[Denis MacDougall]: Good evening, everyone. This is the City of Medford Conservation Commission. Opening up our hearing. We have one item for the first in the agenda that we're actually going to be asking for continuance. I'm just going to move forward on that first. A notice of intent for Mystic River Road improvements, DEP file number 215-0239, which is continued from the last hearing on December 4th. City has is the city's engineering office is working on getting the documents that the board requested, but weren't able to get them in the 2 weeks timeframe. So, we are asking continuance until the new year. To work on them. The next possible meeting date we could have is the 8th, but the city engineer requested today if we could just ask for continuance until January 22nd just to make sure with the Christmas holidays that everything gets done prior to that hearing. And I'm sorry, Dennis, which project is this for? This is the, oh, sorry, Mr. Grover Road. Oh, the Duggar Park project. Right around Duggar Park, yeah, exactly, sorry.
[Heidi Davis]: We got a few Mystic River things going on.
[Denis MacDougall]: That is true, you're not wrong. Yeah, apologies. Yeah, DEP file number 215-0239, the Mystic River road improvements.
[Heidi Davis]: Oh, okay, so you are the proponent. Yes. So you're asking the commission, and so do we have to vote on that?
[Denis MacDougall]: Just to vote to continue until January 22nd, yes.
[Heidi Davis]: Great, then I can have a motion, please.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: I'll make a motion to continue the hearing for notice of intent DEP file number 215-0239 until January 22nd of 2025. Second. All in favor? Caroline? Aye. Eric? Aye. Heather? Aye. Craig? Aye.
[Heidi Davis]: Jeremy. I myself as an eye.
[Denis MacDougall]: Thank you very much. So in our next time when the agenda is a notice of intent for 28 Sycamore Avenue DT file number 215-0238 continued from December 4th, 2024. NRL Medford I LLC has tried to notice of intent for proposed expansion of an existing parking lot at 28 Sycamore Avenue. The proposal will accommodate 15 additional vehicles and will consist of pervious asphalt over an existing gravel area. The proposed parking lot is within isolated land subject to flooding.
[Heidi Davis]: Thank you, Dennis. Good evening. Mr. Salvo, if you could please present the project to the commission, we'd appreciate it.
[MCM00001723_SPEAKER_03]: Sure. Thank you very much. For the record, my name is Rick Salvo with Engineering Alliance. I'm here this evening on behalf of the proponent. I think with me as well, the new owners of this property, Andy and Ben Dulac, they acquired the property about two years ago. They are working towards trying to fill that building, which is what has brought us here this evening. If I can share my screen, it looks like I have the ability. Did that work? Everyone see my screen? So this property is located at 28 Sycamore Avenue. This was the subject of a notice of intent many years ago, I think around 2004, ultimately got built in 2010. Originally, this was the original building footprint that exists on site, and this large addition was permitted and constructed back then. If I switch to an aerial figure just to kind of put it in perspective, this was the original building. This was the expansion that was built, and part of this parking lot expansion was built as part of that same expansion. This was originally proposed to be an industrial building. The uses that are in that building right now are far from industrial. There's an arch storage facility that's in there right now that takes up about 1,400 square feet. They're currently in negotiations to lease about 14,000 square feet of the building to a gym, and then the remainder of the building they're expecting would most likely be leased to someone for some form of storage. So that requires a total of 60 spaces, and there are not currently 60 spaces on site. So we're here this evening to do a modest expansion of the parking lot to try to add about 15 spaces in this area here. The resource areas that are on site are isolated land subject to flooding. In the interest of full disclosure, we did not recalculate the limits of land subject to, isolated land subject to flooding. We simply used the same elevation that was permitted under the previous filing under DEP file number 215-0129. And there would be sort of an apples to apples comparison. The area where the parking lot would be exposed would be this area here, be about 15 spaces would be added. Right now, this is an existing loading dock, and there's sort of a hardpan gravel in this area right here. The proposal would be to take this hardpan gravel area and this, what I would call an existing area, but it had all been previously degraded. There's lots of humps and bumps in there. Smooth that out. install a pervious pavement section to try to create as little impact as possible, try to stick with more of a low-impact design measure in that area, also to meet the stormwater standards. and enable us to basically keep the existing topography with some minor cuts and fills in that area, knowing that this area would still be allowed to flood. The stone in the pavement layer would certainly create more flood storage capacity that exists today, and also, plant some form of evergreen planting around that parking to keep it screened. When we first embarked on this project and went to the site, you couldn't see the neighborhood over here through the trees. I was there today and with all the trees down, you can see the neighborhood clear as day. Obviously, we've shown arborvitaes on here. We're not necessarily married to the arborvitae idea. We're happy to plant whatever would be the pleasure of the commission, but we certainly would propose an evergreen type planting in that area to provide us a good solid screen there. That's essentially the proposal. We did go there today to evaluate the tree loss that would happen. There would be about seven trees that would need to come down in order to facilitate this particular configuration. Those seven trees would be made up of six trees that are about five to six inch caliper. And 1 tree that's a lot treats a 36 inch caliber. So, I think with that, I'd be happy to turn it back to the commission for any questions or comments.
[Heidi Davis]: I see that we have a lot of numbers of the public here that I was interested in this project, but before we hear from them, I would like to. Turn discussion over to the commission and have our. listen to our questions and comments. Who wants to kick it off?
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: I'm happy to. I have a I think a fairly straightforward technical question Mr. Salvo. In your narrative in the proposed conditions you identify a four-inch reservoir course and then it's shown as six inches on the plan. I think this is working in your favor but I just wanted to clarify which was the proposed condition.
[MCM00001723_SPEAKER_03]: I believe the six inch is what we had in the calculations. So I think the four inch was just a typo. Okay.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: I guess I would just ask if you could confirm that with Dennis at some point. Other than that, I had nothing further.
[MCM00001723_SPEAKER_03]: We'd be happy to.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: Thank you.
[Jeremy Martin]: Mr. Salvo, I have a question for you about existing trees. You mentioned about seven trees that would need to be removed. I'm just looking at the drawing that's on the screen here. And if that's the existing condition survey below there, it's quite a bit more than seven trees. Could you provide a drawing that elaborates on the tree removal and maybe some part of the narrative? I don't think I saw mention of the tree removal in the narrative that was submitted. Apologies if I missed it.
[MCM00001723_SPEAKER_03]: Yeah, I would be happy to. I went through and counted them today. There were seven, so we'll be happy to do that.
[Jeremy Martin]: And I'll also mention, I think, with that, that information will be really helpful, but I wonder if it's worth the Conservation Commission making a site visit to see this at some point to get a better understanding of the condition there for ourselves.
[MCM00001723_SPEAKER_03]: I think that would be an excellent idea because it really needs to be looked at. You know, you can show it on a plan, but, you know, to physically see it, I think it would be a very good thing.
[Jeremy Martin]: Good, I appreciate that. And then the last thought here is I see that you're trying to do some, you know, some screening, something beneficial to try and block the view of the parking. I would ask you to take another look at the species of tree or shrub that you're putting in there. Let's consider something that's maybe native. Maybe there could be some diversity or variety in that. You know, I want to learn a little bit more about the vegetation that's there. I think there may be as much value in something that's contributing ecologically as it is to the screening that we should consider there, so.
[MCM00001723_SPEAKER_03]: I agree and happy to do that.
[Jeremy Martin]: Thank you.
[Heidi Davis]: I can go. Heidi, do you want to go? Yes, I just wanted to clarify. You did say that, and I see on the notice, that the limit of the ILSF is at elevation 19.9, and that is from what year?
[MCM00001723_SPEAKER_03]: That was, I think that notice of intent was originally filed in 2004. We're happy to recalculate it too, based on the current condition, but I just, I thought it was more appropriate to keep the resource areas the same as what was previously reviewed.
[Heidi Davis]: I think the commission might have concern that a 20-year-old delineation may not be accurate, but we can discuss further.
[MCM00001723_SPEAKER_03]: Yeah, I mean, the one thing that would certainly change in that delineation would be what is the rainfall intensity of a 1% annual rainfall, which would obviously be different today than previous standards, but we thought that this was an appropriate starting point.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: Thank you. Mr. Salva, I do have a few questions. I would also appreciate either seeing whatever the calculations are based on, if you have them from 2004 or the new calculations. And any idea, is this water coming from the groundwater or the surface water or both? What is contributing to the flooding?
[MCM00001723_SPEAKER_03]: Surface water.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: Surface water, okay. And is there any, the boundary of the isolated land subject to flooding, is that, was that the maximum extent of flooding or was there an outlet that was, it was draining to?
[MCM00001723_SPEAKER_03]: Well, I think there can't be an inlet or an outlet for it to be an ILSF by definition.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: Okay. And I did look at the regulations in the DEP policy today. So I haven't calculated those before. So I'll rely on either new calculations or seeing what was done back in 2004. You mentioned in the narrative that there would be soil testing in the future. Has that happened yet?
