah, we'll clean up the spelling and
grammar, but you got it. I think
[45:26] » I'm so sorry,
[45:29] » Arnold. Does that sound right?
>> It does. Thank you.
[45:33] » Good.
All right. Anything else for conditions?
[45:38] And let's hear a motion to issue this
order with these conditions.
[45:44] » I'll move to issue this order of
conditions for 039095621
[45:49] Eaglehead Road.
>> Thank you. Second.
[45:54] » Second.
>> Thank you, Marty. All those in favor?
[45:58] Henry.
>> I.
[46:00] » Gordon. I.
>> Jim.
[46:05] » Not voting.
Stand. Marty
[46:08] » I
>> and Arnold
[46:11] » I
>> and I am an I as well. So it is passed
[46:15] with five eyes and one abstension.
>> Terrific. Thank you very much.
[46:22] » Yes. Thank you for good job as usual,
Bill. Um brings us to the fifth notice
[46:28] of intent. This is a new one for 6
Highland Avenue D file 39-954.
[46:36] The applicant is Cedar Hill Residential
LLC. The owner is 36 Broadway LLC and
[46:41] the project consists of demolition of an
existing family single family dwelling,
[46:45] construction of a new single family
dwelling on the existing residential lot
[46:51] uh portions of the property being
located within the 100 foot buffer zone
[46:55] to ordering vegetated wetland.
[47:00] » Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
>> Yes. Go ahead. Members of the
[47:04] commission, thank you very much. Uh for
the record, John Jud, engineer with
[47:08] Gateway Consultants representing uh the
applicant for this uh residential
[47:13] project. I've just pulled up the aerial
just to give an overview. This is the
[47:17] Landmark Elementary School here. Uh
Highland A is here. This is number six.
[47:23] Uh and uh again, that's just the aerial.
Uh here's just some photos that we
[47:28] submitted with the application existing
residential dwelling. And uh that's the
[47:34] front and this is the re the rear.
So what I'd like to do is uh just sort
[47:40] of go over the site plan if you will and
answer any questions. But uh essentially
[47:46] uh the project entails the uh removal
and reconstruction of this existing
[47:51] dwelling as shown on the plan. I'll
toggle out just a little bit more just
[47:55] to give an overview of uh where this uh
house is in existence uh in relationship
[48:02] to the road. Uh also included with this
uh project, you can see the uh the
[48:07] proposed and existing house here is the
uh removal and reconstruction of the
[48:12] existing septic system uh to be outside
of the buffer zone. So we have the
[48:17] resource areas here and here and then we
have the uh 30 foot and 50 foot setbacks
[48:22] here and then the 100 foot uh buffer is
right here. So we've done a soil testing
[48:30] with the uh the health agent. We do have
an approved plan for this system. Uh the
[48:35] existing system by the way is in the
buffer zone back here. So that is going
[48:39] to be removed in accordance with uh
title five. Uh and um to to answer your
[48:46] question as far as septic uh removal is
not considered hazardous waste that was
[48:51] determined by DP. Uh but what they
recommend that uh the contractor do is
[48:56] expose it to the sun for a couple of
days and and that uh uh and then it can
[49:02] be spread as Mr. Emanuel would point out
into other uh filled products. So uh
[49:07] that would be removed and the new
state-of-the-art system would be placed
[49:11] here. We have septic tank here, pump
chamber and then that would be pumped up
[49:14] to the area where we found adequate
soils uh and again outside the buffer
[49:19] zone. Uh the proposed erosion control
for the project is shown here. This
[49:23] would be a mulch sock that would be
extend all around the limit of work on
[49:28] the property. And uh as part of this
project uh there's a uh within the
[49:33] buffer zone there's a a net increase of
about 450 square ft of imperous area
[49:38] that's proposed. As part of that the
applicant has agreed to do a one one uh
[49:45] restoration of native planting here
closer to the resource area. uh then and
[49:52] also in addition uh um a a rain garden
to allow for the infiltration of the
[49:57] house uh runoff which uh does not take
place at this time. So we have not only
[50:03] the 100% mitigation of native planting
but we're also looking to do or will be
[50:08] installing I should say a a rain garden
and I can go over that if you'd like uh
[50:13] as far as the detail is uh is included
on the plan.
[50:18] Uh there is some ledge challenges on the
property uh throughout the property here
[50:22] outside the buffer zone. So you may you
may be asking or thinking why is that
[50:27] hasn't that been explored but it's all
uh quite a bit of exposed rock uh where
[50:31] we did not find um we were able to find
the soil again outside the buff zone
[50:37] here but for the most part this is all
exposed rock and uh so that's a brief
[50:42] description. um the applicants here as
well if there's any uh other questions I
[50:47] can't answer but uh that's my brief
presentation and you can answer any
[50:50] questions you might have.
>> Great. Thank you, John. Uh questions or
[50:54] comments from the commission
[51:00] » for the mulch sock that's applied right
and it's properly marked uh in here. it
[51:05] does that just go right over the ground
or is there some slight depression or
[51:09] trenching that's done that's underneath
to ensure that the water doesn't run
[51:13] underneath? I guess I'm you know we
asking the commission what well what is
[51:17] the plan currently does it just get laid
on the ground as is
[51:23] if I could Mr. chairman. Uh it's a 12-in
diameter sock that's filled with with
[51:27] mulch and uh it's it's so heavy that it
just lays right on the surface and uh if
[51:34] should there be any type of sediment
that might make its way down gradient uh
[51:40] it will certainly hold that up. So it's
a very durable uh constru during the
[51:45] construction period. Uh it uh it it
holds up against potential sediment.
[51:54] question. Other questions or comments
from the commission?
[51:59] » Yeah, this is Chuck Hen. I have a I
raise my hand. I don't know if I have to
[52:02] wait.
>> Yeah, just hang on a second, Mr. Hoden,
[52:05] and we'll get to you. Just one more on
the isolated vegetarian uh wetland is um
[52:12] just because I'm kind of in a way kind
of coming up to speed, but that we have
[52:16] the buffer zones delineated in here. Are
there any any additional zones that
[52:21] [clears throat] apply to isolated areas
uh in this case?
[52:26] » I could again, Mr. Chairman. Uh so this
area here is isolated. This is not. So
[52:31] there's a small area here and they're
actually uh separated. Uh so uh the
[52:37] reason this is jurisdictional is because
it has a hydraulic connection. You can
[52:41] see the subsurface pipe here. So that
makes this all protected. So there's no
[52:47] this actually is not protected but the
fact that it's separated uh by uh this
[52:54] isolated area here which is in fact BVW
by definition because of the hydraulic
[53:00] connection. Uh that's why we included
these uh the 30 foot and 50 foot um
[53:06] local uh setbacks.
>> Okay.
[53:10] » And how how do you intend to access the
uh the septic? Are you going to do the
[53:16] work? Are you going to access that area
in the where the field is?
[53:21] » Where the field that would be done right
here through the the property uh off of
[53:26] Highland AV at this location.
>> And so you'll restore that access point
[53:30] there too.
>> Absolutely. [clears throat]
[53:32] Yes.
[53:36] » And when does that become a private way?
