[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.

September 8, 2026 Conservation Commission

Transcript