2026-08-24 - Conservation Commission

0:04This August 24th meeting of the

0:06Worcester Conservation Commission is now

0:08called to order.

0:10My name is Devin Canton and I will be

0:11chairing this meeting.

0:13As part of this meeting we'll be holding

0:14hearings under the Massachusetts

0:16Wetlands Protection Act and regulations

0:18and the City of Worcester's Wetlands

0:20Protection Ordinance and regulations.

0:23The Commissioners are volunteers that

0:25serve to enforce these laws and

0:26regulations in order to protect specific

0:28values identified as being important to

0:31the Massachusetts to Massachusetts and

0:33the City of Worcester.

0:35Commission decisions are based on these

0:37laws and regulations and are not

0:38arbitrary or based on personal likes or

0:41dislikes.

0:42It's important to the Commission that

0:43these hearings are held in a fair and

0:45equitable way for all parties involved.

0:48This requires that discussion takes

0:49place in a civil manner and that every

0:51individual in the meeting is treated

0:53respectfully.

0:55To facilitate the hearings,

0:57they take place in the order that they

0:58are listed on the agenda, which is also

1:00available by the door and online.

1:04And they'll follow a specific format.

1:07First, the applicant or their

1:08representative will present the project

1:11to the Commission.

1:12Next, staff will provide comments on the

1:14proposed work.

1:16Then the Commission will direct any

1:17questions it has to the applicant.

1:21After the Commission is done questioning

1:23the applicant, the floor will be open to

1:25the public.

1:26Comments and questions must be directed

1:28to the Chairperson, not to the applicant

1:30or the representative, and they must

1:32pertain to the regulations that the

1:33Commission oversees. For example,

1:36although you may have concerns about the

1:37traffic resulting from a particular

1:39project, the Conservation Commission

1:41does not regulate traffic, so traffic

1:43concerns will not be discussed in the

1:45meeting.

1:47Please note that while new points will

1:49be given ample time to present,

1:51repetitive comments will be cut short in

1:53the interest of having all parties being

1:55given the opportunity to speak.

1:57Since the meeting is televised, we ask

1:59that all applicants and members of the

2:01public who wish to address the

2:02commission please address approach the

2:05podium, state their name and city of or

2:08town of residence for the record, and

2:11use the microphone.

2:13To manage

2:14remote participation during hybrid

2:17meetings and prevent disruptions, all

2:20participants and are automatically

2:22blocked from unmuting themselves,

2:24turning on their video, or sending chat

2:26messages.

2:28For remote participants who would like

2:30to comment on an item or agenda, we ask

2:33that we you use the raise hand feature

2:35in Zoom during the discussion on that

2:37item. If you are joined by phone, you

2:39can raise your hand by pressing star

2:41nine.

2:42Staff will then call on members of the

2:44public one at a time and give them

2:46permission to unmute themselves. If you

2:48are joined by phone, you will then be

2:51able to unmute yourself by pressing star

2:53six.

2:55Since all of the

2:57commissioners are here tonight, we can

2:59skip the introductions.

3:01I think uh next are there any uh

3:04items for continuances, postponements,

3:07or withdrawals?

3:08>> Yes, we have

3:09several requests for postponement. All

3:12of these are requests to postpone the

3:14public hearing to September 19th and

3:16extend the constructive grant deadline

3:18to October 6th.

3:20Uh we have item one, Providence and

3:22Worcester Railroad right-of-way. We just

3:24received this

3:25>> September 14th.

3:27>> September 14th.

3:28>> Yep.

3:29>> Okay.

3:31Oh, I I might I might have. Yes, so

3:33September 14th with a constructive grant

3:35deadline of October 6th.

3:37Um so, item number one, we just received

3:40this request last minute, so it's not on

3:42the continuance form, but Providence and

3:45Worcester Railroad right-of-way. We have

3:47item number three, 35 State Road. Item

3:49number seven, 99 Sears Island Drive.

3:52Item number nine, three Main Street,

3:54item number 10,

3:56300 and 301 Barber Ave, and item 12, 278

4:01Grove Street, 4 Brookfield Street, and 4

4:03and 4A Powers Court.

4:07>> Is there a motion?

4:09>> Motion to postpone items 1, 3, 7, 9, 10,

4:13and 12.

4:15>> Second.

4:16>> All in favor?

4:17>> Aye.

4:17>> Aye.

4:21>> Okay, well that gets us to our first

4:23item, item number two, 4 Spring Valley

4:26Road.

4:28Request for determination of

4:29applicability.

4:41>> My name is Neil Hassett, Hassett

4:42Builders, Jefferson, Mass.

4:45I'm the builder who's going to be

4:46building the deck.

4:50>> Can you uh describe the project a little

4:52more in detail?

4:53>> Okay, it's a existing deck that has

4:56collapsed. So, I'm not changing the

4:58footprint of the deck at

5:00at all.

5:02Um

5:02and um

5:07>> Can you Can you talk a little bit about

5:09the materials and uh foundations?

5:11>> pressure treated uh framing, um pressure

5:13treated deck, um handrails, um up to

5:17code, you know, footings. I'm going to

5:19dig uh footings

5:21for the um the deck.

5:23>> So, you'll be digging new footings?

5:26>> Yes.

5:26>> Yes, okay.

5:27>> Yep.

5:29Yep.

5:30That was the existing deck.

5:33Um and it collapsed over the winter.

5:36That's the That was the location of the

5:38deck.

5:39>> Yep.

5:40Were there any uh existing footings that

5:43are being removed?

5:44>> There was existing There are footings

5:46there, but they're not up to code now.

5:48>> Okay.

5:49>> Yep.

5:50Pretty straightforward.

5:51>> For today's quote.

5:52>> Any questions or comments from staff?

5:56>> Yep, so this project was flagged during

5:57the building permit process just due to

5:59its proximity to wetlands. So, it's just

6:01over 30 ft away from a wetland, so we

6:03did flag it since it did require new

6:04footings

6:05and the old footings to be taken out.

6:07So, we requested that they file an RDA

6:09to go before the commission. We did ask

6:12to confirm that the new deck would be in

6:14the same exact footprint as the the old

6:16existing deck and which has been

6:18confirmed. So, no concerns from staff at

6:20this time.

6:21>> Okay.

6:23Are there any questions or comments from

6:25members of the public?

