 So it is 733 PM, it is Thursday, November 11th, 2021. Good evening, my name is Christian Klein. I'm the chair of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals and calling this meeting of the board to order. I'd confirm all members and anticipated officials are present. Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, Roger Dupont, Patrick Handler. Here. Kevin Mills. Present. Shauna Work. Here. Aaron Ford. Here. Stephen Revillac. Here. Wonderful, welcome everyone. On behalf of the town, Kelly Lanamas here. Here, here. Happy with us. And joining us as our consultant, Paul Havity, good to have you as well, Paul. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So this open meeting of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted remotely consistent with an act extending certain COVID-19 measures adopted during the state of emergency signed into law on June 16th, 2021. This act includes an extension until April 1st, 2022 with a remote meeting provisions of Governor Baker's March 12th, 2020. Executive orders suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law, which suspended the requirement to hold all meetings in a publicly accessible physical location. Further, all members of public bodies are allowed to continue to participate remotely. Public bodies may meet remotely so long as reasonable public access is afforded so the public can follow along with the deliberations of the meeting. For this meeting, the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals has convened a video webinar via the webinar app with online and telephone access is listed on the agenda posted to the town's website, identifying how the public may join. This meeting is being recorded and it will be broadcast by ACMI. All supporting materials that have been provided members of this body are available on the town's website, unless otherwise noted, and the public is encouraged to follow along using the posted agenda. We'll move to item two on our agenda this evening, which is the continuation of the discussion of the proposed decision for Thorndike Place. So, turning to the comprehensive permit for Thorndike Place, and it's October 20th, 2021 public hearing. The board voted unanimously to close the public hearing for Thorndike Place. That vote took place after midnight so it actually occurred on the 21st, 2021. This marked the end of the acceptance of testimony and new information in regards to the project. It also initiated a 40-day period for the board to consider and render a decision. On October 28th, 2021, the board initiated its deliberations. They were continued on November 3rd, and we continue them again this evening. Tonight's discussions and deliberations are being held openly and publicly, but the board is unable to accept comment for the applicant, the board's peer review consultants, the town or the public. For this reason, tonight's meeting is being conducted using the webinar platform, which allows the board to limit who may participate in the discussion. Now, on behalf of the board, I appreciate everyone's understanding. Board will resume its discussion using the draft decision available on tonight's agenda and can be differentiated by the text in the footer, noting an 110321 revision date. Board will briefly review the revisions proposed at the previous meeting, then resume discussion with section H of the conditions discussing proposed revisions. At the end of tonight's meeting, the board may either vote on the final decision or vote to continue the meeting to continue its deliberations. Under state regulations, the board must issue a decision by November 30th or request an extension within the applicant to further continue its deliberations. So before we start this evening, I would just like to mention for the board, but more specifically for those who are watching and for other members of town. So because the public hearing is closed, the board is unable to accept new testimony in regards to this application. And the board has received several emails from a variety of sources with comments in regards to this application. I apologize, the board has to ignore those. They cannot be issued into the record as the record officially closed on October 21st. And so I just want, so those of you who have sent things, I want you to know that the board is unable to accept those and unable to review them. So with that, do we want to discuss schedule first or do we want to just get into the conditions? Mr. Chair, I'd suggest we do schedule first. It seems quick and easy. Comparatively. Comparatively, yes. And easy, yes. Okay, so we have a scheduled meeting to continue deliberations on Tuesday the 16th at 7.30 p.m. And we don't have a meeting scheduled beyond that. And my sense is that we are not gonna be in a position to, we're definitely not gonna be in a position to vote on a final decision this evening. And I would be cautious in even thinking that we might be able to vote for something on the 16th. So we also have a meeting scheduled for the 23rd, but it's already a pretty full night. And Mr. Havardy is not available on the 23rd. So we have a couple of options on how to proceed here. I would recommend, I don't think people would want to meet on Wednesday the 24th being the night before Thanksgiving. So Mr. Havardy is available on Monday the 22nd. I know that means we would be meeting back to back on the 22nd and the 23rd. And the 23rd is for new cases that we have not heard. But if people are comfortable with that, I think we should put in our calendars to meet on the 22nd in the evening. Does that they work for people? It doesn't work for me, I'm sorry. It does not work for Aaron, okay. Excuse me. Is the 24th a better option or is that really just not a great night? Roger, is that a can't make it? You're on mute, sorry. I'm going out of state for Thanksgiving. I just don't know what time I'm leaving. So, but if other people are going to commit to it, then I'll do the same, I'll figure it out. But I prefer to do that as a last resort. Yeah, frankly. Absolutely. Christian, if I may. Yeah. Last time we met, I know that Mr. Havardy is not available on the 18th. And at the same time, I didn't know, I presume again that we're going to be in the findings at that point. And I didn't know if there were enough findings that we could just go through and say, you know, check, these are not controversial. We don't have any questions about them. And then, you know, set aside the ones that we do have questions about for when we again meet and Paul is available. So I don't know how people feel about that, but I know we're in a bit of a crunch. Yeah. That's going to be, so if we could find a date to do a final meeting with Paul, then that would be by recommendation as well is that we block out the 18th, knowing that Mr. Havardy is unavailable that evening. So that we could have that for further deliberation and make sure that we have things in the format that were that are acceptable to us. And then we schedule one final meeting to review the decision one last time and to take a final vote. What is the date we need to close this by? That's closed by the 30th. So we, in theory, we can go as late as the 30th. My concern there is that if we don't issue a decision on the 30th, then we are, you know, unfortunately we are statutorily in violation of the law, which puts us in a very bad position. So we need to make absolutely sure that we are closed before then. If we had to meet on Monday the 29th, I think, that would give us a little bit of extra protection in terms of dates just in case something happened. But I know when we had discussed previous extensions with the applicant, we had said we would very much try to be done before Thanksgiving. Mr. Chairman, I mean, I'm a minor player into this, but my suggestion might not be to try to cram it all in before Thanksgiving, but the 29th, and if you have to do the 30th, back to back. But my schedule, my schedules are what they are. We're right. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. It seems to me that if we do what Mr. DuPont has suggested and to have a meeting on the 18th, that necessarily presupposes there's some other meeting that has to happen on a different day that we can take those things which require Paul's assistance and have an opportunity to do them. It's also true that if we are able to get through with the facts and have reviewed the whole business, there may be, I mean, we would be if a final, this won't be like the 1165 case and a final discussion is not going to take 10 minutes at the end of perfecting the draft. So both those things make me think that if we do do something on the 18th, we have to squeeze in at least a short meeting after that in order to finish up. I think it's really a bad idea to schedule anything on the 30th since the application will be automatically granted if we have a hurricane that day and we're unable to meet or some other thing happens. We can't get a quorum. There's any number of things that we really don't want to have happen. We could conceivably set this up at the 18th and then take a nice vacation and then come back on the 29th on what we hope, what I hope would be a meeting that would be an hour or so and finally dispose of the case. And so that would make some sense if that accommodates people's schedules and trying to push it before Thanksgiving does not. Well, let's go back to the 29th. If I'm 30 minutes late to the meeting and 29th, is that a problem? Not the 29th, I'm sorry, the Monday the 22nd just helps spread it out for everybody. We could also schedule to start at eight, if that's... I would recommend that, Mr. Chairman, rather than presuming somebody's going to be late. I can commit to that. It helps everybody here. I just have a late meeting. Yeah, no, no. So would that work for everyone if we put on our calendars both Thursday the 18th and knowing that we would be meeting on the 18th without Paul's assistance and then meeting again on the 22nd at 8 p.m. Knowing that then unfortunately, we're also meeting the 23rd at 7.30. Right. Okay, so I'll go ahead and put those on our calendar so that Thursday the 18th at 7.30 and Monday the 22nd at... Appreciate everyone's flexibility in fitting those in. So this is the draft decision that we have posted on the website, which is the November 3rd version. I have been using, in past meetings, I've used the sort of the personal word version that I've been keeping that has a couple of extra. It just, it has my notes in it. So would people, but it's in words so I can sort of edit things on the fly? Would people, is there any objection to switching over to my word copy? No objection. Please do. So we started the last time. So I just want to go back. Last time we started with C2. So there are still a couple of things the couple of questions we'd had on earlier ones that we need to tidy up. But we'll get to those. So C2 is for items that we're gonna have been prior to the issuance of building permits. So we had had some questions on G and I had gone back and looked at what we had done. So there's a question on G because it says we have to pull the building permit before we pull the building permit. And what we had done at 1165R is we had just added a second