[Denis MacDougall]: Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the City of Medford Conservation Commission meeting for January 29th, 2025. Heidi, if you want to do, we'll call it again.
[Heidi Davis]: Certainly. I believe we are going to start with 28 Sycamore. And this is a continuation of our last hearing. We have a revised plan, and so if the proponent's representative could just walk us through those revisions, it would be appreciated. And also, just as a note, once we hear from the representative of commission, we'll deliberate, and then we will open comments to the general public, and then we'll turn it back to the commission. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_03]: Great, thank you, Madam Chairman, for the record, Rick Salvo with Engineering Alliance. Let me just get to my screen. So we did submit a revised plan based on comments and discussions at last week's hearing, and really appreciate the commission taking the time to schedule a special meeting sort of out of sequence here. What we've done is we've eliminated two of the parking spaces to allow enough room for us to be able to retain the two 36-inch trees. We now have a total of 12 parking spaces. I know the previous plan said 15, but in fact, there were only 14 spaces shown on it. So there's a reduction in parking spaces for 12 parking spaces. We tried to scatter the trees around, being mindful of where the existing trees are located to stick them in areas where they'll have the best chance of success. We swapped out the Norway Maple for the Inkberry and we also submitted the O&M plan and we added tree protection, our tree protection section to the O&M plan to protect the existing trees that are in the area. Those were the changes that we had discussed and that's the new material that we've submitted.
[Heidi Davis]: Great. Thank you, Mr. Steltzner. Okay, back to the commission. Have you all had a chance to look at this revised plan? And do you have any comments?
[Jeremy Martin]: Mr. Salvo, thank you for providing the updated plan and incorporating the comments that we've made. On the O&M plan, have you received any of the preliminary comments that we provided since you sent that? Unfortunately, I have not. We can talk about them tonight. A couple of things that I would like to see incorporated here relative to the reestablishment of planting. The first would be some description of a sort of monitoring and assurance that the seeding that's going to happen in the compensatory storage area, that it be evaluated and then monitored and, you know, to ensure that it establishes and that if at the end of a growing period, sorry, I'm trying to find my notes because I wrote this out. That any areas that are not established that are still bare earth be receded to make sure that we get good full coverage of that seating. The other. comment is more specific to the O&M plan. I think when we have areas of disturbance like this, particularly in wet areas, there's a lot of pressure for invasive plants to grow there. And I'd like to see in the O&M plan a process for monitoring the presence of common invasive plant species. And we can provide you with a website that has that. And then the removal of any observed invasive plants, the ones that I'm most cognizant of in this area are Japanese knotweed, oriental bittersweet, garlic mustard, and phragmites, and that there be steps to prevent further spread of those invasive plants. I think that's both important for the resource area and the ecology of this. I think it also addresses some of the concerns of the neighbors about plants spreading into their properties from this site. So, and I think that type of invasive plant management and monitoring is becoming more and more common in restoration projects and things like that. So those are a couple of reasonable things that would help make sure that this project is successful and hopefully alleviate some of the concerns of the community as well.
[SPEAKER_03]: Is any of that stuff typically commissioned? I mean, I'm conditioned by a commission. I know oftentimes when there's plantings involved, a lot of commissions require, you know, two growing seasons prior to the issuance of a certificate of compliance or something like that.
[Jeremy Martin]: Yeah, I would defer to Heidi and Dennis and others as far as what is a typical condition for Medford. we have it.
[Heidi Davis]: Go ahead. Sorry. Yes, we do condition, we can condition in order to include monitoring for success of the plantings. And we could also condition a requirement for an invasive species management plan prior to be submitted for review and approval prior to construction.
[SPEAKER_03]: Thank you, Heidi. Yeah I'm happy to put them in the O&M but maybe if they were in an order that got recorded and ran with the land it might be more appropriate or perhaps both.
[Heidi Davis]: Yeah I think sometimes some items like that get lost in an O&M plan.
[Jeremy Martin]: I'd be glad to have it in both, make sure it happens.
[Heidi Davis]: Eric and Carolyn?
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: No, nothing further for me. I've reviewed the materials. I appreciate the applicant's time in preparing this. Thank you.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: Nothing for me either.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: Great.
