[Heidi Davis]: So first on the agenda is the continuation. It's not a continuation actually because we didn't have a quorum we just so right so we have to. This is we're entertaining a request for determination of applicability for the car park improvements. And. apologize to the applicant's representative for having to run through this again. But now we have a quorum and we'd appreciate it if you could give us an overview of the project.
[Alicia Hunt]: Totally. So I can do that. I'm Kayla Bachman. I'm with CBA Landscape Architects, designer for the project. And I have Steve Sawyer and Jen Reardon here from GM2, who are the civil engineers and wetland scientists. The park project, I'll do a brief overview since Alicia and Amanda from the city couldn't make it to this meeting, but this park had an extensive public process in fall of 2021. We are currently in phase one, we're working on phase one construction documents. Funding has only been allocated so far for this phase. We have funding for the loop path that goes around the park, two new baseball fields. We were awarded CPA funds for pickleball courts. And primarily the scope that is in the Conservation Commission's jurisdiction is clearing of construction debris in the wetland, or not in the wetland, but adjacent to the wetland, some of which is within the 25-foot buffer. And that's something two isolated vegetated wetlands that are on the site. Both of these, one of these was previously or is identified in MassGIS or by MassDEP as being a potential vernal pool, and there was a study done last spring. Dennis attended the meetings with Jen, and the determination was that they are not vernal pools. There were no species present that would give that designation. I think that's all the basics. It looks like we have a few less community members with us today than last meeting. Maybe someone will join, we'll see.
[Unidentified]: Okay. And I'll hand it off to Steve to present the plans. All right, thank you Dennis.
[Steve Sawyer]: Would you like, would it be okay if I shared a shared screen?
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Steve Sawyer]: All right, so can everyone see the see the screen?
[Heather]: Yes, perfect.
[Steve Sawyer]: Okay. Yeah, so. As Kayla had mentioned, this initial scope is the loop path only, loop path here, and the pickleball courts, which receive the CPC funding. And Kayla, is the dog park part of this one, this first?
[Alicia Hunt]: The dog park is part of the application, but I do not have funding for that yet. The same thing with the pump track that's shown on these pump track over here.
[Steve Sawyer]: So, as determined with it, just being isolated areas, isolated, vegetated wetland. There's only a 25 foot buffer instead of the full 100. So, as you can see the 2525 foot buffers, basically, we're just on the fringe fringe of that work area. And most of that work anywhere kissing the buffer zone. Is where there's a bunch of construction debris. Construction debris, some of it's bituminous, some of it, some of it's usable things like granite, granite slab and such, which would probably, I think it's plans to be reclaimed. But it would be more of a sort of selective. It's not going to be a clear cut or anything of that manner. I believe as far as the. As far as any of that removal, we just go in and pluck and pick, pull the pieces out, pull the pieces of bituminous out. There's a few designated piles. We'd remove those piles of bituminous, remove that, and then there'd be some, I believe there's some additional planting in this area, which is shown on the landscape plan. So, as part of the pickleball, there is an impervious area here, which drains to the corner. There will be a basin, a drain to pick up that, and a small infiltration basin area to introduce the maintained groundwater recharge, groundwater recharge. The surface in this area would be clean. It's not going to be sanded or salted or stuff, so it would just be clean runoff to this area. And then also with the dog park, it's basically everything kind of flows or everything flows in this manner. What we've done is we, at the low corner, we'd have sheep flow into a rain garden, where it would basically flow into this rain garden with an eight-inch sump where the water would pool. So we'd get our first flush treatment. And then once that filled, it would overtop and then run to this catch basin here, this basin at this location. which is tied into the existing drain line that runs underneath the property. So this has been sized for, even though the dog park itself is permeable, it's been sized for water quality volume just for the nature, there is concern for prick pollutants, i.e. feces, dog feces, but in actuality, actually with a dog park, it's probably one of the cleaner places because people actually do pick up after their dogs, they'd be scorned by others if they didn't. So given that it's a controlled environment, most of the dog waste is picked up and discarded, unlike what you see on the side of the road sometimes and there's planting strips on the side of the road. But we still provided a rain garden for treatment, water quality treatment at that location. So that's basically it as far as the stormwater treatment and I think the, is this the planting plan? I removed debris, pickleball courts, and I think here's a planting plant. So as Kayla mentioned, there is some planting. Actually, Kayla, maybe you should confirm that. I believe there's the planting in this area. Is that correct?
[Alicia Hunt]: Yes, yes. We talked about last time the removal of that debris and how it is sort of in between a lot of small Norway maple trees and some larger trees. We would be sort of trying to get that first layer of debris. We can't remove everything without clear-cutting that. And I do have some photos to show after we go over the plans, because I know there were some questions about what that really looks like at the last meeting. But we're proposing to add new loam to that area, kind of fill in those holes wherever we're pulling out that debris, and then seeding with, depending on how close it is to the woodland edge, We have sort of a meadow mix in one portion. Last meeting, we had a question about how we would ensure that that wouldn't get mowed, and we are proposing to have signs along the edge of there that would say, you know, no mowing, and it's sort of this discrete delineated area that we would prevent people, you know, DPW or whoever ends up mowing the lawn if it's contractors, from going in there. Next, we have sort of a one inch mix that has some shrub seeds mixed in. And then lastly, even though it is, it can be quite difficult to establish forbs or grasses with tree cover. And we don't want to leave just blank soil. So sort of deeper in the woods, we have a shade tolerant seed mix. Along with some native tree plantings, again, smaller trees, further into the wildland to sort of tuck in where they would fit, and then larger trees towards the edge of the path to try to reestablish some native canopy and some native shrubs as well.