sentence which said it's understood compliance with this requirement as part of the building permit process rather than required prior to the issuance of a building permit. So I think that if we adopt that language that'll resolve that issue. Else, that was it for C. If anyone has any questions or comments and reviewing the draft from that was issued at the last meeting, speak up as I fly through here. D, on project design and construction. I talked about construction plans, management. We had, I thought adding pest control to this line. Can we go back? Yeah. I'm looking at C2, L. L, yeah. I just, I want to take the chance to go and double check what the applicant's offer was with regards to putting the money in the escrow account. Okay. And I think that that is separate from issues having to do with the phase one. So I just want to make sure we're not conflating those two issues. Okay. And then in M, it talks about phase one assessment to indicate the possible presence of oil or other hazardous waste. Okay. Which is the appropriate, but I think there was somewhere else where it said hazardous materials. I gotta go back and find what that was. But I just want to make sure we're being consistent with the language of the statute. It's actually not in this. Materials is the proper term. No. Yes, I'm sorry. Oil or hazardous materials, not hazardous waste. Okay. I want to make sure we're correct about that. D, private commencement for the work, construction management plan, property inspections, retaining walls, confirming the condition of the existing sewer line, performing to all local state, federal laws, not waste, then we had in our discussion about the, about driving piles. Mr. Ford had made a recommendation for change, which he emailed to me. So that is shown here. The applicant should prepare a pre-construction survey of the adjacent houses and shall utilize geotechnological engineer to perform daily vibration monitoring with seismographs during ground improvement construction to limit peak particle velocity, i.e. vibration level adjacent to the above grade build, existing buildings to frequencies that reduce the probability of structural damage to generally acceptable levels and specified by a geotechnical engineer. Do you have any questions on that language? Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mills. Yeah, who was specified by the geotechnical engineer. Is this geotechnical engineer been specified previously that the applicant's gonna hire one? Yes. Part of the project, there will be a geotechnical engineer hired by the owner for the building foundation. And that would be the geotechnical engineer that would be able to specify the survey and the monitoring. So geotechnical engineers, after they do the record, so geotechnical engineers generally provide the recommendations for the foundations for the building. So they're the ones that tell the design team and the owner what you suggest using ground improvement to do, to sit this building on to limit settlement. So they're very familiar with the foundation work and the ground improvement. So they're often required to write specifications that provide the guidelines for different testing and inspection things throughout the project. They tell contractor how to prepare the subgrade. So they're knowledgeable and they're also the ones that can provide this testing and monitoring to make sure the adjacent residents' foundations aren't undermined. So this is really about protecting the neighbors, using testing and monitoring techniques to keep the vibration levels below. So imagine if you go out there and they start doing this ground improvement. And ground improvement, all that is is they're compacting the soil with kind of a big hammer, an anvil. And so they would sit there and use equipment to monitor the site while the contractor's placing it. So the contractor would have a sub that's actually building it. And if the vibration levels get too big, they would be able to notify the contractor right then if the vibration levels get too high. So that's the kind of the intent of what this would do to help protect the neighbors. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I really like the addition of this language. My only suggestion might be in the next to last line where this has been added, where it says that reduce the probability of structural damage. You might want to just say to the adjacent houses because you said that up top, you know, survey of adjacent houses. And I thought probability of structural damage to the adjacent houses. It's probably understood, but I don't think it hurts to put it there. Okay. So reduce the probability of structural damage to the adjacent houses to generally acceptable levels. Okay. Steve Ravelach, Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. This is a small knit, but levels and specified is the word and necessary there. Looks good to me. That sounds right. Okay. Let's move on 58. Oh, it's got temporary signage, lighting, utilities. We decided to table the conversation about the hours of construction activities. So that is something we will still need to come back to. Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. Yes. I went through my notes to see if I could find discussion of Saturday hours and I was not able to find, you know, I didn't write anything down about that. Oh, okay. So, Mr. Chairman, to the extent that there is some sort of relief granted from the hours in the bylaws, we just need to make sure we have a corresponding waiver grant. Okay. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I do remember that in the discussion, in the public hearing, that there were several people who commented on Saturday and I failed to go back and look at the video so that I can't really pinpoint it, but I'm pretty sure that it's there. So as I understand it, really there are a couple of questions here. One is the question, whether changing the hours here involves something that purports to vary a bylaw. And if so, we need a waiver, but in any event, we need to know what we're doing. But that in turn also has to take into consideration that the bylaw involved involves noise situation and the applicant had been offering that if they could bring their people on board, they wouldn't have to begin making any noise until after the time specified in the bylaw. So that's one set of issues. Second set of issues is the degree to which any of this, what actually is beneficial to the community. And there it was pretty clear to me that people wanted Sundays and holidays. And I think probably if they could get Saturdays too, they would prefer to do that. It's not entirely clear to me though, what the overall balance is. And I think that I at least I'm gonna have to go back and review the videos in order to get more of a sense of what the neighborhood thinks is best for its own peace and security. I don't really think that I have a clear sense of that as of now. Mr. Chairman. Yes. Myself, and I think Mr. Ford referred to this earlier that possibly curtailing the hours on Saturday afternoons would be preferred. I think even though if the noise ordinance says it's permitted till 5 p.m. on Saturdays, given the special nature of this construction project being embedded deeply in a neighborhood setting and children would like to enjoy the streets on a Saturday afternoon, I would feel comfortable limiting construction hours to 1 p.m. on Saturdays. It'd be my vote. Yes, but the question is, would this be a unique condition placed upon a 4 dB project that's not routinely placed upon other projects that aren't done through the normal channels? So if we could find an example of one that might be useful, but I'm not aware of any. Agreed. To Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I've been viewing this largely and I mean, when we had the discussion, there was a certain sense of a quid pro quo that the applicant was prepared to consent to reasonable limitations on construction on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays in return for an adjustment to an adjustment to their starting and closing times that would enable them to use the time more efficiently. And certainly we have the authority, I think, to impose conditions that the applicant has consented to. But we do need to pay some attention to the degree to which the applicant has consented to them. And I'm not 100% sure where that comes out. It wasn't as if we actually negotiated it to a finally, okay, we'll do this and then you'll do that. We have to sort of deal with a more ambiguous record. So it's a consideration, but I think that in the absence of some reasonably reliable indication of consent on the part of the applicant, we're quite limited in what we would be able to do just because it's a good idea. And unfortunately, the construction of the duplexes, if they were just done on their own separately, it would be like any other residential construction in that neighborhood, it would still be able to be conducted seven days a week. So we do need to be sort of cognizant of that as well. We'll come back to D16, D21. So there's a question about snow and snow storage. So this is that snow may not be placed into a resource area, but there are situations where there is snow that's being removed from within a resource area that can be left in a resource area. And the language that was proposed by the Conservation Commission is under condition I-5. So I'm recommending that we note that snow within resource area may be relocated for the requirements of condition I-5. And we'll come back to that when we get down there. Mr. Chairman, on D22. D22, yes. The sentence, the applicant shall also implement all necessary controls to ensure that vibration from construction activities does not constitute a nuisance or has to be on the property. Is that already covered in D8? D8, it definitely got pretty deeply into vibration. It seems a little redundant. Yep. Uh-oh. I would agree. Then the rest of this deals with noise, which is a separate issue, perfect. Thank you for bringing that to our attention. My pleasure. Three, D24. So there's a sort of remaining question about what happened, you know, damage that happens to neighboring streets because of construction activities and damage to street trees, damage to curves, et cetera. So those are, they're under Title III, Article IV, damaged ways, liability bond in the town bylaws. There was not a request made to waive that provision, I don't believe, by the applicant. And so that would still be in effect, which is basically allows the town, if it has concerns about holding onto funds, from the applicant to cover potential damage that the town can do so. And then so where this, where Title III, Article IV has not been waived or not been requested to be waived, it would still apply. And then D31 was additional because the request for D24 included both the streets and the trees. So D24, this just deals with the street and then D31 was trying to come up with a way to address the question that was left last time about trees. The applicant will survey existing street trees along the proposed access routes to the site with the tree warden to develop a plan for minimizing impacts to street trees in the neighborhood. Any damage to street trees shall be reported to the tree warden. Hopefully that will basically allow the applicant and the tree warden to come to an agreement as to what the current condition of the trees are and how to avoid damaging them during construction. And then anything that happens that does end up damaging a tree, it's the responsibility of the applicant to report that to the tree warden. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. So what is the underlying law? Suppose the applicant does damage to street trees, which I take it in this case means trees within the right of way. Is that what makes it a street tree? That is correct. It's trees that are within the right of way that are the property of the town. And Mr. Morris told us often enough that destroying a street tree is a violation of state law. I'm just trying to figure out what the underlying rule of law is and what the applicant's responsibility is under that. If we knew we could cite it in more or less the same way that we did in the preceding one, just to make it clear. I wouldn't want to thought that the only thing that the applicant ever had to do was if he made a mistake to say, I cannot tell a lie, Mr. Tree Warden, I destroyed that tree. You'd want more to happen and presumably the law already requires more to happen. So it would be nice to be able to say that any damage to the street tree would be subject to whatever the underlying law is. And I don't know what it is. I can look that up, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that, Mr. Habbard. Thank you. We have section E, construction completion, difficulty of occupancy. This is what we had been working on the last time. It was just having the fire department sign off on the emergency access driver on the senior living building. And then I had gone back through the draft memorandum of understanding between the town and the applicant and realized that there was a portion of it missing, which was the question about setting a conservation restriction on the portion of the property listed as the potential conservation parcel. We had addressed all the financial concerns that were potential for the MOU, but we had not addressed the conservation restriction question. And so that's what this language is here. Again, in the absence of assigned memorandum of understanding between the applicant and the town of Arlington regarding the final disposition of the conservation parcel, following the completion of any remediation identified by the chapter 21 E site assessments, the applicant shall enter into a conservation restriction under MGL chapter 184, sections 31 through 33. The portion of the site identified as the conservation parcel on the planning entitled potential conservation parcel dated August 27th, 2021. Such CR shall be in effect in perpetuity and shall limit the use of said parcel to conservation of the wetland resources and passive recreation by the general public. I think that sort of gets at what we were hoping the final disposition of that property would be. And again, should an memorandum of understanding be enacted between the applicant and the town, this condition would not be in effect. It's just a found certificate of occupancy, submitting final documentation, the residential building, the residential building is the property management. We moved on to traffic, traffic safety conditions and sidewalks. None of that acts as the property just using small non-articulated delivery vehicles, complimentary jitney service, some emergency vehicles can adequately maneuver through the site, long-term bike spaces, short-term bike spaces, the information that would be in the transportation information packets, that number of parking spaces, there'll be eight garage-level handicap parking spaces, parking senior residents, subject to an additional fee, provide electric vehicle charging stations, parking for residents and staff, and then G, police fire emergency medical, I'm going to provide a professional senior housing operator, property manager and maintenance personnel on the premises during typical business hours, stairwells and garages, fire rated per state code, fully sprinkled, elevators, fire access, exterior lighting, access control, accessibility for the fire department, we're going to consult with the fire department prior to the commencement of construction. That is where we left off last time. Are there any further questions on those items? All right, seeing none, we will pick up tonight with section H. This is water, sewer and utilities, applicant is responsible for the design, infrastructure is installed in conformance with the technical requirements from the town, fire hide and show, we place the shown locations approved by the fire department. And Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I was, I have my own notes in another version. I just had a couple of questions. Please. Oh, but we lost you here on mute again. So in H. Oh, you're back on mute. I'm not sure what happened there. My space bar isn't working for some reason. Oh, okay. So I guess on each one, I just wanted to make sure. So when you say responsible for design and installation of utilities, I'm assuming that it's the utilities as they're defined down in H six, is that correct? Cause I just want to make sure when I read that to begin with, you know, I assumed I knew what utilities meant, but I just wanted to make sure that we're thinking the same thing that stated in H six. Is that correct? So the definition of utilities there. With the water service, like, yes, I would think that's correct. Okay. And I had a similar question. And I think again, a lot of this is self-explanatory, but I just want to be sure. So where you say all water and sewer infrastructure, the same question is what is the infrastructure that we're really referring to? Is that also clarified or defined somewhere? I don't think we go specifically into it, but, you know, the water and sewer division is going to be approving the final plan for connections to the water and sewer. So the infrastructure, like on the water service side would include check valves, would include the piping, would include service valves. That's fine. I just wanted to make sure that that's essentially understood. Yes. And then if I may an H four, where it says water service, does that include the sewer in this as well? No. So the water service is the incoming water service. Okay. That's for now. That's what I was wondering. Thanks. Okay. Absolutely. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. If I could suggest that it would be neater if the definition of what utilities are that are in the age four, eight, six, eight, six, I guess it is. If that's the definition that's going to be used in this entire subsection, it would probably be more orderly to make it appear in the first provision where it comes up. Since if there's any question about it, people tend not to look to later provisions for an interpretation of earlier ones. Mr. Havardy, do you see any issue with doing that? I'm sorry, could you repeat that? So the recommendation was in section in paragraph H six. There's a basically just a definition of utilities. The question is whether that should be relocated up to paragraph one, which is the first time that we mentioned the word utilities. Yeah, that makes sense. It might be helpful to preface that by saying for purposes of this subdivision H or whatever level H is, so that it's just clear that this definition applies to every provision in part H. In that respect, I guess we do need to do a check that I wouldn't suggest doing this second just to make sure that utilities doesn't appear somewhere else where we need this definition. Because otherwise it might apply that this definition doesn't apply to that and maybe it doesn't. I mean, it's very hard in a long document like this to get a common word like utilities defined in the right way everywhere without having a definition section at the beginning. Certainly. So omitting that from H six, then we're just left that the applicant does need to relocate a utility pool. And so they'll need to get a brand of location from the select board. And we're responsible for trash recycling compost or yard waste removed from the senior residential building. The application provided a copy of the trash recycling policies and guidelines to all purchasers, the duplex units, which will be serviced by municipal trash, recycling and yard waste collection. Fire hydrants and the properties remain private. H nine. So H nine, this is the one where the, there was a recommendation for the town to have the applicant design and provide a temporary wider sewer easement for the beyond the existing 10 foot easement during the period of construction. And the issue was that the design board of appeals is not a board of survey. So we cannot grant easements. And there was some confusion about what exactly the town was requesting it for and what they're going to use it for. And so I was going to recommend that instead we change it to the applicant shall allow access to the town, to all easements during the period of construction and shall not unreasonably deny temporary access to property adjacent to the easement to provide suitable room to perform all necessary work within the easement. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. So as I was reading that in the condition that I find it prior to your recommendation, the question that I had was where it says to provide suitable room to perform all necessary work. My question was, it wasn't clear who was going to perform that work. And I think it's understood that it's the town, is that correct? That is correct. Right, so in whatever way you sort of fashion the language, when you say to perform work, I think it's for the town to perform the work. So just so that it's clear. Suitable room for the town to perform all necessary work within the easement. Okay. And then under age nine to those before it had said that all sewer services should utilize an eight inch service line. But certainly the duplexes are not going to receive an eight inch sewer line. The apartment building where it's even eight inch sewer line. So just, and we had discussed in a prior hearing and I believe it's on the drawings this way that it's an eight inch line for the senior residence building. And it's the six inch is the typical service line for residential buildings for single units and duplexes. So we change it to sewer service to the senior residence building should utilize an eight inch service line. And she'll discharge into a sewer manhole when entering the town sewer collection system. Sewer service to the duplex building should utilize a six inch service line and discharge into the street main or as directed by the water and sewer division. And that auto address those issues because the duplexes will connect to the sewer line in a different fashion than a much larger structure would. Any further questions on the ages? Brings us into the eyes. Wetlands flood planning environmental conditions. Prior to commencement of site clearing preparation and construction erosion control measures shall be installed consistent with the approved plans. That will be required