[Heidi Davis]: Thanks. Then I'll take, we can take more comments from the public as long as you can please raise your hand either with your actual physical hand or with the the button and state your name and your address for the record, please. I see that Ms. James has her hand up. So you may have the floor.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_21]: I'm an abutter to the abutters. I'm also filling in for the D'Angelo family who cannot be here today due to a loss of a family member. So they asked me to try to help with some suggestions. I'm not an engineer, though John was, or is, I should say. And I have, you know, they still have the concerns about have this area changed and tampered with because of flooding and also privacy concerns to the abutters properties and I'm sure others will speak. But looking through some of these things, I looked at the operation and maintenance plan and I had sent an email very late today. I'm concerned that there's nothing about the post-development operation and maintenance after construction, like tree maintenance and tree replacement. And that's often seen in controls for as you had requested, a plan for maintenance. So I'm concerned about that, and we're trying to protect the wetlands and the trees that are there, and also the new plantings that the owner has proposed for trees. So, you know, I think that would be good to have that in there. In the first section, they mentioned, let me just get, because I have quite a few notes here, mud and sediment tracked on to public roads shall be immediately removed and excess water to another section. But none of that is mentioned that I saw in the after maintenance, after the work is completed. And that was a big concern for the residents because mud does flow out. And with all this new construction, I would think that since that was a major concern that if that still happens that they'd be monitoring that. So I'd like to propose that that is also included in the after maintenance plan. Then the safety was mentioned by several neighbors because this will be opened up where that's into this new area since there'll be parking which there never was before. the safety concerns and preservation of the wetlands. I didn't see anything of that in the after maintenance plan. So I'm wondering, what are the plans to preserve it? Are there no trespassing signs that may be put up into that area after the parking? To preserve that area from trespass and damage. The other thing I wanted to bring out, and I refer to your expertise, and I really thank you for your expertise in reviewing this project, the chemicals for snow melt. This area will have snow plowing if there's snow over the parking area. That's never been done there before. I'm just questioning, do we really need to use chemicals that have never existed there, and how will they damage the existing wetlands plants and trees? I'm not sure, you know, I understand they may plow and I'm just not sure that things won't be damaged and that the chemicals will leach out. The other thing I wanted to clarify, I mentioned last, at the last meeting, the lighting that may be installed with this project is approved. And I mentioned our skylighting. You know, there are a lot of animals there that travel through there, and maybe, you know, low lighting or no lighting is best, but we probably will put up lighting. But we do have an ordinance, and this may be outside of the Conservation Commission, and it's chapter 94.6, and it says, any outdoor lighting of parking or loading areas shall be so arranged that no light source shall be visible from any point on surrounding properties. So I just wanted to make that clear, because we're talking about a proposed gem in a new parking area that abuts private property. So we're trying to preserve the beauty of the area and privacy and property values, which I think is a reasonable request. As far as the parking, You know, I still have questions about where they got the numbers for the recorded parking, if that's needed at all, depending on the hours of operation. I'm not, I didn't get to read all the zoning for parking. I'm sure you probably reviewed that. But it seems as though, from what I read, that since the building department would be the one to approve this project and that depending on the hours of operation, parking spaces might be reduced depending on the capacity of the occupants at different times of the day. So I'm wondering, well, do we really need to have this parking? And I think I covered my concerns. And thank you for listening. Thank you, Ms.
[Heidi Davis]: James. We also have Ms. Hilton. You're on mute. You're on mute, we can't hear you.
[Jeremy Martin]: I think she's saying she's going to try to call in from her phone. Oh, I see.
[Heidi Davis]: Is that what that means?
[Jeremy Martin]: No, she's unmuted.
[SPEAKER_01]: Can you hear me now? Yes, we can. Yeah. Okay. All right. Can you still hear me?
[Jeremy Martin]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_01]: Okay, I can't hear you guys if I use my laptop so I hung up on the phone to avoid the feedback. So I'm just going to talk as long as you guys can hear me. I can't hear you though. So Rachel Hilton 25 Sherman place. I am the owner of that house. And I did send an email over to Dennis. I think it was yesterday, so I don't know if anyone's taken a look at that and this may not even. Be relevant for this particular meeting, and I was on last week's call, so I'm just getting up to speed. I apologize. I wasn't on the earlier calls. I'm also dealing with a. Family member and elderly family member, so I wasn't able to join the initial calls, but I guess my biggest question is, and that was part of my email has the owner or owners thought about other properties that already have. Like, let's say a gym. Or parking already established, I know that there's a bunch of properties in Medford that are not being used. Like, there's a golds gym off of I think it's commercial street right around the corner. That went bankrupt and so it's a building, it's existing parking and already exists. So, I guess and again, I'm not sure if that's not part of this meeting, but that was a really big question of mine because again, there's lots of structures already in place that would not disturb a wetlands. So, I guess that's my biggest question has that has the owner even thought about maybe. Properties are already existing that already have parking already have buildings that could actually not affect an existing wetland where there's so many animals we've seen. I've lived here for 10 years and I've seen so many animals and I've also dealt with the flooding. I'm two houses down from where the fence is and we get a lot of flooding. As everyone's already talked about, I know probably ad nauseum, but we have two storm drains down at the end, right in front of John D'Angelo's house and in front of Shirley Sullivan's house, and I'm right next to Shirley Sullivan. And it's just a bear we have to, you know, they overflow and there's mud and it's disgusting and it's probably unsanitary. I don't even know if that those waters go back into the wetlands, but we already have that huge issue where the water overflows right out of the storm drains. And I guess we've, I've heard that we've gone to the town multiple times and nothing's been done. So we just have to manage that as homeowners, which shouldn't really be the case. Again, not sure if that's not part of this call, but I just wanted to raise a couple of just questions. Have we looked at other properties that, again, are already in existence? I'm sure that's not an option at this point. I'm sure they've already purchased this property, but it just seems strange that we would want to disturb existing wetlands. for a gym that could be pretty much, I think, put anywhere. So those are my concerns. So thanks for listening. Thank you.
[Heidi Davis]: Mr. Salvo, would you like to respond at all?
[SPEAKER_03]: Yeah, I guess just a couple of points of clarification than anything else. We keep on referring to this as a wetland. It's not a wetland. It's an isolated land subject to flooding. Its interests are relative to that of flood control, not the other features that bordering vegetated wetlands provide. And then the other point is, as far as the lighting goes, we're not proposing any new lighting, the lighting that's there that that's currently at that site will remain at that site. And there's no proposed changes to it. You know, I think beyond that. You know, I think we've proven that we've met all the performance standards. There's performance standards for working in these resource areas. Matter of fact, I think we've exceeded the performance standards with the extra compensatory storage that we've proposed in an effort. you know, to try to make this situation better as much as we have control over without causing any damage. And beyond that, I think the addition of the landscaping will serve to add some meaningful habitat and probably most importantly, create more of a green screen to really start to screen this stuff from the abutting residential neighborhood. Unfortunately, it is an area where a commercial area abuts a residential area and those interfaces can sometimes be tricky, but I think we've done the best that we can here. So I guess with that, I'll turn it back to the commission.