[MCM00001723_SPEAKER_03]: It has not happened yet. It didn't happen, you know, on purpose, knowing how close we were to a residential neighborhood. I knew that this was sort of a sensitive area with a lot of the, as you can see, with the amount of abutters that are here today. I believe it was back in 2004. The last thing we wanted to do was bring an excavator on site and start punching holes before we came before this commission and alerted everyone to what the proposal was. We're happy to do that. Soil testing is part of this process, but I didn't want to start off with an excavator showing on site. I'd prefer to start off with a presentation and let everyone know what the proposal was.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: Okay, that might be a point of discussion for the rest of the commission members. I would be interested. In some type of written submittal of how this project meets the performance standards for the resource area. I didn't see that explicitly, but I would like just written so we can all see how it meets the performance standards. If it does. You answered my tree question. And I did see that I think it was checked off that this was a redevelopment. It appears that this is new development and would need to meet the stormwater standards fully.
[MCM00001723_SPEAKER_03]: We actually checked the box of mix of redevelopment and new development. There's some redevelopment that'll happen in this area over here, and this is all new development.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: OK. So the parking space are in the new development is what?
[MCM00001723_SPEAKER_03]: Correct.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: OK. Okay, so that needs to meet the.
[MCM00001723_SPEAKER_03]: Yeah, some of the work will occur in a redeveloped area and part of the and then the remainder of the work is new development.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: Okay, on the stormwater topic, low impact developments required to be considered. I didn't see that any were. And I think you had checked off that it wasn't in a wetland resource area as a low impact development, but it is. in ILSF.
[MCM00001723_SPEAKER_03]: It is an ILSF. It wasn't in BVW though. I think that's what I meant. Maybe I misunderstood that.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: Okay. I would ask you to go back and look at some LID measures that could be implemented here.
[Heidi Davis]: And go ahead, I just wanted to thank you and I think we specifically need to see a demonstration that the project meets the performance standards under 10.574 B1. Blood damage due to filling. A proposed project in ILSF shall not result in flood damage due to filling, which causes lateral displacement of water that would otherwise be confined within said area.
[Craig Drennan]: Caroline, is that all you had? I can jump in it.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: I had two more, but I'm going to pause and let you go.
[Craig Drennan]: Okay. Rick are we generally going in at grade with this previous slot or I think have you done a cut field analysis for that change in volume?
[MCM00001723_SPEAKER_03]: Yeah we're the intent is to go in at grade there is one area basically in here, based on my observation today, where there might be a slight fill, I got to get some more topographic information to be able to identify that. Unfortunately, the topographic information that we had wasn't quite tight enough. And I think it'll be obvious if we do a site visit out there, you'll see there's some like micro humps and bumps in there that didn't show up in the contours and probably need to be accounted for. Yep.
[Craig Drennan]: Um, that, that makes sense. I think a cut fill analysis would be really valuable here. Um, I think in general, characterizing existing conditions a little further would go a long way to kind of quantify impacts. Um, on that, I think, uh, getting some soil testing would be huge. Um, you know, I pulled web soil survey. I know USDA has this as, as type A. Uh, given the hydro quality and given that this is a low point, I don't think I trust, uh, the USDA survey on this. So, uh, I think that would be really valuable, uh, doing, doing a test better too. And, you know, if the test bits show that this doesn't line up with web soil might be worth getting an infiltration test. Um, and I mean, on that. I think, you know, looking at the design standards for pervious paving in the mass stormwater manual, you know, given the kind of historical knowledge that we've gotten from some of the residents, it sounds like we may have a really shallow water table. And I'm a little concerned about meeting the two-foot setback to water table with pervious paving. And there's also a setback in the stormwater standards for uh, pervious paving of a 10-foot setback from slab foundations. So, you know, that this is right against the slab foundation for the older, uh, building on this property. So we want to kind of look at that and make sure that what we're proposing here kind of lines up with the performance standards that we've got on the books. And I mean, to that, LID measures may go a way to kind of help kind of get over the step there. Has there been, actually, let me just look at my notes here. Has there been any other alternative analysis in terms of kind of stormwater drainage from this? It looks like you guys have a smattering of the BMPs across the site. It looks like you guys are pressed for grade kind of working in the subsurface, but is there any way of tying in drainage from this area to the existing site system?
[MCM00001723_SPEAKER_03]: I don't think so. I don't think it'd be possible. The whole reason why we went with the pervious solution was to not extensively raise grades. I shared the same concern and it was something that I expect to do after this meeting is I'd like to schedule some soil testing and really get an idea of where the groundwater table is. The whole reason why the pervious pavement solution was chosen was to not create a big fill in this area, try to work with the existing topography to the maximum extent possible here so as to minimize any impact to the ILSF.
[Craig Drennan]: Totally understand that. It is absolutely a good first step. I'm glad that this wasn't opened up with asphalt and getting negotiated down from there. Um, 1 other consideration towards kind of existing conditions. The hydro modeling that you guys have done so far only shows proposed conditions. Having hydro for both existing proposed and kind of the soil test and can go to kind of. Support this to show net change and run off from the site. May be useful to demonstrate, you know, if if we, if this previous paving is a viable option. It can, it might demonstrate decrease in runoff, depending how that soil test comes back. But I definitely want to see pre to post. In the stormwater report and having a table to kind of summarize that in the narrative would be really useful.
[MCM00001723_SPEAKER_03]: Yep, not a problem. And obviously, you know, if the soils are there, you know, mathematically, it would have to result in that improvement. It would be impossible for it to work any other way.
[Heidi Davis]: Before we go on, I have to request that the individual from the public who is posting chat items please refrain from doing so. I do not believe that meets the open hearing laws. It is not something that is recorded or in writing, and please do put your concerns in writing and address them to the Conservation Commission, but chat messages are not appropriate during a hearing. Thank you.
[Craig Drennan]: In only one other comment, my review is generally focused on the stormwater standards. I don't see a construction period O&M plan that meets the kind of the checklist items beyond just the straw waddles on the design plans. Kind of making sure that standards 8 and 9 are both fully met and meet the full set of checklists in the stormwater checklist document would be would be useful. And that's all I've got for now. Caroline, if you want to jump back in. It's all yours.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: Sure. Thank you. 1 in the certificate of compliance that was issued in 2010, the continuing condition was the performance of the maintenance plan. I'm looking to see if you have records. Showing what maintenance has been done, say, in the last 3 years that you could share with us.
[MCM00001723_SPEAKER_03]: I would be happy to reach back to the owner. I know this owner is only on the property for just under two years, but I will find out hopefully those records exist, but we would be happy to provide whatever does exist.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: Okay, and the last. item is I appreciate any insight or a summary of any oil and hazardous waste material that may be on the site or was on the site and remediated in where that is in relation to this project and how that impacts the project.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: Thank you.
[Heidi Davis]: And to clarify comments from the public will get a chance to speak. Comments need to be either written or in writing, posted to the commission or verbally spoken of. Chat comments are not part of the public record.
[Heather]: Heidi, I have a couple of questions.
[Heidi Davis]: Please do go, Heather. Thank you.
[Heather]: First of all, much of it has been covered already, but certainly a planting plan that would provide more native species, especially if it does turn out that there is existing wildlife there. I'm curious about the 36-inch caliper tree. I'm curious what the variety is. And I also was wondering, because there's been mention in some of the letters from the abutters of nesting red-tailed hawks, I would definitely be interested in making a site visit. Then the last thing, which I thought Carolyn was going to add, was what are we talking about in terms of snow removal and storage? Because this obviously is right on. We can't have snow storage in that area. Is there a plan, Rick, that you folks have already thought about?
[MCM00001723_SPEAKER_03]: Yeah, let me get with the with the owner on that, you know, where there is an existing site. You know, this isn't a brand new parking lot. Let me find out what their means and methods are. I don't want to speak for him, but let me find out what his means and methods are. And we'll be happy to get you some info on that.
[Heather]: That would be good. And that would be including salting and that as well, not just storage, but plumbing storage. But what is there, especially since you one of my other one of the other commissioners already talked about are there. where is this water draining? And at this point, it looks like it's pretty much remaining in and around the area.
[MCM00001723_SPEAKER_03]: Correct.
[Heather]: Thank you.
[Craig Drennan]: Heidi, I will make one other just observation. I think the commission's on the right track with the inland or I say the plan subject to flooding elevations being 20 years out of date, but I will note that the entire project is within that ILSF boundary as it stands now. So while it is worth having more up-to-date numbers, that won't necessarily change the facts on the ground of the applicability of the project to the WPI.
[Heidi Davis]: Great. That's a good observation. Thank you, Craig.
[MCM00001723_SPEAKER_03]: Yeah, likely isn't going to go down.
[Heidi Davis]: Yeah, exactly.
[MCM00001723_SPEAKER_03]: I don't know if there was a flood storage capacity that was added as part of the previous project but I get the point.
[Heidi Davis]: Before you speak, I'd like you to please introduce yourselves and state your address. And we have a lot of people, obviously, so if you could limit your comments, if possible, to three minutes, we'd appreciate it. I understand that somebody has prepared a PDF that they would like to present, is that true?
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: Dennis, yes? Heidi, may I also suggest that if people wish to make comments that they raise their hand in the Zoom function, And that way, Dennis or a commission member could call on them in order. Excellent suggestion. Thank you. And if you're calling in by phone, I see there are a couple of people that have dialed in. You can press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute yourself.
[Heidi Davis]: Great. Now, I understand that somebody has a presentation. Is that correct, Dennis?