to obtain an order of conditions from the Ellington Conservation Commission or superseding order of conditions for the Department of Environmental Protection because the applicant proposes work within the 100 foot buffer zone to a bordering vegetated wetland. So this is just to confirm that the applicant is required to still abide by the state law for wetlands conservation and needs to get an order of conditions from the conservation commission. So Mr. Chairman, I think we should clarify in that condition that that order of conditions is pursuant to the wetlands protection act. Order of conditions. Three, no uncovered stockpiling. I four, no heavy equipment stored overnight. No refueling or maintenance machinery or vehicles within a hundred foot buffer zone. I five, no dumping of woody vegetation leaves grass-clothed brush into the wetlands resource area. Forgoing does not apply to clean snow removed from the emergency access road as long as no sand or non-approved de-icing materials are used and the snow is clear of all foreign debris. An alternative de-icing products such as magnesium chloride may be used as recommended by the Winter Parking Lot and Sidewalk Maintenance Manual published by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. So this was recommended by the Conservation Commission in their most recent letter before the before the closure of the public hearing. I wasn't sure if we should put the, include the website of the document in the decision or whether we should leave it out. Anybody feel strongly either way? No. I don't think it hurts from included, Mr. Chairman. My own personal preference would be to include it as a footnote, but that's fine too. Well, I think it should be set off by something. I can't decide if it should be brackets or parentheses or less than greater than or what? How about just a comma after agency? All right, done. Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. So if we could just look back at I for again, this may not be particularly or specifically relevant for this paragraph, but I've listened to Mr. Moore enough times at our meetings where I have this sort of, I have this sort of script playing in my head and this is a compliment to him about the areas around trees that need to be considered in terms of making sure that their root systems are not damaged. So I know that there is a reference in C, 0.1D, small Roman numeral six, that they're having a tree protection plan. And I'm just wondering if the tree protection plan would include these sorts of things that are mentioned in I for like no heavy equipment, rolling over the ground next to trees. And I don't know how to word it, but that's what came to mind was the idea of somehow making sure that heavy equipment was not stored or driven in places that would pose a threat to trees that are in the tree protection plan. And maybe the tree protection plan sort of subsumes all of this, but I'm not sure. Mr. Chair. I have Mr. Revillak and then Mr. Hanlon. So I thought the purpose of I for was to protect the resource areas against potential fuel spills or hydraulic oil spills or that sort of thing. I'm curious if anyone knows, but I could be completely wrong about that. If I can interject, I think you're right about that. It was just that that's where it sort of popped into my mind as I was reading it. Mr. Hanlon. I just have a minor thing. I did remember because I recently had occasion to look at it that Mr. Moore is always talking about protecting the critical root zone. That's kind of as the term of art for that area where the compression of the soil might damage the roots and destroy trees. And Mr. Revillak does seem right to me though that this is not really aimed primarily at that. Let's keep that in mind. And then we'll come across the right place for it. We'll put it in. If not, we'll make a place for it. So I for I five and I five is the section that we had referenced from a prior condition in regards to relocation of snow within the resource areas. I six. So this is again one where it sort of appears to similar languages in two different places. So while no dewatering is anticipated by the applicant any water discharged as part of any dewatering operation shall be conducted consistent with the requirements of condition I 40. And we'll, because all of this is in I 40 along with some additional information as well. So we'll. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. So what is it that this condition actually adds? I mean, if we deleted it, what would we lose? I don't think we would lose anything. Can we say the condition is intentionally left blank? Just not just not to throw off the numbering. It's funny because that's sort of the thing that keeps ringing in the back of my head. It's like, if we get rid of these sections we lose the numbering. So for the moment, I'm just going to mark it in writing. Boy, that's sure will be impossible to overlook in the future. That's for sure. And when we get down to I 40, we can confirm. It's seven African shall hire qualified environmental monitor report to the board. So this is very consistent, very similar to what we had done at 1165. And then I eight, again, a little similar, but it's mostly involved with the creation of the flood planning compensation area. I nine, works we could act in accordance with the approved erosion and cementation control plan. We had gone back and forth at the last hearing, whether it should be within one week of final grading or whether it should be a longer period of time. And our conversation with the conservation commission is they recommended leaving it at one week. There's just too much can happen if you leave it for too long. By 10, still bag protection of catch basins and that the, if necessary, that the bags can be removed to prevent localized flooding, but it has to be done in conjunction with the board and the DBW and the environmental monitor. Mr. Chairman. Yeah. I don't remember using the word developer before. Ah, go back to applicants. Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor. I get up to I eight, there was a, to be a report after a rain event. Yes. Do we specify how soon that report needs to be made? I mean, it's left open ended, it appears. We don't specifically indicate how soon it needs to be submitted. I mean, if you leave it open ended, it could be anything. True. I'm not sure what an appropriate time period would be for such a report. Does Paul have any experience with these matters, Mr. Chair? The question, Mr. Haverny. I do not have any experience in terms of what an appropriate time would be for a notification. I would think seven days would be sufficient. I mean, Mr. Chair, in case something really did go sideways, we need to be aware of and remediation needs to be necessary. I think time would be in essence and seven days would be, you know, allow them a decent amount of time to make a response. Okay. That's a good observation. Thank you for that. This is at 11, there should be no sedimentation to wetlands or water bodies located on our offsite from point of where discharge is. So it just says that there shall be no sedimentation, but we don't address what happens if it happens. And I don't know if we specifically need to indicate what will happen. Good question. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I wonder if Mr. Haverny could advise us as to what our options are under this. I mean, it's entirely possible, I would guess, that sedimentation for water bodies or wetlands located offsite in particular might not immediately come to the attention of the applicant, either. It's the more you look at it, the more it sounds a little complex. And I'm sort of interested in what, how it is that this condition of this kind can be enforced and by whom? Well, ultimately every condition that's imposed by the board is enforceable by the zoning enforcement officer. These are permit conditions. They're part of the comprehensive permit and the zoning enforcement officer. In the first instance is the entity that would act to enforce your decision. If there's appeal or if there's any questions regarding how it's applied, it would then come back to you. So in the draft version of the decision as marked up by the applicant from September 24, they made no comments in regards to this statement. I don't think beta did either. Yeah, so neither beta nor the applicant had any comments or regards to this one. So perhaps we just leave this off. And I think if you look to a condition I-13, it really gets into what your remedies are. Okay. Which includes money that you can use to conduct remediation work if the applicant doesn't act in a timely manner to do the remediation themselves. Okay. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Quick note. I think you've got developer in I-8 as well. I think it's the only other reference at the very bottom next to the last line. Thank you. So I think we're okay, I-11 as it is. I-12. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. So I'm still a little bit concerned with I-11 just in that I'm not quite sure what the nature is, what the whole scope of the nature of the obligation is. If you look at I-13, it would be, I think that seems to rely on commencement of work within a resource area, but I-11 doesn't. Yeah. I-11, and it doesn't actually depend upon any effect on this particular parcel or on any resource area at all. It's just sedimentation into wetlands or water bodies, whether they're located on or off the site, and whether it's from a point discharge or non-point source discharge, which I assume means from the site, although it doesn't say that either. I'm not quite sure what to make of this. And it may be just that the only things that we can enforce are the things in I-13. So we might as well just let this stay there and if there's an enforcement problem, there is. But I feel slightly uncomfortable with a very broad obligation of that kind without any clear sense of what becomes, of either finding out that it has happened or if it has happened, finding out what the mediation is required and what we could require. I'm guessing that if this is talking about sedimentation in El-Wife Brook, that we probably would have very limited authority to require them to do anything to remediate El-Wife Brook. But I don't know that, it's just very broad. Yeah, I mean, the language that's here was in prior to the last round of reviews by the applicant in the conservation commission and beta group and none of them had a concern about this condition as written. Well, if they're happy with it, that's okay with me. Okay. Well, actually, can we go back to just for context condition I-1. So prior to the commencement of site clearing, preparation and construction erosion control measures will be installed consistent with the approved plans. So the lack of erosion control will get you sedimentation discharges. And if you looked at I-13, that's a lot of addresses to you, erosion control. So I think that I-11 is just being, it's a broad condition in the sense that I-1 is a broad condition, but I think the two are related. If someone were to report a sediment discharge into a water body to the Zoning Enforcement Officer, the Zoning Enforcement Officer could