[Steve Sawyer]: So, that pretty much covers, you know, covers the. Covers the planting and such there is going to be a connecting path. Um, from I forget that there's a dead end sort of a street extension here. Um, yeah, yeah, and I'm not sure I'm not you can't recall if this is part of this phase, or it's going to be a future phase.
[Alicia Hunt]: That is part of this phase, and we are proposing, because there is a lot of tree cover in that zone, we are doing some regrading, but we would be sort of raking and stockpiling the forest stuff and leaves, and then kind of placing it back once that's been regraded.
[Steve Sawyer]: And Kayla, is this a stone dust path? Is that the plan?
[Alicia Hunt]: It's going to be like a, sorry, a graded gravel mix. trail spec that's used on accessible trails. So that's the idea there. We don't have quite the natural conditions that would allow like a regular ADA accessible pathway without really drastically changing the grading of the site. So we are doing a trail that meets US Forest Service accessibility guidelines.
[Steve Sawyer]: So I think that covers the plans. I don't know if the commission would like to see the photos. Should we jump to that, or if they have questions on the plans right now, we can address them or come back to them.
[Heidi Davis]: Photos would be great, and then we can... Okay, I'm going to stop share.
[Alicia Hunt]: So I just have a selection of a few to give sort of the flavor of what we're talking about. So here's one of those. Can everyone see my screen? Yes. So here we have one of those nice piles of concrete sidewalk slabs that are just sort of piled up. You can see all the Norway maple saplings. These small saplings would really be removed. There is some black locust in here as well, which I think we would keep in place more or less since it is sort of a colony tree. Next one. In some places, we do have rather big stacks and piles. We're going to do our best. This is mostly the concrete that's shown here. There is asphalt as well, but it is harder to see because it is dark. You see some crumbles. It is a little more deteriorated than the concrete is. Where did all this come from? from the park itself? The theory is that at some point some road construction project was done. It's been tossed around that a much earlier DPW put it here or that someone was maybe or maybe that dumping was allowed to sort of fill the wetland as was used to be allowed in order to kind of create more buildable or usable area. But we're not really sure. We don't have a history on it. We have some curb pieces. These will probably be reused either as natural seating elements or something, some other just small feature in the park. And there's some natural boulders in there as well. But yeah, here you see a little more, there's a little bit of trash, there's like an oil drum sort of, well, not oil drum, some kind of metal drum here, or piping. And there's some more, what was that? Basic junk. Yeah, basic junk, yeah. And there's some more of that. The two minutes have us after something. It does make you wonder, because there are some crevices, or you're like, I wonder if someone's home is in there. Could be some red f's underneath, or who knows. This is a little shadowy, but to give you some context, this big tree trunk here is that very large cottonwood tree that's in the center of the park, which we are preserving. And there's some of the bit conk pile sort of in here, kind of mounted and cracked in some more concrete, and here you have some of the bigger trees. I wanted to show this picture because I thought it showed an example of sort of the size of tree we would be trying to keep, just sort of clearing as much as we can around the root zone, but we don't really want to be clear-cutting here. It could end up being a very attractive area. Yes, I think it really is an improvement on the site. Yeah, here's some of the, you see some of the glossy buckthorn. We're proposing to remove invasives here. Buckthorn, a little bit of Norway maple, and there's some Japanese knotweed. But this is another one of those kind of piles along the ridge. And here it is looking back. So there's a little bit of black locust in here, but a lot of it is Norway maple.
[Unidentified]: And that's
[Alicia Hunt]: I have many, many photos, but that's kind of the general idea of what we're looking at here.
[Christopher Bader]: That's good.
[Alicia Hunt]: Thank you.
[Christopher Bader]: Appreciate that. You don't have any photos of the wetland areas themselves, do you?
[Alicia Hunt]: I do. They are also in the report that was submitted to the commission.
[Christopher Bader]: Okay, so those were them. You don't have additional?
[Alicia Hunt]: I do, I can call them up now. It just might take me a minute to find some because I have many hundreds of photos of this park.
[Unidentified]: Let's see.
[Heather]: My heart will not be broken by the loss of some Norway maples. I'm glad to hear that.
[Alicia Hunt]: Yeah, I think another point worth making is that there is a pretty substantial portion of one of the wetlands that is really dominated by Japanese knotweed, excuse me. And we just, we're sort of going a little bit into the woods, but we don't have the budget to sort of like take on the whole scope of cleaning out the entire wetland. And I think that's a much bigger, more disruptive and intensive project.
[Heidi Davis]: If you can't get rid of the knotweed, then it'll just come back. Exactly, as you know.
[Alicia Hunt]: Yeah, we've got a couple patches we're going to work on, but the stuff that's really embedded there, it's going to be very difficult because it extends back into private property and everything else.
[Heidi Davis]: So yeah, I haven't, perhaps Kayla you saw it also, I attended an MACC workshop last week on knotweed. Oh, I missed that one. Yeah, and so it was really, it made it seem not quite as hopeless. That's good to hear. But what I took away with it is that it is very much a multi-year effort. And the first year, it is recommended that the initial treatments be a combination of mechanical and herbicides. And then the second year would be targeted chemical treatment. So that was interesting to me to hear. So I was wondering if, are you just, do you have a one and done plan? Is this gonna be over multiple years?
[Alicia Hunt]: So because the project is phased, we do see removals happening over several years. We, in our office, we are trying to get away from glyphosate, which is sort of the treatment of choice for knotweed, even though I know that it is often used in sensitive areas. We feel that it would be better if we could do a mechanical removal of a foam. Oh, I'm sorry, you cut out.
[Heidi Davis]: Did I, I'm sorry. They were speaking about a foam herbicide called Triclopyr. T-R-I-C-L-O-P-Y-R.
[Unidentified]: So that'd be worth looking into.