6:31Skip to staff. Questions or comments

6:33from

6:34commissioners? If not, is there a

6:36motion?

6:39>> Motion to issue a negative

6:40determination.

6:42>> Second.

6:43>> All in favor?

6:44>> I.

6:45>> I.

6:46>> Okay, you're all set. Thank you.

6:48>> All right, thank you.

6:49>> Yep.

6:54Next item on the agenda is item number

6:56four, 149 West Boylston Drive, notice of

6:59intent.

7:09>> All right. Good evening, commissioners.

7:10My name is Gray LaCroix from Pare

7:12Corporation. I'm joined virtually by

7:14Dave Fresh,

7:16also from Pare Corporation. He's the

7:17engineer on the job. I'm the

7:19environmental scientist. We're here on

7:21behalf of the city as the applicant for

7:24a vegetation removal

7:26project along the crest of the dam,

7:29Indian Lake Dam,

7:31to be specific.

7:33Last meeting we came, opened up the

7:35public hearing, presented the project,

7:38fielded initial questions and concerns

7:40from the commission.

7:41Um

7:43At that time, we did not have a DEP file

7:44number either. So, um since then, staff

7:48has provided some comments. Um DEP did

7:51as well um in conjunction with them

7:53issuing their file number. We have

7:55responded to those comments um just this

7:57morning. Um so, apologies for the delay

7:59on that, but um we have responded to all

8:01those comments um addressed those

8:03concerns. The the biggest change

8:07was BLSF area on site. We um

8:11as a result of comments from the staff,

8:13we increased the BLSF number uh

8:15elevation from 542 to 542.4.

8:19Um so, that changed the area and also

8:21the associated impacts, which had been

8:23reported.

8:24Um some other questions and concerns

8:26that we addressed in the RTC were um

8:29as a result of commission questions last

8:31meeting, primarily how were we going to

8:33get behind the chain link fence at the

8:35site and

8:37maintain vegetation um water ward of

8:40that chain link fence. Um

8:42through discussions with the city and

8:43DPW, sounds like it's just going to be

8:46handheld equipment like weed whackers

8:48and things like that. Um unfortunately,

8:51as the commission pointed out last last

8:53meeting, um

8:54it's difficult to get large machinery

8:56back there. So, it will be small

8:58handheld equipment. Um

9:00The other question uh

9:02primary question that we wanted to make

9:03sure we responded to was concerning um

9:06stockpiles and whether or not

9:08material was going to be immediately

9:10loaded onto a trucks and hauled off or

9:12if it was going to be stockpiled on

9:14site. Unfortunately, at this time, we we

9:16weren't sure. So, just to be safe, we

9:18provided a stockpile area on the plans

9:21um

9:22away from the resource area as far at

9:24least as far away as we could really on

9:26the site. So, um

9:28and that's where we stand today. Um so,

9:30happy to happy to respond to any more

9:32questions from the commission or any

9:34other concerns. Okay.

9:36Question questions or comments from

9:38staff?

9:39>> I don't have too much to add. Um at the

9:41last meeting we had mentioned that we

9:42hadn't done a full review of the NOI yet

9:45and

9:46as was just noted we we did do that and

9:48only had a couple minor comments. The

9:50biggest change just being the boundary

9:52of bordering land subject to flooding

9:53based on the um

9:56base flood elevation in the FIS

9:59um which you know expands the resource

10:01area coverage on the site but ultimately

10:03there's not a lot of change to the work

10:04itself. Um

10:06So no real concerns at this point.

10:09Um we do have a draft order of

10:10conditions if the commission's ready to

10:12close.

10:14>> Questions or comments from

10:15commissioners?

10:19Questions or comments from members of

10:20the public? If you're

10:22called in it's uh star nine to

10:25request to speak.

10:32There are no public comments or

10:34questions. Is there a motion?

10:36>> Motion to close the hearing.

10:39>> Second.

10:40>> All in favor?

10:41>> I.

10:41>> I.

10:42>> Okay.

10:44So the public portion of the uh meeting

10:46is uh going to be paused while we go

10:49through the orders of conditions and let

10:52staff

10:54>> Yep. So first we have a finding that the

10:56work is approved as a limited project

10:58pursuant to 310 CMR 10.533I.

11:02And then for conditions in addition to

11:04the standard conditions we'd have 24 for

11:06wetland flagging.

11:08Uh we have a condition that all grades

11:09within bordering land subject to

11:11flooding be maintained to avoid changes

11:13to the flood storage capacity of the

11:14site.

11:15Uh we have a comment or condition rather

11:18that all disturbed areas be seeded with

11:20a native seed mix at the conclusion of

11:22work. Uh that was coming out of a

11:23comment from MassDEP.

11:25We have condition 46 for wood removal,

11:2748 for dust control, 49 for dewatering,

11:3151 for equipment placement, 56 for spill

11:34prevention.

11:38And that's it.

11:41>> Any questions or comments from

11:42commissioners?

11:45There's nothing more to add. Is there a

11:47motion?

11:48>> Motion to issue the order of conditions.

11:51>> Second.

11:52>> All in favor?

11:53>> Aye.

11:53>> Aye.

11:53>> Aye.

11:54>> Okay.

11:55Motion carried.

11:56>> very much.

11:57>> Thank you very much, guys.

12:05Next item is item five, zero

12:07Whippoorwill Drive and zero Daniels Way.

12:22>> Good evening.

12:23My name is Alex Wood. I am an EIT civil

12:27engineer with Thompson Liston

12:28Associates. I'm joined by my colleague

12:31Nikita Shagrou, EIT,

12:34on behalf of the client

12:35Wipper LLC.

12:38The client is seeking an amendment to

12:40their order of conditions. At the last

12:43meeting, which I believe was August 3rd,

12:45Patrick Healy, PE,

12:48presented some plans to the commission.

12:51And since that meeting, we have revised

12:54the plans

12:56such that they will have impermeable

12:59patios outside of the 30-ft buffer to

13:02the wetland resource,

13:04which is consistent with the discussion

13:06at the last meeting. And we also shifted

13:09the driveway for lot 10A to be 30-ft

13:14from the resource area.

13:16And it will be bituminous, consistent

13:19with the other driveways.

13:20So, the prior submittal from last time

13:23instead had permeable paver patios, and

13:26they were situated closer than 30 ft to

13:29the wetland resource for several lots

13:32and a portion of lot 10A's driveway,

13:35which at the time was pervious, was also

13:37situated less than 30 ft from a resource

13:40area.