[53:42] » Well, our property line is here. So, uh,
typically in a private way, you you own
[53:49] up to your frontage here, up to the, uh,
to the center line of the rightway. So,
[53:53] you have access for to install
utilities. Of course, we're not doing
[53:57] anything like that in the road, but you
have the ability to, uh, typically uh,
[54:02] unless there's other deed restrictions
on the on the avenue, uh, but, uh, up to
[54:07] the center line, uh, typically in a
private way. So, they have the right to
[54:12] pass and repass as well as lay utilities
within the road, but they're not
[54:16] planning on doing that. This is simply
for access to uh install the leech
[54:20] field.
>> Got it. Anything else from the
[54:25] commission?
>> So, this particular system seems to flow
[54:29] it flows is a forced flow to the leash
field, I believe.
[54:34] » Yeah. So, we have a tank pump chamber up
here and then it goes to it's
[54:40] pressurized up to a distribution box and
then it's dist distributed by gravity uh
[54:45] down each trench outside the buffer
>> and if the pump goes what would happen
[54:51] over down at the tanks would would there
be an overflow?
[54:55] » So, the way it's designed is uh there's
24-hour storage above the working level.
[55:00] So within this subsurface chamber you
have uh a series of floats and one of
[55:06] the floats is uh the operation of the
pump itself and then as the uh the and
[55:13] these are on separate circuits in the on
the panel. So you would have a uh a high
[55:19] water alarm go off and above that you
have 24-hour storage in this case 440
[55:24] gallons. Uh so there's there's quite a
bit and and remember if there's no power
[55:29] in the house the dishwasher is not
working. There's no hot water uh
[55:33] typically. So you you really it's very
conservative is my point. Uh 440 gallons
[55:38] is and usually you're not out for that
long and uh should they decide to put in
[55:43] a generator then that will not be an
issue.
[55:46] » Thank you.
>> Question
[55:51] Mr. Hton,
unmute yourself and let's hear you.
[55:56] » Hey, I think Yeah, this is Chuck Hton,
Oxatchy Road. I had a couple questions
[56:01] about the septic system and a couple
other comments. Um, I think I read on
[56:05] the drawing that there was a 6-in swale
or ditch around that septic system. And
[56:10] that doesn't sound like much of a
drainage ditch. It seems like it would
[56:13] fill up the first year with leaves. And
I'm not sure if that's going to be
[56:16] adequate. So, I was wondering if you
know you might be able to make that
[56:20] bigger. That was the first question. And
I don't know if this this is the right
[56:25] place to be asking, but the loop vent,
there's a large loop vent on the on the
[56:30] corner. And loop fence are big white PVC
pipe that are pretty ugly. And I was
[56:36] wondering if it's possible to move that
to the back end of the septic field, the
[56:41] uh southern end, and maybe painted a
color that would blend in so it doesn't
[56:46] catch your eye every time you drive by.
It
[56:51] painted a gray or something. Kind of a
kind of attracts the eye. Um that's the
[56:58] other comment. And my last comment is
that looking at I disagree with some of
[57:03] the comments about the access um two of
the surveys show that are on the
[57:09] application show that Highland A curves
into our property Ox pasture and that's
[57:15] incorrect. Uh Highland A stops at the
corner
[57:20] uh on this on this map where it says
Avenue where the E is it's somewhere
[57:25] around in that area. Everything past
that is a private piece of property.
[57:31] So, I just want to point out that that's
incorrect on the maps.
[57:41] » You agree that the U property owner
would have access to the midpoint of a
[57:47] private road?
>> No, I don't think so.
[57:52] Is there a private parcel of land?
What then would govern
[57:56] » they could just come across our
property?
[58:02] » Well, so we
>> am my understanding your concern is not
[58:08] if they were to cross from to the left
of the drawing before the E and Avenue
[58:14] to access it that would be acceptable in
your opinion. But the to the right of
[58:20] the E is is your property. Is that what
you're
[58:23] » correctating? Correct. So I don't That's
a pretty steep slope right there.
[58:28] There's a pretty big piece of ledge
right there.
[58:31] » I don't think that's a conservation
commission matter at this time outside
[58:35] of the [clears throat]
>> No, it really isn't
[58:37] » jurisdiction. Let's Let's move on.
>> Let's move on from Mr.
[58:41] » Bethany, would you be able to unmute
Arthur Steiner? He's using the chat, but
[58:46] I'd prefer to hear.
>> Sorry.
[58:48] » It's okay. He hasn't raised his hand,
but
[58:51] » No, I know, but he's been in the chat
and I think he would like to speak.
[58:55] » Okay, I'm clicking him.
>> Henry,
[58:58] » click him away.
[59:03] » Yeah, this is Steiner at 9 Highland
Avenue. I just echoing what um Mr. Hton
[59:08] was saying that
uh
[59:12] that town uh town road ends right around
where the E is or thereabout.
[59:18] And I I I I disagree with the
commission. I think if you're approving
[59:20] septics, you should be factoring in how
these things are being made if you're
[59:24] approving them.
[59:30] » Well, on behalf of the commission, I at
least I I think I agree with you, but I
[59:35] was given to understand that it was a
private road with some common ownership
[59:41] of the abutters. Is that not the case?
>> I can't speak. It would be determined by
[59:47] this property owner, the proposed
property owner's deed as to whether or
[59:50] not they're entitled to
>> correct. As Henry said, that's outside
[59:55] our remit.
>> Yeah. You know, that I agree with that
[59:57] part. But I I think I I would just find
it surprising that that a subject is
[1:00:01] approved. If there is uncertainty as to
how this thing is being accessed, if
[1:00:05] they're accessing it through the
property, that's perfectly their right.
[1:00:08] There's no dispute about that one. But
the assumption that they have access to
[1:00:12] Ox Pasture or to the port portion of
Highland Avenue above the north of the
[1:00:20] letter E is is right now a false
assumption.
[1:00:25] » All right, let's move past the access,
please. Yes, I think the the color of
[1:00:29] the outlet pipe is also outside our
jurisdiction but the uh
[1:00:33] » well the question of uh location of it
um
[1:00:40] » I guess on one of the comments about the
dimensions and effectiveness of the
[1:00:44] swale surrounding the septic system
right which seems to be for uh any any I
[1:00:50] guess water that may be running down uh
any embbackment that may saturate the
[1:00:55] septic system Was was the swale
uh was the swale design within
[1:01:01] regulation? I suppose uh in this
approved system or in the in this system
[1:01:06] does it so that
because I could see if it's if the leash
[1:01:13] field is oversaturated then right we can
then start having issues with the uh
[1:01:17] with the protected areas. So I guess the
key question is not really knowing what
[1:01:23] dimensions are appropriate or not is do
we have a an appropriate design of the
[1:01:28] septic area including the dimensions of
the swale
[1:01:33] » if I may Mr. Chairman.
>> Yes go ahead John.