[Heidi Davis]: Thank you. And before the commission deliberates, I do want to remind everybody that of their appeal rights, the direct abutters may appeal a commission's decision as well as 10 concerned residents. Yes, Ms. Loud.
[SPEAKER_08]: Yes, I'm Linda Loud, 25 Sherman Court. I just had a question that came to mind. You have 14 or it's going to be 12 parking spaces or whatever it's going to be. For a gym to be successful, would that mean that there's only 12 people there at a time in the gym? I see all these gyms in the morning, they're full of people. So where are these extra cars going to park?
[SPEAKER_03]: There'll be a total of 61 parking spaces on the site. We're just adding 12 additional.
[SPEAKER_08]: Oh, I see. Okay. That was my misunderstanding. I apologize. I just wanted to state the fact that I've lived here for 47 years and we've had a lot of troubles over the years. Of course, everybody has with the water. And when they put that building in, we had a whole abundance of water. My neighbor's backyard is actually flooded right now. and they abut the fence, I'm just concerned that this is gonna pose a bigger problem than what is expected. And thank you for answering my question about the parking spaces, because I was beginning to say, how many people can 14 do over there? But I agree with Rachel that they should look to a place that is not going to bother a nice quiet neighborhood. And thank you for listening.
[Heidi Davis]: You're very welcome. Thank you for your comments. Again, I wanted to bring it back to the commission. Ms. James did bring up one point that I wish we had talked about earlier, and that's snow disposal. We do want to make sure that there is no once that snow is disposed of anywhere near the particle separator or into the isolated land subject to flooding, as the de-icing agents are certainly deleterious. Does the O&M plan designate a snow disposal area?
[SPEAKER_03]: Looking right now. Just in the pervious area directly adjacent to the parking lot, and then it gets removed beyond that.
[Heidi Davis]: Right, because this is obviously being pervious pavement, you wouldn't want to dispose of snow on that. So yeah, as long as that's, we wanted to be assured of that.
[SPEAKER_03]: And we would expect a condition similar to that. I think that's pretty standard for most conservation commissions.
[Heidi Davis]: I do appreciate the species and the revisions to the plan. Ilex glabra does have some wildlife habitat value. Apparently robins like the berries in particular, and we'll leave them in December when there's not much else. But I think it's an improvement over the last plan. I do believe that the project does meet the performance standards for isolated land subject to flooding and has provided some buffer zone improvements. But again, that's my opinion, but I'd like to, again, if the chair has, I mean, if the commission has any further comments or would like to discuss conditions, we should do so.
[Jeremy Martin]: Thanks, Heidi. I do think it's important that we make sure that the community who have been very vocal about this project, and I very much appreciate their involvement and engagement here, that they understand that we very much hear your comments and appreciate them and have used them to inform our review of the project and the comments that we've provided and the Conditions that will be applied to this project. I understand very much how this feels like a change and any change can be unwelcome or difficult. Uh, I, I think that through this process of reviewing this, um, I think it is worth clarifying again that, uh, while this will not solve the flooding issues that you all experience, which is really unfortunate, um, that we've, uh, asked and the proponent has agreed to, uh, not just meet the compensatory storage, but it has exceeded it. And so, uh, that will presumably have a net, Improvement. We've been able to preserve some pretty significant canopy trees with their agreement. I think when you look at the trees that are there, those two 36 inch trees and others near them are by far the. most significant element of that tree canopy. So that has impact for water uptake. It has considerations for habitat and for screening and for just the general appearance and quality of that space. I wish that we could do more to address lighting and security and things like that. But as you noted, those are not part of this board's purview, but appreciate hearing from Rick that new lighting is not intended out here. And I hope that if there is a plan for new lighting that. He will engage with this community in the way that he has so far and his clients have so far to do that thoughtfully. And then again, you've accommodated our comments on the replacement planting. I appreciate the avoidance of removing as many trees as possible. I think that's a net positive. along with the conditions that will apply for invasives management and establishing, making sure that the planting is established. I really think that what we've come to here strikes an appropriate balance between the need for this parking for this business and this owner, and addressing the concerns of the community. So I just appreciate all of the engagement around this and the opportunity to find a good outcome on the project. And I hope that the community, you know, continues their advocacy and sees that it has had a positive impact here as well. So thank you for all the engagement.
[Heidi Davis]: Thank you, Jeremy.
[Jeremy Martin]: If we are ready to discuss conditions, they're the couple that I brought up earlier. I'd be happy to try to elaborate on some language for them. What's the first step there though, Heidi?
[Heidi Davis]: We do have a late comment. If this project is approved, who can we as residents get assistance from in Medford to address the existing potential huge for additional flooding, which is a valid question. Again, I wanted to reiterate there is an opportunity to appeal any decision by the Conservation Commission, but regarding approaching the city, Dennis, do you have any suggestions?
[Denis MacDougall]: You're on mute, Dennis. All right, this little raucous in here, not raucous, just noisy. So I had to mute. I would say in this instance, given that if it's directly related to like the work that's being done there, if you see something there, so I'm just gonna throw it in the chat anyway, but my email has been around before, but just email me if you see anything, you know, I think that would probably be the best first step, because I'm the environmental agent for the city. And then, you know, there's other, once we sort of evaluate that, then there's other people in the city hall that I could talk to and see what is going on. But I think the initial step is not too great.