13:41So, the idea for these updated plans is

13:44just to

13:45bring the the patios and the driveway

13:47outside of the 30-ft

13:50In terms of other aspects of the site,

13:53we haven't made any further changes to

13:56the stormwater in terms of we are still

13:58proposing subsurface infiltration as

14:02presented at the last meeting.

14:05Due to the fact that the purpose for the

14:07amended order is increased building

14:10footprint sizes. So, that is why we

14:13proposed the subsurface infiltration to

14:15mitigate the runoff associated with

14:18those areas.

14:19And consistent with last time, we are

14:21still proposing construction period

14:23erosion and sedimentation controls as

14:26well as permanent slope stabilizing

14:28features per the construction details.

14:31So, we believe that these revised plans

14:35adequately address the concerns of the

14:36commission.

14:38But, we have also

14:40with with these plans some sketch plans

14:43or exhibits

14:45depicting the potential for decks

14:47instead of patios.

14:49This is something that the applicant is

14:51considering doing

14:52and so

14:54what we would like to present to the

14:56commission is

14:57if we could receive the the approval for

15:00the amended order

15:01for the stamp plan with the patios. The

15:04inquiry from the applicant was if they

15:06were to decide to do decks instead at at

15:09a future point like during construction

15:12as long as decks were

15:14located outside of the 30-ft buffer and

15:17a smaller or same uh,

15:21footage of impervious um, that it could

15:23be included as a condition, uh, in the

15:25order.

15:26Um,

15:27other than that, I'm I'm happy to answer

15:30any questions. Thank you.

15:31>> Okay. Thank you. Turn it over to staff.

15:34>> Yes, so I think obviously the main

15:35discussion at the last hearing was just

15:37about the encroachments on the 30-ft

15:39buffer, and it seemed like the

15:40commission had a, um, pretty clear

15:42position that, um,

15:44wanted to see those structures

15:46relocated, um, and the applicant's team

15:48had reached out regarding the

15:49possibility of

15:51swapping these out for, um, decks at

15:54some point, um, and so I I raised the

15:57possibility of trying to include some

15:58sort of condition, as was just

16:00mentioned, to allow for that, rather

16:01than have them come back again down the

16:03line when they decide, uh, if they

16:05decide that they want to go that route.

16:07Um, so we do have in included in the

16:09draft, uh, conditions, uh, something

16:11that would allow for that, consistent

16:13with what was just described here.

16:15Um, but yeah, aside from that, don't

16:16really have too much. Happy to answer

16:18any questions.

16:19>> Okay.

16:20Questions or comments from

16:22commissioners?

16:28>> On the

16:29on the decks, would it be wood or some

16:33synthetic?

16:35>> Um, in terms of the specific materials,

16:37um, you know, I I would imagine it would

16:39be, you know, probably some some sort of

16:41wood or or something similar. We don't

16:42have exact specs for it, but, um, I

16:45think, you know, I think the key would

16:47just be that it would be, you know, a

16:49smaller square footage of impervious,

16:51you know, just with respect to the to

16:53the resource area.

16:54>> Okay, thank you.

16:56>> And and one other thing I'll add

16:58quickly, um, that came up during our,

17:00um, kind of inter-team review, is just

17:03the potential for,

17:05um, for decks, there there would be some

17:08prohibition of decks in the side yard

17:10setback, which it seems like may have

17:12already been noted by the project team,

17:14just based on the exhibit plans that did

17:15not have decks in those side yard

17:17setbacks, but

17:18I just wanted to flag that as well that

17:20there is some other limitations in the

17:21zoning ordinance outside of the

17:23commission's purview that would prohibit

17:24decks in some areas in this property.

17:27>> Yeah.

17:33Any

17:34questions or comments from members of

17:35the public? Star 92 to unmute if you're

17:38called in.

17:46I don't have any further questions or

17:48comments.

17:49If there are no more questions, is there

17:51a motion?

17:54>> Motion to close.

17:57>> Second.

17:57>> All in favor? I.

17:59>> I.

17:59>> I.

18:02>> So I can will pause the public portion

18:04of the hearing to go through the orders

18:06of conditions.

18:10>> Yes.

18:11Um

18:15Sorry, just catching up on the

18:19last condition here.

18:22All right. So

18:23there's already an active order of

18:25conditions for this site. So this would

18:26just be a couple of small modifications

18:28to the existing order. So related to

18:32what we were just discussing, adding a

18:34new construct rather a new condition to

18:36meet during construction stating that

18:37the commission recognizes the

18:39applicant's consideration of either

18:40decks or patios for lots 8 to 10 and

18:42hereby approves either option provided

18:44that the layout of these amenities

18:46remains consistent with either the

18:48approved plans or the additional exhibit

18:50sheets referenced in section A of this

18:51order of conditions and maintains the

18:53same amount of impervious area.

18:55And that they be located outside of the

18:5730-ft buffer zone.

18:59And then unrelated to the discussion,

19:01kind of just a correction on some of the

19:03sequencing. Condition 34 has a couple of

19:06sub conditions related to sequencing

19:09that don't make a ton of sense

19:11practically, it relates to the um

19:14the construction and bringing online of

19:16stormwater infrastructure for a part of

19:18the site prior to construction on

19:19another part of the site um

19:22commencing, and we wanted to scrap that

19:24as

19:25um doing that would force that system to

19:27come online before um the up-gradient

19:30areas are fully stabilized. Um so, just

19:32removing those sub conditions on work

19:34sequencing and sticking to the standard

19:36condition for work sequencing that just

19:38states um that work will be done in

19:40accordance with the plans on file with

19:41the commission.

19:43Um so, that's it for changes to the

19:44order.

19:45>> Okay.

19:47Any questions or comments on the orders

19:49of conditions? If not, is there a

19:51motion?

19:52>> Motion to issue the order of conditions.

19:55>> Second.

19:55>> All in favor?

19:57>> Aye.

19:57>> Aye.

19:58>> Okay, we're all set.

20:00>> Thank you so much.

20:01>> Yeah, thanks.

20:02>> Thank you.

20:08>> That gets us to new business, item

20:10number six, nine Dalton Street.

