 Hello, everyone. My name is David Morgan. I'm an environmental conservation agent. The March 7, 2024 public meeting of the Parlington Conservation Commission will be conducted in a remote format consistent with chapter 2 of the acts of 2023, which extended remote participation in public meetings till March 31, 2025. Please note that the meeting is being reported. All meeting materials can be found at the link that I'm putting in the chat right now. Chuck Turoni is our commission chair. I'll facilitate tonight's meeting, and please note that there will be a public comment period for each hearing. Each vote taken during this meeting will be conducted via local vote, and we begin with local attendance. So Chuck, to you for attendance in the general meeting. Sure. I'll start with the attendance, and so could I just get everyone to let us know that you're here and then start with Mike Gildes game? I'm here. And Nathaniel Stevens? Present. Susan Chapnick? Here. David White? Here. David Kaplan? Here. And I'm going to say Brian McBride, but I heard he's not here. Is that confirmed? Brian McBride is hearing nothing. I'll move on to I know that Sarah Franco is not going to be here tonight. She let me know that. Aline Coleman, are you here? I'm here. Okay. So those are two associates. Remember, Chuck Turoni, chair is here. So for our agenda tonight, on March 7th, we'll start off with reviewing the minutes. We'll have a discussion at 66 and 66 R Dudley Street, Waters Body Working Group discussion, artificial turf update, and our hearings will be 51 Grove Street, 51 Birch Street to reservoir, and then I'm going to take notice of intent for Thorndyke Place and then ADA Coolidge and 459 Mystic Street. So that's the agenda. I want to let anyone know that's came for ADA Coolidge tonight that that has been continued to our March 21st meeting. And with that, we're going to start in on reviewing the minutes. Chuck, can I just interject? So ADA Coolidge will still have a vote to continue it, right? But it was requested to continue by the applicant. Absolutely. This is not this part of the hearing. I was just reviewing the agenda. Thank you. Okay. So David, do you have the minutes? Yes, I received edits from Nathaniel Stevens. Let me share my screen. I haven't had a chance to review these. Myself, Brian Klopp, our conservation administrator, did these minutes and Nathaniel contributed, as I said. So we'll review them together. Brian, do you want to walk us through the documents since I'm not familiar with it? Yes. I mean, the way I've been, excuse me, reviewing the minutes is just kind of scrolling through and kind of slowly. And then if any commissioners had any questions about anything, you know, we could stop and discuss. Right. It looks like Nathaniel had clarifications of the zoning district discussion, clarifying language around uses of the isle expense account, a bit of wordsmithing road, clarifications on the Thorn Dyke Place, discussion, like you adjourned that meeting in 10-15. Any comments or questions, clarifications? Motion to approve as amended. Second. So a real call vote. Mike Gillis game. Yes. Susan Chapnick. Yes. David White. Yes. Nathaniel Stevens. Yes. David Kaplan. Yes. And Chuck Taroni says yes. Okay. Moving right along. We have a discussion concerning 66 and 66R Dudley Street. Brian, this is something that you were working on. Can you bring us the commission up to date on that? Yes. Let me just pull up the email that I'm looking for here. All right. So at our last meeting, we had amended the enforcement order requiring the owners at 66 to 66R Dudley Street to coordinate with the condominium association at the Millbrook condominiums by tonight's meeting on 3-7. I did receive email confirmation and a summary of their site visit. They had a site visit on Thursday, February 29th with four residents from Millbrook condominium association. So during that meeting, they discussed the need and they will be getting a survey to determine the exact property lines. And the Millbrook condominium association did give permission to the owners at 66 to 66R Dudley Street permission to work on their property in order to bring it back into compliance as there was that small triangle of land that was altered that was on the Millbrook condominium property. So as they understand it, there will be need to remove some layers of cobblestone, a grill that was stored out there, and then planting of native plants. So we don't have too many details that were provided from that update, just that they will be getting a survey and they have a general idea. I would like to see maybe something with, you know, even if it's just a couple of ball points with some dates in order for compliance, you know, for when they plan to have the rubble removed, when they plan to have the native plantings installed. I would like to see something like that and I anticipate the commission would feel similarly. And perhaps we could have them attend a future meeting if not the next meeting one in the near future. Thanks, Ryan. So it looks like there's, so why this is on the agenda tonight because this is the date that they were supposed to report back to the Conservation Commission with some follow-ups. So Ryan's, I guess what we're doing here is we might be updating the enforcement order with some dates, cleanup, and planting, but I'm wondering if the commission would entertain putting planting on the enforcement order without seeing a planting plan. So with that, I'll just look and I see that Nathaniel Stevens' hand is up. So Nathaniel. Thanks, Chuck. Thanks, Ryan, for that report. I agree with Ryan that we should put some deadlines in when we amend the enforcement order. I'm trying to remember Chuck was on the site visit with me, maybe David, that I thought the property owner did commit to a date to do the plantings. I thought we'd discuss that with him. And I want June 15th is popping in my head, but I don't know if that's the right date. And I don't know. You have my, I wrote up notes from that site visit. Hopefully those are in the file, but I think that might have a date in it. Okay. Any other comments on this enforcement update? And then we're going to need to... Sorry, I didn't put my hand up. Can I make one comment? Sure. Okay. I would be careful about being too specific in the enforcement order about the things that need to be removed. Dates for planting I'm fine with. The reason I say that is because this other things besides just the grill and the gravel, there was artificial turf, there were other things in that corner that when they do the survey is likely going to be part of the condo association. So I don't want to be so specific in there. I just want to be careful about that. All right. So yeah. Not seeing other hands. So it seems like we need some specific language here. I don't know if we can put something together tonight or if we send that to have David and Ryan work on that. And with Nathaniel's notes come up with the date and I would definitely have a initial site visit to talk about what Susan brought up, about what you should and should not remove in that area. I don't know if that's something that people want to approve or do you want to see an amended enforcement order with all this information on it before we vote. David Kaplan has his hand up. Are we discussing what to remove just within the encroachment or for the entire unpermitted work in the resource area? So my understanding is that we were trying to establish a buffer strip and remove items in that area so topsoil and mulch could go down and plantings could be established. And this is just trying to think about how to articulate that and if we could just restore the encroachment or whatever that area we're talking about. I'm just thinking about how we can phrase it in a way that allows for them to move forward with the planting and the removal of any and all debris that's found in that area. The problem is there's a lot of encroachment and unpermitted work and there's no way we're going to get restoration that matches what was done because they're using it as a parking lot and storing trucks there. So I think you're right David we do want them to keep marching forward but I'm not sure if we have all the information tonight to write everything down because I don't have the annual notes in front of me either but David has something he wants to say. Yeah let's set David Morgan chime in. I have a question which Susan just partially addressed. The initial work as I remember that I guess first started the encroachment was many years back it was clearing of shrubs and possibly trees and other plant material and then filling with the gravel and so forth so and most of that was on condo association land. So I guess we don't have an answer yet. This is partly my question. Do we have an answer from the condo association about what that land will be used for in the future? Are they granting the owners of 66, 66 are Dudley permission to continue using that land and are they going to allow it to stay in the state that it's in or are they saying you're no longer allowed to use this part of our property and in order and to compliance will you have to do what the commission says so you need to follow. Sure let's just get Ryan in on that because I didn't hear him say exactly what you just repeated. Yeah so I don't see anywhere in what they've sent me that would say that they could continue to use that part of the land. What I'm reading is you know verbatim in terms of the restoration it was decided that Sal would conduct the work including the work required on Millbrook's triangle portion of land to bring the entire area into compliance with the conservation commission's request. So that doesn't tell me that they're you know granting any sort of like permanent easement on that land or anything like that. It would just be for bringing it into compliance. All right so you know it does seem a little bit difficult. Nathaniel go ahead I was just going to conclude here. Yeah I was going to say it's helpful I guess ultimately we don't care what their arrangement is between the condo association and the property owner, the owner of 66 and 66 are other than the condo association agreeing for restoration work to be done on their property which I'm hearing is being done but I think our purview is we're not getting into that debate about whether the condo association is going to let them park a truck on their land. I think our focus is Wetlands Protection Act, Wetlands bylaw. We discussed with the property owner out in the site in December what he would do to restore and create a buffer and I think we just proceed with that and he works out whatever permission he needs, formal permission or not from the condo association to do that work on their land. So I think we should try to not make it too complicated for us. Sure. I would like to see if somebody wants to turn this into motion if you agree. I would like to see a planting plan for establishing a buffer strip on 66, 66 are and the part of land that they are using that is the condo association's land by removing all removing the the I don't know what you want to call it man-made structures or not natural objects or structures and putting in some plantings in this buffer strip to protect the upper bank of Millbrook as an part of the enforcement order and make this they have to go in by no June 15th, June 1st, whatever date they have to give us a plan and then give us a plan by a certain date and then they have to go in by a certain date. That's what I would like to see. I agree about the necessity of the plan. I'm concerned about the terminology that we present to them saying buffer strip. I think they've done a lot more work over many more years than a buffer strip would sufficiently replace and I feel like we had an initial conversation with the owner at 66 Dudley who mainly chalked and he working out what he would find amenable. I don't know that this group has had a chance to get their heads around what work has been done and what we find. All right good. So I'd like to move this along. It doesn't sound like I agree on resolution. Maybe they can we could just update the enforcement order to come to a meeting. Let's say if they're here in town if that's the case and a month and that they're going to provide a planting plan and discuss next steps with the conservation commission and maybe that's as far as we can get. Also I will make a motion to amend the enforcement order to that effect second. Okay great. Mike Gildes game. Yes. Susan Chapnick. Yes. David White. Yes. David Kaplan. Yes. Nathaniel Sevens. Yes. And Chuck Taroni says yes. Okay moving right along we have the water bodies working group and we're going to review the budget and that can be put on the screen right now and I'm not sure if David White or it's David White. This is his. I'll do it. His group. Thanks David. So we talked about the budget for next fiscal year and realized that we need one minute to do things. David maybe somebody should put the budget up. Yes. Would that be helpful? Okay. That's going to happen. We'll get there. You can go ahead David. I'll pull it up. Yep. So the water bodies working group has realized that we are not really doing a full job in some areas we need a responsibility for. So the budget for next fiscal year is $120,000 more than twice what it was for the last fiscal year. Some of that is related to working spy pond. But a big piece of that is increasing the reservoir budget to properly harvest the water chestnuts. We need a partial job for years which basically doesn't improve things just keeps on perpetuating the problem. So that's why you increase the reservoir budget to try to do four weeks of harvesting work rather than two. And also Hills Pond, $6,000 for next fiscal year and possible expenses from a Clinton and other things as well. That brings a total of $120,000 request. Bring this to the finance committee in about a week and a half. Any questions? If you, so I can't see who has their hand raised. So if you could just talk, maybe that'll work. It's not, I only see David so maybe no hands are raised. Chuck it's Mike here. I have a quick question. Is this, this is funds, this additional funds would be coming from town meeting or town meeting? Yes. Yeah. Okay. And so that would that enable us if it's voted on town meeting in April? That'll give us adequate time to pull together contracts and so forth. There's an overlap of contracts. We're trying to do some contracts this year with the money we have available now. And some contracts will extend to the next year. So it's a, it's a complicated thing to sort of straddle the fiscal year with the contracts. So I think we have worked out that we can do things adequately. But it's always a sort of balancing act to keep things in line. Right. If I could just elaborate just a tiny bit. The fiscal year and the contract years are not are mismatched. So the fiscal year, as you know, starts in July and the contract years start in January. So for this fiscal year, we're currently working on contracts with SWCA to do the aquatic management that we need to do in May, forced by pond and with a contractor for the res water chestnuts. We do have budget for that. Though we're going over budget, we have funds that were encumbered for that. So we're okay for this fiscal year ending in June. We will need to do new contracts next year and maybe make a decision whether we want to change our contract time to match the fiscal year or not or, you know, but that that would be a later discussion. Thanks. Yeah. I think part of the design is because because the fiscal year falls in the middle of sort of the year, the period of time when the work is going to be done, I think it's where we've been trying to structure it. So we're not stuck on the fiscal year. That is we're not prevented from doing weed harvesting before the new fiscal year begins if that's needed. So I thought it had been set up so it revolves a little bit. Right. And it is a revolving fund. We don't lose this money. This money is earmarked for water bodies. It doesn't go back into the capital fund to be used for other things. Yeah, you're right, Nathaniel. We're trying to maintain a balance so we can manage those things. Right. I'll make a motion to David, what do you want to approve the this request? Yes. The budget. Yes. So that we can present it to FinCon. Yeah. Second. So we have a we have a second motion and Susan Chapnick. Yes. David White. Yes. David Kaplan. Yes. Mike Gildes game. Yes. Nathaniel Stevens. Yes. And Chuck Taroney says yes. Okay. I also like to mention that we have a report from 23 that we like people to look at the details in the report. I think we already approved that, David. I just mentioned to people to look at it again. Oh, okay. Okay. Thank you. We already approved it, but I'm just right people that it's there. Absolutely. All right. So we won't have a tree committee update tonight. So I'm going to move right on to Mike Gildes game for a turf artificial turf study committee update with the next meeting being on I hope this is correct 312 2024. Mike Tuesday. That's correct, Sean. Very briefly, the committee has been meeting essentially weekly since we were empowered to meet and we are at the point now we're putting together reports and recommendations. We are planning to submit the report if it's all going according to plan by about the third week in March so that we can get it to the town for their in time for town meeting. So that's where we're at at the moment and well, it's a tight schedule, but we think we can accomplish it. Yeah, Mike, you guys have been meeting