[Denis MacDougall]: July 16th, 2022, Governor Baker signed into law an act relative to extending certain state of emergency accommodations, which among other things, extends the expiration of the provisions pertaining to the Open Meeting Law to March 31st, 2023. Specifically, this extension allows public bodies to continue holding meetings remotely without a quorum of the public body physically present at a meeting location and to provide adequate alternative access to remote meetings. The act does not make any new changes to the Open Meeting Law other than extending the expiration date of the temporary provisions regarding remote meetings from July 15th, 2022 to March 31st, 2023.
[Heidi Davis]: Thank you, Dennis. So we are fully virtual tonight, which actually makes it a little easier. And I wanted to introduce myself. I'm Heidi Davis and I'm chair of the Conservation Commission. Tonight we'll hear a presentation by the applicant's representative. there'll be discussion by the Conservation Commission, and then we'll open it up to the public if they have any comment. I know there's a couple of residents attending. I just ask that you state your name and your address for the minutes, for the record of the minutes, and then we'll turn the discussion back to the Conservation Commission to see if we have anything further to add.
[Unidentified]: Sound good?
[Heidi Davis]: Great. So again, this is our first hearing with a quorum. So if we could please start from the beginning and who is representing the applicant tonight?
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_04]: That's me, Ben Minix with Eagle Brook Engineering. Great. All right. Thank you. If I may share my screen. Thank you, co-host. One second. Okay, thank you, everyone. Again, my name is Ben Minnix with Eagle Brook Engineering. Also on the meeting with us is Ron Buck with Marsh Builders, the owner-applicant, and Kathleen Desmond, the attorney for the applicant. So hopefully you can see my screen. You should see Google Maps overview. The property in discussion is 54 South Street. The reason for filing is we are within 200 feet of Mystic River, which is on the opposite side of South Street. And you can't see this, Google, is that correct? Yes. OK. So again, 54 South Street, where my mouse is pointing right now. This is currently a single family lot. And what we're proposing is a four unit multi-residential structure. So I will go to Street View with a nice FedEx truck in the way. So this is the single-family house. There's a single driveway on the right side of the house with a parking area in the back. To the left is lawn area and then turning around 180 degrees is the Mystic River with Mystic Reservation in front. So I'll just drag my screen over here to the site plans that we submitted. So hopefully you can see the site plans here. So this is an overview of the lot, again, single family home driveway and lawn space here. There are some mature trees along the property sideline over here, a couple in the back, and then some smaller, not as healthy trees, not as large trees here against the driveway. So that's the existing. Let me get into the proposed a little bit more. And please stop me if you have any questions, but I'll keep going here. So we are proposing an attachment to the existing single family home, three more units in the structure here with an attached vestibule between them. The existing driveway we've coordinated with the fire department and the engineering department. Um, they've requested that we widen the driveway. Um, originally they wanted 20 feet. Uh, but because of this existing crosswalk, um, they've approved 14 and a half feet and, um, this existing driveway will be utilized in case of emergency for the fire truck, um, to come around to the back. So in the back, um, is the proposed parking area. And I should mention this, this darker line here that is the 200 foot riverfront area line going approximately to the middle of the property 100 foot is out in the street. So, all this existing developed area. So it is classified as a redevelopment project. So again, three units over here, parking in the back, this garage in the back is going to be removed. Um, so as far as the conservation area, um, it would be this front area. So this existing house is approximately 150 feet from the river. The proposed addition is about 160 feet from the river. So no closer to the river than the existing structure. Um, in total, we're increasing, uh, the total property. a 4,000 square feet increase in impervious area. Make sure I get the total right. So within the riverfront area, there's an increase of 3,800 square feet of impervious area. So we have worked with the engineering department to approve a stormwater design. Currently, the existing house has downspouts that discharge to the surface. Everything slowly makes its way to South Street. And on South Street are catch basins which discharge untreated water to the river through an outfall just off screen here. In the proposed case, we are collecting the existing downspouts, the proposed downspouts, and we're also adding catch basins in the driveway to this one being a contact CDS unit, which is a hydrodynamic separator to remove additional total suspended solids. So all that collected runoff will discharge to underground storage tanks for recharge and to meet the stormwater requirements. This system in the back takes some of the area from the riverfront area. And then this portion of the driveway goes to this system and a small portion of the roof runoff goes to this front system here. And all we're decreasing the volume of runoff and rate of runoff to the street and so we're greatly improving the water quality that's going out to the river, which is the goal of these stormwater systems as well as recharge for groundwater. We have submitted this to engineering department with the utility so If everything goes to plan, this is where the utilities will be proposed. An additional sewer service for the new addition. The existing sewer service would remain for the existing dwelling. We bring in a new water and fire service and expand fire over to the existing dwelling. And then a new gas service as well. Um, as far as, uh, redevelopments, again, this is redevelopment, um, of an already disturbed, uh, riverfront area. You have a, uh, an existing street going right through the riverfront area between the property and the river. Um, we did do test beds and we found disturbed soil. So all of this has been, uh, reworked in the past. Um, let me back up one sheet here, uh, discuss tree removal. So as part of permitting, or at least at this point, discussions with the fire department, they would like us to remove this tree here, which is a larger one. And then these three are smaller pines. This is a pine and I forget what species that one is, but it's smaller. This one here, it's a nice tree, but they would like us to take that one out. So in place, we're proposing to plant four new trees along the front of the property. And then those species to be approved by the tree warden, most likely a red maple or of some sort is what I know has been proposed in the past. So that's the mitigation for the tree rule. Another small one here to be taken out. Additional bushes over here. And no plans to remove this large tree up front. It's a nice tree. We'd like to save that. I guess I'd turn it over, unless Kathy has anything else you'd like to add. I'm happy to answer questions.
