[Denis MacDougall]: Start March 29th, 2023 governor Haley signed into law a supplemental budget bill with, among other things, extends the temporary provisions pertaining to the open meeting law to March 31st, 2025. Typically, this further extension allows public bodies 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 language does not make any substantive changes to the open meeting while extending the expiration date and temporary provisions regarding remote meetings from March 31st, 2023 to March 31st, 2025. Great.
[Heidi Davis]: Thanks, Dennis. I then will call the meeting to order at 635 on August 16th, 2023. And the first order of business is to welcome Caroline to the Conservation Commission. Thank you so much for joining us. I will have us introduce ourselves. I'll kick it off. I'm Heidi Davis, and I'm serving as the chair of the CONCOM.
[Heather]: Hi, I'm Heather Champney-Anderson, and we already spoke for a minute. So again, congrats. A nice article.
[Marie Izzo]: Thank you for joining us. I am Eric Rexford, a commission member.
[Craig Drennan]: Yeah, welcome aboard. My name is Craig Drennan. I'm also a commission member.
[Heidi Davis]: So Greg, you didn't get to be newest commission member for long.
[Craig Drennan]: I'm okay with that, only a year, that's okay.
[Heidi Davis]: It's a year, wow, that's amazing. Okay, so Dennis, help me out, what do we wanna go through first?
[Denis MacDougall]: Well, I'm thinking we could possibly do the RDA first, because usually we tend to do those kind of early in the evening. and we can get that one done. And I figured we'd do that. Then we'll go on to 4000 Mississippi Valley Parkway.
[Heidi Davis]: Great. Is Mr. Lamb here or a representative? I'm here. Excellent. Great. Well, welcome to the Conservation Commission hearing.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you.
[Heidi Davis]: I see that you filed a request for determination for the replacement of an existing driveway at 69 South Street. It would be great if we could, Dennis, you can't pull open the plan for this, can you? Yep. That would be really helpful.
[Unidentified]: So this is replacing the existing
[eQfu2R5n4yE_SPEAKER_01]: Yes, this is the driveway as it exists. I've taken the asphalt out already and had it taken away in a dumpster. So this is as it existed before. And there's a slope towards the river. So the water runs down towards the river right now.
[Heidi Davis]: Okay, and what's the... Could you tell me about your proposal?
[eQfu2R5n4yE_SPEAKER_01]: So if you go to the next page, maybe, or the other, yeah. So we want to put in a retaining wall towards the back that's going to be about 30 inches, 36 inches tall max. That will allow us to raise the part where the asphalt was before and have it be flat. So there won't be any drainage towards the river anymore. And then we're going to put in permeable pavers, bricks, and have the water go down through the bricks. And then there's actually gonna be a slight slope for the front half of the driveway, which will have, there will still be pavers, but that will have that part of the driveway go towards the street slightly, a slight slope towards the street. So we'll completely reverse the, fix or reverse the slope towards the river and make it permeable so we shouldn't have any sort of problems with the asphalt anymore. And basically the driveway will be almost the same size. There will be a slight amount more because we have changed the driveway opening from the left side of the tree there towards the bottom to the right side because there was a lot of problems getting into the driveway going around that tree. So we've changed it so that the opening is on the opposite side. The same size brick pavers, fixing the slope.
[Heidi Davis]: Thank you. I'll open this up to discussion by the commission.
[Marie Izzo]: If I may, I'm curious, Mr. Lam, do you happen to have a section I don't have a view or a plan with existing elevations, proposed elevations on it. I'm just having a hard time visualizing potentially how much fill would be at the back of the driveway to achieve that nearly flat condition.
[eQfu2R5n4yE_SPEAKER_01]: I don't. So the retaining wall on the left side by the house will be about 30 inches tall, where the house is towards the top left of this picture. And then the top right will be 36 inches tall max. And then it'll be zero inches tall here at the front. So it's actually the slope the slope is about 43 feet. The slope goes down about 36 inches over that 43-foot distance from the front of the driveway where the street is, where the sidewalk is there, towards the back. That's going to be quite a bit of fill to get it up level. It's going to be all clean gravel and rocks.
[Craig Drennan]: Eric, I had a back of the envelope that 40-50, 40 to 60 cubic yards, depending on what the exact slopes are there.
[Marie Izzo]: Thanks, Craig.
[Heidi Davis]: Can someone remind me, is this within the floodplain of the Mystic River?
[eQfu2R5n4yE_SPEAKER_01]: Yes, we are. The back of the corner of the driveway is about 60 feet to the Mystic River from that corner.
[Heidi Davis]: My question's regarding what's called the floodplain, which is separate from the river. It is a resource area, and it's referred to as the 100-year floodplain. Do you have to pay floodplain insurance? I'm sure you do. I do.
[Unidentified]: Yeah.
[Marie Izzo]: Yeah, I think, Heidi, you're getting at sort of where I was headed. I'm just curious if, you know, any portion of that fills within BLSF, but without the benefit of some topo data, it's really hard to tell.
[Craig Drennan]: I've poked around the mass map or floodplain coverage in this area. I think the applicant's property is within the 500 and maybe part of the property is within the 100, but I don't think the proposed driveway lies within the 100. Um, I was personally, I was more looking at the volumes, because that's a lot of still to be carrying in and out without erosion control measures during construction. But I don't think this part of the property is within the 100-foot line.
[Unidentified]: Thanks, Craig.
[eQfu2R5n4yE_SPEAKER_01]: So I have sandbags installed currently about six inches tall around where I took out the asphalt and they're going to build the retaining wall and then put in the concrete, put in the fill in behind the retaining wall. So I don't think any of that will get out.
[Heidi Davis]: Thanks.
[Denis MacDougall]: Hi, I'm getting the flood plain that stuff up right now. If you give me 30 seconds, I've got a flood map. I'm just working on it.
[Heidi Davis]: Could you point out which property it is? That one, yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Right there, yeah. Or right one.
[Unidentified]: Right one, okay. One with a tree.
[Heidi Davis]: I think it's kind of borderline. Dennis, can you see where the driveway extends to?
[Unidentified]: Thanks.
[Marie Izzo]: Hard to tell where that elevation, that contour would fall. I think we're talking about elevation six.
[Unidentified]: For the zone AE here. It looks like it's...
[Adam Hurtubise]: The corner of the driveway is going to be right about where he's got his where he's got his pointer right there that the far right corner.
[Unidentified]: You're muted, Dennis. Dennis, you're muted, so if you said something, I don't know what it was.
[Denis MacDougall]: I apologize. So I don't know if you could see what I was doing there. I just did a measurement out because it's about 43 feet on the map length from the street. And that brings us to right about here. And then, you know, coming across that way, because it looks like it's basically a rectangle. Rectangular shape from the street. So, it looks like it's within the 500 foot, but not the 100 foot.
[Heidi Davis]: 500 year, not the 1, sorry. Yeah.