[Denis MacDougall]: That is correct, Mr. D'Angelo sent us some information earlier. Do we have a second, John? You are all set. We cannot hear you, John. You're not on mute, but... I was... There we go.
[SPEAKER_18]: I was unmuted. Thank you. Okay, so I'm going to share my screen. Okay. Thank you, everybody. So here's the site that you've seen already. So basically what we're looking at... Oh, sorry.
[Denis MacDougall]: Just before you start, can you just get your name and address for the record?
[SPEAKER_18]: John D'Angelo, 30 Sherman Place. So what we're looking at is this strip of land right here. The measurement from Sherman Place, from the middle of Sherman Place to the wall is about 99 feet according to Google Maps. And the proposed work is going to come in more than half of that. And I'll show that in the next couple of slides. So this plan was the original one that was sent with the original notice of intent at the time. It did not mention that this was the only area that was crushed stone or gravel. But just to clarify, and it was updated this morning by the contractor, but we have from the wall out to this edge here is about 21 feet. But you need, according to the plan and the depth of these parking spots, you need about 44 feet or so, not including this planting area. And by scale, this looks like it could be another eight to 10 feet. That's where I have this 55 feet approximately, 53, 55 feet, something to that matter. So I just wanted to point that out. And then the rest of these, all these parking spots in the planting area would be in that wetland habitat. So this is just the view. This was taken on Sunday. You notice my measuring wheel is here. From the wall, it comes out 21 feet. There is a little spot here that kind of cuts out a little bit, but the rest in general is about 21 feet. But that extent of the paving would come out to this 44 feet. So this includes all these trees here. I have to disagree with Mr. Salvo. I do believe that there's more than seven trees. There are multiple larger trees that you can see just from this view alone. And there are others off camera, off to the left as well. I want to point out, too, that in the notice of intent on page 27, it was mentioned here, and this is just cut right from page 27. You notice here, it just simply says that this curious asphalt will be built over an existing hot pan gravel. So yes, it has been updated as of this morning, I believe, that this area here, this 21 feet, is all that it is. But the original application actually showed or actually said that it was over the entire area. This area, this crushed stone area or hardpan gravel area, is only about a quarter of the proposed site. The rest of it is all in a wetland habitat. This is another view here. This is a measurement of 44 feet from the wall. You notice the multiple large trees. I would say that these are more than five, six inches in diameter, but you definitely have some of the ones that are significantly more than that. And this will remind the committee that this is only up to the edge of the asphalt, does not include the planting area, which includes far more trees. There's also, you can notice there's a slope here. If you look at the chart on the plan, you'll see that from the 20-foot mark of the limit of the ILSF, right where the parking area is, is a three-foot depression. So I have to disagree. This is not a small amount of fill that has to happen. This whole area floods generally when it rains. And I'll show in the next couple of slides as well, part of the reason why it also floods beyond just simply the rain itself in that area. This whole area, there's a tremendous amount of wildlife in this spot. In addition to the usual rabbits and squirrels and raccoons, we also have all sorts of other things. There are hawks, but we've actually seen not just simply hawks, but we've seen two mated pair of hawks on multiple occasions. There are coyotes, foxes, there are turkeys. This image in the middle was taken on Sunday afternoon about 2 o'clock. There's nine turkeys just right there clearly in the area that's under consideration for this proposed parking area. And those same turkeys in those same trees that we're talking about having to be cut down, you can see them at the bottom of the photograph. They're up in those trees. And this is a very active wildlife area. There's also a tremendous number of birds. And more recently, there has been owl sightings, of all things in Medford, owl sightings by multiple residents all throughout the area, from Hamlin Ave all the way to Gibson Circle and everything in between. So there's quite a bit that's here. There's also, I've heard recently, there's also been some bat sightings as well. So it's a tremendously ecologically diverse area. Part of the problem, too, is that Sherman Place and all the basements in the area, the area has a very high water table. Flooding is a massive problem in all of the streets that have been mentioned, and it's a constant battle. But then also, Sherman Place floods routinely. So there's issues with the storm drains. This has been an ongoing issue literally for decades. In the solution, the city of Medford came up with, because they have limited things that they can do with the stormwater system, which I can certainly appreciate. But the solution was to add this pipe on the left-hand side of the image that's circled by that ellipse. That pipe takes water that floods in the street. and diverts it into this wetland area. So you have standing water all throughout this image that you're looking for. Straight on, you see how it's dipping down beyond these first couple of trees. This whole area takes on water. If you start raising it up, especially in that three-foot depression, you're going to be limiting the amount of water that that can absorb. It's going to make a major issue for the street. You see in this one inset picture on the right-hand side, that's just a small amount of mud that happens. This used to happen routinely before this pipe was added. Mud will come from the wetland area and flood into the street. That whole back, the whole end of that street has had mud, and everything within this, what I'm showing is the flood line, that entire part of the street has flooded multiple times before. It still does flood. It's not as bad as it has been, so that pipe does help out. But one of the fears is, in addition to the wildlife issue, we will end up having more flooding and more mud deposited into the street. And also the basements, right? So you have the issues all throughout Sherman Place, all throughout Sherman Court, Hamlin Ave, Gibson Street, Gibson Circle, and Glenwood Street as well. That whole area gets a lot of flooding. That was it. I just rushed through because I don't only have a few minutes. A lot of people want to talk, but we have multiple letters. A couple of them didn't make it in here because they were submitted after this presentation was submitted to Dennis. But you notice we have one letter from Gibson Circle. I think there was a couple others as well. This letter here with all the signatures, we have about 30 signatures from residents on Hamlin Ave, Sherman Place, Sherman Court. We're very concerned with the proposal and for so many different reasons. And I haven't mentioned anything in terms of any other issues with it being a gym and more people, et cetera, et cetera. I'm trying to stay on point with the Conservation Commission, but there are other problems or other considerations that we do have. With that, I'd like to say thank you. If there are any questions of me, I'd be more than happy to share anything. or respond to anything people want to talk about.
[Heidi Davis]: Thank you, Mr. D'Angelo. I appreciate it. Dennis, I'm going to let you choose the next commenter.
[Denis MacDougall]: Sorry, the first hand that raised was Jennifer Huntley. So, Jennifer, if you want to just state your name and your address for the record.
[SPEAKER_13]: Hello, my name is Jennifer Huntley. I live at 50 Hamlin Avenue. I'm behind Sherman places, but I'm the last house on there. The property that is directly adjacent to me recently in the last couple of years cut down all the trees that were there. And now the flooding that was once, not too terrible, maybe an inch or so, you know, like if my pump couldn't keep up, to me having to get a much larger, high-capacity sun pump, and I still get a couple of inches of flooding anytime there's a really good rain. So the trees definitely help with the flooding in my area, and so I can only assume that this is going to happen to people on Sherman Place and Sherman Court as well. There is a huge number of wildlife that's here, and we've got bumblebees and bats, Like is the two, we have two mated pairs of red-tailed hawks. I have pictures of both pairs. There's a lot that lives here. Owls, all kinds of really, really nice stuff. And if you, you know, where people are complaining that they see coyotes all the time now. And if we're gonna keep encroaching on all of their space, where are they supposed to go? You know, like this is the only place that they have left around in this area. So I really don't think that this is going to help anybody but the gym people. There's another gym nearby, all I can say. And aside from that, I know they said they wanted to put up plants so that people couldn't see, but there's an incredible amount of noise. that echoes off the buildings into all hours of the night into over here. And it's definitely a problem. I can only see it being worse with that many more people coming. Thank you for listening to me. I appreciate the time.
[Heidi Davis]: Thank you for your comments. I do want to remind everyone that we can only address issues as they relate to the Wetlands Protection Act. That is the only part of our jurisdiction. So there may be concerns about traffic or noise, but this is not the forum for that. Thank you. Dennis?
[Denis MacDougall]: Mr. Slocum, if you would please just say your name and address to the record.
[SPEAKER_16]: Yes, good evening. My name is David Slocum. I'm an abutter over on Gibson Circle. And I sent in a, I sent in an email about 2 weeks ago before the 1st meeting was supposed to happen, raising some concerns. I absolutely do have concerns and I'll try to limit. I'm not familiar exactly with the statute for the jurisdiction of this commission, but. I understand that it's wildlife and trees. Wildlife and trees is a huge part of my concern. When my wife and I bought this house six years ago, something that we tremendously valued was that when we look out our back porch into our backyard, there's trees, there's tall trees. And all summer long, it's an unbelievable blessing to be able to see those trees, have the shade from them and look At the wind, it is just so soothing and it's a huge part of our enjoyment in life. I mean that sincerely. And we just don't want to see those trees cut down, any of them. We're a little bit over on the other side, away from, you know, exactly where this work is supposed to happen. But, you know, the whole The trees are all one cluster there, and it's important. I can personally attest, I didn't have a photo to send to John of an owl, but just like two months ago, I saw this unbelievably impressive large owl in my backyard. It's coming from that area right there. We see abundant wildlife all the time. Bunnies, there's tons of bunnies. The coyotes are there because they're coming for the bunnies. The bunnies shoot back and forth underneath the burrows that they make a my fence to go into that area back there. which went on property. We see the hawks, we see the coyotes, we see animals, and they're valued, and I think that they should be valued. We have huge concerns about water. I don't know if that is this commission's jurisdiction, but flooding over here and a high water table is a massive concern. We have finished all of the properties on Gibson Circle over here that are abutters. We are abutters. We have finished Living area below grade part of our homes here and we are subject when there are heavy rains we get water into our properties and it's not it's not unfinished basement is finished living area and we're all dependent on some pumps. And someday when there's a big storm and the power goes out, we're all going to get flooded bad. My neighbor two doors down, who isn't a butter, may or may not be part of this hearing right now, but he told me that back before the expansion to this building, they didn't used to get those problems. And then when there's more impervious space on that site, the water problems of water getting into their below-grade living area got much worse. So my, you know, I don't know, I haven't had time to look very closely at this notice of intent or whatever, but if we're putting in more fill and more finished more surfaces that are just going to force the water somewhere else towards us, it can't be good. So. I think that's probably the extent of what I have to say, but I appreciate being heard. I'm in a butter with very strong concerns. I'd urge the commission to take our concerns very seriously.
