 ACMI productions are only made possible with your support. Visit patreon.com slash ACMI to learn how you can help. Good evening, everyone. My name is Ryan Klopp, Arlington's Conservation Administrator. The March 21st, 2024 meeting of the Arlington Conservation Commission will be conducted a remote format consistent with Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2023, which extended remote participation in public meetings until 321-2025. Please note that this meeting is being recorded. All meeting materials can be found at the link I'm putting in the chat right now. Chuck Theroni is our Conservation Commission chair and will facilitate tonight's meeting. Please note that there will be a public comment period for each hearing and each vote taken during this meeting will be conducted via a roll call vote and we will begin with a roll call vote of attendance. Chuck, are you there? I have so many people on my screen, I can't see. Sure, I'm right here. Okay, great. So I'm really happy we started on time tonight because traffic. So, Mike Gildes game. Yes. Nathaniel Stevens. Yes. David White. Yes. David Kaplan. Brian McBride. Yes. Associate member Chuck Theroni is here. And Associate member Sarah Alferro Franco. Present. And Aileen Coleman. I'm here. Great, so everyone. And Chuck, you forgot me. Susan Chapnick. Oh, and Susan Chapnick. Sorry, Susan. That's okay. Not a problem. Okay. And I'll go over the agenda real quickly. So tonight's for tonight's meeting, we're going to review the minutes and then correspondence. And then we'll talk about requests from the friends of Spipon Park for some reimbursements, requests for a certificate of compliance, 19 Sheridan Park, a lot of bodies working group. We'll give an update, an update from the tree committee and the out of first fir committee. Our hearings tonight will be requests for determination, 36 PBD, notice of intent for two reservoir, requests for determination of applicability for, this is a continuation for 459 Mystic Street. And then we'll go to Thorndyke Place. And then anyone here that's come for the amended order of conditions for idiot coolage will continue this later on in the meeting. But I just want to let you know that it will be continued to April 4th when we get to that point in the meeting. Okay. And with that, we could start reviewing the minutes. Those available, Ryan. No, I didn't have those uploaded in time. So we'll have a couple of sets for next time. Sure. If we could defer that, because I didn't have a chance to repeat the minutes either. Thanks. Sounds great. Okay. So next on the list is correspondence and all the correspondence, which does not include correspondence that we received from Thorndyke Place. I'll actually mention that and within the meeting for Thorndyke Place. But so all correspondence available is available to the public for a full list. You need to contact the conservation agent at our website. And Ryan will provide that in the chat right now. So with that, we want to go to our first item on the agenda. And that's a request. It's just a request from friends of Spipon Park for reimbursement from the Conservation Commission Land Stewardship Fund. The Conservation Commission votes on reimbursement and the Land Stewards Fund pays for the funds for plants, compost, and mulch. The vote, as I see it from the email that I received and people correct me if I got this wrong, the total is $591 and it would be separated into two votes. The first vote is to approve the reimbursement for the reimbursement of $450.59 for Adrian Landry. And then the second vote would be for the friends of Spipon Park for $140.41. Is anyone here to speak to that tonight? Or should we just continue with the vote? OK. Do I see a hand? Any hands there, Ryan? No, I don't see either. OK. So let's go with the first vote. Do I have a motion to vote a total of $450.59? So moved. I'll second it. And that would be for Adrian Landry. And then the second vote would be a reimbursement for Spipon, the friends of Spipon Park. And that's $140.41. No vote for that. I'll move. Oh, wait a minute. I think there were first check. Hold on, I'm sorry. You have to vote first. Don't you have to vote before you make it? Yeah, I think I jumped a little bit here. So let's go back to the first vote. So I got a motion from Nathaniel. Nathaniel's meeting. Yeah. And who seconded it? I believe this is for the... Yeah. OK. Could you tell me which one this is? This is the $450.59 for what? It's for Spipon Park. No, I know. So as I read it, it's for Adrian Landry. And what did she purchase? That she purchased plants, compost, and mulch. Thank you. Oh, yes, OK. So she says it's a little confusing because she's on friends of Spipon Park. She was talking about friends of Spipon Park, right. So she purchased $450.59, as Chuck said. She wants to be reversed for that. And then friends wants to be reversed for $140.41. Right. So I moved for Adrian Landry for $450.59. I'll second that one. I second. OK, let's go through the vote. Mike Gildes game. Yes. Susan Chapnick. Yes. Brian McBride. Yes. David White. Yes. Nathaniel Stevens. Yes. And Chuck Taroni says yes. OK, moving on to the next vote. And this is for the friends of Spipon Park for the total amount of $140.41. Can I get a motion on that? And this is for what materials? So the materials wasn't separated, but there was a comment about they were reimbursed. So it had to do, it's the same amount. It was for shrubs, but they had quicker access to where they were because the plant supplies were not available. So they jumped in and spent the money and would like to get reimbursed. I'll move. The second? I'll second that. And this is for $140, yep. 140.41. And let's go down the rest. Mike Gildes game. Yes. Susan Chapnick. Yes. Brian McBride. Yes. Nathaniel Stevens. And David White. Yes. And Chuck Taroni says yes. Okay, that's taken care of. So Chuck, just as a point of process, Ryan and or David need to forward this vote and the material to the Arlington Land Trust so that they can release the funds for this. Well, they might have to vote on it too, I don't know, but we're supposed to vote and then tell them we did. And so the treasury. Yeah. All right, Ryan, I guess you heard that. So that's the process, yeah. Okay, so if we're done with that, the next thing on the agenda under discussions is a request for a certificate of compliance for 19 Sheridan Park. Ryan, I think you conducted a site visit on March 15th. Can you update the commission on your site visit? Yes, so I did a site visit last Friday, so that was March 15th. It was informed that the project was for the installation of two dry wells in the rear of 19 Sheridan Park, which I observed and I did take several photos which were uploaded with the meeting materials. However, when I got back to the office, I noted that the plan that was attached, the original plan included a planting plan and then there was some discussion about an addition. David Morgan informed me that those items were pulled back and were withdrawn from the application and that there might have been a request for determination of applicability that was filed after the fact. I didn't see any documentation for that. We do have the homeowner here as well who might be able to provide some insight as well. Okay, thank you, Ryan. Who's here for Sheridan Park, 19 Sheridan Park? Yeah, hi, I'm here. My name is Nurgis Mavlvala. Hi, Margaret. Hi, good to see you all again. So yes, I think Ryan has it mostly correctly. We came in front of the commission last year with a planting plan in addition to doing the dry wells, we wanted to get the dry wells done first before we did anything else. At the time you were concerned about a patio we had in the drawings that Melissa McDonald had drawn up for us. So we withdrew everything but completing the dry wells which we needed to do just to complete the construction project. So those have been done now and that this was for just that, installing two dry wells and we provided the as-built to complete the project. Okay, thank you for that information. Is I think I'm gonna, at this point, open it up to the Conservation Commission and I see that Susan Chapnick's hands up. Susan. Thanks, Chuck. I guess my question is, were there two permits or hearings? Was there one for the dry wells and one for the planting, et cetera? Or was there just one? So what happened was last time we had come, we had come with a comprehensive plan that included installing the dry wells, a patio and some plantings. And at your recommendation, at the recommendation of the commission, there were concerns about the patio. So we withdrew the patio and the plantings and that's what you asked us to do. And we continued only with the dry wells, which is what we've done. And at the time, I think we worked with Dave Morgan and we were told that all we needed to do was the dry wells and the certificate of compliance, sorry, the as-built to get our certificate of compliance. So that's what we are here for today. Okay, so why, I guess my misunderstanding then is it looks like there's an order of conditions from 2011, but you're saying you were here last year which is 2023. Yes, correct, you're right. So let me step back a little. So in 2011, we built, we did a big renovation and built some parts of the house. And it's part of that we had an order of conditions which was never closed out. And part of that was, so we came back last year to say we wanna close that out, but here's all the additional things we wanna do. And that's when you advise us not to separate out those two things, to complete the order of conditions which was the dry wells and the as-built, and then to deal with the plantings and the other things we wanna do at a later date which we have done. Okay, so I think there's some confusion because the conservation commission process would not have allowed you to not complete things on the order of conditions, specifically without some kind of a change or addendum. So I don't know if that we need to review this with David Morgan again in our files, but I am uncomfortable because the original order of conditions does have plantings required, which were not done. And it sounds like then there was another process where these dry wells which may have been RDA, a separate RDA, I'm not sure. So I'm confused. Maybe Nathaniel has something to say. I am too, there was no plantings in the original, this was just part of our construction project. Nathaniel. Thanks, I just wanted to echo Susan's sentiments that I think we need to do some more research on this. I'm not comfortable with signing up on this. I think there's a number of questions that have been raised already. I also have a question about Ryan's note saying the deck in the rear of the house has been expanded upon and it's just not clear if he's saying that that's within the buffer zone and that's not permitted. Yeah, so it's larger than what is on the plan that was a roof that we had that was uploaded with the agenda materials. Let me see here. So that was, so that could have been permitted maybe under the prior. Right. Although this actually, sorry, this DP final number 230 is the from 2011. So yeah, I think we have a bit more work to do on this before sorting out what's what before I'm comfortable voting on it. Otherwise I vote for a non-compliance. So David Morgan's email, and unfortunately he's out sick today did say that there was an RDA for the dry wells and that's all that we were looking at but an RDA does not require a certificate of compliance. And then we still don't have a certificate of compliance then for the original permit, right, from 2011, so. I think that's behind it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. Yeah, I would say we should continue this and work straight in this out. So it seems like we're at a disadvantage that our conservation agents not here tonight and David Morgan, it didn't plan to be away but that like Susan Chapnick said, he got sick and he won't be attending tonight's meeting. Would you like to add anything else in there, just? I would like to add something. So could you just state your name and address for the record? Yeah, I ate a con, I ate a con. So when we built the house, what we had left to get the order of conditions completed was the dry wells and the as built. And David advised us, I don't remember all your acronyms, et cetera, but David advised us to do something simpler than that original plan with Melissa McDonald's landscaping plan. And so he said, so we, when we went in front of you a year and a half ago or a year ago, the under, what was agreed was that we would put in the dry wells and do the as built and then complete the project. And so we resubmitted the order of conditions filing fee since it had lapsed. And David said, that was what we needed to do and we needed to just do the dry wells and the as built to get the certificate of compliance to close out that original construction back in 2013, was it? 2011, something like that. And so that was what the commissions told us to do when we went in front of you a year ago. So I'm just confused about why there's more involved here. Yeah, yeah, I'm not sure that we have the full story. You're confused too. That's why we'd like to sort it out because David, Oregon's not here. Ryan's memo raises a concern about that there's an expanded deck but maybe that's referring to a plan he did not have the benefit of having. No, there's no expanded deck. The deck is from the original drawings that you had back when we applied to do this whole project. Yeah, I'm looking at the plans right now and I'm realizing that I put that in a mistake. I was looking at the wrong deck I was looking at. I got mixed up when I was looking at it. There's no issue with that deck that I'm seeing. So I'll revise that memo. Yeah. We've kind of followed pretty much exactly what you've asked us to do. So this comes as a real surprise. We understand. We're just, again, we have the disadvantage as Chuck explained that David Morgan's not here to straighten us out. We, Ryan made a mistake on the memo. So I think all we're asking is if you can come back to the next meeting and we should be able to straighten this out. We're not denying anything or we're holding anything. And David, just clear it up with you and then you just, we have two young kids. It's very hard for us to be needing this. So is there a way? I'm sorry, David's not here is we're saying so. No, no, I understand. I'm just asking when I have had conversation with David in the last like week or so and he said, this is a very simple matter. You've done what's, you know, was asked and he thought this was going to take like 10 minutes. So can you talk to him and then just do we have to really hear what he's trying to do? We'll speak with him and yeah, we'll speak with him and discuss this further at the next meeting. That's what you're not required to attend but you're certainly welcome to attend. Okay. Yeah, I think it would be helpful. Yeah, David can reach out in the meantime if he has any questions. Okay, sounds good. Thanks. You're here to get a sign off for something that you might not even need to sign off on. So that's why. It sounds like what? I missed that. No, no, I think they have an open order of conditions. Yeah, I think that that needs to be closed out. So let me just recap and I apologize that we're not hired. Certain staff takes care of certain projects and there just wasn't enough time for Ryan to get up to date on this project when David had so much of the past information. So I think what I would suggest is to have David, you know, talk to me and the vice chair and since Susan had a lot of the questions and then if another site visit is needed, you know, I could attend with David and possibly Susan and the rest of the commission but given that we wouldn't be able to proceed tonight. So we'd like to just continue this matter to April 4th and it's possible that you don't need to attend but there's always something that, you know, could come up that you could solve quickly if you were available for the meeting. We'll put you as close to the beginning at seven o'clock as we possibly can if that helps. Okay, sounds good. Okay, all right. Do you see that Mike Gildes game has his hand up? Oh, I didn't see that. Sorry, Mike. Yeah, just a quick question on the planting plan. I don't know if that's part of the order of conditions or if that's... No, it is not. That's not. No, we withdrew that whole thing and that's dead. So that's the problem. We don't have that paperwork because it's still in there. That's why... That's from David's side, I believe. Okay, so we'll get this straightened out. We'll get it straightened out. Okay, great. All right, thank you. Thank you. And with that, could I get a motion? I'll make a motion to continue. Oh, sorry, Nathaniel. No, I'll second Susan's motion to continue to the next meeting. Great, so we'll have a motion and a second for continuing this discussion to the next meeting, which is April 4th. Mike, kill this game. Yes. Susan Chapnick. Yes. Let me just... Brian McBride. Yes. Nathaniel Stevens. Yes. David White. Yes. And Chuck Tarani says yes. So I think I got everyone. And just to make a note, I'd like to... I know that David Kaplan is going to come into the meeting as soon as he's finished up and at his own meeting. And if someone could just announce that, I would like that to be very clear for these proceedings. So moving forward, we have Water Bodies Working Group and David White. He's going to unmute and give us an update. David, please take over. Okay, four items. The spy pond contract has been completed and they're starting work on their project. The RES, Water Justice Control, will take place on the weeks of June 10th and June 17th for two weeks. Presenting the budget at the FinCon meeting on Monday, it seemed to go well, but I have no word yet on the decision. Increased the budget quite a bit from last year. 120,000 this year compared to like 70,000, 50,000 last year. So it's a big increase. So we'll see what happens. And also these Water Bodies Working Group has agreed that the flooding wetlands and hills pond are not needed anymore because they're not viable into the current circumstances. And you made a recommendation to remove those? Yes. Okay. How many are there? Two. I think there were three and one of them they're keeping because they want to move it over in a different section of the pond for another function. And I forgot what that was, David, that they mentioned. They mentioned it in a meeting. But the problem is that when the pond is treated with diquat all the vegetation goes away that was mentioned on there. So it's really, we didn't think about that because we didn't think about chemical treatments when we put that in there. So it wasn't quite, it's not viable. What they're gonna try to do is pull them close to shore and have them removed by water and wetland when water and wetland who is their vendor comes and does their aquatic management and see if we can repurpose them somewhere else if we so choose. So that's something for the water bodies working group to think about. I think they're keeping one for the ducks and turtles maybe. Oh, that's right. Okay. For the turtles, I was gonna say the turtles like to sun on. Yes. Anything else, David? That's missing the news. Okay. Don't see any hands raised by