not only every every time you schedule a meeting, which seems like once a week, but with outside of that to get these reports together. So it's been quite a commitment. Really appreciate it. I'm sure the town when this report is finished, we'll appreciate that all that work also Susan. Just one brief question, Mike, because I missed some of the meetings, will there be opportunity for the public to comment on a public draft prior to the report going to town meeting as requested by the warrant article? There will be and is my understanding there will be and most of the documents that have been developed so far have already been part of the minutes and submitted comments that are going to the turf study committee. So public hasn't seen the full report. I haven't seen the full report yet, but I know that it will be out there. Thank you. Stay tuned. Talk to you muted. Okay. Seeing no more hands, I'm going to move on to the hearing section of our agenda. And the first thing on our agenda is 51 Grove Street. And for those that don't know that, that's where the DPW, the DPW is for the town of Arlington. And Haley Page, I suspect is here and she's going to start sharing a screen, but I'm going to just intro this. The culvert inspection was performed that led to the conclusion that portions of the existing culvert are in poor to fair conditions. The DPW is proposing to rehabilitate a section of the culvert which with structural lining system, which will minimize impacts to the adjacent resource area. And with that, Haley, could you just introduce yourself for the record and start updating commission on this project? Sure thing. Can everyone hear me? I had trouble with my microphone a little bit, so I just want to make sure. Sure, we can hear you. Great. Okay. Hello, I'm Haley Page. I am the environmental scientist with Weston and Sampson who worked to pull together this permit application. I'm joined today with the project landscape architect, David Steves and also the project engineer, Elena Comter. Without further ado, I'm going to jump in with that presentation that we held off on presenting last meeting. Let me know once you can all see my screen. Okay. Great. So let's jump right in. So as mentioned, this project is located at 51 Grove Street, which is the DPW site. You'll see I have on this focus map outlined in purple, that is the entire DPW site footprint. And in red is our proposed area for the culvert repair project. This is just an aerial image to make sure everyone is oriented to where we're looking at. It is currently under construction for the DPW facility repairs project. And just wanting to make sure to give everyone an updated timeline and what's been going on with this project. So originally, a notice of intent was submitted for the DPW facility improvements project. This order of conditions was extended through December of 2026. On February 15th, 2024, Lesson and Sampson came and presented to the commission to request an amendment for this culvert repair project. However, it was deemed that a notice of intent was required. Therefore, we followed up on February 21st with this notice of intent application. So to give a little bit of background on this culvert, you will see that starting we are starting at the entrance which is located closest to Grove Street. So the images on this side in my screen are representing the area where the culvert enters the site and then begins to run under buildings within the DPW facility. Then the portion of the culvert becomes daylight as you can see in this image on the left here. Where the culvert exits the building what's referred to on the plan does building B here. This is where we would begin our culvert repairs project and it would extend to just before where the culvert daylights again adjacent to the high school. And this is an image of that view. So continuing as mentioned in 2020 a culvert assessment was performed and it was deemed that this portion of the culvert where we are proposing the repairs that it was in poor condition. So this is an image looking at one portion of this culvert running underground and I have another image also you can see that there is some cracking and the concrete taking place and there is an erosion and rusting. So that is the main reason why it was looked into for whether replacement repairs or what was the best method to deal with this portion of the culvert. So the proposed project is to look to utilize a glass reinforced plastic liner to be installed approximately 204 linear feet within the footprint of the existing culvert. This culvert liner will be 1.26 inches thick. I'm going to provide up to a 100 year life expectancy. The GRP liner segments will be custom made to fit the shape of the culvert which includes the daily portions will be remained daily and the completely completely culverted portions running underground will remain that way as well. This will overall increase the carrying capacity from the existing conditions and improve hydraulic conditions. So this is a image showing on the left this is the existing culvert and on the right this is an image of what this sort of proposed liner looks after it is completed being installed. So I just wanted to pull in a plan sheet. I know we kind of went through this previously in the last meeting but I just wanted to point out again with color I will zoom in on this in a little bit if any questions come up but this is just to give a better understanding about building that I was pointing to in those images referred to as building B on those plans. So you'll see that the culvert portion that we have in color down here this is the limits of the culvert liner where we're looking to install. I also wanted to include the details of this culvert liner to show in the cross sections of the closed culvert liner on the left here and a cross section of the open culvert liner on the right here. So the culvert liner will be installed via the existing daily section in the center of the site. The segments will be lowered into that culvert and transported along the length of the culvert to the required location which on the next two slides I'm going to speak through a little bit more on the exact location. Each segment will connect to the previously installed segment by a socket and spigot joint and once the liner is in place the gap between the existing culvert and the culvert liner will be filled with free flowing high strength gloves. So as I mentioned to touch base on the installation sequence so for reference this is building B and these are not to scale by any means. So the culvert liners will be dropped in in the daily region which is region F here and then they will be pulled back upstream and installed coming back down towards region F. Continuing the next portions will be dropped into region F and it will be installed beginning at region D or region G and working back upstream toward that daily section. So the last section that will be installed will be the daily section. Now just jumping into the environmental considerations. So for this project we are proposing 408 linear feet of bank impact, 1,300 square feet of land underwater impact, and 82 square feet of bordering land subject to flooding. There will be no additional impact within the riverfront area other than those that were previously approved and the existing DPW facility improvements project and also there will be no additional impact into any Arlington local buffer zones including the 25 foot 50 foot and 100 foot buffer zone off of the top of bank. So I also wanted to touch base on some of the methods of bypassing the water during construction. So a water bypass will be set up at the inlet which is shown as region A on this image and using Godwin ramp. So it will be set up to allow vehicles to still be able to pass over while still bypassing the water downstream which will be down just past region G to where the portion of the culvert daylight near the high school. This section of the culvert is existing concrete so we do not expect any drastic towering impact due to the entire culvert being consistent of concrete. So that's kind of that and then we're going to open it up to questions now. If the commissioners have any questions we appreciate your time in listening on our project and we'd be happy to answer anything you may have at this time. Sure does any of the conservation commissioners have questions about this project? Yes. Mike killed this game. Yeah I am assuming that the flowing in of the grout will tend to repair some of the damage or deteriorating concrete that you showed pictures of. I don't know how long that concrete's been in place but it's probably a hundred years or something but the so the effect of the grouting will be to stabilize and repair any of the damaged concrete is that correct? I believe in Elena and Dave feel free to chime in. I believe that the point of this grout is to fill in the gaps in between the existing culvert and the culvert liner to make sure that culvert liner is secured in place. Yeah I can jump in. Yeah that's exactly right Mike. The grouting fills the annular space between the new liner which acts as a form and does exactly that. It reinforces structurally all the existing crumbling conditions existing culverts. So that's a side benefit to also streamlining the flow by adding this culvert liner insert. Thank you. David chat. I didn't see who raised their hand first so I'm just going to call on David Kaplan. Thanks I'll be quick. What's the substrate of the daily sections of that stream? Is that a concrete base? Yes it's a bunch of crushed concrete mainly making up the entire culvert ground. Okay thank you. Susan Chapnick. Thank you. So I do understand that this is a culvert but it is there are jurisdictional areas that are getting impacted as you listed in the table. Are there any mitigation measures that you're planning to offset those impacts? So we don't have any mitigation proposed. The bank is not creating any necessary great habitat being that is you know existing of concrete liner and also we don't expect the flood storage to be any lesser than what is currently existing with this proposed liner. So I guess the answer would be no and we did propose this project as a limited project under the wetlands protection act 10.53 3i as a maintenance project so we are not proposing mitigation for this portion of the project. However through the overall dpw facility improvement project there is a fair share of plantings being implemented within the riverfront area that overall will increase you know shading and habitat on site. Thank you for that explanation. Thank you. Any other questions from commission members? So I had a I had one question. So you're I know you're lining this and is the lining a complete circle and is there how do you so at the beginning where it enters all right at some point there's going to have to be some sort of lip and I was wondering that we weren't shown how that happens or does the liner only three-sided all the way through and my second question would be when you find some damage that needs to be repaired prior to that a liner going in do you have to cut through the top to make that repair? I can I'm just going to pull up I'm trying to pull back up the image so it would be completely four-sided in those closed culvert sections. I mean I I I believe that it was just be installed in the exact because without the grout around it the space of the culvert liner is smaller so it should be able to drop be dropped right in and dragged to the appropriate place. As for how it lines up I believe I pulled an effect into this presentation which they've correct me if I'm wrong if this is not the right image but I believe this is kind of showing a bit better how the systems would connect to one another and I believe it's using a joint feeler and there's a gasket in place that would feel them together. I guess that's my best go I'm not an engineer. No that wasn't that's a good answer but I was I was asking the first the first liner piece is that is that flush with the I guess the bottom of the culvert where it exists now or is it going to have that inch and a half of grout that it has to rise up and go over? Yeah I I know what you're asking Chuck and yeah we had the same question which is these liner sections and they're obviously smaller than the full culverts around. They're held in to held in place by these wedges or wood block spacers so it's very secured and held in place and then it's the grout is then pumped into the annular space which fills all the damaged and cracked and small surfaces of the existing culvert and then the transition that you're asking about where the water the existing culvert meets this head wall that's cast in place and and faded into the existing culvert liner so it's a it's a poured and formed transition of concrete into the from the existing to the new and it will encompass several inches of existing transition from to the to the new edge of liner. Does that adequately kind of describe how they're planning to transition that? Yeah it sounds like there is that was taken into consideration and it's just not going to be a a wall that would start collecting anything that's kind of coming down the stream like sticks and and what not because there's a lip right there. Okay not seeing any other commissioners with their hand raised I'm going to go and ask if anyone attending tonight's meeting has any has any questions about 51 Grove Street if you could just raise your hand it's in the reactions button raise hand function you'll go to the top of the screen and we'll be able to see you and David I see none do you see anyone seems like yep okay so no uh no one uh that's watching tonight we want to ask any questions so back to the commission for for the comments or emotion and David Kaplan. Yeah just um what time of year are you anticipating the work? So the contractor is planning to start this work uh mid-july so it's actually going to be at a low flow anticipated low flow times of the year so okay and um I assume work won't be scheduled during storms it'll be paused or you I mean do you and I assume you anticipate most of the if not all of the water to be um routed through those bypass or is that just for the base flow? Um yes the forecast will be monitored as the walk work progresses um and the uh any the stop log or any damning of the water can be opened during a large storm event but during the work uh while it's being performed it will be bypassed but um it will be um the the length of the about five feet four and a half weeks hopefully um so it's sorry you faded out a little bit on the time frame or out how long it was going to take could you repeat that please? Yeah it's going to take a minimum of four to four and a half weeks um thereabouts so the weather is going to be closely monitored as the work progresses coordinated with town. All right and it doesn't sound like the work you're proposing it doesn't sound like there's a lot of opportunity you know if there is a big rainstorm to you know flush anything in the workspace downstream it sounds like it would be pretty stable can you comment on that? Yes as they place the liner sections and they vary in size but they're between four and eight feet in length so they're they're winched into place actually on a rail system and they're pulled in from the far end to the head wall that we were talking about just a moment ago and then their wedge didn't place so very very secure so they're held firmly in place until they're grouted so the the stream can be managed and opened as necessary to accommodate a large storm event if that were to happen. Okay thank you for that. Then it's Daniel Steven. Thanks Chuck I was wondering if you considered any alternatives to this project that might result in fewer impacts alteration resource areas and if so what those were? I know a few alternatives were considered way back when when this project started it was looking at replacing the culvert which was going to lead to greater impacts and also partial replacement and repairs which still at the end of the day the portion of you know replacement is going to cause more impacts than repairs and then this was deemed the best alternative to just install this culvert liner was the least impactful alternative that was come up with I believe those were the three alternatives that were looked at other than doing nothing. Thanks, thank you. Thank you. Susan Chapnick. Yeah I just wanted to clarify you had mentioned that this was being proposed as a limited project or maintenance but it is an NOI it's WP okay so I just want to make that clear for for everybody so yep that's correct thank you thank you and I also just just to David's Dave's point about time of year which was established if we do consider this project I would like a special condition to condition time of year for for low flow events we've done that before for the projects that have impacted waterways for example when we needed to be changed on actually it's also back in this area that's the MIRAC property we we had conditioned time of year for low flow. Yeah well that shouldn't be a problem that timeline was given to us by the contractor that's their game plan. Thank you. Okay I know you're bypassing Milbrook and what I wasn't clear with was would you need to stop work if a storm you know if there was a storm so let's say in 24 hours would you stop work you know that day how would that be handled for storms even though you're bypassing? My understanding is that if there were a storm that's coming and will be in the contractor will be keeping an eye obviously on the forecast that would potentially