2026-08-03 - Conservation Commission

0:02This August 3rd, 2026 meeting of the

0:04Worcester Conservation Commission is now

0:06called to order. My name is Dianne

0:07Fratoni. I will be chairing this

0:09meeting.

0:10As part of this meeting, we will be

0:11holding hearings under the Massachusetts

0:13Wetlands Protection Act and Regulations

0:15and the City of Worcester Wetlands

0:16Protection Ordinance and Regulations.

0:19The Commissioners are volunteers who

0:20serve to enforce these laws and

0:21regulations to protect specific values

0:24identified as being important to

0:25Massachusetts and the City of Worcester.

0:28Commission decisions are based on these

0:29laws and regulations and are not

0:31arbitrary or based on personal likes or

0:32dislikes.

0:34It is important to the Commission that

0:35these hearings are held in a fair and

0:37equitable way for all parties involved.

0:39This requires that discussion takes

0:41place in a civil manner and that every

0:43individual in this meeting is treated

0:44respectfully.

0:46To facilitate this, the hearings take

0:47place in the order they are listed on

0:49the agenda, which is available by the

0:51door and online.

0:52First, the applicant will present an

0:54overview of the project to the

0:55Commission. Next, staff will provide

0:58comments on the proposed work.

1:00Then, the Commission will direct any

1:01questions it has to the applicant or

1:03staff.

1:04After the Commission is done questioning

1:06the applicant, the floor will be open to

1:08the public. Comments and questions must

1:10be directed to the Chairperson, not to

1:12the applicant or their representative,

1:14and they must pertain to the regulations

1:16that the Commission oversees. For

1:18example, although you might have

1:19concerns over the traffic resulting from

1:21a particular project, the Conservation

1:24Commission does not regulate traffic, so

1:25traffic concerns will not be discussed

1:27during the meeting.

1:29Please note that while new points will

1:30be given ample time to present,

1:32repetitive comments will be cut short in

1:34the interest of having all parties be

1:35given the opportunity to speak.

1:38We ask that all applicants and members

1:39of the public please state their name

1:41and city or town of residence for the

1:43record.

1:44To manage remote participation during

1:46our hybrid meetings and prevent

1:48disruptions, all participants are

1:50automatically blocked from unmuting

1:51themselves, turning on their video, or

1:54sending chat messages.

1:56For remote participants who would like

1:57to comment on an item on our agenda, we

1:59ask that you use the raise hand feature

2:01in Zoom during the discussion on that

2:03item.

2:05If you are joined by phone, you can

2:06raise your hand by pressing star nine.

2:09Staff will then call on members of the

2:10public one at a time and give them

2:12permission to unmute themselves. If you

2:14are joined by phone, you will then be

2:15able to unmute yourself by pressing star

2:17six.

2:20Okay. Will everyone please introduce

2:22themselves?

2:24>> Eric Division of

2:25>> Planning and Regulatory Services.

2:28>> Maddy Vanderveen, Division of Planning

2:29and Regulatory Services.

2:31>> Lindsey Nystrom, Commissioner.

2:34>> Stewart Kirshen, Commissioner.

2:37>> Devin Canton, Commissioner.

2:40>> Thank you.

2:41Um first, are there any requests for

2:43continuances, postponements, or

2:45withdrawals?

2:46>> Yes. Uh we have item number one,

2:49Providence and Worcester Railroad

2:50right-of-way, request to postpone the

2:52public hearing to August 24th and extend

2:54the constructive grant deadline to

2:55September 15th.

2:57Item number seven, 35 State Road, a

3:00request to postpone the public hearing

3:01to August 24th and extend the

3:02constructive grant deadline to September

3:0515th.

3:06Item number eight, 497 Granite Street, a

3:09request to postpone the public hearing

3:10to September 14th and extend the

3:13constructive grant deadline to October

3:156th.

3:17Um item number nine, request to postpone

3:20the public hearing to August 24th and

3:21extend the constructive grant deadline

3:23to

3:24September 15th. 11,

3:27uh 99 Sears Island Drive, a request to

3:29postpone the public hearing to August

3:3024th and extend the constructive grant

3:32deadline to September 15th. And then

3:34lastly, item number 12, 46, 51, and 52

3:38Mower Dock Street, a request to postpone

3:40the public hearing to August 24th and

3:42extend the constructive grant deadline

3:43to September 15th.

3:46>> Okay. Thank you. Is there

3:48>> items 1, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12.

3:55>> Second.

3:57>> Commissioner Canton?

3:58>> I.

3:59>> Commissioner Kirchner?

4:01>> I.

4:01>> Commissioner Nystrom? I. Commissioner

4:03Fatone? I.

4:05Uh first item then, uh new business,

4:07request for determination of

4:08applicability, uh 43 Weatherstone Drive.

4:31Applicant there or just

5:02>> Hello?

5:03>> Hello?

5:05>> Hello?

5:06>> Yes, can you hear us?

5:09>> Can you hear me now?

5:10>> I I hear you.

5:12>> Oh, okay. All right, I couldn't get on

5:13muted. Sorry.

5:15>> Um

5:16>> Yes.

5:16>> Well, let's let's make sure the room

5:18here hears you. Does the room

5:20>> We got it. Okay, we can hear it. Thank

5:21you.

5:22>> Oh, okay. All right. Um yeah, my name is

5:25Kevin McKinnon. I'm from Deck It. Um

5:28we're rebuilding existing uh landings uh

5:32and all on most of the condo units

5:36at Blythewood. Um

5:39and number 43 is uh

5:42approximately 80 ft from the wetland.

5:46Um

5:48so

5:51that's why we're here.

5:55>> Okay.

5:56>> So, we we would just want to rebuild

5:58exactly what's there. This one post

6:01there which will stay, we'll just

6:04temporarily support the roof.

6:07And we'll put a new footing in

6:08underneath that post which would be a

6:10helical pile. Um so, it wouldn't be

6:14concrete. So, it'll be minimal

6:16disturbance.

6:17Um

6:19and then just rebuild it exactly the

6:20same but out of wood.

6:23Um and also composite decking.

6:29>> Okay. Um staff, any comments on the

6:32project?

6:34>> Yep, so this project came through as a

6:35building permit. Staff did flag it due

6:37to the proximity to a wetland.

6:39This would be considered a minor

6:41activity in the buffer zone and would be

6:43exempt under the wetlands protection

6:44act, but they did have to file under our

6:47local ordinance. Um so, they are working

6:50on multiple decks throughout this

6:51complex, but unit 43 was the only one

6:54that was within the buffer zone of a

6:55wetland.

6:56So, no concerns from staff at this time.

6:59>> Thank you. Commissioners, any questions

7:01or concerns about the project?

7:09Uh

7:10is there anyone here from the public on

7:12this or online?

7:20Okay. Is there a motion?

7:22>> Uh motion to issue a negative

7:23determination.

7:25>> Oh, sorry. This is a hearing.

7:28>> No, it's the RDA, isn't it?

7:31Yep, good.

7:32>> Yep, we're good. Sorry.

7:34>> Second.

7:34>> Commissioner Canton.

7:36>> Aye.

7:36>> Commissioner Kushner.

7:38>> Aye.

7:38>> Commissioner Nystrom.

7:39>> Aye.

7:40>> Commissioner Fratoni. Aye. Thank you.

7:42You're all set.

7:43>> Okay, great. Thank you.

7:46>> Next item also an RDA 413 Lake Ave.

8:12>> [snorts]

8:18>> Do we have the applicant online for item

8:21number three?

8:26>> We weren't able to get a hold of them

8:28today, so it's possible they're just not

8:30>> Okay. I mean we can circle back I guess

8:32if they

8:32>> We do have a hand raised.

8:33>> Okay, there we go.

8:46>> No.

8:47>> You should be able to speak now.

8:49Or you should be able to unmute

8:50yourself.

9:04>> Hello.

9:06>> Hello.

9:07>> Hello.

9:08>> Hey, can you hear me now?

9:09>> Yes.

9:10>> Okay, great. Thank you.

9:12Yeah,

9:13we're doing application for 413 Lake

9:15Ave.

9:17The application is to redo

9:19[clears throat] part of the deck.

9:22>> I'm sorry, could you just could you back

9:24up just a second and just state your

9:25name

9:27and are you the homeowner?

9:29>> No, I'm the GC.

9:31I'm the project manager for the project

9:33actually. I'm not the homeowner.

9:37>> Okay, go ahead.

9:38>> My name is Pedro Melo.

9:42>> I'm sorry, please go ahead.

9:45>> Yeah, my name is Pedro Melo. I'm the

9:47project manager

9:49for Origins Construction at this

9:51project.

9:52And where you can see it's marked in

9:55green

9:56is the area we are proposing to replace

9:59the exact same way it is right now.

10:03Like the same footprint, same size.

10:11And this is like close to the water.

10:13Actually, the lower deck is sitting on

10:16the water.

10:18So, that's why

10:20we are here today

10:21to try

10:22make that work for the client.

10:25>> Understood. Um

10:27Staff comments on this project?

10:30>> So, this was another project that came

10:32through as a building permit. Uh staff

10:33did flag it to this proximity to Lake

10:35Winnisquam as needing a filing. Uh the

10:38initial review of the building permit,

10:40uh we were thinking an RDA would be a

10:42suitable, but based on the work

10:45proposed, it seemed like a little bit

10:46more work on footings was going to

10:48happen rather than just like replacing

10:50deck boards and whatnot. So, I guess

10:53we would like to know a little bit more

10:55of what is actually happening with the

10:57footings. Uh

11:00Yeah, if you could just describe the

11:01work a little bit more.

11:02>> Okay, yeah, 100%. So, yeah, we're not

11:05just replacing the the decking boards.

11:07We are replacing the footings, replace

11:09the structure, like the beam, the the

11:12floor joists, the railing, pretty much

11:14on that uh green part where you marking

11:17out, we're going to redo the whole

11:19structure because like the existing

11:21footings

11:22it's like 3 ft exposed. So, they are not

11:26strong enough to hold the deck anymore.

11:29So, all those footings inside the green

11:32area,

11:33we're going to redo it.

11:35And the foot is inside on the the lake,

11:38where you have four inside the lake,

11:40we're doing a technical metal post.

11:46>> So, if I'm hearing you correctly, you

11:48are working in the lake bed. You are

11:49replacing structure in the lake bed.

11:53>> Yes.

11:54If you look at the last one where where

11:56you have like the

11:58four posts

11:59in the beam on top,

12:01that where it's actually inside the

12:03water in the water.

12:06>> Okay, so I mean, from my point of view,

12:08it's an NOI, not an RDA. Um,

12:11do you do we even vote on this?

12:14>> Yeah, so essentially, since there is

12:16active work within the resource area, we

12:18would also recommend that an uh

12:20notice of intent be filed. So, you will

12:22be looking for a positive determination.

12:26>> Um, any comments or questions from

12:27commissioners? They certainly could

12:29dispute my interpretation of this.

12:34No.

12:36Anyone here in the public on the

12:37project?

12:42>> Motion to issue a positive

12:43determination.

12:47>> Second.

12:48>> Commissioner Canton?

12:49>> I.

12:49>> Commissioner Kushner?

12:51>> I.

12:52>> Commissioner Nystrom?

12:53>> I.

12:54>> Commissioner Fortunati, I. Um, to the

12:56applicant, you understand that that's a

12:57different filing than the one you've

12:59submitted for tonight.

13:01>> Yeah, I understood now.

13:02>> Okay.

13:04>> So, I need to reapply for the R28, you

13:07said?

13:08>> Yep, so um staff will reach out later

13:11this week just kind of giving you an

13:12overview of what we would expect with

13:14that notice of intent filing.