the commission. We can move on to our next update which would be from the tree committee and it's Sarah Alferro Franco. And do you have an update for us, Sarah? Yes. During the last meeting, the committee revisited roles and responsibilities. They voted in a new chair and co-chair. They also welcome two new members to the committee. They mentioned that spring planting is scheduled a month and a half early because of the weather and the plan is for 150 trees to be planted. They also mentioned an effort to continue the community canopy program. Last year, it involved 64 trees and this year they're gonna be trying to target residents along the areas of heat islands. They try to see if they can help that situation. The next meeting is scheduled for April 10th. Oh, thank you, Sarah. That's nice, 150 trees. Big project. Okay. Moving on. Chuck, David, as a question, David. Oh, sorry. That's okay. I'm just gonna help you because there's a lot of people on. You probably don't see all the hands. No, I just didn't look up. Go ahead. You said a month and a half earlier? Yes. Yes, because of the weather. Is it the same in the future? Is that gonna be ongoing schedule? I don't know. It was not mentioned. Just seems like big change. Big change. Big change, yeah. Yep. Okay. Not hearing anything from Susan. I'm gonna move on to the artificial turf study committee update from Mike Gillis game. And I was just wondering because it was mentioned that we don't have the time and day for the next meeting. So if you know that, can you make that part of your report? Yes, I'd be glad to. Thank you, Chuck. The artificial turf study committee is winding down. We have three more meetings in the succeeding Tuesdays starting next Tuesday and the following two Tuesdays starting at five o'clock online as usual. And I'm glad to report that I think the committee has nicely come together and has, I know that the chair and the clerk of the committee are working to integrate the reports and information that was provided by each of the subgroups on public health safety and environmental issues. And so we're looking forward to receiving that and hope to wrap up, you know, in three weeks. So then the town will deal with the results of the committee and decide what to do from there. Okay. I see a couple of hands up. And first I saw Brian McBride. Once Mike is done, I just wanted to give a quick sentence on this PPA update. That's all. Okay. Let's go to Susan Schaffnick then. Hi, I just want to say, Mike, I think that the committee decided not to meet next Tuesday and make it either Wednesday or Thursday, but it hasn't been set yet because there was a conflict. So I just want to tell everybody, the best, if you want to join the zoo meeting, just go on the website, the artificial turf study committee has their own page under Arlington. And you can see, and they put the minutes up and the minutes are very well done. The other, if anybody's interested in understanding what the committee, you know, where the committee is going, you could look at their draft reports. There are some draft reports up from the subcommittees, which are going to probably be, there's going to be an overall comprehensive report for next week's meeting, but there are draft reports from each subcommittee up there now for the public. Yeah, just to follow up, Susan, thank you. The final turf committee is going to be on the 9th of April and the April 2nd meeting is going to be also held and I don't have the, I know the next one is, as you said, not Tuesday as usual, but that should be on the website. Okay, seeing no hands, we're going to get a CPA update, Community Preservation Act update from Brian McBride. Thanks, Chuck. So just quickly, the CPA did pass their proposed budget several weeks ago, I guess now, and they were able to fund almost all of the requests for funding. They did postpone the tennis court project done, I think it's the Gibbs school area, underneath Arlington, but did fund a study of that project. And if it's successful, they would come in and fund the rest of it next year, but by and large, all the requests were met. So that was now circulating, I believe to the finance committee and the select board and so forth, and there'll be a vote on the town meeting. There'll be the next big step for the CPA. So if the town meeting passes that, then the funding process will continue. And then the only other update is from last year, there's still leftover work on Hills Hill that was funded last year, but with some conditions, the working group has completed its group on the Hills Hill mountain bike project. There'll be a public input meeting next Tuesday at 6 p.m. where that proposal will be presented to the public for public input. And if that passes, public muster will go to the PRC committee and then on to the CPA if necessary for final approval. So that's the latest on CPA. All right, Brian, I don't see any hands. So I'm gonna move on to the next thing. So number three on our agenda is the hearings. And the first hearing tonight is a request for determination of applicability for 36 Peabody Road and Susan Chapnick, the vice chair of the conservation commission will lead the commission through this application. Susan. Thank you, Chuck. This is a request for determination of applicability at 36 Peabody Road to consider an addition to the existing structure at this address along with landscaping and hard scaping activities within the 100 foot buffer zone and adjacent upland resource area to spy pond. On the left, just briefly on the left hand side is what is at the property right now. And the right hand side is the proposal for our consideration. And I wonder if there is the applicant here to present the project? Okay, Liza, thank you very much. This is my husband, Ian, we're here together. Okay. So Eliza Hatch and Ian? Ian Jessen. Jessen, okay. And for 36 Peabody Road, thank you. So we had an NOI back with you guys in 2017, 18. 2018, it just closed. So all of the work you see on the left was done under that, none of those walls were there. And so at this point, we are hoping to put a small addition on our house to add a guest room and a primary bathroom. And in order to do that, the distance between the staircase we have and the proposed addition is quite small. So we wanted to give ourselves a little more space. In addition, when we did the initial construction of the walls and the stairs, we did everything, we had everything done with no machinery per our conditions, which on such a steep hill was quite a feat. And we tried very hard to keep everything freestanding. Unfortunately the staircase on the side that we're trying to adjust, the materials that we used for the freestanding wall just aren't quite up to the task of holding up the hill, which is incredibly steep in that area. So we're still getting a lot of erosion in that area. The plants we've put in, that's the only area we've had trouble with plants everywhere else we keep adding and adding and adding plants. So the hope is that we're able to shift the staircase a little bit to give us some more space, change the materials to make sure it's structurally sound so it isn't pushed over by erosion as the current stairs have been, and also add a small section of retaining while just to give us another planting area and stabilize the hillside a little bit in hopes that it can retain plants and stop running dirt all the way down to the pond. Did you have anything to add? The only thing I'd add to that is when we talk about the materials that were used throughout when all these new retaining walls went in a few years ago, I don't actually know what the materials are called, but they're effectively like Lego bricks, right? They go down on top of each other and there's a geo grid that gets sandwiched between the layers and extends back into the hill to stabilize it. Everywhere that that was done has been really very stable and is doing its job. The one wall that edges these stairs, because it edges the stairs, there's no room for that geo grid to get into any soil behind them, and that's the area that the wall is starting to lean over. So it was just the wrong material to use in that particular portion of this wall. So what we're planning to doing in that little strip, which is the outside of the curved wall, is to do that area in like a mortared fieldstone, something that will be stable. And then the rest of the material is as it was when it was installed with the NOI. Which, and if you see the top of the screen with the staircase that says down at the very top of the picture, that was also done with mortar in the initial NOI because of the same problem and we just didn't... We should have done it. We should have done it in both places and we didn't. So I think that's... Are there any questions that we can answer? Obviously not super. Yeah, I have a few questions and then I'm sure there might be commissioners that have questions. And I'm sorry again that our agent that had dealt with you, David Morgan is out sick tonight. So I'm quite a little bit of a disadvantage. So you got an order of conditions for the prior work. And did you get a certificate of compliance for that? Do you know? And what was that? November? Very brief. Past year? I believe so. Okay. So it was either November of 23 or November of 22. It was probably, I'll look it up. I believe it was November of 22. I don't think it was. Okay. Well, that's something we should have, but that's something that the commission would want to see because they'd want to know, okay, that work was done and the certificate was done and we should have that in our files. And this is then new work that you're asking about. So I guess my concern here is the redirection of those retaining walls further into the resource area. So I guess I'd like to understand the justification for that one on the bottom. So yeah. Yeah, so the one on the bottom is that is the steepest part of our property. And that is the only part of the property that's continuing to erode. So David actually came out and saw it with me last end of last summer. And so the rest of the walls are on less steep areas and they're holding up the property had been eroding for many years before we bought it. And that particular area because we didn't extend that sort of the wall below the proposed wall, that area, the soil's just running off and it's not stabilized and it is the steepest area. And so that was sort of the best way we thought that we could stabilize it in a way that also fit with the existing walls and the visuals and we can put a new tree there. We just wanted to stabilize it in a way that would prevent more erosion. We've tried a number of different plants over three seasons and they didn't take. And so that's purely to try to stabilize the hillside because that's the only part that's still unstable. And I'll add to that. When we say it is the steepest part of the property, it's the steepest part now, right? The rest of it was terraced by this big project. That area wasn't terraced. And obviously it shows with the fact that we can't get anything to grow there. And so the addition of those walls further into the resource area is really meant to address and further stabilize. Okay, then I have another question. The relocated tree, was that one of the mitigation trees from the original project? No, that was an original tree that was there. No, it's an additional one. We added it. But it wasn't part of the 2021. It was not part of the initial plans in the initial tree planting plans from 2020 or 2021. We added an additional tree after getting permits. After getting the order of conditions. After getting the certificate of compliance or whatever. In between the two. When we were still open and I was still reporting plants to David every year. And was that to replace something that? No. No, it was just separate. The reason I'm asking is because you're proposing to relocate it outside of our jurisdictional area. And if it was a mitigation planting, we would want it. Within our jurisdiction. It was not a mitigation planting. Okay. And then my final question is it looks like your new wall that you're proposing might be in a right of way or an easement? So it does go slightly over the easement. One of the walls we did put in in the last round was also over the easement. We are aware of the consequences should the town have to do construction on that. But it does seem the best way to accommodate everything that we're looking at. And the town's okay with that? You've already. So we've reached out to engineering. David suggested that we did. And so I did as soon as David, we haven't received any response. I don't know that a null response means, you know, tacit approval in this case or not. But Danielizes said, right, there is already hard escaping that traverses that sewer easement. Right, but it looks like it's much less. You know, if I'm looking at the left-hand side, which is what's there now. Well, so what I would say is this, there's one wall that transacts, an existing wall that transacts the entire easement. We would be adding another one or I guess two lengths of wall that transacts that easement. All of which would be in a relatively close proximity. I can't tell the scale, maybe about 10 feet. And so if there were a reason why the town needed to, let's say dig up that sewer line, which would be tremendously difficult, but if that were to happen, I would argue that the proposal doesn't result in any more significant of disturbance during that process. If that makes sense, because there would already be wall that would have to be pulled up and just be sort of in addition to it. And I don't know if there's an argument to be made that like having the site be more stable in that area would be a helper or a hindrance. Again, if that entire sewer line need to be dug up. And then my final comment, and I'll go to the commission, you're proposing to remove two trees and then add four trees. Based on our current regulations, because the size of the trees you're removing are greater than 10 inch in diameter, you actually have, I mean, unless the commission says otherwise, and we can talk about that as a commission, it's four trees per tree. Oh, I- Those are the size they are. Is that new? Cause I went back and found the- Did you check our regulations online, which are five- I thought I did. I may have used the older ones. Yeah, the older ones may have been different. So we updated our regulations in March of 2023, and they are on the website. And there's a little table there. Now, sometimes the commission, if we feel that's too many trees for the site and we can't, we will make different decisions, shrubs and trees or whatever. But I'm just saying it's not consistent with our current regulations. I'm sorry, I must have used the older ones from our last- That's okay. That's okay. I would request that the commission consider allowing us to use fewer than four trees per tree. I'm happy to have some of you come look at the property, but the ones that we put in in 2020 have gotten huge and they look great. They're doing super well, but in terms of where all the walls are, there's not a lot of other good areas to put them. We're obviously putting in more shrubs and we've put in trees. We continue to try to add them where we can, but I'm not sure we could accommodate eight. Yeah, so I think, and just one note, the trees that are coming out are both invasives. One's a Norway maple, one's a sick more maple. The Norway maple has already failed at the base of its trunk. So it's coming down whether or not we do it or- Or it doesn't. Or it doesn't. And the whole idea of having this additional stabilization is to provide more area for shrubs and bushes to be successful. So I'm very happy that we would work with David or whomever on the commission to figure out the appropriate planting to replace those two invasives. I know one of our neighbors is on the phone too and he can certainly attest to- He's on the other side of those trees. How quickly they're growing. Okay, thank you. I'm going to go to the commission. Are there commissioners who would like to make a comment or ask a question with a Sardier? Tell me if I'm missing anybody. I see Nathaniel, you have your hand up. Thanks. I was just going to say in terms of the tree replacement, we do sometimes consider shrubs instead. So I think going that direction, I'm comfortable with that. In terms of the easement issue, I don't think that's really something we are to be concerned about. And I guess I would also add that if the 10 was going to come in and dig up that line, they'd be filing a notice of intent, probably, to do that work. So we would deal with that at that time, anyways, but I'm just, yeah, I think overall I'm, I guess this is as follows in RDA and I guess first tried to get David's approval and then he bumped it up to us. I just wondered, is it, I'm curious as to what the other commission members think, if we can handle this with a determination or if we want a full NOI on this? Yeah, I'm glad you brought that up. I'd like, I'm on the fence too, because it's a lot of building. It's further in to our resource area. Generally those are not what we choose to permit as RDAs. But I'm open, I'm on the fence too. Brian, oh wait, Chuck. I think Chuck was first and then Brian. Okay, thanks, Susan. So I was just wondering if you knew how close, and this is to one of the applicants, how close the proposed work is to spypont? So I don't see a measurement there. Yeah, so the 100, oh boy, we're moving. The 100 foot is that dashed orange line? Yeah, so I know where that is, but I'm talking about that retaining wall that you're proposing that to me looks like it's creating some sort of like, I don't know, viewing area next to the stairs. Yeah, so I would- That seems to be the closest point. Sure, and I would estimate just based on the drawings and based on having been out there that it's maybe 30 feet down from the 100 foot, so 70 feet from the pond. That's 70 feet, okay. Those retaining walls, are you proposing to do the same type of work? Are these going to be footing, rebar, port in place, something more substantial with equipment? Probably not with equipment because I don't think we can get equipment there. I don't think it's possible. I think that all of the walls would be the same freestanding material with the exception of the outside of the staircase, the part of the most bottom part of that proposed staircase because that's freestanding. And so that I think we would need to do stone and mortar. So yeah, just to clarify, we would use the same material that has been used for the rest of the retaining walls, which is the blocks with adhesive and geogrid, with the exception of what I call the outside, which in this diagram is the bottom most wall that lines the steps, and that would be field stone and mortar. Which matches the other staircase we put in under our past NOI on the other side of the property. Okay, so I also had some concerns about working in the easement without permission. I appreciate that you did reach out, but I'm not so happy that they didn't respond. I do expect you to get the same answer, but I think it's important to at least let the engineering department know. So I know that in the town I work for, you do have to get permission. And maybe that's where we adopted it from, but that's one of the