[Heidi Davis]: Cutting in June stresses the plant and it requires less herbicide later in the growing season. However, you want, if you are going to apply herbicide, that you want to do it while the plant's in flower. So it's kind of, if you cut it, it might not flower. So I'm not sure. Anyhow, but yeah, I did take a look.
[Alicia Hunt]: I heard the cut, cut flower or cut, cut cover. There's a few different methods. We haven't fully identified the means right here yet.
[Heidi Davis]: Well, that might be something we can ask for us to review your herbicide control plan once you've developed it. That would be great.
[Unidentified]: But I open it up to the commission for other questions.
[Christopher Bader]: I've got a question on the Well, a couple of questions on the you know now you when when did you guys go and take a look at the wetland to see if it was not a vernal pool, because I am I'm really kind of iffy with that was what time of year was it and how many times did you go out.
[SPEAKER_05]: And so I can answer that. So we did the initial wetland delineation in September. And then we went back to do the vernal pool assessment. We did a site visit at the end of March and another one for the end of April last year in 2022. And the pools had, both of them had about two to three feet of water in March and April, but we didn't see any evidence of any indicator species during either visit. And the pools were small enough that I was able to walk know, pretty much the entire area.
[Christopher Bader]: Okay, I'm I hear you. I mean, but not seeing something doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't there means we we didn't see any evidence of it. But neither as a man was, I'm a little, of course, concerned with the with the dog park, and what's below it. But I noticed also on the map, there's a there's a small white box with two black boxes next to it. Kind of adjacent to that area where the wetlands were and I'm not sure what that is. Is that a storm drain or is that some is that I'm not sure what it is. Can you. Kind of tell me what can you see it there.
[Steve Sawyer]: Actually, hold on I'll share a screen again and maybe you can point to it.
[Christopher Bader]: Yeah, I see, just north, right, that.
[Steve Sawyer]: That, I believe that's just a couple benches. Is that, Kayla, is that correct?
[Christopher Bader]: Yes, that's two benches on the concrete pad. Oh, okay.
[Steve Sawyer]: Yeah, these are all, yeah, benches.
[Christopher Bader]: They're not, they're not anything to do with waters, okay. Okay, good. And those, the two boxes on the other side of the road from the dog park, yeah, just kind of continue on.
[Unidentified]: there.
[Christopher Bader]: No, no, they're not boxes, but the areas that are delineated.
[Steve Sawyer]: Yeah, they'll see I believe that's what I think that's that's just a ledge outcrop.
[Christopher Bader]: Okay, so there's no work plan there.
[Steve Sawyer]: No work plan. Okay.
[Alicia Hunt]: It's sort of legend loose boulders. And we would have some we have a stabilized service sort of going up to that.
[Unidentified]: But nothing more than that.
[Craig Drennan]: I've got a question on some of the plans for the debris removal in that area. I've been to this park, I think I was poking around and I saw the debris outcrop and it was very weird to me. So I'm glad it's getting pulled. But looking at some of the pictures that you're showing and my recollection of the area, It seems to me like that debris removal could turn into not insignificant grading work within a very close proximity to those wetlands. Is there any sort of erosion control measures being considered for the construction phase that aren't included in these plans? And do you have any idea how deep that mess goes and how much impact you actually may have in terms of pulling back side slopes and stuff like that.
[Steve Sawyer]: Actually, that's a good point. That's one thing we should add to that plan. I think I missed that. I'm not sure if I had it in the erosion. Yeah, I should add a salt sock on that if we don't have it.
[Alicia Hunt]: We're showing it on our plans as we're developing too. We do definitely have that in mind. As far as depth, we do want to establish a depth of removal because we are not really sure how far it goes down. If it starts getting into, you know, like two and a half, three, I mean, we're just not going to be able to manage that. So I think something in the range of 18 inches to 24 inches is probably realistic for us to be able to take on within the scope of this project. And I think a lot of the slabs particularly are more superficial.
[Craig Drennan]: And if there is more impact below that level, do you foresee bringing in fill to kind of cap it off and seed it, or what's the plan to kind of restore that area if you do have to leave material in place?
[Alicia Hunt]: Yes, we do plan on bringing in some topsoil so that we can seed it.
[Unidentified]: That's all I've got. I am trying to find photos of the wetland, but it's a little slow going because I'm going through the office server.
[Alicia Hunt]: Steve or Jen, do you have any of those photos handy?
[Steve Sawyer]: Let me go through. I'll start going through my files here.
[SPEAKER_05]: I have the Vernal pool assessment memo app. I can share that if that works.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, I think that's a good start.
[Denis MacDougall]: Jen, you're all set to share.
[SPEAKER_05]: All right, thanks. Yeah, I gotta pop up first time. All right. And can everybody see that now?
[Unidentified]: Zoom in here. So yeah, I took these panoramic pictures.
[SPEAKER_05]: This is wetland day, the one to the west. So yeah, these were in, yeah. So here's the date of the visits, March 29th and April 20th.
[Unidentified]: And then this is the eastern wetland on the same days. I did find some photos actually from June of 21. can share those. So we have some leaves here.
[Alicia Hunt]: So there is a little bit of water. This is mid-June 2021, which... Actually, it's still not.
[Steve Sawyer]: Lisa, there we go. It's up.
[Alicia Hunt]: So there is still some water.
[Unidentified]: These photos in June, you can see some of this. trash in here. And this is, I think this is wetland B, which is to the east, right?
[SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, that's wetland B, which is the eastern one, which definitely appeared to have a longer hydro period than the other one. There was quite a bit of water in that one in March and April. wetland A to the west seem to have less water and appears that it dries out faster.
[Unidentified]: I think if I go back, there's some more here. This is in the opposite direction. I don't think I have photos of A from this visit. Well, I think those are pretty good.