13:16>> Okay. Thank you very much, guys.

13:18>> Thank you. Thank you. Have a good night.

13:20>> You too.

13:21>> Uh

13:22Next item number four,

13:24uh I-190 I-290 Route 146 right of way, a

13:27year yearly operational plan

13:30uh

13:31for MassDOT.

13:47>> Just a reminder, if you're in the Zoom

13:48room and here to present, please please

13:51raise your hand and we can uh

13:52give you speaking access.

14:16I can make a sudden note to the project

14:18team. Maybe we come back to this one at

14:19the end of the public hearings if

14:20>> Okay.

14:21>> see if we have somebody by then.

14:22>> All right.

14:23Uh so, moving on then, number 5, 520

14:25Park Avenue and 111 Maywood Street.

14:35>> I don't know if you're set up to see a

14:36storyboard, but

14:49My name is Brandon.

14:53>> Yep.

14:54Yeah. It it's

14:55>> Shut it off.

14:56>> You shut it off, but I didn't say

14:57>> Now it's on.

14:58>> Yeah. Okay. Yep.

15:00>> My name is Brandon Fagan, licensed site

15:02professional of record for the 520

15:05Maywood Street. It's also known as 111

15:07Maywood Street and Park Avenue.

15:09Uh we conducted um the site is located

15:13in Worcester uh on Beaver Brook, as you

15:16can see in the drawing here.

15:18Um uh back in the beginning of last

15:21year, we conducted an investigations

15:24as part of a ramp plan, which is a

15:26release abatement measure plan

15:28to investigate the property to identify

15:30impact conditions around the property

15:33for characterization main for

15:36investigation that would lead to

15:38cleaning up the property and conducting

15:40remedial measures.

15:42The investigations were conducted in the

15:43April and July window. Test pits were

15:45completed and following those test pits,

15:48we excavated certain soils and certain

15:50areas that were impacted.

15:52At the time we weren't permitted to do

15:54anything with that material, so we put

15:56it back in the hole and it's in certain

15:59test pits identified impacted areas.

16:02Consequent to that, we filed a ramp plan

16:04in July of this year in order to remove

16:07those soils in addition to some

16:08additional soils around them

16:10in order to get to what we're

16:12considering a commercial risk base use

16:14standard for the property.

16:16So those test pit locations that you

16:18approved under the original RDA,

16:21basically there are certain locations

16:22we're going to re-excavate that soil out

16:24in addition to a perimeter around those

16:27areas

16:28that was identified in this filing with

16:30the RDA.

16:32Those are again test pits that you

16:34already saw, you already looked at.

16:36We're basically going back and then

16:38digging them out. We're going to take

16:40that material out in addition to some

16:42additional material. We're going to

16:43characterize the limited extent of those

16:45areas when we excavate them.

16:47This excavation will can be conducted

16:50over about a two-week period. The idea

16:52is to try and remove that material.

16:55It's again within all parking area. None

16:57of this area is in kind of in open area

16:59or grassed areas. Um

17:02and then I can walk through each one of

17:03these as a point-to-point

17:05at this point just so you're aware of

17:07what we're doing.

17:09There's basically four areas.

17:12Five if you want to count some of the

17:15areas. There's two or three cuts in the

17:16same areas. Um under one uh phase one,

17:21the SB-14 area,

17:23um that location,

17:27we good there?

17:29Okay.

17:30SB-14, there's a number of locations

17:33that were along in the preliminary zone

17:35that were uh outside of the AE zone, but

17:38I'm just making you aware of them. Um

17:40the two primary areas of excavation are

17:42where the old Chevy dealership was. I

17:44don't know if you're familiar with the

17:45property, but it was right along the

17:47front edge of the of of Park Street. Uh

17:50one area was uh by MW-107 was an area

17:53that had a gasoline tank. It looks like

17:56the excavation of the tank was removed.

17:58Um we excavated around that area. We

18:00identified it impacts. We put the

18:02material back in the hole. We're going

18:04to re-excavate that area in addition to

18:06some additional areas. Again, it's

18:08outside the AE area, but it's an area of

18:10excavation.

18:11Same similar to SB-8, it's in the same

18:13area. Um it's further that's not

18:16gasoline impacted that was some kind of

18:18a drain or oil impacted area. We have

18:20polyaromatic hydrocarbons. We're going

18:23to excavate that area.

18:25All these areas will be removed, will be

18:27conducted with uh um

18:29uh wattles around them just so that we

18:31have any protection of runoff in the

18:33asphalt area.

18:34In addition, the academy um academy um

18:37the university is planning on

18:39uh putting wattles along the Beaver

18:41Brook boundary. Now again, most of these

18:43locations are good 100 plus feet if not

18:46more from where we're excavating, but we

18:49already put in um wattles. Actually, we

18:52put um core logs along the property edge

18:55over by the building at 520 Maywood.

18:58We're just going to extend that and

18:59carry that down along Beaver Brook. Case

19:01there's any concern just for the for the

19:03boundary condition.

19:04Um those two locations again not out not

19:08inside the AE area, but they're going to

19:09be excavated. You you to move to the

19:11next slide?

19:14>> Um

19:16Which one is this?

19:19>> You can take the microphone with you.

19:21>> Okay, SB-14 area.

19:24Those areas look like we have some ash

19:26in in the um

19:28We have some ash in the ground over

19:29there.

19:30Um those test pits are going to be

19:31removed. Um we had uh lead as well over

19:35in those areas. Um again, a lot of

19:37building debris um and residuals from

19:39the ash content uh presents arsenic and

19:42lead out of those areas. Those areas

19:45represented on your drawing are about 10

19:47by 10.

19:48Um those again, the limits you're

19:50currently seeing for test pits are

19:52basically re-excavating that material

19:54and just disposing of it. Uh again, the

19:57areas will be backfilled with clean

19:58material um and they'll be set with a a

20:01crushed dense grade uh similar to what's

20:04been done in the past for the other test

20:05pits.

20:06Um next one.

20:09Um

20:13>> Okay, TP-22.

20:15>> Um

20:16TP-22, when we originally mapped out

20:18TP-22, we used the uh boundary condition

20:21for the river um for the brook.

20:24Um as you can see, the line bends more

20:26around this location we originally

20:28thought was just outside the buffer

20:30zone. Uh it's just just inside the

20:32buffer zone. Um it was on the original

20:34RDA as inside the buffer zone, so

20:36there's no change there.

20:38Um we're going to excavate that material

20:40out and again, get rid of it. Um

20:42basically do the same exact thing we did

20:43in the RDA, except instead of

20:45back instead of putting the soil back in

20:47the hole, we're just going to excavate

20:48it out.

20:50Um and the last one,

20:52um

20:54I think that covers actually. We had two

20:56for one in in part of that. Those are

20:58the excavation areas that we're looking

21:00at. Um the UST came out, it was clean,

21:03which is good. We did have one of the

21:04sidewalls had some arsenic levels that

21:07were above our commercial industrial

21:09standards and we'll take another 5 yd

21:11out of there when we excavate these test

21:12pits.

21:14We requested an RDA just only because

21:16we're really effectively doing the same

21:17thing we're doing before and we're we're

21:19will have all of the conditions that the

21:21Conservation Commission asked for for

21:23protection from before.

21:25Systematically we'll do the same exact

21:27thing here.

21:28Um

21:29any questions?

21:31>> Uh staff do you have any comments on the

21:32project?

21:33>> Uh no concerns from staff.

21:35>> Okay. Um so I I I just have a question

21:37in terms of um I know you mentioned a a

21:402-week window where you intend to

21:41excavate.

21:42>> Yep.

21:43>> The soil will be removed immediately or

21:45are they going to be stored for any

21:46period of time uh on the outside?

21:48>> So we're going to try and live load

21:49everything we can. I can't guarantee it

21:51will go. It's just we're trying to line

21:53up the disposal facilities cuz every one

21:55of those locations is different. One's

21:56gasoline, one's arsenic. Um and one's a

21:59heavy PAH impact. So we have disposal

22:03facilities including Fitchburg,

22:04Andricks, and several others that we're

22:06going we're trying to line up the

22:07profiles.

22:09If we do have to stockpile, we'll cover

22:11them in poly as we normally will do

22:13similar to the pile that's up there

22:14currently. Um we line it underneath, we

22:16poly over the top, we secure it, and

22:18then we wrap it with a wattle set um

22:21until it's disposed of. Um again I

22:25I'd like to say I can we would live load

22:26everything cuz it's basically in our

22:28interest to have it directly live loaded

22:30cuz if we have to stockpile it's double

22:32handling.

22:32>> Right. Right. I understand. Okay. So you

22:34you have a plan in the in the event that

22:36you can't remove the material

22:38on the same [clears throat] day.

22:39>> Right. Well, we'll try to.

22:41A Andricks will take it. Any recycling

22:43facility will go direct.

22:45>> Yep.

22:45>> Um and most of this is fits that

22:47recycling. Where we run into the one

22:49place

22:50and it's a it's that 10 by 10 square

22:52which is so like about 15 tons

22:54is the SB 14 location. One of those

22:57three locations has um lead that failed

23:00TCLP which is a toxicity characteristic

23:03leaching procedure,

23:04which makes it effectively hazardous

23:06waste. So, it's one truckload that'll

23:07have to go

23:09it'll have to be hauled out to the west.

23:11It'll have to go to Michigan or

23:12someplace like that.

23:13>> Okay.

23:14>> So, that might That That again, that's

23:15one truckload of soil.

23:17>> Do you have um I guess do you have a

23:20contingency plan as you re-excavate

23:22these sites? Um I assume you've got the

23:24intention to get to

23:27I you know, as clean a soil as, you

23:29know, the background conditions allow.

23:31You So, you've already determined the

23:33perimeter of these excavations.

23:35>> Right. And now one of the things and

23:37it's it is in the RAM plan, which is

23:40what originally set the filing. The RAM

23:42plan has closure criteria for it. So,

23:44effectively we excavate the sidewalls we

23:47excavate it and then we sample the

23:48sidewalls and bottom to identify the

23:50impacts. Now, metals we can't, you know,

23:53with there's no visual screening

23:55indicator for metals, so we just sample

23:57the sidewalls and the bottom.

23:58Uh polyaromatic hydrocarbons, anything

24:01else that has an odor has basically

24:03something that we can screen to a

24:04certain level. We typically take the

24:06highest reported screening

24:08concentration, then we take a composite

24:10for disposal, and then we usually take a

24:11bottom sample as a minimum.

24:14Um we may if we see something that says,

24:15"Hey, I've got two sidewalls that are

24:17pretty hot." We'll take both samples on

24:19those. Again, we're comparing them to

24:21commercial standards for for closure.

24:23>> And I mean, I assume it that most of

24:26these excavations were based on what you

24:29either knew to be prior disposal sites

24:32or potential disposal sites. I mean, you

24:33obviously you're not excavating the

24:35entire parcel. Um

24:37>> No, we didn't run into

24:39Again, this came out of a phase what

24:41they call it phase two investigation.

24:43So, what we're only showing is the test

24:45pits.

24:46There were several other dozen soil

24:48borings that were conducted over a

24:49several year period. So, there's

24:51additional investigations that

24:52characterize these areas.

24:54Um the good news is the limited extent

24:56wasn't as extensive as we expected, but

24:59we have some localized removal.

25:01>> Okay.

25:02Um,

25:03I don't have further questions. Any of

25:04the commissioners, anything else?

25:06>> Um, through the chair.

25:08>> Yeah.

25:08>> So, if you can't live load all of it,

25:12and you're going to have to impound on

25:14site, uh, is there any type of security

25:18to prevent the general public from

25:20having access to those

25:22you know, the the impoundment this soil?