[Denis MacDougall]: I should live so long.
[Heidi Davis]: Okay, well, that's helpful. So it's close. But how does the commission feel in terms of comfort level with this kind of measurement, or do we want to have something staked out on the ground? Okay, so let me rephrase that. We have before us a request for determination. So our choices are whether to issue a positive or a negative. So I would appreciate some input from the commission as to what your feelings are.
[Marie Izzo]: I guess I will express some reservations about the proximity of floodplain to the limit of work. That said, I'm sympathetic to what Mr. Lamb is trying to achieve and will achieve by removing pervious surface and correcting some drainage issues at his property. I think having said that, I'd be inclined to issue or consider a negative determination with specific conditions related to sediment control as they're doing the work.
[Heidi Davis]: Thanks, Eric. I appreciate your opinion. Anybody else?
[Jenny Graham]: I would agree with Eric's opinion.
[Unidentified]: He said that well. I do too.
[Heather]: We're pretty familiar with that whole section. So I'm really super appreciative of what he's doing or attempting to do here as well.
[Craig Drennan]: Yeah, I am as well. And I think Eric put that well. The only thing I'd want to see are ENF measures to kind of mitigate impact that are something along the lines of a flow-through measure like a compost filter sock or a silt fence. to be able to do that. I think it would be nice if we could do that in the summer, which would capture and train sediments rather than sandbagging or something of that type of measure.
[Heather]: especially with the kind of water that we have been having this summer.
[Marie Izzo]: that tree while the work is ongoing? Certainly outside my wheelhouse, but perhaps others have thoughts on potential impacts to that tree?
[Heather]: I think that's a reasonable consideration, especially, again, if you're familiar with that property and that entryway, the tree, especially if you're bringing in the kind of material that you're talking about, I don't think it's an unreasonable request.
[Heidi Davis]: I think you need to protect to the drip edge of the canopy, usually, if you're going to protect a tree.
[Marie Izzo]: Is that even possible in this scenario?
[Heidi Davis]: Yeah, I don't know.
[Marie Izzo]: I feel like that would be the whole driveway.
[Heather]: You're right. You're right. It will be the whole driveway. It's a huge, it's a big tree. Is there another? Is there a second tree too?
[Adam Hurtubise]: We have trees all over.
[eQfu2R5n4yE_SPEAKER_01]: We've got five or six larger trees that are overhanging this driveway.
[Heidi Davis]: The tree that we're talking about, what kind of tree is it?
[eQfu2R5n4yE_SPEAKER_01]: It's an oak tree, about five feet around. It's very big. I don't want to chop it down. It's kind of in the way of the driveway, but we love it, so we're not moving it.
[Adam Hurtubise]: We don't want to hurt it.
[Heidi Davis]: Someplace I have tree-safe conditions. Of course, I can't put my finger on them for a second.
[Heather]: I mean, I think at minimum, we obviously want to protect the bark and the actual tree itself. I'm not sure. At this point, there's been a lot of activity over the drip line, just in the location of where the tree is and the fact that it's a driveway.
[Heidi Davis]: All right. So you want to, of course, avoid driving over the roots to the extent possible with heavy equipment in particular.
[Heather]: That will be impossible in this driveway.
[Craig Drennan]: I think we also want to avoid putting still right up against the trunk as well, although at a 2.5% slope, I don't think there's too much worry about that happening.
[eQfu2R5n4yE_SPEAKER_01]: We're going to have the driveway go in an area around it, about at least like 3 feet away from the tree, and then have that be a flower bed around the tree, nothing close to the trunk.
[Marie Izzo]: I think assuming that you have to back in or have access for some type of equipment armoring the trunk would make sense. I think that's a fairly straightforward two by fours wrapped around the trunk of the tree up to 10, 15 feet, whatever it is.
[Unidentified]: One more place.
[Heidi Davis]: have any members of the public here for this particular item? Hearing none, then I bring it back to the commission. So I concur that with I'm sorry, I don't have my negatives. I don't think it's a negative 3, I think it's a negative 1. have a motion from the commission.
[Marie Izzo]: One, the applicant armors the two trees at the driveway entrance as appropriate. I guess I'd leave that up to the contractor or arborist. Two, did we decide that sediment control around the limit of work would be appropriate here? Yes. Do we want to specify the type of sediment control?
[Craig Drennan]: Blow through perimeter control matching the Massachusetts stormwater control manual. Perfect, thank you, Craig.
[Heidi Davis]: Something other than sandbags.
[Craig Drennan]: But that leaves it up to the contractor enough that they can probably pick something that would work with some wiggle room.
[Heidi Davis]: So, in addition to the sandbags, we want to see. An erosion control in addition to the sandbags. Do I have a 2nd?
[Craig Drennan]: I'll 2nd that.
[Heidi Davis]: Excellent. I'll call the roll. Heather? Aye. Caroline?
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[Heidi Davis]: Craig?
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[Heidi Davis]: Eric?
[Unidentified]: Aye. And myself as an aye.
[Denis MacDougall]: So, Chris, I'll write up that for you. And if you have any questions about the erosion controls, just give me a call and I'll help you out. And then once they're actually in place, just give me a call and I'll come over to it. Just check them out.
[eQfu2R5n4yE_SPEAKER_01]: Great.
[Denis MacDougall]: It should be in the paperwork in the next few days.
[eQfu2R5n4yE_SPEAKER_01]: Thank you. Am I correct that negative is good for me in this case?
[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah, yeah, exactly. It's yes.
[eQfu2R5n4yE_SPEAKER_01]: Thank you very much, everybody. I'll see you all later. Thank you. Good luck with your project.
[Heidi Davis]: Thank you. Okay, that's one down and five to go? Or what? Okay.
[Denis MacDougall]: Something like that. So next is 4,000 Mystic Valley Parkway, the notice of intent.
[Heidi Davis]: Okay, great. And I know we have several parties here, I'm not sure who is fulfilling what role. But if we could have a presentation by the applicant's representative, and if you could please state your name for the record, that would be appreciated.
[Marie Izzo]: and my apologies for interrupting, but for the record, I will not be participating in this matter. Thank you.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Thank you. Good evening, members of the commission. My name is Tim Alexander with Mill Creek Residential. On behalf of the proponent of the project at 4000 Mystic Valley Parkway, I can just do quick introductions from the team. Joining me, Louise Gianakis from Goulston and Storrs is counsel on the project. And then Tony Donato and Devin Morse, both from Hancock Associates. Tony's the civil engineer on the project, and Devin the wetland scientist. So I'll start with just a couple quick intro points, and then can pass it along to Tony and Devin as well. Tony, do you have slides you can share?