overwhelm the damming and containment of the water. My understanding is that they would open it then stabilize the construction or remove anything that is not yet set or stabilized and in anticipation of the storm and then resume construction after that threat passed but they would allow water to pass through the existing culvert in any work in place that's secure and stable until the storm event were over. Sure and do we have to worry about the grout and so if the grout needed a day to set should we set a condition that says no work can happen within 24 hours of a storm of a half inch or more. If the if the grout set it set in that you know 15 minutes I guess it wouldn't be needed but so I'm not sure how long it takes the grout to set and once it's in there is it stable or is it would it be flushed out? Once the liner is in place all the water would be going through the line before they set the grout actually Chuck they fabricate that head wall that transition head wall so before they even grout it that's in place so water would be going through the culvert at that point although not yet grouted in place but secured with the wood blocking as I mentioned. I think that order would probably make sense our concern would be similar that they I mean they do this all the time I'm sure this is not an uncommon they deal with water but yeah we would want to make sure that the grouting is not in any jeopardy or has time to fully cure and set before it's allowed to function in its normal way so maybe an order that would be just take precautions and the manufacturer recommends for the full curing of the grouting. Okay I don't know that number but okay. Can I just add on to that it might it might have been helpful for us to have their this in writing from the applicant what happens when installation construction begins and a large storm event happens and to have that in writing this is the plan of what to do I think rather than us writing a special condition that's like iffy. Just want to make a note that Brian McBride just shunned into the meeting he's attending the meeting at this moment commissioner Brian McBride. Okay I think that could make sense maybe it's like a storm maintenance plan or storm management plan to be put in place and that's definitely something that can be submitted to the commission prior to commencement of construction. Thank you. Thank you. Okay any more questions? I'll close the hearing. I'll second. I'll second. Mike Gildes game. Yes. David White. Yes. David Kaplan. Yes. Nathaniel Stevens. Yes. Susan Chapnick. Yes. And Chuck Turoni says yes. Conditions I have is start in July and before work starts we will be able to review and approve a storm management plan. Any other conditions? That could also be the administrator could approve that plan also and it wouldn't have to come back to the conservation commission. That would be acceptable to me. Okay I accept that amendment. Chuck I would just say start construction start after July 1st of any year because in case God forbid this gets delayed a year and we have to do it next year. It has to be done next year then it just we get around the spawning season for the ill wife so if that's. It's acceptable. Yeah so I wasn't making a motion but if someone wants to make a motion with those two conditions. Yeah so what Ryan has his hand up. Oh yeah I just wanted to chime in because Chuck I just wanted to make a clarification on language you said the administrator for approving the plan. Do you mean me or do you mean David or either one? I meant either one. Fair enough. But how about I say staff. Since we have two now I can say staff. So staff approves the storm water management plan prior to. I think it's storm management. Storm management. Yeah storms yeah thank you. Staff approves the storm management plan and David White. I just want to note that there's no ill wives this section no Brooke. They can't get past Cook's Hollow Dam. No I'm just thinking downstream if there's any downstream impacts is my concern but thanks. Yeah David I've realized that they're probably not any of the fish that spawn. Okay so any more. Sure thank you. I'll make a motion to issue the order of conditions for this limited project under but the act and the bylaw with the conditions that Chuck just recited. I'll second. Sure my guilty game. Wait then you have a discussion and I just want to mention as we all know we have other standard conditions for work you know construction debris things not falling into the pond you know erosion controls etc. So we have a bunch of other standard conditions that will apply that we didn't specifically discuss that are kind of normal operating standard conditions we add to projects. Right these are special special conditions. Special special special because we have a lot of special conditions. I super hate to belabor this but I thought those conditions those special conditions are on the website attached to the download for this and so therefore didn't need to be discussed. I didn't realize that thank you Chuck. So okay um let's go I don't don't even know where we are so uh Michael this game. Yes. David White. David White. Yes. Uh David Kaplan. Yes. Nathaniel Stevens. Yes. Susan Chapnick. Yes. And Chuck Taroni says yes. Okay thank you very much and that will be prepared sometime in the next couple of weeks and if you need to understand that better call the office and talk to David or Ryan. Great thank you so much for your time have a great night. All right thank you. Thanks everybody. Have a good night. Thank you. Thanks again. Thank you. Sure and moving right along I want to start right in on um it's 51 Birch Street and uh just start this off 51. Here we go. The public uh here you can consider the notice of intent to demolish a single family house dwelling and construct a two family dwelling associated pertences on 51 Birch Street within the borderland subject to flooding. We left this at our last meeting with some questions from the engineering department. I'm going to turn quickly to David Morgan for an update on that memo. Do you know that we heard from engineering who tells on that and correct me if I'm wrong Ryan but they also received this water permit for this project. Yeah I see Birch nodding his head so I believe both of those things happened. So those are those two last items that needed to be fulfilled have been fulfilled. Okay so that's where we are. Now I'm not sure the commission we can bring it on the applicant or I can entertain comments and motions at this moment and maybe I should go to any butters first but maybe that's what Daniel's going to say. Sorry I was just going to ask yeah thanks I was just going to ask I didn't hear David Morgan what did the engineering say they signed off on this essentially or something. Sorry I haven't reviewed engineering's comments but yeah I'm pulling it up right now um but yeah the screen share it that'd be great I don't see them on the website thanks. Uh let me just grab it directly handy. I was going to ask the same thing what were the comments and how would they resolved? I think yeah I'm sorry but I honestly I thought that David was telling me that everything has been resolved so I apologize for that. Well maybe Rich can help us too or yeah let's get Rich in here and uh Rich uh are you uh the real person I talked to is Novak he's the project he's the one that's responding with the town engineer so he can sort of work how we got to where we are today. Yeah Mr. Sheriff I may like Novak from Patriot Engineering. Thank you. I did receive the email from the town engineer um I don't know if you I'll let David pull it up but my understanding was there was like four I think three or four comments that I as I read them he said has been addressed he also issued a plan in that email that is stamped approved through engineering. I could quickly run through those quick those small changes if you'd like but it's at your discretion. I would like to hear them if you want if you're going to be correct. Yeah sure if you just bear with me a second I'm going to pull it up in front of me so I don't do it by memory um and I it's up to you if you want me to share this or not but uh the there was let's see this. It would probably make sense Mike for you to share it if you can. Sure. Let's see if I have the ability there we go um can everyone see that? Yes. Okay so then you can see that this was from the Department of Public Works so we received this on the fifth um 51 Birch Major stormwater management program and we have approved up at the top and the I'll just quickly summarize the the comments the approval of the design package does not defer discharge or release the oldest responsibility to construct the stormwater management system as designed I think that sounds like a standard um condition. The second one was the proposed porous driveway detail notes the minimum of 3.4 feet of depth of double wash stone shall be installed in all places of the driveway note that a minimum of two feet of depth between the bottom of the stone in the estimated seasonal high groundwater is required and we've definitely discussed that at past meetings. Should site excavation indicate the ground water table is higher than indicated by test pits the design engineer will contact engineering division to determine if any system changes are required no problem there on our end the following inspections shall be coordinated with the engineering division they would like to see the bottom of excavation and system installation prior to backfill again I see no issue with with that four was subsequent to required inspections the following shall be submitted to the engineering division storm stormwater management certificate of completion for the major permit including as built site plan stamped and signed by professional engineer statement of compliance stamped and signed and dated by design engineer stating stormwater management system in impervious area were constructed in accordance with the approved design package please note that the inspection services department will require receipt of the certificate of compliance certificate of occupancy so that is again not a problem on our end and then the approval for the installation of the onsite stormwaters management systems only I think this is just a catch all of additional permitting including this board this commission of course will require for any utility work proposed to take place within the town right away and to obtain compliance with the town's conservation commission saved right there and they go on to say that you could require changes in additions to the permit if needed that's a very quick summary to keep you keep you on on time I'll stop share and answer any questions sir any questions from the commissioners no thank you thank you for that summary I guess if we I'm just thinking ahead to make a note of it if we do approve the project I would suggest that we say that prior to applying for certificate of compliance they get their stormwater certificate of compliance and submit that to the commission first and secondly I think there were some materials that needed to be submitted to engineering and maybe we just say that some of those are also copied to the conservation commission office for the file um Nathaniel just as a point of procedure do you think it's appropriate to put a few of these requirements as our special conditions we'll just reference this letter or do you think that what you just said covers it yeah well I was gonna actually that was the third point I was gonna make yeah I would say that we well we have a general condition that says you need to comply with all other permits so it would be adopted by reference in that but we could explicitly have a condition to say that we're adopting the same conditions I think that would would cover us a little just because they're very specific okay thank you okay any other questions from the commission I would expect that we did receive an updated plan right with the there's some a few details revised I think that came in at the last meeting uh that's the plan yeah fine a meeting thanks okay um yeah so if I if I could remind the commission mr chair we we we had the plan and the revisions for conservation commission requested back to you but we were lacking the the engineering review so I think this was the last piece of the puzzle if memory serves okay uh anyone attending tonight's meeting uh that would like to say make a comment about 51 birch street please use the raise hand function and the reactions button seeing none I'm back to the commission for further comments or motions I'll make a motion to close the public hearing a second I'll second Michael's game seconds Susan Chapnick yes David white yes David Kaplan yes Nathaniel Stevens yeah I killed this game yes chapter on he says yes okay uh so that was to close the hearing any you want to close then the issue right I think I have that right any discussion I think we discussed some special conditions by adopting the conditions that are in the town engineers letter that are applicable to conservation um that was one condition I think Nathaniel had another condition about before a COC is issued that we get the storm water what certificate certificate right and what did you have another one Nathaniel I did now I'm forgetting what I think it was just to be copied anything uh some of the documents that would be need to be submitted to engineering yeah it would also be submitted to the conservation agent okay okay point of clarification Mr. Chair sure uh Nathaniel can I just drill down one minute a second he asked in terms of the inspections and reports that's that's what you're referring to yes yes okay so that'll make a motion to improve the project for those conditions can I get a second I'll second I'm like uh David White kind of second so we're gonna start with David Kaplan yes Susan Chapnick yes Mike Gildes game yes Nathaniel Stevens yes and David White yes and Chuck Taroni says yes okay same as before reach out to David uh Ryan next week and uh if you wanted to find out when this is going to be issued thank you for your time thank you thanks both thank you okay we're gonna move right on to reservoir um the public hearing will consider a notice of intent to construct an addition off the rear of a single family house renovate the front porch and construct uh landscape and hardscape activities within the riverfront and bordering land subject to flooding associated with Millbrook and the 100-foot buffer zone to a bordering vegetated wetland uh is this um LEC again do we uh Rich Kirby or is this Mike Novak I see Mike Novak on my screen here hi I'm Nicole Ferrara from from LEC sure uh we're over viewing the presentation and joining me is Rich Kirby also from LEC uh Holly Samuels the landscape designer should be on and the homeowners Linnea and David Bergeron and uh David Mullen who's the architect should also be also be on so here is our um our notice of intent application we're filing an NOI to construct an addition as well as some hardscape and landscaping features um to a single family dwelling I'm going to scroll to the aerial to familiarize the commission with with the site all right so here you can see Nicole can I ask you is there any way to do full screen with that or is uh Holly stuck with this view that better can zoom in yeah maybe zoom in that would be fine all right so here's our site uh it's in the northwestern part of town the Minutemen bike path runs along the southern property boundary just off site and uh consists of a single family dwelling in the northern portion over here um it's accessed via a paved driveway off of reservoir road there is a garage located in the backyard as well as a concrete walkway leading to the back steps and the house is generally surrounded by lawn and some landscaping and there's a fringe of some forested scrub uplands along the southern boundary line going into the to the bike path over here so the main uh wetland features associated with the site is mill brook which occurs i'll scroll to the usgs map mill brook occurs just off site on the other side of the bike path and flows in a southeast early direction off site and it's contained within a concrete retaining wall tight bank scroll back to the aerial so we had our surveyors just locate that uh retaining wall as the edge of bank and then also on or off site we have a bvw associated with no name brook and no name brook is called a brook on the arlington gis um but it's not located on the usgs map and um according to usgs stream stats it does not have a stream center line and um based on our observations of the drainage like swale character of this wetland um we don't believe that the brook is perennial so we flagged it as a as a bvw and we do have some photos of the wetland in our report oh here's the bank and mill brook over here and then we have our bvw it's kind of located just off the path uh lastly we have bordering land subject to flooding and that's uh located in the southern part of the property to elevation 154 just get back to that and it clips the corner of the garage on the back lawn um and with that i'm going to turn it over to rich who's going to discuss the proposed activities thanks nicole uh can you scroll to the site plan please yes thanks so the um the site plan was prepared by rover survey and we have existing conditions in black and proposed conditions in red and the major part of the project is really a 418 square foot addition off the rear or southern boundary of the house um the entirety of the addition is within uh lawn or landscape land or within the footprint of the concrete