[Heidi Davis]: I think we talked about this a couple of weeks ago, but I noted that the actual RDA only listed that a seed mix was being applied. However, sheets C-101 and L-2 show the tree plantings. So in whatever decision the commission comes to, I want to specify that plantings will be in accordance with the plan sheets.
[Unidentified]: Oh, you mentioned the no mo area. How will you delineate the no mo area?
[Alicia Hunt]: I will have small no mo signs. So we're probably thinking three along the edge there.
[Unidentified]: Okay, just to delineate that portion. Do you mind putting up the planting plan one more time? Thank you.
[Marie Izzo]: Just to the left of your cursor behind the pickleball court, is there a spur path that is being proposed, or what is that?
[Alicia Hunt]: Yes, it will be a small natural seating area with some interpretive signage, some boulders to sit on, and that'll be stone dust paving in that area.
[Unidentified]: Got it.
[Alicia Hunt]: So that's kind of an approximate shape that we would want it to be accessible, so the pathway, and we'll have a turnaround space there.
[Unidentified]: but it might not be exactly that shape. The aim would be to have the overall area be in that range. Is bird watching. Yes. Bird watching, bug watching, maybe butterflies. Ah, right. Okay, so we have before us a request for determination.
[Heidi Davis]: So our decision is whether to issue a positive or negative. Or I should first ask if there's any members of the public here that would like to comment on the project. I have a motion. Do I have a second? Oh, wait, sorry.
[Christopher Bader]: Let's start a discussion. I think just everyone is waiting for someone else to start, but I think that it would be a positive determination because it is, even though they are small wetlands, I think the amount of work that's involved and how close they are would lead us to a positive determination of applicability. What do you guys think?
[Craig Drennan]: I would agree with that, especially my I'm focused on that debris pile and I could see that, you know, not necessarily the line work might not be adding up to that 25 foot buffer right now, but I could see. Like, poking around and going 6 inches down and finding that debris pile goes further. So I would, I would say positive as well.
[Heidi Davis]: So bear in mind that the wetland on the site is an isolated vegetated wetland. So it is jurisdictional under our bylaw, but not under the Wetlands Protection Act. So we would have to have a positive under the bylaw only, which I'm not sure how that would work. I don't believe we have jurisdiction under the Wetlands Protection Act here.
[Christopher Bader]: Well, isn't a portion of it like within the 25 feet?
[Heidi Davis]: But it's an isolated wetland. The Wetlands Protection Act only has jurisdiction over bordering vegetative wetlands.
[Christopher Bader]: Yes. I mean, things might've changed. I do remember frogs there and it's just kind of, I'm surprised that you didn't see any evidence of anything.
[Heidi Davis]: The discussion two weeks ago about this was pretty robust. I was also concerned, Alex, as well. But I was satisfied by the information that, the discussion that we had two weeks ago, particularly when I found out that the observations were not made during the drought period, because that was one of my concerns.
[Heather]: I remember the question. It wouldn't surprise me at all if after all of this cleanup and improvement of the area that who knows we may in fact have some critters rejoin us. But there was nothing we talked about this a lot last week.
[Craig Drennan]: What would be the implication of being jurisdictional under the municipal. I'm not sure I've never run across this.
[Denis MacDougall]: I mean, it's sort of an interesting case, because it's a city-owned property, which is going to be city oversight, which basically involves myself being up there a lot. So I think in the interest of making sure everything is protected, basically, normally in these instances, we have the applicant have an environmental consultant on site, or at least being there, and that would be me. And so I think it's like. Go on, I think, you know, we did something like the negative with. You know, the dressing that, you know, I would be basically the responsible person. Or the work up there and just making sure, you know, it's a lot of the things that the commission will be concerned about. I'll be the 1 undertaking it. So, I mean, you're putting some faith in me, I understand, but, you know.
[Christopher Bader]: So, it sounds like it's either way, right, for you in terms of.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah, I mean, I think that's probably ideally is, you know, a negative with the conditions that, you know, the agent will be, you know, up there, you know, doing oversight and things like that.
[Heidi Davis]: Agent will be present during debris removal.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah.
[Heidi Davis]: and before planting.
[Denis MacDougall]: And go up, you know, go up before, sort of some of the stuff we sort of normally do for some of the other things, be up there at the start of the work, you know, to do a site walkthrough. I've already been up to the site.
[Heidi Davis]: I would want you to be there for the removal, for the placement of the loam, for the plantings, confirm the plantings, all those steps.
[Denis MacDougall]: What you were talking about the plantings, I wish I could find it. I'm trying, I have so many stupid tabs open. There was a thing I read just recently about plantings that will benefit butterflies, like local and native plantings that, and you were talking about butterflies on that other path. If I can find it, I think it would be, I'm going to send it out to you all, because I just read it the other day and I was like, oh, that's really interesting. So that was, you know, hopefully some of them will overlap and we could use some of the butterflies and bees actually. Things that would be beneficial to both.
[Heather]: So I'm, I'm getting a little confused. Can we just have a clarification? So are we basically going no determination with an assumption that because of the city property and it would be an oversight by by our agent that well, that's not right.
[Denis MacDougall]: No, because or do we go it being an isolated but yeah, because it is, I'll it'll have more oversight than it would, frankly, on another project.
[Heather]: And how does that impact the determination decision?
[Heidi Davis]: Are we still... Well, it's just something to consider. So Heather, one of the things we need to think about is, what does a notice of intent filing get us? Exactly, I'm with you. Does it get us any further oversight than what we have now?
[Christopher Bader]: No, that's my understanding. But we also are seeing you know, we have a bylaw and I mean, I like the project. I'm not saying, you know, oh, I'm not saying anything negative about it. I'm just feeling like there's enough work here, close enough. And it is within our bylaw. I think it's applicable. But I mean, I understand exactly what you're saying. You know, it's like, it's not really gonna matter on the ground. But I'm not sure it's not going to matter in terms of our consistency.