25:25>> Those area this the area in the

25:27property, I mean, albeit it's not chain

25:29link fence, but it is fenced in.

25:32And it is secured and locked on a daily

25:33basis.

25:35>> Okay.

25:36Thank you.

25:38>> Uh, any other questions or is there

25:40anyone here from the public on the

25:42Yes, sir.

25:48Could you come up to the microphone?

25:55>> Uh, Fred Nathan, Wooster.

25:57And looking this over and realizing that

26:00these are two

26:01independently uh, distinct uh,

26:04properties

26:06that where uh,

26:08uh, Daddy uh, Diamond Chevrolet was

26:11on Pawtucket from 1979

26:14until 2010.

26:17And 10, that's 31 years.

26:20I would have to think that there were

26:22enough vehicles that that whole lot has

26:25it ever really been checked out the

26:26entire lot cuz I

26:28that lot was always full of cars and

26:31trucks and other kind of vehicles.

26:33Uh, one would think there'd be more

26:35contamination.

26:38I'm just curious if you ever had the DEP

26:40come in and check it out.

26:42>> You address me.

26:43>> I'm sorry.

26:45Uh, Madam Chair, just uh, curious if

26:47they ever had the DEP come in and check

26:50it out.

26:51>> Understood. Okay.

26:53Would you care to address the presence

26:54of the site?

26:56>> The The filing you have here for the RDA

26:58is separate from what's What is the RAM

27:00plan? And the release abatement

27:02measurement plan is filed with the DEP.

27:05Um you know, it effectively that becomes

27:07under DEP review.

27:09Um

27:10in the past they had a 21-day right of

27:12refusal or a right of review period.

27:15That no longer exists, but it is filed

27:17with the DEP.

27:17>> Okay. And those

27:18>> Um and again, this was filed in July.

27:20So, there it has been reviewed. It does

27:23follow additional investigations into

27:25the gentleman's point. We do have

27:27additional investigations that have

27:28characterized the limited extent around

27:30that Chevy dealership because

27:31specifically cuz we saw the same thing.

27:33You know, you have historical uses of

27:35the property both residential and

27:37commercial. Um there were several

27:39parcels actually, not just two. It's

27:41actually

27:42eight total parcels, six units areas,

27:46which is shown in the RAM plan, but not

27:47on here.

27:49>> Got it.

27:51Does that answer your question?

27:53Thank you. Thank you. Anybody online?

27:58Right.

28:01Is there a motion?

28:02>> Motion to issue a negative

28:03determination.

28:05>> Second.

28:07>> Commissioner Canton.

28:10>> Aye.

28:11>> Commissioner Kushner.

28:13>> Aye.

28:13>> Commissioner Nystrom.

28:14>> Aye.

28:14>> Commissioner Fortuny, aye.

28:17You're all set.

28:17>> Okay.

28:18>> Thank you.

28:19>> Thank you.

28:21>> Leave that on?

28:23>> Yes, that's fine. Thanks.

28:25Uh next item old business notice of

28:27intent for 283 Lake Avenue, the

28:30Quinsigamond State Park.

28:56>> Hi, I'm Andrew Kiel. I'm with Hatch,

28:59uh,

28:59appearing before you,

29:02um, for the DCR. Also in attendance is

29:05Joey Silvera for the DCR.

29:07We presented this NOI at the last

29:10hearing,

29:12although we did not have a DEP number

29:14because it was not yet issued.

29:16Um, since then, DEP did issue the

29:19number. They had one comment that

29:21related to,

29:24uh, test pits, which we discussed during

29:27the last hearing, so we

29:29have not performed test pits because the

29:31location of proposed BMP

29:34is actually in an active parking lot

29:36area.

29:38So, our hope was that we could,

29:41um,

29:42include that testing

29:46as part of a construction phase,

29:49uh, condition

29:50within the order of conditions.

29:54It's kind of that gray box that's that's

29:57above. I mean, I can go through the

30:01have an overview of the project again,

30:04if that's necessary.

30:06Um,

30:07>> Do you I I don't think so. The

30:08commissioner is comfortable with the

30:10coverage on this project at the last

30:12meeting.

30:15>> I'm okay.

30:15>> Yes.

30:16>> Okay. Okay. Um,

30:20uh, any updated comments from staff?

30:22>> Uh, no, [clears throat] not really. Just

30:23in in uh, response or in regards to the

30:26DEP comments, I think we had, you know,

30:28mentioned at the last hearing that we

30:29were comfortable with the test pits

30:30being a condition of approval just given

30:32the reduction in impervious and that

30:34the, um,

30:35you know, subsurface infiltration is not

30:36strictly required by the standards

30:37anyway. So, if this were a new

30:39development where

30:40new impervious area was being proposed,

30:42we would want to see the test pits up

30:43front, but staff's fine with this as a

30:45condition of approval.

30:46>> Okay.

30:48Uh is there anyone here from the public

30:50on the project?

30:52Here? No? Online?

30:56Um

30:58So, Commissioner Nice from's going to

30:59recuse herself from voting on the

31:01project. Uh so, if I could have a motion

31:04from either one of the other

31:05commissioners

31:08to close the hearing.

31:10>> I move to close.

31:12>> Second.

31:13>> Commissioner Canton?

31:15>> I.

31:15>> Commissioner Kirchner?

31:17>> I.

31:17>> Commissioner Fortunati? I.

31:20Uh is there a motion

31:24Sorry, proposed order of conditions.

31:26>> Yep. So, in addition to the standard

31:28conditions, we have condition number 24

31:30for wetland flagging, 27 for test pit

31:33data,

31:34um

31:3532 [clears throat]

31:36for trees to remain, 37 for stormwater

31:38management system maintenance, 38 for

31:42infiltration unit inspection, 39 for

31:44certification of stormwater

31:45infrastructure,

31:46uh 46 for wood removal, 48 for dust

31:49control, 49 for dewatering, 50 for

31:52cement truck washing, 51 for equipment

31:54placement, 56 for spill prevention,

31:58um that an as-built plan be provided as

32:00part of the request for a certificate of

32:01compliance, condition 66 for sand and

32:04salt, and 68 for wetland permitting,

32:07ongoing conditions 37, 66, and 68.

32:13>> Does the applicant have any questions

32:14about the conditions?

32:17>> No.

32:18>> Okay.

32:20Uh is there a motion

32:20>> a motion to issue the orders of

32:23conditions as described.

32:25>> Second.

32:26>> Commissioner Canton?

32:28>> I.

32:28>> Commissioner Kirchner?

32:29>> I.

32:30>> Commissioner Fortunati? I.

32:32Uh you are all set.

32:34>> Thanks, everyone. Have a good night.

32:35>> Thank you, you too.

32:39Okay.

32:41Next up, number 10.

32:44Notice of intent, 21 New Bond Street.

32:50>> Good evening. I'm Keith Carron from

32:52Bohler Engineering representing

32:53Restaurant Depot on this project. Um

32:57We have, just a note before I start, we

32:59have already received conditional

33:00approval from the planning board for

33:01definitive site plan approval on this.

33:04Um basically it's a 4.4 acre site within

33:07the larger Green Tech Park.

33:09Our proposal is about a 50,000 square

33:11foot Restaurant Depot building with 171

33:14parking spaces.

33:15Um three curb cuts and five loading

33:19loading docks. There are no wetland

33:21resources on the site. Uh we also are

33:24not within the the flood zone.

33:27Uh again, we're here just because we're

33:28within 100 feet of existing, you know,

33:30drainage structure. That's the purpose

33:31for being for being here. Um as part of

33:34the plan set and stormwater report, we

33:36have full stormwater management meeting

33:39the stormwater Massachusetts bylaws. Uh

33:42deep sump putting catch basins,

33:44proprietary water quality units, and

33:46there in the loading dock area you'll

33:47see the subsurface infiltration basin to

33:51uh promote uh groundwater recharge and

33:54obviously help us reduce the peak runoff

33:56from the site. There's a slight uh

33:58increase in impervious, but that's the

34:00whole purpose of the the groundwater

34:02recharge.

34:07So, yep, unless there's questions and

34:09that's about it.

34:10>> Thank you. Uh staff comments?

34:13>> Uh not a ton of comments on this one.

34:15Um it it was filed under the wetlands

34:17protection ordinance only. This area

34:19used to be within the mapped 100-year

34:22flood plain.

34:23Um on the previous firm, the

34:26the WBDC recently submitted a letter of

34:28map revision to uh revise the flood

34:30plain in this area based on a detailed

34:32restudy of Weasel Brook.

34:34Um so, this area is is no longer within

34:36the effective uh flood plain based on

34:38that that map update. Um so, the only

34:41thing triggering filing with the

34:42commission is just the proximity to um

34:45existing or proposed catch basins tied

34:47into the surface drainage system.

34:49Um so, again, main focus for review

34:52under those types of projects is just

34:53erosion and sedimentation control uh and

34:56stormwater management. I think we just

34:57got a summary of the stormwater

34:58management for the site. Uh staff

35:00reviewed the stormwater report and

35:02didn't have any concerns.

35:04Uh similarly with erosion and

35:06sedimentation control, uh not overly

35:08concerned about this site despite it

35:10being

35:11relatively large, it's also relatively

35:12flat, so we don't think there's a huge

35:15uh potential for for runoff from the

35:17site. So, nothing further from staff.

35:19>> Thank you. Uh commissioners, any

35:21questions, comments, or concerns about

35:23the project?

35:31>> Through you, Madam Chair. I have just a

35:32couple of quick questions if uh

35:34I'd like to just hear a little bit more

35:35about the uh construction entrance uh

35:38location and how you're dealing with

35:39that, stockpile locations,

35:42and uh

35:44and snow removal or storage.

35:48>> Sure. So, up in the top right, um

35:52I forget which direction it's on the

35:53site, that is the proposed construction

35:54entrance. And the stockpile location is

35:57there. Again, the these are permanent

35:59level plans. Um the contractor has been

36:02brought on board yet, so obviously if

36:04they make propose any changes, they have

36:05to let the city know, but that is the

36:07proposed location. Also, on the snow

36:10removal, on I believe the layout plan,

36:12it shows locations of, you know,

36:15stockpiling for snow if needed. And then

36:18at some point, again, as those locations

36:20fill up, obviously they'd have to Best

36:22Buy Depot would be required to remove it

36:24offsite if there's no no more area

36:26available.

36:28>> Yep.

36:29>> There's a hatch. There's a hatch. You

36:30can see that there.

36:31>> Yep.

36:31>> Yes, I do see that.

36:33Thank you.

36:34>> You're welcome.

36:36>> Uh is there anyone from the public on

36:38the project?

36:41Anyone online?

36:48Uh is there a motion?

36:50Motion to close.

36:53>> Second.

36:54>> Commissioner Canton?

36:55>> I.

36:56>> Commissioner Kershner?

36:57>> I.

36:58>> Commissioner Nystrom?

36:59>> I. Commissioner Fratoni, I.

37:01>> Uh proposed order conditions?

37:04>> Uh so in addition to the standard

37:06conditions, we have condition number 31

37:08for a SWIP, 37 for a storm water

37:10management system maintenance, 38 for

37:12infiltration unit inspection,

37:1439 for certification of storm water

37:17infrastructure,

37:18uh 48 for dust control, 49 for

37:21dewatering, 50 for cement truck washing,

37:2456 for spill prevention,

37:26uh that an as-built site plan be

37:28provided as part of the certificate of

37:30compliance process, uh condition 66 for

37:33sand and salt, and ongoing conditions 6

37:36uh sorry, 37 and 66.

37:41>> Any questions?

37:42>> I do not.