20:24>> Mr. Chairman,

20:25Kevin Quinn with Quinn Engineering. I'm

20:27here on behalf of Amanda Ruco Folco,

20:29who's Russo Folco, who's owner and

20:31applicant. Uh Amanda is attending

20:33tonight remotely.

20:35The application for this is for a notice

20:36of intent under the ordinance. Uh the

20:39resource areas in question are two

20:41proposed catch basins on the north and

20:44south ends of the site. This project is

20:46the construction of a multi-family

20:47building with five dwelling units,

20:50uh associated parking, maneuvering area,

20:52and underground utilities.

20:54Um

20:55a recreational area is called out in the

20:57rear of the site as well, on the east

20:59side of the site. Stormwater is

21:01collected on site and treated in

21:03accordance with the mass storm

21:04stormwater standards.

21:06Um

21:07the water is collected in the catch

21:08basins and is drained to a

21:11uh stormwater treatment unit. The water

21:13discharges into a gallery of underground

21:16chambers.

21:17The chambers are designed so that the

21:19water goes into them and there's an

21:20outlet control structure a manhole

21:23so that the water will only discharge to

21:25the city's system when the chambers have

21:27been filled. So, under normal

21:29circumstances, less than storms, no

21:31water would be introduced normally to

21:33the to the city's drainage system.

21:35Um we have called out for erosion

21:37controls on the entire perimeter of the

21:38site. That's wattles with silt fence and

21:41also silt sacks in the catch basins once

21:44they've been installed.

21:47Can I answer questions?

21:51Okay.

21:52Turn it over to staff.

21:53>> Yeah, so we had a few staff comments, a

21:55couple of minor plan revision requests

21:58related to

22:00erosion controls, labeling of service

22:02treatments, and precipitation totals

22:05used in stormwater reports.

22:07Um and then our other comment was just

22:08related to the depth of groundwater at

22:11the location of the proposed detention

22:13system. It's pretty close, so we were

22:15just concerned that there might be some

22:16potential for uh introduction of

22:18groundwater into the city system via

22:20that underground pipe. Um

22:23but the we received responses to all

22:25those comments. Um I believe the

22:27response to that particular comment was

22:29that there is still separation between

22:30seasonal high groundwater.

22:31>> The water table's below the bottom of

22:33the chambers.

22:34>> Right.

22:34>> So, the chambers won't fill or partially

22:36fill, presumably, um with groundwater.

22:39>> So, I guess the the one follow-up

22:40question we would have about that is is

22:42there some need for

22:44um like a liner of some sort to keep

22:46that system

22:48separate from the groundwater? Is there

22:49risk of

22:51>> Good question. Um

22:53we don't propose recharge. But the water

22:56that goes into the chambers is fully

22:58treated. Um we don't have separation

23:02required because it's a because of the

23:04soil type. We're we can comply to the

23:06greatest extent practicable under

23:08hydrologic soil group C soils.

23:11Um, we can put a liner. We could

23:13certainly put a uh

23:14a 40-mil plastic liner under everything

23:17to ensure that water doesn't

23:20recharge into the groundwater table.

23:23>> I guess um yeah, I don't have a strong

23:25position on that. I was just curious to

23:26get your take on whether or not it was

23:28appropriate or desirable for this just

23:29given where the water table is.

23:31>> I mean the the 2-ft separation is

23:33desirable if we could do it we would we

23:35can't.

23:35>> Right.

23:36>> Um, but certainly putting a chain a

23:38plastic layer in there to ensure that no

23:40recharge takes place. Yeah, we can we

23:41can certainly do that.

23:44>> What do you think What do you think that

23:45would be a a good move to do just to

23:48prevent potential issues from

23:49groundwater or is it something that

23:50doesn't necessarily matter?

23:52>> Well, state methodology says we get

23:54treatment in those 2 ft of separation.

23:57So, technically we would be

23:58under-treating water that was recharged.

24:01Um, it is we are I mean we do have a

24:04stormwater treatment

24:06manhole with a mechanical system that

24:08removes

24:10particulates from the stormwater but

24:11conceivably

24:12it could contribute to to groundwater um

24:15contamination or

24:17whatever you call it. So, yeah, I think

24:18putting a putting a liner in is it's

24:21being careful. We we feel we think

24:24recharge is important. In an urban

24:26environment getting water into the

24:27groundwater is pretty important. Um,

24:30but I would defer to the board as far as

24:33um

24:34how you feel about it. If we If we

24:36thought it was critical we would have

24:37put it in.

24:38I'll say that.

24:45>> Comments? Questions?

24:47>> I'm personally

24:4950/50 on that.

24:51I mean I don't see

24:53see a

24:54great cost benefit

24:56to doing it.

24:58But I don't know what my other

25:01my colleagues would say.

25:04>> I think I share everyone's

25:06sort of same opinion that it it could go

25:08either way.

25:10>> I think as long as it doesn't impact the

25:12functioning of a system, staff doesn't

25:14have a concern about it.

25:18>> Okay.

25:20Any additional questions or comments

25:21from commissioners?

25:24Open it up to the public.

25:27Are there any questions or comments from

25:28members of the public? Star 9 if you're

25:31called in.

25:38Hearing none, is there a motion?

25:41>> Motion to close.

25:43>> Second.

25:44>> All in favor? Aye.

25:46>> Aye.

25:48>> Okay.

25:49So, again, pause the public portion of

25:51the hearing just to go over the orders

25:53of conditions.

25:56Turn it over to staff to go through

25:57those.

25:58>> All right.

25:59So, in addition to standard conditions,

26:01we would have condition 37 for

26:03stormwater system maintenance, 38 for

26:06infiltration unit inspection, or rather

26:08um

26:10stormwater unit inspection, uh 39 for

26:12certification of stormwater

26:13infrastructure,

26:1546 for wood removal, 48 for dust

26:18control, 49 for dewatering, 50 for

26:20cement truck washing, 56 for spill

26:22prevention,

26:24uh 66 for sand and salt as ongoing

26:27conditions 37 and 66.

26:30Um and this does not include adding a

26:33condition that a liner be added based on

26:36the discussion we've had.

26:41>> Does not include

26:42>> Does not include a condition, yeah.

26:45>> I have no problem with that.

26:48>> So, if there are no further questions or

26:50comments on those, uh is there a motion?

26:52>> Motion to issue the order of conditions.

26:55>> Second.