walkway stairs and entry that's off the back of the house additionally they're proposing some stairs and a landing and a retaining wall off the back right corner of the addition to get it to get access down to the uh to the lower level by where the driveway is now while the addition is 418 square feet uh we really made a big effort to try and keep our our impervious area increased to less than 350 square feet and we got it down to an increase of 318 square feet and that's in large part because a portion of the addition is already above or proposed within impervious area roughly the top quarter or so as you can see from the plan and the applicants also proposed proposing to shorten the driveway right now we have let's see where is it I wrote all of this out and I wrote down too much information but basically we're reducing the driveway from 315 square feet to 277 square feet so that's how we come up with our net increase of 318 which is you know fair amount under the 350 so um mitigation we're proposing a few different things for mitigation obviously we have erosion controls and you can see the curved double line which represents a 12 inch compost sock along the limit of work area we're also proposing silt sacks and the two catch basins on north streets and at the intersection of north street and reservoir road those of course will remain in place until construction is complete and all areas are stabilized by vegetation and we're also are proposing some stormwater management even though none's required under the violence protection act or under the arlington regulations because we're under 350 we are proposing a stone trench along the southern edge of the um of the proposed addition and another one along the western and southern edge of the garage the stone trenches will measure roughly two feet wide and one and a half feet deep of washed stone from a half inch to three quarter inch washed stone and so that will function to you know collect and infiltrate stormwater from your you know typical uh rain event um and uh certainly provide more infiltration compared to what's there now details of the stone trenches are provided on the plan to the left there's also a detail of the stone a retaining wall below the trench drain uh detail um with respect to regulatory compliance i'm going to get into that after holly uh samuels overviews the native landscaping plan that she prepared for this project is mitigation but um basically we're providing some some native landscaping to improve the riverfront area uh and meet the previously developed riverfront area standards of 1050 uh 310 cm or 1058 5 um with our work in the in the flood plain is really just limited to installing the trench drain which is you know a mitigating measure we're not changing the grade or displacing any flood storage areas or anything like that with with installation of the trench drain and then i'll get into a little bit of the climate resiliency component as well but before i do that i'm going to turn it over to holly to overview the planting plan can you hear me we can okay okay there's a planting plan good um so we're proposing uh planting in the behind the next to and behind the garage as the mitigation planting um and it's uh there's a large silver maple uh in that area but i'm uh no up above uh yeah this large large tree that's right it's a lot there's a large existing silver maple um to remain uh and then some uh shrubs around that as we can get them in so not to post the silver maple obviously because it's got a very shallow root system some lindia benzoin some clethora um i have a melis so a native witch hazel um and um the clients also asked for the homeowner to ask for some screening to the bike path uh so there's a row of um of uh dark american arbor bides they don't get too large but to give us some uh evergreen screening to the bike path i'm in addition i put in some perennials um and you can see the restoration specific plants on the right hand side uh that's right so there's a lot of redundancy here so that we can uh see what you know what will survive well in this area but i've got some ostrich fern um some Solomon seal some uh some native asters some arunca some geranium maculatum some wild geranium so and then some wild steinia frageroides as a ground cover which also continues in other parts of the yard and then we added some uh some boulders right on the edge of that planting area that will undoubtedly come up during construction um to sort of make it clear that that area shouldn't be mowed in future and um then there's other planting in the yard there's some some trees on the right hand barrier to replace removed noray maples and these are some sort of narrow uh cultivars of liquid m bar of sweet gum which is a native tree um and other ground cover ground covers in the area so i think that covers the mitigation planting if anyone thanks holly anyone has any questions about that i'm happy to answer or try i think it would best just to conclude your presentation with so rich said he was going to finish up okay yeah so so um you know with respect to the riverfront area regulations you know we're increasing our degraded riverfront area by 363 square feet so we're proposing a two-to-one ratio of riverfront area restoration and enhancement that's the land behind the boulders um so the all of the native landscaping that's proposed um around the house that's sort of a bonus if native planting if you will but really the the two-to-one is represented um in the land that's behind the boulders and behind the garage so the um so that's how we're meeting the the degraded riverfront area plus we're providing some stormwater management um which is a you know added um environmental benefit compared to the existing condition with respect to trees uh nicole could you go to the photograph that shows the the seven trees there's a cluster of norway maple trees and the singular a single black walnut tree that is um that is off the rear right corner of the house and they're they're they're all less than eight inches there you go they're all less than eight inches dbh this is standing near north street the back of the house is to the right the house that you see is the neighbor's house so you can see that cluster of trees there so those really need to be removed in order to accommodate the um the crawlspace foundation for the addition and we have a total of 14 trees being installed in addition to the you know 23 shrubs and hundreds of ground cover perennials to offset the impact associated with that tree removal um you know the climate resiliency really is a culmination of all the mitigation that we're proposing we're proposing a fairly robust native planting plan uh beyond what is required with the addition of the native landscaping outside of the restoration area we're providing a commensurate level of stormwater management where none is really required or or in the state or local regulations but we're you know we're still making an effort uh in order to do that and then of course the um the addition itself is outside the the 100-year flood plain and elevated in the landscape we wanted to make sure that we were we weren't um displacing any flood plain on the property so I think that covers everything that we included in the notice of intent and we'd be happy to answer any questions that the commission may have thanks rich that was uh that was well thought out thank you uh any commissioners would like to talk about uh have some questions for this applicant and right now I don't see any I think that's because maybe the sharing screen but that's fine I think it's still it looks like David White, Susan Chasnick and Daniel Stevens all have their hands up sure there you go stop sharing the screen uh and at Daniel Stevens let's go with you first uh no actually let's uh you're gonna defer to David White who's had his hand up for quite a while if I next thanks it looks like a big improvement what we have there now I want to note however the no-name brook is probably perennial is what are they're all time of year even this summertime yeah by groundwater yeah and it's it's you know we didn't notice we didn't see any flow when we were out there we did see the obviously the inundated this sort of starts at that location yeah okay it starts there right well if it is a perennial stream I don't think it quite meets the state standards based on you know the watershed area because most of that watershed is going to mill brook um but we claim it as a stream under our under our bylaws fair enough I don't think it would necessarily change just to note that yeah I don't think it would change really the permittability of the project because virtually the whole site is in the riverfront area anyway yeah so it really wouldn't change any of the any of the other records you know too significantly but noted thank you David Susan so I wasn't seeing everybody so I apologize I'm going to go to yeah um I actually was going to make make a comment similar to David's but I just want to clarify um in our updated regulations that came out in March of 2023 um we define um no name brook we define three brooks as intermittent streams in the town under the town bylaw one of them is no perennial streams they're no intermittent stream they have an aura okay they have an aura not riverfront um and that's no name brook coolidge road brook and rider brook and our aura as as you might remember is the hundred foot buffer and the aura is jurisdictional so I just wanted to clarify that um I do appreciate you you thoroughly going through all this I think that the there's the planting plan looks very robust I am not a landscape designer so I can't look at all those and say they're all natives or okay but it looks very robust um and that um I appreciate I appreciate you talking about the climate resilience I did have one question though we also had changed our treatment replacement policy which is also in those updated regs and it wasn't clear to me that your tree replacement was consistent with that I have to actually look it up myself because I don't yeah what the table says unless you know well I did why don't you continue to look it up while I talk that sounds good I do remember before the regulations changed the commission had a pretty robust uh tree replacement requirement and I think on a lot of these smaller lots it was very challenging to find the space in order to plant um so many replacement trees just you know because you need to um separate them out and and have enough space so the trees can actually grow and mature and and not get in the way of one another right so we we are um I believe at two to one with the 14 trees that we're proposing okay so I just found it it's table F1 true replacement requirements and this is this is what we have I mean you can have a discussion with the commission on you know trade-offs between trees and tropes and things like that but what we have said is that deciduous trees with a dbh of 1.5 inches to six get a two to one if they're greater than six they get a three to one okay yeah all of these are less than eight but I'm not sure okay granular with uh with okay okay just I just want to point that out yeah thank you um and and with respect to the native trees I just wanted or the native plantings we do have some landscape cultivars in there but um in talking with Holly you know I don't think any of those landscape cultivars um adversely affect the function of those plants with respect to wildlife utilization etc um Holly is specializes in the in this sort of native landscaping she sat on the lexington conservation commission for three years where we you know have similar discussions as we do with this commission so I'm confident in the planting plan's ability to you know enhance and restore the function and value um I'm not sure if we have much room left for any more trees we are proposing 23 shrubs and all and of course the you know hundreds of ground covered plants perennials etc so um we we would appreciate some latitude there obviously you know with the with the the commission talking through that sure and could you just remind me or maybe Holly can the um the trees that are being proposed the trees are the seven liquid amber the slender silhouette so in this case it's just a size difference uh from it's a cultivar but it's a just a size difference it's not a flower chain foliage color difference or so forth so they should still provide the same function but they're going to be able to be screening for this very small lot to the and what and what size would they be when they're when what are you proposing to put in proposing on this side here um okay hold on sure so our i'll just i'll just say our regulations require a dbh of a minimum of one and a half inches yeah so i have a just a gallon size so i can okay we can oh that's fine yeah i can gallon size so that can go okay i'm gonna be around and i do appreciate you discussing cultivars um we have had the precedents in in this commission of being concerned about cultivars but allowing them with justification specific justification that they don't change the ecology or the the value of the habitat right that um yeah so i was hoping that that's materials um as support for using cultivars i don't know that i saw that i mean you mentioned it but i yeah i don't think we provided actual did you okay um we did not include that in the report we just kind of relied on on holly's expertise with respect to that right and i do appreciate that i know i know holly your um your work in lexington and i i too i truly appreciate it um being being cognizant about about that and careful about it the other the other trees are the arborvide and this is a difficult one to get a straight species um it's really kind of impossible to get a straight species arborvide it's also difficult to get um an evergreen uh straight species for this situation so we hope that the i mean it is a a native species but a cultivar the dark americans on the back row the others are the the ham and malice these are is it more an understory tree and then the lindera also becomes a small tree size and the clethora will get to be about eight feet at maturity um so they'll be almost like understory uh understory trees the and the others are there's a there is a dogwood they the homeowner's asked for a flowering tree so there's a cross um cornus rootgan which is a stellar pink dogwood in the backyard not in the restoration area it's a cross between acusa dogwood and the native cornus floris um a little more resilient um than the cornus florida but a very uh stable tree and beautiful tree and then there are a lot of of native shrubs in the other part of the yard thank you in order to get in order to get some some small lawn area for the the homeowner's um you know i've kept the trees to the side and uh that's all thank you holly that's all i have check okay um nithanya why don't you um ask your question before david yeah sure thanks um rich can you just remind me what's your argument this is previously degraded riverfront area so there sure the um the lot is um is previously developed and you have to therefore go through the regulations at 1058 five which talks about you know we go through them in the report at a minimum your project needs to improve conditions um no i'm familiar with with the performance standards for redevelopment i'm just not totally convinced that you actually are a previously developed riverfront area or the entire well sure previously developed i think i think everything typically when we have these types of projects our approach is the lot itself is previously developed but only a portion of it actually qualifies as degraded which is sort of a subset of previously developed riverfront area um the degraded land is land structures pavement areas lacking topsoil gravel areas abandoned dump the grounds etc so in this lot we have the you know the paved driveway the house the garage the concrete walkways etc the rest of it notwithstanding that forested up on fringe along with southern property boundary is previously developed but doesn't qualify as degraded and the reason that we we apply these regulations to this scenario is because if you go through the regulations 1058 five it talks about you know the amount of degraded area on the site so you're not allowed to increase the amount of degraded area if the degraded area is already more than 10 percent of the riverfront area on the lot which in this case it is without providing mitigation in accordance with 1058 5 effort g so we are increasing the degraded riverfront area by 363 square feet i believe it is and so therefore we're providing mitigation in the form of restoration enhancement in accordance with 1058 5 g um so you know that that's typically how we go through that along with the other standards stormwater management uh improving the riverfront area no closer than 100 feet etc etc so that's typically how we how we approach it okay thanks let's hopefully hear thank you uh david morgan thanks i'm looking at the planting plan some of the smaller vegetation ladies mantle cranes bill shasta daisy did you address those already holly in terms of justifying the the choice uh holly's muted i think but the right no some of these some of these plants are are are for landscaping decorative purposes but also rabbit proof so we have a big problem with what rabbits will eat and these these plants are not generally eaten by rabbits um on the right side of the house and on a whole ground cover of karaks pennsylvania which is a native sedge and a number of the shrubs that you'll see in different parts of the yard are moved from