37:43>> Okay. Is there a motion?

37:45Motion to issue the order of conditions

37:47as described.

37:49>> Second.

37:49>> Commissioner Canton?

37:51>> I.

37:51>> Commissioner Kershner?

37:53>> I.

37:54>> Commissioner Nystrom?

37:55>> I. Commissioner Fratoni, I.

37:57>> Thank you, Commissioner Fratoni.

37:58>> Have a good evening.

38:02>> Uh next item, notice of intent 13 149

38:07West Boylston Drive.

38:11>> [snorts]

38:21>> Uh good evening, commissioners. My name

38:23is Greg LaCroix from Pare Corporation.

38:25I'm here with Dave Presch also from Pare

38:26Corporation.

38:28We're here on behalf of the city as the

38:30applicant and MassDOT as the property

38:32owner.

38:34What we're presenting is a dam

38:36maintenance project but primarily or the

38:38only thing being proposed is vegetation

38:41maintenance along the dam embankment.

38:44There's some trees, shrubs and other

38:45vegetation that has naturalized the dam

38:48embankment area. In keeping with typical

38:51dam maintenance practices, we are

38:53proposing to remove all vegetation from

38:55the embankment. Backfill any resulting

38:59voids from root root areas and then loam

39:02and seed the area and stabilize it.

39:05The work is being proposed as a limited

39:07project. Under 10.533I

39:11which allows for maintenance of

39:12structures in existence prior to 1983.

39:17And work will occur within bordering

39:19land subject to flooding within

39:21riverfront area and within buffer zone.

39:24We do meet the bylaw standards under

39:294.2.4

39:31of the wetland ordinance.

39:35Outside of that, any questions the

39:37commission has we're we're happy to

39:39address them.

39:40>> Okay, thank you. Staff comments or

39:42questions?

39:43>> So we're still in the process of our

39:45staff review of the NOI. We'll send any

39:48comments letter over to the project team

39:50once we have a chance to complete that

39:51review.

39:52We're still waiting on a file number and

39:54comments from MassDEP at this point. Um

39:57so we'll have to continue the hearing

39:59rather than close tonight obviously.

40:02But yeah, we thought it would make sense

40:03to at least start the discussion with

40:04the commission and get any concerns out

40:06now while we wait for

40:08>> Sure.

40:08>> the respective comments to be finished.

40:10>> Commissioners, any questions or concerns

40:12about this project?

40:16>> Through the chair.

40:17>> Yep.

40:18>> Um, what type of follow-up will you be

40:21doing to make sure that the

40:24the seating and the stabilization is

40:28actually working?

40:32>> Um, with any activity like this, there

40:34is some construction oversight, so

40:36we will be following up and making sure

40:38that the area is stabilized. Um,

40:40they There's anything additional.

40:43>> Yeah, um

40:46there's a period, um,

40:48where the contractor has to make sure

40:50the seed has established, um, and if it

40:52hasn't established within

40:54um, the timelines in our specifications,

40:56then they'll have to address that

40:58accordingly. Um, in terms of future

41:00maintenance, the city comes out that

41:02goes out there and mows it at least

41:04twice a year.

41:05Um, and they have been recently. They're

41:07just not able to maintain where the

41:09trees currently stand on the embankment.

41:11Um

41:12So, this is really just looking to get

41:13rid of those trees, so it can look like

41:16the rest of the dam.

41:19>> Okay.

41:20Uh, is it possible through the chair and

41:23to staff, um, to add a con-

41:27a contingency

41:29to have a maintenance for at least, uh

41:34a certain amount of months or something

41:35like that to make sure it's working?

41:38>> Uh, through the chair, yeah. I mean, a

41:40condition specifying the desired length

41:43and frequency of monitoring is certainly

41:44something that the commission could put

41:45into an order of conditions for the

41:46work.

41:48>> Okay.

41:49I I'd like that. Thank you.

41:51>> And we can plan to, uh, include

41:52something along those lines, uh, in a

41:54draft order of conditions once this has

41:56a a file number at a future meeting.

41:59>> Excellent. Thank you.

42:01>> Okay.

42:02Uh, I have a question about the process.

42:03You are going to be removing the trees

42:06and removing the root,

42:07uh, and then backfilling with, um

42:11suitable material brought on site from

42:13somewhere else,

42:15um, compacted in 12-in lifts, I

42:18understand from the the plan.

42:20Uh,

42:22I just

42:23want to try and understand how

42:25in that process you are able to fill the

42:28root holes that would be extending in

42:31and under the soil

42:33as you remove them. And, you know,

42:37if you're not able to fully do that,

42:39aren't you in fact compromising an

42:40earthen dam by creating water pathways

42:43for

42:44water to travel into the dam with these

42:46root holes then created?

42:49>> So, you have to, um,

42:51the contractor in the location of a tree

42:54will have to remove all roots that are

42:56up to 3 in in diameter. Um,

42:58less than that, they're really less of a

43:01concern. Um, so, they'll just have to

43:03excavate as wide of an area until they

43:06don't find any roots over 3 in diameter

43:08anymore.

43:10Um, you know, with some of like the

43:1212-in trees it winds up being a pretty

43:13big area sometimes. And, um, there's a

43:16few trees that are very close to the

43:18wall where the roots will just be left

43:21in place to not compromise the wall.

43:24Um,

43:26but no, the contractor will remove the

43:28majority of the roots that would be

43:29coming into the

43:29>> your firm be overseeing this project

43:32once a contractor is selected? I mean,

43:33who's who's qualified to assess whether

43:36or not they've gotten too close to the

43:38dam wall or roots should be left in

43:40place rather than removed?

43:42>> Yes, so Pare will be providing the

43:43observation, um,

43:45and MassDOT will be doing the majority

43:48of the clearing. Um,

43:51I

43:52I don't remember if there's going to be

43:53a different contractor for site

43:55finishing, but the DOT is going to be

43:56the one doing the majority of the tree

43:58clearing.

43:59>> The DOT will do it themselves, it won't

44:01be subcontracted out?

44:02>> Correct.

44:02>> Okay.

44:04Um, and then, uh, similar to, um, the

44:06commissioner's questions about ongoing

44:07maintenance.

44:09um,

44:10The fence that currently exists actually

44:12prevents the city from accessing the

44:14trees that are grown on the other side

44:16of the wall. Is that fence coming down

44:18so that it can be mowed or is there

44:21how will that other side of the fence be

44:23accessed if the fence is not coming

44:25down?

44:27>> Um

44:30At the moment the if the fence might

44:32will probably come down during

44:33construction but be replaced

44:36afterwards.

44:39We don't have answer that right now.

44:41>> There is a gate that provides access.

44:44>> There's a gate but that would mean you

44:46would have to get hand equipment into

44:48the site. It's currently mowed with

44:49basically tractors given the size of the

44:52site. So um

44:54I guess I would like to understand a

44:55little bit more about how the ongoing

44:57maintenance will be done once the fence

44:58is back in place.

45:00Um and then what's the frequency of

45:03cutting the the meadow that is currently

45:05on the site is is grown

45:09to be a meadow.

45:11You know, the intention is to not let

45:12trees I guess re-emerge and is that

45:14going to be how the rest of the

45:17the site will be handled going forward?

45:19>> Generally clearing is done once in the

45:21spring and once in the fall each year.

45:23Um

45:24that's typical guidelines for dams

45:27and I believe that's what the city is

45:29continuing on planning on doing.

45:31Um

45:33And we can definitely

45:34discuss the fence further with the city.

45:36>> portion of this is is important because

45:39obviously these conditions came to exist

45:41because somebody didn't do

45:43what they were supposed to do.

45:45And I also know the city sort of leases

45:47this space. They don't own it.

45:50It is MassDOT property. Ultimately I

45:52think it is MassDOT's responsibility. I

45:54believe they also own the dam.

45:57Correct?

45:58>> MassDOT owns the dam and the city does

45:59the maintenance.

46:00>> Right. Okay.

46:02Yeah, so I'd like to make sure that that

46:03was part of any kind of conditions.

46:07>> We will get an answer for you on

46:09planned access for the far side of the

46:10fence.

46:11>> And then just one more question related

46:12to the material that's coming in and the

46:15material going out. That's a very narrow

46:18way into the property. If you've been

46:20there, you know that it's just enough

46:22room for a vehicle to to come in and out

46:24of.

46:26How will trucks be handled on the site?

46:30And you're talking about some good size

46:31dump trucks I expect for both removal

46:33and bringing in fill.

46:36>> I mean, I've been on the access road. It

46:38It's should be wide enough for trucks to

46:40access and we are providing a or

46:42proposing a stabilization pad going in

46:45and out from the site so the trucks

46:47aren't tracking dirt into the road.

46:48>> Yeah.

46:50Yeah, cuz there's just there's storm

46:51drains right along that roadway and

46:55it's

46:56let's call it moist soil on the site.

46:59Normally muddy.

47:00Coming in and out.

47:03But is there a lay down area for

47:04material that you are

47:07removing or is it a live load situation?

47:10The trees will come out, they'll go on a

47:11truck and they'll be gone.

47:14>> There is a staging area proposed. I'm

47:16not sure if there's a plan as far as

47:19stockpiling or live loading.

47:21>> Yeah, I don't think we specified a

47:22stockpile area, but we could add that to

47:25the plan set.

47:26>> Yeah. Yeah, it'd be I think important to

47:27know where materials are going to be

47:28stored and if if soil is being brought

47:31in or gravel and soil are being in,

47:33where are they being stored? Because

47:35there are no paved surfaces on this

47:37site. It is

47:38>> Yeah.

47:39The staging area will be fully

47:41surrounded in compost filter socks

47:43and the embankment is fairly flat, so

47:47the staging area would be within there,

47:50but we haven't proposed a specific spot

47:51within the plan yet.

47:54>> Right.

47:57We need a vote to postpone.

47:59>> Yes, the applicant amenable to our next

48:01meeting on the 24th as the date. Yep.

48:04>> Do I'm sorry, do we have anyone here

48:06from the public? I didn't ask.

48:10>> Motion to postpone to August 24th.

48:14>> Is that you'll be ready for August 24th

48:16if we have a file number?

48:18>> Yeah, if we have a file number, that

48:19should be fine.

48:21>> I got

48:23>> Commissioner Canton.

48:24>> Aye.

48:25>> Commissioner Kirchner.

48:26>> Aye.

48:27>> Commissioner Nystrom.

48:28>> Aye.

48:28>> Commissioner Frattaroli, aye.

48:32We'll see you again soon.

48:33>> Thank you.

48:34>> Thank you.

48:38Uh, next item 14.

48:43Whipple Road Drive, Danielle Way, also

48:45known as Malden Woods Subdivision.

48:51>> It does not look like we have the

48:53applicant

48:54>> Okay.

48:54>> at the moment.

48:57Anybody online for

49:00Malden Woods?

49:04I do see that we have somebody from Mass

49:06DOT if we wanted to go back to

49:08>> back to that?

49:09>> them.

49:09Uh, yeah.

49:10>> Okay.

49:11>> So, that was item number four.

49:14>> [sighs]

49:40>> Tracy, you should be able to unmute.

49:45>> Thank you, Eric. Yeah, I just tried and

49:47I couldn't. Um, thank you. Tracy

49:49Coppola,

49:50District 3 Environmental Engineer from

49:52MassDOT

49:53and um Angela Scofield

49:57who um worked with our maintenance

50:00section to put this together. Um

50:02Angela's one of my assistants and she

50:04should be joining momentarily. She was

50:07hung up out on the road and um is trying

50:10to get to the computer.

50:12So, she's more well-versed with this

50:14application than I am, but I've been

50:16involved kind of as on in the sidelines.