26:55>> All in favor?

26:56>> I.

26:57>> I.

26:57>> I.

26:58>> Very good.

26:59All right.

26:59>> Okay. Thank you.

27:00>> All right now.

27:09Seven has been postponed. So, that gets

27:10us to item eight. Uh 46-51 and 52 Mower

27:15Doc Street.

27:18>> Um good evening, Mr. Chairman members of

27:20the commission. Um my name's Donald

27:22O'Neil. I'm a lawyer here in Worcester

27:24here this evening on behalf of um St.

27:26Anthony Realty LLC.

27:29Also um

27:31online, I believe, is Joseph Graham

27:33who's

27:34>> [snorts]

27:34>> uh done the engineering on this site.

27:38Um so, he would be available to

27:41address any questions you might have of

27:43a technical nature.

27:45Um this is

27:47a

27:48uh modification of a previously approved

27:51subdivision. Um what the proposal

27:54includes um

27:56five um

27:59two-family structures, single-family

28:00semi-detached under the ordinance, which

28:03allows for a party wall with separate

28:06lot ownership. So, it's a total of

28:0810 units. Um it's a filing under the

28:11local ordinance only.

28:14Uh and we are providing for infiltration

28:17um

28:18separate infiltration chambers

28:21uh for all 10 units um on the property.

28:24We had gotten comments from staff

28:27um

28:29that, I believe, were addressed by Mr.

28:30Graham. Um

28:32and he did submit

28:34um

28:35updated or revised plans and also a

28:37stormwater management report. So, I can

28:42answer any questions you might have for

28:43me or believe Joe is online if you've

28:46got questions for him.

28:48>> Okay.

28:49Turn it over to staff for questions or

28:51comments.

28:52>> Yeah, so this was um a project that the

28:54commission has seen before. There was a

28:56a notice of intent filed back in 2018, I

29:00believe, for the full subdivision.

29:02Um

29:03that since expired before um

29:06the completion of these lots that are

29:08that are shown here. So, a new notice of

29:10intent was required. This is also a

29:11slightly different layout um than what

29:13was originally approved.

29:15Um

29:16so, we reviewed the stormwater report

29:18and site plans um once we received the

29:21filing. Most of our comments related to

29:23the stormwater report. Um

29:26and then just a couple minor uh plan

29:28changes related to perimeter controls

29:30and also uh landscaping to include

29:33uh more native plantings. And so, at

29:36this point, um as Don just mentioned, we

29:38received

29:40a response to those comments. We

29:41received a revised plan and revised

29:42stormwater report addressing them. So,

29:44we don't have any further concerns at

29:45this point.

29:46>> Okay.

29:48Any questions or comments from

29:50commissioners?

29:56Uh can you talk a little bit about the

29:58uh phasing of this if whether uh all of

30:01these lots will be cleared at the same

30:03time or we just installing

30:06>> Yeah. Um

30:07the well, the road it's a

30:10the road itself is installed and was

30:12accepted as public um

30:15the year

30:16approximately a year ago.

30:18Um and uh I think the the lots are

30:21pretty much already cleared.

30:24Um it was originally some of these lots

30:27were proposed as single-family house

30:28lots. So, most of that I believe all of

30:31that

30:33heavy

30:34work basically has already been

30:35completed and that the lots are

30:38um I don't believe there's there

30:40um significant

30:42further clearing that would need to be

30:44done other than what's already been

30:45completed?

30:47>> Based on the most recent aerials, it

30:48does look like the entire section here

30:50has already been cleared. And there it

30:52looks like the

30:53excavation for foundations probably has

30:55started there as well.

30:58>> Say that again. The excavation for

30:59foundations have been done all

31:01>> Has begun at least is what it looks like

31:03on the most recent aerial that we see,

31:04yeah. Yeah.

31:05>> Okay.

31:07Sounds good.

31:10>> Uh if there are no questions or comments

31:11from commissioners, are there questions

31:13or comments from members of the public?

31:17If you're online, star nine to unmute.

31:27Hearing none, is there a motion?

31:30>> Motion to close.

31:32>> Second.

31:33>> All in favor?

31:34>> Aye.

31:34>> Aye.

31:36>> Okay. We'll pause the public portion of

31:38the hearing again to go through

31:40orders of conditions.

31:44>> All right. So, in addition to the

31:45standard conditions, we have 31 for

31:47SWIP, 37 for stormwater management

31:50system maintenance, 38 for infiltration

31:52unit inspection, 39 for certification of

31:55stormwater infrastructure, 48 for dust

31:57control, 49 for dewatering, 50 for

32:00cement truck washing, 55 for

32:02construction monitoring reports,

32:05uh 66 for sand and salt with ongoing

32:07conditions 37 and 66.

32:14>> Questions, comments, additions to the

32:15orders of conditions?

32:22>> Are you ready to do it?

32:24>> [laughter]

32:25>> Motion to approve conditions.

32:28>> Second.

32:29>> All in favor?

32:30>> Aye.

32:30>> Aye.

32:30>> Aye.

32:31>> Aye.

32:32>> Okay. Thank you very much.

32:34>> Yep. Thanks.

32:36>> You caught me mid-mid thought.

32:40>> All right. So, like I said to you, item

32:42number 11, 20 22 Goldthwaite Road.

32:58>> Good evening. My name is Nikita [snorts]

33:00Shagru and this is Alex Wood and we are

33:03EIT civil engineers with Thompson Liston

33:06Associates.

33:07I'm representing tonight the applicant

33:10Pappas Prime Properties LLC.

33:13The site is consisting of two parcels,

33:1620 and 22 Goldthwaite Road

33:19just off Lincoln Street in the RG5

33:22zoning district.

33:24And the site does not have any

33:28buffers or resource areas. It is only a

33:30local notice of intent filing due to the

33:33proximity to Catch Basins.

33:38The applicant proposes to demolish the

33:41existing single family on 22,

33:45keep the three family on 20 and

33:48reconstruct a 28 unit multi-family

33:51apartment building with improved

33:54parking,

33:55storm water infrastructure, utilities,

33:58amenity spaces,

34:01and standard demolition and construction

34:04erosion controls.

34:12During IRT, there was an area in the

34:14north

34:16east corner of the site that was flagged

34:18as a potential ILSF.

34:21We did conduct a study and determined

34:24with Eric's agreement that there is no

34:26resource present there.