requirements. So I'm not sure if that matters. And then I wasn't on the site visit. If there's an opportunity to go out there, I think that would be something that I would be involved in going out for a site visit. I'd like to see how it looks and how it reacts to the property would be good to know and help me a little bit. That's all I had, Susan. You're welcome anytime. Thanks, I'm gonna go back to Brian and then Nathaniel has his hand up again. Brian? Yes, this may be obvious, but I guess we have some discomfort about working close to the resource area, but on the flip side, the countervailing thought is there's erosion happening now, which may worsen if this isn't addressed. I don't know if there's an obvious alternative solution that doesn't involve working in this zone, but I'm just trying to state, is this sort of the balance that we're looking at that we need to stop this erosion or that will have a harmful effect on the water versus building in a zone that we prefer not to and trying to balance those two out. Thank you, Brian. That's a good point. Nathaniel? Thanks. I just wanted to come back to this easement issue since Chuck brought it up again. Again, I don't think, I mean, it's nice that we're asking them that we're suggesting to the applicant that they check with engineering, but again, we're not concerned with whether or not they have the right to do that. That's a property rights issue, which is not our concern. And in case people are still worried about that, our order of conditions form standard conditions says the order does not grant any property rights or any exclusive privileges. It does not authorize any injury to private property evasion of private rights or the property rights. So in other words, we leave, that essentially says we leave to the town who owns the easement and the property owners to work out that property rights issue. Thank you for that clarification. Thank you. Thanks. Anybody else from the commission? Have a comment? Mike? Yeah, just a quick note. I would also agree that a site visit would be in order here just to get a better sense of what's out there and what might be out there. Just endorsing that idea. And I wonder if a site visit would help us decide if this is an RDA or an NOI as well, because it may be hard to decide that when we don't put feet on the ground. I know that helped me personally on another project we're talking about today for 59 Mystic, which I thought might have been an NOI and it's an RDA. So... And I just to comment, I were happy to have any of you out anytime for a site visit. Okay. I would just suggest that since we just had a full NOI and we just closed it with basically very similar works, I would hope that the commission would consider the RDA as we've done a lot to this property that I think David was really happy with when he saw it. And I know Emily was happy with it, so I would hope that the commission would consider that. Great. And if David was here tonight, maybe that would assuage my uncertainty, but yeah, because I haven't been on site myself and the rest of the commission has not. So would you be willing to have a continuation so that several members of the commission could have a site visit? And then we would continue this till April 4th. So yes, and what we would love to request is the approval just for the corner of the addition that's in the resource area because we're submitting to ZBA on April 1st to go in front of them April 30th. So I wanna make sure that that tiny little corner is okay with you guys before we move forward with ZBA and we'd really like to do that in April. And that's the second story addition. Is that what you're talking about? Yeah, correct. It's a two-story addition. Two-story addition and how many square feet was that? Can you remind us? It's the total's like 821, I think, which is why we're going to ZBA. And so I can't remember how many feet of it is in the 100 foot, but it's very small. Yeah, it's drawn out to 92 feet away from the resource area. So just that little corner. So we're completely okay with the continuation for the walls and the stairs, impending a site visit, but we would like to move forward with ZBA, but it's filing by April 1st, if that's possible. Can I just ask, is that addition, I assume you're having a foundation for that? Yes. Or is it on tubes or on... No, it's a, yeah, it's gonna be a, I believe it's a port foundation. Okay, so they'll be digging out dirt. They'll be digging it out and things. Okay, I'm not seeing any erosion control, sedimentation control, you know, fencing or something. Yeah, we're gonna put in the same, we had the barriers before from our NOI, the sort of big tubes. The tubes. Yeah, we'll put that into, because we're taking out the old bricks. You see those purple Xs, those are all bricks and that's just outside of the 100 foot. So we're taking those out. So we're gonna put erosion control in. We have a lot of interest in not having dirt run down the hill. So we're definitely gonna... Right, right, right, of your walls. Yeah, we don't want to end up on as much as you don't either or so, but should this be on the plan? So procedurally... We need to put temporary controls onto the plan. Yeah, we like to keep erosion controls or even, you know, just a little narrative about it. Right, well, so just for everyone's sake, Ken, can you help me understand is it most valuable to you to have the erosion control at the bottom of the hill prior, like right at the bottom, which is where we had it before, blocking anything from getting into the pond or at the top of the walls to block any potential runoff from even getting into that 100 foot zone? Well, I think that... So if you asked us to approve just the two-story addition, you would move it up to just in front of that work. But if we approve the whole project, you're right. I mean, you usually put the erosion control so far away from where the work is, like 20 feet. So I don't know if it would be at the bottom, but that may be the best spot for it. But we could figure that out on the site visit if needed. So anyway... Yes, we do plan on erosion controls. For sure. So what is procedurally, maybe I'll ask Chuck and Nathaniel. So we have this RDA for this entire project. If we approve part of it, do we just say we're approving part of it? And that's okay. They don't have to resubmit without the walls. Well, I feel like if you approve part of it, I mean, it seems to me, it's hard to approve part of it without thinking about you going to approve the whole project. So it would be hard to turn this into a notice of intent after the fact. That's the only thought that came to mind when it was mentioned. Hard or unusual, let me put it that way. Sure. So my question would be then if, I guess I would like some assurance that if this ends up as a notice of intent, that you would still be comfortable approving it, pending us going through the process. So we can feel confident going forward with the RDA. I don't think we need final approval from you to go to ZBA, but I think we'd just like to be comfortable that we are on the right track. So I have... So we could... So for the commission, we could approve the two-story addition for the ZBA. And then we go and do the site visit. If it's a notice of intent, we'll just have the notice of intent for the stairwell, which will take a little bit to kind of put together. And we could continue with the RDA for the proposed two-story addition. I'll give us two permits at the end of the day, but the addition is 92 feet away. Yeah. That's why I was sort of thinking of trying to divide it up. I was going to ask Eliza. So you're saying you don't need a sign-off. The ZBA is not asking for a sign-off from us. It's more that you... We haven't filed for that. So I don't... I don't know if it's... Okay. No. Yeah. Okay. All right. Sorry. Okay. I wasn't sure if that was an absolute requirement. But I just need to just... I agree with Chuck that we split it off and consider this RDA. You're just filing for the proposed two-story addition. And you're withdrawing the staircase. Moving the staircase and moving those trees. And then you're going to be able to move the stairs. Moving the staircase and moving those trees. And then we could sign off on a determination. But that's okay. And then deal with the stairs. Either as a continued determination, proceeding or as an order... Notice of intent in order of conditions. I think that sounds reasonable to us, assuming we wouldn't need to file a second RDA after a site visit if you're all comfortable with it. I think... So wouldn't there be another RDA? If we're taking a plan change to the original RDA, if we add the plantings and the walls. Is that what you're saying? That would be the procedure? I guess we would be issuing two determinations potential. Oh, really? Yeah. That's what I thought. One request, which we've... I've never heard of it happening before, but it's kind of like a partial certificate. They wouldn't come back in and just modify the existing determination. Is that... Is that as unheard of? How about we just do a little bit of a straw poll? This isn't a vote, but just a straw poll on how comfortable the commission is with the proposed addition. And if you get a level of comfort from that as the applicant, that this sounds okay for you to move forward with ZBA, then we can keep this as one RDA. That would be... That would work great. Okay. Is that okay, Nathaniel and Chuck? Little straw polls. It's not a vote. Okay. I am comfortable with the proposed addition. If there are appropriate erosion controls, I would like to see them on the plans. And I'd like to know the square feet of intrusion, even though it's small, I'd like somebody to calculate that for me. But otherwise I would be comfortable with this as an RDA. Nathaniel? Yes. It's saying exactly what you said. Brian? Yes. Agreed. David White. I'm with Susan on this one. Okay. Chuck. Yes. Mike. Sounds good. Okay. So you're getting a sense that the commission is, is okay with that. I think that that can help you when you present this to ZBA. And I think that the commissioners, I'm hearing need a site visit before we can decide if this whole project is really an RDA or an NOI. Kind of get our feet there. Sounds great. Okay. So I will have either Ryan or David, probably David coordinate with you and us to, to get a site visit before the next April 4th. And I see we have, I do need to open this for public comment. So I will open it for public comment now. And I see Bob Bose has his hand raised. You're welcome to unmute. And please state your name and your address. Yes. My name is Bob Bose. I'm the butter to the south side of this project. I'm at 26 Lake Puget Street. I will not be available to attend the April 4th meeting. So I'm appreciate the chance to speak tonight. This project is mostly impacting my property by white, but I, the stairway becomes closer. The walls become closer if there's an addition, but I will tell you that I find analize it to be terrific. Neighbor is very responsible. They've done a very nice job with their home. We would certainly support their efforts in doing this. But I want to make sure that you understand the erosion here is really a major problem. We've been in our home for almost 30 years. The storm drain at the end of PBD road is not sufficient to carry the run out. So once that overflows, it goes through tea and analysis yard, goes down through my yard and goes right into the pond. And it's just a big mud pile. The work they've done so far has helped to mitigate that but clearly I think this change will do a far better job long term. Thank you very much. That's, that's helpful information. Appreciate it. Are there any other members of the public who would like to speak about this hearing? Don't see any hands up. I'm missing anybody, Ryan. No. Okay. So I'm going to close the public hearing portion and go back to the commission. Are there any further comments or we'll entertain a motion for continuation. I'll make a motion to continue to April. Fourth. Chuck. Chuck. And second by Nathaniel. Any further discussion? Okay. I'll take a roll call vote. Brian McBride. Yes. Michael dis game. Yes. David white. Yes. Nathaniel Stevens. Yeah. Chuck. Yes. And Susan Chapnick says yes. So we'll see you on the fourth, but before that David will be in contact to range a site visit. Thank you very much. Thanks for your time. Thank you. And I'll pass it back to Chuck. Tony for their next hearing. Great. So next on our agenda, we have a notice of intent for two reservoir road. This is a continuing hearing. And I'll pass it back to Chuck. Thank you very much. Thank you. So next on our agenda, we have a notice of intent for two reservoir road. This is a continuing hearing from March 7, 2024. We just had a few final items that the commission needs to go over. And I'm going to ask staff if they have any updates on this project. So, Brian, did you, and that main, they may not. So which is perfectly fine. Yeah. We did receive some supplemental information from a rich that was dated. What's the date for that? March 13th. So they have revised the planting plan, which includes invasive plant management plan. There were some updates on the stormwater management compliance and vegetation replacement. They did provide a table showing that the tree replacement requirements, which I believe covers the item, just about covers the items that the commission had asked for at the last meeting. We do have rich Kirby. As well as Nicole Ferrara from LEC. This evening to also speak to that. So that's great. All right, Rich, I see that you're, you're here. Can you bring the commission up to date with this application or. Or whichever. I'm happy to jump in rich Kirby from LEC. Nicole Ferrara from our offices here tonight, along with the applicants, Linnea and David Bergeron. At the last hearing we presented the. Addition project off the rear of the house. Along with a reduction in the size of the driveway. Net increase in the previous area is right around 316 square feet. We have a pretty robust planting plan that. Holly Samuel's put together. She's also here tonight. And the planting plan includes 735, I believe, square feet of restoration behind the proposed lawn edge adjacent to the garage. We also have stormwater infiltration trench proposed at the drip line of the proposed addition. As well as on two sides of the garage where the entire roof will be directed. Runoff from the entire roof will be directed to that infiltration trench. At the last hearing, the commission wanted a little bit more detail about regulatory compliance with regard to the stormwater management. We provided that in the March 13th letter. Talking about how a number of things. Number one, not only will the existing roof area or sorry, not only will the proposed addition roof area be directed to this trench drain, but the way the roof line is a portion of the existing roof will also be directed to that trench drain. Of course we have the trench drain for the existing garage that's behind the house. And by way of implementing Holly's planting plan, we're also reducing the. Runoff from from the site. In other words, we're changing the cover type from lawn to a more vegetated land, which is also going to reduce the runoff rate from the site. Also the runoff that is coming off the site for the most part is clean runoff. It's coming off a roof. You know, the more sandy dirty water, if you will, that comes off the driveway. We're actually reducing the footprint of the driveway. So we're reducing the amount of dirty runoff, if you will, that comes off the site. And with respect to an O and M plan, you know, we talked about this amongst the team and struggled with it because the only thing you really have to do is just keep the trench drain free of, you know, leaves and other organic debris. We thought we could entertain that as a special condition. Or if the commission, you know, wanted something more formal, we could as a special condition prepare an O and M plan. It simply states all trench drain shall be kept free of leaves and other organic debris. What else? We talked a little bit about the revised planting plan. I'm going to let Holly get into the weeds, if you will, on that. But basically we increased the number of trees. Holly justifies the use of some of the landscape cultivars on the plan. And we also have an invasive species management plan. And of course, reminding the commission that we fully commit to supervise the installation and monitor the success of the restoration area for a three year period. So I think that, I think that covers it all. Holly, if you want, if I can, happy to share my screen with your planting plan or if you want to share your screen, that's fine too. What's your preference? I have it so I can, I can do that. Okay, great. If I can share. This is Holly Samuels, Holly garden design. Let me pull it over my big screen. I don't know if that'll make a difference or easier for. I can do that. I figure out where it is. Well, you're doing that David Kaplan. I see it's derived for the record. What time is it? 814 p.m. Thank you. 812. Okay. Got it. Thanks. Can you see my screen now with the plan? No, not quite. You can't. All right. Let's see what happens. Share. There we go. There. All right. Yep. Okay. So, um, I, um, I made the lawn area a little smaller. We added in another, another tree of the liquid ambar. Um, and move things over a bit. I changed the ground cover, uh, to a native ground cover. Um, so, um, we're going to be, um, we're going to be using a tree, which is a, uh, side baldy office. Just tried to, um, uh, a good. Thunning area of ground cover. And then we, I made a sort of meadow planting around this vegetable on an herb raised bed. Um, I do have a couple of roses that are existing on site that are. Of sentimental value because they were there from the, when the parents owned this property. Melanocarpa back here by the garage, so two additional shrubs. And I think those were all the changes that I made to the plant. All of these meadow plantings are native plantings, not cultivars, native species. In this area, I have the table for the tree placement and justifying the use of native cultivars. I changed the dogwood to a cornice Florida, pink flowering dogwood. And these three kinds of cultivars all have similar environmental value because they're not changing any kind of flower form or leaf color. They should still have the same basic value. And invasive management plan mostly by mechanical movement. The biggest danger here is the Japanese knot weed, which is right alongside the edge of the bikeway, is incurring a tiny bit into the property. But the homeowners are committed to managing that as it's coming, if it moves into the property. If there needs to be some kind of chemical use, it would be done by a licensed applicator using some kind of product that's the proof of weapon use, such as glyphosate, aqua neath, or garland bee for tricopyr depending on when it's done in the season. And I think that's all I have. The restoration plan hasn't changed. But those are the changes I made. Any questions? I'll leave this up. Sure. I didn't know if Nicole was going, had something to say, and then we could just go to the commission after that. If not, we can go to the commission now. Sure. So I know Susan has her hand up, but I did want to say