50:19Um but this is for a yearly operational

50:24maintenance plan that we are proposing

50:28to

50:30um apply

50:32herbicides to some of the weeds in our

50:36more

50:37um

50:40I guess more nuisance areas that are,

50:42you know, areas that are affecting our

50:45infrastructure.

50:47Um the you know, grass you see coming up

50:51in between the guardrail sections, that

50:53kind of thing.

50:54Um behind curb lines and coming up

50:57through concrete. If you see like

50:59concrete medians and you see the grass

51:01growing out through, that type of stuff

51:04and

51:05um I know those plans were all sent to

51:07the commission and I know we had a

51:09little bit of back and forth, Eric

51:11on that and some questions from the

51:14commission. And our last correspondence

51:17with you, I think it was this afternoon

51:20or this morning, was that you still had

51:23um some areas that you would like to

51:25have shown on the plan and we can

51:27certainly revise the plan to delineate

51:31those areas and have that to you, I

51:34would say by, you know, tomorrow or

51:36Thursday at the latest.

51:40Smart tomorrow, Wednesday, sorry.

51:44>> Um do you want to

51:46>> Yeah, so we um

51:48as Tracy just mentioned, we've we've

51:49been going back and forth a little bit

51:50on this uh and I talked to Angela about

51:52it late last week. Um

51:55So, basically, one of the

51:58commissions the commission's main job in

52:01um reviewing this type of of RDA is uh

52:05reviewing and confirming wetland

52:06resource area boundaries so that uh

52:08limited spray and no spray zones can be

52:11uh mapped per uh the applicable state

52:14regulations. Um so, we have been going

52:16back and forth a little bit about how

52:17far off the um limit of of work we

52:20actually needed to see shown on the

52:22plans.

52:23Um obviously, the plans themselves kind

52:25of encompass the whole city and we're

52:26not trying to confirm every wetland in

52:29the city, just really focused on the

52:30what's in the immediate project

52:31vicinity. Um so, there were three areas

52:34um that we identified that appear to be

52:36within uh 100 ft of the right-of-ways.

52:41So, that's

52:42uh Coal Mine Brook and kind of just the

52:45um

52:46kind of the halfway point of 290 between

52:49the um

52:52interchange with 190 and Lake

52:54Quinsigamond. Coal Mine Brook comes

52:56under um up from a culvert discharged uh

53:00up on on Lincoln Street. Um so, just

53:03Coal Mine Brook where it crosses right

53:04there and flows on the south side of the

53:07highway for a short bit before veering

53:09off to the southeast back towards Lake

53:10Quinsigamond. Uh there was another

53:12stream coming out of Bovenzi

53:13Conservation Area.

53:15Um this one is

53:19it it's definitely a little further set

53:20back than Coal Mine Brook is as far as

53:23uh proximity to the right-of-way. I

53:24think it would only um

53:26only come into play uh if if some of

53:29those like side roads were being uh

53:31maintained as part of this YLP and not

53:33the the main portion of the highway

53:35itself.

53:36Uh because it's uh it it's daylighted

53:39just before those um

53:43roads to the side. I forget the I think

53:44it's um

53:46I can't not remember the name of the

53:47roads off my head, but I think it might

53:48be Frontage Road and then some other

53:49road over there.

53:50>> Yeah, the Frontage Road that it's the

53:51access between West Mountain Street and

53:53Ararat Street. It runs parallel to the

53:56highway.

53:56>> Yeah. So, I think that that particular

53:58stream is most likely outside of the the

54:00100-ft buffer for the highway itself,

54:02but has those other two um kind of

54:04parallel streets within the 100-ft

54:06buffer.

54:07>> Right.

54:07>> And then and then and then

54:08lastly is just one resource area near

54:12um

54:13it's closest to 384 Southwest Cutoff,

54:16and that's a uh kind of stream that

54:19appears to have a bordering vegetated

54:20wetland associated with it, and that's

54:22just yeah, shown up on the screen uh

54:24here, and maybe we could just go back up

54:26actually, Matty, to the um first one

54:28just for reference real quick.

54:30Um

54:33Yeah, so you can you can see here Coal

54:35Mine Brook how it comes out um

54:38You can see it on the USGS map right

54:40here. It comes out on the north side It

54:41comes down from the north from Lincoln

54:43Street down under 290, and then we can

54:46go to Bevenzi real quick.

54:50Yeah, there's the culvert. And then

54:51Bevenzi here again kind of flowing under

54:53the highway there. Um and this is where

54:55it potentially daylights further than

54:57100 ft away from from the highway

54:58itself. And then lastly, the one I was

55:01just referencing on Southwest Cutoff.

55:03Um

55:07You can kind of visually see the

55:10drainage pattern and and leaf staining

55:12from this aerial photo here.

55:14Um and so these are all these are all

55:16wetlands that are not that don't appear

55:18on Mass GIS wetlands layer. Um so it's

55:21probably challenging to to pick them out

55:24on a um

55:25you know, plan of this at this scale. Um

55:28so

55:30you know, ultimately again, the

55:30commission's job here is to um

55:33not just review work uh aside from

55:36herbicide application, but to confirm

55:38the wetland boundary. So,

55:39>> Sure.

55:40>> These are These are things we'd want to

55:41see added to the plan. I think, you

55:42know, this is a relatively

55:43straightforward type of application, and

55:45staff is comfortable including basically

55:47a condition that revised plans be

55:49provided in a determination if the

55:51commission's comfortable with that.

55:53Um we did just kind of

55:55briefly draft uh determinations for this

55:57since it's kind of an odd um

56:00it's not like a simple positive or

56:02negative determination for this type of

56:03filing. So, our our recommendation if

56:05the commission's comfortable with what's

56:06in front of us would be a positive

56:08determination to a confirming the

56:10wetland resource area boundaries

56:11depicted on the plans,

56:13um but adding a note that additional

56:15wetland resource areas are um confirmed

56:18as present as identified in this letter.

56:21Uh negative determination three

56:22confirming that the work is within the

56:24buffer zone, but will not alter a

56:25resource area or requiring require the

56:28filing of an NOI with the following

56:29conditions. One, that the thermal

56:31treatment identified in the yearly

56:32operation plan not be implemented within

56:34100 ft of a cold water fishery.

56:36Um and two, just prior to commencing

56:38work that a revised map be provided

56:40depicting the additional resource areas

56:42described in the comment letter. And

56:44then lastly, a negative determination

56:45five just setting the various

56:47presumptions uh established in the

56:49wetlands protection regs as the basis

56:51for exempting the herbicide application

56:53for for future review under the wetlands

56:54protection act.

56:56Um

56:56>> And we we did receive that in that email

56:59earlier, and those are um those are all

57:02acceptable and appreciated. And that

57:04would be um

57:08you know, DOT would be happy with those

57:09conditions if the commission

57:12granted those.

57:16>> Okay.

57:16>> But aside from that, nothing nothing

57:18else from staff.

57:19>> Okay. Uh any comments or questions from

57:21commissioners?

57:27Is anybody here from the public?

57:34Okay.

57:35Anything else?

57:39>> I'll see if I got this right. Pos-

57:40Motion to issue a positive determination

57:43to a negative determination number for

57:46number three and negative termination

57:48for number five.

57:51Good job.

57:53Is there a second?

57:54>> Second.

57:55>> Second.

57:56>> Commissioner Canton?

57:58>> Aye.

57:58>> Commissioner Kirshner?

58:00>> Aye.

58:00>> Commissioner Nystrom?

58:01>> Aye.

58:02>> Commissioner Frattaroli? Aye.

58:05All set.

58:07>> Great. Thank you so much, commissioners

58:09and staff. Eric and

58:13everyone there. Thank you so much and

58:16have a good evening.

58:17>> You too. Thank you. Thanks.

58:21>> Okay.

58:22Uh resuming the agenda at item 14.

58:27Zero Whippoorwill Drive, zero Daniel's

58:29Way, aka Malden Woods.

58:40>> Good evening. I'm Patrick Healey. I'm a

58:41civil engineer with Thompson Liston

58:42Associates, representing Wipper LLC

58:46on this uh particular project.

58:49So, we were looking at uh three distinct

58:52lots, each with two units of housing on

58:55them

58:56um to try to increase the floor uh plan

58:58the size of the floor plans here to make

59:00the buildings more sellable.

59:03The original plan was approved for a

59:05very small footprint. Um the market is

59:07really in this area looking for a

59:09two-car garage, first-floor living

59:12space, and some outdoor amenities. So,

59:14we've adjusted the plan a bit to

59:16accommodate those changes.

59:18Um

59:20so, each of these uh two-unit buildings

59:22now has a two-car garage. Uh

59:26these two are facing Danielle's way and

59:29on the Whipperwill Drive

59:31lot, one faces Danielle's way and one

59:34faces uh

59:36Whipperwill.

59:37Uh actually, sorry. We rotated it so

59:39they both face Whipperwill.

59:42Um in doing so,

59:44part of the uh improvements that are

59:46proposed end up

59:48um encroaching slightly into the uh

59:5130-ft buffer zone. So, I think that's

59:54what I'd like to focus our attention on

59:55is what we're proposing exactly that

59:57differs from what was approved

59:59previously. So, on the lot that you see

1:00:01on the screen here, for example, the

1:00:03driveway encroaches slightly into the

1:00:0630-ft zone.

1:00:07And at the rear of the left building,

1:00:10lot 10A, there's an outdoor patio that

1:00:13encroaches slightly into the 30-ft zone.

1:00:17Um so, we looked at some different

1:00:18options for how to accommodate the

1:00:20exterior amenity on the building. One of

1:00:23the things we looked at was whether we

1:00:25could construct decks in this area. I

1:00:27know the commission's policy on other

1:00:29lots has been that the decks are

1:00:32classified as impervious cover. So,

1:00:34we're trying to come up with some

1:00:35options that provide a pervious cover.

1:00:39In this case, these are uh permeable

1:00:41paver patios and a permeable paver

1:00:43driveway.

1:00:45Don't say that three times fast.

1:00:48Um

1:00:49in an effort to, you know, maintain the

1:00:51permeability of the surfaces here.

1:00:53Um

1:00:55in this case, we're looking at uh

1:00:58BVW bordering on boundary bounding on

1:01:01what is effectively a drainage ditch

1:01:03that drains I-290 uh 190 drainage in uh

1:01:09the plan's southerly direction.

1:01:12>> [clears throat]

1:01:13>> Um

1:01:14along this area, the commission had

1:01:16previously approved

1:01:18um construction and in the order of

1:01:21conditions required that

1:01:23Excuse me.

1:01:24Um

1:01:26Permanent bounds be set at the 15-ft

1:01:28buffer zone. You'll see those noted on

1:01:30the plan.

1:01:32In in the yards, there are those squares

1:01:34are the proposed permanent bounds.

1:01:37So, this builder has been building other

1:01:40houses on the street here. So, the two

1:01:42lots just to the south of this are

1:01:44currently under construction.

1:01:46And if you've driven by, then you saw

1:01:48that you know, the bounds are in place,

1:01:50the erosion controls are in place.

1:01:53And you know, maybe the bounds extend up

1:01:55onto lot 10 here. I couldn't really tell

1:01:58when I was out there how far, you know,

1:01:59those were constructed, but

1:02:01you know, they're they're following the

1:02:03order to the letter of the law at this

1:02:05point.

1:02:06Um

1:02:07>> [snorts]

1:02:09>> So, we'd like the commission to consider

1:02:13uh waving its

1:02:14uh

1:02:15standards to allow these pervious

1:02:17surfaces within the 30-ft

1:02:20acknowledging that there's permanent

1:02:22markers at the 15-ft

1:02:24uh buffer line.