say, hey, that you are in violation of this condition of your permit, and you need to do the following to remediate. I presume the Zoning Enforcement Officer has the power to request a specific remediation for a violation. I would think so. I mean, yeah, I mean, obviously if there was sedimentation, it would be a violation of the, as you say, violation of the permit, of the comprehensive permit and would have to be remediated. Maybe as simple as repairing whatever failure of erosion control had occurred on the site. I-12, board or it's duly appointed agent, which may be the town conservation agent acting on behalf of the board, shall have the right to enter the property for inspections and provide, they'll have to provide reasonable access. I-13, prior to the commencement of work within any resource area, the applicant shall, in addition to any other security or security required by this decision, provide the town security the amount of $10,000 via bond passbook in order to provide security for the work and erosion control measures in or adjacent to resource areas. The event that said work erosion control measures have been deemed to have failed over our maintenance, the applicant shall be given written notices of deficiency along with an opportunity to cure the same within 14 days. This was one that originally had said, I believe seven days or longer, and we decided to just cap it at 15. In the event the application, the applicant does not timely cure the deficiency or if the applicant refuses to repair, replace or maintain such erosion control measures in a timely manner upon written notification from the board or its agent, said security may be accessed by the board to pay expenses for replacement, repair or maintenance of erosion controls. That's just changing the structure of that sentence. And then to the extent the board is required to access and use the security as aforesaid that applicant shall replenish said security and return it to $10,000. If 14, how many work? Is the Army Corps of Engineers necessary? I don't, probably not necessary. I think I can't remember if the Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction over floodways or not, but just have it in there, but it's smooth if it's not necessary. 15, prior to any work commencing aside, applicants should submit proof of a national pollution to discharge elimination system, construction general permit. My 16 is another plan requirement. My 17, the applicant shall submit details confirming the rooftop detention system. Rooftop, let's say rooftop rainwater detention system, so it's not confused with any other detention system, will conform to the runoff assumptions and calculations in the applicant's stormwater analysis. Stormwater, not rainwater. Any change to the rooftop detention system design will require the approval of the board. This is one where the applicant had a question as to whether that final, about that final line. I think it's important that if there are changes to that system that is reviewed by the board or its consultants. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. If, excuse me, if the issue is, I mean, maybe Mr. Haveri can comment on this, but if the applicant's objection was that that was somehow a later discretionary decision to some sort. It seems to me that what the underlying intent there is to make sure that it's understood that a change in design would be material and that the applicant would have to come back and obtain an amendment to the permit to get approval for the changed design. At least that's the way I read that. And if that's true, it doesn't, if that's the way, if that's what it means, I'm just not clear to me that there'd be any legal objection to making clear that a change in this design is something that is a significant deviation from the final approved plans. And I wonder if Mr. Haveri can comment on whether that, is that the way this actually works and is intended to work? So the board can't prejudge whether opposed modification is substantial or insubstantial, but it's certainly within your rights to note that any change to the rooftop detention system will require the approval of the board, whether that's an approval through a determination that the change is substantial and thus automatically approved or whether through the determination that the change is substantial requiring a duly notice of public hearing. But either way, the process requires approval by the board. So I don't get any problem with that. Thank you. Okay. I-18, so this is one where there's a bunch of different notes and comments from different sources. This all has to do with the subgrade, stormwater infiltration and determination of the groundwater level. And so this language here is primarily from beta. This is partly beta and partly conservation commission. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. As a matter of policy, my inclination is to follow the, especially on everything that has to do with wetlands it's exceedingly important that the applicant be completely in sync with the recommendations of beta and the conservation commission on here. I'm wondering though whether the language that, this is kind of hard for me to read, but it starts saying, if it is difficult to determine the seasonal high water, groundwater elevation from the borings or test pets and use the frimter method and so on, which doesn't sound like the language of a condition at this point. My understanding is that I don't know exactly what it means to say if it is difficult to determine it, but otherwise it seems to me the applicant shall be doing certain one thing or another rather than just use this method. Do we think that it's clear enough to say, I mean, I don't know exactly what to do better in the hearing is closed, but I'm not quite sure whether if it is difficult is something that has a meaning that's sufficiently, sufficiently definite to be enforced or to decide whether the frimter method needs to be used or not. And I'm going to check my notes, but and I don't remember which comprehensive part, I recall there being an objection to the use of the frimter, to requiring the use of the frimter method. I don't recall if it was this comprehensive permit or another one. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. It was this one. It was Ms. Chapnick and she wrote a page explaining why it was the frimter method was required. And maybe this is one of those things that isn't, I mean, in substance, I think I understand what it is intended there. And I would like to make sure that this language achieves what the intention of the conservation commission is. But we may want to circle back on this from the point of view of drafting and just make sure it's, and compare it with what Ms. Chapnick said and make sure that what we have is serviceable. And this is one of that, the applicant had originally requested we strike. And I believe the reasoning for that was condition C2K, which does call for determination of the level. I'm just flipping to it on another screen here. So C2K, the applicant shall perform additional test bits at the proposed stormwater basins to confirm groundwater elevations during seasonal high water conditions as confirmed by monitoring nearby USGS wells. Test bits should be witnessed by the town and or agent. Should revisions to the infiltration system design be required based on additional groundwater investigations? Provides plans to stormwater calcs will be provided to the Department of Planning and Community Development for review prior to the issuance of building permits. And so this just provides additional information in regards to that. Well, Mr. Chairman, I mean, it seems to me that from a drafting point of view that this makes things a little bit more difficult because this begins by saying notwithstanding the provisions of condition C2K, so you set that aside. And then I assume that the word thorough at the end of that sentence, it was intended to be through. And I guess we need, I'm not sure we can just do this right the second, but I think that we need to look at C2K and this together and see how we can economically write something that realizes the intent here without getting into the confusion of apparently inconsistent provisions dealing with the same subject matter. I-19, so the site shall be graded to ensure no increase in peak runoff rate or volume is directed towards Dorothy Road consistent with the analysis provided by the stormwater report. There's a question as to whether we ought to keep this or remove it because it's basically just a condition that says that they need to do what they said they were gonna do in regards to the runoff towards Dorothy Road. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I feel pretty strongly that we ought to keep it. The worst that could happen is that it's duplicative in which case, why does the applicant care? And I think it's worth sending a message clearly to the community that what we're insisting on here is that the water doesn't go in their direction or at least for those living in that direction. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I would point out that it could be difficult with all of the different documents that get submitted during the course of a comprehensive permit proceeding to really be able to put your finger on certain things at certain times. It's helpful to have things spelled out directly in your decision, even if they're already reflected on plans or reports somewhere else. Okay. I'll thank you. Helpful advice. So we'll definitely keep this. Mr. Chair. Yeah. Do we want to limit this condition to only Dorothy Road or should we, is it worth mentioning Little John as well? They do meet at the corner. Okay. So I could add it. 20, you can qualify professional engineer to oversee the installation of the stormwater system. This is as well as stormwater best management practices, porous pavement, rain gardens, similar elements, and should it be within the property or throughout the property? Throughout the property seemed a little more inclusive. I 21, applicant shall treat planted areas within resource areas and buffer zones only with slow release nitrogen fertilizer. Once during the initial planting year, application of this fertilizer is not permitted. So we had originally said after and during the last hearing somebody recommended that after was wrong, it should be before. So we've got some people saying before and some people saying after. So in the absence of knowing which one in particular is the absolute correct one. I thought maybe we would just say within two days before and after, just to cover all our bases. Thank you, Mr. Mills. Mr. Schumacher, fertilizer may only be applied twice per year once in the spring and once in the fall with the exception of the initial planting year. This plant, this shall be and then the conservation commission have requested this shall be a continuing condition of perpetuity that survives the expiration of the permit. And then I 22 application of the plant nutrients shall comply with this section. No other herbicides or treatment methods may be utilized on the property unless approved as part of the approved invasive species management plan. No pesticides or rodenticides shall be used to treat pest management issues within resource areas. And again, it shall be a continuing condition of perpetuity. And then I 23 had originally said that the application of sand and salt within a hundred feet of a resource area is prohibited and this is just to change it, except it's specifically noted condition I five. So I five is the one that has the alternative of the alternatives, the reference to the alternative salt that is allowed within the recreated with using within the resource area. That so I 24 would be removed. So if we were interested in, we're looking to put a new condition in. So there's a question about protecting the critical root zone. To put in here as a placeholder, but we may have another placeholder earlier too. Yeah, I believe it was I nine or I six perhaps. Now I want to go away. And I, if we don't want to renumber, we can I think just indicate that this condition is omitted and move on. We want to maintain the numbering or we can just condense the numbering. I 25 is cleaning catch basin sumps. Advocates are right. Compensate storage flood storage is indicated in conditions C one. So I don't know if that again, it's that they'll do what they said they were going to do in another condition. I don't know if we need that one or not. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. This seems to me to, I mean, this is literally just saying that they'll, that the applicant will comply with another condition. I don't, it just seems to me, we shouldn't do that. Unless there's something here that's not meeting the eye. You can also get rid of it. I think there's, oh no, you can't. I'm sorry. I 27. So this one here, the applicant, so it's again a restoration plan for the compensatory flood storage area, which is there is one reference to under condition C one. So to some extent it is duplicative, but this does include the statement that the request of the conservation commission that maintenance shall be a continuing condition of perpetuity. So I don't think there's any harm in keeping it. Mr. Chairman, with the material that struck out is there an explanation for that? So that's all included under C one. I see. Give me some. Is there any reason why we don't just say maintenance of the compensatory flage? I take it there's a reason why you can't do that. Last sentence, put it on C one and get rid of all this. Just looking at the language of the medication, the compensatory, this is restoration plan. If all we care about it could be that we could just leave the sentence of that last sentence and get rid of all the rest. Right. Well, I'd possibly an answer for possibly an argument for leaving them. C one is, you know, it starts with prior to the construction or site development activities, et cetera, et cetera, the applicant shall and there's a requirements to submit a bunch of plans. And I guess, yeah, so that, yeah, I guess this is effectively just saying, you know, the, you have to abide by the plan that you've submitted and it will, that, then that criteria will survive the condition and perpetuity. I mean, I sort of understand why, but I defer to the, to the, to the attorneys in the group as far as what's better. It's not, Mr. Chairman, it's not completely clear to me that the plan will necessarily I mean, just to get away from the language for a second, the plan is going to be what the plan is. It probably is not going to extend all the way to the judgment day. And so it will be what it is. I think the intent here is to say that it isn't, the sentence doesn't say maintenance of the compensatory flood storage plan, but the restoration area shall be a continuing condition perpetuity that survives this permit. And that may go beyond the actual scope of the plan under C1. I don't know whether that is possible or not. But the idea is supposed to be that once the permit expires, you still have got to maintain the compensatory flood storage areas. And if C1 doesn't clearly say that because it's all about putting in plans and you have to assume something, maybe what this should be, maybe literally maintenance, there's nothing duplicative at all about that. That doesn't talk about that last sentence, doesn't talk about plans. It just talks about maintaining a certain restoration area indefinitely. I mean, in some ways the reference to the restoration plan seems to me to confuse more than it helps. I have the feeling that it's there to link us back to some other condition of the thing, but that ultimately what the purpose is, is to make sure that nobody just abandons the restoration areas. Where? Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. So I just on another copy, I looked, you know, word search for restoration plan. I think this is the only reference to restoration plan. And I may be missing something. I don't know if it's in C1. So, I mean, if this is creating a separate obligation for them to provide a restoration plan, and this is the only time that it appears, then I think it's got to stay. It may be that it's indicated in C1, but it's just not called by the same name, at least in my Word document when I looked up restoration. So there is a C1F, it is the Compensatory Flood Storage Mitigation Plan, a three-year vegetation monitoring schedule, a native non-cultivar species to establish a diverse community, ground cover, native woody shrubs and trees, plants installed, maintained in accordance with the AAN. A monitoring report shall be submitted to the DBA annually in June during the clear monitoring period. That's basically the extent of that. So if we are looking for a restoration plan, then this is the only place it's referenced then, and it should stay if in fact, that's what we're looking for. I mean, this is... Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. It is instructive in that respect. The language that we struck out is what appears in the beginning of C1F, which in C1F is designed to describe what goes into a Compensatory Flood Storage Mitigation Plan. And I'm not positive here that it is not unusual in this that similar plans go by slightly different names, depending on how they got in here. And I'm not sure that the intention is to have a separate plan from the one that's provided in C1. This goes in different directions. And I wonder if, I mean, I think Mr. Dupont is right. If this is really intended to be a new plan that we need to keep this here or put it someplace else, it's not 100% clear to me. I mean, this is a not time for having another provision for submitting plans. Right, because certainly the items that are striked out are things that have already been included under C1F. Right. But I'm wondering, but C1F is specifically that carries us up through the first three years, and then it basically... Right. And so I'm wondering here, rather than referring to this as a restoration plan, because it's really not, because that doesn't really follow with the maintenance in perpetuity. And what if we refer to this as a long-term management plan for the proposed compensatory flood storage area, and then maintenance of the compensatory flood storage restoration area shall be a continuing condition? I mean, I-20 listening to the discussion, it sounds like, yeah, this might actually be a maintenance plan. So if we wanted, I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, if we wanted to do that, is the right place to do that? I mean, generally speaking, we've consolidated the submission of plans at this particular point in the process. And I don't know what point in the process, I-27 would be part of, except that it indicates in condition C1, which then carries you back to the mitigation plan. So if we think it's something completely different, that we need to have it still another plan on it for maintenance, then I would think that we have to look and see whether we've deleted anything in C that we could stick this in. But, you know, you shouldn't have to look for it throughout the whole, in order to find the submission requirements, you should be able to look at the part that has to do with submission form and not have them spread sort of at random through the thing. I mean, could I-27 possibly, rather than, you know, being a condition that requires a plan, being just a condition that requires maintenance, maintain the, in other words, maintain the thing that was required in C2, I believe, F or C. The applicant shall maintain the proposed and statutory flood storage area indicated in condition C1, shall provide ongoing maintenance of. I mean, I think in the long term, what matters more is that the maintenance is done rather than whether there's a specific plan for it. The applicant shall provide ongoing maintenance of the compensatory flood storage area required by condition C1, F, and then maintenance of the compensatory flood storage restoration area shall be a continuing condition and perpetuity that survives the expiration of the permit. Okay, Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. That all sounds great to me. I think we ought to note aside that once we get a final, once we get to the stage where we're reading through a final draft to make sure it all makes sense, we ought to take for ourselves that this is one of the positions, one of the things we ought to look back at again and make sure that we're happy with the way it all works, it seems like right now, it seems like a great solution, but I think that we would like to look at it with fresh eyes when we do our final review. I-28 is an evasive species management plan. So that evasive, yeah, the invasive species management plan, I believe it's C1G, yes, so C1G is an evasive species management plan. Mr. Chairman, this sounds a great deal like I-28, I-27, but with a different subsection of C1. Right. With the twist that C1G says that goes ahead and says that invasive species management shall be a continuing condition in perpetuity that survives the expiration of a permit, whereas the compensatory flood didn't. Maybe that's just the solution all together is to do that in 27. Yeah, is to put 20, is to move that part of 27 up into C1F. Yeah, new Roman numeral. So it does appear that 28 in its entirety is now, is to look at this. Yeah, but it does seem that way. I-29, all mitigation plantings, all plantings, resources will be native, installed, maintained according to the standards of the American Association of Nursery Men, and then in case they don't exist anymore, whatever, succeed them. By 30, all plant species planted, all plant species planted, evasive species removed through the project shall be monitored for three years. This is the survival rate of 80% is the recommendation of the Conservation Commission. Mr. Chair? Yes, sir. Can we go back up to number 29, please? Yes, sir. Line one shall be native non-cultivase, please. Non-cultivase species. Thank you. Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. So Mr. Mills' question reminds me that this looks very familiar. And I wonder, I mean, to be sure that most of this is came from the 1165 case, but I'm wondering if the substance of I-29 isn't already in something else that we've done within this case? It is in the compensatory flood storage mitigation plan. So this is sort of, this is for areas outside, basically, of that. This is for plantings in resource areas. Yeah. So I-30, if I can't do that. Where did I get that language from at the bottom of I-30? So this was in the October 14th letter from the Conservation Commission. This is add the following condition to this section, consistent with the condition in 1165 RBSF. Only quirk is that this specifically references a compensatory flood storage area, whereas the top of the set does not necessarily. And then this comments here to this portion down here, starting with the applicant shall submit, that's from the Conservation Commission. And then the question that had come up during the hearing was whether there should be, this should be separate between the invasives and the plant restoration, whether it should be five years rather than three. And then the question about maintenance thereafter. So the question about maintenance thereafter was covered here by the Conservation Commission. The year seems to be consistent throughout the documents. I'm reluctant to extend it to five years of monitoring. And I'm not sure there's an issue about planting restoration in invasives that matters. Also one, this is sort of one other nitpicky thing. Section C1D covers planting of areas not under the jurisdiction of section 24 in the wetlands by-law, so non-resource areas. And here we're just saying all plant species planted and invasive species removed through the project. We're not saying that it is in areas that are under the jurisdiction of section 24. It's we're creating an overlap possibly. And it may be relevant because the last paragraph in C1D has different requirements for the types of planting that, like for example, there's no mention of non-cultivars. Yeah, right. So the plantings, landscaping plan for areas not under the jurisdiction of section 24. So that is the, like the plantings around the buildings themselves. So in there, yeah, so we're allowing cultivars because it's up against the building kind of stuff. And then section E, subsection E is for areas under the jurisdiction of section 24. Okay, okay. Thank you for pointing that out. Okay. This is which list to replace some species. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. In L30, the first time refers to species removed through the project. So it's referring to the whole project in general. And then the additional language at the bottom only refers to within a compensatory flood storage area. And we take compensatory flood storage area out and just say through the project to be consistent with the first line. Mr. Chairman. Yeah. If we did that, then we've, I mean, the first line is also, should we monitor for three years? And there won't be anyone after some period like that who is responsible for monitoring and maintaining the planted vegetation. Not at least under that first sentence. As we see, there have been sentences that have just come up in whatever provision that, so maybe somewhere else that's there. But I don't see what the point of the last sentence is. At least the part about being in perpetuity with if it's limited to a monitoring regime that last three years. So in the applicants markup, they had removed this portion here about the monitoring report. And they didn't have any of the stuff at the bottom and the stuff at the bottom just comes in from the conservation commission. I mean, just to step back, Mr. Chairman, in terms of policy, it seems to me completely non-objectionable for us to be asking for them to keep us informed as to who the contact party is for as long as the obligation lasts. There's no particular reason why we should know who any of those people were. And as a practical matter, I doubt anyone will tell us no matter what this says. After you get past the point where you've got a monitoring regime. So it seems to me that it ought to be possible simply to say that the applicant shall submit the contact information of the party responsible for monitoring and maintaining. Well, that's an interesting question for the monitor report or something like that. But I guess the problem and that we should know if that person changes. And it seems quite reasonable, but I don't know what exactly. What I'm wondering is whether or not the intention is that this is glommed on to this particular paragraph when it ought to have been glommed on to some other paragraph they had and we're missing it. Yeah, I'm wondering if this should be looking at how to incorporate this possibly into section C1E, which talks about the vegetation for areas that are under the jurisdiction, section 24. We'll look at that some more. So I-31, I-32, I-33 are all slightly similar. It has to do with work and the adjacency of the resource areas. So if there's one, no work shall be allowed in or within 25 feet of any resource area except it's shown on the approved plans. That is VEDA's language. The first one, then the second one, when no disturbance shall be allowed in or within 50 feet of any resource area except it's shown on the approved plans. And then limited activity only is allowed between 50 feet and 75 feet. In 20 resource area mitigation must be provided for anywhere between 50 feet and 100 feet of any resource area. Definitions of work disturbance limited activity mitigation shall be defined as defined in the Arlington Regulations for Wellness Protection. Now this is referencing the 2015. Are we okay? Had or do we need to say it's the earlier version? Mr. Havity, what do you think on that? All the application was filed in 2016, correct? Oh, that's true. Okay, so the 2015 does still apply. Okay, we're getting what year it is. And the page on the town website for this project also references the regulations for wetland protection dated June 4th, 2015. Oh, perfect. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I don't know that there's any reason to do this, but this I-33 does not report to be enforcing, at least I don't read it, is enforcing the Arlington, the regulations for the wetlands protection. You know, it's a condition that has certain words in it and we could ask those words to be in the Oxford English Dictionary from whatever year or in some Code of Federal Regulations or whatever, whether or not any of those things actually apply of their own force to the subject. I don't know if there's any particular reason why we would want to do that, but it doesn't seem to me that the general notion that they're not subject to anything other than the 2015 version doesn't necessarily preclude us from... Sorry, that was a pill that I have to take in order to keep going. So I don't know if there's any reason. It seems to me this is just fine, but we don't have to do this, I don't think. I mean, I think it's here just because that limited activity is a defined term. So it's sort of just clarifying or reading the requirements of the Regulations for Wetland Protection. The applicant shall revise and provide to the board a long-term pollution and prevention operation to maintenance plan to include requirements for inspection, cleaning of trench drains, the roof stormwater outlet to ensure the functional prior to significant rate of events as well as maintenance and the cleaning of the conventional flood storage areas to ensure these remain functional and will provide it to state of flood storage. 35 is essentially a duplicate of 34. 36, so it shouldn't be written as a finding. The applicant must provide adequate quantity of vegetation. Instead of vegetation shall be maintained to provide the resource area values protected by the bylaw. Further, the applicant shall submit an invasive species management plan for work. And the aura as indicated in condition C1. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. So it seems to me that the second sentence is entirely unnecessary. The first sentence is vague, but I have this feeling that there's a need that that's filling and that I don't quite get what it is. And I guess I'd like to sort of mark that and there may be others who actually know what that is driving at. But the conservation commission also often early on said the board finds that and then followed it with something that was in effective condition. Right. And here I'm pretty sure that the conservation commission has in mind something, some place where they need to say that there has to be an adequate quantity of vegetation and that it be maintained to provide the resource areas protected by the bylaw. And I think we ought to spend some time, hopefully not this very second, but some time trying to figure out what it is that that actually was intended to relate to because it's possible that there's a whole there that needs to be plugged in and what we have in front of us doesn't make it easy to find it. It does seem more finding like than condition like. Right. Yeah, it's said shall be maintained to provide the resource area of values is what that's the condition part. Which are already required to do. Yeah. I mean, if it's entirely duplicative, we shouldn't do it. Otherwise, you know, the debate we have now is going to come up later on when people scratch our heads and wonder what on earth we were ever up to. So I don't think it's a good idea in general just to allow them duplication to happen there as long as we're sure it's duplication. Bit of a chump and numbering, trying to fix any building or site dewatering operations. This is one where we had an earlier one that referenced I-40, which is this one here, which is much more inclusive of what should happen for dewatering notification conservation commission department of public works, catch basin should be cleaned out, discharged by the dewatering to pass through filters, better should be taken sure to erosion. Discharge is there to be set back at least 50 feet from bordering vegetative wetlands isolated vegetative wetlands. Dewatering shall not take place in any manner that leads to water being discharged or allowed to flow onto property not under the control of the applicant without the express consent of that property owner. And that I-41 was one that had been recommended. Mr. Chairman, do you wanna just put in written consent on that paragraph five? 41, there's some questions because we don't have full detailed information about how the rain guardians are supposed to operate. So there was a concern expressed by the Mr. River Watershed Association and by beta about do we need to include something that would help to ensure that they function but we don't have any real language for it. What we have here is seems rather aspirational and not really enforceable. I'm not certain how we can fix it. Mr. Chairman, if we were trying to give our an explanation for what we think we mean as will function as intended, do we have any idea what that means? What is the purpose of it? Why is it that people are even talking about this? Right, I mean, there are a couple of places where there are rain gardens and the intention is that the water flows into the, stormwater flows into the garden is retained there and then disperses more slowly. But I think on the original, I think this came about because on the submitted plans, it was quite vague how these were to be constructed. And so there was some concern that they would not, what do we do if