that I don't think that I would be comfortable approving the notice of intent with a list of herbicides that could be used. I think that if that was the case, they would need to reach out to the conservation commission and see if we wanted a permit for the amount of work that they are proposing for that round of treatment. And with that, I'll turn to Susan Chapnick. You just took the words out of my mouth because I was going to make a comment about chemical use. And I know that that might be different in Lexington, Holly, where you work, but in Arlington, we don't approve herbicide use in resource areas. Generally, I mean, there are specific instances where we do, but we have to review it very carefully and then condition it very carefully. And I'm thinking you're better off if you just have a little bit of Japanese knotweed to not even think about that right now and try to keep just cutting it back and keeping it at bay that way. And if it gets to the point where you feel you need herbicides, you'd have to come back to the commission to ask for that. Okay. Can I modify this plan and just remove that section? Sure. We could just make that a condition if we move it forward. Yeah, you wouldn't. Yeah, we'd make that a condition. Actually, it's one of our standard conditions that we don't allow use of pesticides or herbicides or rodenticides, chemical rodenticides within the resource areas. Okay. Thank you. I didn't know that. Yep. That's all set, Susan. Nathaniel Stevens. Thanks, Chuck. I was going to say it probably would not hurt to revise the plan as well, Holly, even if it's a condition just so we don't have any confusion. I will. Yeah, I'll do that. Thanks. That'd be great. And then I was going to ask, are these new plantings rabbit proof? I think the last time your rabbit resistant was the word I was looking for because I know you highlighted your last planting plan that you were trying to pick plants that were rabbit, quote unquote, rabbit proof. Yes. They are mostly, I think, except for the New England Aster, but once the other plants are around it, they should be better in the meadow area. They'll keep the rabbits away. Yeah. Thanks. And then just the rest of the commission, I comment uncomfortable with Richard's suggestion about having an O&M for the stormwater maintenance to be a standard condition rather than doing a plan for all of that. It seems a little overkill. And can, may I ask? Yeah, go ahead. Sorry. Sorry. No, go ahead. Holly, I saw it. I'm just going to ask if the modification of the plan requires me to make new copies for everybody or can I just submit that to the office? And is that, can it be submitted electronically or how does that? Absolutely. I think so. Yeah, electronically. Yeah. That would be fine. Okay. Thank you. We'll answer David tonight. Yeah, so since he's not here, I'll just add that. Any other comments from the Conservation Commission? I think that David had a question about fees. Do you know anything about the head that he talked to you about that, Rich? About, I'm sorry, what? Fees. Filing fees? Filing fees. I just want email. This is the first I've heard of it. Okay. Yeah, he had a question about the state fees, but I noted that when DEP issued the final number, there was no comment about any issue with the fee on their end. So, yeah, it's work associated with the single family house. So it's 110 times 1.5, which is 165 divided by 2 plus and minus 12.50. Right. David was under the impression it was like per work, like per each work on single family house, if that makes sense? Yeah. I mean, I suppose. So why don't we just, this is office discussion. I think that we could just have a condition to resolve this between you and David prior to issuing. Okay. Can you close a hearing? The DEP is fine with their money they received. Okay. Yeah, they issued a final number. Yeah. Typically, if the project is an addition project, that's usually the activity. Everything else that we're proposing is mitigation for that project. So, you know, I'm okay with that. That's how we've interpreted it in the past. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. We'll square it away with David. Great. I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. We need to see if anyone here wants to, anyone attending tonight's meeting has a comment or wants to ask a question about this application at Two Res for Our Road. Please raise your hand. You can use the reactions button to raise your hand or you could just raise your hand and wave on the screen. Seeing none. Nathaniel, comment or motion? I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. Okay. Second. Second. All in favor. Aye. Roll call though. Yes. Oh. Nathaniel says aye. Nathaniel says aye. Okay. David White. Yes. Susan Chapnick. Yes. Brian McBride. Yes. Mike Gildes game. Yes. David Kaplan. Yes. And Chuck Taroney says yes. Did I forget anyone? I hope not. Okay. Any, so the conditions that I have are a condition to, a special condition to trench drains shall be kept free of leaves and organic debris. There'll be no use of pesticides on the property to control invasives. And was there one other, which I didn't write down? Oh, and the plan will be updated and emailed to David Morgan at the office. The planning plan. The planning plan. Yep. With that, any comments or motions? I have, can I make one? So the monitoring of the restoration area was for three years, which is great. Can I make a special condition that we get an annual report after each growing season? So maybe late fall on how that's doing? I think that's fine. I think we actually committed to that in the notice of intent. Oh, did you? I might have missed it. Thank you. Yeah, no, that's fine. That's typical. Thank you, Rich. Okay. Any other comments or motions? I'll make a motion to prove under the act and the bylaw, whether the conditions is discussed. Second. Oh, second. Uh, Susan Chapnick. Yes. David Kaplan. Yes. Brian McBride. Yes. Mike Gildes game. Yep. Daniel Stevens. Yes. David White. Yes. And Chuck Taroney says yes. All right, you're all set. This is, if you want to find out when that will be issued, you have to reach out to David next week when he's in the office, or actually he's in the office tomorrow too. But we say he's a little sick, so maybe next week would be better. All right, Rich. Thanks, everyone. And I wanted to say, Rich, Rich and team, I just want to thank you for a very comprehensive permit submittal and being so responsive to our requests, especially addressing climate change, because often we don't get that. People just forget about that section of our regulations. So I personally have to do it. It's important. Thank you. It's important. Thank you. All right. Have a good night. Thank you. All right. Here we go. So our next on the agenda is a request for determination for 459 Mystic Street. This is a continuation of a hearing for the Constitution Commission last heard on March 7, 2024. Susan Chapnick will be presenting this project to the Commission. Susan. Okay. So we heard this last time on 3-7. And this public hearing is to consider a request for determination of applicability for the construction of an addition and a deck at 459 Mystic within the 100-foot buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetlands. It's also within the 200 riverfront, which we had neglected to put on that notice. The continuation was because the Commission requested that the applicant provide some mitigation. We recommended mitigation in terms of vegetation along the river as mitigation for working in riverfront area. And the applicant has given us this proposal. Do we have the applicant, the architect here tonight or should I present this? I don't know who's here. I believe I saw Scott Grady was in attendance. Scott's here. Great. Scott, if you're there, can you unmute and tell us what you're proposing? Maybe not? Yeah. Do you see him? Okay. What's the name? I'm on the attendance list. Scott. Grady? No. Scott or Ann. Okay. All right. I will. I definitely saw him like five minutes ago. Maybe he has connection problems. Anyway, they're proposing several native species. We gave them a list by Burnham, some flocks, et cetera. And you can see they're in clusters and groupings along the riverfront area. This is a channelized river, and there is a bunch of erosion in certain areas. So vegetation hopefully will help with that. To me, it seemed like a robust vegetation plan for the very small amount of work that they're doing, which we discussed last time. I don't know if any commissioners have any comments on this. Sure. I guess I'll just stop. Yeah, so that's what my thought was too. I think that there's a lot of planting there for that small amount of disturbance that we saw. So I was surprised that they proposed all this, and I'm not sure if they got any direction from David. But if they wanted to do less, because I saw the yard, it's quite big, and there's a lot of erosion down by where that triangle points, I would be okay with it. But otherwise, I'm pretty happy with this plan. And no one's here to speak to that anyways. Right. I'm very happy with it. I thought it was more than enough for the small impact in Riverfront, and I think it's going to really improve the erosion and the habitat by the river. And I didn't know the name of this river. I asked David White. We had a discussion. This is Herbert Meyer-Brook. I guess I'd never come in contact with it before. Okay. Anybody else have a question? I agree it's great. Yeah, I do too. I'm also standard to hear Chuck say that there's too much mitigation. I hope that that makes sense in meeting that. Like it would be appropriate amount of mitigation. Okay. I'd make a motion to close the hearing. So, I think we have to ask for public comment. Yeah, we have to ask for public comment. And unless David, you're making a comment or a second? I don't know if this is the appropriate time, but I would recommend some sort of plant protection fence for their establishment. I don't know if that's been proposed or not, but those look like yummy plants if I were a rabbit. Oh, that's a good point. We'll tell them to put up some temporary fencing. That can be a condition of the RDA. But let me go to public comment now. Is there anybody from the public who would like to comment or ask a question about this RDA for 459 Mystic? And somebody tell me if I'm missing anybody. I don't see anybody. I don't see anyone. No. Okay. I'm closing public comment. And now I will entertain a motion about this RDA. Oh, I have to close the hearing. Sorry. Yep. Make a motion to close the hearing. A second. Oh, I think Chuck got it. It was a second. That one. Yeah. Okay. So, we'll take a vote to close the hearing and then for the determination. Um, so Chuck Turoni. Yes. Mike Gildes game. Yes. David White. Yes. Dave Kaplan. Yes. Brian McBride. Yes. Nathaniel Stevens. Yes. And Susan Chapnick says yes. So, we close the hearing and now we need to talk about, I have one condition if we... And here's Scott Grady, actually. Oh, Scott, where are you? We close the hearing. Can we let him? I don't think so. I would just say we're ready to go. There's no way. So, Scott, we left and right. We already kind of closed the hearing and everybody said good things about your plantings. And the only recommendation was to put temporary fencing as plant protection, some temporary plant protection around where you're planting those, because we're afraid the bunnies are just going to eat it all. And then you won't have anything that stays there. So, that was our recommendation. So, this is an RDA. So, I would say it's a positive or negative. So, yes, we have jurisdiction, but no, no, some intent is required. Yes. With the condition that they fence the plantings that are established. Okay. So, you're making a motion? Yes. Okay. So, that's Nathaniel. Oh, seconded. That's David White. Any further discussion? Okay. I'm going to take another roll call. Vote for this determination. Chuck Taroni. Yes. Mike Gildes game. Yes. David White. Yes. Dave Kaplan. Yes. Brian McBride. Yes. Nathaniel Stephens. Yes. And Susan Chapnick says, yes. So, Scott, you got your request for determination, is yes, that it's in jurisdiction, but no, you don't need it. And NOI, notice of intent. And that our only condition, and you will get, you know, your paperwork on this from David or Ryan, would be to put some temporary fencing around the plantings. And we really appreciate you grouping multiple areas of those plantings around the riverfront. We think that's going to be a good enhancement to the habitat, as well as helping with some of the... Oh, great. Well, I was hoping to fulfill what your goals were. Yes. All right. Thank you very much, Scott. Thank you very much. Have a good night, everyone. Okay. You take care. Okay. So, I'm going to turn it over to you, Chuck, for Thorndike Place. Okay. All right. So, Thorndike Place. So, the notice of intent for Thorndike Place. This has continued from March 7th. Sorry, one suggestion. I think David's going to leave. Do you want to continue the ADA Coolidge? And then, David, do you want to come back? That would be great. Put them all around easy, other way. So, I will... I will put this take up ADA Coolidge, and we have a request to continue this to April 4th at the applicant's... The applicant made that request, and so, can I get a motion to do that? They're moved. Second. Second. Thank you. Let's go through the roll call. So, Mike Gildes' game. Yes. Susan Chapnick. Yes. David Kaplan. Yes. Brian McBride. Yes. David White. Yes. Nathaniel Stevens, and... Yes. And Chuck Tarani says yes. Okay, that's taken care of, and now we're going to move on to Thorndike Place, where David White is recusing himself of this hearing. We'll see you later, David. See you later. Okay. All right. So, we have a notice of intent for Thorndike Place. It was continued from March 7th, 2024. DP file number, ID 1356. Notice of intent, Thorndike Place. The Conservation Commission will hold public hearings under the Wetlands Rejection Act. To consider the notice of intent for construction of a Thorndike Place, multiple family development on Dorothy Road in Arlington. So, I have a few preliminary comments before we get started. The Conservation Commission received BSC's response first February 28th, 2024, and then reiterated those comments on March 13th, 2024, with more context. But the end result was that BSC wanted to let the commission know that they do not agree to perform additional monitoring as requested. As the standby, the information provided, they stand by the information provided. During the course of this hearing, the Conservation Commission will discuss that response. First, we will go into continuing our habitat discussion. Unfortunately, we don't have our peer review final documents on their review of the invasive management plan. So, at the end of this hearing, I'm going to ask the applicant if we could continue to April 4th, so we can get that documentation and complete the habitat portion of this application. What I want to do tonight in the following order is the same as I did in the past. And for those of you who have been here before, you'll be used to that, hopefully. The proponents will bring us up to date on where they are regarding the habitat, and I will ask them how much time they need, and at that time is reasonable, I'll allow it. And then I will acknowledge the emails that has been sent so far, and then I'm going to ask staff for an update if there's one. I will ask the commission for questions and comments, and then I'll ask anyone attending tonight's meeting if they would like to make comments. Once habitat is over, there will be time. We will continue our stormwater discussion. So, with that, I believe I saw BSC Matt Byrne here. I saw Dominic here. So, whoever wants to speak with that, please. And just let us know who's speaking for the record. Sure. This is Matt Byrne, senior colleges BSC group. I'll just address the updates to the planting plan, and hopefully we can kind of check off one box here. We received an SWCA peer review comment letter on the morning of the last hearing, and that had two, I think it was two outstanding, maybe it was three outstanding issues that they identified. And so, on the, we tried to speak to those outstanding comments at the last hearing, but on the 12th of March, we submitted a formal response to the SWCA letter, and what we have done, if you'll recall the response, there were, I think, eight comments, and SWCA comment two was about the ISMP, the invasive species management plan, which we had submitted. They haven't fully reviewed. So, we just, we responded that that has been submitted, and we look forward to an opportunity to talk that through with the commission and our senior botanist, Tom Groves, who prepared that. I presume that that will be at a later date. Comment, SWCA comment three, they stated no further comment, was required, same with four. Their fifth comment stated there were still multiple species that are not representative of the trees on the site in the proposed woodland restoration area. So, what we did was we took the species list that Chase recommended, and we changed everything so that the only species proposed for planting in the restoration area are currently identified on the site. So, that we expect SWCA will find to be suitable. Their other comment that was outstanding was that the revised planning plan had some cultivars in the landscaped areas between the buildings and so forth. We've replaced all those, and there does remain one cultivar on the low growing shrub that I asked our landscape folks to just swap out with a low bush blueberry so that we take everything off the table. And I expect that SWCA will find that that will resolve their final comment there. So, I think that we have addressed everything that the SWCA put on the table in their last comment letter received March 7th. So, as far as I can tell, the landscape planting plan is up to snuff. Matt, I expected the slides from the invasive management plan again with a little more detail. Is that not something that you are going to do? I did not think you were going to accept the conversation about the invasive species management plan. Based on your comments or David's comments asking for SWCA's final responses or responses to our plan. Chuck, I think I'd rather wait until we get SWCA's responses and do it once. Yeah, I was just going to say the same thing. All right, so we have consensus. Okay, so we'll wait for that response. Is there any other questions or comments? Matt, do you have anything else to update us on here? Just that the planting plan I think is solid and should be something we can move into the finished column. So we don't need to talk about that anymore, hopefully. Okay, I'm going to turn to the commission and ask for any comments. If you could just raise your hand or let me know if you need to ask some questions. Susan Chapnick. I'm pleased with the responses to SWCA comments and the changes that have been made from the cultivars to the non-cultivars. I like the idea of blueberries because I always like the idea of having some seeds or berries as well for the wildlife besides just more ornamental plants. So I think that that's welcome. So I'm just looking for our peer review of the invasive management at this point. I'll echo Susan's comments. Anyone else