1:02:27And I'm willing to hear any questions

1:02:29you might have.

1:02:31>> Thank you.

1:02:32>> Thank you.

1:02:33>> Uh staff comments or questions?

1:02:35>> Yeah, we don't have a a ton of comments

1:02:37on this.

1:02:38Um

1:02:39you know, the ultimately the change in

1:02:40footprint is not a a huge impact in

1:02:43terms of overall uh impervious cover for

1:02:46the site.

1:02:47Um the units proposed subsurface

1:02:50infiltration units shown on the plan um

1:02:52are in place to handle roof run run off

1:02:54from I think

1:02:56five out of the six units

1:02:58um

1:02:59that are subject to this amendment. Um

1:03:02I think obviously the the question one

1:03:04of the questions for the commission

1:03:05relates to the um

1:03:07as Patrick was saying, the hardscaping

1:03:09within the

1:03:10um

1:03:1130-ft buffer. We had had a um you know,

1:03:13pre-filing meeting with the applicant to

1:03:15discuss

1:03:17um

1:03:19you know, the

1:03:20potential of getting a discretionary

1:03:22allowance for that. One of the things

1:03:23Steph suggested was to um try to provide

1:03:26some sort of mitigation plantings to

1:03:28offset the increased hard and surfaces

1:03:31within the 30. Um so there were also um

1:03:35some proposed plantings shown on the

1:03:36plan.

1:03:38Uh I'm not sure was there a I don't know

1:03:39if there was a planting table or

1:03:41anything associated with that or if that

1:03:43was something that was

1:03:45still to be determined or maybe decided

1:03:48by the commission after his discussion,

1:03:50but

1:03:51um

1:03:52>> Yes, I am proposing some plantings.

1:03:54Thank you for pointing that out. I

1:03:55didn't mention that. So as a mitigating

1:03:57factor to these, you know, pervious

1:03:59paver patios, in large storms there will

1:04:01be a little bit of runoff from them.

1:04:03They will manage to handle the runoff

1:04:05from say up to 2 in of rainfall. You

1:04:07will get a little bit of runoff.

1:04:09Um

1:04:10so we are proposing some

1:04:13planting buffers just downstream of each

1:04:15of these

1:04:16pervious paver surfaces.

1:04:18So on sheet five of six of my plan, I'm

1:04:21showing that there would be one tree and

1:04:23six shrubs at each of the lots in to

1:04:26create that buffer.

1:04:28And that's shown on sheet one of six

1:04:30shows where we're proposing those. So

1:04:32they're directly in the path of where

1:04:34runoff would leave those patios or

1:04:36driveway and head toward the wetland

1:04:38resources.

1:04:39Um Eric, you also pointed out we're

1:04:41showing um

1:04:43infiltration systems on these lots.

1:04:45These were not part of the original

1:04:46approval. So we're confident that on

1:04:49five of the six lots we can get an

1:04:52infiltration system that handles the

1:04:54roof runoff

1:04:56uh on the street side of the buildings.

1:04:59So we have reviewed the soil test pits

1:05:00that were done out there.

1:05:02Given that these lots all have some fill

1:05:04in the front yards, it provides us with

1:05:06an opportunity to provide that

1:05:08infiltration as a, you know, more

1:05:11improved stormwater

1:05:13mitigation plan than what was previously

1:05:15approved.

1:05:21>> Um,

1:05:23and any other

1:05:24>> Uh, no, nothing nothing else from staff.

1:05:26>> Uh, commissioners uh, comments or

1:05:27questions?

1:05:35Okay. Um,

1:05:38So, here are my concerns.

1:05:39Uh, I I don't

1:05:41I'm not worried about stormwater

1:05:43management component of this expansion,

1:05:45uh, but I am very concerned about the

1:05:47encroachment.

1:05:49We have no precedent for allowing decks

1:05:52or patios or driveways in the 30-ft. The

1:05:56These are not themselves part of the

1:05:58stormwater management infrastructure, so

1:06:00I think that's the only place where

1:06:01we've made any kind of exception for

1:06:03riprap or headwall to be in the 30-ft no

1:06:06belts.

1:06:07Um, my other concern, you know, in that

1:06:10They're not allowed anyway, and I can't

1:06:11see any a way to to create an exemption

1:06:14for them is that this encroachment is

1:06:17going to make it very difficult for the

1:06:18future homeowners to understand the

1:06:20limits of their ability to do anything

1:06:23in these yards. Um, you know, they're

1:06:25they're 15-ft boundary marker may or may

1:06:28not mean anything to them. I suspect

1:06:30when the properties are sold, there's

1:06:32very little information that's conveyed

1:06:33to property owners about why their lot

1:06:37is as narrow as it is and why these

1:06:39boundary markers are there and that they

1:06:41can't go back and fill in the patio with

1:06:43something else or fill in the driveway

1:06:45with real asphalt because who's going to

1:06:47be the only property owner in the

1:06:49development with this pervious weird

1:06:51driveway.

1:06:52Um, and they're [clears throat] going to

1:06:54want some lawn.

1:06:55Uh, they're going to want to step out

1:06:56and have something else there, and

1:06:58there's no room for that. And by

1:07:01allowing these structures in these

1:07:02spaces, it suggests that, well, we could

1:07:04just push out a little bit further. Uh,

1:07:07and that's that's my other concern. So,

1:07:09uh, um, I personally don't see a way to

1:07:12approve this expansion if if the market

1:07:15requires the house to be bigger, then

1:07:17maybe you figure out how to not have a

1:07:18patio. Um, or the house maybe doesn't

1:07:22have to be bigger. Um, but frankly, the

1:07:24economic viability of this project isn't

1:07:26our concern.

1:07:29So,

1:07:30from my point of view, this is a no-go

1:07:33for this expansion.

1:07:39Is there

1:07:40anyone else here?

1:07:43>> I concur with that.

1:07:50>> Okay.

1:07:56We don't often come to this moment. Um,

1:08:00so,

1:08:01>> I mean, is there

1:08:02>> uh an option for them to refile,

1:08:05resubmit, or

1:08:06>> Well, I mean, it the commission doesn't

1:08:08have to close the hearing tonight if the

1:08:10applicants are amenable to continuing

1:08:12to

1:08:14um, provide additional time time to

1:08:16potentially revise the plans, we can do

1:08:18that. We don't have to don't have to

1:08:20close tonight.

1:08:21>> Okay.

1:08:21>> Um,

1:08:22but if

1:08:26if we want a decision voted tonight,

1:08:27then I guess

1:08:29>> Okay. Well, I'd like to see if there's

1:08:30some middle ground where we can meet

1:08:32halfway or something. So, we are

1:08:33proposing

1:08:34three patios and one driveway out of the

1:08:37six units.

1:08:39If

1:08:40we have the opportunity on one of these

1:08:42lots on lot 9A,

1:08:44if you could go back to the other view,

1:08:46to reduce the size of the patio and sort

1:08:49of make it wider,

1:08:50same square footage, but shorten it by 2

1:08:53ft.

1:08:54So, if you look at the one on the

1:08:56the left there, that's lot 9A.

1:08:59So, that's currently a 10-ft patio. That

1:09:01could be pulled back to 8 ft and made 14

1:09:04ft wide instead of 12.

1:09:06You know, same effective area. It's just

1:09:092 ft shorter.

1:09:11Um the the other one to the right there,

1:09:13it's very difficult to get any outdoor

1:09:16amenity given the way that the lot's

1:09:18being graded.

1:09:19Um

1:09:21to provide something outside for these

1:09:24uh

1:09:25unit owners to use.

1:09:27Um

1:09:28I'd like to say that we proposed these

1:09:30patios as a way to limit how much of the

1:09:33yard would be,

1:09:34you know, used and prevent

1:09:37the expansion of the yard over time.

1:09:39You also have the bounds in place at the

1:09:41limit of the 15-ft zone.

1:09:43There's kind of a slope going down to

1:09:45that. I think it's a pretty clearly

1:09:46delineated um

1:09:48area, especially when we put these

1:09:49supplemental plantings

1:09:51uh between those bounds to sort of

1:09:54create that line of demarcation of

1:09:56the yard ends here, you know, the buffer

1:09:58in the wetland are below here.

1:10:01Um

1:10:02so on one, I think we can, you know,

1:10:04reduce that.

1:10:06So then we're only looking at two,

1:10:09you know, small incursions into the

1:10:1130-ft zone.

1:10:12So on this one here, on lot 8B,

1:10:15you're talking about, you know, 4 ft by

1:10:1812 ft. That's within the 30-ft zone.

1:10:21And it's pervious, so we're not looking

1:10:23at, you know, a structure per se where

1:10:26the regulations prohibit the

1:10:27construction of a structure.

1:10:29I wouldn't classify a pervious patio as

1:10:32a structure. That's why we didn't

1:10:33propose them as decks. You know, I've

1:10:35been here before with the commission and

1:10:37talked about what constitutes a

1:10:39structure and what doesn't.

1:10:40>> Okay.

1:10:41>> You know, we're trying to work within

1:10:42the framework to find a way to provide

1:10:45something reasonable for these

1:10:47particular

1:10:47>> I appreciate what you're trying to do. I

1:10:49really do, but you know, my problem is

1:10:51the incursion, period.

1:10:53Um and the fact is that somebody will

1:10:54move into this home and that will be a

1:10:56meaningless boundary in their minds.

1:10:59Um and if you if it's important enough

1:11:01to expand the size of the house, then

1:11:04put in a balcony if they need outdoor

1:11:06space. Cantilevered balcony off of the

1:11:08house that sits two stories up and

1:11:10they'll have a lovely view of the woods.

1:11:12Um but from my point of view, there's no

1:11:14justification in pushing it out other

1:11:16than financial, and that's not

1:11:19you know, that's not an exemption or not

1:11:21an you know, a permissible reason to

1:11:24allow a structure in the 30.

1:11:29>> Okay.

1:11:39>> Mr. Chair,

1:11:41um

1:11:43I mean, I'd like to see

1:11:45new drawings other than

1:11:49possibilities

1:11:51now that could happen. Um it probably

1:11:55would be a good idea to come back to us

1:11:59after you've had time to think about it

1:12:02and discuss it with the powers that be

1:12:06and come up with a new set of plans that

1:12:09we may entertain.

1:12:11But,

1:12:12you know, in you know, encroaching into

1:12:15the 30-ft simply because that's what's

1:12:19needed

1:12:22as was as said earlier, we protect the

1:12:25wetlands and and the regulations,

1:12:28not the economic viability of a project.

1:12:34So, it may be in your best interest to

1:12:38come back and think about this with a

1:12:41new set of plans. But, that's up to you.

1:12:55>> Would you like to postpone?

1:12:56>> Uh I'm just looking at my plans if I

1:12:58could just have a minute to kind of

1:13:00think through what other options might

1:13:01be available.

1:13:03You know, a lot of a lot of thought did

1:13:04go into these plans to find the least

1:13:07disruptive method of providing the

1:13:09space. We worked with our builder client

1:13:11and we met with staff prior to filing to

1:13:14try to address Bill what the concerns

1:13:16might be.

1:13:18>> Can we scroll down to number 50 or 16

1:13:21and 18?

1:13:24Looks like on the

1:13:27building number 16

1:13:29there would potentially be space for

1:13:31that patio in its current shape on

1:13:35the south side of the house outside of

1:13:37the 30-ft buffer, right?

1:13:42>> Yes, I think there's an opportunity to

1:13:44move that one around the corner.

1:13:51I'm just looking at ways to try to

1:13:53reconfigure that driveway and still have

1:13:55a a two-car garage.