[Heidi Davis]: Thank you, Mr. Slocum. Flooding is one of the concerns that the commission does look at. Certainly, it's one of the interests of the Wetlands Protection Act. that is within our domain.
[Denis MacDougall]: The next one is a telephone number ending 5073. If you care to speak, please do so and just state your name and your address for the record.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: All right, it looks like they just unmuted themselves.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah, so if you.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: You're a leader and you wish to speak, please do so.
[Denis MacDougall]: Otherwise, we're going to move on to the next person. Okay, do you hear me now? Yes, yes.
[SPEAKER_07]: Okay, I'm very sorry. Hello, I am Arlene D'Angelo. My husband and I, we have lived on Sherman Place for over 52 years and we're in full support of what my son John wants to say. And we want to emphasize that this is a very high water table. It is not just surface water, it is groundwater. We all have problems with this area with the high water table. And by cutting down all the trees, it's going to result in more flooding on our street and basements and disrupting all the beautiful wildlife that live there. After heavy rains, there are pools of water that pool in the wetlands. And at the end of our street, after heavy flooding, we get so much rain, the system cannot take it. We are left with a bunch of mud on the street, and we're elderly. We have to go out there with shovels and clean the street. It is a nuisance. It's smelly. It's stinky. It's terrible, especially in the summer. It gets buggy. And we just want to make sure that the Conservation Committee takes all of this into consideration. And thank you for your time and your support.
[Heidi Davis]: You're very welcome, thank you for your comments, Ms. D'Angelo. All right. You're welcome.
[Denis MacDougall]: Next in line is Robert Hines. Just please...
[SPEAKER_14]: Hi, I'm Robert Hines, 29 Sherman Court, budding the wetlands here. And I agree with people have said that flooding is a concern, that just have reducing the amount of air, land that the water can disperse over is just going to make it worse. I don't think any sort of permeable pavement is ever going to take that place of natural habitat, and also taking the trees, which will absorb raw water out of the ground. And just repeating whatever I've said, it's a very high water table, and any sort of reduction in the plan will just, I think, Reduce it and reduce the increase the problems of flooding and reduce the ability of the land to absorb water. And I just yeah, that's. I would encourage the conservation commission to really turn down this proposal. I'm not sure if these are necessary, but that's I don't think, as you said, purview of this. This commission, but I do encourage them to. Take this into consideration and. I don't think any sort of mitigation is really going to do enough to prevent it. But thank you.
[Heidi Davis]: Thank you, Mr. Hines. And next is Loretta James.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_21]: Oh, hello. Loretta James, 13 Sherman Place. Thank you. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Oh, good. I sent a letter in. I'm an abutter to the abutters, December 4th, with just a few days notice of this meeting. And I hope you read the letter. And so I had a few more things to add to that since I've had more time to think about this. The proposed new parking area will have automobile exhaust pollution that falls on the wetlands and stormwater. And that's something that I didn't mention in the letter until I thought about it more. That particular area is not an existing parking lot. That's, as you have seen in the pictures that John D'Angelo had done in his presentation, it's a gravel area. So cars generally do not park there. So this would be quite a change to the wetlands. The other thing is, With the tree canopy leaves. If you look at it now it doesn't look like much because it's fall and winter, and there's no leaves but it's completely fills in and those pictures are on the. presentation that John D'Angelo submitted. So it's a quite dense forest area, and those leaves help filter the air pollution that would drop onto the wetland. And it also provides shade to the wetland and prevents heat gain. With removal of any of the trees, the land will turn really hard and cause more flooding. Then the last thing, I had sent this in to Dennis, but I don't know if he got my e-mail because it's such e-mail questions. Was this project reviewed by the National Heritage and Endangered Species Program? I want you to consider that there's a lot of animals. They may not be there right now, but there's opossum, skunks, the hawks, owls, and that's one of the considerations I'd like you to consider. I have an email, I'm sure you're probably aware of this. It says their responsibility for review is the primary responsibility of us is to review any proposed projects or activities you may have in rare species habitat, estimated or priority habitat. And this is to protect rare species and their habitats. And there's a review process for how to file a MESA project review. So I was wondering if that's been submitted. Now, thank you for your time. I really appreciate this. This will be quite a change to the area. It does flood from Spring Street all the way down our whole street, not just at the end. I mean, of course, the end cuts the, all the water runs down the end of the street, but all our houses on the street have flooded before when there's been impact rain. And with the climate change, I'm really surprised there are other options to provide more green and friendly spaces like bikes. So that might be something that could be considered since our city is Go Green Medford. So I hope the owner and developer considers putting in bicycle stations, which are very popular in Medford. Since it is a proposed gym, I find it a little ironic that that's, you know, a health gym is to provide health sustainability, but not in the environment. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Ms. James.
[Denis MacDougall]: All right. Next, there is Lauren Moresky.
[SPEAKER_01]: I just wanted to go on the record and say that I support in the past. There's just, there's a lot of rain and everyone has a sump pump and they're working maximum overdrive. I think, I did have one question and my question was whether or not there was a written comment period for this and if there is a deadline and if that is already passed, if we respectfully request to extend that so I can submit some written comments to the commission.
[Heidi Davis]: Great, thank you. I think we will probably request to continue this hearing, so we will accept written comments.
[SPEAKER_13]: Thank you.
[Denis MacDougall]: Just in the chat right now, I just put my email address. If you have any comments, please send them to me and I will forward them to the board. And next up it's Will Sherwood.
[rov34HMcKiU_SPEAKER_27]: Hi there. You hear me okay? Yes. Great. My name is Will Sherwood. I live at 30 Woodside Road. I am not in a butter, but I am a recent transplant into medford i'm looking to make this my home indefinitely uh... and i am speaking in some uh... in support of what all of my new neighbors have had to say about this project i think that medford has their climate resiliency plan in place they have to go green initiatives i think that erasing these uh... fragile wetlands For parking is honestly a little inexcusable. I think that is short sighted, especially as we're seeing record rainfall these last few years. And general changes in our climate. If this is going to be my long time home, I want to make sure that it is everyone is kept safe. And that we are following our climate resilient resiliency plans. To make sure that we are keeping not just our neighbors. But our homes, our wildlife and our nature areas safe. For generations to come, thank you.
[Heidi Davis]: Thank you. Mr. sure.
[Denis MacDougall]: I see no other hands raised and let me just check. And in my emails, the only other email that I received is the email that Ms. James referenced. Oh, sorry. Tracy Tetrault, please name and address for the record.
[Heather]: And unmute. Asking to unmute.
[SPEAKER_08]: Hi, can you hear me? My name is Tracy Tetrault. I am not a butter. I live at 49 Farragut Ave in a different neighborhood, but I did grow up in this neighborhood. And over the years, a lot has changed with the green space that all these butters have been talking about. And what I've seen over these decades is this wetland in green space that was so amazing as a child, getting filled in with houses, FedEx, Budweiser, neighborhoods, the exact property that you're talking about. I didn't see all these things when I was a child. Instead, we had space that we could roam around and scoop up tadpoles in a pond. But over the years, all of this has been filled in. filled in and filled in. And as it goes on, this wetland filling in has caused more and more problems for all these people in this neighborhood, flooding, like they're saying. And it's surprising to me because Method has this amazing space, and I can't believe that they don't want to protect it. There's not many spaces in a city that you can protect, and this is one of them. And it would be a shame to see this area paved over, cause problems for all the tax paying citizens of this city. And not just that, but the wildlife, the coyotes, the rabbits, the hawks, I mean, I just can't imagine that Medford isn't interested in preserving green space. So I just wanted to say that and voice my opinion. And I'm glad that you are at least listening to everyone and listening to everyone's opinions. So thank you.
[Heidi Davis]: Thank you, Ms. Tetreault. Is there anybody else?
[Denis MacDougall]: That would like to raise the next is window loud. All right, Toby. Please name and address the record.
[MCM00001723_SPEAKER_08]: Yes. Can you hear me? All right.
[Unidentified]: Yes, we can.