[Heidi Davis]: I think it's particularly important to note any surcharging of catch basins or street chains. Surcharging means the water is coming up and out. So Jeremy, back to you. I think we can discuss draft language for conditions at this point. You have a few, I have a few as well, and I'm sure Carolyn and Eric do as well, but why don't you start us off?
[Jeremy Martin]: Sure, let me find my notes again. The first would be a condition that all areas disturbed by construction activities, including excavation, construction access, and debris cleanup, and that are intended to be left unpaved, and revegetated will be monitored post-construction to ensure complete establishment of and coverage by the specified native seed mix plant species. Monitoring should continue for a minimum of a 12-month period, and any areas where the seed mix does not establish will be reprepared and reseeded with the same or similar mix. confirmation of establishment via photos and or site visit by the commission or the commission's agent would be required prior to closeout of the notice of intent and order of conditions.
[Heidi Davis]: That's a great start, but may I suggest that because an order is, the life of an order is three years, I think we could require monitoring for three growing seasons.
[Jeremy Martin]: I would support that, absolutely. The second is related to invasive plant management. I would like to see that included in the O&M manual. So whoever's reviewing that manual and following it has that in front of them, but also as an order, or excuse me, as a condition should include a process for monitoring the presence of common invasive plant species in disturbed areas. the removal of observed invasive plants and prevention of further spread of invasive plants.
[Heidi Davis]: If I may, we can address that, I think, most efficiently through requesting that an invasive plant management strategy be submitted to the commission for review and approval prior to construction.
[Jeremy Martin]: Agreed.
[Heidi Davis]: Thank you, Heidi.
[Jeremy Martin]: I appreciate the guidance.
[Heidi Davis]: You're welcome. I have a few others I'd like to add. We observed a lot of debris by the particle separator at our site visit, and I request that debris be removed as a condition of this order. Do you think the proponent is amenable to that, Mr. Silva?
[SPEAKER_03]: Yes.
[Heidi Davis]: Great.
[SPEAKER_00]: I can't raise my hand. I would like to say something. This is John Sullivan at 24 Sherman Place. I know that, you know, I've heard some semantics about not calling this a wetland, but, you know, I don't know if this company that owns this building now actually owned it when they added on that huge addition that actually really did destroy what was a wetland over here. There was a pond over here that was enormous. It stretched all the way to where the houses are, all the way down on Gibson. This thing holds a tremendous amount of water, without a doubt. And that's basically when all the flooding really started here. And now we're just going to continue down this vein. I know that this is going to happen pretty much anyway. But this is basically the final nail in the coffin for this entire area that was a very nice little wetland area. I mean, it did, it became like a muddy puddle in the summer, but there was enormous amounts of water there. I mean, the kids, we, as kids, we used to be up to, we can go up to our shoulders in the deepest part of that. So, I mean, all that stuff's been filled in. Yeah, you don't have to call it a wetland anymore if you don't want to, but it isn't because of whoever did that and whoever approved those types of projects. This is not going to help. This is only going to exacerbate these problems. And unless there's an actual real plan to actually make sure that that does not happen, then that is a problem. And that is something that nobody really wants to say. I'm sorry that I have to say it like that, but I just think that, you know, like, oh, well, you know, it's not going to help it. But, you know, that's almost like saying it's it's basically going to hurt it. It's going to make it worse. I know that you say you've got all these plans and now you're going to pull out all this vegetation. I just don't see how that's going to help at all. It doesn't matter how you recede it. I'd almost rather you put poison ivy there so that way people won't cut through. Okay, so, you know, do whatever you like. I know it's going to happen anyway, but this problem started years and years ago. And like I said, I don't know who built it, but it may have been the people who own it now. And that is when the problem really started. Thank you.
[Heidi Davis]: Thank you, Mr. Sullivan. I also wanted to note that there should be no snow disposal within the area of pervious pavement.
[Jeremy Martin]: Heidi, can we include in that that there should be no snow disposal within the vegetated areas or the resource area? Yes.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: We have another hand raised, I'll let you address that or not.
[Heidi Davis]: Yes, we did have, yes, Ms. James, one more comment, but we did close the public comment period, so the commission is in their deliberations, but if you could be, I will allow this one last comment.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_21]: Yes, I hope with the after maintenance plan, addressing the mud that flows out from this project after maintenance. I hope that you consider that and also the tree maintenance after replacement and during, I mean, sorry, after the construction is done. Thank you.
[Heidi Davis]: I did we did address the establishment of the vegetation through the requirement for monitoring for 3 growing seasons. So that will be part of the order regarding. I, I'm not sure we can condition something about mud as we can't. Directly say it's an existing condition, isn't it? So I'm not sure that we can then say that this project is causing the mud when it's already an existing. We have to look at the proposed project, not what's currently on the ground. I'm not sure we can condition. I'm not sure that's within our abilities to do so.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_21]: Oh, okay. My understanding is that the mud, when it rains heavily, that the water and mud does flow out from that wetland buffer zone and into the streets and to the neighbor's properties.