1:14:03So, if there if we could move the

1:14:05driveway closer to Danielle's way where

1:14:08it's currently shown you know,

1:14:10encroaching just at the edge of that

1:14:1130-ft zone

1:14:13and

1:14:14it was a paved driveway outside the 30,

1:14:17would that be acceptable to the

1:14:18commission?

1:14:20>> A paved driveway outside of the 30?

1:14:22Yeah, I don't unless it

1:14:24impacts the storm water calculation in a

1:14:26meaningful way, that's If you're outside

1:14:28the 30, you're outside the 30.

1:14:31>> But I think then we lose the benefit of

1:14:32having the pervious pavers and

1:14:34>> I

1:14:35I

1:14:35>> No, I'm trying to find a way to be least

1:14:38impactful and still achieve

1:14:40>> but I'm also looking at what happens to

1:14:42these properties when the contractor

1:14:44leaves. And my observation has been that

1:14:46people will push the limits of their

1:14:50what they perceive to be their property

1:14:51and you know, oh well, that's my

1:14:53property line. I can move it and then

1:14:55again, why do I have this oddball

1:14:56driveway when everyone else has a nice

1:14:58asphalt easy to shovel driveway. And so

1:15:02I I wouldn't it wouldn't take me like a

1:15:04month before I replace that with

1:15:05something more familiar to me as a

1:15:07property owner. I'm not saying it will

1:15:09happen, but but the worst of what

1:15:11happens always happens when the

1:15:13homeowner shows up. And the

1:15:15information's not shared with them about

1:15:17their drainage structure or why this is

1:15:19so and why they shouldn't do that. So

1:15:21what I'm

1:15:22hoping to do in addition to complying

1:15:24with the regulations the way they're

1:15:26written

1:15:27is prevent the enforcement order that

1:15:30will come when somebody decides that

1:15:33they want to have a vegetable garden at

1:15:35the back of their property and that

1:15:37their patio is not really big enough.

1:15:40So that those are my concerns and

1:15:41they're they're long-term and they have

1:15:43more to do with you know, with what

1:15:45happens next.

1:15:46>> So can any of your concerns be resolved

1:15:49with adding fencing or some other form

1:15:51of barrier?

1:15:52>> seems to me that fencing would be then

1:15:53to adding even more to the to the

1:15:56>> Mhm.

1:15:56>> property that would be

1:15:59If you're going to put up a fence to

1:16:00prevent what? You're already in the 30.

1:16:03>> But I'm not in the 15. I mean, the 15 is

1:16:06the bounded no touch zone.

1:16:08>> No, I I

1:16:08>> So I'm allowed to have my yard between

1:16:11my house and my 15-ft bounds.

1:16:14>> I understand, but no, I I don't see

1:16:16putting up a fence being the answer.

1:16:18That would to me just dig more holes in

1:16:20the ground for no

1:16:21particular reason.

1:16:23Um

1:16:24If you can get the the driveway out of

1:16:26the 30, figure out the patios, if they

1:16:28want to have a bigger footprint for

1:16:29their for their property, go go with a

1:16:32balcony.

1:16:32>> Okay. So just following this through

1:16:35logically, on 10A, if I were to move the

1:16:37driveway over

1:16:39the 5 ft or 6 ft and I was to reshape

1:16:42the patio,

1:16:44would it be acceptable outside the 30 to

1:16:46make these improvements?

1:16:48>> If you stay outside of the 30 mile

1:16:50>> plan, come back next time, right? And

1:16:52these are the the changes I make,

1:16:55will the commission accept them?

1:16:57>> If all of the structures, patios,

1:16:59driveways stay out of the 30,

1:17:02>> Mhm.

1:17:03>> then I'm fine with it.

1:17:07>> Okay. So the one lot where I will have

1:17:09difficulty with that is 8B. If we could

1:17:11look at that.

1:17:16>> Say 8B.

1:17:17>> 8B.

1:17:19So you're right in the center of the

1:17:20screen, the left side of the right

1:17:23building.

1:17:24So the the building's almost at the 30,

1:17:26and I need to provide some outdoor

1:17:28amenity space.

1:17:30Do you have a suggestion of where,

1:17:32you know, that that might go?

1:17:34>> I don't. It's not my problem to solve.

1:17:40>> Okay.

1:17:44I guess I would ask the commission for a

1:17:46continuance. We'll submit some revised

1:17:47plans and see if we can close it out at

1:17:50the next meeting. Thank you.

1:17:51>> Okay.

1:17:52Um

1:17:53Your motion?

1:17:54>> Motion to continue to August 24th.

1:17:56>> For sure. Sorry, should we take uh ask

1:17:58for public comment first?

1:17:59>> Oh, I'm sorry. Uh is there anyone here

1:18:00from the public?

1:18:04Online?

1:18:07Okay. Sorry. Thank you.

1:18:09Motion to continue to August 24th.

1:18:12>> Second.

1:18:13>> Commissioner Canton?

1:18:15>> I.

1:18:15>> Commissioner Kirshner?

1:18:17>> I.

1:18:17>> Commissioner Nystrom?

1:18:18>> I.

1:18:19>> Commissioner Frattani? I.

1:18:21>> Thank you. It was a worthwhile

1:18:22discussion.

1:18:23>> Thanks.

1:18:28Uh next item, request for certificate of

1:18:31compliance

1:18:32to A Nonquit.

1:18:39Okay. So, this is definitely one of the

1:18:41oldest

1:18:42certificate of compliance requests that

1:18:43we've seen.

1:18:44So, this is from 1981.

1:18:47So, we

1:18:49based on

1:18:50the materials that we had, it seemed

1:18:52to be just transferring of a property

1:18:55with a boat house on it.

1:18:56You can see the current condition of

1:18:58that boat house is not great.

1:19:00>> [laughter]

1:19:01>> Basically, it's a couple walls and

1:19:02essentially the concrete foundation at

1:19:04this point. But, it seems like under

1:19:06that notice of intent, there is no

1:19:07actual work proposed. So,

1:19:12in a recent real estate transaction,

1:19:14this came up. So, essentially, the new

1:19:16owner is looking to close out that order

1:19:18of conditions on the property.

1:19:20Um

1:19:21So,

1:19:22based on

1:19:23the current conditions and based on that

1:19:25notice of intent materials that we

1:19:27found, there's no concerns

1:19:30from staff about closing this out as a

1:19:32complete certificate of compliance.

1:19:34Okay.

1:19:36>> Motion to issue the certificate of

1:19:38compliance.

1:19:40>> Second.

1:19:41>> Commissioner Canton.

1:19:42>> I.

1:19:43>> Commissioner Kirshner.

1:19:44>> I.

1:19:45>> Commissioner Nystrom.

1:19:46>> I.

1:19:46>> Commissioner Fratoni, I.

1:19:5120 Scherer Trail.

1:19:55>> Yep.

1:19:56So, this was for construction of a

1:19:58single family home on Scherer Trail.

1:20:01So, it was within um

1:20:04the buffer zone of a wetland

1:20:06bordering a vegetated wetland.

1:20:08An as-built plan has been provided as

1:20:10well

1:20:11as well as a certification letter from a

1:20:13professional engineer.

1:20:15They were required to install permanent

1:20:16markers, which have been installed. Um

1:20:19It's essentially along the wood line, so

1:20:21it's even a little bit further in their

1:20:23lawn than what was originally required.

1:20:25Um so, no concerns from staff. They're

1:20:27looking for a complete certificate of

1:20:29compliance.

1:20:32>> Motion to issue the certificate

1:20:33certificate of compliance.

1:20:36>> Second.

1:20:37>> Commissioner Canton.

1:20:38>> I.

1:20:39>> Commissioner Kirshner.

1:20:40>> I.

1:20:41>> Commissioner Nystrom.

1:20:42>> I.

1:20:43>> Commissioner Fortunato, I.

1:20:45Uh three Crest Avenue.

1:20:48All right, so this is for construction

1:20:49of a single family home uh within the

1:20:51buffer zone of a bordering vegetated

1:20:53wetland.

1:20:54Um so this required concrete bounds to

1:20:57be installed um and as-built plan has

1:20:59been provided showing the location of

1:21:01these concrete bounds and uh all

1:21:03constructed improvements of the

1:21:05property.

1:21:06Uh staff did conduct a site visit back

1:21:08in May and have confirmed uh that those

1:21:10bounds are actually installed.

1:21:12Um all of erosion controls have been

1:21:14removed. Um

1:21:15they were removed a couple weeks ago. So

1:21:17in my photos you do see it, but they

1:21:19were have since been removed. Um so no

1:21:21concerns from staff.

1:21:24Motion to issue the certificate of

1:21:26compliance.

1:21:28>> Second.

1:21:28>> Commissioner Canton.

1:21:30>> I.

1:21:30>> Commissioner Kirshner.

1:21:32>> I.

1:21:33>> Commissioner Nystrom.

1:21:34>> I. Commissioner Fortunato, I.

1:21:36>> Uh

1:21:36number 16, emergency certificate.

1:21:39All right, so this is uh 2A Nonquit. So

1:21:43the uh property that just requested the

1:21:45certificate of compliance for that 1981

1:21:47uh

1:21:48notice of intent. Um so

1:21:50a oak tree on a neighboring property

1:21:53came down uh

1:21:55and landed on essentially their deck and

1:21:57roof. Uh so they're looking to have that

1:22:00removed. Um so staff did issue an

1:22:01emergency certificate. Um I also

1:22:04inspected a couple other trees out

1:22:05there. There's another oak um that's

1:22:07declining

1:22:08and a hemlock that has a lot of ant

1:22:10damage and was also showing signs of

1:22:12decline. So they asked if they could

1:22:14remove those. So I also included those

1:22:16in that emergency certificate. So just

1:22:18looking to essentially ratify that

1:22:20emergency certificate.

1:22:24Motion to ratify the emergency

1:22:26certificate.

1:22:27>> Second.

1:22:28>> Commissioner Canton.

1:22:30>> I.

1:22:30>> Commissioner Kushner.

1:22:32>> I.

1:22:32>> Commissioner Nystrom.

1:22:33>> I.

1:22:34>> Commissioner Fratoni. I.

1:22:36Uh are there any are there any

1:22:38enforcement order updates?

1:22:41>> Yep, so just a quick update on uh 612

1:22:44Grove Street. So this was the

1:22:46construction of a driveway essentially

1:22:49right next to Delaney Brook. Um

1:22:51so originally we were discussing what

1:22:53ISD uh if this is zone and compliant. Um

1:22:57a written response

1:23:00they wanted to see a site plan or

1:23:02suggested that they look for another

1:23:04uh

1:23:05driveway option along uh the Holden

1:23:08Street side. Turns out Holden Street is

1:23:10a state uh managed mass. DOT managed uh

1:23:14state road um and they would not allow

1:23:17the curb cut on that side of the street.

1:23:18So they are looking for additional

1:23:21options. Um

1:23:22so they are looking back at this option

1:23:25to kind of restore that buffer zone and

1:23:27keep that driveway

1:23:28uh in the area on the Holden Sorry.

1:23:32On uh sorry, I'm at the Grove Street

1:23:34side of things is the state highway

1:23:36where the Holden Street side

1:23:38>> Holden Street's the city street, yeah.

1:23:39>> Yeah.

1:23:40>> Grove is the highway.

1:23:40>> sorry about that.

1:23:41>> Yep, that's all right. I knew what you

1:23:42meant.

1:23:43>> Yep.

1:23:43>> [laughter]

1:23:44>> So looking to keep it on the Holden

1:23:45Street side. Um

1:23:47so

1:23:48ISD

1:23:50said if they remove a certain amount uh

1:23:53it would be compliant with the zoning.