[Kathleen Desmond]: And at this time, but I'm certainly on for questions as well.
[Heidi Davis]: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mannix. We will discuss it among the commission. If you could stop sharing your screen for now, that would be appreciated. Thanks. Thank you. I have a few questions, but I certainly will let my other commission members proceed me.
[Christopher Bader]: Okay, I'll start off. I have a couple of, just a couple of things. I noticed that when you did your stormwater analysis and calculations, you basically said that You disagreed with the classification of where the, let me see if I could find this. The estimate listed soil profile as a sandy loam over silty loam parent material and a water table at 18 to 24 inches below grade. However, this is inconsistent with the testbed observations and not used in stormwater analysis. Well, this was a very, very dry summer and we're having, in general, a lot more rainfall than we've had in the past. So how do you justify that and why?
[Heidi Davis]: I had a similar question, Alex, in that there needs to be a demonstration that Esplanade Seasonal High Groundwater is two feet below the bottom of the Coltex structures. I did not see any test pit logs attached to the notice of intent. It just said that ESHGW was assumed to be the bottom of the test pit. So I think we need to see the test pit logs as part of our review.
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_04]: Would you like me to answer as each question comes along? Yes, please. If I could, I'll share my screen again. So the test pit logs are on sheet C1 with test pit one, two, and three shown on the site plan. So test pit one was conducted in front. So we have the three test pits here and I did perform the test pits. So what we would look for in, for groundwater, if there is no actual weeping or standing water as we look for the redox morphic features or modeling. And so there were none within these test pits. And the reason we look for those is because in cases of if you're doing test pits in the summer, you have different amounts of rainfall in different years. We look for that as traces of where groundwater has come up and actually pulled some of the iron or other substances out of the soil. And you'll see those marks. In this case, there were none. The soil was very dry, which was expected for the summer. These test pits were formed in May, so it was slightly before we had the driest weather. But to reference the soil report found on WebSoil online, that is a generalization for the area and the region. what I would have expected for something across the street, more towards the river area is 18 to 24 inches of groundwater level, probably down in this bank area. But up over here, it was more consistent. It'd be one thing if I saw one thing in one test pit, and then completely different towards the back of the lot with these two test pits. But each one was consistent, and it was virgin soil when you got below the top loamy sand layer. So I am confident as far as where groundwater is and the texture class of the soil. Now, when I say estimated seasonal ground was assumed at the bottom, that means that I did not observe modeling or any water above that. So as a worst case scenario, I'm assuming the bottom of the test pit. I'm not assuming farther down than where I was able to observe. So I'll turn it over again.
[Unidentified]: Thank you.
[Christopher Bader]: Okay. You've also classified this as an addition, even though it's really a separate structure and you're connected with the vestibule. I'm seeing that as a separate structure altogether.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I can answer that question. As long as the architecture in the vestibule area match the architecture of the existing house, it has been considered by the zoning board and the building department as a multi-family one structure. Part of the reason why we're trying to preserve the existing house, my client doesn't have any interest in removing that home. It probably is historic. We went through Um, not, not the historic commission, uh, because we have no intention of, of tearing it down, but, um, this plan creates a situation where it's a modest development. You've got essentially four units. Um, the lot itself is 16,951 square feet in an apartment, one district. So this lot itself could support 14 units, um, based on the area of the lot. Um, And this property abuts the general residence. So my client was satisfied with the four units and not attempting to demolish the property and having to go through the historical commission to create a bigger project that would be, I'm not certain 14 units could be approved as of right, but certainly somewhere in the 10 to 12 range based on the size of the lot wouldn't be unreasonable. I don't know if that answers your question or not, but.