34:30So, we are looking at again, just the

34:32local notice.

34:39And there was one staff comment on the

34:42project regarding

34:44native tree species. They'd like to see

34:46more on landscaping plan. So, we have

34:49forwarded those along to our landscape

34:51architect and we'd like to ask that

34:53those be made a condition of approval.

34:58Any questions?

35:02>> Turn it over to staff for questions or

35:04comments.

35:05>> Yep. So,

35:06last year we did receive calculations

35:09confirming that isolated land subject to

35:11flooding was not

35:13applicable to this site.

35:15So, no concerns with that. And as I

35:17said, staff had relatively one single

35:20relatively minor comment just regarding

35:22the landscape plan that can easily be

35:24conditioned within the order conditions.

35:26>> Okay.

35:28Any questions or comments from

35:30commissioners?

35:36So, just looking at the plan briefly,

35:38just looks like the snow storage might

35:41be a little light. It's just on the

35:45right from what I see. Let me know if

35:47I'm missing anything.

35:49On the north of the right lot there.

35:52Uh

35:55So,

35:57just wondering if that's enough snow

35:58storage for the amount of parking area.

36:02>> In general, it's a fairly small area,

36:04but we can we can certainly when we

36:06reissue that revised landscape sheet, we

36:09can issue another sheet to show a couple

36:11more areas. And those areas themselves

36:14are larger than what that

36:16icon there indicates. If you would flip

36:18to the grading plan, please.

36:23Um you can see there that the down slope

36:25doesn't start until behind the dumpster

36:27enclosure, so those are uh pretty large

36:29flat areas. Um

36:31so we could you know, it's really just

36:33an issue of the symbol we use and not

36:35really a a storage space issue, so.

36:38>> Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

36:40That's good.

36:42Um

36:44are there any questions or comments from

36:46members of the public? If you're online,

36:48star nine to unmute.

36:59Any questions or comments from

37:01commissioners? Lindsay, I see you.

37:04>> I was just looking at it. Looks like

37:06there's 16 parking spaces for 31 units.

37:11Just

37:13It's just not for much parking, that's

37:15all.

37:15>> Yes, so we actually are going through

37:17the uh special permit for inclusionary

37:20zoning through the planning board for uh

37:22I believe we're allowed up to a 50%

37:25parking reduction, but um

37:28we're not asking for the full allowable

37:30reduction. Um but yes, that would be um

37:33satisfied by that special permit through

37:35planning.

37:38>> Oh, is there more parking underneath the

37:40building?

37:40>> Uh yes, there's also interior uh first

37:43floor parking.

37:44>> Okay.

37:46Thank you.

37:51>> Motion to close.

37:53>> Second.

37:54>> All in favor?

37:55>> I.

37:57>> Thank you.

37:58>> And we'll pause the public hearing to go

38:00through the uh orders of conditions.

38:04>> So, in addition to the standard

38:05conditions, staff recommends uh

38:07condition 25 for recent revised uh

38:10plans. So, revised landscaping plan to

38:12include at least 50% native species for

38:15both tree and shrubs.

38:16Um 37 for 30 Wow. Storm water management

38:20system maintenance, 38 for infiltration

38:22unit inspection, 39 for certification of

38:24stormwater infrastructure, 48 for dust

38:27control, 49 for dewatering, 50 for

38:29cement truck washing.

38:31Uh

38:3266 for sand and salt and ongoing

38:34conditions for 37 and 66.

38:37>> Okay.

38:39There are no additional comments or

38:42questions. Is there a motion?

38:44>> Motion to issue the order of conditions.

38:46>> Second.

38:47>> All in favor?

38:48>> I.

38:49>> I.

38:49>> I.

38:50>> Thank you.

38:51>> Thank you.

38:52>> Thank you.

38:59>> That gets us to item 13, request for a

39:02certificate of compliance.

39:08>> All right. So, first up we have uh 22

39:10Brick Street. So, in 2019, a local only

39:14filing was uh presented to to the

39:16commission for construction of a

39:17residential development. Um

39:20as part of this request an as-built plan

39:22and a letter from a professional

39:24engineer have been provided confirming

39:25that uh it was constructed according to

39:28the approved plans. Uh staff inspected

39:30the site on August 18th, they confirmed

39:33that the site is fully stabilized at

39:34this point. Um there was a pretty

39:36significant steep hill in the back of

39:38this property and that is all stabilized

39:39at this point. Um all the plantings are

39:41doing well and yeah, the site looks

39:44good. So, no concerns from staff.

39:46>> All right.

39:47Is there a motion?

39:49>> Motion to approve approve the

39:52certificate of

39:53compliance. Um my mouth doesn't work.

39:57>> [laughter]

39:58>> Second.

39:59>> All in favor?

40:00>> I.

40:00>> I.

40:01>> I.

40:04>> All right. And then next up uh we have

40:08So, this is a partial certificate of

40:10compliance request for a duplex at uh 74

40:12and 76 Valmore streets. Um this was a

40:15part of a larger construction uh

40:19with multiple duplexes. Um

40:21last year we did issue a certificate of

40:23compliance for duplex next to it. I

40:25believe that was uh 72 and 70. Um the

40:29site is fully stabilized. Staff did

40:31inspect the site. Um

40:33we did flag that a couple of the

40:35planting the tree plantings had um

40:37not survived. So we requested that they

40:39replace them and they have been replaced

40:41at this time. Um so no concerns.

40:43>> Okay.

40:46There are no comments or questions. Is

40:47there a motion?

40:49>> Motion to approve approve certificate of

40:52compliance.

40:53>> Second.

40:54>> All in favor.

40:55>> I.

40:55>> I.

40:56>> I.

40:58>> Okay.

41:03>> All right. And our last certificate of

41:05compliance request is for

41:07uh

41:091195 Grafton Street. So this is the Twin

41:12Oaks complex. Uh this application was

41:14reviewed by the commission last year.

41:16This is with a directional drilling to

41:18replace the uh utility lines within the

41:20Twin Oak uh

41:22condo complex. Uh the site is fully

41:25stabilized at this point. Uh staff did

41:27inspect it um

41:29on the 18th and no concerns with the

41:31issuance of a certificate of compliance.

41:37>> There are no comments or questions. Is

41:38there a motion?

41:39>> Motion to approve certificate of

41:40compliance.