[Craig Drennan]: To tack on to what Alex was saying, I'm also not sure that it would be, if we determine it's not jurisdictional, then we can't add conditions to it, it's a no and done. So it's not like we can say no on that condition that we have someone there for such and such and such. It's a no, wash your hands of it and call it a day, isn't it?
[Heidi Davis]: Yeah. Well, we often do issue negative determinations with conditions.
[Steve Sawyer]: Yeah, I'm a little confused. So if this was a positive, we'd have to come back in with a notice of intent. And file refile with a note we've already, I guess, as part of the idea, we already notified a butters certified notice of a butters. It would basically be refiling the same application, but in a notice of intent form, rather than an idea for. and we just have to re-notify the abutters. My feeling is it just seems like it's gonna be the same plans and if these conditions can be put on a negative, I forget what it is, negative 3C or whatever it is, where yeah, you need to build it per the plans of record. And if you can add conditions for oversight, it seems a little more streamlined rather than have to re-notify abutters and come back in with the same application. and file it as an NOI form versus a RDA form, I guess.
[Denis MacDougall]: So, if I can just jump in. So, for negative three, that's the one that we sort of have with the conditions. Let me just read it out, which sometimes sort of helps. So, the work described in the request is within the buffer zone as defined in the regulations, but would not alter an area subject to protection under the Act. Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a notice of intent subject to the following conditions.
[Heidi Davis]: and my opinion is I would be in favor of that with specific conditions.
[Heather]: And Heidi, if I'm clear, the only conditions beyond the normal things that we use that I've heard has been the upgrading or inclusion of more details in the planting plan, especially around the seeding and the erosion controls. Those are the two things I've heard so far. Is there something else I've missed?
[Heidi Davis]: It's not that more details, I wanted to be clarified that planting plan will follow the plans as opposed to the actual application that said seeding only. Oh, seeding only.
[Heather]: I'm sorry, I understood you.
[Heidi Davis]: But those are the only two things that I've heard so far that... I also would like to see the knotweed management plan. So, submit to the commission for review. Gotcha. Establishment of the no-mow zone. Okay. and the addition of the silk sock that I have.
[Craig Drennan]: Just an erosion control plan in general will do, especially if they have it on file, just whatever you have that we have for our records.
[Christopher Bader]: But if we're doing something under review, doesn't that just necessitate that we can't do... If we have to review something before this goes through, then... Don't we actually have to say it's a positive determination? Because, I mean, if you're saying we should have certain things submitted beforehand, I understand that. But if we say we have to have certain things submitted beforehand, and then we have to review them and perhaps comment on them, then we need a mechanism to do that.
[Heidi Davis]: Oh, I didn't say review and approve. Oh, OK.
[Christopher Bader]: OK.
[Heidi Davis]: I personally I'm interested in not week so we don't have to include that as a condition. I just. I would be interested in the plan just.
[Christopher Bader]: Oh, yeah, okay, well, then, yeah, so you can be submitted, but it's not submitted. As I see it for review, and you say review and comment, right? So we're just splitting hairs here.
[Heather]: Well, language is important in terms of legal components. So I could live with that, certainly live with that language.
[Christopher Bader]: If we issue a negative determination of applicability, does that impact our jurisdiction over these two water bodies in the future?
[Heidi Davis]: It could be limited. I think it's limited to phase one. which is what is before us. We're not making it necessarily determination as a jurisdictional determination. We're basically saying that the work will not alter a wetland if we go with the negative three C. Okay, so we're not giving that up.
[Christopher Bader]: Yeah.
[Heidi Davis]: Eric, you're being quiet. I'm calling on you.
[Marie Izzo]: I'm inclined to think that this work can proceed under a negative determination, negative three with conditions. The four conditions I think we've outlined are sufficient. The only issue that's sort of bouncing around in my mind is the question of debris removal. And at what point does the scope of that debris removal expand such that maybe the negative determination is inappropriate? But at the end of the day, I think the work, particularly the debris removal will be beneficial. I think I'm satisfied with negative three with those four conditions we've discussed thus far and Dennis.
[Denis MacDougall]: I would think with my presence up there, basically if I see it starting to get too much, I'll just put a stop and a, you know, a low and we can, we'll pull back and then we'll figure out what we have to do at that point. Because it's 1 of these things that, you know, unfortunately, it's. It's, you know, it's, you know, once you pull off the 1st layer. We don't know how many layers there are, you know, it's just. It's really tough to tell, like, it could be just 2 and then we're done. But then it could be just, you know. And then if it gets to the point where it's like another 1, another 1, another 1, if we get to 2 feet, it's like, all right, hold on. Let's see what we're doing here.
[Alicia Hunt]: Yeah, I think at a certain point, we will be sort of capping for lack of a better term in place because, yeah, you start pulling the thread on the sweater and you're digging out everything. We just don't want to cause that much disruption.
[Denis MacDougall]: There's the analogy I was looking for.
[Craig Drennan]: I was trying to think of one. It might be worth having that threshold in mind, because I think what Dennis is talking about is easier said than done, because especially when you're mobilized and you have contractors on site, it's going to be a pain to call people off on this and pause for review. So if we can come up with kind of a threshold to trigger a cap and see that might make lives easier in terms of having to open this back up.
[Heidi Davis]: Maybe proximity to the wetland.
[Christopher Bader]: Sure, that would work. Depth of, you said a depth of two feet, maybe we should just write that down. You know, once you hit two feet, boom, that's it.
[Denis MacDougall]: Or maybe once it hits two feet, notify me and then I can go up, because we're depending on the location, because if there's a location that's nowhere near the wetland and they go down. But they're going to want to cap it anyway, right?