1:23:56Uh

1:23:56so they are

1:23:58going to look forward look into doing

1:24:00this restoration plan. Um so we're going

1:24:02to ask if they come to the next meeting

1:24:03to discuss this with us.

1:24:05>> Okay.

1:24:05>> So I just wanted to give you that

1:24:06update.

1:24:07>> All right. So just to restate, they

1:24:09cannot put the driveway on the Grove

1:24:12Street side.

1:24:14Even though there's a curb cut there.

1:24:17>> Correct.

1:24:18>> Right.

1:24:19>> Yep.

1:24:19>> Um

1:24:20so they're going to come back and maybe

1:24:22reconfigure this to be in compliance

1:24:25both with

1:24:27zoning and

1:24:30>> Okay.

1:24:30>> Yeah.

1:24:31>> Correct.

1:24:33>> Yeah.

1:24:34Okay.

1:24:35>> Yep.

1:24:37>> Anything else?

1:24:38>> Nope, that's all I had for or well we

1:24:40also have I

1:24:42I have 88 Webster Street. Um so, this we

1:24:45somewhat touched on at the last meeting,

1:24:47but essentially a riprap slope was added

1:24:50to this bank along um

1:24:53I can't think uh Curtis Pond. Uh so, it

1:24:56was added over the winter.

1:24:58Uh so, we do have uh let's see. The

1:25:01engineer online to kind of just talk

1:25:03about it. Uh the wetland scientist Matt

1:25:05Morrow did go out and investigate the

1:25:07area. Um and did kind of put together

1:25:10like a slight suggestion on how we could

1:25:13potentially restore the area, but I will

1:25:15let Nick

1:25:16take over.

1:25:17>> [laughter]

1:25:20>> All right, Nick, you should be able to

1:25:22unmute.

1:25:22>> Okay.

1:25:24Thank you. Good evening. Nick

1:25:26Fasciandola, Level Design Group, here on

1:25:28behalf of the property owner.

1:25:30Um

1:25:31so, we did have our wetland scientist

1:25:32Matt Morrow go out to the site. Uh I

1:25:36believe it was last Friday, and he

1:25:37worked up a quick letter, and we sent it

1:25:39over to uh

1:25:42the office this morning. Um

1:25:44basically, you know, he recorded the

1:25:47observations that he saw out there.

1:25:48Obviously, there's some riprap that was

1:25:51placed by the property owner without a

1:25:53permit um in the location as shown. Um

1:25:56it's right at the edge of an existing

1:25:58parking area

1:26:00um along the pond, and that area was

1:26:04having some issues with some washout,

1:26:06and the contractor kind of just took it

1:26:09upon himself to quickly stabilize that

1:26:13um you know, late winter, early spring.

1:26:17Um

1:26:18we weren't aware of it. It was brought

1:26:20to our attention

1:26:22by the

1:26:23planning and development office.

1:26:25Once we were notified, we had our

1:26:29wetland scientist out there to take a

1:26:31look at it. So,

1:26:32if the commission

1:26:34insists, we can have that area cleaned

1:26:36up, remove the riprap, and

1:26:40re-stabilize with some

1:26:42plantings on the shoreline, and we can

1:26:44work with staff on preparing a plan

1:26:47detailing the

1:26:49types of plantings, number of plantings,

1:26:51and kind of work up a quick sketch of

1:26:55how that area will be addressed.

1:27:07But, that's all we have for for this

1:27:09evening. We don't have a a plan to share

1:27:12on proper restoration of that area.

1:27:16>> So, I think the staff recommendation at

1:27:17this point would be to um

1:27:20just allow them to proceed with putting

1:27:21that plan together, and we can

1:27:23communicate with them on

1:27:26>> So, how long

1:27:27>> and bring it back to the commission for

1:27:29further discussion at that point.

1:27:30>> how long of a timeline to allow for a

1:27:33plan to be submitted?

1:27:38>> Um Nick, do you have a sense of how long

1:27:40it would take?

1:27:40>> Yeah, it shouldn't take too long.

1:27:43Um

1:27:44Mr. Morrow is actually on vacation next

1:27:46week. So, when when's the commission's

1:27:49next scheduled public

1:27:50>> Next meeting's on the 24th.

1:27:53>> 24th?

1:27:54>> One after that is September 14th, if

1:27:56that's not going to fly. But, we can aim

1:27:58aim for the 24th, and

1:28:00>> Yeah, I mean, let's aim for the 24th. If

1:28:02I have if I run into issues, I'll let

1:28:04you know, but I should be able to get

1:28:05out there,

1:28:07do a quick survey of that area, prepare

1:28:09plan, and uh coordinate with the wetland

1:28:12scientists on um plantings and other

1:28:14types of

1:28:15uh measures that they would like to see

1:28:17in that area.

1:28:19>> Okay.

1:28:21I would say in addition to the to the

1:28:22plantings, um obviously this area was

1:28:25used for

1:28:26snow

1:28:28disposal during the winter because we

1:28:30understand that that's how this area

1:28:33came to be.

1:28:34Um I guess re-supported was when the

1:28:37snow plows got stuck

1:28:39in the back. Um so in addition to the

1:28:42restoration, I'd like to understand how

1:28:43that property is going to be managed

1:28:45going forward. Um

1:28:48because this is likely to repeat itself

1:28:51if

1:28:52they intend to use it for snow removal

1:28:54in the future.

1:28:57>> Well, I know there's a future

1:28:59redevelopment plan the property owner

1:29:01would be looking to come in with um

1:29:04I mean, as far as I know snow activities

1:29:06back there are just to keep that area

1:29:08clear for fire and safety.

1:29:11Um

1:29:11I mean, some snow does get plowed down

1:29:13in that area, but there's a transformer

1:29:15down there that needs to remain active

1:29:16and and overhead doors. So,

1:29:19um

1:29:20I don't believe it's a snow dump uh as

1:29:23as was classified. I believe there was

1:29:24snow plowing activities for general

1:29:26maintenance purposes and that was part

1:29:28of the issue back there uh with the

1:29:30plow, but I don't believe it's you know,

1:29:33there there is a giant stock pile of

1:29:35snow in that that area.

1:29:37>> Okay. Yeah, I I I I

1:29:39understood it was no operations or snow

1:29:40plowing where the truck got hung up back

1:29:42there. That was

1:29:43>> Yeah, and then that's required to keep

1:29:45the driveways clear for fire and safety,

1:29:47but um yeah, it's it's not a snow dump

1:29:50where they're bringing snow from offsite

1:29:52and and leaving in that area and

1:29:53allowing it to drain into the pond. I

1:29:55just wanted to make that clear.

1:29:56>> Okay, understood.

1:29:57>> Yep.

1:29:58>> Okay.

1:29:58>> Yeah, we can also talk about um general

1:30:01operations, but the buildings mostly

1:30:03vacant at this this in time as from what

1:30:06I understand, so

1:30:08um just general um maintenance to keep

1:30:10it clear for fire and safety. Those are

1:30:12the

1:30:13um only activities that are occurring

1:30:15out there today. But like I said, I know

1:30:16there is a redevelopment plan that the

1:30:18property owner's working on, so um

1:30:20hopefully we'll have that area cleaned

1:30:22up uh in the near future.

1:30:24>> Thank you.

1:30:26>> Thank you.

1:30:30>> Uh anything else on violations,

1:30:32enforcement orders?

1:30:34>> Nothing this week.

1:30:35>> Okay. Open space?

1:30:38>> Nothing from staff.

1:30:39>> Okay.

1:30:39Active projects?

1:30:42Uh communications?

1:30:46>> We did receive two communications this

1:30:48um past couple weeks. One regarding a

1:30:50draft priority habitat map that will be

1:30:52out for comment. Um I think that's

1:30:55today or this week.

1:30:56>> August 5th.

1:30:57>> August 5th, Wednesday.

1:30:59Um

1:31:00and then uh utility

1:31:03gas main replacement notification from

1:31:04Eversource.

1:31:07>> Okay.

1:31:08Uh minutes?

1:31:11>> Yep. So the July uh 13th uh 2026 minutes

1:31:14were available for review.

1:31:17>> Is there a motion?

1:31:18>> Motion to approve the July 13th minutes.

1:31:23>> Second.

1:31:23>> Second.

1:31:24>> Commissioner Canton?

1:31:26>> Aye.

1:31:26>> Commissioner Kirchner?

1:31:28>> Aye.

1:31:28>> Commissioner Nystrom?

1:31:29>> Aye.

1:31:30>> Commissioner Frattone, aye.

1:31:32Uh

1:31:34ordinance updates?

1:31:36>> Nothing this week.

1:31:40>> Liaison, you're still off for the

1:31:41summer, right?

1:31:42>> Correct.

1:31:42>> How about the

1:31:44Lake Winnecunnet?

1:31:45>> Yep. So Lake Winnecunnet Commission uh

1:31:47met last week. Um

1:31:50It was a pretty efficient meeting

1:31:51considering uh the number of items we

1:31:53had on our agenda. Um

1:31:55no real discussion on the uh wake boat

1:31:59issue um other than reviewing the

1:32:02essentially

1:32:03what's in front of what bill's in front

1:32:05of the Senate. So, um

1:32:09Yeah, so essentially there's a a

1:32:10discussion of

1:32:13limiting wake boats to 300 ft off of

1:32:16shore um

1:32:17and have to it has to be a

1:32:20a water depth of at least 15 ft which on

1:32:23Lake Quinsigamond is quite hard to

1:32:25achieve based on how narrow that

1:32:28water body is to be 300 ft off of

1:32:31off line to operate that boat.

1:32:33>> [laughter]

1:32:33>> Um

1:32:34so it was just a discussion of that

1:32:36really. Um

1:32:37but yeah.

1:32:39No real updates.

1:32:40>> Okay.

1:32:42Um policies and procedures.

1:32:44>> Uh I'm just wanted to check uh touch

1:32:46base with the commission on quorum for

1:32:48next week next meeting cuz I know that

1:32:50you're going to be out, right? On the

1:32:5124th. Do we have Is everybody else able

1:32:54to attend the meeting on the 24th?

1:32:57>> I'm currently able to attend.

1:33:00>> Stewart, Devin?

1:33:02>> Uh I'm just looking at the calendar.

1:33:04Yes, yeah, yep.

1:33:08>> [snorts]

1:33:09>> Stewart, are you able to make the 24th?

1:33:13>> Say again, I'm sorry.

1:33:14>> Are you able to make the meeting on the

1:33:1524th? Just cuz Diane's not going to be

1:33:17here so we'll have uh we'll be down to

1:33:19three.

1:33:22>> As of now, I don't have anything that

1:33:23would stop me.

1:33:25>> Okay, sounds good. If if everyone's able

1:33:28to make it in person, that's always

1:33:29preferable when we're down to three just

1:33:31because if technological difficulties

1:33:33knock someone off then we lose quorum,

1:33:35but um

1:33:36if there's going to be any issue with

1:33:37attendance, just uh reach out as as soon

1:33:39as you can and let us know and we'll

1:33:40figure out something with uh either

1:33:42rescheduling the meeting or

1:33:45uh yeah, we'll take it from there, I

1:33:46guess, but

1:33:47>> Understood. So, I'll keep you in the

1:33:49loop.

1:33:50>> Thank you.

1:33:51That's it for from staff.

1:33:53>> All right. Is there a final motion?

1:33:56>> Motion to adjourn.

1:33:57>> Second?

1:33:58>> Seconded. Yes.

1:34:00>> [snorts]

1:34:00>> I.

1:34:01>> I.

1:34:02>> I.

1:34:02>> Have a good night.

1:34:03>> Thanks. Good night, everyone.

1:34:04>> everyone.

1:34:06>> Bye.