41:41>> Second.

41:43>> All in favor.

41:44>> I.

41:44>> I.

41:44>> I.

41:48>> Okay. Next up is uh project change

41:50request.

41:51Item 14A.

41:54>> Yep. So this is a uh project change

41:56request that was submitted by the Parks

41:58Department for Elm Park. Uh the

42:00commission might recall a negative

42:01determination was issued for the

42:04resurfacing of the existing playground

42:06in this area.

42:07Um Parks is now looking to also uh kind

42:11of

42:12replace the the pads associated with 21

42:16picnic tables in this area which are

42:17kind of depicted on the plans.

42:19You can see the the numbering. Those

42:21depict the different picnic tables.

42:23They range from anywhere as close as

42:25around 30 ft from the resource area to

42:29being outside of the buffer zone.

42:31It felt like a pretty minor

42:34change. They proposed to have straw

42:37wattle down gradient of any disturbed

42:39areas.

42:40So I had suggested that the

42:42Parks Department could

42:44file a a project change request for this

42:46under the active DOA.

42:49Alternatively, they could file a new

42:50RDA, but it seemed relatively minor.

42:55>> Seems straightforward.

42:57Are there any comments or questions?

43:01If not, is there any motion?

43:04>> I'm not sure what the motion is.

43:05>> Motion to approve the change request.

43:09>> Second.

43:10>> All in favor?

43:11>> Aye.

43:11>> Aye.

43:16>> Enforcement

43:17orders, item 15.

43:22>> So the first item we have an update on

43:25Okay, first item we have an update on is

43:2715

43:29I which is 262 Mill Street. So in 2024

43:33the commission issued an enforcement

43:34order for

43:36the Westside Animal Clinic. They were

43:38required to create a wetland restoration

43:42area or replication area back in I think

43:452001,

43:47but that was never completed and when

43:48staff inspected the site they noted this

43:50problem. So we issued an enforcement

43:52order requiring that they

43:55do the required replication area. It has

43:58been two

43:59two growing seasons since that

44:01replication area was completed.

44:03So we received the final required report

44:06confirming that

44:08it is acting as a wetland

44:11and the

44:13vegetation is native in there and

44:15over 75% of it is

44:18wetland

44:20plantings.

44:22So, it is functioning as a wetland. So,

44:24I think at this point it is

44:28good to lift the enforcement order.

44:31>> Okay.

44:35Motion to lift the enforcement order.

44:37>> Second.

44:38>> All in favor?

44:38>> Aye.

44:39>> Aye.

44:46>> All right. So, another one. So, this is

44:48145 New England Ave North. The

44:50commission issued an enforcement order

44:52last year under the local ordinance for

44:5510,000 square feet of ground disturbance

44:57within 100 feet of a catch basin. So, it

44:59wasn't near a wetland, but it was

45:02a project that would have required a

45:03permit. So,

45:04the decision was to reinspect the site

45:08uh

45:09in 2026 have staff go out there and make

45:12sure it was stabilized.

45:14Um so, it was inspected on Friday and

45:16confirming that the site is fully

45:18stabilized at this point.

45:19Since that was the only remaining

45:21condition, we recommend lifting the

45:23enforcement order.

45:25>> Motion to lift the enforcement order.

45:27>> Second.

45:28>> All in favor?

45:29>> Aye.

45:29>> Aye.

45:42>> Any more?

45:45Just do the slides. There we go.

45:50>> [snorts]

45:50>> All right. There we go.

45:51So, moving on to item 15

45:55B.

45:5688 Webster Street.

45:58The commission reviewed this either at

46:01the the last meeting or the meeting

46:02before, but essentially uh staff had

46:04observed a section of bank at the

46:08backside of this property that had been

46:09armored with riprap. Um we did receive a

46:12proposed uh restoration plan from the

46:16applicant's wetland scientist and

46:17engineer.

46:19Um this plan includes removing the

46:21riprap, uh lightly regrading the banks

46:23to have a natural

46:25um pitch back into the shoreline, um

46:28loosening soil, loosening the compacted

46:30soil, and adding a little bit of

46:32topsoil, and then revegetating the bank

46:35with native plants.

46:37Um it also proposed a uh

46:40two monitoring visits the year after uh

46:43the restoration is complete to make sure

46:45that all the plantings

46:47are um

46:48in good order. Um at this point, so we

46:50actually haven't issued a formal

46:52enforcement order for this yet. Um it

46:54was just on the agenda as a as a

46:56violation.

46:57Um so at this point, staff's

46:59recommendation would be to uh formally

47:02issue the enforcement order just

47:03requiring the implementation of the plan

47:05that their wetland scientist provided.

47:07Um but we have no concerns uh about the

47:10the restoration plan itself.

47:13>> Okay.

47:15I'll infuse that emotion on this one.

47:18>> So this would just be a a motion to

47:20issue the enforcement order.

47:22>> Motion to issue enforcement order.

47:24>> Second.

47:27>> All in favor?

47:28>> Aye.

47:29>> Aye.

47:33>> [snorts]

47:39>> All right. And then up next, we have a

47:41new enforcement order that was issued by

47:44staff um since the last meeting. This is

47:4711 Holden Street. Uh so we received a

47:50complaint about construction of a

47:53um

47:54covered porch uh within the buffer zone

47:56to to Lenny Brook.

47:58Um, so staff did go out to the site and

48:00measure and the carport is appears to be

48:04within the 30-ft buffer.

48:06Um, we are requiring that they provide

48:08an as-built plan, you know, showing the

48:09exact buffer zones,

48:11um, and the structures uh,

48:14location relative to those buffer zones.

48:16Um, so at this point we are just looking

48:18for a motion to ratify this enforcement

48:20order.

48:24>> Motion to ratify.

48:26>> Second.

48:26>> All in favor?

48:27>> Aye.

48:28>> Aye.

48:34>> All right. And then lastly, we have

48:35another enforcement order that was

48:37issued by staff at 142 Orleans Street.

48:40Um, we had received a complaint

48:42regarding removal of vegetation along

48:44the shoreline and the installation of a

48:46pool.

48:47Um, it's kind of hard to see, but in the

48:49top right picture, you can see, um,

48:52oh, that's a better one.