[pkk5OxKuY6w_SPEAKER_04]: Yes, I'll share my screen.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Thank you. And while Tony is doing that, just for the commission's benefit, Mill Creek Residentials, the company I work for, the developer owner of this and actually general contractor for this project, we're actually hopefully already familiar with some of you. We have a project on Cabot Road. called Madera Medford that was in front of the commission many years ago due to its proximity to the Malden River. There was a lot of work that was done at that point and hopefully was obviously brought to fruition and has been a positive for the community. Certainly, we've seen it as a positive. Again, we developed and we constructed and we actually continued to own and manage that community. Just down the street from this site, which is 4000 Mystic Valley Parkway, I'm not sure if you need permission in order to share.
[pkk5OxKuY6w_SPEAKER_04]: You can't see that? It looks like I'm sharing it. We cannot.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: I can't see it yet. Here we go. Thank you. So just a couple of slides on the location and a little bit on the background of the project. So 4000 Mystic Valley Parkway just to the south of the wetland area that we'll be discussing tonight across the street from McDonald State Park and obviously along Mystic Valley Parkway to the south and Commercial Street to the west. The site is currently improved, if you will, with a single-story, roughly 60,000-square-foot building that's currently vacant. The shots that you can see, one, two, and three, from surrounding of the site. Largely, Tony can get into some of the details, but obviously, majority, if not all, of the site is currently impervious with building and or asphalt. Going through just a little bit of the background just so you have it. If you go to the next slide, this project has just concluded a review by the Medford Zoning Board as a 40B submission to the city. It went through, I think it was a little over 180 day review, both by the board and their peer reviewers that were hired by the board. And that included architectural peer review, but more importantly for your commission, civil engineering, peer review, transportation, peer review. That went into great detail, obviously understanding the design of the project, both above ground and below ground. Certainly, stormwater was a big portion of that, and Tony can speak a little bit more to that detail. But the project successfully concluded that ZBA review and was issued a comprehensive permit in July. So, and I have to say, and, you know, hopefully Dennis can speak to this, too, in his wearing two hats, that it was a very collaborative process with that board and the peer reviewers. we felt like it was a very positive experience having come out of that. A couple other slides and images. This is obviously a site plan looking down at the two buildings that are being proposed and were approved along with certainly the landscape and streetscape areas that come along with that. There is an improvement, if you will, with less impervious and more pervious area on the site that currently exists. along with, you know, obviously the required and needed access to the site in and out, both pedestrian and vehicular. I think the next couple of slides are just a couple of images of the renderings of the elevations that went through the peer review process with the architectural peer reviewer. Then I think we can get into whether it's Tony or Devin, I'll hand it off now and get into some of the details on how the site interacts, if you will, with the wetland to the north.
[pkk5OxKuY6w_SPEAKER_04]: Thanks, Tim. I can take it over from here. I just to give you a brief. Overview of the drainage. So the existing site is 2.8 acres and it's approximately right now 80% covered by structures or parking. See, stormwater is controlled. There's a couple of catch basins located on the site. There's no stormwater mitigation and it kind of heads to the south and it connects to the municipal drain line out in Mystic Valley Parkway. The redevelopment of this property will significantly decrease the amount of impervious on the site and incorporate many best management practices, vastly improving the quality of the stormwater runoff from the site. These practices will include, sorry, these practices will include Bostris removal through infiltration and compliance with the City of Medford 2022 stormwater management regulations. Suspended solid removal through the use of deep sump catch basins, gas traps, and mechanical separators. Additionally, as part of the City's I&I requirement, the project will provide The site is considered redevelopment and meets the 10 checklist standards, specifically item one, there will be no new untreated have been met as required. Water quality exceeds 80% TSS removal. The project is not considered a use with higher pollutant loads. There are no critical areas within the vicinity of the site. As I mentioned prior, the site is considered a redevelopment. A stormwater pollution plan will be provided at the selection of a GC and prior to construction is a draft notification in the back. An operation pollution prevention plan is provided and an illicit discharge statement is provided. I can show you, if I can, here I do have overall pictures of the site of the stormwater improvements just to go over. roof water would be collected off these buildings. We are providing a recharge system between building one and two, and it also collects stormwater from the parking lot. We're providing a isolator row here as part of our mitigation to achieve the 80% TSS removal. We are providing a second recharge system right over here. Again, it will collect roof water in these catch basins and then an isolated row. With regards to the stormwater off the back, there is a walkway that links this commercial street out to this part of the front of building number two. This is paved here, but what we're doing is providing a infiltration trench along the north side of the walk to collect Any runoff from the impervious area and direct it into the drainage structure. So again, here is a picture of the site right now as it is. There's a catch basin here and a catch basin here. No gas traps and it kind of comes out to the municipal storm line within Mystic Valley Parkway. Just to give you an idea, What is jurisdictional under the conservation, or what's triggering us filing, is this is the buffer zone of the site right now. As you can see here in yellow, the red is the rear of the property. And right now it's parking lot and some vegetated wooded area over here. There's actually two lots that separate our site from the existing from the wetland area to the north. To give you an idea, this is just showing you what the impervious area within the buffer zone is existing right now. It's about 7,800 square feet and this slide shows a reduction of up to 6,000 square feet of impervious area within the site. With that being said, if any of the commissioners have any questions with regards to our stormwater management approach, I'd be happy to answer them.
[Heidi Davis]: I'm sure there are questions. I have a few, but I'll let others go first.
[Craig Drennan]: I'm happy to start us looking through the design. I mean, it is a very well-thought-out design. It feels like something that's gone through inordinate amounts of review, and I feel for that process. I only had two quick questions. One of them is just a quick permitting note, reading through the stormwater checklist provided as attachments three to the NOI. I think standard 8 is incorrectly filled out. It's filled out following that a copy of the SWIP has been provided, and one of the things you mentioned is that's yet to come.
[pkk5OxKuY6w_SPEAKER_04]: I'm sorry, are you done, Craig?
[Craig Drennan]: On that note, yeah, I had one other question about infiltration, but we can get there.
[pkk5OxKuY6w_SPEAKER_04]: Sure, we included the appendix of the stormwater pollution prevention plan. Just a little excerpt. You know, the intent would be is that we haven't selected a GC for this project. And once we do, we will submit the required form and list them as the, we don't have a day to day person right now. But prior to construction, we will submit and then we'll give the 14-day wait period before we start any construction and provide a copy to the commission itself.
[Craig Drennan]: Absolutely. In that case, that's totally fine. Then I think one of the other things that I saw in the background memo for this site was that this property had formerly been an industrial mixed-use lot. As you guys were doing site investigations and test pits, Was there any evidence of contamination or anything like that that would preclude the use of infiltrating practices?
[pkk5OxKuY6w_SPEAKER_04]: I did the test, but I didn't see anything that would indicate any. groundwater contamination or anything like that. It was just typical fill materials over like the parent materials like clay deep down in the back, but towards Mystic Valley Parkway, the materials were more of a sandy silt, better well-draining than the material in the back. No odors or anything like that would suspect any contamination. Okay.
[Craig Drennan]: Thank you. That's it for me on this.