[Alicia Hunt]: Yeah. So. Yeah, some of it may be. I'm just thinking of the situation where you start pulling a slab and it's buried a little bit. At what point do you say, well, this was too thick. Not that I'm saying we wanna do more than two feet. We don't want really, but I think there's gonna be a little bit of a line there.
[Heidi Davis]: Do you ever like jackhammer a slab so that you remove part of it and leave the rest in place? Is that possible?
[Alicia Hunt]: I think most of what's here is broken up Sidewalk slab, so I think our biggest pieces are sort of 6 by 6.
[Denis MacDougall]: Give or take, honestly, I think the biggest heavier pieces are those concrete ones that those are probably the trickier ones to get out just because those ones are. You know, they're like, 6 to 8 feet long and pretty much solid. Whereas the other ones. Should should go out relatively easily just haven't walked through there a number of times. It's yeah, the asphalt is and the. And those things are broken up pretty massively. I think they must have gotten broken up when they got taken off the street. Off the sidewalks.
[Marie Izzo]: It's my opinion that the proximity to the wetland is more important in this context than the depth of the excavation. I'm not sure if we've already established distance to wetland from existing debris piles or not, but that seems like the first step, I'm sorry to say. But perhaps we can select something now, a distance now that we're comfortable with.
[Craig Drennan]: I'd be willing to propose six feet based on a general two foot removal depth and a three to one side slope for excavation. If you start to get within six feet of the 25 foot buffer, then let's take a break.
[Heather]: One exception, let's make sure we get those tires out of the water.
[Denis MacDougall]: I could probably go up there this summer once it's dry and just walk.
[Heidi Davis]: Pull those out. Thank you, Dennis. Appreciate that. Just make sure there's no frogs eggs in them. Yeah, exactly.
[Heather]: Yes, absolutely. It would be great to get them back.
[Christopher Bader]: I'm kind of convinced by your arguments.
[Heather]: That was very helpful actually, the last comments.
[Heidi Davis]: So are we ready to move or? I'm trying to make a motion, or ask for a motion. Give me a chance. Do I have a motion?
[Marie Izzo]: I will make a motion to issue a negative three determination with the, I believe now five conditions we've outlined. Please don't ask me to spell out each of those conditions.
[Denis MacDougall]: If we could please just because I've got them, but they're in multiple different parts of my notes, so just to have a nice little tally would be very nice. Let me read off what I have. I have not weed management plan,
[Heather]: Yeah, Mo manage erosion control. The last comment that was so nicely put that I could not possibly do and what he's planting, planting issues that those are the five.
[Heidi Davis]: Just clarify that planting shall adhere to the plans. I think it's C 101 and L2. and that once excavation is within six feet of the 25 foot buffer, you will be notified. Or debris removal, or.
[Steve Sawyer]: I hate to throw a fly in the ointment. We do have one section where there was that I forget which it's the what is it the right or the Eastern isolated area. We do show removal. You know within that 25 foot just a small and in fact I think that's why we came in we have a small amount of removal in that corner. So we actually on our plans we show work inside that 25 foot buffer just a slight little it, you know, a small little area.
[Alicia Hunt]: My understanding of that condition would be that we would have Dennis come out to review the removals whenever we get into this. The 31 for the buffer basically, right? Got it, okay. To make sure they're not going crazy in there.
[Heidi Davis]: Okay, well I have all five done, so. Great, do I have a second? I'll second that. Great, thanks, I'll take roll call. Heather? Aye. Eric?
[Craig Drennan]: Aye.
[Heidi Davis]: Greg?
[Christopher Bader]: Aye.
[Heidi Davis]: Alex?
[Christopher Bader]: I'll go with it.
[Heidi Davis]: And myself as an aye.
[Unidentified]: Thank you.
[Heidi Davis]: Thank you. You're welcome. Yeah, we'll be very interested in seeing this project progress. Great, thank you for coming in again. We appreciate you coming back.
[Craig Drennan]: Thank you again.
[Alicia Hunt]: Thanks. Thank you. And we'll receive a written document with the conditions and everything, correct? The determination?
[Denis MacDougall]: Yes. It'll just be a little attachment that'll have the five of those on there. Okay, excellent.
[Unidentified]: Thank you, everyone. Great, thank you.
[Heidi Davis]: That was robust discussion. Yeah, that was good.
[Christopher Bader]: I'm sorry guys, I'm just a little afraid of the same thing happening that happened by the Meadow Glen Mall. You know, oh yeah, that's a nice, that's not our jurisdiction and boom, you know, it's gone and I'm, you know, it's...
[Heather]: What saddens me is how many of these piles of this crap are all over the city, having been involved with the Brooks Estate for many years on their board. I mean, it's disgusting. And much of it was done by our own city, not just by private contract.
[Craig Drennan]: And it's a mess, too. Like, you can very easily lose a leg in that pile of junk.
[Denis MacDougall]: I was over there last, like, in the spring, it's okay in the winter time. It's okay. Because you can actually see if you go there in the fall, it's very. You see, because you have no idea if you're walking around just a couple of leaves or this big giant on the ground. So, but let's go on to the next item on the agenda and. Requests for determination, applicability, redevelopment project. CBRE care, Craig A. Paul has filed a request for determination of applicability for redevelopment project at 3850 Mystic Valley Parkway, consisting of the construction of a new freestanding building at the northern side of an existing parking lot. Applicant believes the project is exempt from the filing of notice of intent as the entirety of the proposed project area is located outside of the bordering land subject to flooding, which is located in portions of the overall property. And the applicant here, so.
[Bill Lucas]: I'm here. Good evening.
[Denis MacDougall]: Good evening.
[Bill Lucas]: Dennis, I don't know if I have the ability to share in 321 now.