from the front or from the back to different places so we're just reusing um existing material that's on site now and adding in for instance there's a lot of elix glabra shamrock on the on the left side and then this um the the uh cranes bill of the cobalt cranes bill is a real um is a really good it's non-native but it's a it's a geranium wild geranium ground cover that is um evergreen and uh will hold the soil so we don't have to have a lot of mulch we could just hold the soil which will help keep the moisture on site too and again a rabbit proof and those those plants that you're describing holly those are the that's for the aesthetic landscape it's not for the restoration area in the river front that's correct but some of it for instance the crane the karaks pennsylvania that you know it's not in the restoration area but it's a native ground cover solemn and steel and so forth in the front um so i've sort of been it's a sort of mix of native and and ornamentals on the rest of the lot yeah those ornamentals are still within the aura and the buffer zone to the vegetated weapon so i just want to flag that for the commission i think those may have alternative david you're breaking up a little bit i'm not hearing alternatives that are more advantageous to habitat value in the buffer zone and aura um i'm not familiar with the term aura i haven't come out that's the uh that's the upland uh resource area that's jurisdictional under the bylaw it's kind of similar to a no disturbance zone or a no structure zone there's a within the 25 foot or i want to know where it's actually a hundred feet wide hundred yeah yeah it's it's up for some area oh so it's within the hundred foot yeah it's what the commission refers to is the hundred foot buffer zone it's the hundred foot adjacent upland resource area so similar to lexington the buffer zone was a resource area as defined in their bylaw and i flag it principally because this while these plants are smaller there's a lot of ground cover just land area dedicated to them and so i think it's worth paying closer attention to sure so uh i'm hearing a lot of questions about the planting plan and i'm i'm wondering if we've had enough time to review that but i have some questions um about this so rich i'm going to just skip back to that plan that you brought up um the rope plan and so i was following the riverfront and i was looking at 10 585 and i saw a total riverfront area and but and and i understood that but you lost me in proposed additional areas and my question was that are those proposed additional areas part of the disturbed area so are the degraded area did you did you count those so usually the chart would say something like previously degraded and then it gives you a total and then it says proposed degraded and and then it gives you a total degraded so we know and then we can figure out your over 10 percent and how much the mitigation is and so my real question is did you count everything including the drip trench for that uh degraded area and did you get your two to one for it okay so i'm going to um bear with me here so we had a conference call a zoom call rather with the entire team including scott lynch over at robert survey and really dilate every square foot of existing and proposed degraded riverfront area in order to come up with the with the with the areas now the the trenches the stone trenches i don't believe we did include those as part of the degraded riverfront area because the regulations exempt from the riverfront area calculation stormwater management infrastructure so it's a relatively small amount but i i don't think we included that because it's it's exempt from regulation but if you go to i'm going to share my screen and get into the right up for the um for the riverfront i just need to find it because i have a lot of windows open so bear with me here for just a second okay the zoom share screen so let me move this over where we get into the so at a minimum you know the project shower results and improvement over existing conditions for the capacity of the riverfront area to protect the interests i think it's pretty clear that we that we meet that standard there stormwater management is provided according to the standards of the department that doesn't apply here because it's a single family house it wouldn't apply under the bylaw because we're under the 350 square foot threshold by design the owners were trying to avoid having to go through the you know hiring a civil engineer we knew space was limited on the property and it would be a you know significant added cost for this relatively modest addition project um no closer to the river or 100 feet we are 16 feet closer to mill brook compared to existing conditions but we are outside the 100 foot zone uh you know we also have the the bike path separating our site from mill brook and to be taken into consideration i think um 16 feet closer to mill brook we're mitigating that by providing the restoration and enhancement in accordance with 1050 a 5g but the the big number that you want to talk about is um this is letter e the area of proposed work shall not exceed the amount of degraded area provided that proposed work may have to alter up to 10 of the degraded area is less than 10 of the riverfront area so if you look at the property um you know the property is 6 000 and something square feet i believe we're way over the 10 right we're with the existing house driveway we're over 10 so the only way that we can increase the amount of degraded riverfront area on the property is to offset that impact by providing mitigation in accordance with 5 f or g so you know 5 f really isn't applicable here because we really don't have any existing degraded area that we can restore we're taking full advantage of all the existing degraded area by redeveloping it which minimizes the expansion of the rest of our new degraded riverfront area so we're at 363 square feet um there we go we're 363 square feet of new degraded riverfront area and we're providing mitigation uh at a 2 to 1 ratio by restoring and enhancing the existing lawn area in the back by 735 square feet that's 2 to 1 um the regulations also allow for um other mitigation uh which results in an equivalent level of environmental protection so i would i suggest that here that in in addition to this 2 to 1 ratio of enhancement we're also providing you know a commensurate amount of stormwater management by you know installing those stone trenches off the back of the addition and um in an L shape along the edge of the garage and that it's an L shape so that way we can collect both sides of that pitched roof on the garage so we're we're infiltrating all of that runoff from from both sides of the garage and not just one side so that's how we uh have demonstrated that meet the standards for 1058 so you're over 10 percent i get that and so what's what's there is what's there and yeah anything over that that is impervious would have to be part of that and you're saying part of that and you're saying you've added the areas that are not on top of like lawn and whatnot or anything with topsoil comes out to like 360 something square feet and 363 that's right and then you were able to double that and you had more than that in your mitigation area and you have some additional i i just wanted to make sure that uh uh everything was added up and i'm glad you i'm glad that you looked at everything and it's just that that proposed additional area addition area was what was confusing i yeah right it's understand why that was broken out and so i just wanted to ask so that's all there was and the drip trenches saying is not you can't calculate that because it's storm water and i get that so i think you answered my question okay good i think Nathaniel has another question Nathaniel thanks uh rich and chuck um rich just uh fyi i i would take a another look if you would at section 33 of our revised regs because as i heard you explain storm water you're saying because you have less than 350 feet of new pervious surface you don't have any storm water standards to meet and i would beg to differ because i believe we we tried to rewrite this session to say that we tried to coordinate it with the town's storm water bylaw uh among other things saying that if you are subject to that bylaw you need to show compliance prior to us closing the hearing but we do have some i would say more less stringent standards to meet even if you don't require a storm water bylaw permit to take a look at such no do not exacerbate or create flooding conditions and do not increase the peak rate of storm water runoff the second one roughly is reduce the storm water pollution to the maximum extent possible using lid uh techniques and then have a written operation maintenance plan for any bmp's there uh we also then asked to use the nois atlas no at the no 14 standards for calculations rather than a cornell we require or tp 40 so just fyi on that i so so is that on this project but just going going forward i'm sorry can you say that last part again i i misunderstood sure um sorry i whichever one i was just saying that the other standard is to have a uh use the no 14 plus data cornell or tv 40 right so so are you suggesting that the revised regulations require applicants to hire a civil engineer to run the pre and post calculation given the parameters you just described regardless of even if it's just a small increase in impervious area any that's why i'm going to ask the yeah i well i guess i'm having more problem with you're saying that the 350 uh the 350 cut off because it's not reflected in our regulations don't we're not intended to reflect that but um yes i think that and i'd ask the other commissioners to weigh in on this because i think that's what we were anticipating um that there would be some demonstration of these meeting these standards right because the only way to demonstrate there'd you know the the no increase in the um pre and post would to be to frankly do a full analysis by a civil engineer without you know even for you know i don't know is there a cut off i guess if there's not a cut off and we're increasing by 50 square feet then i just want to make sure that that's that's what the expectation is right yeah can i just interject nathan go ahead i see that yeah because i was just reading that that section again in section 33 of our updated regs we do have a final line in there yeah so it's going to say that the requirements of this section shall be administered by the commission commensurate with the nature scope type and cost to the proposed project or activity which i think we put in there just for these types of reasons yeah okay we want to have these discussions but for very small projects we can use judgment i think that's what yes okay but yeah i just want to impress upon rich that you're not completely exempt under our our fair enough bylaw regulations okay so let's uh let's see if anyone attending tonight's uh meeting would like to say something um maybe in a butter to this property so you can use a raise hand functions uh to so the reaction buttons to use the raise hand function and we'll see you or you could just wave and we will see you doing that also there's a comment in the chat uh from a holly samuels that says i'm here but don't see myself can't be oh that's that's holly our that was earlier okay thank you that was from earlier thanks okay um seeing none uh back to the commission i am i don't have a sense of this is this for more comments or um or maybe more comments first uh we've had a lot of discussion about the plants some of them weren't native cultivars um and then some stormwater requirements if we flush those out and someone wants to make a motion or would we like a little bit more time to review this and ask for some more additional some additional information i personally would like a little more additional information i would like more on the planting plan um considering replacing the non-natives because it is in our jurisdictional area in the aura the adjacent upland resource area which i think the applicant didn't understand fully before um uh justification for using cultivars um you know that that would chosen um and i didn't see an invasive management plan proposed i might have missed it because i i may have um and if it wasn't if it was there or wasn't there or some kind of discussion about how invasives would be controlled um on this and then for the stormwater um i would like to see some justification um about you know just addressing that section of our regulations and you know with some explanation about why um what is being proposed is is um commensurate with the project and you know climate resilient um which personally i think it is but um i think we need that in there because it is part of our regulations okay anybody had anything else from i try that information to make a decision any other comments i echo susan's request for that information any other comments from the commission or motions to continue to we would be march 21st oh uh sorry uh rich yeah are you okay with us uh requesting a continuance to march 21st i think so yeah i'm just putting it in my calendar okay i'll make a motion to continue to march 21st you're second i'll second okay um might kill this game yes david white yes susan chapnick yes at daniel stevens yes david kaplan yes and chuck tarani says yes thank you all very much for your time with awful consideration of this application and i just have one quick question new information for the march first hearing would be due march 14th the week before is that correct the wednesday at noon uh the 13th at noon okay i believe david has a public schedule up yes website just yeah i'm just remembering that now when he said noon i've that job yeah all right very good thank you all very much again thank you um appreciate it have a good night yeah okay so uh i want to make a change to the agenda i think it would be best if we took on the request of determination of applicability for 459 mystic street now and then left the rest of the time tonight for um it's basically going to be thawndyke place because as i mentioned at the beginning of the meeting we're going to take a vote to continue 88 coolage so susan if that's okay with you because i know that you're going to take this project on if you could um start to introduce 459 mystic street sure um this is a request for determination of applicability um at 459 mystic street this public hearing will consider this request for the construction of an addition and a deck expansion at this property it's within the 100 foot buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetlands and um myself chuck toroney and ryan um clapp did a site visit um um what was that date i forgot that date line but time passes it was on march first watch first thank you last friday right last friday um and to understand the project better and i think ryan were you going to explain it and we do have scott grady here who is the project architect uh yeah so i can give an overview or if scott wanted to give an overview of the project and then i can kind of fill in the gaps whichever one scott would you like to do that ryan to do okay that'd be great and then somebody should put up the plan um whoever has it handy all right well good evening everyone uh we are proposing a mod Scott could you just introduce yourself again formally i'm sorry i'm scott grady scott william grady architect i am the architect for the proposed addition to the residence set 459 thank you all right and uh yeah like i say we're proposing a very modest addition at the rear of the house and at the rear of the house at this time there is an existing covered enclosed porch and a covered basement access totaling about 172 square feet giving us 172 square feet of existing impervious surface a portion of that screen porch shall be removed about 86 square feet and the covered basement access will be removed 22 feet so we're removing 108 square feet of the existing impervious surface we are introducing in our addition 77 square feet which added to the remaining 86 square feet of the enclosed porch will now put us at a total of 163 square feet of impervious surface so we're reducing the amount and then as susan had mentioned there is also a small expansion five foot by 10 foot of a deck that will be supported by a pier and the decking will be open to allow drainage and it's basically that's simple so i'm open to any questions you may have or you can add what you need to those of you who visited with me on the site so i will just add that what we found when we went on site you may you may have seen the lines of the hundred foot they were they were actually not quite in the right place on the site so chuck took his handy dandy tape measure and we walked it out from the resource area just to make sure we understood where the hundred feet um jurisdiction area was um and if i could share my screen i can show where the uh that'd be great ryan thank you we have some pictures from that site visit as well now kind of help visualize where that hundred foot buffer zone is uh so yes this is the site and you can see uh on the tree here it's marked with a piece of flagging tape so if you are drawing a straight perpendicular line uh that would be where the hundred foot buffer zone is uh so just about bisecting scott right there um whereas on the plans that would have been set back about another 10 15 feet to the uh to the right there is where that would be reflected on the uh on the plans it looks like there was just a different scale that was used when the survey was done versus when the uh the layers for the