[1:01:36] » Okay so uh the detail that we have for
the swale is back here. So this is this
[1:01:40] infiltration. We're not showing anything
up here as far as depth on a swale. Uh
[1:01:45] and it's there is there is no 6-in swale
back here. We are indicating that the
[1:01:49] water is going to be going away. We have
a high point here in the swale and then
[1:01:53] you can see the arrow coming out over
here and then along this property. Um,
[1:01:58] so the rain garden that's over here,
this infiltration swell rather is back
[1:02:02] here. So I'm not sure what the
gentleman's talking about uh as far as
[1:02:05] that depth. Uh, we have no problem
painting the uh the vent. That's that's
[1:02:10] no problem as a courtesy to the
neighbors. Uh, and I don't disagree with
[1:02:14] that. There are some other techniques
too to sort of um um sort of disguise
[1:02:20] the the vent. There are different
products up there to make it more
[1:02:23] palatable. Uh but uh you know as far as
as far as the color, I'm sure the
[1:02:28] applicant would be happy to do that. Uh
again, all this is outside the buffer
[1:02:33] zone here. So there's really uh and as
far as the access, if you have frontage
[1:02:37] up to a right away, you have you have
access to that right away. So again,
[1:02:41] that's outside of this board's um
discussion in my opinion, but uh I'm
[1:02:46] sure the applicant would be happy to
talk to Mr. Hoden and Mr. Steiner uh as
[1:02:51] a friendly neighborhood conversation and
uh and if there's any legal aspect to
[1:02:56] that, they can they can uh get some
opinion on that. But uh um that's really
[1:03:02] the
>> Thank you, Mr. Really say about that. Um
[1:03:07] yeah. So as far as over here, this is
the shallow infiltration swale I think
[1:03:10] the gentleman was talking about because
that's where we showed the uh the detail
[1:03:15] um of 6 in deep back here.
>> Mr. Jud, is the is the swale over by the
[1:03:19] benchmark one? It shows swailes around
the edge of the uh septic system. That's
[1:03:25] the one that's what I was thinking about
that that I thought I saw that that was
[1:03:29] six only six inches deep. Am I correct?
detail.
[1:03:33] » Yeah, the details over here for this one
here, we are showing that there is some
[1:03:38] allow for that water to to pass on the
other side of the wall. There's a stone
[1:03:41] wall here now and then there's a
proposed retaining wall. So, I think
[1:03:45] that's what Mr. Hoden's talking about,
but uh we I don't believe we spec any
[1:03:49] kind of a
>> Okay.
[1:03:51] » a depth on that.
>> All right. I see also a hand from Corey
[1:03:55] Finanella.
Would you unmute and identify yourself?
[1:04:06] Can you help with that?
[1:04:12] » Uh, hello. I'm sorry. I accidentally hit
the raised hand. I
[1:04:18] » always forgive. Not to worry.
>> I apologize. Sorry about that.
[1:04:24] » Any other comment or question from the
public on
[1:04:31] island.
[1:04:38] I'm seeing none.
[1:04:41] So, um, is this a a site the commission
would like to visit in person or are we
[1:04:49] ready to close this hearing?
[1:04:53] » Leaning toward closing. I prepare to
close.
[1:04:57] All right, let's have a motion.
>> All right, I'll move that to close the
[1:05:01] hearing on 03909546
Highland F.
[1:05:06] » I'll second.
>> Good. All those in favor? Arnold
[1:05:11] » I.
>> Jim.
[1:05:13] » Hi.
>> Gordon.
[1:05:17] » Hi.
>> Marty. Hi.
[1:05:21] » Henry.
>> Hi.
[1:05:24] And
>> I am an I as well.
[1:05:26] So it is unanimous.
Let's move to conditions for this repair
[1:05:32] septic system.
>> A second please
[1:05:39] share.
[1:05:46] You
>> Steve, this is more than just a septic
[1:05:50] though, right? This is a
>> Yeah, it's a house. It's more than Yes,
[1:05:54] it's a demolition and rebuild. Slightly
different footprint with an expanded
[1:05:59] impervious. Good catch.
[1:06:26] Do we need any more detail about
handling of the
[1:06:30] um demo and abandonment of the existing
system such as we had on the Eaglehead
[1:06:42] or does that 310 CMR cover it?
[1:06:50] I feel like it covers, but I can add
like I can borrow the language from 21.
[1:06:54] » Yeah, no harm.
That was essentially saying that the
[1:07:00] material that's uh removed will be taken
off site daily.
[1:07:20] Shall we take a look at the perpetual
conditions?
[1:07:23] » Yeah, just give me a second, please.
>> Mhm.
[1:07:27] » Can you see the screen still?
>> Yes.
[1:07:29] » Mhm.
>> Okay. I added the language.
[1:07:33] » Okay. Thank you.
[1:07:37] Nothing crazy about it. You guys can
always
[1:07:41] add to things
[1:07:53] seems to end abruptly,
>> right?
[1:07:59] » Shall be stored outside the buffer zone
resource area and buffer zone.
[1:08:13] Thank you.
[1:08:22] Which includes, of course, lawnmowers
and tractors with gasoline and
[1:08:26] lubricants in them.
>> Good.
[1:08:33] Um,
in the aerial photos of the property
[1:08:38] that were submitted as part of the
notice of intent, it looks like there's
[1:08:43] a car parked back in the buffer zone and
things like that. Um, do we want to ask
[1:08:50] for any monumenting of the buffers and
[1:08:55] maybe start with removal of removal of
>> I did not see a car when I was there, so
[1:09:01] maybe it was already
>> it. It Yeah, I have no idea if that's
[1:09:04] » might be done. Yeah, probably the
previous owners or whatever, but um,
[1:09:09] » sure, [clears throat] that's a a good
idea. So, a a permanent
[1:09:15] monument or several to mark the uh
[1:09:22] » should that be perpetual special? What
do we think?
[1:09:27] » Yeah, it's a perpetual
>> perpetual.
[1:09:30] » Okay.
>> And maybe we should have an explicit one
[1:09:34] just about no no parking of vehicles or
or no parking or storage of vehicles in
[1:09:39] the buffer zones.
That that would be a good one to stay
[1:09:44] with us for forever [laughter]
>> for most. Yeah. For our boiler plates,
[1:09:49] right?
>> Yes.
[1:09:49] » No.
>> Better said, Gordon. Thank you.
[1:09:53] » Okay.
>> I can't.
[1:09:56] » No parking or
>> someone's raising their hand.
[1:09:59] » Yeah.
>> Um
[1:10:01] » right now we're we're out of the public
comment time. Scott,
[1:10:06] » storage of motor vehicles.
and the buffer zones and resource. Oh,
[1:10:15] sorry.
[1:10:36] Bethany, I think for 36 or equipment
containing said materials shall be
[1:10:43] stored outside the resource area.
[1:10:51] » Perfect. Thank you.
>> Anything else? We have the usual no
[1:10:57] alteration without notice and permission
from noncom.
[1:11:04] Actually,
[1:11:08] » I don't see it. Hold on. I'll add it
real quick.
[1:11:11] » Thank you.
>> Sometimes they get lost.
[1:11:26] » House currently being lived in. Well,
how do you
[1:11:32] you what's the order of the process of
putting in a new septic system while the
[1:11:37] old one is still being used
or is that not relevant here?
[1:11:45] » I believe they're demolishing the house
as well.
[1:11:47] » Yeah, there's no one living there now.
>> It's like abandoned it looked like when
[1:11:52] I went there.
[1:11:59] Okay.