[MCM00001723_SPEAKER_08]: My name is Linda Loud, and I live at 25 Sherman Court. And I've lived here for 46 years. And we've always had wonderful animals that have come out of the wetlands back there. And I wanted to agree with what Tracy just said. Growing up here, my kids always had tadpoles and everything. They'd go in there, and they'd you know, bring them out and bring them in the house, unfortunately. But they over the years, I've noticed the depletion of these animals because of prior that building going in over there. We had all sorts of different kinds of animals as well as I was so excited to see and I put a picture in also of all these turkeys that were up on my roof and in the trees the other day. And then the hawks in the backyard, we used to have cardinals all over the place. And now it's getting less and less and less. And we really need to think about this and really need to be concerned with getting rid of this land there because we're going to lose more animals. We're going to have more problems in our basement. I've always had a sump pump. We have two going all the time.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_21]: I said something.
[MCM00001723_SPEAKER_08]: I couldn't help it. And I just feel as though I'm really glad that someone is listening to us and put some really good thought into all of this so that we won't have to deal with more loss. And I thank you for hearing me.
[Heidi Davis]: Thank you, Ms. Ladd. I appreciate it. Do we have anyone else from the public that would like to speak?
[Denis MacDougall]: I see no other hands raised but just to respond to a question that came to me about written comments. I will say, and I'm not rifting anything, but if the matter is continued, which as Chair Davis said, it seems likely, we will announce during this hearing When it will be continued to and prior any time up until prior to that hearing, you're welcome to submit comments to me in this office and they will get forwarded to the commission.
[Heidi Davis]: Thank you, Dennis. And before I turn this back to the commission to see if they have any other comments, I do want everybody to understand part of the process is that once the commission comes to a decision, they will issue a decision called an order of conditions, which will either allow or deny that project. Either way, there are a number of parties that have the right to appeal that decision. If the commission denied the order, then the proponent has the right to appeal that, and that appeal would be to the Mass. Department of Environmental Protection. If we allow that project, then Director Butters may appeal, 10 concerned citizens may appeal, and the department can appeal of its own volition. So I just want you all to be aware that there is a process in place. I would now like to turn it back to the commission, and after hearing all of the comments, I wanted to know if you have any other thoughts or questions.
[Heather]: I do. basically because this is a long-term flooding area and problem for the town. I am curious if there was anything in the engineering department, etc., any plans, especially as we're looking at climate, other climate issues, in terms of any kind of work anticipated to somehow deal with all of the stormwater. And I would, once again, I know that the question, Dennis, I already forwarded to you, and I know that you've already alerted the engineering department, but I'm just very curious about that. And I would like to know if there's going to be any other kinds of relief. The thing that I found interesting, and this is just a comment, not really a question, in listening to all of these folks in the long term, is it was since the Conservation Commission and the related legislation that has brought such commissions as ours to every city and town all over the Commonwealth, many of the buildings, plans, and filling that people have been seeing over the last number of years probably would never have been allowed. since the development of the commissions and the regulations related to it. So it's interesting to have this kind of historical perspective of what this neighborhood looked like and what has happened and is probably part of why we exist today as a commission. So thank you neighbors for sharing that. That was interesting. And Dennis, if you could get us some information from the-
[Denis MacDougall]: Jump back on the question you asked for yesterday. I did speak to the city engineer today and. Unfortunately, he actually had a event with 1 of his kids tonight because he was actually what time is the meeting? Can I come on? And then he was like, I'm not able to join, but he was going to talk to me more about this. You know, it's sort of, I'll get some answers to you and be able to ride the commission. Any, any responses that he might have.
[Heather]: And let's just add to that, not just past historical, but do they have any plans? Is there any future thinking and planning engineering department in the city? That would be very helpful. Thank you. Thanks.
[Craig Drennan]: I have a few follow up comments given the feedback we've gotten here. Um, The 1st, 1 kind of from the sides that John D'Angelo provided. I went back to the PDF and Rick, it does look like there's a measurement error on your PDF. You've got a 1 to 20 scale. Plan and based on my measurement, the offset from that building is. It is greater than 40 feet rather than the 24 that you have in your call-out. So I think in a revised version of that plan, it would be good to have that number updated or at least in line with the scale that's being shown.
[MCM00001723_SPEAKER_03]: Which dimension? Are you referring to the dimension from the building or the parking spaces?
[Craig Drennan]: Oh, that's from the building to the parking spaces. Okay, so to- That's the dry vial. It is, and it's perfectly in line with the paint stripe. And that makes it look like that measurement is going all the way to the back of the pavement.
[MCM00001723_SPEAKER_03]: Yeah, I apologize, Matt. Nope, that's showing a 24-foot dry vial and a 18-foot deep space.
[Craig Drennan]: Adding some clarifying annotations that would be useful. No problem. A few other questions. Given that this is a flood, stagnant flood area, I know one of the easiest ways to kill pervious paving is for it to clog. If we're seeing mud wash up onto the street, I'm a little curious about the lifespan of that pervious paving is going to be moving forward. So, you know, Speaking to my earlier comment about the long-term O&M plan, I think that's a really good consideration to have, whether it's increased maintenance frequencies, varying mix of BMPs, whatever it is, that should be a consideration on here. And one additional comment, we've heard a lot tonight about the wetlands. in this area. They're on the plan as ILSF, but pointedly that we don't have wetland flagging on here. Have you had a wetland scientist out here to delineate the extent of wetlands at the site? Because if we can get that mapped, I think that will go a long way to at least helping the commission address the habitat concerns that have been raised tonight.
[MCM00001723_SPEAKER_03]: We can certainly do that. Back in 2004, there was no BVW noted in there. It was only regulated as ILSF. We'd be happy to have a wetland scientist take a look and confirm whether or not there is BVW on site.
[Craig Drennan]: That would be getting a wetlands report on this, I think, would be very useful for me, at least. I won't speak for the rest of my commission members. That's it for my additional comments here, Heidi. Thank you.
[Heidi Davis]: Thank you, Craig.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: I have two, if I may know. Of course. Thanks. And Craig, just to your comment, part of the reason why I wanted to see what maintenance has been done is to see what is going on in that area as well. So I understand that this owner has only owned it for a few years, but those maintenance logs for the years that he's owned it would be helpful. To answer one, of the public's comments on endangered species and natural heritage. Division of fisheries and wildlife runs the natural heritage and endangered species program and it's their job to map habitat of rare and endangered wildlife. According to the most recent map which is from 2021, There is no mapped habitat. So that's what we have to go off of. There is a procedure of how to get the maps changed. Certainly, the public can look into that. But as of right now, it's not in a mapped habitat. So we did look at that. The applicant did look at that and correctly identified that. So that's how that plays out. The other item is I would be also interested in a site visit if any markers of where the limit of the work would be would be helpful ahead of a site visit if that should happen. And then finally, I would just encourage the applicant, if he has any appetite, to speak with the neighbors separately and see if there might be a solution to the flooding problem. We're all neighbors here, so I would just encourage that and leave that up to the applicant to decide. Thank you.
[Craig Drennan]: And I'll, I'll 2nd, the request for a site visit. I think it'd be great to get out there with the engineer record. If we can get the proposed limits of payment staked out beforehand, that would be great. might be worth having that site visit after there's been a chance to collect some additional data, wetlands data and soils testing. But I would love to be part of that site visit.
[MCM00001723_SPEAKER_03]: We're happy to accommodate a site visit whenever the commission would choose.
[Heidi Davis]: Thank you. So are you amenable to continuing this hearing?
[MCM00001723_SPEAKER_03]: Yes, I think that's in order for sure.
[Heidi Davis]: Excellent, thank you. I'd like to, if I, if the commission has no more comments, and I did want to clarify, Caroline, you mentioned mapped habitat, and that's explicitly mapped habitat of rare and endangered species. So we understand there is wildlife habitat there, but not, it isn't mapped for rare and endangered species. Do I have a motion from the commission?
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: Before a motion, I think we might want to discuss how long it would take Mr. Salvo to put together the requested materials and whether it's appropriate to hold the hearing at the next regularly scheduled meeting, which I think, Dennis, you said was the 22nd?
[Denis MacDougall]: No, there should be one before that. We could have a meeting on the 8th, and that seems likely, but the next the one that we continued the other matter we continue to the 22nd and just maybe tie it in together the city engineer will actually be on that meeting because he is one of the applicants so maybe that might help as well.
[Craig Drennan]: If maybe we're trying to get a site visit before if we're going to go all the way to the 22nd if possible.
[MCM00001723_SPEAKER_03]: Yes I think that would be helpful for our standpoint as well.
[Denis MacDougall]: So, I think what we can do for a site visit is we can work on actually setting a date for our members and then it can be posted on the city's website when we're doing it because I think that will probably constitute more of a actual. Meeting, but we can do that separately. We can just, you know, let some folks know that it's going to be happening. Just so if people wish to be there and just under, it's more, it's probably more of an observatory thing with the board members asking some questions, but more members won't be conferring among themselves. During that, it won't be a deliberation type of hearing be more just informational and observational. For the members.
[Heather]: I'd like to also suggest that we move it along, but I'm also concerned that some of the suggestions that Craig made that the information be there that we require. But I am concerned because we are getting into snow season. And I would like to see something other than the layer of snow.
[Denis MacDougall]: Well, I can how about Rick, how about tomorrow? I sort of talk with you and we can pick some dates and I'll forward it to the members and see how many we can what we can do with the members availability. And then once we sort of have that, we can sort of hash that out because I think sort of try to figure out. What's a possible meeting date for 6 individuals. Right now, isn't super your schedule with my schedule with the member schedule. So we can sort of work on that and then, but it will be open to the city's website and, you know, I know, Mr. was asked to.