[Christopher Bader]: My last question is about the trees. You're talking about putting in four new trees, but I think you're talking about removing seven. Am I right? Seven.
[Unidentified]: That's correct. So we have
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_04]: share again. Sorry to keep jumping back and forth. If you want me to stay on the screen, I will.
[Christopher Bader]: No, that's fine. 1234568.
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_04]: So the thing is, certainly we can put more trees. I just, I would think it's kind of squeezing them on the lot and it's something, if that's a problem, we could certainly offer trees somewhere else.
[Christopher Bader]: What are you putting where the garage is going to be raised? I mean, is that just lawn there? What's going on?
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_04]: That's correct. That's just going to be grass and maybe visitor parking. Visitor parking. So you're going to extend the parking lot. No, it's not the plan. It's going to be grass. But if you had to park over it, you could.
[Kathleen Desmond]: If I can speak to that question on the back parking. The garage is being raised at the request of the fire chief so that he can make the turn to the back of the parking lot. When we first proposed this, I think my client wants to stay with two spaces per unit. But as you know, there's been a revision to the code So one and a half is actually required, which would be five spaces. Um, so there isn't any intent to put any additional parking spaces on the property, but the garage is, is mainly being raised due to, um, concerns raised by the fire chief. Um, and, and, and, and I'll address the trees on, on the, um, the side of budding, um, the other lot and where the single family houses as well. Um, again, if you, if you look at the plan, there's a bump out on the, um, the existing structure, which we all tend to think is probably one of the items that if you're looking at this from a historical commission perspective is probably something that they would want to stay. In order to accommodate the structure and to provide access to the fire department, the fire chief again asked that if we could remove those trees, he could live with the driveway as it currently is situated. And Ben had run some, truck pump truck, is that what it has been? Diagrams to make sure that in fact, the safety apparatus could come through. In addition, we have agreed with the fire department to sprinkle that existing house, which is not sprinkler to enhance its safety.
[Heidi Davis]: Alex, I do have follow up questions that tie into your questions about the trees. So, So this project is being reviewed under 10.58 parentheses five for redevelopment. And as such, it needs to meet criteria A through G. On page three of your notice of intent, item G, you note that the applicant is intending to comply with the requirements set forth in 10.58, five A through F. But we actually need to review that evaluation and see a demonstration of how those criteria are met. In particular, I want you to keep in mind that criteria calls for an improvement to the site that protects the interests of the act, of the Wetlands Protection Act. So something that improves the functions of the area to provide, you know, protect the interests, meaning decrease in impervious areas, native plantings, et cetera. Now I know you've listed the stormwater improvements as your improvement, presumably under criteria A. However, criteria B is the one that calls for stormwater improvements. So you don't get to claim improvements, stormwater improvements to meet just both A and B. You need something separate for A. So you have four trees. They're native. That's on the way. I also see that you're proposing shrubs. Can you tell me what species are proposed?
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_04]: Correct. I don't have a single species picked out, but yes, they would be native species. And then we also have a mulch shrub bed over here, which has some rhododendron in it right now. This area here. could also be expanded with this mulch bed.
[Heidi Davis]: I think that might be something we should consider because it appears that the shrubs along the structure are landscaping related and not something that is meant to enhance the functions of the riverfront area.
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_04]: But we can continue. That makes sense. And I think we'd still like something that, you know, this is a really nice tree, you know, we don't want to start that. So we want something that would thrive in this area. So I would recommend probably not another tree that would be impacted by this one. So maybe something else.
[Heidi Davis]: Right. And it could bring from native shrubs to herbaceous plantings, something, you know, not, For example, annuals, I mean, perennials, excuse me, the opposite, but I think we would prefer shrub plantings as they provide both wildlife habitat cover and possibly food if you know the native species including Ilex or Dogwood or et cetera, anything that's fruit producing, for instance.
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_04]: And we could also plant something along this back area, but I know it's not within the riverfront area. We do have a few trees here, but there is a strip between the parking area and this existing fence. So we could plant along that as well. Great. There is a small strip here. However, it's so narrow, I don't think that would be the best area for anything. Probably not. I probably wouldn't get much light either.