>> All right. I'll move that we accept the
[1:12:03] order of conditions as written for 6
Island Avenue D390954.
[1:12:10] » Thank you. Second.
[1:12:14] » I second.
>> Thank you, Arnold. All those in favor?
[1:12:18] Jim.
>> I.
[1:12:20] » Gordon.
>> I.
[1:12:23] » Marty. I
>> Arnold
[1:12:26] » I
>> Henry
[1:12:29] » I
>> and I'll make that unanimous. Six
[1:12:32] eyes's.
Thank you very much.
[1:12:35] » Thank you very much. Have a good night.
>> And thank you neighbors. Good luck
[1:12:40] working out all those little fine
details.
[1:12:42] » We Yeah, we'll we'll be cooperative.
Thank you.
[1:12:46] » Thank you.
Which brings us to our uh abbreviated
[1:12:51] notice of resource area delineation
known in the trade as an ANRAD.
[1:12:57] This is D file 39-955
for zero Pine Street, Manchester. The
[1:13:03] applicant is Jefferson Apartment Group
Northeast Development Company LLC and
[1:13:07] the property owner is Gordon College.
And as I said before, this is to confirm
[1:13:12] the limit and regulatory status of
wetland resource areas on a portion of
[1:13:16] the property
uh owned by Gordon College.
[1:13:22] So, who's here tonight on behalf of
this?
[1:13:25] » Hi,
>> Lauren.
[1:13:26] » Thank you so much, chair. Thank the
commission for hearing um this agenda
[1:13:31] item tonight. We are following up on an
initial presentation that we made to the
[1:13:35] commission on July 21st where we were
introducing the proposed Pine Street
[1:13:40] project and we're following on with the
actual anid application which came in
[1:13:45] about a week or so after that. We've
been working very closely with our
[1:13:49] wetland scientist team at Beals and
Thomas and I will be turning over the
[1:13:54] presentation to my colleague at Beals
Stacy Minahan for her overview of the
[1:14:00] application.
>> Sure. Thanks, Lauren. Uh, thank you,
[1:14:03] commissioners. Um, will I be able to
share my screen?
[1:14:08] I thought I would have some
>> be able to
[1:14:12] » up. Let's see.
[1:14:16] All right. So, let me know. Of course,
that now moved everything around my
[1:14:19] screen, but can you see the uh
>> locus map that I have up? Okay,
[1:14:24] » you see the locus map now? Yes.
>> Okay, perfect. So, just to give a little
[1:14:28] bit of orientation, I know the
commission's familiar, but this is just
[1:14:31] an overall locus of the kind of entire
property on this side of Pine Street,
[1:14:35] which runs here. Obviously, you can see
how close it is to the other
[1:14:39] communities. Um, and we are requesting
confirmation of wetlands on just a
[1:14:45] portion of this property outlined in
red. So, this comprises two parcels.
[1:14:50] We're asking for confirmation of a
portion of each of those parcels. Uh so
[1:14:56] for more context here is the aerial. So
again this is the general vicinity that
[1:15:02] we are requesting confirmation for.
We're looking to confirm the limits as
[1:15:08] delineated of the wetland resource areas
as well as the regulatory status of the
[1:15:11] wetland resource areas and I'll get into
that a little bit later in my
[1:15:14] presentation. So the area that we're
looking at is about 25 acres across the
[1:15:19] two parcels. I will pull up the ANRAD
plan itself and we can zoom around as
[1:15:26] needed.
Let me know if you'd like anything
[1:15:29] larger. Um, so
the resource areas on this site were
[1:15:35] actually originally fully delineated in
the recent past by another firm. Uh,
[1:15:40] Beiels and Thomas was then engaged to
uh, take ownership of the wetland
[1:15:46] delineation. And so we went into the
field, reviewed and refreshed all of the
[1:15:51] flagging, made revisions as we saw fit.
Um, and we did have a few changes here
[1:15:57] and there for the delineation and then
are submitting this abbreviated notice
[1:16:02] of resource area delineation. So the the
wetlands on the site have been subject
[1:16:06] to some extensive field review. So there
are three types of resource areas uh
[1:16:13] that we're looking for confirmation and
a fourth that we may seek which I'll
[1:16:18] speak to when I talk about D comments.
So we are looking to confirm the
[1:16:22] boundaries of bordering vegetated
wetland which is shown in this green
[1:16:26] area here. So there's a BBW system that
kind of wraps around.
[1:16:32] We are also seeking confirmation of five
isolated vegetative wetlands. So, there
[1:16:38] are two on this portion of the property,
two over here, and then one in the rear.
[1:16:47] Four of those five IVWs, these four
towards the front of the property, are
[1:16:52] non-jurisdictional under the bylaw
because they don't meet the 5,000 ft
[1:16:56] size requirement. The IVW at the rear of
the property is just over that 5,000 ft
[1:17:02] requirement. That is also one of the
three certified vernal pools that we're
[1:17:06] looking to confirm. That boundary here
is coincident with the isolated wetland
[1:17:11] as well.
The three CBPs, the one I mentioned
[1:17:16] already, and then there's another in
this portion of the project site and
[1:17:20] we've delineated the limits of that
vernal pool within the wetland. And
[1:17:25] there is another zoom in a little bit.
Yep. another on this portion of the
[1:17:30] property and we've delineated those uh
ground pool limits as well.
[1:17:36] So the study area is outlined in this
blue color.
[1:17:42] So there are other wetlands elsewhere on
the property. However, they do not
[1:17:47] project a 100 foot buffer zone into this
area of interest. And so what we're
[1:17:53] asking the commission to confirm is what
we've delineated in this area and then
[1:17:56] also that there's nothing else that
would constrain this area that's
[1:18:00] outlined in blue.
We did for the commission's information
[1:18:06] request a waiver from section 1.6.11
which required side views of all natural
[1:18:12] and man-made drainage structures,
waterways, and wetlands. I think that
[1:18:16] may have been intended more for when
work is proposed. I'm not sure. um but
[1:18:20] it didn't seem appropriate for the
ANRAD. Uh there is topography shown on
[1:18:24] the plan obviously, but I did want to
call that to the commission's attention.
[1:18:29] So with that, the last thing I wanted to
touch on is the D comments. We do have a
[1:18:33] file number. Uh they did have two
comments, a recommendation to consider
[1:18:39] evaluating the isolated wetlands for
isolated lands subject to flooding. The
[1:18:43] project team is considering that. Uh, as
I'm sure the commission is aware, that
[1:18:49] will only come into play if there could
potentially be an impact on an isolated
[1:18:54] wetland in the future. Otherwise, it
doesn't matter whether it's ILSF or not.
[1:19:00] Um, but we are considering that and I
anticipate may be submitting engineering
[1:19:05] calculations to document whether or not
any of the isolated wetlands also
[1:19:09] function as isolated lands subject to
flooding.
[1:19:12] DP also um had commented about kind of
the isolated nature of some of the
[1:19:17] wetlands. I do have our field
representative Andrew Borman with me if
[1:19:22] there are any questions about it, but we
had undertaken a very detailed review.