[Heidi Davis]: That's definitely part of the larger issue of flooding here. And it seems like something that the city of Medford property owner to clean the mud from the street. Thank you.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_21]: you know, for this, what we're talking about, the flow from the wetlands into the streets. They did mention it in their maintenance plan that they would clean it up during the construction period. So I'm like, okay, what about after it's all done, if it gets worse or it's still there, who's in charge of, it is their private property. So, and it's a wetland, so we're just,
[Heidi Davis]: but it's sure in place is a public way. Yeah. I'm sorry, I don't see how we can require a private property owner to provide anything beyond the construction O&M of the area. Okay. But I appreciate your comments and thank you.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_21]: Thank you for explaining.
[SPEAKER_00]: the end of the street, the street sweeping could never address that problem. Yeah.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: I'll make a motion to close the public hearing portion of this and turn to deliberation where we won't accept any new information at this point.
[Heidi Davis]: Do I have a second?
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: I'll second that.
[Heidi Davis]: All in favor, Caroline? Aye. Eric?
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[Heidi Davis]: Jeremy and myself, isn't I? Thank you, Caroline.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: And I have a few conditions that I can offer up. For the tree planting, I was thinking of conditioning that trees, the 15 trees be a minimum of two inch caliber. I didn't see, I don't think I saw a size on the plan. Also, that the trees be irrigated for 3 growing seasons. From May to October and also that. They be irrigated with 20 gallons of water per week. During between May and October and then. Finally, that any trees that do not survive those 3 growing seasons are replaced in kind. That was the proposed for the tree topic.
[Heidi Davis]: For 3 growing seasons.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: 2 and 3 happy to discuss that further.
[Heidi Davis]: Yeah. Is Dennis have we conditioned any order for something similar before in your memory?
[Denis MacDougall]: No irrigation conditions in my, you know, since I've been here and since when I was on the commission before, so.
[Heidi Davis]: So Caroline, are you thinking of actual like piping or the plastic landscaping? Temporary or? Sorry, Jeremy.
[Jeremy Martin]: I was going to say, it could be described as watering, whether that's system or hand watering or tree bags or something.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: Yes, I did something to ensure that these trees succeed.
[SPEAKER_03]: Yeah, I think that doesn't the three growing seasons do that, though.
[Heidi Davis]: That's the intent of the 3.3.
[SPEAKER_03]: If they don't want them, they're not going to survive. They're going to have to. They got to replant them, right? I think we're fine with it either way, but no good point.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: So I guess if we just wanted to. Limited that the trees, any tree that doesn't survive 3 growing seasons must be replaced. And leave it up to the applicant of how to get to that success.
[SPEAKER_03]: Exactly. And this will all come out during the certificate of compliance. The commission will know that all the trees survived.
[Heidi Davis]: And of course, if we have another drought season, it would be in the applicant's best interest to water them in right after. Absolutely.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: The other condition, I know it's in the O&M plan about keeping maintenance logs. I think it'd be a good idea to just incorporate that. I know that was in the original order of conditions and certificate of compliance. But I'd be happy to see that requirement in there, just given that no maintenance had been occurring prior to this meeting.
[Heidi Davis]: So I'm sorry, how would you phrase that again?
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: I mean, I'm happy with what, so the O&M plan currently says all post-construction maintenance activities shall be documented and kept on file and made available to the city earlier on request.
[Heidi Davis]: Sounds good.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: And then the last one I had was that the applicant complies with the soil management plan prepared by an LSP, which I know they, I believe they are planning to do anyway, but just for the soil disturbance.
[SPEAKER_03]: Yep, we're fine with that. We have to do that anyway, so.
[Heidi Davis]: Thank you. Any further discussion? Anything further?
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: Nothing further from me, thank you.
[Heidi Davis]: Jeremy?
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: I'm good, thank you.
[Heidi Davis]: Do I have a motion?
[Jeremy Martin]: I'll make such a motion to approve the application with the conditions that we've applied this evening and the typical conditions.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: Second that.
[Heidi Davis]: All in favor, Jeremy? Aye. Caroline? Aye. Again, thank you all to the public for attending all of these hearings. We do appreciate your input. And Dennis, you can speak to when Mr. Saville can pick up the order.
[Denis MacDougall]: Probably in the next week or so, given, I mean, I'm not sure, you know, so I have a zoning meetings tomorrow. So, tomorrow is going to be mostly a zoning day and then I'm not sure. So, I won't probably can get started on it until probably honestly Monday at the earliest. Given 2 other items in the agenda, so they're making multiple decisions coming my way. So I will let, you know, and then, you know, when the decision is up, it'll. It'll go up on the same Google Drive page that all the other files have been put on. They'll go up on there that day, and you'll be able to see it and read it. And I'll send the original to you, Rick, and let you know when it is.
[SPEAKER_03]: Great. I appreciate everyone's time and input. I think this was a good process. So thank you for everyone's expertise and input.
[Heidi Davis]: You're very welcome. Good night.
[SPEAKER_03]: Thank you.
[Heidi Davis]: Next up, Dennis.
[Denis MacDougall]: Next up, we have the notice of intent for the Mr. River Road improvements.
[Heidi Davis]: We received a revised narrative, I believe, and revised plans. Is that true?
[Denis MacDougall]: Yes. I'm not sure if Owen's available right now.
[Owen Wartella]: I'm here.
[Denis MacDougall]: Okay.
[Owen Wartella]: All right. I wasn't sure if maybe you could call to wait for a minute. No, I wasn't going to make any, I mean, I feel like we know what was the added information provides. So if I guess if you, I'm here for any questions at all.
[Heidi Davis]: We received it too late last week for the commission members to have reviewed it. So that's what brings us back here again tonight.
[Owen Wartella]: Yeah, no worries. I appreciate that you guys made a special hearing for this. Completely understand.