on the commission? Yeah, I reviewed the plan myself. I thought that Matt, it was good. I'd like the comments that you made. I'd like the blueberry bushes. This is what you heard tonight. I was hoping to move a little bit further on this at tonight's meeting, but I can see that we're really waiting for that invasive management plan reply. So with that, I'm just going to open up the habitat discussion to anyone who's attending tonight's hearing that would like to speak about habitat. We're going to hold off on any comments about stormwater until we take that up following habitat at the same meeting. So if you could just raise your hand, if you have a comment about the what you've heard so far tonight about the habitat discussion, we'd like to say. Seem none. I don't see any comments out there. All right. Actually, I have a comment. Lisa, I'm sorry. I just, could you just state your name for the record, please? Yes. Name and address for the record. Sorry. My name is Lisa Fredman, and I live at 63 Mott Street. And what I can tell you is I planted three blueberry bushes on my property a couple of years ago, and I have absolutely no blueberry bushes on my property now. The deer eat all of them. And so they're going to be no blueberry bushes on the Mugar property because they're deer all over the place, and they're going to go there and eat them. So I would really recommend choosing a different bush rather than blueberry bushes. All right, Lisa. Thank you for that comment. You're welcome. We don't have deer in our part of Arlington, so that's probably why where I live. We have deer all over the place. Right here, yeah. You know, and they come over and pick up the deer. And I believe there also are deer that are nesting on the Mugar property. That's a good point. I will say that one of our, if this gets to that point, one of the conservation standard conditions for replanting has to do with survivability and over three years. So there will be conditions on that if that doesn't work. They would have to produce an alternate shrub or bush that serves the same purpose to the environment. So I'll just say that. But it's a good piece of information because why plant something that may not make it. Thank you. Yeah, I agree. Okay. Any other questions about the habitat, about the planting that you've seen on the plan for anyone that's attending tonight's meeting? Seeing none, I'm going to go back to the commission and I don't see any hands or comments either. So I think I'm just going to close off this habitat discussion for tonight. And following our stormwater discussion, which will take up, last for a continuation to our next meeting to finalize the habitat discussion. So at this point, stormwater questions. So I don't know if the commission wanted to discuss this first or just hear from the applicants or had some questions, but we wanted to feel confident about the questions that came up and for our own self and our own review of this project. And we had put a list together of things that we wanted and sent it to the applicant, but they felt like the information that they provided meets the Wetlands Direction Act, stormwater standards, and they're standing by that. So I don't know if any commissioner wants to make a comment on top of that because it really came out at our last meeting, actually between meetings. So the two letters went on February 28th, which was first mentioned, and it was mentioned again on March 13th, 2024. So commissioners, do you have comments? I see Susan Chapnick's answer. I think I would appreciate, even though I don't think we went through everything, I would appreciate if the applicant, and I know that Hatch is in here. Maybe you or I could represent what they wrote in an email just to get everybody up to speed. So the applicant provided a letter between the two meetings. Maybe they could just briefly review that, and then we can briefly review what our peer reviewer said in an email to us because I think they're not here tonight. Just just on the stage. Okay, thanks. Dominic, are you available to do that? Do you have that letter? Dominic, we're on Erin Alde from BSC. Making sure I was off mute. Yes, Dominic and Alde with BSC group. We actually have a presentation, a re-presentation I'd like to give if I could share a screen. It addresses those comments. It's been a couple of hearings since we've discussed storm water. There's been a little back and forth. This can catch everybody up, as well as really clarify some misunderstandings and some things that we think have been fully represented. Sure. The commission, I wanted more comments from the commission, but I think this is a good review. Does everyone agree? See some heads nodding? So that's great. Go ahead, Dominic. Everybody has that? Just the opening slide. Okay. So again, for the record, Dominic, we're now the senior civil engineer with BSC group. We'd like to talk a little bit about the storm water for the site, kind of catch everybody up again and move things forward. So a quick overview of some of the things we're going to talk about. The project does meet or exceed the standards set by the Mass Wealth and Protection Act, for reference WPA as Wealth and Protection Act, for anyone who doesn't know. The infiltration systems on site were designed by BSC, Registered Professional Engineers, and the information that we based that on was peer-reviewed test pits, test pits that were done in accordance with the Wealth and Protection Act, as well as the comprehensive permit issued for the project. And they were peer-reviewed by the town-selected representative in Whitestone Associates. These test pits were performed last May of 2023 in the spring when groundwater is generally highest, and they were performed, and we have all confirmed that groundwater conditions, according to the USGS, were normal during last May. So no drought conditions. This is what you would expect in normal spring seasons in this area. Subsequent to that, and we have submitted in that February 28th letter some additional information. We did go back out and measure groundwater levels in the wells that we left on site, and we did perform a frinter analysis as requested by the Commission, which confirmed our groundwater, what we're using for estimated season byground. Again, all of these systems, the whole stormwater management system was designed by registered professional engineers in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The soils data was gathered by competent soils professionals, as described in the Wealth and Protection Act and the Stormwater Handbook. Three things we really want to point out and stress for the Commission. Again, we are using the most conservative, i.e. the highest estimated seasonal high groundwater that we found on site for all systems. This is not a one-time measurement, this is a redox feature, which represents regular occurrence of groundwater. This is sort of, for lack of a better term, what's nasty, peak, and it considers the gold standard of estimated seasonal high groundwater. And we're using the highest one we found on site for all our systems to be exceptionally conservative. We are also using a conservative infiltration rate based on the soils we found. But we chose to use a conservative infiltration rate. I'll get into that more in a little bit. And in an effort to, even though we don't have to, in an effort to basically meet the Arlington By-law, which again was waived in the comprehensive permit, we are using what the Arlington By-law defines as the NOAA 14-plus-plus rainfall data, which is discernibly more than what we were required to under the comprehensive permit, and massively more than what the baseline is for the mass wetlands protection. We did perform a groundwater mounting analysis in accordance with the WPA requirements, demonstrating that groundwater mounting is not an issue for these infiltration systems. And we do firmly believe that this design meets the Wetlands Protection Act standards in all respects. Again, as far as the test pits were concerned, they were concerned they were performed in May 18 and 19, 2023. I won't go through all of the wording on this slide, but basically they were again done in full compliance with what the comprehensive permit requires as well as what the Wetlands Protection Act requires. They were witnessed by Whitestone associates who agreed in all aspects with soil types, groundwater observations, and everything that we have presented, and that has been presented in their own independent report exclusive of ours. In that 2023, we did eight test pits. These test pits were performed in the exact locations of these infiltration systems as required by the Wetlands Protection Act. We have five test pits out towards the front of the site, towards Dorothy Road, that are located within the small infiltration systems associated with the townhouse. Those are test pits one through five. We have test pits six off to the east side of the site, which is located within what would be the small bioretention area over there. And we have test pits seven and eight that are located within the large infiltration system more in the middle of the site. Combined with those two test pits, we also have a test pit two, and I apologize for not switching the numbering system that was performed in November of 2020 as part of the comprehensive permit system, and all of these confirm the same results. You'll also see on this plan off to the right, we've identified a project off Birch Street that was recently approved by the Commission, and we'll get into the groundwater aspects of that in a little bit. Again, these test pits were peer reviewed and witnessed by the town's chosen professional, and we've confirmed that the USGS at Groundwater Conditions were normal. You can see from this, the only difference in the specific numbers of Whitestones elevation calculations and BSCs is that Whitestone had to interpolate their ground elevations from the plans, whereas we actually surveyed those locations. You can see from this that we are providing at at least the minimum to feed separation to all of these systems, and in many cases, significantly more based on what we've actually observed in the field and the peer reviewer confirmed in the field. But that, again, is not what we're using for our groundwater elevation. We're using elevation four, which is slightly higher than the highest elevation we found in the field. Again, as I said, we included in that February 28th letter, we performed a frinter analysis based off of utilizing a USGS well, I believe in Lexington, and again, these numbers confirmed that none of these, none of this test pit data would expect to see anything as high or higher than the estimated season of high groundwater elevation of four that were utilizing. These are the measurements I referenced. We went back out in February 15th, checked those wells. Not surprisingly, the elevations were a little bit lower than what we saw in May. It's February, not May. And representative, the test pit one is in one of the small infiltration systems. Test pit six, again, was in the fire retention area. And test pit seven is in the larger system. And again, February was a normal month. So these are what you would expect. We located redoxy-morphic features, often called models or other references. These were confirmed by Whitestone, both the SC and Whitestone utilized what the mass wells protection act references as competent soil professionals, both professional engineers and certified soil evaluators under the Title V system. Test pits three, five and six showed redoxy-morphic features with test pit five showing the highest elevation of redoxy-morphic features at 3.98. So just a shade under four. So for the ease of all of our lives, we utilized an elevation four because it's a nice round number. But again, you can see from the estimate, the right hand column in this table is estimated seasonal high groundwater. And you can see that that 3.98 is significantly higher than the vast majority of what we saw there and higher than anything. So again, we are utilizing the most conservative value that we found for all of our infiltration systems in an effort to make this a conservative, positive system for the air. These are some photos of test pits seven. There were some questions regarding models noted in the Whitestone report. Whitestones report noted models between depths 39 and 54 inches, and they refer that as too likely perched, meaning that water at some point perched there for long enough to leave those models. However, as I've said previously, test pits seven went 60 inches deeper. And below that 54-inch depth, there were absolutely no models found. None in these pictures, none referenced by Whitestone, none seen by anybody. And in accordance with the procedures that are accepted by DEP, both for stormwater management and septic systems, in order to call an estimated seasonal high groundwater table using models or redox features, you have to see those models continue from the point where they begin all the way through the test pits. If they disappear like this, it is not indicative of groundwater table. And rightfully, the town reviewer Whitestone in their report put estimated seasonal high groundwater at 108 inches below grade, which is where we put it. So again, this is, it is, test pits seven, the models referenced are not even remotely close to the seasonal high groundwater. And that is confirmed with the town's selected peer reviewer, not just us. As I said, we used conservative values in our design. What we found on the site and confirmed with Whitestone was loamy sand. So these are soil textures for people that are familiar with it, ranging from sand, which everybody understands really permeable way down the way down to clay, which everybody understands is very much not permeable. We found the second most permeable soil out there, which is the loamy sand. However, based on our texturing of it, we felt that it was in the range of loamy sands, it was on the fine side, meaning it had a lot of finer particles in it. It was still a loamy sand, again, as confirmed by Whitestone. However, to be conservative, we chose to use a sandy loam infiltration rate. We went down the level. It's less than half the infiltration rate, which means our infiltration systems are bigger and more expensive than they could have been that we rightfully could have designed here. We chose not to do that to be conservative, to plan not only for current conditions, but future conditions. It is a very conservative value. I have already covered our estimated seasonal high ground water, which varies, but all below four. But again, we used four to be conservative. And finally, our 24-hour storms, what we used to actually run through these models to size these systems, what we had to attenuate for peak flow. In the Comprehensive Permit, we agreed to use the NOAA-14 Atlas, which at the time was higher than what the town required under their bylaw. At the time, the town bylaw required what's scrambling called the Pornhill Atlas. It's a little smaller generally in this area than NOAA-14. And both of those are significantly larger than what the Wetlands Protection Act actually requires, which is TP-40, which anybody who's used that knows. It's data from the 50s. It's wildly updated. So significantly larger. Again, as I said, in an effort to make a conservative system, what's something that resulted in a larger system than we had to do for the Comprehensive Permit and a way larger system than we actually have to do on the Wetlands Protection Act, a larger, more expensive system that is better suited to handle both current rainfall and future rainfall. We used what the town bylaw refers to as NOAA-14++. For people who aren't familiar with this, the NOAA-14 Atlas gives you a range of numbers, and it gives you the number that they suggest you use. And NOAA-14++ is the highest number in that range. We're using a hundred year rainfall of somewhere around 11 inches. That is a massive amount of rain. So again, the system we designed out here, we intentionally, optionally chose to design a very conservative system to maintain both current and future conditions and protect this site and protect the surrounding area with our stormwater management system. We performed a groundwater mounting analysis per the Wetlands Protection Act, stormwater handbook requirements. The stormwater handbook doesn't require that you run this for 24 hours. There's been references to a 24-hour storm. The stormwater handbook requires that if you have less than four feet of separation between the bottom of your infiltration system and your groundwater, and your estimated season of that groundwater, and you're using that system to attenuate peak flows from a 10-year, 24-hour storm or higher, you have to perform a groundwater mounting analysis. The sentence that describes when you have to do this is not descriptive of how you have to do this. And I would reiterate again, as I said in that February 28th letter, that the groundwater methodology that we used, the exact methodology that we used, including how we determined the time span, which we explained in our letter, was previously reviewed and approved during the comprehensive permit process by the town-selected peer reviewer beta group, who said explicitly that they reviewed this project for conformance with the Massachusetts Stormwater Standards. There is a question that came up in the Hatch peer review about separation for the small infiltration systems associated with the townhouses to the foundations of those townhouses. Frankly, we'll just kind of agree to disagree with Hatch's interpretation of subsurface features and setback requirements. However, we have been doing a little work on these and we have determined, because what we're using is a modular system, that we can reconfigure this system, we can shift it a little bit in location, we can basically, we're going to change the shape and we're going to change how the height stack and we can indeed achieve a 10 foot separation from those townhouse foundations, because it seems to, if the commission wants that, we will absolutely do that. We are more than willing to do that and check that box off. So in summary, I tried to keep it brief. Hopefully, I did. This project meets or exceeds all of the standards set by, all 10 standards of the Wellness Protection Act. And we, BSC, Regist Professional Engineers in the Commonwealth of Mass designed this system. We advised data that was peer reviewed by the town selected reviewer, Whitestone. We did all the test bits in compliance with the Wellness Protection Act stonewater standards, as well as the ZBA's comprehensive permit. These test bits were installed in the spring when groundwater is expected to be highest, which was specifically stated in the comp permit that these test bits would be done in April or May, they were done in May. And again, we've confirmed that groundwater elevations were considered normal by the USGS. This has been confirmed subsequently by our frimter analysis and measurements. And again, we used very conservative values in an effort to make a system that will suit this site and protect the area, both under current rainfall and future rainfall conditions. We performed the mounting analysis required by the Wellness Protection Act. And we stand by our