[1:19:26] Se several of the wet isolated wetlands
that we delineated had not been
[1:19:30] identified by the prior wetland
delineator. Um in some cases there are
[1:19:34] berms separating the isolated wetland
from the other vegetated wetlands or
[1:19:39] from other isolated wetlands. Um, so
we're, you know, pretty confident that
[1:19:43] they are indeed isolated vegetated
wetlands. And so that's my presentation.
[1:19:47] I'm happy to answer questions. I think
one two other things that we likely
[1:19:52] should discuss tonight are um whether
the commission is going to be
[1:19:56] undertaking a site visit and if so, if
we can schedule that.
[1:20:01] Thank you.
>> Questions or comments from the
[1:20:04] commission? Jim?
>> Yeah. Um, so you cited uh, Lauren, that
[1:20:11] the property's been delineated
many times, a lot of work been done, but
[1:20:17] I noticed that the, you know, the site
visits are the middle of July, which
[1:20:21] seem like a pretty
dry time of year. And so if if one were
[1:20:27] to do this study in March, would would
more of these sites have qualified by
[1:20:32] the minimum uh square footage or is this
a standard uh process by which uh you
[1:20:41] know that it's not a seasonal type
delineation process? I mean could you go
[1:20:45] into that methodology a little bit?
>> Sure, that's a great question. Um and
[1:20:49] the short answer is no. the time of year
would not affect the delineation of the
[1:20:53] isolated wetlands larger or smaller. So
wetlands are delineated by uh soil and
[1:21:00] vegetative parameters. And so it doesn't
matter whether there's inundation or
[1:21:06] lack of inundation to delineate the
wetlands. Um if you are in a drought,
[1:21:11] you're not relying on only hydraologic
indicators. You're looking at the soils.
[1:21:16] And on this site where it's undisturbed,
um you'd be readily able to see whether
[1:21:20] the soils were upland or wetland soil
indicators. And then you also look at
[1:21:24] the vegetation. I will say vegetation in
a non-wooded site can change a little
[1:21:30] bit in a extended drought versus non and
even in a wooded site. I have seen it
[1:21:35] happen before, but it wouldn't be enough
to change the delineation
[1:21:40] um in all likelihood.
>> Good. Thanks.
[1:21:43] » Yep. What other questions?
[1:21:48] » Did I understand correctly, there is
only a single vernal pool?
[1:21:53] » There are three certified vernal pools
on the property.
[1:21:56] » Okay, that's what I thought earlier.
Okay.
[1:21:58] » Yep. Okay. So in the in terms of the our
area of interest, the 25 acres that
[1:22:02] we're looking at, there is one to the
northwest kind of the central rear and
[1:22:09] the uh east southeast kind of all in
that rear of the area of interest that
[1:22:16] we have.
>> And um Stacy, are there any um potential
[1:22:23] vernal pools on those 25 acres? Not not
that we've observed on this 25 acre
[1:22:31] site.
[1:22:36] » How about any uh streams intermittent or
perennial?
[1:22:43] » So for that I might ask Andrew to
unmute. I'm of the understanding that
[1:22:47] there are some intermittent streams
within the border and vegetated wetland
[1:22:51] system. I don't know if there's anything
notable Andrew to indicate.
[1:22:54] » Yep. Uh thank you Mr. Chairman. Andrew
Gorman from Bills and Thomas. There are
[1:22:58] some intermittent streams that are
contained within the bordering vegetated
[1:23:01] wetlands. For example, if we pan Stacy,
if you zoom into the far east, um you
[1:23:07] see how there's that linear swale
feature um
[1:23:12] where the J and B series sort of collide
towards that certified vernal pool.
[1:23:16] » There's a little bit of an intermittent
stream in in the the swale channel
[1:23:20] there. So um it's pretty common in large
bordering vegetative wetlands to have
[1:23:25] braided channels like that with the
topography. So we didn't observe any
[1:23:29] exterior of the bordering vegetated
wetlands.
[1:23:34] Good question. Thank you
[1:23:40] » Steve. Is this a case where we should
discuss amongst commissioners
[1:23:44] uh having a peer review done for this an
>> I believe it is. um
[1:23:51] » following our custom with projects of
this scale and
[1:23:56] » wetlands of this scope.
[1:24:01] So um
I I would feel uh much more comfortable
[1:24:06] proceeding with a independent peer
review
[1:24:10] uh advising us.
How do other commissioners feel?
[1:24:16] » Agreed. I would agree.
>> Yeah.
[1:24:20] I feel the same way.
>> So one one next step we need to take
[1:24:25] Bethany, do we need to authorize you to
uh
[1:24:29] » Yes. So that
>> you have to vote
[1:24:32] » that you wish to engage a peer review
and so I can start diligently searching
[1:24:39] for them.
>> Okay. Hopefully it'll be more uh it'll
[1:24:43] be easier than uh than the last time.
I'll make a motion in that case to um
[1:24:51] begin the process of finding a peer
reviewer for this ANRAD mass D is
[1:24:57] 03909550
Pine Street.
[1:25:01] » Is there a second?
>> I'll second that.
[1:25:06] » Thank you, Marty. All those in favor?
Marty I.
[1:25:12] Um, Gordon,
>> hi
[1:25:16] » Jim.
>> Hi,
[1:25:19] » Arnold.
>> Hi,
[1:25:22] » Henry.
>> Hi.
[1:25:24] » And I'll make that unanimous.
That doesn't conclude our business.
[1:25:28] Let's just uh keep going. We need to
hear public comment on this as well. But
[1:25:33] first, any last questions or comments
from the commission?
[1:25:39] And just one final uh question for our
side. Um with the peer review, do you
[1:25:45] anticipate that the commission will also
want to conduct its own site visit or
[1:25:49] will that be sort of encompassed within
the peer review process?
[1:25:53] » Generally, we we uh coordinate with the
peer reviewer and with you, of course,
[1:25:59] to to uh
>> make it a single event.
[1:26:03] » Okay, got it. Yeah,
>> of course. If we if we need to, we'll
[1:26:07] ask you for another, you know, more
detailed walker or inspection.
[1:26:12] » Oh, thank you.
>> Yeah.
[1:26:16] All right. From the public, I see uh
Corey Finanella has a hand up. Is this
[1:26:23] this time uh you actually have a
question or comment?
[1:26:26] » Yes, this time I I do have it. Thank
you, uh Mr. uh co-chairman. Um my name
[1:26:32] is Cory Ferinella. Uh I uh uh reside in
Beverly. I am also a member of the
[1:26:38] Beverly zoning committee. Um so I'm very
familiar with this uh plot of land uh
[1:26:45] we're discussing. So one first question
uh what is the peer review you're
[1:26:51] requesting to to just to verify
this these findings that we were just
[1:26:58] shown? Is that is that my that's my
understanding? Is that correct?
[1:27:02] Yes, that's essentially correct. We will
probably pose some some uh additional
[1:27:08] questions about aspects that may not
have been recognized such as potential
[1:27:13] vernal pools. Yeah, my main concern
um
[1:27:18] » is just the you know the mention of the
three vernal pools. Um I'm I'm
[1:27:24] you know I maybe it's not pertinent but
I do believe there is more than three
[1:27:30] vernal pools in that plot of land that
was uh shown earlier. Um I I can point
[1:27:35] them out if there is a site visit.