48:55Yeah. So, the pool is very close to the

48:57edge of the bank. Um,

48:59it's an above-ground pool, but it looks

49:01like there was a

49:02uh, a little bit of regrading and almost

49:04like a wooden small wooden retaining

49:07wall put in to kind of create a little,

49:09um,

49:10bay for it to sit in.

49:13Um, so we issued an enforcement order.

49:15We met with the homeowner who was very

49:17cooperative and understanding. Um, I

49:19think they they just were not aware of

49:22wetlands protection regulations and

49:24just started doing things in a house

49:26that they just bought. Um,

49:28but obviously there needs to be some,

49:30uh, planting along that buffer to

49:32replace the shrubs that, um, were taken

49:34out. And I would add also that, um, what

49:37started this is that one of the I think

49:39believe that tree right there, uh, that

49:41you can see in the left picture in the

49:43pre

49:44photos had fallen, um, and I think

49:46crushed some of those bushes.

49:48Um, so it wasn't just out of nowhere

49:50that they started doing the vegetation

49:52removal. It was a result of cleaning up

49:54the tree and then um

49:56just removing what was left under it and

49:59you know, whatever else had survived.

50:01But um you know, what what I tried to

50:03explain out there is that you know, just

50:05because some of the bushes got taken

50:06down doesn't mean you can kind of go and

50:08sod the lawn all the way to the edge of

50:10the uh

50:12bank without without some sort of

50:14approval or review.

50:15>> Yeah.

50:15>> Um so at this point the enforcement

50:17order just required them to uh retain a

50:20wetland scientist to come up with a plan

50:22to remediate the issues on site.

50:24Um and we would again expect that to

50:26include some sort of planting along the

50:27shoreline and have some sort of plan for

50:29relocation of the that pool. Um I'm not

50:32sure if they have

50:34space to have it um outside of the 30-ft

50:37buffer. We'll have to see what they come

50:38back um with, but

50:40uh it doesn't seem like something that

50:42the commission would generally approve

50:43if it was presented uh up front, so

50:46um

50:47>> Yeah, that was that was going to be my

50:48question as well. Will they be required

50:50to just move that somewhere else cuz it

50:52is

50:54you know, it's right up against the

50:55bank.

50:56>> Right. And ultimately we can

50:58the commission can decide that, but um

51:00the way we kind of worded it was to

51:02for them to present a plan to bring

51:04things back into compliance with our

51:05regulations. So they if they come back

51:08asking for that to stay, we can cross

51:10that bridge when we get there, but um

51:12yeah, so we we we set that um deadline

51:14for September 30th, so I'd expect

51:17hopefully to have something to discuss

51:18at the October 6th and figure out a way

51:21forward from there.

51:22>> Yeah.

51:22>> Um but similar to the last one, uh this

51:24was you know, an enforcement order

51:25issued by staff. So at this point we're

51:27just looking for a a ratification vote.

51:29>> Yep.

51:30>> So this is a motion to approve

51:32the enforcement order.

51:34>> To ratify it, yep.

51:35>> So moved.

51:36>> Second.

51:37>> All in favor?

51:38>> Aye.

51:38>> Aye.

51:40>> And just for um

51:42just

51:43the a procedural point since we kind of

51:44had several different enforcement order

51:47votes for this. If the commission is

51:50um so either the commission can issue an

51:52enforcement order or a mandate order at

51:54a at a meeting, which is kind of the

51:56preferred way to go. Um if there's, you

51:58know, time to discuss uh the other

52:00option is that, you know, staff issues

52:02the enforcement order for something that

52:03needs to be addressed quickly and then

52:05the commission then ratifies it at their

52:07at their next meeting. So, that's the

52:08reason for the different types of

52:09motions that are needed here.

52:11>> Thank you.

52:14>> All right. Uh next up is item 16, open

52:17space discussion.

52:19>> Nothing from staff.

52:21>> Uh item 17, discussion of active

52:22projects.

52:27Item 18, communications.

52:30>> We did not receive any communications

52:31over the past 3 weeks.

52:33>> Okay.

52:34Item 19, approval of minutes.

52:36>> Motion to approve the minutes from

52:38August 3rd.

52:39>> Second.

52:40>> All in favor?

52:41>> Aye.

52:41>> Aye.

52:44>> Item 20, update to wetlands protections

52:46ordinance and regulations.

52:48>> Yep, so we're continuing on

52:50um with drafting the proposed revisions.

52:52Uh we we decided to tweak uh the section

52:55on administrative approvals we had

52:57talked about previously.

52:59Um

53:01for the minor buffer zone activities

53:03that are covered under the act. Um

53:06there's a lot of pending regulations at

53:09the state level right now that would

53:11kind of change some of what we had

53:12drafted. Um so, I think we're toying

53:14with the idea of just

53:16um simply creating a process for

53:18administrative approval for the

53:21activities that are defined in the act

53:22rather than individually list them all

53:25out and um

53:26so, we should have that updated

53:29redline version at the next meeting.

53:36>> All right. Item 21, approval of uh

53:39fiscal year 26 annual report.

53:42>> Yep, so staff prepared a um um draft

53:45fiscal year 2026 annual report. Um it's

53:47up in the Google Drive folder. It's

53:49basically just an overview of

53:51permitting, open space, grants,

53:54land management, everything over the

53:55past year. This is something that we

53:58haven't done in a while. The last one

53:59we're seeing in our files is from the

54:01'90s. Um but I think it is something

54:03that um the commission should

54:05technically be doing every year.

54:08Um and I think if nothing else, it's a

54:09good um just way to kind of track and

54:12monitor the kind of annual volume and

54:14achievements in open space. So, um just

54:17looking for a vote for approval of that

54:19draft report.

54:20>> Motion to approve

54:23fiscal year 2026 annual report.

54:26>> Second.

54:27>> All in favor?

54:28>> I.

54:28>> I.

54:32>> Okay, item 22, commission liaison

54:34updates.

54:38>> Uh I have no updates for Lake Wind

54:40Advisory Commission. We just have our

54:41meeting this coming Wednesday.

54:43>> Okay.

54:45>> No updates from Community Preservation,

54:47either.

54:50>> Item 23, policies and procedures.

54:56And lastly, adjournment.

54:59>> I.

55:00>> [laughter]

55:02>> Motion to adjourn.

55:02>> Motion to adjourn.

55:04All in favor?

55:05>> I.

55:06>> I.

55:07>> Thank you.

55:11That was fun.