statement that we truly believe that this project meets where frankly, I will say exceeds the requirements of the 10 stonewater standards at the Wellness Protection Act. So that is our presentation. I don't know if you'd like me to stop sharing if you want, or what's up, Bill? Yeah, let's stop sharing right at the moment. We might come back to this and we'll get back to Susan, who was asking a question when Dominic wanted to show us the slides and bring us up to date on that process that BSC has gone through on the stonewater for this project. Thank you, Dominic. I think that was very comprehensive and it helped bring us up to speed about what the issues were that we had back and forth. So I appreciate you taking the time to do that. I would like to read into the record, if I can find it, the email from Hatch in response to the applicant not willing to monitor groundwater, which is what the Conservation Commission asked for in a prior meeting, because I think it's important, since they're not here, that we explain into the record what our peer, if you were said to do. So Ryan, do you have that, or what do I need to find it? Is Ryan there? Yeah, let me grab that. Okay. Do you know what I'm talking about? It was an email. I think it's in the materials. Yeah, it is. It's dated February 15th. No, it's later than March 15th. Yeah, I have it in paper form. I can't screen share it. Yeah, I have it on. I have two computers and it's on my other computer, so I can't screen share it either. Hopefully Ryan can find it in the materials. But I can start reading it just as it's to David Morgan. Hatch's recommendation is for recommended site modifications and collection of additional data. There we go. Right there. I don't know which paragraph you wanted to refer people to, Susan, or just people could read it. Yeah, I just wanted to say these were their final concerns. They're in bulleted point. Let's see. So they're talking about setbacks and infiltration of historic fill. The third one is Hatch remains very concerned. There's appreciable groundwater infiltration based on flood risk. Let's see. While the applicant's groundwater readings meet the mass stormwater manual, there are numerous engineering best practice guides that state that wet flood proofing should be secondary to good engineering design that keeps water away from building foundations. They talk about hydrostatic pressure, etc. Then we go down to, because we understood the peer review was closed, we have not reviewed the groundwater mounting, so they didn't review that. And then the final bullet, we concur with the recommendations of the Conservation Commission that was expressed at the February 15, 2024 meeting which included the recommendations to collect additional groundwater levels at the site. We believe that the additional data collected would either help to validate or repudiate the established groundwater elevations and provide significantly more certainty. I think you have to scroll down to the next page. Thanks. Whoops. Is that was that it? I thought there was another sentence. Oh no, that was it. Okay, thank you. Okay. So I wanted to just make sure that that was in the record from our peer reviewer for the rest of commissioners. I have some additional questions, but I can yield the floor to, I see Mike has his hand up and then you can come back to me. If I may, can I? Sure, Mike, please. Well, those, Mr. Chair. Oh, Dominic, I... Yes, sorry. Sorry, I didn't put my hand up, I was just speaking. Yes, so a couple of those. So one, the item they had there about separation of to the foundations and infiltration into the foundation of the townhouses is what I mentioned in my presentation where we are willing, if the commission wants it sounds like you would, to reconfigure those systems such that we have that 10-foot separation between the foundations and those infiltration systems. One item on there that I have to say one, so we the applicant had never, were never provided with that email until we saw it on the agenda. But having looked at it, one thing I have noticed that I found very interesting in it in, and I don't know if you want to bring it back up or no, but in the statement about, there is a statement there where they say that the applicants, yeah, in the third bullet point, they specifically say, well, the applicant's groundwater readings meet the mass stormwater man, which is exactly what we've been saying. And I find it interesting that subsequent to that, they then say, but go out and get more stormwater data. I mentioned in my presentation, and I failed to get to it, and I apologize. We identified the location of the very close location of a project that was recently, that was recently approved by the commission at 51 Birch Street, where they performed test pits on site. They did those test pits in November of 2023. They observed groundwater at an elevation of, I believe it was 0.46, and they designed their stormwater system with a bottom of elevation of 2.5. So it is that they have a groundwater system that is backed up to the same wetland system that they utilized a one time observation of groundwater of 0.46. We are using something that is three and a half feet higher than that for the bottom of our, for our estimated seasonal diagram. And again, where I agree with Hatch's statement that our groundwater data meets the mass stormwater manual. We have said that from the beginning and we stand by that. And additional data is frankly just dragging this out. We did the test pits in accordance with this manual. We use the most conservative data on the site. And again, it is significantly more conservative than the project on the same wetland system that was approved, I believe, two weeks ago. So. Thank you, Dominic. I'd like to share if it's okay with you. I'd like to hear what Mike has to say and I have more comments. Can you take down the, take down the screen? Thank you. Sure. Mike, please. And thanks, Dominic. I did want to bring into this discussion the latest memo from Scott Horsley, who as you know, has been brought into this discussion. And I think that the March 18th memo that he provided is important for us to bring forward. And I see Scott's with us tonight. I don't know if you want him to comment at this point, but I would say that his points in that memo are important in reviewing this project. So if there are no more comments from the commission, I have more comments from the commission. So I don't know what or what are you want to do this and Chuck. I would like Mike's request. Sure. So I hear, does everyone agree that we should bring Scott Horsley on right now? That's fine. And then Brian has something. Just maybe prepping for Scott. The way I'm reading Hatch's information is similar to what they said the other day in the meeting, which was it seems like the numbers provided by the applicant passed the standards for the project, but they're very close and give them concern and the margin of error is thin. And so I just like to have some consideration given is actually true. And if so, is a pass a pass or do we need extra margin of error for a project like this? That's something that's not clear to me. I'd love to hear comments on that. Thank you. Yeah, respond to that, Mr. Chair. Sure. Please Dominic. So the short answer is a pass is pass. DEP doesn't distinguish between if you have 2.00 feet of groundwater separation or 2.0 something else. The pass is a pass. And as I just pointed out, you know, we have that at worst, we have, you know, a shade over two, which is exactly what a project adjacent to this site was just approved at. So it is not, you don't, there's no other way to say this, you don't get bonus points. What you get for having more groundwater separation is a lesser likelihood of having groundwater mounting issue when you do your analysis, or if you can get up to that 4 feet, you don't have to do it. So in an ideal world, we always shoot for the 4 feet. However, due to various, you know, to various grading issues at some point, sometimes you just can't get, you can't build that system high enough to get the 4 feet. And that was the situation here. But so they require a minimum of 2 and they don't distinguish, I mean, they frankly, they don't distinguish anything between 2 and 4. You're either at the minimum of 2, and you're doing X, Y, and Z, or you're at 4, and you don't necessarily have to do those. Okay. All right. So I'm going to allow Scott Horsley to unmute and just introduce the shelf and name it for the record, please. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Scott Horsley, 65 Little River Road, Coutouette, Massachusetts. And I have been retained by the Arlington Land Trust to review this project. So thank you for the opportunity. I do not have a slideshow tonight. In fact, I would suggest that my slideshow I showed at the last hearing still stands because, in my opinion, nothing has changed. In fact, the only thing that I've seen the applicant do is have their attorney write a letter opposing my client, putting in some wells to get some water levels. I think that's the only new information. And I think that's worth considering. Why would they oppose additional water level data? That is what exactly what the commission decided at the last meeting to collect additional information. And as several of your commission members pointed out tonight, the applicant's saying, no, they don't want to do that. Now, I also point number two is I disagree. I do not believe they are meeting the mass DEP storm water standards that is documented in my letters. If we had time tonight, I can go through it again. But I don't think you want me to do that. It's already in the record, both both in terms of testimony as well as written. And specifically, Dominic mentioned, he used the word exact location tonight. And that's in the record too. And I want to talk about what, in my opinion, what exact location means. The mass DEP storm water standards say that test pits and water levels must be established. And the actual working at the location, Dominic's term is exact location. And I agree with Dominic, it should be the exact location. As I think the commission now knows, they are suggesting relying on a test pit that is not at the exact location, test pit five. It's not even within the footprint of the storm water infiltration system, the large one that we've been focusing on. In fact, if you look at their most recent submittal, their measured water level at test pit seven, which is in within the large infiltration, it is minus .2 feet. That's what they use to do their frimter calculations. By the way, Mike Frimter is a very close friend of mine and did a lot of work with him over the years. And I'd be happy to go into great detail about the frimter method because I collaborated with him on it. But that's another story we can take up later. Very familiar with the frimter analysis. BSC has used a starting elevation of minus .2 feet as a measured water level at test pit seven. As I said in my most recent letter, I have not seen a groundwater level below sea level. This is something is wrong here, which is what my original testimony. These measurements don't make sense, which is why we need more water level information. It would have cost less money for the applicant to put wells in and test it. Less money than the attorney's efforts at putting a letter together opposing my client to produce water levels. So I just do not understand this, Mr. Chairman. The commission, I think, agreed based upon all the information submitted at the last meeting that additional water level should be developed. Why would that not be a good idea? Why would the applicant not want to do that for good engineering practice? I cannot think of any reason why that would be, especially in light of the only test pit within the large implementation that recorded a water level at minus .2 feet. I would love to hear an explanation of why they think the groundwater level might be at below sea level. I haven't seen it. So I could go on in detail about that, but I won't. The other comment I would make is on the groundwater mounting analysis, they did provide a response to your question about why they use 1.2 hours as a duration for a 24-hour storm. I frankly don't understand it and I disagree with it and I would strongly suggest if this gets appealed to mass DEP that they would tell you they have never seen a groundwater mounting analysis for a storm water system for a 24-hour storm at something like one hour. It just doesn't make sense. I think I understand the applicant's objective here to minimize the impacts by selecting a shorter period of duration because that would reduce the groundwater mounting, but it is a 24-hour storm. In fact, the design of this site is to recharge and infiltrate a storm much larger than the required storm and that's going to make it even larger. So the 1.2 hour duration frankly does not make sense, Mr. Sherman. The recent submittal by the BSC, in my opinion, doesn't make any sense. It does not comply with the storm water standards and I don't think it'll stand up to the muster of a mass DEP review. And I would be more than happy to go into more detail or answer any questions, but I think since our last hearing, again, the only new data I see is the letter from the attorney opposing additional water level data. Okay, thank you Scott. I just need one clarification to something there that Mr. Horsley said that was blatantly wrong. The only test, there are 2 test pits that we observed groundwater at in the large system. The other one at test pit 8, a groundwater elevation of 2.5 that we observed. Also, again, the groundwater elevation that we observed was also observed by the town selected and chosen peer reviewer, Whitestone Engineering. They concurred with what we observed for groundwater on that site. And again, those aren't the numbers we're using. Per an approved project by this commission a few weeks ago, we could have been justified using what we actually observed on the site, but we didn't, we used something significantly higher because we felt that was significantly more conservative and appropriate for this matter. And when you add that to, again, there was a test bit down in 2020 as part of the comprehensive permit that is just outside the limits of the large system when the design was a little different, which also had groundwater well below anything that we observed at this point. Mr. Chairman, if I may, through you, could we ask Dominic, why not collect some water level data now during the high spring data? Why stop debating this? Why don't we just collect the real data through you, sir? Dominic, do you have an answer to that question? Mr. Chair, I'll say we stand by, we did the groundwater, we got the data during the spring when it was required in the high groundwater season in May, when it was 2023 with the peer reviewer. Yes, I was going to note that the answer was in the response. Back to the commission, any commission members would have a question or a comment about what we just heard or anything else that they reviewed in between these two meetings. So, Susan, I'm going to go with David Kaplan because he hasn't had a chance to speak yet. Thank you. Mr. Rinaldi, could you please speak to, I guess, the claim about the duration of the mounting analysis? And could you just, I guess, paraphrase or explain your explanation that you put together in the letter that's on the record? Yes, so in its simplest terms, the groundwater mounting analysis is done for the required recharge. The purpose of it is to prove that when you build out a site, you're putting pavement buildings, things like that down, that will reduce what otherwise naturally would recharge to the groundwater. So, MassDEP has this standard where, depending on your soil types, you calculate out a required recharge volume, which we did. And you do the ground, and what they require is that the required recharge volume doesn't create a groundwater mound that breaks out over the surface of a well and or a water bottom. So, what we did was we analyzed, we took that required recharge volume, ran it through the model and determined the start time when it starts infiltrating and the end time when it stops infiltrating. So, there's no more water going into the cyst. The way the mounting analysis works, if you put in a rate, an infiltration rate, and whatever that duration that you run is, it just keeps putting that water in and building that mound. So, if you ran it for 24 hours, but it doesn't actually, it isn't actually infiltrating for 24 hours, you're representing something that isn't happening. So, what we did is we determined when the infiltration starts, when it finishes, and that was the duration that we ran. And again, this was exactly the way we did it in the comp permit, which was peer reviewed by the town's peer reviewer beta group and confirmed. Thank you. Any other questions, David? If not, I'm going to turn to Susan. Well, not at the moment. Okay, Susan. So, I am concerned that the groundwater elevations on this site are not obviously not uniform. The range of elevations from below sea level to four is concerning to me. If there is such a range, then how do we know that the elevations over the main storm water unit aren't even higher than four? I mean, if you're looking at what's your standard deviation there, there's a very wide range on the site. I don't know if that's due to soil type. I don't know if that's due to the wetland. I don't know what it's due to or maybe there was a well, you know, a test pit that was put in incorrectly. I don't know. But I am concerned that I don't really understand putting aside that things might have been done to the letter of the comprehensive permit. We're here reviewing this again. And I am concerned with the level of uncertainty. That is one of the reasons why I voted with the rest of the commission to ask for real data. I'm a scientist. I'm sure you're a scientist. You know, real data is something that we can grab hold of and say, okay, this supports this or it doesn't. It repudiates it. So I guess I'm still back there wishing I had real data, real groundwater data, to either support or not support the estimated high groundwater, seasonal high groundwater level. That's where I am. I mean, Mr. Chair, to clarify, this is real data. It's called the estimated seasonal high groundwater because that's the terminology. But where we, in that table we showed and we provided again last week, I believe week before, we observed groundwater at certain elevations. And it did vary. And honestly, I've seen weirder. Sometimes things just do that. It's strange. What it has to do with paths through water, I honestly don't know. But sometimes you observe groundwater and it varies pretty wildly over a site. We didn't observe any groundwater at elevation four. We observed redox features at elevation four. And redox features, again, are representative of a groundwater level that comes up to that point regularly enough to basically leave that lack of a better term staining in the in the soil. That was the highest thing. The water at that at test bit five was good foot below what we observed where we observed redox. The actual water that we observed was down 60 inches. We observed the redox 48 inches deep. So we're again, we're using, we're using something that's higher than