Well, if if the applicant is open to
[1:27:42] having um outsiders along on the visit,
uh we'll welcome that. Thank you. Uh
[1:27:49] wait, let's wait and see how that
emerges when we have the peer reviewer
[1:27:53] selected and on board and schedule a
site visit.
[1:27:58] » Okay, thank you. That that's my uh my
only concern is the
[1:28:01] » well and it's pertinent to say for those
who don't know that under the home rule
[1:28:07] uh provisions our bylaws offer um more
protection to vernal pools than the
[1:28:14] state offers under the wetlands
protection act and specifically we offer
[1:28:19] protection to to what are called
potential vernal pools meaning they
[1:28:24] haven't been certified yet but uh if
they are shown to function function in
[1:28:29] terms of habitat as a vernal pool should
then we protect them as a resource area
[1:28:36] with a buffer zone. So it is a pertinent
question. Anybody else in the public
[1:28:41] have a comment or question on the
wetlands delineation or identification?
[1:28:52] Hope I didn't intimidate everybody by
making it that specific, but that's what
[1:28:56] that's what we're here for tonight.
>> It is. But seeing none, Steve, I'm going
[1:29:01] to
move to continue.
[1:29:05] » Thank you to September 22.
>> To September 22, 03909550
[1:29:11] Pine Street.
>> Is there a second?
[1:29:16] » I'll second.
>> Thank you. All those in favor? Jim.
[1:29:21] » Hi,
>> Gordon.
[1:29:23] » Hi,
>> Marty.
[1:29:26] » I,
>> Arnold,
[1:29:29] » I,
>> Henry,
[1:29:31] » I.
>> And I'll make that unanimous. Six eyes's
[1:29:36] with many thanks to Stacy and Lauren.
And, uh, look forward to working with
[1:29:42] you.
[1:29:47] And that brings us to the close of our
public hearing with thanks to all of our
[1:29:54] neighbors who attended including
neighbors from Beverly and Hamilton and
[1:29:59] all the other jurisdictions.
Uh we have to review some minutes. We
[1:30:04] have some uh new and old business
enforcement issues to go over. Let's u
[1:30:10] start with the minutes of August 11.
Are there any corrections or additions?
[1:30:23] Can I hear a motion to accept them?
>> So moved.
[1:30:28] » Thank you. Second.
[1:30:32] » Second.
>> Thank you, Marty. All those in favor?
[1:30:37] Arnold.
>> Hi.
[1:30:40] » Gordon.
I
[1:30:43] » Henry
>> I
[1:30:46] » Jim
>> Hi
[1:30:48] » Marty
>> I
[1:30:50] » and I am an I as well.
>> All right. Under uh new and old and
[1:30:56] other business. Uh we have first an
update on the
[1:31:02] situation with the paving of some of the
parking lot at Harbor's Point.
[1:31:09] Um Bethany has provided us all the uh
the D comments on this issue which are
[1:31:16] kind of unequivocal that
uh some kind of notice and permit is
[1:31:23] required for this kind of work within
resource area.
[1:31:29] Um,
anybody on the mission have a comment or
[1:31:34] question about that?
[1:31:39] Based on that, Bethany has recommended
we ask for an after the-act RDA.
[1:31:45] Um, Bethany, would you like to give us
an explanation why an RDA and not a
[1:31:51] notice of intent? Um because I've asked
I called different um conservation
[1:32:00] agents regarding just like hypotheticals
of like what I should do next around the
[1:32:05] Northshore area including one um in
Toppsfield in the such and they
[1:32:11] recommended that an RDA would suffice
for this project
[1:32:18] or an after the fact as one would stand.
And why did they recommend that?
[1:32:25] » Um because it is a well in theory to
like other notice of intents it is a
[1:32:32] smaller surface area and it was already
in degraded area disturbed area. It
[1:32:38] wasn't like
it wasn't a vegetated area. It was
[1:32:42] already a disturbed area. So that's why
I personally my opinion recommend an RDA
[1:32:48] as well.
>> Thank you. Any
[1:32:52] uh comments or questions from the
commission on RDA versus NOI after the
[1:32:57] fact?
>> I think RDA after the fact RDA is
[1:33:01] appropriate. I think it's fine.
>> Good.
[1:33:05] And what about storm water management
standards? Do those apply regardless of
[1:33:11] whether it's an RDA or an NOI?
>> Like improvements of the storm water?
[1:33:16] Yes, they apply if it's a commercial
property, which if you deem it as such.
[1:33:27] Okay. Any other comments or questions
from the commission about this before I
[1:33:32] invite attorney Zer?
[1:33:37] » Go ahead, Adam.
>> Thank you everybody. Um I represent Har
[1:33:42] Harbor's Point Condominium Association,
Adam Zagger from Toad Hall and Stewart.
[1:33:46] Um we're going to be addressing this
matter um with Mass. I I um Mass DOT as
[1:33:52] I think the commission is aware um was
the party that performed the substantial
[1:33:57] work um involving the train tracks and
the spur track in that area um which
[1:34:02] damaged the paving. Um the condominium
association repaired the damage. Um I
[1:34:08] don't think there's been any alteration
of a resource area. Um but we're not
[1:34:12] sure that we have authority in just
ourselves to file an RDA u you know
[1:34:18] regarding a sequence of events that you
know really began with uh with MASDOT.
[1:34:23] So, we're going to try to work with
them. Um, and, uh, we'll be back to you.
[1:34:32] And I will say also, um, you know, I
have reviewed the correspondence, uh,
[1:34:36] with D on this matter. Um, and though,
and though you describe it as, you know,
[1:34:41] unequivocal, I I I don't think that the
correspondence to D, you know, really
[1:34:46] painted the full picture of the facts
here.
[1:34:49] Um, you know, this is really just
maintenance of a condition that um was
[1:34:53] approved by the commission. It's all
been put back exactly in accordance with
[1:34:57] the original um certificate of
compliance plan. So, we're going to talk
[1:35:01] to Mass Dot um and and and get a filing
together, we hope. Um but it's going to
[1:35:05] take some coordination with them.
[1:35:12] » Hear me? I'm being drowned out by a
passing commuter train.
[1:35:25] Okay, I'm back.
So, can you give us a time frame for
[1:35:32] this uh conversation and discussion with
>> I mean I would hope I would hope by your
[1:35:37] meeting next month. Uh I mean it's you
know we're sort of at the mercy of
[1:35:41] communicating with MASDOT. They're not
the easiest agency, but we're hopeful
[1:35:45] that we can uh follow up with them and
and get something to you.
[1:35:50] » Okay. Just to be clear, you would not
have done any work on this site except
[1:35:54] for damage inflicted by mass dot.
>> Well, I think I mean, if you look at the
[1:36:00] Google maps, you know, historically, you
know, they all speak for themselves. Um
[1:36:05] you there's a very significant and I'm
not sure if members of the commission
[1:36:08] are personally aware of it but there was
a very significant project repairing the
[1:36:12] tracks that spur track um you know
essentially was used as a staging area
[1:36:17] um you know it really you know degraded
the p the paving was old uh but it was
[1:36:21] degraded beyond [clears throat] repair
that the handicap parking spots were
[1:36:24] even gone. So the association
essentially um you know their goal was
[1:36:27] to put it back exactly as it was um
which is what was done. There was no
[1:36:31] excavation. It's just it was just just
putting I think it was described to D in
[1:36:36] the correspondence as it used to be a
gravel, but it really wasn't gravel. It
[1:36:39] was really just the subbase material
that's probably been there since 1985. I
[1:36:43] mean, it may have been repaired and
replaced, you know, time and time again.