[Denis MacDougall]: Great.
[Bill Lucas]: While we're looking to do that, my name is Bill Lucas. I'm with Bowler Engineering. Here on behalf of the applicant of CBRE Inc., what we're proposing to do is, not quite there on the screen share yet, is we're proposing a Bank of America project as part of the existing Meadow Glen Mall. Everybody can see that now.
[Heather]: Yes.
[Bill Lucas]: Great. So what you see in yellow is our proposed development area that is on the northern end of the site itself. It's an existing parking field. And what we will do is place a bank just about in the center of that, and along with it, any kind of additional lighting, landscaping, stormwater management necessary to site that project. On this screen in front of you is the survey of the entire site itself. North is the left-hand side of your screen. South is the southern side where the Mystic Valley Parkway is. Again, in red this time is the approximate location. of our project area. You can kind of see this larger rectangular-ish mass. That's the main shopping center itself. You know, Marshall's on the left. That's closest to our site. And what you can see in green is the approximate limit of the floodplain, which is the 0.2 percent a chance of flooding in that area. And you can, again, the idea behind this is that our site is significantly distant from that existing floodplain line. But, you know, we wanted to be careful and make sure that We made an application with your commission just to ensure that we would not be held applicable in this case. So here's the permit. Again, unfortunately, the rotation's a little different on this plan. So north is top of the page, south is the bottom. And what you can see with that tan shading, again, is the limit of that 0.2%. flood line and our project is in this area of the parking field that I'm circling right now. And you can see the Marshalls, that white rooftop below us. So again, we're quite a distance from that area. In terms of the nuts and bolts of our project, I'll give you a little snapshot. Here's the bank itself in gray, that rectangular 5,000 square foot box with a parking field around it to the bottom of the page and along the right. We'll keep some of the existing parking along the rear, along Linden Street. On the left-hand side of the building, we have the drive-through service and the bypass lane. So overall there's a reduction of impervious coverage on the site. We'll be adding trees and plantings such throughout. I don't have a planting plan in front of me tonight, so I apologize for that, but I do have the proposed grading and drainage. on site itself. You know, that floodplain line that we were talking about is about elevation 4 and the lowest elevations that we're proposing on site is about 9. And that's generally consistent with what you see out there today. But our finished floor of the building will be up at 11. and what we're doing is pretty simple, catch basin piping work down to some water quality proprietary units that will then eventually, we just had a conversation with Owen yesterday about the drainage on the site. The underlying soils are pretty miserable and won't allow us to infiltrate the full two inches, but we're gonna try to get One inch to make sure we get that phosphorus removal and any other pollutants that we can out of the system before it then discharges back into the rest of the shopping centers system and towards that. we're looking for a negative determination of applicability because of the fact that we are. Again on the property itself, but so significantly far from where that flooding happens. We just want to be. You know, go in front of the commission. Just make sure that we don't
[Heidi Davis]: I turn it over to the commission for discussion. Anybody have any questions for the applicant's representative tonight?
[Christopher Bader]: Um, how is it drained right now? And, you know, are you are you kind of tying into the existing storm drain system? Or is there some other thing that's happening? Is there no existing storm drain system at the moment?
[Bill Lucas]: I'll pull it back up on screen. I apologize for that. Generally speaking, again, you should be able to see the grading and drainage plan in front of you. Generally speaking, the site drains from the upper left-hand corner down towards the center of that lot, and there is some existing drainage along this section, and there is an existing pipe. I'll try to zoom in a little bit. On the right-hand side of this page, that we are tying into with this manhole number four, and then it proceeds to the right, and then back towards the marshals on the left-hand side of the marshals. That's where we're connecting to, and that's where the existing drainage connects to today. So we are consistent with that general flow path.
[Heather]: So not much of a change.
[Christopher Bader]: And how much, you're actually putting in trees and landscaping, you know, about how many square feet of impervious are you removing? Do you have a number?
[Bill Lucas]: I believe it's, don't quote me on this, but I think it's about 2000 square feet. of reduction. Again, I'm not taking into account the building, because that's 5,000 square foot. As much as that's roof or pavement to roof, we're not allowed to take credit for that. So really, we're looking at green areas. There's this green area at the back of the building here. There's another one on this island on the right-hand corner. You have a perimeter of green around the building and then on these end cap islands. And then, There's an island on this side and we kind of bump out this portion of the green because that parking extends a little bit further into this area on the left-hand side of the site. So it's a pretty good effort to remove some of the impervious on site. And I want to say there's somewhere around 10 trees that we're proposing as part of this. I know there's about four or five along this edge. And then there's another three or four around the building itself. And there may be one on this island. And I believe we kept that even though we do have, we relocated our water and sewer lines around that to make sure that we could site the tree appropriately.
[Unidentified]: Good.
[Craig Drennan]: I don't have anything to add other than the fact that I mean this seems pretty well removed from any of the resource areas that we're usually concerned about so this makes sense to me.
[Heather]: Since I was confused when I saw the plans I actually went over and took a look myself as well so I'm not that I have nothing else to really offer.
[Heidi Davis]: have any questions or comments? Seeing none, do I have a motion from the commission?
[Heather]: determination.
[Heidi Davis]: 1, 2, 3, A, B, and C. C was what we used for the last time, meaning that the work was in the buffer zone but won't alter. If you could, that would be helpful. Thank you.
[Denis MacDougall]: So a negative one is the area described in the request is not an area subject to protection under the Act or the buffer zone. Number two is the work describing the request. I think that's the one, right? Yeah. Yeah, okay.
[Heidi Davis]: So, Craig, could you please state your motion, please?
[Craig Drennan]: I'll make a motion for a negative applicability under negative one, was it? Yes. Thank you.