anything we actually observed on the site. So when that is real data and that is the standards as to how it's set. And it's, you know, it is how commissions all over, including this one have approved any number of projects under the law's protection. So thank you for that answer. I think my use of the term real was a misnomer. I didn't mean real data. I meant supportive data. So, you know, when we're looking at these kinds of things, redox or a point in time test pit or whatever, if there are inconsistencies, then getting additional information for a weight of evidence to tell us, this is correct, or this is not correct. We're such a large project that could have such an impact in an area we know floods all the time. That's what I'm asking for. And if you ask me right now, right now, if I had enough information to, to vote on this project as a commissioner, I would say no. That's where I am. Okay. Any other comments from the commission? Dominic, I had, I had a question. Brian raised his hand to Chuck, you may not have. Oh, Brian, you certainly can step in front of me. You're muted though, to fix that. Yeah, sorry. I'm asking some naive questions because I'm new. I guess, Dominic, you said two things in that they built a cushion into your calculation. One was that you use stormwater storm levels that were higher than necessary, the plus plus number. I think the second one was you use worst case levels for the estimated seasonal high groundwater. If you didn't do those things, what kind of cushions would we have? Is that a calculation that would be valuable in this discussion? Or is that not relevant? Well, I mean, if we didn't use the highest data across the site, we, you know, these, these systems, the bottoms of those systems could vary for, depending on what we found in a given area, but instead they're, they're consistent bottom of every system is, is set elevation six. The, if we didn't use the NOAA plus plus data, all these infiltration systems would be small because we wouldn't have had to attenuate these, these much larger storms. So the systems would just, you know, instead the, off the cuff, I couldn't tell you precisely how much smaller, you know, but they would be small. I guess I'm just trying to maybe. Oh, if I may, sorry. The third item was the infiltration rate. I'm using a conservative infiltration, which is the same thing. If we use the more, if we use the higher infiltration rate, the systems would be smaller because that water would disappear out of them quicker and we wouldn't have to hold it as long. So those, those are sort of, I mean, Susan's concern and many of our concern is this is so darn close to the margin barriers. So then are those factors that you just mentioned, should they give us some comfort that the margin may not be as tight as feared? I mean, that was, that was the intent of doing that is to make it a conservative system that again, doesn't just meet, you know, rainfall today, but meets the longterm and climate change is real. It's happening, which is why, you know, I, I, I would, I would ask, or that's the chair or some other member to correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming that that is why at some point the commission use that NOAA plus plus requirement in the bylaw is to, is to, it is a higher number. It's, it's actually a higher number. You may be aware the DP is in the process of, of revising the, the Wands Protection Act specifically with regard to stormwater and they're going to use what they're calling NOAA plus, which is somewhere in between, but is actually again less than what the town requires and less than what we used here. So even what we use here for stormwater, for, for rainfall would actually exceed what the DP's new requirements will be whenever they come into play. And they're specifically doing that to account for future rainfall and climate change. Chuck, can I just respond to that specific? Sure, thanks Susan. I actually applaud using the NOAA plus plus. I, I advocated for that during the comprehensive permit process, but my understanding is that the NOAA plus plus allows you to design a stormwater system that can hold more water because the NOAA plus plus talks about more rainfall. It doesn't tell you where that system should be placed. Right, these are, these are two different. Which has to do with the estimated high groundwater and, and soil permeability, et cetera. Is that not true? Yes, that's right. Thank you. I just want to clarify that for Brian because just, just so he understands. Thank you. Okay. I had a question about the USGS monitoring well. So for, was any data collected from those wells and compared to this site or was that something that was, wasn't done? I am kind of lost. I'm actually just asking you to help me with my next question. Yeah, no, that's okay. So that's the frinker analysis. Okay. The frinker analysis we utilized. And I, I apologize if I'm in front of you, but it's the nearest well, I believe is in Lexington and published certain data that you use in that comparison. And so how, how does it help you? So we have point of time, you know, groundwater levels here. And in Lexington, we, we have, you know, we know what the fluctuation rate is over there. So what would you, I mean, I'm assuming the groundwater is not at the same level. So we're really, we would only be comparing the fluctuation between high and low levels. What are you, what would you compare if we had more monitoring data, I guess is, is where I'm at. In terms of compared to the USGS well. So if you had, if, so the commission asked to do some more monitoring, what would have been gained to compare that monitoring to the USGS wells? Would it only be the rate at which the groundwater fluctuates? Or would it be more? It's, it's basically a point in time measurement. So what you're doing is you're taking what you measure on your site. And then you're using, as Mr. Horsley wrote, it's the frinker analysis, it's a, it's a calculation. And you're using data from that well. So you're looking for while that's in the same material, and it's as close as can be, and ideally in the same watershed. And you're saying, and they publish certain data with regards to the, you know, it's the maximum, you know, the maximum level they've ever observed, as well as you go deeper in and get data for the time that from that well for when you actually got your data. And you, we put it in a spreadsheet rather than doing it by hand. And it gives you, it gives you basically, it doesn't give you an elevation, it gives you, I believe, a depth. And then using our elevation, we back out that number to get what they refer to as, as they don't refer to as an estimated season, I believe there was an approximate or an expected groundwater elevation. So it's sort of a way to back check what you're finding and seeing, you know, based on data that's publicly available, that includes, you know, the highest elevation ever measured in that well. You know, what, what would you expect under these circumstances? Thank you. I'm assuming that we still have permission to, from the commission to bring Scott Horsley on when he raises his hand. So I'm just gonna go to Scott and ask him to unmute and start, start to ask you a question. Yes, Mr. Chairman, briefly, I just want to respond or add to Dominic's comment, which I agree with him on. He mentioned point in time. And I totally agree with that. Point in time means you measure it once at a specific moment and try to figure out what's going on. What I recommended, and this is current standard technology, is a device called the pressure transducer, which Dominic may or may not be aware of. I'm not sure, but it's commonly used in the groundwater hydrology business now to monitor water levels. It takes a measurement every 15 minutes. And it's very inexpensive, again, less expensive than the attorney's memo on opposing this data, where we could get a measurement through the high water table time, which is currently March, April and May. And this would be the data that the commission already decided that they wanted. This is, in fact, there are wells in place. I understand this could be installed tomorrow. The, the equipment, I don't, not sure, BSC may own this equipment. I'm not sure if not, it's easily rentable. It could be installed tomorrow. And we get a measurement every 15 minutes through the next few months. It strikes me that would be really valuable data unless somebody was concerned about it being problematic to the design. If the applicant feels confident that their, their high water table determinations are correct, then this would be a great way for them to justify it. Mr. Chairman, very easy to do, we can start tomorrow. Pressure transducer, easily easy to install. This is the data that the commission already decided they wanted. And I think it's given again the size of this project, the complexity of the site. I can't imagine why we collectively, including the applicant and their attorney might not want this. Why not? So I'm going to go right to Stephanie. I see their hands up. Yeah. Sure. Yeah. Thank you, Stephanie key for small and Vaughn. Just there's been some, I think, misstatement that I first I'd like to clarify the, the applicant submitted a letter. I submitted on behalf of the applicant a letter to the select board objecting to the proposal to install wells. And the reason for that is the wells were the, the application that was submitted never had surveyed information. And it is so close to being a trespass on our property. Never sought their permission. And it's obviously anybody here would preserve their property rights. Similarly, Mr. Horsley has repeatedly said that you need to have wells that are within the infiltration system. Those proposed wells were outside of the infiltration system and actually close to a public sewer line. So we raised those concerns to the select board. The select board did what it did, but I think that there's no, there's absolutely no misdeed by protecting one's property rights and then noting the inconsistency with proposed locations of wells that are completely not in the location that they should have been. And I would say that, and I think that Dom did this in his presentation, so I don't need to reiterate, but when we're talking about a point in time and talking about wells, we have had multiple readings. We did the reading in November of 2020. Again, peer reviewed within the conservation or within the comprehensive permit process. We did, again, in accordance with the, with the town's review and oversight, the wells in May 2023. Dom presented updated from February of 24. And likewise, during the course of the proceedings for this matter, the commission has reviewed and approved 51 Burke Street, we had our direct butters that did one single well in November, I believe of 23. I understand that there are concerns in this neighborhood, but the concerns in this neighborhood are somewhat death by a thousand cuts. And I think that if we are going to look at applying the Wellings Protection Act, we should look at applying it fairly as to all applicants and not create new requirements. And just because somebody stands their ground and does not agree to requirements that are outside of the scope of the Wellings Protection Act, it is not correct and it's not proper to assign motives to that. Thank you. Okay. David Kaplan, I know that I cut you off a little bit. Do you still want to respond with a question or comment? Yeah, I mean, I guess I'm still trying to understand what, you know, additional information we could get, you know, through the groundwater monitoring. So, you know, ostensibly, the seasonal high groundwater table creates the modeling that was observed. So, I mean, I'm trying to figure out does groundwater monitoring estimate the water table better than a method that's approved by the DEP? I mean, it may get different numbers, but then at that point, how do we know if that's a better number than what was identified on site through an approved method? Okay. So, Chuck, are you going to answer that or can I, and maybe we can add to it? I just wanted to add to it just a little bit. I think that we'd all agree that redox is a good method. The problem is it wasn't, we don't have redox measurements over the main stormwater unit. We don't have reliable redox measurement. Now, they say they're going to use the highest one on the page. I thought they had one, a test bit. I mean, one of the test bits was low, but they had redox features that was a test bit seven, but there's seven and eight in that, and that one, so it would be seven. And it was inconsistent. Yeah. I think that's what I would feel comfortable with is getting the data over, because of the inconsistency of this site, that that's, keep coming back to that. I would like the data over that stormwater system. And I agree, it may not be better than redox data, but it's giving me another piece of information to give me certainty that if I'm going to approve this project, I'm not proving a project that's going to flood in an area that floods all the time, because I don't feel I have enough certainty, given the variability at the site. I do agree that redox is maybe the gold standard. You know, I don't know. And Dominic, can you remind me what the current separation from groundwater is under that big and full input? You know, under the infiltration system proposed at test bits seven and eight? Well, utilizing the elevation of four, which is higher than what we saw on there, it's the shade over two. Well, it's two. Technically, we used a groundwater elevation of 3.98, but I like ground numbers. 3.9 in the redox, in the redox characteristics gave you an elevation of 2.5. So what we saw in what we observed for groundwater, actual observed groundwater that made highest was in that particular system was 2.5. And that was from the water level? That was from the water level. That was from water in test bit eight. Okay. And remind me what the redox elevations were? In. I know. I'm sorry. In test bit seven, I think it is. Well, so again, the test bit seven redox are not indicative of a groundwater. They're indicative of a moment in time where groundwater perched there, left some staining, but doesn't continue through the test bits. I understand that's your position, but can you just tell me what the elevation is? For the record, it's not my position. That is the standard per DP under both the stormwater requirements and the septic system requirements. 5.8. The septic system, and you do this, you would still, the same reason that white stone did not set the groundwater at that elevation. They set it at where we observed groundwater. And what is that? Sorry, what was that? What is the elevation number, please? That was the one that was below sea level. Well, he's asking. Oh, the redox was. The elevation number. I just heard it in terms of, I think you expressed it earlier this evening in terms of depth below. Yeah. So just, yeah. So sorry, just to clarify, when you do the test pits, you're digging down and you measure down from the top of the test pits to indicate all of these things. So you are up in depth and then you go get the ground elevation at the point of the test pit and back out the actual. Yeah. So that's what I was trying to get it converted to because you're saying you're using an elevation of 3.98 for your design. So I'm just curious as to what that redox feature was. What's that elevation expressed in the same unit? The same measurement. I just don't remember what that was. Okay. I know you're going to say. I think Scott Horsley. No, no, no, no. Dominic's working on it. Okay. Yeah, it's 634 inches, I believe, down from the, from the ground elevation, which is 8.92. Okay. So be it 6. Okay. All right. Thanks. I understand the reasons why you're discounting it or dismissing it or not using it, I guess is the right word. I guess just to comment to David Kaplan that actually the DPS handbook does say that, whereas when redox features are not available, installation of temporary push point wells or piezometers should be considered. Ideally, such wells should be monitored in the spring when groundwater is highest and results compared to nearby groundwater wells monitored by the USGS to estimate whether the regional groundwater is below normal or above normal. So it's just, just comment to David Kaplan. So it's not, I don't think we're going out to, we're not going off the reservation by asking, making that request. But yeah, and it does say should consider they're not there. So that's all I have at this point. Thanks. Thank you. Okay. I see that Scott Hoseley has his hand up again. Scott? I just wanted to try to provide a direct answer to Nathaniel Stevens question. I believe the answer is 5.8 feet, but I'm going to look at the data. It was in my original letter. It comes from the data presented by BSC. I think that was the question asked, and that should be the answer provided. That question in my opinion. And as Nathaniel suggested, mass DEP standards do say exactly what he said. When redox features are not reliable, which is what BSC is suggesting, monitoring well should be installed, measured through the season and compared to USGS wells. That's exactly what we proposed. And that is exactly what the commission asked for. Scott, can I follow up? And those wells, when they talk about that in the stormwater standards is those, the wells that they're talking about, are they talking about installing those within the infiltration chamber? Exactly. To use Dominic wording at the exact location, not test pit 5. That's not the exact location. The actual wording in the stormwater standards is at the location, which I would agree with Dominic. It should be at the exact location, not test pit 5. That's not the exact location. The correct location is at test pit 7. That's where the well should be installed. Well, this there clearly is not working. It's minus 0.2 feet. There's something wrong with it. It's clogged, wasn't installed properly. I don't know, but it's not 0.2 feet, not minus 0.2 feet. We need a properly installed well there in compliance with the stormwater standards. It's not a big deal. It's inexpensive. We can get it done tomorrow. Okay. Any other comments from the commission? Okay. So I'm going to turn this, I'm going to ask for some comments. Maybe there are some comments from, I know Scott Horsley was able to speak with the commission, with the applicant as part of this, but there might be some comments out there. But I just want to let you know that the Conservation Commission through our office received 29 at my count between the last two meetings, emails regarding Thorndyke plays by the abutters and by concerned parties. And the majority of those had to do with flooding and the applicant's denial of the Conservation Commission's request to perform more monitoring. So if you want a full list and to read each one of those comments, you can go to the Thorndyke page, which is part of the Conservation page on our website. But I also asked it to be available for Ryan to put that in our chat. So not only can the Conservation Commission see this correspondence with the applicant and anyone else who is interested. So I thought it was, I thought it was important to mention that because it seems like I hadn't remembered that much comments coming in on any other projects