[1:36:47] Um, the commission may also not be aware
there was there was actually a slip and
[1:36:50] fall that precipitated this. um an
employee from Dunkin Donuts was walking
[1:36:55] to the train platform, slipped into a
pothole, um suffered injury, you know,
[1:37:01] resulting litigation. Um so that shined
a light on it, uh in particular. Um so
[1:37:06] that was that was I think what
precipitated the need to make sure it
[1:37:09] was all cleaned up. Um but again, also,
I mean, of course, we need to put
[1:37:12] handicap parking spaces, stripe them, um
you know, all as it was approved back
[1:37:17] when Harbor's Point uh was initially
developed. And so that's that that
[1:37:22] condition's been restored and uh
>> you know we'll need to talk to mass dod
[1:37:26] about a filing.
>> I'm gonna take that as a yes to my yes
[1:37:29] no question that [clears throat] this
filing would not work would not have
[1:37:34] occurred but for mass DO's
um damaging the
[1:37:41] the parking area.
[1:37:45] Okay. Any other questions for attorney
Zerger?
[1:37:49] Steve, I think it would be good to have
a a deadline. The 22nd is a seems to be
[1:37:54] a reasonable one for
um
[1:38:00] for either or for a uh after the fact
RDA filing or a notice that DOT mass DOT
[1:38:08] is taking responsibility.
>> Yeah. I I don't I can't speak for Adam,
[1:38:14] but if his experience is anything like
mine, Mass DOT generally takes quite a
[1:38:19] long time, especially if you're asking
them to acknowledge responsibility. I
[1:38:23] » I will report to you for the next
meeting, you know, where we are either
[1:38:26] way. Um you know, we're going to reach
out to them promptly and uh you know,
[1:38:31] we'll we'll leave you in the dark, but
if I don't have anything to report, I
[1:38:35] don't have anything to report. So,
here's my last question, which is why
[1:38:40] not just go ahead and file the after
the-act RDA. It's not a terribly
[1:38:44] complicated thing to do and then sort
out whether Mass DOT owes you some
[1:38:51] reimbursement for the cost of the filing
or something else.
[1:38:56] » Um, I just I'd rather talk to DP. I
mean, the documents I don't know if
[1:38:59] you've reviewed the documents that
govern the the MBTA easement. I mean, it
[1:39:04] is their parking lot. um on weekdays
from 9:00 to 5:00. Um the association
[1:39:09] really only has use of the parking lot
in evenings, weekends. Uh I I don't feel
[1:39:13] comfortable on behalf of the
association, you know, making a filing
[1:39:16] for what's essentially their parking lot
for repair damage caused by their work
[1:39:20] uh you know, without coordinating with
them.
[1:39:25] » Okay.
I mean is I I to date I mean I don't
[1:39:29] think anybody has identified any issue
with the work that was done any
[1:39:34] alteration of the wetlands that is
causing the commission concern. I think
[1:39:38] it merely paperwork.
>> How would we how would we know? We have
[1:39:42] no filing, no plans, no engineering
designs, no wetland.
[1:39:46] » There are there aren't there are none.
It was simply just putting back what was
[1:39:49] there. That was it.
>> Yeah.
[1:39:51] » And I think there's there was c nothing
was done to the catch basins. They put
[1:39:54] some gravel um you know next to the
train track just to clean things up. Um
[1:39:59] but nothing it was it was all just if
you look at the original certificate of
[1:40:04] compliance plan that's on file. I I went
into the office.
[1:40:07] » You've made these points already. We I
understand them.
[1:40:10] » Well, no, but I you asked how and I'm
just saying that you could
[1:40:12] » for the record when I go to Dunkin
Donuts tomorrow morning and park in
[1:40:16] front of them, I'm parking on MBTA space
illegally.
[1:40:21] No, that's not part of the MBTA lot.
>> Yes, that's what I [clears throat]
[1:40:26] thought.
>> Okay, thank you.
[1:40:28] » But why what's what was the purpose of
that question? It's it's I'm not clear
[1:40:33] what the relevance is and what it's
>> it was that you had stated that this was
[1:40:37] an MBTA lot and
>> no no the law
[1:40:40] » you need to be more specific.
>> Okay. Well, I think
[1:40:43] » that says you need to be more specific
in the work that was done there. We have
[1:40:46] your work, but we don't have any
engineering design or plans. We don't
[1:40:50] have a contractor statement. We don't
have any
[1:40:53] » ability to judge. Um, which is why we
need an ANRAD,
[1:40:58] sorry, an RDA.
>> Well, again, I I had I had thought the
[1:41:02] commission understood and knew and that
most, you know, the the town officials
[1:41:05] know where the MBTA parking lot is. It's
the it's their there's specifically
[1:41:09] delineated spaces that are shown on the
recorded plan that sort of pick up, you
[1:41:13] know, behind the Allen's building. So,
when you're referring to parking in
[1:41:15] front of Dunkin Donuts, that's not the
MBTA lot. The MBTA lot is is the portion
[1:41:21] u it begins roughly at at the rear of of
Allen's and then there are some spaces
[1:41:26] on the side of Allens, but they're
specifically delineated spaces that are
[1:41:29] the MBTAs and all of the paving in this
case was to that MBTA portion of the
[1:41:35] lot.
>> Right. I can only say that this is
[1:41:37] another example of the specifics that
are missing in this case and we're glad
[1:41:42] to hear them. But again, we need to hear
all of them. Otherwise, we can't do our
[1:41:47] work.
>> Volunteers here trying to protect the
[1:41:49] wetlands and give us material, we'll do
our job.
[1:41:53] » No, understood. But I think it and I
just gave you more material than than
[1:41:56] you gave to the D. So, you
[clears throat] know, it's it's uh it
[1:42:01] goes both ways.
>> Very well.
[1:42:06] » All right. Nothing else from the
commission. Let's uh move on to the next
[1:42:12] item which may also concern you which is
updates on 7 central. This was triggered
[1:42:18] because there was some
uh activity involving um construction
[1:42:23] equipment behind 7 central a couple of
weeks ago observed by numerous people
[1:42:29] including several of us
from uh the public way or uh
[1:42:37] nearby vantage points. So, uh, naturally
we were concerned because this property
[1:42:43] has had a recurrence of unpermitted
activity and we wondered whether this
[1:42:48] was another example. U, Bethany, you've
done some
[1:42:53] initial investigation. Do you want to
bring us up to date?