[Heidi Davis]: Second. I have a second from Heather, thank you. Roll call, Heather? Aye. Alex? Aye. Craig? And Eric. And myself as an eye. As you have a negative determination from the commission.
[Bill Lucas]: Thank you so much.
[Heidi Davis]: Thank you for coming before us tonight, we appreciate it.
[Bill Lucas]: No problem, I think it was a simpler application. I'll give it to you in the next few days. Appreciate it, Dennis, thank you so much. Have a good evening. Thank you.
[Heidi Davis]: All right, do we have any other business to discuss as a commission? Do we need to approve any minutes? I don't believe so.
[Denis MacDougall]: No, because we didn't have an actual meeting last night, last week, so there were no meeting minutes. Oh, except for the meeting minutes from the meeting before.
[Christopher Bader]: Meeting before?
[Denis MacDougall]: Which I think I sent out. Yeah, we can do that one, so yes. February. So there is, way to go. All right, so let me just update it for that.
[Craig Drennan]: I feel like there should always be one at every meeting from like a meeting that we've missed once.
[Christopher Bader]: There should, yeah. So really, the meeting last time doesn't actually count as a meeting because we didn't have quorum. Correct.
[Heidi Davis]: It was a meeting, but not a hearing.
[Denis MacDougall]: Oh, yeah, so I probably should do minutes for that and state that, but it'll be very short. I'll do that. Sorry. That's right.
[Heather]: Especially since we referenced it in this meeting.
[Craig Drennan]: Yeah. I do have a question. Granted, Heidi, I know you've never run across it before, but is there any way for us to to folks at City Hall to figure out what exactly is supposed to happen when something is regulatory under the municipal ordinance but not the state? Because I feel like we should know what to do.
[Heidi Davis]: So I do recall, as we went on, I do recall, so I don't think City Hall could help, but DEP could. I don't think that City Hall necessarily knows the details of the Wetlands Protection Act. I don't know if Dennis probably does, but I do recall seeing at DEP, we would from time to time get notices in that were filed only under the bylaw. So they didn't have a file number, a DEP file number attached. And they literally under the title would say bylaw only. So you can file a notice of intent under the bylaw only.
[Craig Drennan]: But what would that mean for us? Would it mean that we would basically say, no, you have to come back with an NOI and go through the normal process and DEP will just review it like normal, just under a different inbox?
[Heidi Davis]: DEP wouldn't review it at all. So they just file it.
[Craig Drennan]: But we would review it. DEP wouldn't review it. That's correct. It's local. Okay, that makes sense. Thank you.
[Heidi Davis]: Do you have something to say, Dennis, or are you just ripping off a mask?
[Denis MacDougall]: No, I just realized I'm here by my... There's nobody else in the room with me right now, so I realized I could take the mask off, because Teresa was at the front desk just left a little bit ago, and I was like, why am I still wearing this? Well, I... No, I thought I had it over my earbuds, so I was just trying to take it off, and then when I did, it came off one earbud, but then it ripped off one earbud, then the other, and it... No. Sorry, I should have turned around and then immediately snap back to the camera. But all right, so yeah, so we do have a meeting minutes from the February 15th meeting. So, if we get a motion on those, that was the previous 1 that we would have minutes for to approve. and I did send them to you before the last meeting.
[Heidi Davis]: Yes, I recall. Great. Do I have a motion to approve the minutes from February 14th?
[Christopher Bader]: I make a motion to approve the minutes from February 15th. 15th, sorry. Right, because it's Valentine's Day.
[Heidi Davis]: Do I have a second? I'll second it. Great. Quickly, a roll call. Alex? Aye. Craig?
[Craig Drennan]: Aye.
[Heidi Davis]: Eric? Aye. meeting minutes are approved. I'll try and remember next time.
[Denis MacDougall]: April, but nothing nobody has given me any heads up on anything. So I don't anticipate anything.
[Heather]: So, okay, so when you say the first week in April, we are speaking of the 5th. And that is correct at this time.
[Denis MacDougall]: Okay, correct, which I'm sort of hopeful that we don't have 1 because. Actually, that's actually going to be available that night.
[Heather]: Anybody who's flourish. I'm sorry, what did you say, Dennis? I just noticed that that's the beginning of Passover. If anyone is Jewish, if that impacts, you need to reschedule anyway.
[Denis MacDougall]: No, I will. Unfortunately, I won't be available that night because I will be doing preparatory work for a procedure that anyone over 50 would probably be aware of.
[Heather]: I can tell you, Dennis, you actually reach an age where you no longer have to appreciate that. Yeah. Final one.
[Denis MacDougall]: But that's that's that evening when I think it's all up to you now.
[Heather]: Okay, so that's that's so far so good and it looks like when's the deadline to know on that one?
[Denis MacDougall]: Next week, the 22nd.
[Heather]: 22nd. Okay, I'm going to make it a week. I'm rebooking tickets here. Okay, let me second check them.
[Heidi Davis]: We might have something on the 22nd.
[Denis MacDougall]: If it's possible, I mean, if we got something in the next week, we would have to have it by the 5th for a meeting on the 5th. I'm I haven't usually I get a heads up before because usually a lot of it's people with the butters lists and other things like that sort of coming, you know, talking to me and sending me a copy of the map and saying, is this work? And because I have to approve the map and things like that. So, usually at this point. More than a week out, I've gotten a heads up that something's coming in and I haven't.
[Heather]: All right then do I have a motion to close the hearing? Motion to close the hearing.
[Christopher Bader]: Seconded.
[Christopher Bader]: Close the hearing. Aye.
[Heidi Davis]: Craig?
[Christopher Bader]: Aye.
[Heidi Davis]: Eric?
[Christopher Bader]: Aye.
[Heidi Davis]: Heather? Aye. Myself? Aye. Close it down.