buffer zone was added so just to clarify so it's a hundred feet towards the house from the flag no no no um so the the wetland is all the way on the uh the left there so we are looking perpendicular at the house right now uh so the hundred foot buffer zone would be right let me see oh i got it so it's it starts from the left of the picture and i would yeah i don't know if you can see my mouse with the wetland it's way over way over this way okay thank you that thanks for orienting me so the deck is definitely within the buffer zone yes okay thanks so so susanna you uh do you want to talk about the addition in the in the screen porch and all that there or does maybe the scott wants to talk about that or or i can anybody sure yeah go ahead chuck yeah sure so what we have here is we have this porch and that porch is proposed to be taken down and if you cut that porch in half um that's where the addition will be and it comes all the way out to the corner of the house so we're going to remove the entire porch and that bulkhead and bring let's say that those screens are three feet each so it's six feet six feet off the house all the way to the corner so it's a six foot by whatever i don't know 24 foot 24 yeah 24 addition and where the screen porch has been eliminated and you'll notice that it has a roof um they're just going to fill in the decking material and decking uh is considered pervious uh you know with this commission uh and past um determinations so at the end of the day with removing the deck and bulkhead this actually decreases impervious area within the aura and um again on this screen there's a stream that runs uh from the street and it's basically just past the uh just past the screen porch it's just on the other side you're almost looking at it from where you are here so there's a lot of lawn uh they're quite far away from the mystic and they're they're um the the project starts uh the project starts 80 feet away from that stream and the stream is aligned it's in an armor bank it's stone in this area which is still a bag but but there's plenty of lawn in front of it um so that's what I know about the project uh and I hope that's helpful you said that better than I could have so thank you thanks check I see that um David Morgan has his hand up and then Nathaniel can somebody remind me how we treat Herbert Meyer brock in terms of jurisdiction areas how we treat a what the the brook I think it's got the it's got an aura but not riverfront area I'm not sure you know it's very interesting because I didn't even know the name of this brook it's really a covert stormwater conveyance system from Meyer excuse me it's Herb Meyer oh okay all right um yeah area in the past right oh we did years ago when they were when the Winchester country club was doing work upstream yeah it's mapped as such which is why I ask and the point don't see I didn't see it reflected on the plans of course and didn't see it exempted in our regulations you know the way that no name brook is for example so just wanted to raise that point good point I wasn't aware I guess I wasn't on the commission when this was considered no it was like 20 years ago okay 15 years ago okay so if you went through those standards you would you would realize that so at a minimum the proposed work shall result in a improvement over the existing conditions we'll be looking for that there's no be there's no storm water needed for single family homes within the first 200 feet of the riverfront the proposed work should not be any closer and that hasn't happened we've actually got further away and D the proposed work including expansion will shall be located outside the riverfront or towards the riverfront boundary and again where we've said that they're moving it back towards the yeah I think they're moving it back let me just think about that so the riverfront's here yeah well you guys can think about that one it's uh it's it's it's within the particular so yeah yeah yeah the river the river kind of does an s thing so it's not it's not but there's no other spot to put it but that gets them to f and g which is uh mitigation or restoration and then the proposed work shall not exceed um the 10 percent I I would say with the size of this lot they may not be over 10 percent but that calculation is not available to us it's an rda right so our question is do we want an noi it's clearly jurisdiction right clearly it's jurisdictional we are seeing that's why I went in impervious but we yeah that that was a good point we meaning me at least was not considering riverfront I was just considering war so well I realized I realized that but I was just going through there to see what was missing and I would say what's missing here is some sort of mitigation or restoration out of those if it was uh a notice of intent and we did go through 10 585 that's for the record being the one who raised it I'm not recommending that we bump it up to an NOI I think Chuck's rundown sufficiently conveyed that this doesn't pose any additional problems but I do think Chuck's right about adding mitigation or restoration into the consideration of conditions for the rda Nathaniel did you have anything else I'm sorry uh I was going to ask Chuck what his recommendation was if the noi or not and I think I in the tone of his voice he seems to be saying no no noi but he may be changing his mind if we're in areas involved but and I would just say if we want to put conditions in we should really be doing an order or not a if we have too many conditions I think if the commission wouldn't accept some sort of mitigation for this work then we should ask for a notice of intent um with if we if you wouldn't accept mitigation in the form of planting or there was a stream at the very end I don't know if we have pictures of that but that stream at the very end the bank was deteriorating and we could ask for some certain square footage of bank restoration or something like that but again that's a little bit much to ask for in a rda so maybe find out what the commission thinks is this an rda as presented or would someone like to make another comment or make a motion um I I'd be okay with an rda I just I would like to see some supplemental information maybe continue this hearing and just see the explanation of how it meets the performance standards the redevelopment performance standards and maybe that's an opportunity to add proposed mitigation but yeah I think it's the same footprint and reducing a pervious surface you know it's still touching on the other jurisdictional resource areas but I think the only thing that we haven't yet resolved is the the riverfront area implications sure so continuation with uh with some additional material I think that would give at least me a chance to check stream stats out because and I don't know David you may have done this and that's why you're uh you feel clear about that but I didn't think of it it just looked like I'll just look like a small little tiny stream that was probably uh intermittent I actually just stopped sharing so I could run a stream stats report and just looking at the easiest one to look at real quick was the probability of it flowing perennially and that gave an 89 percent chance so there you go if I may speak just on behalf of of my clients I know we appreciative of the ability to move forward sooner rather than later on this project uh as summer is coming up and contractors are hoping to begin soon and the proposal is modest and we are improving the condition uh anyway just wanted to speak out on behalf of their goals if I hadn't been to the site and put my feet on it I would with this information say it would probably be an NOI because of Riverfront but having been there and seeing how modest it is where the additions are the fact that the impervious surface is decreasing I'm trying to get my head around can we do an RDA with the condition of a you know modest amount of mitigation plantings because I really don't think this is having a negative impact on Riverfront area having seen it now many other commissioners haven't seen it so maybe that's something you need to do to feel comfortable or make a decision I know my clients would absolutely be open to uh you know modest mitigation of but plantings and such uh if that was helpful to the commission thank you I think it would be for me if you if you could propose something for us to review with next hearing in two weeks that would be helpful to move things hopefully in the right direction okay that's great I think we got a little bit of direction here I'm just going to speed this up a little bit so we're going to continue this to our next meeting and you can reach out to the office and David Morgan will provide you the 10.585 standards and you'll just answer each one of those questions and you'll find out that you need to provide mitigation and that could be planting that could be bank restoration that could be something else but you need to improve the capacity of the river to to have it I don't have it in front of me but I think that's what you you want to do let me see what it is right and work with you on on the scope of the mitigation commensurate with your project so that's always an issue we don't we don't anticipate that you would propose to restore the entire bank of this entire river from mystic street down to that that's a appreciated thank you you know who is it that because it should be commensurate with your project and David could help you work on that yeah the bank restoration would be would be something else but usually it's it's it's planting but you'll have a chance to talk to David our our conservation agent about that that'd be great because it's a huge learning curve for me I'm used to the house stuff so this is okay it's fun so we're hearing it well tell you and listening to the other projects it's actually fascinating it's quite a learning curve great and all your attention to so many details is very much appreciated I'll make a motion to continue this to our meeting on the 21st great I'll second great Michael this came yes David white yes David Kaplan yes Susan Chapnick yes Nathaniel Stevens yes and Chuck Tarani says yes sorry did we lose Brian again there's Brian here I'm still here all right David I look forward to uh meeting and speaking with you and I'll see you all in two weeks then thanks Scott all right thank you very much all right right do you want to just can I get a motion to continue 88 uh coolage to um March 21st so moved the second second Susan Chapnick yes David white yes Brian McBride yes Mike Gildes game yes Nathaniel Stevens yes Brian McBride just kidding uh Chuck Tarani says yes did I forget anyone David White did I forget you no I think I started with you okay at least that was a quorum so where was missed that's enough so now we're going to turn to um Dondike Place so I have some preliminary comments I hope you'll find these helpful uh tonight's hearing will be limited to a discussion on David David's refusing himself refusing myself sure David White is recusing himself of this hearing so tonight's hearing will be limited to a discussion regarding the third party review of the habitat evaluation peer review the conservation commission is not finished with our stormwater review and we'll be requesting a continuous at the end of this hearing to our March 21st conservation commission our consultant Chase Bernier SWCA will bring us up to date on where he is uh with this with this uh review and then the proponents from BSC will chime in and bring us up to date uh with what they know and then I'm going to ask staff for any any updates if they have them David White can you mute yourself please thanks uh let's see and then I'm going to take uh some questions and comments from the commissioners and you can all hear them and then we'll turn to um the public and we'll hear from the public at that point so that's what I'd like to follow and that's all we're going to be talking about tonight so no other discussion points will be entertained so this is only about the habitat third party review that we had so with that uh SWCA and Chase would you introduce yourself for the record sure uh Chase Bernier uh natural resources team lead with SWCA just a little quick history you know my involvement with this project um previously conducted a site visit of the site of the restoration areas um with um representatives of the applicant with you know BSC and of the commission we issued our uh pure review letter report on January 23rd there's a total of 10 comments of the restoration plan and the planting plan and whatnot we received comments back from the applicant that addressed a almost all of those all of those comments which is great so we issued um our response to those comments um I think we've got most of those addressed as well madly sent us my apologies I had this pulled up and then my computer crashed so I had to reboot so there'll be one second here um so you sent a uh email noting that we had a couple of comments on the plans that you guys are working on um revising and getting those to the commission which is great um and then we had one more comment about excuse me uh related to the invasive species management plan uh we had um recommended that that be submitted to the commission for review before the order was issued so I see that you ever submitted that as well um I gave that a quick once over uh before the meeting I haven't really dug dug into that at all but it looks you know I'm superficially pretty good um I don't see any kind of glaring red flags or anything like that um but like I said I haven't had any time to really get into the the meat and potatoes of it um did the commission want to go comment by comment or have you had a chance to take a look at the peer review um kind of correspondence back and forth I know it's running late so I don't want to go through all 10 comments if uh if there were any questions I would actually appreciate not delving into all the comments but if you could put them up or somebody could and we could actually revisit some of the comments where it wasn't just this is resolved this is resolved I mean you could at least state what the comment is like a summary just one sentence summary that are going through the three paragraphs and say this one's resolved where this one's not resolved and what is your recommendation that would be helpful to me sure is that okay Chuck with you no that's fine okay and I'm sorry did I hear chase say that the applicant had submitted a invasive uh species management plan today I didn't yes recently yeah yes did that just come in today I didn't see it uh it did okay all right yeah I guess I would request more time to review that so I think yeah especially any materials coming in today because I saw chase's last or be it I can't yep yeah chase this letter can't just came yesterday which was also just very quick to review so I I do agree we might need more time but I would like a very quick summary so we won't all are on the same page yeah comment one I'm just you know don't let me do a quick overview of what you know comment one had to do with the removal of snags that has been resolved no issues there comment two deals deal specifically with the invasive species man chase do yep do you want do you want to go through all these so do you want us to ask questions as we come up on things I mean Susan what was that I don't I don't remember what you want why you wanted him to go over this was there an opportunity for us to ask questions yeah I wanted him to do exactly what he's doing which has just been one cent should we stop them say and we'll just stop him if we have a question you know and then chase on the yeah yeah okay so chase on on response number one I was hoping that it just recommends cutting down I'm going to call them danger snags but I was wondering if there was if there was a possibility if there was we could leave them like if it was possible that it wouldn't cause a danger 10 to 15 foot tall leave something there because it seemed like it was either all or nothing with how you wrote that response I mean yeah that would something I think we could talk to the applicant about you know I believe the way I read the comment of how they changed it was that the snags that were going to be proposed would be brought before the commission or their representative for approval correct but instead so I wanted to add to that if it was okay with you know this is this would be my insert I guess on that would be it would be left it would be cut down flush or it would be left as a snag that's 10 to 15 foot tall or some appropriate size and obviously it can't fall into where people would be but you know that has to be taken into consideration I see that David Kaplan has his hand up yeah thank you and just a comment too it does sound like BSC is giving us a lot of latitude to coordinate I guess and approve any snag removal so that's appreciated but also I just wanted to throw in the comment that I wouldn't want to prioritize leaving a snag if it somehow impacts the restoration areas you know restoration plantings I guess so you know if there's a conflict between you know a snag and a restoration planting I would prefer you know a like stump grinding and replanting you know clearing that slate to give a restoration plant as much opportunity to thrive in that section as possible but that's it just a quick comment so whoever's reviewing that and make sure that we you know we can have that latitude yeah I think there's clearly there's going to be an area where the restoration planting is and then a little bit outside of that area where it seemed like