since I've been on the commission. And I can't remember if that's 17 or more years, but somewhere around that time. And so I just wanted to lead with that and to say that we have a lot of concerned people here about their house and their flooding. And the flooding has happened consistently. And I think we're talking about the large infiltration system. And I understand that, but we're not talking about all the other infiltration systems. So I guess those are okay. And so this one infiltration system that has some wells in it that seem to put out some data that's inconsistent has been most of the conversation and even beyond habitat, even beyond, you know, other comments that have been made, traffic, which is not part of our purview, but, you know, let's say erosion and all that kind of stuff that we are interested in. And I guess I wonder, this one infiltration chamber with its capacity based on 14 plus plus is, you know, I guess at some point you expect it to fill up. And when it fills up, weird is it overflow? And is there any freeboard, is there any freeboard in that design to allow for fluctuation? I assume that question. Sorry, Dominic, if you had an answer before I go. Thank you. So it overflows around the back of the large building. There is an outlet to the south of the large building that in larger storms it overflows into. And I will dig up how much freeboard there is in the 100-year storm event, which again is the largest storm event analyzed. And again is 11 inches for what we did. There's in the 100-year storm event, it comes with about two inches below the top of the inside top of that system. Can you say that again? In the 100-year storm event, which is actually 11 and a half inches, sorry, it comes to about two inches below the top of that system. Okay. Okay. And again is outletting around that overflowing. And I want to get to these other comments, but I'm just from my own curiosity. I would be it would be interesting to know the elevations out there and which way it would head. But that being said, I do want to turn to so once it so you said it overflows around the back of the building. Is there an outlet or is that and then which there's a piped outlet? There's a piped outlet. And then the elevation of the undisturbed ground in which direction does it head towards? It would go south. It would go south. And south is towards? South is towards the wildlands, route two. So it's going to discharge and naturally head towards route two. Yes. As per the existing contours that are out there now. Yeah. Okay. With that, if anyone has attended attending tonight's hearing who wants to have a comment, please raise your hand using the reactions button. It is 10 o'clock. I'm going to do as many comments as I can possibly do in 15 minutes and we'll let you have at least two minutes to make a comment. First one I saw was Matthew. And I don't see the last name. Oh, McKinnon. Sure. Unmute, please and state your name and address for the record. My name is Matthew McKinnon. I live at 9 Little John Street in Arlington. I heard mentioned by the applicant a house being built at 51 Birch Street. I was at the February 21st Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals phone call regarding 51 Birch Street. And I'd just like to note for the record that this house is being built on stilts. It will not have a basement nor a slab foundation of any sort. It's also interesting that another house literally right around the corner on Edith Street, I believe the numbers for that tuplex is 14 and 16, was also built up on stilts. Again, no basement, no foundation whatsoever. I believe that's about eight to 10 feet above the street level, or at least the parking level. I just wanted to make that noted. I find it very interesting that these new structures are being built on stilts rather than being built at the foundation. Thank you. Thank you, Matthew. It was a good comment. Carol, please state your name for the record. Carol Kowalski. 182 Situit Street, Arlington. I don't live anywhere near this neighborhood. I am a former planning director for the town of Arlington and approached in 2009 by Oak Tree Development seeking to develop this site. And I said, we've got a lot of great sites where you could do some fantastic multifamily. But they insisted on pursuing this site. And I explained why I did not think that was a good idea. And here we are today. And I'm urging the commission to please heed the letter that Scott Horsley has submitted on behalf of the Arlington Land Trust, which I want to say is also on behalf of the town. The select board and town meeting have voted repeatedly for 30 years to try to do everything to protect this land because it floods. And the consequences of this development, we will be living with for 50 years if this proceeds without adequate data. So any additional information we can get now is a worthwhile investment because we will be living with the consequences for decades to come. So I urge the commission to please request and require that the applicant perform the additional data gathering that Scott Horsley has requested in his letter. Thank you. And Kathy, thank you very much for those. Derek Straub, please unmute and stage name address for the record. Good evening, Derek Straub, 57 Dorothy Road. So I'm asking the applicant here, I guess, to see if any of their calculations have taken into account the storms that are actually flooding Dorothy Road on a consistent basis. Our street floods consistently, and I'd say it majorly floods about five times a year. So do any of their calculations take into account inches to potentially feet of water flowing into their property and into our properties during these storm events? And also, can they attest that they will not have any water leaving their property and adding to the flooding on Dorothy Road? Thank you. Yeah, so I can let you know that in the decision of the Comprehension Pyramid, it does state that the applicant says that no water will leave the property. As far as the first question, I do not know the answer to that, but it was a good comment. Robert DiBiassi. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Robert DiBiassi, 29 Little John Street. I'm a director of water to the property, whereas my basement slabs sit at about four feet below the street level. And I can see water on an average basis of a good rainstorm about six inches down below slab where my sun pumps were. So as a director of water, I'm within 50 feet of the property line. I can tell you that the water heights in my basement are of that level. And on a second note, I'm curious of when the applicant actually showed up on the 15th to do the testing or to do the reading of their wells, what time it was, so that we could check our records as well. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, thank you for that comment. Any other comments from... See, Rob's still hand up. So Sarah, all good. If you want to mute and state your name and address for the record. Yes, Sarah, all good. Dorothy wrote, I have two questions and one comment, if I may. My first question is, and I apologize for not being a hydrologist here, but my first question is the water monitoring data analysis that's been provided. Is this based on the type of soil sample analysis that the applicant carried out? Is Dominic, is that a question that you could answer? Because I'm going to try to fully understand the question. Sarah, could you restate your question? Yes, hello. So the water monitoring data analysis that is carried out, does this vary based on the type of soil that is present? So I remember in the applicant's presentation, they showed various different soil samples and they said, I can't remember exactly what the sandy loom or something that was was analyzed. So it's just wondering if you had a different soil sample, would that impact the data analysis for the hydrology studies? It wouldn't impact the groundwater levels. It would impact the end calculations for the run. Right. Okay. So my second question then is, I'm just curious, how many soil samples were actually analyzed, given the fluctuations and diversity in terrain that we've heard about quite a lot tonight? Through the chair, if you'd like. Yeah. Two, seven, eight, please. Eight test pits were done in 2023 and three were previously done in 2020. So how many soil samples were analyzed? Well, so you look at the soils in each of those test pits. So 11. Okay. Okay. So and the reason I asked that is because, again, Dorothy Road resident, I can absolutely state with great confidence that I do not have loomy sand type soil. My soil in my garden is clay like soil. And I think many other residents of Dorothy Road and the neighborhood would attest to that. So I found that comment, that analysis surprising. So thank you very much. Thank you. Any other comments from any butters or people attending tonight's meeting about the stormwater? I think Mr. DeWalze had just a simple question that maybe Dominic could answer. Sure. Could you restate it? What time of day if Dominic remembers what time of day where they are on a site for the soil, for the point to collect those additional samples? Give you an exact time. It's another day. Are you talking about the February? Yes, the recent data that Dominic mentioned in his presentation. Okay. Warning or afternoon? Sorry, I didn't just ask that question. I'm just trying to clarify that the question. Yeah, I honestly don't know anything about me. It was sometime during the work day. I don't recall. Okay. Sorry, I thought that would be a simple question to answer, but understand. Thanks. Yeah, I didn't realize that was the answer. It's okay. We do a lot during the work day, so I don't always. Okay. So, Derek, Robert, and Sarah, you've all had an opportunity. So, I'm going to ask you to be very quick. We'll start with Derek Straub. Derek Straub, 57 Dorothy Road. Mr. Chairman, just to ask you a question. You stated that in their application that they will not have any water leave their property and enter Dorothy Road. What are the repercussions if it does happen in the future? To be honest with you, I would turn to someone else on the commission. So, I just think it's not, so I can talk about my town, but it's just simply not allowed where I work. I don't believe it's allowed here, but maybe Dominic could help me out here with where this is going. I mean, it's not, you've designed the water to stay on the property. I appreciate that they designed that, but what are the repercussions if it doesn't, is a really good question. From the Conservation Commission, there as far as, so we look for measurable impact, and so one event wouldn't do that, but if it continued and there was some sort of erosion or some sort of problem that the commission could link to the Wetlands Protection Act, our own Wetlands Protection Regulations here in Arlington, we would certainly have an issue. Outside of that, you would direct your comments about water coming off the property to the town, DPW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sure. Sarah, how good. Hi, yes. Sarah over Dorothy Road. So my last question is, I understand that the original test case sampling was done in May. Do we have a date in May? Are we talking the beginning of the month or the end of the month? It was May 18th and 19th, 2023. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay. And the last question I'm going to entertain here would be Mr. Robert DeViasse. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, I guess my question is directed towards Dominic. This is scientific data that we're gathering here on that test, you know, coming out to take a measurement on the 15th in February. We should have a lot of who showed up and who witnessed it, what time of day it was. I don't think that's too much to ask. I know that a lot of the fields out there would require awards on who shows up, what time. And we just were looking for that information just to back it up. So that's my last question, but thank you very much. Yeah, I'm also surprised that it wouldn't be on the desperate data log, but that may be the case. And I know that information has been, it's probably part of the comprehensive permit, but maybe we can find that and put it on the website. Susan, do you have any comments on that? The February data, Dominic, didn't you just... It's 2024. 2024. This is new data. We don't have it. I didn't even know about it till Dominic just talked about it, unless I missed it somewhere. It was in one of his letters. Oh, it was in a letter. Okay. But it was just presented in table form. There were no data. And it's measurements. It's not the test pits. Right. Mr. Chair, you're probably right. I don't think the test pits probably have times written on them, but those were the test pits. I'm sorry. I was referring to wells. The wells that you would claim that you had measured. I'm looking to find out the date and time that somebody came out to the field and measured the well depth, whether they did it with a stick or however they chose to do it, who came out when, who witnessed it. And that's what we're looking for. Thank you. We have the date. We don't have the time. Is it? Yeah. So, Dominic, is there any additional information? Not verbal. When you measure a one-time measurement of a ground well, that you're particularly concerned with, it's the date. It's the date and the time. Somebody drove out to Little John Street and Dorothy Road, parked a car. All right. Mr. D. Biassi, I think we understand your point. I don't want to get into kind of like a back and forth, but so the commission has asked if there's additional data concerning those test pits, if you could provide it to us in between the meetings and then we would post that information on our website so that. Or even if they weren't test pits, if it was just ground well. Yeah. Yeah. And we would like to see it. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Okay. So, public comment is ended and back to the commission for any further comments or motions. And I think a number of commission members have said that they, well, a number. I don't know if it was a number. I know Susan said it, maybe others did, but I want to say for myself that hearing tonight's comments and knowing how I felt, I do feel uneasy. I don't feel like I have enough certainty to ensure that there's a minimum of two feet of separation between the bottom of the infiltration chamber and the seasonal high ground water where the infiltration chamber is located between test pits, between test pit seven and test pit eight. And I would ask again that you honor the conservation commission's request to do additional monitoring in that area. And if you find that you need to install a few new wells to get accurate information for this site, I would ask you to also do that. And with that, I'll turn to the commission for any further comments or motions. Oh, and if we're going to get a motion to continue, I want to ask the applicant if they would grant that. So Nathaniel Stevens. Thanks. I think we need to continue, if not for stormwater, definitely for the invasive species thing. That's absolutely true. And I did ask for continuation on habitat and the invasive species that kind of lead into this application. Sure. And I just want to make one comment more, I think more for the public, especially some people who sent us comments, which I'll appreciate very much appreciated. The commission doesn't have the authority to demand or require the applicant to install these wells that we are requesting. Chuck's using the right word. We're requesting it. We're requesting for that information. So at the best, we can do try to convince them and try to plead with them to provide that information so we make a decision so we can make our decision. We do have the power, however, to deny permit application for lack of information. And I think that's what Susan is sort of hinting at. Just, I just want to make it, and I'm sure the applicant picks up on this, but I think the members of the audience might not, people attending might not understand that we don't have the authority to order or direct them to do something, require them to do something. We can just urgently request it and strongly suggest that it might be in their best interest to do so. That's as best as we can do. So I just want to explain that to folks and the audience. Sure. Any other comments from the commission? So I have two requests for BSC. Dave Kaplan. Dave Oh, sorry, Dave. I go for it. Yeah, I just had maybe, maybe we can sort of close the door. I think there was another comment that was floating around a potential condition for like a 10 foot separation from foundations. And I just want to say that I'm not comfortable making a request that's sort of outside of purview. I'm hoping other permitting agencies and building codes will take that and consider that and make that decision. I just wanted to make that comment. Dave All right. Thank you. So with that, I'm going to close this out. I have three requests. Okay, first I would like to ask Dominic and Matt if they would submit those slides to the commission so we could review them between this meeting and the next meeting. Both the invasive slides that we saw at our last meeting and the slides that Dominic presented tonight, that was a lot of good information in there. And I want to make sure that we're on top of that. And I also want to ask the applicant if they will continue until April 4th and we will pick up on habitat and stormwater. I think Stephanie was trying to say something. I was just going to quickly respond. Yes, you can continue until April 4th. Thank you. And Dominic, is this slides available for us? I know it's Dominic and Matt, but I don't see Matt. Oh, there's Matt right. Oh, no. Actually, there you go. Sorry, my camera turned off. Yeah, are those slides available for us to review between these two meetings? We can get those to you. Those are just Tom's kind of introduction to his strategy for dealing with invasive. So I'm sure we can share that. And I'd like at the next meeting for you to go over those slides again. And then at the end, we'll have some questions. So that would be the first thing that we would do. All right, Matt, thank you. And Dominic, those slides, you're going to get those to us also? Is there okay? Yeah, basically, his answer was appreciated. Okay. And with that, can I get a motion from the commission to continue this hearing of Thorn Dyke Plays to April 4th? So moved. Okay. And now a second. I'm going to say, Michael's game got that. Can I get a second? Second. Oh. I had no idea, but I know that Nathaniel said second. So Nathaniel got a second. So there you go. All right. So let's close this out. Susan Chapnick. Yes. David Kaplan. Yes. Brian McBride. Yes. Mike Gildes game. Yes. Nathaniel Stevens. Yes. Chuck Turoni says yes. Okay. All right. April 4th. We'll see you then. Thanks everyone for attending tonight's meeting. Thank you. If there's nothing else, Chuck, I'll make a motion to adjourn, or did you have anything else? I don't have anything else. And for this one, we can, I think it's appropriate that we just, everyone just says waves and we're done. Okay. So make a motion. Yep. Thanks. Bye now. Bye everyone. ACMI productions are only made possible with your support. Visit patreon.com slash ACMI to learn how you can help.