[Heidi Davis]: So in particular, I'd like to see you address criteria E, which is the most convoluted section of these regulations. And I don't pretend that these regulations are easy to parse. That's the one about the temper. I'll read it. Everybody's so 10.58 parentheses five parentheses E reads that the area of proposed work shall not exceed the amount of degraded area provided that the proposed work may alter up to 10% if the degraded area is less than 10% of the riverfront area except in accordance with 310 CMR 10.585 F or G. Totally clear, isn't that?
[Unidentified]: course.
[Heidi Davis]: Anyhow, we do. We do need to see that spelled out for us. Uh, but I'd like to turn it back to the commission now and see if there's any other comments. And if not, then we can hear from the residents.
[Unidentified]: Are we else, Dave, Craig or Eric?
[Heidi Davis]: Are you all set?
[Marie Izzo]: I am for now, thank you. I am as well for now. We'll come back.
[Christopher Bader]: I have another question about the alternatives analysis. It seems to be kind of light. When I looked at, when I was reading your alternatives analysis, there is no discussion of, you know, how cost benefits. It's just basically saying we could build something different, but we don't really want to. That's... You know, there was that middle piece, you know, there's a do nothing alternative, and you've got the proposed alternative, but the middle alternative is really kind of white. Isn't there other ways that you could structure this so you don't have as much impervious surface?
[Unidentified]: Sure, again, I'll share one more time.
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_04]: Sorry for the back and forth. We looked at a few different options, um, where this would be economically feasible. Um, one way to move, uh, you can move the structure of the proposed addition, um, to the back here. Now the issue with that is then you need to bring in a second driveway up front here, and then you also need to provide parking for that additional structure. Um, now to do that, you're going to be actually increasing impervious area beyond what we have here. Second to that, I would prefer not to put parking within the riverfront area as possible. So in an ideal situation for here, I believe it's to have the parking out back where you're going to have the most potential contaminants getting into the stormwater. So we're separating that from the riverfront area.
[Christopher Bader]: What about putting in pervious pavers on the driveway portion, not really the parking portion, but the driveway portion itself?
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_04]: This portion here?
[Christopher Bader]: Yes.
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_04]: That is an option. It is a maintenance thing that would have to be taken care of. We are collecting this area into a stormwater system. So in my opinion, Um, as far as maintenance and, uh, what we're treating, I think the catch basin, um, with the infiltration system would do an equivalent and maybe a better job in some cases, as long as the catch basin is maintained. Um, but that is, that is an option to reduce impervious area is to, um, make this pavers.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I think that one of the items that we'd have to deal with, cause we, we spent a lot of time initially, um, at the beginning of this project dealing with, um, the fire chief and having conversations with him. And that is the access to the back parking area. Um, so, you know, certainly I, I don't think that my client has an issue with it. He's here, he can respond to that, but I think that we'd have to defer at least with, to the driveway area, uh, to fire, um, because we have a, a smaller, uh, driveway than, you know, what they like to see, which is generally 20 to 24 feet. Um, and he has permitted us to do, something less than that so that we don't have to disturb additional areas, and also because we don't want to disturb the existing dwelling, because then we get into a situation where we have to go before the historical commission. I don't want to say that they would find it definitively to be historical, but I think it's probably more than a flip of a coin, and that was a concern in the beginning. which is why in terms of a project, it also limits us because we don't want to demolish the existing structure. Some of the alternatives in that sense are limited. In addition, this is an apartment one district. I understand that there's been a single family on it for years, but this in terms of development for units as opposed to what could be placed on the property, I would argue is a middle ground. In this instance.
[Christopher Bader]: I'm not talking about middle ground. I'm talking about your view of options. That's all. What, what else.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Well, I mean, any other option to get it out of the river front would require us to demolish that existing structure. Or put the parking in the front, because that that structure is kind of the centerpiece of the project. and to demolish, to realistically consider any other options, I think you'd have to consider at least a partial demolition of the existing structure, which is in good condition.
[Craig Drennan]: And Heidi, I actually do have one question before we move on, if that would be okay. Looking at the, stormwater report in the response to standard seven, which is the redevelopment standard regarding that standards two, three, four, five, and six essentially be meant to be extent practicable. The response to that states that there are no existing stormwater controls on site and the proposed system improves quality and runoff from the site, as well as providing additional recharge But that is a response to the quality and recharge standards. There isn't a response to how standard two has been met to the extent practical. That would be peak flow control. It doesn't look like the stormwater management systems, the CDS or the subsurface attention have peak flow management. So I'm interested to see how standard two here is met to the extent practicable as well.