[Heidi Davis]: I'm going to turn it over to you, Mr. Chair.
[pkk5OxKuY6w_SPEAKER_04]: There's the operation maintenance log in the back of the book. It kind of goes with the, it does list it. It does say deep sound coated catch basins, inspect and clean and infiltration BMP, inspect twice a year, roof drains, inspect, clean twice a year, vegetated areas, inspect twice a year, maintain as required. And that's, I guess, at the end of the report.
[Heidi Davis]: Yes, I did see the log. It's not, you know, I want to make sure that it's implemented, though, just having a log at the back of the notice. The entity that will be implementing it, presumably, is the development company?
[pkk5OxKuY6w_SPEAKER_04]: It would be Mill Creek, and we can expand upon that, and actually, it would be included within the SWIP as well.
[Heidi Davis]: that would be helpful because we want to make sure that there is an entity that recognize, knows that they are responsible for this and adheres to the schedule that's included in that long-term pollution prevention plan. Just another quick comment, and this is pretty detailed, but detail three on the plans shows the isolator rows. And there's a note that says optional inspection port. And I am curious as to why it's optional. You would think that you would need as part of maintenance, you need to be able to inspect the isolator rows to make sure they're functioning.
[pkk5OxKuY6w_SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, that's just the standard note from the manufacturer. They have that. We could see this one.
[Heidi Davis]: If you scroll up the top one.
[pkk5OxKuY6w_SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, those are just the manufacturers standard details that we included, we can certainly add them. to the plan or take out the optional part?
[Heidi Davis]: Yes, thanks. I would like there to be inspection ports. And inspection of those inspection ports should be in the ON, the long-term pollution prevention plan.
[Unidentified]: That's it for my comments, though. Anybody else? Thank you, Heidi.
[Heidi Davis]: have any members of the public here? Dennis, if you could take down the detail. I'm sorry, Tony. We could get back to gallery view here.
[Denis MacDougall]: If anyone here, members of the public wishes to speak on this matter, you could just unmute yourself and give your name and address for the record or just do a little reaction like this or something just to indicate you wish to speak.
[Heidi Davis]: Hearing none then. I'm looking for a motion then. There's three of you. One of you has to do it.
[Craig Drennan]: I can give it a shot and you can tell me if I word this poorly because I'm sure I will. I'll make a motion to approve the NOI on the condition that we see a fleshed-out long-term operations and maintenance plan prior to the start of construction, along with a more fleshed-out SWEP as well.
[Heidi Davis]: That was pretty good. Bear in mind, we can talk about the conditions afterwards. And what we're doing is we are issuing an order approving the project.
[Craig Drennan]: So. That one.
[Heidi Davis]: Okay. What he said. Do I have a second? Second. Great. I'll call the roll. Heather? Aye. Caroline? Aye. Craig?
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[Heidi Davis]: and myself as an I. Great, so we have a motion. Now we can actually, we can talk about the conditions, I believe. And any, yeah, so you mentioned, yes, we'd like a more detailed long-term pollution prevention plan. We want to review the SWIP. We want to, you know, to make sure that the inspection courts are not optional and include inspection of those within the long-term pollution prevention plan. And just as a note, and we agreed that the long-term pollution prevention plan will name the entity responsible for.
[Heather]: For the actions.
[Heidi Davis]: For long-term pollution prevention. We're waiting for Dennis as he's busy taking notes.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah, let me just double back on a couple of those. These might be separate or the same one, so the more detailed pollution prevention plan. And you could add to that, I guess, which, yeah, which addresses the entity responsible for it.
[Heidi Davis]: Names the entity and addresses the inspection of the isolator rows.
[Denis MacDougall]: that the inspection ports will be... Not optional. Not optional, I guess that's the only, yeah. I was trying to think if there's a better way to put it. There's gotta be a better way. Straightforward way is not.
[Heidi Davis]: It'll just indicate on the... Inspection ports shall be included in the isolator rows. That'll do it. And review of the SWIP. What was that again, sorry? Review of the SWIP, the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.
[Denis MacDougall]: And there was something else about an O&M plan, correct?
[Heidi Davis]: That's, I think, incorporated in our comments on the long-term. Okay. Got it. All right.
[Denis MacDougall]: I heard a lot of different abbreviations.
[Heidi Davis]: I don't believe we need to vote on those conditions. I think that we can just include them. Is that correct, Dennis? Standard, yes. Okay. Excellent. All right then. Excellent. So thank you to the participants and good luck with your journey. I know it's just beginning here for this project. We will also hear the request for certificates of compliance next. Dennis, and you can talk about your timeframe for issuing.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah, so this one I'll probably get done within, honestly probably within the week. I'm gonna try to get it You know, probably by midweek, get the order written up and I'll just have. Send it to all the members just for a review before it gets signed and then I'll get it to you. It's pretty quick. So usually the turnaround needs is fairly rapid because we have a. A standard order that we have things in and then just the inclusion of the specific sites for the ones that we just discussed. So, it's just a matter of adding them and then just writing everything up. So it's pretty quick.
[Heidi Davis]: I'm sorry. Dennis, I do want to note that the standard condition, we need to exclude any conditions that are specific to the bylaw or the ordinance. I'm sorry, we don't have a bylaw. I don't know who else is getting off the call, but thanks for your participation.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I think that's correct.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Well, thank you. Thank you. The same team here for the same site and we're happy to answer questions. I think Devin may be the most well versed or some combination of Devin and Louise can answer any questions on this specific request for C. O. C.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yes, so I can just speak to it. The order of conditions was issued back in 2006. I believe it was August 23rd, 2006. And it was proposed redevelopment associated with the Golds Gym. I believe this was due and Dennis and or Tony can correct me if I'm wrong. This was submitted after the fact. So there was work done and the prior owner came in and then submitted a notice of intent. It was approved under the state and local ordinance. We exhausted myself and our staff and Dennis on his end trying to obtain supporting documents, including the approved site plans. And unfortunately, the city nor the applicant have any of these documents to accompany this order. So because this is 17 years old, we did discuss this with Dennis on how to proceed. And we're looking for the commission to discuss any issues or concerns that they might have. But we're just here because we don't have any more documents we need to clear the title. So I'd be happy to answer any other questions. But unfortunately, we don't have any other documents to help us with this.
[Unidentified]: Thank you. Yep.
[Denis MacDougall]: I don't know if you want to jump in, but actually Heather, I think was on the commission at the time too. So I was actually on the commission when this initially came before us. So yeah, Devin is correct. This was work done on the parking lot, the rear of the parking lot closer, you know, as you know, the yes, exactly. And so there was some work done along there. It was found out by the agent at the time and she, I think she wrote an enforcement order on them and got them to come before us for a filing. And I remember being fairly straightforward. I went looking through. This was, you know, we have we do have old files here and I thought I hit jackpot and I was kind of count. I was in the middle of the file cabinet. I have number and I was going down and this was 143 and I think the files that we had ended at 144 and I wish I would. It sounds like a bit, but it's not. It's so I. We have some older files down in the basement. I went looking through there, found the stuff related to the one we're doing next, some of the older things related to the one we're doing after this, but not nothing for this in our files, in our records. But I remember the work was done. I think it was just, it wasn't done by the property owner, it was done by the person who was the gold gem that was there on the property with someone who were the actual application. Yeah.