[Heidi Davis]: So I open it up for discussion to the commission.
[Jeremy Martin]: Well, I've reviewed the updated plans. And I do have a couple of questions for you, Owen. Let me just open my file here. Bear with me for a second. Dennis, am I able to share my screen? Yes. All right, thanks. Well, Owen, like I said last week, I appreciate the modifications to the French drain along the sidewalk and the sort of cutouts that have been added to avoid excavation in close proximity to the trees out here. Looking through the plans, the updated sheets, I did There's a number of trees on this east side of the project that, from what I can tell, are not showing tree protection. They're beyond the straw waddle, but they are, or the hay bale or whatever is proposed, they are very close to the limit of grading, and several of them are pretty significant size, these couple down here. You've addressed the 36 and 32-inch caliper tree. Was there a reason that no cutouts were made at these other trees here or that no tree protection is indicated for those trees?
[Owen Wartella]: I would assume just because they're outside the limit of work.
[Jeremy Martin]: And is the intent to grade up to the dashed line here?
[Owen Wartella]: I believe the grading was limited. I don't believe that there's that much grading over these root zones. So we can also condition that the grading is minimal over the root zone area if that's something that is needed.
[Jeremy Martin]: Yeah, if it's minimal and it's not going to be big excavators swinging a bucket around or something near these trees, then I understand not putting true protection around them. I think if there is going to be equipment in this area, I'd like to see the sort of reinforcement around the trunk itself added to those trees. Understood. And then let's see the other comments I had here. I think it was just about grading. And I'm going to think about language of a condition related to grading around the tree trunks. I think you mentioned last hearing that you reviewed this with Aggie Tudin, the tree warden.
[Owen Wartella]: Yeah. We're talking about a tenth of an inch, like an inch, a tenth of a foot of grading change here. That's good to hear. Yeah.
[Jeremy Martin]: It's just hard to tell without spot grades along that. Understood. I get it. But yeah, if it's minimal, I think we can address any further concern about the grading there with the conditions. Sure. That addresses my questions. Thank you.
[Heidi Davis]: All right, thank you, Jeremy. No further comments or questions upon review of the revised information?
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: Nothing further from me either. Thank you.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: All set for me.
[Heidi Davis]: Excellent. I think you all know where this is going. Do I have a motion?
[Owen Wartella]: Great. I just wanted to add one more thing. Oh, I just got some information today. I was sharing it with David or Dennis. I was, I got some updated FEMA maps today and the compensatory storage area that we're. Kind of filling in is not going to be part of the FEMA firm maps. After. by eighth, so, because we're not, you know, we haven't had it, but I just wanted to give you, if you had any, like, you know, odd feelings about the compensatory storage, it's, FEMA's not calculating that area anymore as floodplain.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: Are those preliminary maps that have been issued?
[Denis MacDougall]: I think we're losing Owen, but I could share them with you guys.
[Owen Wartella]: I shared the link with you that will show the new FEMA maps. I apologize, my internet connection is, I'm going through a VPN back so I access the city. You know servers, so sometimes there's a lag.
[Denis MacDougall]: I think we're going above and beyond what will be required of this project. And interestingly enough, the this is more just the route 28 underpass thing we did now that whole area is now not going to be included as well. That's one of the purple areas that's being removed as well.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah. Wow. So I think there's, we're going to have to kind of reconfigure some of what we think in the city is, but then other places have been added. So there's, you know, it's, it's going to be sort of intriguing. You know, I remember when this happened, I think it was just after I started here about 10 years ago when we got the new plans. We had a lot of and a lot of houses got added at that point and a lot of people were coming in. You know, basically asking why is this happening and trying to go over it and I'm going to some of the public meetings and it was interesting, but it was also.
[Owen Wartella]: Yeah, and actually, it might be interesting if we want to do a little side note on this is how best to maybe inform owners of households that were in the floodplain and are no longer in the floodplain, how to notify them that they should probably update their insurance policies to, you know, get, you know, not be paying for those type of fees. I don't know, I think it would just be something cool that the city could do.
[Denis MacDougall]: I can mention I don't want to be like, an outreach for planning sort of just sort of get, you know, we have the software, we can figure out the addresses of those properties and then just sort of send them a letter saying, this is coming. You know, was July 1st, I think. I'm sorry. July 8th.
[Owen Wartella]: I still have to go in front of City Council and update the flood ordinance, but that's coming. I don't see that being a big issue in front of City Council.
[Denis MacDougall]: I would say, he's asking about my order. He's asking about my, the 1 that we just did. I would say no, because that's. Yeah, that was only 1 slight portion of it. There are so many other resource areas there. But it was only just, but like, this 1, it was literally, it was riverfront. And, you know, land subject to flooding. So, if the land subject to flooding was removed, it would just be riverfront, which has a lot less lower threshold of what's allowed and what's not allowed. Right. I believe is that the way I sort of always sort of read it is that if it's just riverfront area, you know, like a pathway is much more straightforward. So I know we've had that in the past with things, you know, like, like Riverbend Park, the pathway that went in, we just had to meet, you know, the minimum performance standards because it was just a riverfront area, no other resource area, but
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: Oh, does that mean you are the city's floodplain manager? I believe I am as designated by the ordinance.
[Owen Wartella]: Yes.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: That's very interesting.
[Owen Wartella]: Happy to have other conversations regarding this at a future time. Yeah, same.
[Jeremy Martin]: I'm still just trying to figure out what the different colors on the Mac. Oh, so if you.