[1:42:56] » Yes. I looked at it from the fire
station
[1:43:03] parking lot and what it looked like to
me at first was the spread of pea
[1:43:08] gravel. And since I just want to
emphasize that this because of the
[1:43:12] brook, this is a riverfront area. So
riverfront areas have different um
[1:43:19] exemptions than a bordering vegetated
wetland like we saw in 21 um sorry 20 at
[1:43:27] the harbors point parking association
condominium association. Sorry. So um
[1:43:35] maintenance of a parking lot in this
case is like an exempt activity if it
[1:43:41] doesn't imp impact like storm water. So
spreading of the pearavevel in my
[1:43:47] opinion under this exemption of the
river front protection act is is an
[1:43:54] exempt activity and the cobblestones is
like landscaping which could be
[1:44:00] considered an exempt activity. There's
just this point. There's just the
[1:44:04] questionable I don't know what it is
manhole covering which I've heard that
[1:44:12] Adam is finding out the answer to
that.
[1:44:17] » Okay.
>> If I got all of it. Thank you.
[1:44:20] » And did our prior um order on seven
central um require
[1:44:28] uh notice before any alteration?
Yes. At least to the office,
[1:44:34] » right? And was that given to you?
>> No.
[1:44:40] » Okay.
So perhaps these are exempt activities.
[1:44:44] Perhaps once again we lack facts because
lack notice in this case uh in violation
[1:44:51] of the prior order of conditions.
And for some of us at least um this is
[1:44:59] becoming tiresome as well as
frustrating.
[1:45:10] So um we need to unravel this particular
situation the latest um potential
[1:45:17] alteration potential exemption per
potential mixture of the two.
[1:45:23] And here why we were not provided any
notice as required in the prior order of
[1:45:28] conditions.
>> Um um determination of applicability.
[1:45:33] » It was a determination of applicability.
It
[1:45:35] » was an RDA. That's correct.
Um and then we need to weigh um what are
[1:45:43] the alternatives for
improving this
[1:45:48] lack of communication and lack of
enforcement?
[1:45:53] Henry, you want to add anything to that?
[1:46:00] Uh h
no that all sounds I'd love to get a
[1:46:07] fairly straight answer if possible on on
that why we weren't informed about that.
[1:46:13] » Okay. Anybody else on the commission
have a question or comment about 7
[1:46:18] central?
[1:46:23] » All right. Unless uh
[1:46:28] Mark or Adam or others want to be heard,
we'll just leave it there.
[1:46:34] » Well, I was just going to tell Mr.
Edinger um respond to his question um of
[1:46:39] why they weren't informed is because it
was not an not an alteration. It was
[1:46:43] just maintenance. Um as far as I've been
advised, it was just simply just
[1:46:49] neatening up the Keystone, making the
area look neat and attractive. Um,
[1:46:54] that's it. Um, I've inquired about the
manhole. I went out to look for it. I
[1:46:58] couldn't see it out there. Um, and the
area looks identical to what I've uh
[1:47:03] I've observed historically, you know,
other than that row of uh of uh
[1:47:09] cobblestones that Bethany referred to. I
can't recall whether that was there
[1:47:12] before or not. Um, but I could not
locate that manhole. Um, I've asked I've
[1:47:17] asked this just came up essentially
yesterday. um at least in my inbox. Um
[1:47:23] so I'll try to get some more information
for the commission.
[1:47:27] » Thank you.
[1:47:32] » All right, we've reached the uh any
other items not reasonably anticipated
[1:47:35] when we formed the agenda.
Anything on on somebody's mind? Any old
[1:47:42] business I've neglected?
>> I'll just give like 15 second update. Um
[1:47:49] I'm the concom rep to the facilities
planning committee and we've been
[1:47:54] meeting fairly regularly.
Uh the committee is
[1:47:59] um
DPW
[1:48:02] along with representatives from several
town commissions and boards and
[1:48:07] committees. And um the goal is to review
vertical building projects. So, not
[1:48:15] necessarily roadways or improvements to
roadways, but buildings like um Lincoln
[1:48:22] Street Well,
uh the new or proposed DPW facility,
[1:48:28] proposed fire facility, proposed police
facility, um things of that nature. And
[1:48:34] um there is going to be we're going to
give a presentation I believe to finance
[1:48:39] committee
in the next week or two and I'll send an
[1:48:44] email out if anybody wants to either
watch that or ask me about it after
[1:48:48] that's great or if anybody has questions
just shoot me an email.
[1:48:54] Thank you.
>> Thanks for doing that. I did have one
[1:48:58] other question maybe for Mark, which is
did anything transpire at the White and
[1:49:02] Black Beach meeting a week ago?
[1:49:11] Or was that in fact um aborted
as Bethany?
[1:49:22] » You're muted, Mark.
He's a co-host, so he should be able to
[1:49:26] unmute himself.
>> There you go. Um I don't recall what
[1:49:30] meeting related to White and Black
Beach. Maybe it was
[1:49:34] » It was a neighborhood um [clears throat]
of a U
[1:49:39] rehash
options presented by the consultant and
[1:49:44] opportunity for neighbors to to weigh in
open to the public. uh was
[1:49:52] » in at the select boards meeting.
>> No, it was uh I think it was hosted by
[1:49:57] Tony Barleta
and uh
[1:50:01] » conducted kind of independent of any
border commission.
[1:50:07] » I'll I'll follow up with him.
>> Okay. I don't recall
[1:50:12] uh whether I was there. Um so I was at
several of the previous meetings where a
[1:50:18] variety of options were discussed but um
I don't think at even at this point I
[1:50:24] might have been there um
there's any definitive um you know um
[1:50:30] decision made on any of these options
>> there is like a 60page presentation
[1:50:36] [clears throat] now online to talk about
their
[1:50:41] I think it's their recommendation Wasn't
about the people wanted parking there or
[1:50:47] the fixed stuff?
>> Yeah, the the general uh gist is a lot
[1:50:52] of the people want kind of the facil the
access to the beach to remain the same
[1:50:59] that they really um many of them don't
want to change how the roadway works,
[1:51:07] whether it's one way or two-way. They
prefer it to stay the same. they'd still
[1:51:12] like to have parking there. Um so that
was a lot of the concern that was heard
[1:51:18] from the neighbors. Um some of the other
were um issues related to and questions
[1:51:26] about the um you know the the seaw wall
the culvert the conditions of that. So
[1:51:35] there's still um a lot of unanswered
questions and and uh work that needs to
[1:51:41] like uh preliminary you know work that
needs to be done along that uh um yeah
[1:51:49] along those lines before
>> you can get to any of the decision
[1:51:53] making kind of uh uh steps. So, um it
was uh kind of um you know uh another
[1:52:04] kind of preliminary meeting.
>> Got it.
[1:52:08] » Thank [clears throat] you, Mark.
>> Mhm.
[1:52:10] » Yes.
>> And that does it. Who uh who's eligible
[1:52:14] to make the motion we all want to hear?
>> Man,
[1:52:19] I certainly will whether I'm eligible or
not. Move to adjourn.
[1:52:26] Second.
>> Have a show of hands.
[1:52:31] » Thanks everybody.
>> Thank you all.
[1:52:33] » Thanks.
>> Good work. Under two hours. Four NOIs.
[1:52:38] It's not a record, but it's close.
>> It's darn close. Thank you guys. See
[1:52:42] you.
>> Thank you.
[1:52:44] » Thank you, Bethany. Mark.
>> Thanks, Bethany.
[1:52:46] » Yeah.