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_04]: Yes. So, okay. Yep. So as far as peak flow control, so the next sheet here, the way this system was designed in the back, it's larger than it needs to be to meet the peak flow requirement. But in an effort to, you know, protect the dwelling as far as, you know, if there was an overflow at the surface, we didn't want water going to the dwelling. We didn't want it going to the abutters. And also we didn't want to have to make a proposed drain connection in the street to the existing drain line or the catch basins. So this system is larger than it needs to be to capture additional runoff. And it's storing a lot more runoff than it would have to. So we're trying to contain as much water on site as possible so that we don't have to have an overflow to the street connection. So as far as contaminants removal, it's going to be contained within those systems a lot better than it would with an overflow for a lesser storm event. That answer the question?
[Heidi Davis]: I also note that in the notice of intent, and there's no page number, so I can't refer to a page number, but there is a table comparing existing as opposed to proposed peak runoff for the 210 and 100-year event. I don't know. I presume you saw that, Craig. It sounds like you looked at this pretty closely.
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_04]: If you can see the page on the stormwater report, we do have peak flow comparison here and volume of runoff flow, with the design point for the comparison being the street and Mystic River, ultimately.
[Craig Drennan]: Thank you.
[Heidi Davis]: Great, if you could stop sharing, I can open it up to the public here. And again, if you could raise your hand, use the hand function, I can call on you. All right, I think there's just one individual perhaps. No, two, I see, okay. I will just call on you then and make sure you unmute yourself and please let me know what your name and address is. Ted and Claudia.
[SPEAKER_01]: I'm Claudia D'Amato, the landlord of 68 Manning Street in Edford. I don't have any questions.
[Heidi Davis]: Okay, great. Thank you for attending. And Jack, I'm sorry if I can't say it correctly, Boisman, Boosman. If you can unmute yourself and if you'd like to add anything, please introduce yourself.
[MCM00001781_SPEAKER_00]: I'm Jack Boosman, I live at 10 Manning, Sweden. I don't have any specific questions regarding the water runoff from the property.
[Heidi Davis]: Oh, thanks for attending. Okay, then I'll, bring it back to the commission. I feel that we need additional information regarding the demonstration of compliance with 10.585A through F, as well as in particular how the project will meet criteria A, improvement in the interest of the act, improvement that'll protect the interest of the act.
[Marie Izzo]: I agree. I think that would be helpful to see as well. And if I may, I would suggest that perhaps the alternatives analysis would incorporate some discussion of how each alternative also relates to each of those criteria.
[Heidi Davis]: I do have to point out that projects either meet 10.58 parentheses four of the regulations or parentheses five Parentheses four, of course, is the area that requires the alternative analysis and five does not in fact. So I'm sorry, I'm not sure that we can require that. If this was an undeveloped lot, we certainly would.
[Marie Izzo]: Yeah. Okay. No, that's fine. Thank you for pointing that out.
[Heidi Davis]: You're very welcome. Okay, then we need to make either a motion to close or a motion to continue.
[Denis MacDougall]: Hi, just one more thing. Did you want to get maybe some more detail about some of the plantings before the next hearing? Any additional information? I mean, the conco itself, I should say, but I mean, you sort of mentioned about, you know, possible suggested plantings.
[Heidi Davis]: Well, that's something for the applicant to propose to us. Yeah, okay.
[Christopher Bader]: But I would like to see that if that's what you're asking.
[Heidi Davis]: Well, yes, I think we need to see that before we can issue an order approving.
[Christopher Bader]: So we're voting on a continuance?
[Heidi Davis]: I'm asking for someone to make a motion to- I'll make a motion to continue the hearing.
[Marie Izzo]: I will second that motion.
[Heidi Davis]: Great, I will do a roll call. Alex? Aye. Dave?
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[Heidi Davis]: Craig?
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[Heidi Davis]: Eric.
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[Heidi Davis]: And myself is aye. So I close the public hearing portion of this and we will continue presumably in two weeks, Dennis.
[Denis MacDougall]: That's correct. It would be October 5th. For those of you on the call, Zoom information will be the exact same, so just save the notice that you received with the Zoom information, and at 6.30 p.m. on October 5th, the meeting will begin taking place.
[Heidi Davis]: Great, and I want to thank everybody for attending tonight. At the next hearing, we'll expect to go over some of the information requested tonight. I would like the commission to stay on after the hearing is closed. And the hearing is now closed. So everybody else, thanks again. And we'll see you in two weeks.
[5GOoqKbpo08_SPEAKER_04]: Thank you, everyone.
[Unidentified]: Okay.