[Heather]: Dennis, could we also, though, before we leave, get an idea of what time of day might be best, especially for the commission members that, I mean, I'm pretty flexible, but for others, so that as the two of you are looking at dates, we're taking into consideration whether early morning meeting, late meetings, you know, what's going to work for the rest of the group.
[Craig Drennan]: most times of days I will say I am out of town for the week of Christmas so preferably we can avoid the week of Christmas.
[Heather]: Sounds reasonable.
[Heidi Davis]: I think given the early sunsets and hopefully days will be getting longer in January but still I think we're better off looking in the early morning rather than late afternoon.
[MCM00001723_SPEAKER_03]: Yeah early morning or no later than three I would say.
[Heather]: and it's like 7.30 in the morning.
[Heidi Davis]: Okay, then do we have, can I have a motion to continue this hearing with a date to be determined?
[Craig Drennan]: I will make a motion to continue this hearing with a date for second hearing to be determined.
[Denis MacDougall]: I think we're gonna do a motion to continue the actual hearing to the 22nd, January 22nd with The acknowledgement that we're going to do a site visit, which will be posted in the city's website. You know, prior to that sometime in the interim. So the actual hearing will be continued to January 22nd with the site visit in the interim.
[Heather]: I just want you to know, I may not be available, but I will make an effort to reschedule something. I will let Dennis know that within 2 days.
[Craig Drennan]: I will make a motion to continue this hearing to the 22nd of January with a site visit in the interim at a date to be determined.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: I'll second that motion.
[Heidi Davis]: Great, thanks. All in favor? Caroline? Aye. Eric? Aye. Heather? Aye. Greg? Aye. Jeremy? Aye. And myself as an aye. Great. Thank you.
[MCM00001723_SPEAKER_03]: Thank you very much for your time, everyone.
[Heidi Davis]: We appreciate it. Thank you.
[MCM00001723_SPEAKER_03]: Have a good holiday.
[Heidi Davis]: You too.
[Denis MacDougall]: All right. Next item on the agenda is a notice of intent. Route 28 pathway and boardwalk, DEV file number 215-0240. The city of Medford has filed a notice of intent for the construction of proposed pathways and a boardwalk under the Fellsway slash Route 28 bridge in Medford. The project is located within and adjacent to the following resource areas. Bordering land subject to flooding, Vancouver Perennial River, land underwater, bordering land subject to flooding, riverfront area, the Mystic River, and the 100-foot adjacent upland resource area buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetland. This project is considered a limited project per section 10.533J of the Wetland Protection Act.
[Heidi Davis]: Thank you. And I want to let the commission know that I need to recuse myself from this hearing as I will be the signatory on another permit that this project also requires. And I'm going to turn this over to my vice chair.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: Thank you, Heidi. I appreciate that. Who here is representing the applicant?
[MCM00001698_SPEAKER_06]: That would be me, John Michalak from Niche Engineering.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: I'm Mister mccullough the floor is yours if you want to give the commission an overview of the project we'd appreciate it thanks.
[MCM00001698_SPEAKER_06]: I can share my screen bring up the plan all that notice from 10. Well, thank you and thank you for giving us the opportunity to present this project. The City of Medford is the applicant and Niche Engineering is the design consultant that's working for the City of Medford. The property owner is the Department of Conservation and Recreation. This project is going through the MassDOT's review process and then construction will be undertaken by MassDOT and their contractor. The project involves constructing a timber boardwalk that will connect the east and west side of Route 28. And it'll be similar and mimic the timber boardwalk structure on the Somerville side of the river. This boardwalk will provide a safe crossing for Route 28, will connect McDonald Park to the west and Station Landing and ultimately to Wellington Station to the east. The project proposes to install a 12-foot wide tuminous path that will connect to a timber boardwalk, which will be constructed of Ipe timber, which is a hardwood that's commonly used by the DCR for their boardwalk structures. It's more resistant to fire and insect damage and lasts longer. As Dennis mentioned, this boardwalk structure will involve construction within and around the Mystic River. The boardwalk itself is proposed to extend beneath the Route 28 Fellsway Bridge between the abutment and the first bridge pier where the water is shallower. Project also will provide bicycle connections to the new bike lanes that were recently installed along route 28 will also include a paved connection to the bridge that extends over to McDonald park. And then also walking paths along this, the desired walking lines, desired lines, as well as connecting to the sidewalk that extends over the river along route 28. Second plan shows the colored resource areas and the anticipated impacts of construction. The construction will be contained within compost filter tubes to avoid any erosion and runoff. And adjacent to the boardwalk construction, we're proposing to install a turbidity barrier on either side, which will contain any disturbance or silt that could be caused by the construction activities. The proposed boardwalk is going to be installed on helical pile foundations, so they won't require any excavation within the river. Helical piles are screwed into the riverbed until they reach a sufficient depth so that they can support the structure. This is a similar method that was used on the Somerville side, thereby not requiring any excavation, any dredging, or any soils to be removed from the riverbed. There will be construction, but it will be upland for the abutments that will begin and end the boardwalk structure. There will be limited impacts to bank. The bank itself is actually a riprap armored slope along the river. But we have identified these as as temporary construction impacts immediately adjacent to where the boardwalk will be constructed. There's also some shading impacts that we've calculated and included in the application for the portion of the boardwalk that extends over the mystic river. And then there's also. Shading that already exists underneath the bridge, so that area is already shaded. So we've calculated these in different colors and shown the areas on the plan. There is 1 small triangular area of impact about 24 square feet that will be reestablished. It's just maybe disturbed during the construction activities. And then there's also temporary construction impacts within bordering land subject to flooding. That's also been identified on these plans. And again, those areas will be restored and will be located beneath the timber boardwalk. So they'll be maintained once the boardwalk has been constructed. And then this plan shows some of the existing and proposed vegetation. You can see that there is some vegetation removal. There were some invasive species identified, primarily bittersweet, and the DCR has a bittersweet removal program that they enact to reduce the amount of bittersweet within their parks and then all mass dot standards for controlling invasive species and removal of invasive species within the project work zone will be followed during construction. There was a site visit conducted with MassDOT's landscape architect as well as DCR's arborist and determined several of the trees were dying or were in severe decay. So the tree removals have been coordinated with the DCR and MassDOT as part of the review process for the plans. And we are proposing a total of 24 new trees on the site. to repopulate the trees and then some along this park area. The primary use of this is anticipated to be pedestrian, even though it is designed for bicycle use. And as I said, there's connections to station landing to the east, which is on the bottom of the sheet, McDonald Park to the west, which is on the top of the sheet. I guess there's probably a lot going on here, so maybe I'll just open it up to questions now and see if there's any specific areas that you want me to address.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: Thank you. I appreciate the presentation and overview and the very comprehensive notice of intent. I do have a few questions, but I'm going to turn it over to my colleagues on the commission to see if they have any questions or comments.
[Craig Drennan]: Nothing. I've got one minor nitpick. I don't think this has any major consequence on permit documentation, but on the off chance that it does, as it's shown on this plan, the limit of disturbance excludes some of the planting areas that you've got called out on the southern half of this plan. But I don't think that has a huge consequence, and I'm not going to complain about getting new trees as part of the plan. So that's my one comment. Otherwise, it was a very complete submittal. I appreciate including the SWP as the appendix, as well as the no rise cert. I think the use of helical piles is a really good way to have de minimis impact on the floodplain for this part of the river. So that's always appreciated.
[MCM00001698_SPEAKER_06]: Great. Thanks.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: I guess 1 question I had and I admit that I read this notice of intent last week so just going through my notes. Limited project is mentioned multiple times, but then you go. It seems that you go through the performance standards. Are there specific performance standards that you're not meeting and hoping that the limited project covers or. Or is that kind of was that kind of a belt and suspenders approach?
[MCM00001698_SPEAKER_06]: Yeah, I think we went through extensive review with mass dots permitting group. So, I think, and being a mass dot project, we're cognizant to to meet all of the standards to the greatest extent practical, but I don't. I mean, it is a limited project, but, you know, we're doing everything that we can to meet meet the standards.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: Okay, thanks and I'm just going to flag that. Limited project is discretionary for us, but I do appreciate that. It seems that you met the performance standards to the greatest extent extent extent possible.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: Thanks. Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see a planting plan that specified. Which species are going where.
[MCM00001698_SPEAKER_06]: So, we do have that on our plans if that's something that. We could provide, um, we have that on our. Construction plans that we've just recently submitted to mass dot for review. So here's the planting list for those new trees. So three serviceberry, four red maple, two river heritage birch, two redbud, three hawthorn, two tulip trees, three black Topelo and 5 Swamp White Oak. So you see there's a nice variety. Again, this has been reviewed by DCR's landscape architect as well as MassDOT's landscape architect. So if you want, we can submit these for your information.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, I, I think it would be appropriate to include the planting plan in the submission. I'll defer to my colleague Jeremy on the selection of species, but I'm curious. Do you expect. Feedback from either mass daughter on this list that it might shift before. It's final.