a larger snag may be cut okay good comment thank you chase any other questions on comment one seeing none okay comment two deals specifically with the invasive species management plan originally the applicant had proposed to develop a management plan as a special condition for the as part of the order conditions we had recommended that that plan be developed prior to the issuance of an order conditions which they which they have done like I said I haven't specifically gone through the intricacies of it yet but it looks pretty well done from from what I've seen but I imagine that the commission would like a more further area more in-depth review of that before we can talk about that any questions on that one I agree with that okay comment three refers to different kinds of refuse and garbage and whatnot that has been dumped on the site we recommended that the commission include a condition in the order conditions requires also official refuse to be you know properly disposed of and and whatnot and that any kind of yeah that's basically buried real deep into the soil be left there so we're not you know disturbing a shopping cart or something that has been buried you know two feet on the ground or whatnot BSE concurred with that so I think we have resolved that one any any questions on comment three okay well yeah sorry and maybe it's not with three but it's more maybe more of a general comment but you know as you remove that refuse and open up opportunities for planting did you come across anything in your review that indicated that soil amendments maybe needed or or recommended to you know for the plantings that are proposed you know to be successful or are you fairly confident that you know the existing substrate there would support any kind of restoration plantings that they're proposing I think it's probably okay by the time we take out all you know the trash and whatnot I don't see any and then with the end what's been proposed you know is is you know currently on on site you know they're going to revise their plan to you know better represent the existing communities and whatnot so given that you know the adjacent site the adjacent sites to the to the restoration area are you know kind of flourishing I think they'll be fine yeah thank you yeah and just to kind of you know to kind of piggyback on that a little bit the restoration plan and the comprehensive burn also say that you know after I think it's believed three years it's an 80 survival rate so anything that is not meeting that would there be a corrective action plan associated with that so there is a little bit of insurance with that as well and that's a good point thank you yep comment for discuss the inclusion of some other types of wildlife habitat including you know large woody debris rocks and rock piles that type of thing in addition to the proposed plantings and whatnot um they have VSE has updated those plans to include a bunch of different variety of options I think there was a brush pile um you know a herbunacular rock pile and whatnot so I thought that was great to see I'm encouraged that they included that any questions on comment for great yeah can you want to comment five had to do with the planting plan I've met the adventure this is already before that the originally the planting plan had included some some species that weren't already on site and that there were I thought there were opportunities to better represent the existing conditions you know adjacent habitats by including species um that were already there I was supposed to plan introducing new species so um in their revised plans some of those things some of those species worst uh or their originally proposed species were still still included I understand that BSC is currently revising those plans to address that so it would be great to see those when they come in and I appreciate you addressing that oh any comments or questions on comment five so my only question is we didn't we didn't get that yet right so we got an invasive management plan but not the revised restoration okay I just want to make sure I didn't miss anything yeah I believe it's coming in a couple of days and it's uh reading Matt's email right so was your recommendation do you think that at all constrains the amount of biodiversity that we could potentially add to this area you know I understand where you're coming from that once there is most likely to be successful um but you know some of the restoration projects you know I've had the opportunity to work on usually the approach is kind of look at a native plant community you know as part of the NHSP communities and sort of pick your palette from you know what that area wants to be if it's not disturbed or what it could be if it weren't disturbed um is that do you find that is does your comment overly potentially constrain I guess the amount of biodiversity or that that restoration approach in any way I don't necessarily think so um one of the pillars of restoration is understanding you know what your baseline is or your reference area is um with the understanding that you know we could plant whatever we wanted there you know cypress you know all kinds of crazy things that we really wanted to but you know is that really representative of the existing habitats they're going to contribute and enhance the existing habitats as opposed to just you know or are we just including additional species for the sake of adding additional species so um in the case of this particular site I think it makes more sense to add species that native species that we know are there and are doing well and it's going to contribute and enhance the you know the available habitats that are there okay that sounds like a similar approach okay thank you very much yep comment six I'm moving into you know the way from the narrative and into the site plans um comment six um referred to uh some of the planting note uh note seven um and that uh had to do with um specific you know indicating the proposed planting species sizes quantities you know maybe some digital change on availability and you know and whatnot so we recommended that some additional language be included that basically says that you know any proposed changes would be presented to the commission or their agent prior to prior prior to the substitutions being made and bsc has made those revisions which we appreciate any comments on six so administrative approval okay yeah I guess the commission needs to decide if they want that to be commissioned or administrator I think generally we do administrator on things like that right um David do you feel supported enough to make those decisions I think that's reasonable all right I also feel like that question and I had some others that I didn't bring up as we were going over this I wanted to discuss you know with the commission you know when we're discussing conditions uh if we ever got to that point so um I'm going to reserve my comment on whether David should do it or the commission should do it until that point uh and there's a few other things that I thought the same it's moving on to comment seven um this again was to in reference to one of the notes it says it notes that the dumping of woody vegetation brush and other debris in resource area was prohibited bsc basically said that you know that language comes directly from the comprehensive permit that the commission provided comment on prior to so I think that makes sense and we don't need we don't need to provide any kind of additional conditions on top of that comment eight is kind of on the on the same note we had mentioned this earlier with what the plantings um in that as part of the comprehensive permit the um planted species or it says that the planted species shall have an 80 survival rate by the end of the third year we had recommended that um you know that even if that 80 percent wasn't being met you know kind of year over year that a correct reduction plan um be developed on to kind of catch that ahead of time but again that language comes right from the comprehensive permit that you know the commission has already commented on and it's been issued so we didn't see a need to um add additional conditions on top of that any question before uh moving on to the next question so yeah you had a question about that so my notes say that swca recommends that the commission consider requiring a comprehensive action plan is now you're saying that there's one in the comprehensive permit yeah so that the language comes from the comprehensive permit and our comment was to say you know say you know you plant the plants and you know the first year first year monitoring you out there and you had 60 survival or something out of that nature um under the language of the comprehensive permit it states that um 80 survival is required by the end of the third year where we were recommending that it would you know a correct action plan should be developed at the end of each year to get ahead of that um but since that language is as it is in the comprehensive permit we felt that it made sense to leave it as is and not and not to add additional conditions on top of that since the commission has already commented our upper Friday comment and review off as part of the comprehensive permit I do agree we should be consistent with the comprehensive permit I do have to go read it again because I think that it does have requirements for replanting um so it's not like just oh you know united 80 percent at the end of three years too bad you know there are specific requirements yes it does have to meet that 80 at the end of right I see yeah yeah so I so I personally would I'm gonna go back and read that myself anyway just to familiarize myself with it but I think we are protected in that respect thank you so so I would assume that we could only so if this wasn't covered by the wpa we couldn't make that change if it was a by law requirement that I mean you're making a suggestion it seems like if the commission wanted to take it up under the wetlands protection act I think that that would it seems like a good idea it also seems like a good idea for the applicant to take up I just it just wasted a lot of time and the monitoring period and all that um you know if you start if you replant in the third year you you know you're starting your monitoring all over again so it is a good idea to just replace them as needed I think Matt has his hand up I'm not sure if he's going to address this issue Matt Barron if it's okay I appreciate that to the chair um thanks for the summary I just since we're in on this topic um that comprehensive permit requirement was based on the conservation commission's recommendation to the zoning board so so that's why we're recommending not increasing the frequency of you know needing you know the trigger the thing that's going to trigger a corrective action so so that's all we just we just wanted to stick with your own recommendation and I hear you Chuck um about that we could do something else under the WPA but I think the WPA also has a two-year not a three-year monitoring period this is not about monitoring this is about checking to see if things need to be replaced during that monitoring period so we've agreed on a three-year but only to review that at the end of those three years so Matt I sounded like reluctant I mean did I hear you say like reluctantly we have to follow the comprehensive permit and maybe this is a good idea or am I trying to no I think that you're following the comprehensive permit because it is based on your recommendations to the zoning board is what we should do okay enough said on that let's move on to the next one comment nine refers to or deals with the planting plan the planting schedule there are there were a couple of cultivars that were proposed within the buffer zone we recommended that those cultivars be removed and that you know native plantings be proposed instead so BFC agreed and it looked like the plans that we saw still included some of those so I understand that those are being revised to address that so we appreciate that very much and then comments on comment or questions on comment nine okay and then our last comment comment 10 deals with no on the plans again that kind of goes back into the or refers back to the one of the earlier comments about snags and that we again recommended that the note be added that only snags opposed to hazard be removed and that you know any snags that do propose to be removed be approved by the commission and then obviously I agreed with that but we also noted that that the note on the plans doesn't as it's been revised but it didn't indicate that the commission would be we would approve those so those are be that that note is being revised as part of the next mission as well that's it any any questions on anything that we want to work thank you for running through those that was helpful any other comments from the conservation commission I guess just sorry to summarize so we are waiting for revised plans right and also chases review more thorough thorough review of the invasive management plan that was submitted sometime today yeah so that's what comment two and comment five seem to be follow-ups and invasive management and the other one is bsc is revising the plans that's what I wrote okay thanks just wanted to see why we were procedurally on that thanks okay any other comments from the commissioners I did want to make just one quick comment because I just was reading through the comprehensive permit quickly just because we were talking about that so the comprehensive permit does say that all mitigation plantings within resource areas shall be native non cultivar species just putting that out there which is a comment that swca made and then it does talk about that the the plantings and invasive species removal shall be monitored for three years the survival rate of 80 percent is in there survival rate of less than 80 percent after the end of the third year the applicant must submit proposed recommendations for replacement to the board that's zba for its review and administrative approval a monitoring report shall be submitted annually so we are getting annual monitoring reports on these restoration plantings that's already in comprehensive permit I-25 condition okay so I just wanted to clarify that thank you and those those those notes that you just read are also part of this plan so the contractor will be privy to that information right okay so at this point seems like I wanted to ask Matt Bern or anyone else from BSC if they would like to address the conservation commission Matt you already did a little bit but there might be more to say so please just introduce yourself for the record of course thanks so much Matt Bern I'm a professional wetland scientist and senior ecologist with BSC group I have with me my colleague Tom Groves who's a senior botanist with BSC and he's developed the invasive species management plan for the site so we're going to talk through that we thought we'd we thought we'd give a primer on on the approach that that we'd like to take understanding that this was delivered today and that you would not have had a chance to to look at it and expecting that Chase would be doing a peer review on that document before kind of getting at the seal of approval so we just wanted to sort of take a little bit of time to talk through that we had essentially approached putting together a quick presentation in the same way that we just went through so chase I appreciate your your work we received that comment letter this morning and we were able to get our landscape architect to make the changes to the to the plan that that were outstanding so that should be ready we just want to get it past the client make sure they don't see anything that we messed up so that will be on the desk shortly but Tom if he can share has has a handful of slides and this will be redundant so I will just blast through it because because we've talked about most of it but I'll start out with just a a handful of things run through those comments and just give any specific response so Matt before you get too much into this how much time do you do you think you're going to take with this presentation 10 minutes Tom is that reasonable yeah I can speed it up I can I can go through pretty quick okay 10 minutes thanks okay thank you so Tom if you'd go forward and like I say we'll just blast through these first couple just a reminder this the site and BLSF is the is outlined in blue the bvw is outlined in green the yellow is the BLSF floodplain impact areas go ahead and the restoration planting and compensatory storage areas are outlined in orange so so it's the restoration planting areas and and that were that we're talking about and that we're updating and one note I'll I'll make because I kept getting this confused our planting list is for the entire site so there are a handful of plants that are you know landscaping plants up amongst the buildings that were we're trying to push our landscape architects to get away from so we're we're getting very close to straight species from natives so we're working hard with them to get that all sorted out but that's something to be aware of not every plant listed in that table is in buffer zone or jurisdictional area or the restoration so go ahead and again real quick I won't even do anything here comment one resolved comment two is the ISMP the invasive species management plan we have submitted that today and expect that to get looked at three is resolved four is resolved five those are undergoing revision right now and and we'll we'll get you know we'll demonstrate that we're