[Owen Wartella]: I actually had a tutorial this morning on it, so it is thing if you go to the layer list and you if you check the 1st box. And, um. the uncheck the second and third and fifth box you're gonna see two colors basically a purple and a yellow the yellow is added floodplain storage the purple is no longer floodplain storage so in the Case of mystic river road, which is right adjacent to this. We've got probably a dozen houses that are in that area that. In the purple, no longer correct are no longer designated as that. And I'm sure that we all know that insurance companies would never. Let that information out if. It's not beneficial to them, so I feel like we should be proactive.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: I do wonder, however, purely as an aside, a personal contemplation here, if it is then more difficult if the floodplain is revised again for these homes to reobtain flood coverage. Is there some benefit to just maintaining it?
[Owen Wartella]: I mean, you're right. I mean, that's a good thing to look at. I mean, I haven't... This would be... Before I would do outreach, I'd probably have to run this by KP Law and see what, you know, the... The liability is, but this is public information or will be public information by summertime. So. Yeah.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: My experience elsewhere, the map updates have primarily been driven by. better LIDAR data for Topo? I think that's the case here too.
[Owen Wartella]: Yeah. I was just actually talking to Dennis about that earlier. I was like, I think it's just better contour data.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: Very interesting. Thank you for pointing that out. I appreciate it.
[Owen Wartella]: Yeah. Again, not an expert on this. what we're looking at at the moment with the, if you're looking at the same link that I am, but I can always get that information from our contact over at DCR of how this was, how the data was driven.
[Heidi Davis]: And I'm sorry, what layer do you look at again? I'm late to the party.
[Owen Wartella]: That's fine. Check the first box, uncheck the next two, and then uncheck the National Flood Hazard Layer, which is kind of like the old layer. Has it all. And you'll see yellow and purple.
[Heidi Davis]: Pretty. Where are the boxes that you're checking? I might be in the wrong layer, but I don't see the box. Okay, nevermind. Let's go on back to the hand.
[Jeremy Martin]: Sorry, sidetrack. Blood map nerds here. It is fascinating. So Heidi, are we looking to deliberate on any conditions to be added?
[Denis MacDougall]: I think also just to be, you know, a pedant, we should open it up for public comment, even though, you know, given that there are.
[Heidi Davis]: Thank you for the reminder. If there's anybody from the public who would like to comment or ask questions, they may do so now. Hearing none, then we can return to deliberation about conditions.
[Jeremy Martin]: Well, the 1 condition that I'd like to throw out there is that as the grading work and excavation work proceeds that the city tree warden be engaged if any. uh, significant grading around the existing trees is anticipated, um, or if through that work, significant tree roots are encountered, um, and that they be consulted, uh, for an on-site review and advise, you know, to provide any advice or direction as far as changes to the extent of grading or trenching.
[Denis MacDougall]: have a motion to adjourn.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: I make a motion to approve the order of conditions for Mystic Road improvement file 215-0239 with our standard conditions and one special condition as discussed.
[Heidi Davis]: All in favor, Caroline? Aye. Eric? Aye. Jeremy, and myself as an I. Thank you, everyone.
[Owen Wartella]: Very much appreciated. You're very welcome. Thank you for working with us. Thank you.
[Heidi Davis]: Bye. Okay, last but not least.
[Denis MacDougall]: notice of intent for 53 went for delay. I was convened from the last meeting and we have Mr. Marchanda here. Please.
[Heidi Davis]: Thank you for returning. Now that the commission has had a chance to speak. Eric, I'm sorry. I'm sorry?
[Denis MacDougall]: I'm just kind of breaking up on my end. I'm not sure.
[Jeremy Martin]: Yeah, Adam, it seems like your connection is lagging.
[SPEAKER_02]: Can you hear me? I can tell I'm going slower. Can you hear me now or not?
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: You might want to maybe shut your video off. Maybe that will help.
[SPEAKER_02]: Can you hear me any better now? You can hear me better now? Yes, we can. Okay, great. Sorry about that.
[Heidi Davis]: Okay, Eric, several of us were on the site last night, last night, I'm sorry, yesterday morning. It was, it was a very clear drop off towards the wetlands. The wetland line was, I felt was well represented. I didn't have any issues with it. Anybody else want to offer their observations?
[Jeremy Martin]: Sure. It was very helpful to see in person. And I found that the area within the wetland appears to have been used and maintained sort of in a domestic way. and not being a wetland delineation expert by any means, but I wonder if the commissioners would be open to considering, and if it's of interest to Adam, reverting back to a graded slope if ultimately that would result in less disturbance and impact than the proposed retaining wall. I think that the suggestion for the retaining wall made a lot of sense when we were just looking at the plans, but having seen it in person, I could see that a, A slope would not deter wildlife in the way that a wall may. It would not require as much excavation for footings and things like that. And I think that either way, I think that we can address the wetland there, but just wanted to throw that out there for consideration.
[Heidi Davis]: So Mr. Marchando can speak to his clients, but there may be a desire to have a more level area. And so a retaining wall would help, of course, in providing more level yard space. But I also agree with you that it would be less impactful to not have to excavate for footing, et cetera. Mr. Marchando, what's your thoughts?
[SPEAKER_02]: I, it doesn't really matter to me. Um, I know that the client originally wanted the three to one slope up how I originally proposed it. Um, but then obviously we talked about the retaining wall, so I put the retaining wall and they were okay with that. So I honestly think they're okay with either. Um, so it's easy enough for me to go into the plan and just grade it back out and just basically match, you know, what I proposed the first time, if that's what you guys would prefer.