[Unidentified]: Thanks.
[Heather]: I believe we made a site visit at the time either at some point in this process.
[Denis MacDougall]: We definitely did, yeah. I mean, I just my recollection of the work was not extremely involved. It was more, I think, just might have just been even just a repaving of the driveway. Like it wasn't physically like there wasn't like a massive change. It was an existing.
[Heather]: This wasn't I'm sorry, Dennis. This wasn't the property. I mean, seen so much action in the back there. This wasn't the property that did have. Inappropriately parked vehicles or abandoned vehicle.
[Denis MacDougall]: That's that's the property to the north of this. That's the one that's actually in between this and the wetland. This one was literally just threw down some asphalt. I think a berm was put in along the edge of the asphalt, but there was no drainage, nothing was done to the drainage, nothing was done to change the actual footprint of the parking lot.
[Heather]: That rings a bell.
[Craig Drennan]: Yeah. You can actually see the new asphalt if you look at the historical Google Earth imagery, it doesn't look like they really changed all that much pre to post.
[Heidi Davis]: Great. Well, given that, do I have a motion to issue a certificate of compliance for DEP file number 215-0143?
[Craig Drennan]: I'll make a motion to approve it to issue a certificate of compliance.
[Heather]: And I will second it based on the best memory of 17 years ago. Thank you, Heather.
[Heidi Davis]: I'll call the roll. All in favor, Heather? Aye. Caroline?
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[Heidi Davis]: Craig?
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[Heidi Davis]: Myself as an aye. So it's unanimous. So on to 15 dash.
[Denis MacDougall]: So the second one is request for street compliance, DP file number 215-0072. And this is commercial street, and this was basically the work that was done to extend commercial street from the Mississippi Valley Parkway to, seemingly commercial street, but went about halfway down. And this was just the connecting between the two. And this is from 1992. I did find some of the old, Things and I think I sent a camera if I sent them out to. No, you didn't, but I did. Okay. So I talked to our commissioner and engineer and we found some not quite exactly as built, but. They were basically the equivalence of as built from 1994. That were submitted to the state registry to basically say, this is the completed road. So he basically told me that he considers those, you know, those are, for all intents and purposes, as-built, because it has some, everything's pretty much there. It's just it's not, and it's stamped by, you know, it's a stamped document, and it's stamped by both the registry and, I think a certified survey or registry, I'm not sure which, but it's, you know, it's, so it's, that seems to be, you know, looking back through the existing order from 1992, that everything seems to be in compliance from that. Luckily, we've managed to get those documents. We had some initial site plans that I found that were very, those are the ones I found in the basement that were very old, very yellowed, and frankly, kind of scary to touch. As long as there are no tumors on anything. 40 years old, I think, so they probably hadn't seen the sun in 40 years. But yeah, just from my looking at the things and also talking to the, well, he's now DPW commissioner, but former city engineer, Tim McGivern, he basically stated that the document, the ones that he sent me that I showed to you all are, for all intents and purposes, as-built for completed street work.
[Heidi Davis]: Well, thank you for digging those up. I think you should probably get hazard paper going into the basement.
[Denis MacDougall]: You're not wrong. Okay. The good thing is that we have a bunch of interns and I took them down there as a little surprise. I went down there once and they're like, we all want to see. So I said, all right, it's not what you think it's going to be. And they, you know, two steps off and they're like, oh God, like,
[SPEAKER_00]: We've all had a field trip to a basement. It's hard to light a match and go up in flames.
[Heather]: I live in a very old house that definitely a trip to the basement on a regular basis.
[Heidi Davis]: Great. Do I have a motion to issue a certificate of compliance for DEP file number 215-0017?
[Jenny Graham]: Motion to issue a certificate of appliance for file to 15 0, 0, 17. That's what you said. Great.
[Heidi Davis]: Thank you, Caroline. A second?
[Craig Drennan]: I'll second it.
[Heidi Davis]: Excellent. Call the roll. Heather?
[Heather]: Aye.
[Heidi Davis]: Caroline?
[Heather]: Aye.
[Heidi Davis]: Craig? Aye. Myself is an aye. Close them out.
[SPEAKER_00]: Thank you very much.
[Denis MacDougall]: All right. And then just the certificates of compliance I'll get in the next couple of days. I'll probably get those done tomorrow, frankly, because those are two or three page documents. So I'll get those over to you as quickly as possible.
[SPEAKER_00]: Thank you so much, Dennis. And thank you so much, commission members. I hope you have a good rest of your evening.
[Denis MacDougall]: Thank you. Thank you. We have our final notice of intent, an amended notice of intent for the bicycle path extension DEP file number 215-0210.