[MCM00001698_SPEAKER_06]: I don't think so. This was this is these 100% plans that were actually submitted to mass that we just received comments from them and I didn't see any comments on the particular species, but. Okay, yeah, we can send this to you and if there was a comment, we'll address that and then send that to you.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: Sure. Yeah, that was terrific. And then I'll turn it over to Jeremy if he has more. Thank you.
[Jeremy Martin]: Thank you, Eric. I appreciate that request. I was looking through the packet myself and looking for the planting plan. But I will say just initially here, the list looks good. It looks like plants that are generally appropriate for this context and this topography and hydrology and condition. So I just look forward to reviewing the plan itself and providing any comment on that. But it seems like this is good information. Thank you.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: Turning to something a bit more technical in nature. I was trying to understand the impervious area calculations net new. Table 2 on page 24 of the PDF of the NOI. PDF identifies 0.09 acres of What I assumed to be net new impervious area, but that seems. Different than what's shown in table 3, I think it is.
[MCM00001698_SPEAKER_06]: Yeah, some of that, so these are the. New impervious areas within resource areas, so. Another 986 square feet within the 200 foot riverfront and then. 6,226 additional within the 100-foot buffer zone. I think we got it broken out in a couple different ways.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: Is there a particular number that... Well, isn't that... So you add that up, it's over 7,000 square feet, and that's more than 0.09.
[MCM00001698_SPEAKER_06]: You know, I don't I don't have these drawn out, but I'm wondering if there's some overlap between these. That's my suspicion. Maybe I could break that down for you further just to clarify.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, I'd appreciate that. And then while you're on this under riverfront area. The narrative just below this table says there are permanent and temporary impacts, but there's no temporary impact identified in the table. There's a standalone sentence there. Proposed pathways will be partially located within the RFA and 100 foot adjacent upland resource area will cause some permanent and temporary impacts.
[MCM00001698_SPEAKER_06]: Well, we listed the temporary construction disturbance to land underwater.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: Okay.
[MCM00001698_SPEAKER_06]: Yeah, I'm reading this. And the piles were permanent.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, perhaps the temporary impacts was not intended to be associated with the RFA. And that's my answer.
[MCM00001698_SPEAKER_06]: All right. So we can clean up that text.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah. I appreciate that. I know these are minor quibbles, but just curious. The other thing that I hope you can help me understand is impacts to bank. So you've broken out very handily the temporary and permanent impacts, but it seems, first I'd like to understand what the 98 square feet of proposed replacement is meant to represent. This is in form three, at the very top, page eight of the PDF. So what that proposed, But use quotes around replacement is going to be and then why is it for the total both temporary and permanent. At least I assume that's what it is.
[MCM00001698_SPEAKER_06]: So I guess that's just the total of the impacts to the bank. But the bank is going to still be the bank. The permanent impact is just the shading to it. And then the temporary construction is just because there'll be construction activities occurring over that portion of the bank on either side as they're installing the boardwalk.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: So I guess it's just a quantification rather than what one would typically consider as replacement.
[MCM00001698_SPEAKER_06]: Right, I guess it was really not being replaced, but being retained, I guess.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: Maybe we can add a note to it or... Yeah, I know these forms are tricky, right? Because you're stuck with the headers that they provide. Right. Okay. I don't think there's any need to make a change if it's just quantifying the total area of... permanent and temporary impact, I think that's fair.
[MCM00001698_SPEAKER_06]: The bank is armored stone, so it's really, for the most part, going to remain in place.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah. The other thing I'm hoping you can help me understand is, The shade impacts, and as a limited project, I think 1 of the parameters is adequate light to maintain vegetation and how that was evaluated in this instance.
[MCM00001698_SPEAKER_06]: Um, I guess we went, we went back and forth a lot with some of the reviewers about whether we counted all of the shading or just the shading outside of the bridge. So we tried to break that out, you know, like the new shading. But we did calculate that as a permanent impact, the shading that the. If you're familiar with the area, a lot of that, you know, this is a rocky bottom. There's probably not a lot of vegetation in this area, but we didn't want to look like we were, you know, avoiding something. There's probably going to be some, you know, some light that's still going to get under depending on the angle of the sun. So we just, to be conservative, counted it all as a permanent impact.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: discussion among the team about selection of materials that might minimize shading rather than EPA decking, if there was some other solution that still met ADA requirements, anything of that nature.
[MCM00001698_SPEAKER_06]: No, not really. I mean, the Ipe decking is used by the DCR because of its durability. It's a replenishable resource because it grows pretty quickly in the forests that they have in South America. And it's fire resistant, insect resistant. It's a very, very durable hardwood. I'm not sure if there's a type of material that would let light through it. We wouldn't want to use any type of plastic or glass or anything on this.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: No, certainly.
[Jeremy Martin]: Eric, may I make a comment? Yeah, please. I just want to clarify something. I think that EPA is actually considered a rare resource and is, you know, across projects, people are trying to find alternatives to tropical hardwood use for decking projects like this. I think there are actually some species like cedar, and black locusts and others that may be more appropriate and more environmentally friendly alternatives. I think please do look into Eric's request further and evaluate what other options are out there as far as wood species or alternative materials or even ways of modifying details of the decking to provide a little bit more gap between boards or other things that could let additional light pass through to the resource area below.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, I certainly, I appreciate that, Jeremy. Thank you. And I sympathize there, you know, there are significant constraints to make sure this is ADA compliant. There's no spacing of material, but I would be interested in some alternative approaches for those materials.
[Jeremy Martin]: Okay.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: The other thing I'm going to raise, and I hope Craig can chime in if I'm getting too far afield because I'm getting into his area of expertise, and that's stormwater. For the groundwater recharge volume, was that calculated from the net increase in impervious area? Craig, I'll defer to you again. You know, I think we're attempting to meet the standard to the maximum extent practicable in this instance, but I don't think I saw that calculated. And same for peak rate calculations.
[Craig Drennan]: I'll let John respond to that first.
[MCM00001698_SPEAKER_06]: Let me see. I'll go look at the... You know, see the calculations, so you want you want the actual calculations.
[Craig Drennan]: I think to to pick up on the thread that Eric is dropping here. The project is a limited project. It has to meet the standards to the extent practical. It doesn't look given that it doesn't look like there's been a ton of thought put into the stormwater for the site. Um, to to what Eric was talking about, Eric and Jeremy are talking about alternatives analysis. You know, for a, a walkway, seeing an alternative analysis for things like impervious paving. To minimize impervious cover. know, fully recognize this isn't necessarily the best spot to put a full BMP. Given the landscape and wetlands resources that we have here, it may not be the best spot to do, you know, swales and treatment structures and things like that. But there are ways to minimize the impact that this would have on things like your peak runoff rate and your groundwater recharge. Maximum extent practicable still does mean maximum extent practicable. So showing some effort being put towards that would be useful.
[MCM00001698_SPEAKER_06]: Okay, and we did discuss a lot of those and similar to what you said that we didn't think creating swales or, you know, a rain garden or a BMP in this, you know, because it's a park setting was going to provide a benefit. We didn't want to channel the water to the river. I mean, right now it's, you know, there's a path there today where we're widening it to meet standards. So, we didn't want to create any new flows. We're reseeding the area. We're going to have a no-mow grass seed mix because the DCR doesn't want to have to come and mow the grass. But we can certainly review the calculations and provide those.
[Craig Drennan]: Assess just even even assessing alternatives if they don't work for the site, you know. That's understandable, but but things that are more pervious in nature. Demonstrating that those were either thought of and found to be a really good idea and and could, you know. Help help pushed towards meeting those standards or that they don't work and kind of explaining why. Demonstrating that effort, I think, is is what Eric is. and pushing towards.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, I appreciate that clarity. Thank you. I think in particular, the potential locations of the MPs and some of these other techniques would be helpful to see in a plan. And one last topic near and dear to my heart, if the applicant would be willing, I think it would be helpful for the commission to see Uh, presuming that the project is subject to chapter 91, you need a license and water quality serve potentially and any army core. Approvals if the applicant would be willing to provide the commission with those approvals when they're issued.
[MCM00001698_SPEAKER_06]: Yeah, we're we've been meeting with them. We had a. another Chapter 91 meeting, got their comments on the draft Chapter 91 application, and we had a meeting with Coast Guard and Army Corps just to confirm that Coast Guard's not required and what, if any, Army Corps permit is required. So we have been in discussions with them recently. So... That's great. They're all happening simultaneously, so... I certainly... And I guess we need this, the order of conditions in order to file Army Corps, so...
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, and probably same for Chapter 91. But when you do get to the end of those processes, I think I would like a condition in our order that requests that you submit those permits when they're granted. Sure, absolutely.
[MCM00001698_SPEAKER_06]: The city's the applicant, so they'll get those too, yeah.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: Anybody else have anything? Well, I guess I should say if there's anyone from the public who is on who would like to speak, ask that you raise your hand using the Zoom function. I don't see anybody having dialed in, but if people are on and they would like to ask questions or make comments, now's the time. Please raise your hand. and not seen anyone. Dennis, if anybody else on the commission has anything, I think I would entertain a motion here. I think we're suggesting that we'd like to see the planting plan and those few other details. If somebody can make a motion, that would be terrific. What hearing we're continuing into, sorry. sort of stream of consciousness here.