they don't function as they're intended? Mr. Chairman, the rain gardens are part of the stormwater management system. They are. So I would just tie this to the DEP stormwater management policy to ensure the proposed rain gardens will function as intended pursuant to the DEP stormwater management policy. Mr. Chair. Fair black. Item five under I-40, the last sentence reads applicant without the, or without the expressed written consent of the property owner. Should that be express? That's a great question. I'm not really sure. I'll turn to a lawyer on that one. Mr. Chairman. It certainly should be expressed. Yeah. All right. Like that? Yeah. Okay. All right. So that is, is there anything else under this section, section I on wetlands, floodplain and environmental conditions? It seems that we'll move on to section J, other general conditions. Decision will be deemed to be final upon the expiration of the PO period. I think this is all sort of boiler play stuff. Applicants shall comply with all local regulations of the town and its board's commission's departments less specifically waived herein. Applicants shall copy the board on all correspondence between the applicant and any federal state or town official board or commission considering the conditions set forth in this decision, including but out limited to all testing results, official filings, et cetera. I think that the applicant was concerned about that one initially. Nope. Nope. That worked. Okay. Decision prohibits parking or storage of any unregistered vehicle on the site and likewise prohibits the service of any vehicles on the site except during construction, overnight parking of vehicles on public ways is prohibited in the town of Arlington. In the event the applicant or management company fails to maintain the stormwater management system for the project in accordance with the operation within 14 days, notification by the town, emergency repairs, the project entranceway and interior roads and drainage systems associated therewith shall remain private and the town shall not have any legal responsibility for the operation maintenance of such. Town shall also have no obligations relating to proposed recreational areas on the development parcel and the construction operation of which shall be the sole responsibility of the applicant. The applicant is required to maintain a sidewalk along Dorothy Road, clear of snow and other obstructions per local ordinance. Notwithstanding the provision of the previous condition, the town shall have no obligation relating to the construction and operation of the conservation parcel, except as mutually agreed in a separate memorandum of understanding. That are, did I do, I mangled that word. Did I do separate, there we go. Then violation breaches the conditions of the applicant's enforcement provisions. Mr. Chairman. Yeah. I'm wondering in NJ7 what we mean by the construction and operation of the conservation parcel. I mean, I thought that it would be subject to a conservation restriction that would preclude construction and I guess I'm a little worried about using language that implies that construction would be in the conservation parcel would be permitted and I guess I'm wondering what it is that that is intended to deal with. I mean, generally speaking, you don't construct conservation parcels, that's used to me. Perhaps more restoration and maintenance rather than construction and an operation. Maybe that's right. You could imagine construction, certain things on there. There might be a boardwalk, for example. Yes, of course. Anything else in section J? All right, so that's the end of the conditions. So there's still a number of conditions that we have sort of notes on that we wanna come back to. If we're all set on the waivers from before and then we just need to move on to the findings themselves. So it is quarter of 10. So we can do one of a number of things. We can vote for adjourn at this point and pick stuff up on the 60. We could start in on the findings. I was gonna see if there were specific conditions that we wanted specific people to look at between now and the next section. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Just as we get down to the end, I wanted to reiterate that I wanted a couple of minutes to explain to Dr. Mann, I just circulated earlier and some things that I'm hoping to happen when we get to the findings. Maybe what I will do is when I go back through the work we've done tonight to update the draft ahead of being reposted by to the board's agenda for the 16th, I'll send a memo out to the board members with a list of the individual items that we said we were gonna come back to and just ask if anyone is interested in working on specific ones to please let me know. And then we'll make sure that they all, that somebody's looking at them ahead of next time because we do have a fair number of conditions where we're saying we're gonna come back to that, we're gonna come back to that and we're running out of time to do that, so. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Can I just suggest as a technical thing that on areas that are like bright red that if we've decided that that should be deleted that we do a sort of intentionally left blank there and then not try to do anything with cross references until we get to the very end so that all of those things only need to be done once. Sure. So with that I think we're probably rather than going on to new findings, I think we're probably not gonna leave it where we are now. So I'll ask Mr. Hanlon to introduce what he had provided earlier this evening. So Mr. Chairman early, early on just before this meeting, I distributed a preliminary version of a draft amendment to the findings relating to transportation. The purpose of that was to respond. I mean, that was a section that was already, I think to cursory and not sufficiently explanatory of the analysis of the situation and that was a matter of comment on from the public on several, from several people. And it seemed to me that that as part of our, you know, the things we're doing here with the conditions are speaking to the applicant and speaking to regulators that are dealing with the applicant and they're trying to establish obligations and enforce them. When we get into the findings, we're going to be moving into a thing where we're speaking largely to the public. Since this is subject to the noble review, our findings may have some impact on HAC or the court, but they wouldn't be binding in any way. But at some point along the line, we have to explain or should be explaining to the public why it is that we're doing, if we adopt this decision, why it is we're going to do that. And in some respects, the findings we have are adequate for that and in some respects, they're less adequate. It seemed to me that it would be advantageous for us to look and to start by identifying general areas of local concern to that we, that are of local concern that we haven't mentioned have to do with the fact that housing itself is a local concern in Arlington, but also there's a lot of stuff about the impact of construction that came up throughout the hearings that are not really addressed, at least directly in the findings of fact, although they are addressed in various conditions. And it seemed to me that by organizing it in terms of wetlands is a concern, flooding is a concern, transportation is a concern, neighborhood compatibility is a concern, that it provides us with an opportunity to state in the way to basically deal with the public where it is and say how it is we saw what it was that that they were telling us and what the evidence was and why we decided to do things in the way in the way that we have to a considerable extent that just involves moving things around, but in transportation it involved going back into the record and saying a number of things that we've probably many of us forgotten over the course of all of the time we've been looking at all of this. So I wanted to just put, I wanted to give you an opportunity to look at the fairly extensive material in the transportation section because it would be sort of unfair to just drop it on you all at once. And I can't just circulate these things between periods without raising at least some question about the open meeting law. So I have now taken the opportunity to introduce this in an open meeting and encourage you to look at it. I'll raise it when we get into the right part in the conditions. And I'm planning over the course of the next few days to go through and to try to put some, some meat on the bones of the general approach that I just described in a hope that we can, that I can provide some other things that are much simpler than this one that enable us to sort of organize our findings in a way to make them more responsive to what the public has a right to expect of us. That's great. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Havardy, the document that, um, that pap prepared, is that something that we should attach to the agenda for next time? Yeah, I think that makes sense. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I will eventually next time that there are, you'll see that there are some blanks in the draft that I sent around. Those will be filled in and there may be some minor things, but anyone who has read this version will not find it in the draft. Okay. So we'll go through whatever it is I can give to you next week. All right. So then we'll. Hold off on submitting it for posting until we have the revised version. Just to avoid confusion. Okay. Great. Anything further for this evening? None. All right. So thank you all for your participation in tonight's meeting of the Erlington zoning board of appeals. And we have a final question from the committee. You'll be lined up. I'm a for all their assistance in preparing for and hosting this online meeting. Please note the purpose of the board's recording. This meeting is to ensure the creation of an accurate record of the proceedings. It's our understanding to recording made by a Stmi will be available on demand. Anyone has comments or recommendations. Please send them via email to ZBA at town. Arlington dot MA dot US. That email address is also listed on the ZBA website. for a motion to adjourn. Oh, no, wait, we got to continue first. They're part of the, so close, so close. So may I have a motion to continue meeting for Thorndike Place to Tuesday, November 16th, 2021 at 7.30 p.m. Thank you, Ms. I moved. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. And second. Second. Thank you, Mr. Mills. Okay, go to the board. Mr. Dupont. Hi. Mr. Hanlon. Hi. Mr. Mills. Hi. Mr. O'Rourke. Hi. Mr. Revillac. Hi. The board. Hi. The chair votes aye. So we are continued now to Tuesday, November 16th at 7.30 p.m. Now we can move, take a motion to adjourn. Chairman so moved. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. Second. Thank you, Mr. Dupont. The vote of the board, Mr. Dupont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Mills. Aye. Mr. O'Rourke. Mr. Revillac. Aye. Mr. Ford. Aye. The chair votes aye. The board is adjourned. Thank you all so much. Thank you, Mr. O'Rourke. You're welcome. Okay. Hi, guys. You're welcome, guys. You're welcome.