[SPEAKER_01]: Hello, my name is Peter Bacchus and I'm a project environmental scientist with Ty and Bond here on behalf of Eversource Energy and sorry, just bringing my screen up really quick. There we go. Also on the call, I have Brian Gammons with Tie and Bond, who's a senior environmental scientist on this project. And we have Sean Grant from DCR on here as well. So we are looking to request an amended order of conditions for the underground electric transmission project to build a bicycle path extension in the area around the Medford Community Gardens. So just a little background on this in order conditions was originally issued in 2017 for the project and then extended in 2020 and 2023 as construction continued. At this point, the transmission lines installed work is substantially complete and across the line restoration is underway. While digging through kind of the restoration and prepping it. we were reviewing documents and a construction access permit that was given by DCR was reviewed and realized that we didn't have the bicycle pathway that this permit required on the restoration plans as this whole process kind of took place concurrent with the NOI filing, but was not approved until after the order of conditions had been issued. So we realized in the restoration plans we were missing this. So we wanted to come back to the commission and request an order of conditions Sorry, Amendment to the Order of Conditions to include this pathway. So. What do you call it? We met with Dennis at first, because we weren't sure if we were going to go the NOI route or this amendment order. We realized, well, we would have overlapping footprints here. And I'll show these on the screen in a little bit. So we thought that amending the current order was better. We still notified butters and all of the process. So we just didn't want to start scratch for the new NOI and have two conflicting order of conditions on the same geographic footprint. So we are still falling under some area subject to jurisdiction. So that's why we're back. So just a little overview of what we're requesting. This is the intersection of Winthrop Street, north-south here and Mystic Valley Parkway heading east-west, top of the screen. The community gardens are available here. Let me turn on the laser pointer. There we are. There we go. So, and with the community gardens here in the center. The transmission line work was, there was a lay down yard in this area around this leg of the proposed path here where there was material stored and this is where the transmission line work was taking place for the underground work. And so what we're looking to do is have a, sorry, as part of the mitigation, have a bike path installed here from the intersection down through to the existing bike path, Mystic Valley Path, here along the river. We also, in discussions with the town and DCR and some other entities, also requested that this leg down here be added to connect to the existing crosswalk here at Winthrop Street, north of the bridge, to the existing path. There is already actually, as you can see here, and I have some photos as well, there is some high wear from people already cutting across this area. It's quite wide. You know, it kind of just to make the cut back to the path. So what we're proposing are those two legs of the path. as well as up top installing ADA compliant crosswalks at the corners. I believe this corner already has one, but just making sure that's up in current repaired status and also adding those to the other corners to allow safer and ADA compliant crossings. We would also be raising the existing crosswalk here. Again, as a safety measure, there are bollards in the road here in these hatched areas. The curbing would actually come out on this one a bit more to protect pedestrians. And this would just be a slight raised crosswalk, your standard pedestrian safety, slow traffic a little bit, keep it a little narrower to protect people as they cross. Off screen, so up top here, off screen, the pathway goes parallel to Mystic Valley Parkway, but you also notice there is a path to the south of the ball fields here, and they meet up on the other side of the ball field. So what we're basically doing is reconnecting these two paths where they split and bringing them back to these paths as it continues down towards the half shell and the boat rental and all of that. We do have some of this area previously permitted as part of the order of conditions, and that would be this path over here. There was already permitting for the lay down yard. This would be really the new addition would be 1,500 square feet here of this leg of what I'm calling the Y. These would be asphalt pathways, and this area here is quite compacted. This area is lawn, and this area at the moment over here is currently gravel compacted from construction and is part of the restoration process. that is going on. So just a couple of photos for that. Number one here, this is looking from Mystic Valley Parkway at the intersection corner. The path would go straight here, right through this area, as you can see the gravel I mentioned there, and down behind the gardens. In photo two, it would come out here behind the gardens, and you're looking at pretty much the same trees right there, and would come and meet here at a 45-degree angle across the lawn. As you can see here in the distance, this is that leg of the Y. You can see it's quite worn. Skipping down to photo three, same different opposing angle here. You can see it's quite a wide area where people have walked. It's quite compacted. It looks like the town was doing when I was out there taking photos, we're doing a little bit of a storm water outfall project there, adding that piping from the road. So when we go to install this path, it would actually be a little narrower than this worn down area, and it would keep, we hope, pedestrians and cyclists on the actual path, as opposed to walking widely and creating more area that's unvegetated and potentially eroded. Again, photo four, just another angle close up of two, as we can see where that gets worn down and people are taking the turn wide here. Just to go back to the map, this is the bicycle path here. People have to cross, take this sharp turn down, and then come down across here. So you're interfering with pedestrians at this point on the sidewalk. It's slowing cyclists down. Yeah, and maybe even walking their bikes to this area. And then same here, people coming across on the crosswalk are not going to come up and cut back there. They're going to take the path of least resistance. So we're hoping we can keep, you know, bicycle traffic flowing and kind of a safer condition. And here, you know, keep the existing vegetation in good condition and stop having people wear it down in that section. These are just the plans here, just another look. So the path does have a little more curvature than I could draw in PowerPoint. And same here, we come from the raised crosswalk, a little bit of a curve, and into the existing pathway here. Here are four ADA crosswalks that we are looking to install. And the raised crosswalk with the curbing bump out here, not so much here, but it is still going to be ADA compliant as well. So there are some additional impacts to resource areas beyond what's already permitted, and we're in the 100-foot buffer zone, riverfront area, and bordering land subject to flooding, which I'll show on the next slide. So that segment behind the community garden is within previously-proved laydown area under the existing order conditions, so we are already permitted to disturb that area, though not install a crosswalk just yet, or sorry, a bike path. We aren't expecting to generate impacts beyond those that are already in that permitted area. There will be a little bit of minor tree trimming, as you saw those trees overhanging behind the garden, but we're not anticipating any tree removal, just the lower branches in there so that cyclists can go through, so the path can be installed and paved. That Y segment down towards the river at the existing crosswalk where the raised one will go, there is about 1,500 square feet of overlapping buffer and riverfront area, and about 1,200 feet of that is also BLSF. We don't expect this to impact flood storage. We're not expecting to restrict flows or impair the ability of the area to provide its current level of habitat function. As I mentioned, it's already been compacted and worn down by pedestrians and cyclists cutting across there. We're hoping that by actually narrowing that impacted area, we may actually be having a slight improvement to pervious surface through there. And then the race crosswalk and the ADA compliant crosswalks are already in paved roadway. So we're hoping that we find those under the Wetland Protection Act as an exempt minor activity for resurfacing and repair of an existing paved roadway. So just to show the resource areas, orange is the FEMA floodplain 100-year. There is a little bit of floodway as well here. And the floodway breaks off up here as well, right there with that tributary that comes in. The green is the 100-foot buffer, and that is to the inland bank of the tributary in the Mystic River. And then we have the 200-foot riverfront area there as well. So the entire project pretty much takes place within the 100-foot and the 200-foot buffer zones. And both parts of the path here are within 100-year floodplain as well. So let me just check, just a few other points in a summary. So requesting amended order of conditions to incorporate the bicycle path that's required by our construction access permit by DCR, with that extra little bit also added by the town there with the leg of the Y and the raised crosswalk. These were completed after the initial issuance. The project's going to install those two segments of pathway, the crosswalks and raised crosswalk, looking at that approximate 1,500 square foot Uh, area outside the existing order conditions and, uh, importantly here. Before we can restore that lay down area, we'd like to put the path in. We wouldn't want, we don't want to uptake that gravel, uh, and, uh, kind of loosen that area only to have construction equipment come back. So if we can have, um, this approved in the end of the year term, we can install the bicycle path and then that'll allow us to complete restoration of the area and hopefully close out the order of conditions maybe by the end of the year or early next year. And here we're hopefully reducing impact in some manner to pedestrians and cyclists and whatnot there and reconnect those paths around the ball fields back to the Mystic River path. So, sorry if I threw a lot at you there at once, but happy to take any questions there from the commission.
[Heidi Davis]: Great, thank you for that background. Commission, do you have any questions?
[Marie Izzo]: Can you go back to your site photo? Sorry, I see Heather has her hand up. You had that click? Yes, thank you. Go for it, Heather.
[Heather]: just a quick question have you communicated with the community garden because the bike path that is passing to the right or back of it the where you talked about having the trees trimmed back is going to be very close to the garden as well as a lot of the activity and thank you for I'm not aware of that but maybe our project manager will know here.
[Aaron Olapade]: Sure, I am not aware that they've been notified of this change of the pathway, but I believe a while back they were notified about this whole process we had to go kind of back and forth with them about a couple other issues which did get resolved. So we may have to reach out to them just to give them an update with the bike path and get maybe some feedback.