[Denis MacDougall]: Well, I mean, it's up to John, but we actually did get a filing for another hearing. A new project came in just yesterday, but I have not really had any time to review it because of everything leading up to today. So that's pretty much my tomorrow morning. But looking at dates, If we continued, if we have that one, I think January 8th is the opening, is that, depending on number of availability. So if we do that to the 8th, and John thinks they can get everything back by the 8th, we can continue this to the 8th.
[MCM00001698_SPEAKER_06]: Yeah, I think we can. When would you need everything sent to you by in advance of that meeting?
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: Typically, I think a week ahead of time is fair, but we have the intervening holidays and a week before is the first. So I think in this instance, I would be fine with a shorter lead time than usual. I don't know if my fellow commissioners feel differently, but if we can see something by COB the third or maybe the sixth.
[Heather]: Well, especially since you were very specific about what we're looking for, it seems like that's reasonable.
[Denis MacDougall]: COB, the 6th. Also, the planning plan seems to be done, so that can just be submitted tomorrow. So that'll, we can check that off right away.
[Craig Drennan]: Yeah, I was going to say the Monday before, if that sounds fine to me.
[Heather]: Yeah, I agree. That's, yeah, the 30th. Agreed.
[Craig Drennan]: Thanks, John.
[Heather]: The 6th. I appreciate that.
[MCM00001698_SPEAKER_06]: Yeah, and we'll try to get that in sooner. but there's just some alternatives analysis and some calculations that you were looking for also.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah. So I guess with that, I'd entertain a motion to continue the hearing to our next regularly scheduled hearing, which will be on January 8th, 2025.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: I'll make a motion with the applicant's consent to continue this matter DEP file 215-0240 to the commission's next hearing on January 8th, 2025.
[Craig Drennan]: I'll second that.
[MCM00001698_SPEAKER_06]: I'll consent to that.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: Thank you, John. If the commission will now vote upon calling their name. Caroline.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: Aye.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: Greg. Aye. Heather. I. And Jeremy, and I am an eye and the eyes have it. Thank you, John. We really appreciate the filing and the thought that went into it and you're accommodating our request. Much appreciate it.
[MCM00001698_SPEAKER_06]: Great. Thanks for your comments. I'll see you soon. Thanks.
[Heather]: Thank you. Really an excellent time. Dennis, I've put my secretary on. I will be available for the 22nd. We will be able to exchange. Thank you.
[Denis MacDougall]: Then just to give you a brief little, literally, I just got this yesterday, the other filing. It's a notice of intent for a, basically, it's a house that's adjacent to the Fells, It's all the project work is buffers all the work and it's basically an existing house that they want to take down and put up a new house in the same. On the property, so I literally. At 53 went from like, this is so I just got it, but it's interesting because the property. Is in both Winchester and Medford, but I think the entirety of their work proposed is solely in Medford. So, I don't know if there's going to be, I'm going to need to look and see if they actually filed in Winchester as well. Because if that's the case, then we would need to coordinate with them. I would think, but given that the majority of the product. You have a lot of experience went for way. Yeah, but given given the. Almost probably, I'd say 90% of the property is Medford and the house is fully in Medford that. Normally, in these situations, like, we would sort of take the lead and then. Winchester would just sort of say, what were your conditions? Yes, that's fine. Sort of, you know, if they have anything special, they might throw it in, but usually they kind of defer to the. Primary city in these sort of cases, so, but I will review this tomorrow morning and I will send it off to you. So you can take a look at it. Yeah, luckily, comparatively, some of our other projects, this is a lot thinner than some of the more recent ones. So. Sorry, I jumped on someone, but I couldn't see you.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: No, I was going to say, what is the update with South Street?
[Denis MacDougall]: I saw that on the agenda, but we're the only ones left. I will be completely honest with you. I have not gone back to the property owner. That's OK. So tomorrow, I need to go talk to him so we can get him to come on the meeting on the 8th as well. So I'm sorry about that.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: Let's end this thing.
[Craig Drennan]: Heidi quit on us here, it seems.
[Denis MacDougall]: Oh, yeah. It's a little scary. She saw her out and took it. You did great, Eric. I appreciate that.
[Heather]: Thank you guys. A good meeting. Well done. We still need to close the meeting.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: I want to raise one point. It sort of bounced around my head when people started talking about a site visit. And I know, Caroline, you at some point mentioned some interest in revisiting the bylaw. I wonder if people would be interested in evaluating the potential for including in our filing schedule a date for a site visit. Meaning you'd have to file by X date, the potential for a site visit would be on Y date, and the hearing would be on Z date. We wouldn't necessarily have to hold a site visit, but just hold that in the schedule so that if as people file, we feel that it would be worthwhile to have a notice of intent. The applicant can expect to have that on their schedule. If that's something people would be interested in, I think it's worth contemplating. I know they've started doing that in Boston, and it seems to be a fairly efficient process. So we don't end up after the fact, people raising the point that they like a site visit, and we have to sort of scramble to get things on the calendar.
[Heather]: As long as those of you who are employed write this or put this in in such a way that there's enough flexibility so that it's really your schedules that get mostly impacted, at least historically that's been the problem, not the problem but the challenge, wouldn't you say Dennis? For example, I usually make side visits to everything anyway on my own. Just eat, but I like, I like the concept. I just want to make sure you write it in such a way that you don't set yourselves up. I think that my.
[Craig Drennan]: My feedback on that is I work a job in civil engineering, but I'm virtually based map sites all over the country. So I have travel booked out through February right now. If we were to set up a program where we had dictated kind of site visit dates based on whenever folks decided to apply, I wouldn't be able to attend anything. I think our current setup where if we deem we need a site visit after hearings, which I think we've had this happen twice in the last year and a half now, we can schedule it kind of based on availability is a little more flexible, given that, you know,
[Heidi Davis]: That's my case.
[Craig Drennan]: That works a lot easier for me, I have to say.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: Good point. Appreciate that, Craig. OK.
[Craig Drennan]: It's a really good idea, but given the current level of effort that the CONCOM is, it's great. And being able to schedule is also great.
[Jeremy Martin]: Perfect did we land on a date for a site visit, or do we want to try to nail that down tonight or follow?
[Denis MacDougall]: No, I was going to have the applicant sort of give us a couple of dates and then sort of set it up to you. I could just let him sort of talk with him and this client about what dates work best for him. And then once I get a couple from them, I just do a little. Doodle poll to you all and sort of say, you know, but I think we sort of did pretty much settle on early morning early morning. So, you know.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: And I think that's the preference that is on that point, you know, a couple of people, the public expressed interest. It's my understanding. This is still private property. We can't require them to open their property up. We might yeah, so, yeah, we're just going to keep it. An email to the commissioners and we do have to post I know if there's a quorum, we do have to post it.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah, exactly. So the, the other thing, and then this. Came from the property owner contacted me asking for some of the contact and for some of the people in the meeting tonight. So, I believe he's going to get in touch with them and try and talk to them prior to the hearing. He actually did ask me prior to this if anyone was interested and there was a woman who had called me a few times and I put the 2 of them in touch. And she was on the northern side. I believe the contact and then, but, you know, I think some of the others. you know, seemed willing to speak with the property owner, the property owner seemed willing to speak with the abutters. So I think that's fairly positive.
[Craig Drennan]: Not to harp on my favorite scab to pick at, Dennis, but do we have any minutes to approve before we close this out?
[Denis MacDougall]: No, that's pretty much my, I am here all next week. I am not going away anywhere. So, and the office is basically as far as I can tell, I definitely know next Thursday and Friday. There might be 1 other person here, but even next Monday and Tuesday seems pretty spark. Sparse and leading up to New Year. So. Between this and the zoning board of appeals, I had a lot of meeting minutes to work on and that's pretty much going to be.
[Heather]: Dennis what I'm going to do because I could just do that and you also included in an email to me that you needed a signature on something which I got the impression you reporting. Um, but I never received it. Would you like to drop into the office tomorrow?
[Denis MacDougall]: If you can? Yeah. Oh, yeah. And also I did send out to all of y'all. A doc you signed for and some of you did so I appreciate that. But if you haven't, please try and sign that so I can get that Friday.
[Craig Drennan]: I'll get listed Valley Parkway. Yep, I forgot about that completely. I'm sorry.
[Denis MacDougall]: Sorry, it's all good. It's as long as I get it out by Friday. I think that's that's that's super fine. Sorry, that turned very Canadian there for a second. I think my Canadian is coming through sometimes every now and again.
[Craig Drennan]: Me too, Dennis, me too.
[Denis MacDougall]: Shall we?
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: put this to rest.
[Heather]: I make a motion to close the meeting.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: Second that.
[Heather]: Aye.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: Thank you, Jeremy. Aye. Craig. Aye. Heather.
[Heather]: Aye.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: And I'm an aye. Hearing is adjourned. Thank you guys, I really appreciate it. Everyone's perspective on this commission is very helpful and I think does a wonderful service to the city. So thank you guys. It's really good.
[Jeremy Martin]: And I'm learning so much from all of you. It's a great, great experience. Thank you. Happy holidays.
[Denis MacDougall]: And ditto, feisty mercy. I'll see you all on the New Year. I'll see Heather tomorrow. You'll see me tomorrow.
[Heather]: Take care.
[Unidentified]: Bye.