sort of meeting the the expectations of the the peer review comment six is resolved as chase said seven resolved eight is resolved nine we've removed all cultivars Tom has taken a look at the seed mixes and and gotten them to all native for the restoration plantings and the and the even the managed lawns the manicured lawns are all native plants so that's all been updated and then comment 10 what I think we'd like to do is is you know have an administrative approval process and just work with you on site to to make decisions the standing stock of snags will change between now and whenever this gets underway so so we don't want to put anything hard and fast we we want to work with the commission and your peer reviewer to just make decisions on what's there when the time comes okay go ahead so here the only plants we are proposing the only trees we are proposing in the restoration area or the or the compensatory flood storage areas are trees that were specifically identified in SWCA is comment number five so we've taken out everything that wasn't specifically identified as an acceptable tree species from that planting plan and then as I said the the the seed mixes that we're proposing are all are all verified native at this point so and and we will present those and Chase will have an opportunity to look those over and and verify that I think that's everything I had okay my name is Tom Groves I'm the senior botanist with BSC I'll just give you a quick background on what I've done in terms of ecological restoration over the past 10 years I've been with BSC for one year but prior to that I worked for a forestry company managing an invasive control unit for eight years across New England so I had licenses in Vermont Massachusetts in New Hampshire and I've worked for USDA Fish and Wildlife NRCS private landowners department of defense national wildlife refugees state departments and municipalities so I took a walk with Matt out on the site in February and this is a picture of the site here but there's 12 invasive species in total that I could identify at that time of year and when you look at a site you want to take into account those species because that's going to be really important in terms of how you plan your invasive species management plan and there's four different types of control you can think of cultural biological mechanical and chemical cultural I noticed you all have that paint your invasive plants pink sort of like thing in Arlington which was really cool to see because that's a cultural control you're teaching your citizens about invasive plants and the importance of getting rid of them which is great biological control is a little hard to implement most of the time because you're introducing a lot of the times you're introducing a non-native insect or additional pests to control a non-native plant so that has a lot of stickiness to it they can get out of control and so for the purposes of this management plan we're going to be talking about mechanical and chemical control and in one case we're going to be talking about them together so an overview of mechanical control this can encompass anything from mulching hand pulling smothering to brush saws and chain saws to manage vegetation and one thing to remember is it's always site specific so access is really important what those conditions are like you know if it's wet if it's dry there's a whole bunch of things that come into play with that some of the pros with a mechanical control treatment is you improve your access so this site in particular has a lot of vegetation around woody vegetation that makes access a little difficult so that could be an improvement in that situation for future control efforts there's no herbicide used and the best way to do mechanical control is during when your population is really small and the plants are young so you can pull them out of the ground and it's really easy to do that so it's a really effective way you can get 100 control with that method the cons of this mechanical control treatment most of the time are you increase disturbance which means more invasive plants will germinate in the soil access is very dependent you need to revisit that site over and over throughout the growing season to continue to cut those plants down it's not a long-term strategy of a treatment on its own most of the time it tends to be very expensive it's non-discriminate so any native plants that are there right now are going to get mulched or treated the same way as the invasives which isn't a great thing if you're trying to out-compete invasive plants with native plants which is another prong of that integrated pest management control method that we all use and when you cut plants it changes the hormone so you have the potential if you don't come back and treat those again you have the potential for more stems more flowers which means more seeds which in the end means more invasive plants so the additional thing in this case in particular would be that it would make supplemental planning is difficult to avoid so if we put plantings in there and then expected to do mechanical control over a long period of time it would be very difficult to do that chemical control tends to be inexpensive it's low impact low disturbance so there's no soil turn turnover you preserve your native plant populations because your invasive control with chemicals is very targeted you generally do one treatment a year it's 90 to 95 percent effective in that first year and subsequent years after that is also you can get it up to a high percentage rate like that it can be done in really difficult to access locations because it's just done with a person and healthy plants are easier to kill than damaged plants that would happen after mechanical control the cons are you have to have a license a really good knowledge of invasive native plant biology and there's a generally a negative public opinion about this some of the methods for chemical control are foliar the fun fun named one bloody glove backpacks hydro sprayer cut stump basil bark and stem injection so we generally think about herbicides roundup is the most common one that you buy off the shelf a tractor supply those are premixed with surfactants that aren't made for wetlands so in my ism p i i recommended using a wetland approved herbicide for a bunch of different reasons because it's mixed with a non ionic surfactant which means it's water soluble so it doesn't affect amphibians that may be living on the site and our bad ideas about roundup usually come from industrial farming where it's applied over and over repeatedly throughout a season there's poor soil quality there and eventually it runs off into your waterways the wetland approved glyphosate product is mixed with a non ionic surfactant there's no soil activity so native seeds continue to be able to germinate in future seasons the application method is really specific to those plants based on surface area which I'll talk about in a minute the LD 50 is very high which is good because you want a higher LD 50 which means it's less toxic and so there's a little inset there showing the LD 50 of glyphosate versus table salt and nicotine for example glyphosate has a 40 day half life which is very short in terms of herbicides it quickly binds to soil there's no percolation into the water table it's broken down readily by sunlight bacteria and fungi and the pathway that plants have humans don't have so plants create their own amino acids we get our amino acids from eating plants or animals that have eaten plants this is just this is public information you can go on to your Massachusetts website and get this this is actually from Vermont this just shows categories of licenses and the number of different herbicides pesticides fungicides that are sprayed per category so you can notice forestry has set in there golf courses have an insane list and then lawn care and ornamentals also have a large list there and this is just in terms of total pounds of active ingredient forestry very low which is the license that would be needed for a restoration project like this golf courses is up into the 45 000 pounds of active ingredient and lawn care is somewhere down in like the thousand range and the number of pesticides you can see here goes up with these similar to that table I showed you chemical application methods I break them down to three groups high volume moderate volume low volume and the applicable methods that they're applied with are described there so your maximum herbicide is a hundred percent concentration that would be not cutting your solution at all and that is in stem injection which is used for not weed a lot of the time but you go over your allowable rate per acre very quickly that way so a hydro sprayer or mist floors which is categorized as a high volume treatment you hit much more of the surface area of the plant and so you can use a much lower rate of herbicide at a one or two percent and so this is like the ounces per gallon based on application method and you can see that this ounce per gallon for one or two percent is 2.56 ounces to 128 ounces of water and as you go up into your and you reduce your surface area you have to have more a higher percentage of herbicide to kill the plant this is a basically the cut stump method in a nutshell there's no overspray you're just treating the living part of the cambium on the outside of the tree so this is all dead wood on the inside and it's applied with a buckthorn blaster which is very contained so low impact and this graph here just shows the relationship between surface area so when you do a high volume application you treat both sides of the leaves or the photosynthetic stems with a regular backpack application you're only hitting the top side of the the leaves and then with a stump treatment you're only treating the small part of the cambium so it's very little surface area so you have to have more herbicide inside that buckthorn blaster to actually kill that plant and your acres that you're able to cover over time are reduced because this is so time-intensive to cut all your stems and treat them that way so just quickly some past results this all used to be knotweed in here and it was treated with a high volume application a number of years ago the the landowner sold the house but it was mulched a couple seasons after I had treated it and then they receded it with grass and there's no knotweed in here at the moment so that's that's a success story the next one is this riparian area used to have knotweed all along in here and this was treated about six years ago and there's a few stems coming back but this was also done with a low volume backpack sprayer but long-term control of 90 percent or better in this riparian wet zone and the last one is field edges along a farm one of my clients one of my previous clients this all used to be glossy buckthorn we treated this with a high volume high volume foliar application and what you have coming back is swamp buster and jewelweed all native plants there's there's one buckthorn here coming back you can still see it so they're much smaller and easy to treat and the follow-up includes much less chemical the hybrid approach that I just want to touch on real quick is that for this site in particular because of the Japanese knotweed if mechanical control was something that was you know we wanted to look at the Japanese knotweed would need to be treated first because a mechanical control on your knotweed is going to spread it further because they do not spread via seed they spread by cuttings and rhizomes so if we were to go in there and do a mechanical treatment without actually treating the Japanese knotweed first we could potentially be making it worse and mechanical control is going to cause a lot of seed flushing because of the mulching that's going to happen and this can be a positive as long as there's a chemical control treatment planned afterwards if there isn't the invasive population in that area the number of invasive plants in there is going to exponentially increase and so chemical control post-mechanical treatment can actually reduce the amount of herbicide you use because all of your plants all your woody plants that come back that you're going to do a foliar treatment on are going to be the same height and you can do it in less time and use less herbicide to get it get it treated the timing of these this schedule which i'll show you next is very important um so if you change anything in the timetable you have to shift everything i'm just going to interrupt you for a second i don't know how many slides you have left but i'm assuming we're going to review this and you're going to give some part of this presentation at our next meeting also okay seems like you're being really thorough right now so yeah yeah i mean i'm interested time and i want to get to anybody that's been here so i don't want to get um too involved in this if you're going to give the same presentation at the next meeting so um there's like three slides left okay uh and the two of them are these tables which are in the ismp but it would be helpful for me just to describe how i set them up because they could be seen as complicated if you don't take a look at it first so these these yellow blocks are your um treatment months now if you this is the chemical control method um down here you'll see it changes to orange where this is considered season two of the treatment now that can be done at the end here so yellow is still your season one if it was done during november and december if you don't do that you have to wait until this time of year to do it and the same for the mechanical control option there's also another timetable here um and i've included you know multiple years of monitoring follow-up treatments um and some options for like creating wildlife piles and smothering with wood chips from these trees that would be cutting down on site like the norway maples and the um tree heaven yeah so um again i'm going to stay in the interest of time the commission hasn't reviewed this i'm going to ask the commission to hold off on their questions and allow me to go straight to comments and questions from anyone attending tonight's hearing can you take down the screen thank you uh uh is anyone here that attended tonight's meeting have a question uh and it would have to be sort of civically about um a third-party review on habitat uh habitat evaluation in the third part of review report and the reports that you've heard here tonight just go to the uh reactions button and use the range raise hand function oh seeing none i am going to turn back to the commission we got through that uh report we have a few minutes it's it's 10 minutes past uh seven minutes past 10 and if there's any questions this can come up now or again because we've had a couple of things that we need to review management the invasive management and there's a new plan coming in from bsc we'll be talking about this habitat valuation at our next meeting also susan chapnik has her hand up yeah thank you chuck just very briefly i really appreciate tom your your review um i will just point out um that this commission is very adverse to using herbicides and when we do approve them we tend to approve the very onerous methods of um bloody glove and stump and things like that and we're we're very hesitant to approve foliar applications at least we haven't near um our larger aquatic resources like spy pond and the reservoir um that said we've looked also looked for substitutes for glyphosate i know you've had several listed there so i just want to throw that out because we're not going to discuss this now we didn't get to read your whole plan yet but these are considerations so for next time for continuation that we'll probably have more in-depth questions or concerns about sure thank you any other questions comments emotions from the conservation commission and um we're going to do a motion i'd like to hear from the applicant that they're giving us permission to continue this to the next meeting that would be i i would make a motion but we'd like to get the applicants consent we anticipated that you would need to continue to review all that material thank you yes i'll make a motion to continue this hearing to our march 21st meeting in a second second okay um susan chapnick yes david why sorry david why he's not uh recused himself david taplin yes mike gildes game yes nathaniel sievens yes chuck taroni says yes oh brian mcbride i don't know brian are you there i don't think he's on any longer i'm assuming the participant okay we have enough for a quorum um this has been continued to uh march 21st and uh i appreciate that and you know our submittal deadline for supplemental material uh we have for the distribution for the conservation commission would be in effect for this next uh packet with the plans and the updated management plan it's the 13th 13th at noon yeah noon yeah okay and with that um from the commission can i uh we're done with our agenda just to uh go over that again and could i get a motion to uh adjourn move to adjourn second susan chapnick yes i don't think david white joined back in so uh david kaplan um just just wrote a guide to step out for a second did we already vote to continue 88 um foolish yeah we did we did all right so i missed that yes not big deal i sure for it okay vote to adjourn so david kaplan yes uh mike gildes game yes nathaniel sievens yes chuck taroni says yes okay thank you everyone that attended tonight thank you for the commission thanks very much we'll see you all get you honey in there good night good night everyone