[Heather]: Yeah, especially since water is provided by the city and I don't know if that's going to impact anything in the area that you're working. I know they've had difficulties with some of that this summer. So that's one piece. You answered another one of my questions already in terms of you literally are just planning to do some lower tree limb trimming on that one side. Yes. You're not taking any trees.
[SPEAKER_01]: No, we looked there at the trunks when I went out to do this assessment and the trunks of the trees and the root, you know, not all of the drip line, obviously, for removing some, but most of the trees are pretty well set back from there outside of the lawn area.
[Heather]: Yeah, there is a, it is pretty active in terms of wildlife. They're just, that's one of the reasons I'm asking. Okay. Those are just two questions that I had.
[Unidentified]: Thanks, Heather.
[Marie Izzo]: Fairly what I hope is a simple question to answer on image for where you're proposing the new or a paved connector. Why, instead of the dirt, will you also be restoring ground cover outside of the asphalt pavement? I mean, that's a good question. Yeah. I mean, that desire line sort of creeps all over the place. Are you intending to replace
[SPEAKER_01]: I believe that could be incorporated. I did forget to mention, we will have to grade a little bit of a base in there to put a base underneath the sidewalk itself. There'll be a little restoration along that path as it is, but I believe we could incorporate that. Brian, do you think that would be an issue?
[Aaron Olapade]: Yeah, Erica you specifically just talked about restoring it with kind of grass similar to the areas. Yeah. So what we'll end up doing is, you know, we're going to restore the area outside the path because there will obviously be just disruption as we're doing this project will probably likely do that at the same time as the lay down yard. And we're going to come back and we'll probably take care of all the seeds in this area. It won't I don't know how far up that goes that disturbed, but we, we certainly will take care of the area and the photo you're taking looking at right now.
[Marie Izzo]: Yeah, yeah, it's that little bit there. Yeah, that would be my strong preference if that's done as part of the lay down yard restoration work as well. Just like to see, you know, the existing grass, whatever it is up to your proposed pavement line as best you can.
[Aaron Olapade]: Yeah, I think that's very reasonable. I believe the contract is going to come out in hydro seed. So we can probably just include that section as part of the process. I believe is probably included anyways, but we can certainly do that.
[Marie Izzo]: And my apologies if that means your ECB line moves towards the river accordingly, but I'm not sure.
[Heidi Davis]: So I do note that this area looks highly compacted and the soils don't look very inviting for seeing. So I hope that suitable soils are used also.
[Aaron Olapade]: Yeah, we're hopeful that this will actually improve the drainage in this area because we're going to have to scarify this area to put grass back down. We'll also have to do that to put this pavement in. So I think the way we're looking at it is this will be an overall drainage improvement.
[SPEAKER_01]: And hopefully for the future as well as people will now stick to the path, hopefully.
[Heidi Davis]: Yeah, cutting off there. I might have done it myself. Me too.
[Craig Drennan]: I've got a couple quick questions. The first is we had an NOI come before the commission about six months ago looking to do horizontal, and this might be a question for Heidi and Dennis, I'm not sure, looking to do horizontal directional drilling in the same general alignment as the work that was previously done. To the extent that we can, I'd like to avoid putting in a brand new fancy path just for it to be ripped out whenever that work happens. Is there any way to have the parties go back and forth or to do coordination on the city's end to make sure we can avoid that?
[Heather]: That's really good.
[SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, I believe Dennis is this the one you mentioned when we first discussed this?
[Denis MacDougall]: It is, yeah, when we were on the call. So yeah, it's, it's, it's, unfortunately, it might just turn out to be because they're, you know, under orders to put the pathways in. It might have to get in. It's it's not the most ideal thing, but it's possible or that project may change because they were still talking that they may not go that route. I checked with our engineering office and there's been no real talk to us about that since they came before us for that line.
[Aaron Olapade]: Greg, I can weigh in because we had to do HDD drilling under the Aborjona in Winchester and that process is extremely arduous and slow. I think in terms of Eversource, their ideal scenario is to try to get this completed and done and closed out by this year or early next year. I think our goal was by the end of this year, if we could have a weather season that cooperates. And my only concern with that would be is with the unknowns of HTD drilling on the river, we don't want this prolonged beyond, you know, I think it's a good idea to do that next summer and spring, because ideally this project in itself is going to be closed soon.
[SPEAKER_16]: I think is still in its infancy. With that being said, they still need to go for Article 97 permission, which has not been filed yet. Nothing's been presented to DCR. So it is at least three years away from even being able to put a shovel in the ground. Article 97 usually takes at least a year and a half to two years, since it's an act of the legislature. So I don't envision that project coming anytime soon. And DCR would definitely like to have this restored prior to a determination on that project.
[Craig Drennan]: Yeah, of course, that makes sense. My only other question was regarding that raised crosswalk to the, yeah, in that area. To the best of my knowledge, I think I drove over that on my way home today. Has that already been built?
[SPEAKER_01]: No, I don't have a good photo of it, unfortunately, but it's well marked out. It kind of looks like it's raised, but it actually is still flat as far as I know. It might have a slight bump, but I think we're bringing it up a bit.
[Craig Drennan]: I think the granite curbing was installed because it looks like this was installed when I went over it earlier. And those two catch stations were there as well.
[SPEAKER_01]: I will have to look, yeah, they were installing the outfall when I was there. I had, I didn't know if that was a part of it. We will look into that.
[Denis MacDougall]: Um, I haven't been out for a month now to submit this, but winter street itself in and around there was just redone. Like there was, you know, they were putting in the bike lanes and doing a lot of things there. And some of the curbing was altered just cause I know, cause you couldn't park. Honestly, I go over there to get bagels on the weekend and you couldn't park. on that section of Winthrop Street by the ball field where you could for a little bit because there was cones and they were doing work along there. But I haven't been over there in like two weeks. I'll go and check. Actually, I might just swing by there on my way home. I don't know if I got thrown in or not.
[Craig Drennan]: With regards to that area, whether or not the work has been done, it would be good to know if it actually has been done. Those two catch basins, where do they drain? And I'm assuming it's to the river. And is there, do we have details on outfall erosion protections at the end of pipe, et cetera?
[SPEAKER_01]: The ones that are there, the outfalls on the road were not associated with our project that I know of. But as you can see here, the trench was there when I was out, and it just went straight to the river, and there's like an outfall sign that says, you know, that with the outfall number and all that, the context of the city.
[Craig Drennan]: I'm referring to the two catch basins on your plan list as proposed catch basins.
[SPEAKER_01]: Do we have catch basin or, oh, do you mean you want them on the plan or?
[Craig Drennan]: No. So to the right of your raised crosswalk, there are two.
[SPEAKER_01]: Oh, sorry, sorry. Yes, I guess we will have to check on that. I believe they tie into the existing drainage, but Brian, do you have any insight into that? I was in the engineering portion.
[Aaron Olapade]: Yeah, I believe those drain to the river and we would be doing, you know, we have a SWIP out there, so we'd be doing best management practices with SWIP with erosion controls and silt sacks. Is that what you're asking?
[Craig Drennan]: I'm more thinking long-term end of outfall measures if they're draining to new outfalls versus draining and tying into an existing system. Like riprap or erosion at end of pipe.
[Aaron Olapade]: I guess, yeah, we would have to look into that. You talk about erosion controls at the end of the pipe, correct?
[Craig Drennan]: Yes, long-term erosion control measures to like the 10 or 25 or something.
[Aaron Olapade]: All right, I guess we will have to look into that.
[SPEAKER_16]: So just a quick question, are those catch basins on Winthrop Street or are they on Misty Valley? Winthrop Street.
[Heather]: Winthrop right near the Warren you're talking about right here.
[Heidi Davis]: But they're tying into existing outcalls.
[Denis MacDougall]: That's my question.
[Craig Drennan]: Yeah.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah, there are existing outfalls on both sides. Basically, almost given, you know, directionally going. So, they have to tie into the existing pipes that are there. Then the way I'm sort of looking at it, they probably tie in the existing pipes and then go into the. existing outfalls.
[Craig Drennan]: Okay, if that's the case, that's totally fine. I just want to make sure it's not a new outfall that would need end of site treatment.
[Aaron Olapade]: Yeah, Craig, let me, okay, there is no intent to have a new outfall. Okay. Yeah, okay, I didn't understand where you're getting it. Yeah, these would be tied into any existing, we have no plans of creating any sort of new outfalls or everything's going to be tied into existing infrastructure.
[Craig Drennan]: Okay. And I'm assuming they're just not really changing the drainage area going to those pipes, looking at what those contours look to be showing, in which case there would be no change to the hydrology at the end of the actual pipe.
[Aaron Olapade]: We're hopeful that it's actually less with the infiltration from the scarifying of that area and the infiltration in the past. So we're actually hoping that the impact to those will be less.
[Craig Drennan]: All right.
[SPEAKER_16]: That was the question that I had. DCR has not permitted any new all-fall work into the river. Just to let you know. Okay.
[Heidi Davis]: And you did say there'll be silt sacks installed on the catch basins during construction?
[Aaron Olapade]: Absolutely. Yep, we'll be doing full SWIP inspections under our permit. We'll have all sorts of oversight while this is going on to make sure that everything's done properly and that we're not seeing sediment travel off site.
[Craig Drennan]: Excellent. And Dennis, I'd love to hear if this is actually built because I swear I saw this thing on my way home tonight.
[Denis MacDougall]: It's very possible. I think two weeks ago I know they were doing the work there because I ended up parking over by the shell and walking over. But I haven't been over there since. So when I go back to my house tonight, I will go back that way, take the scenic route home, and I will let you all know tomorrow.
[Aaron Olapade]: That would be a great surprise if we didn't have to do that, but we'll certainly plan on doing it at this point.
[Heidi Davis]: Okay, great. So I think we, do I have a motion to amend this notice of intent for file number 215-0210?
[Marie Izzo]: I will make a motion to amend order of conditions, MassDEP file number 215-0210.
[Heidi Davis]: Excellent, do I have a second? Second. Great, thank you. I'll call the roll. Heather? Aye. Eric?
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[Heidi Davis]: Caroline?
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[Heidi Davis]: And Craig? Aye. And myself as an aye. So do note that amending an order does not extend the original order that we're gonna still need to keep on top of that date, those dates. I see that.
[SPEAKER_01]: We renewed earlier this year, and we hope to close it out this year. It's been since 2017. We don't want another extension.
[Heidi Davis]: Okay, good. Excellent, great. Well, good luck in finishing up the work, and I hope, well, good luck in finishing it up.
[SPEAKER_01]: We'll leave it at that. Excellent, thank you very much.
[Aaron Olapade]: Thank you, we appreciate the board's hearing.
[Denis MacDougall]: We should get this to you probably early next week.
[SPEAKER_16]: Great, thank you. Thank you very much for your time and just to go back to a question about the community garden, DCR, I know through our community relations has reached out to the community garden and we're making sure that the bike path is not encroaching too close onto the community garden itself.
[Heather]: Okay, good. Thank you.
[Heidi Davis]: Excellent. Well, thanks for attending tonight.
[Unidentified]: Thank you.
[Heidi Davis]: Dennis, do we have any other old slash new business to discuss?
[Denis MacDougall]: Uh, nothing jumps out. Um, I've gotten a couple of calls recently about some potential projects, but it's been nothing concrete or any like timing wise so um let me see let me just check the all at once right before thanksgiving pretty much yeah exactly what a big travel day so we're fine yeah we'll just stay here all through the night what is our next scheduled time when will the cutoff be again trying to figure out making sure that we're available for meetings So September 6th, and we'd have until next Wednesday to get a filing. So someone could submit a file in the next 7 days. And then we would and if we don't, but nothing that you're aware of. No, I got a couple of calls from folks who are sort of. You know, basically asking, you know, kind of what, you know, uh. Folks from time bonded like I talked to them about a month and a half 2 months ago sort of like their potential things you know it's looking RDA and why we're, but they're still discussing it. But nothing concrete, like, nothing.
[Heather]: Yeah, and then our next. Our next 1 after that would be the 20th. it's just that these are prime. We're still in vacation time. So I'm trying to.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah, absolutely. So, yeah, no. I'm sort of hopeful not because I'm actually going away back-to-back weekends in September, so I'm trying to minimize meetings at all possible.
[Heidi Davis]: Okay, that's it. So, Caroline, just so you know, this is the most packed agenda we've had in a while.
[Denis MacDougall]: I did that to my co-lecturer when I sent her the thing, and I'm like, just, trust us, this is a rarity. We haven't met in, like, two months. But even with that,
[Heather]: Very well, Heidi, you did a fine job as always. So thank you. I appreciate it.
[Denis MacDougall]: Well, I should have done the meeting minutes for last week's meeting. I forgot about that. Okay. Yeah, but I forgot I forgot about because I realized I still needed to do 1 for the. very short meeting we did two weeks ago, and I'm not sure if I, oh, we had a meeting from before this that I probably never sent you any minutes for, which I have done somewhere. So I will, for our next meeting, I will send you multiple meeting minutes to get approved.
[Heidi Davis]: Okay. That's fine. Great. So then we need, before you run away, Heather, we need to close the hearing. Yes. Motion to close the hearing. Great. All in favor, Heather? Aye. Eric? Aye. Greg? Hi, Caroline. Hi, myself as an eye. Thank you all. I appreciate it. Yeah.
|
total time: 0.22 minutes total words: 19 |
total time: 3.44 minutes total words: 365 |
||