[Heidi Davis]: So, if we did that, though, how would we ensure that. Yard activities don't extend into the weapon.
[SPEAKER_02]: Well, I know in some previous sites, which we've done in current sites is they do have sometimes posts that have weapon markers that. that notify them, you know, this is a resource area, you can't go beyond. Like, you know, we've actually had to set, we're doing a job in Grafton right now, and we actually have to set all these wildlife posts out there with plaques on it that's saying, you know, basically this is a protected area back here.
[Heidi Davis]: Yeah, I think it would be important to establish a no-mow zone, for instance.
[SPEAKER_02]: Would you be, would everyone be open to, obviously I'll go to the client and talk to them about grading it out and I'm sure it's easy enough to put some plaques out there or whatever. So you would rather go that way versus having a retaining wall with a fence on it to act as a barrier and make sure it's not disturbed down there? Because we're keeping like 10 feet off, you know? It's really what you guys think, I don't know, whatever.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: Sorry. No, I was going to say, I think there are trade-offs to both approaches. I'm leaning towards a retaining wall personally just for that barrier, but there are pros and cons to both.
[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, so, you know, the wall, the highest it's like a four foot, like a three foot, and then it kind of tapers off. So it's nothing ridiculous in terms of excavation earthwork. I don't think it's really going to be that. personally if the best interest of the resource here in my opinion would be probably to have the retaining wall of the fence because that's just basically someone who really have to go out of the way if they wanted to go down there and do stuff versus you know people still do what they want even though there's a plaque like you know what I mean so It's really up to you guys. If you really don't want the wall, then that's fine too. I can really do whatever makes people happy.
[Heidi Davis]: Thanks. I'm sorry, Jeremy, were you about to say something?
[Jeremy Martin]: I should make sure nobody else has any comments before I pipe up again.
[Heidi Davis]: I tend to agree that a a low wall will provide more of a barrier to activities.
[Jeremy Martin]: Yeah, I support that and certainly see the value there. So totally fine with proceeding with the plan as currently proposed.
[Heidi Davis]: Any conditions that we could, well, before we go into conditions, is there anybody from the public present that would like to comment or have a question? Not many people left, so I was hearing none. Any conditions that we'd like to include?
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: I guess get the best of both worlds. If we are issuing an order of conditions that includes the wall, would your client, Mr. Marchanda, be amenable to including some signage, a post or signage near that wetland area? Just for posterity's sake, I know over time these properties transact. It can be very unobtrusive, but I think there would be value to having that post up somewhere just as a reminder to The owners and future owners that that is, in fact, a well in resource area.
[SPEAKER_02]: Sure, yeah, I don't see that being a problem. I think that I appreciate that. Yeah, no problem.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: Unless my colleagues object, I would propose that we include a condition that requires 1. 1 sign do we have standards for signage on on stuff like this or.
[Denis MacDougall]: No, we don't really, but we could put it in the including the condition that before the sign goes up, you know, like a little. The whatever the language be sent to the environmental agent for approval. Okay.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: And I do have, Dennis, if you need an example, I do have some from other towns.
[Denis MacDougall]: Oh, yeah. All right, then. Or then, in that case, if, Caroline, you send it to me, I can send them to, send, you know, the typical ones to Adam, and then, you know, that would be, as long as those are followed, we're fine.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: All right. And not to be too prescriptive, but should we identify a location for this or leave it up to the owner?
[Denis MacDougall]: I think as long as we say, you know, it's just visible from, you know, the rear looking towards the wetland as long as it's visible while looking towards the wetland. You know, I think that's probably sufficient, you know. Okay, I mean, there is going to be a fence there. So, I mean, ideally, probably the best place to put it would be just attached to the fence.
[Heidi Davis]: I don't know if I was a homeowner, I wouldn't want to have signage attached to my fence. That's in my back. The signage says on the wetland line.
[Denis MacDougall]: Okay. All right. So, just like, oh, you mean, all right now I get you. So, like, a post. All right. So just a post on the wetland line in the direction, but facing in the direction of the. Do not disturb wetlands. Yeah. Yeah. leave it up to them where they feel as long as it's just visible from the rear of the property facing in the direction of the wetland.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: Thank you, Mr. Marchando, I appreciate that.
[Jeremy Martin]: You're welcome. This suggestion may be covered by a standard condition, but You've noted that the approved seed mix here will be New England Wetlands Plants mix. They offer a number of seed mixes. So I'd ask that the seed mix that you propose to use be submitted for the commission to review prior to use or prior to installation.
[Heidi Davis]: Or we could just require that it be the wetland seed mix.
[Jeremy Martin]: They probably have two or three of those too.
[Heidi Davis]: I know there's, well, there's an erosion seed mix. We don't want that one. I didn't know there was more than one wetland seed mix though.
[Jeremy Martin]: I think they have mixes for different types of wetlands, but a condition that requires it to be a wetland seed mix, wet mix, that works for me. And you're right, Heidi, there is one called New England Wet Mix. So that seems like the right one. Excellent. That's all I've got.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: Those, so nothing further from me.
[Heidi Davis]: Great. Do I hear a motion?
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: I will make a motion to issue an order of conditions. I don't have the project number, the file number in front of me. I apologize, but issue an order of conditions, including the standard conditions, as well as a special condition that requires one sign identifying the border of the wetland. and a second condition specifying the New England wet mix. I believe that's all we talked about.
[Heidi Davis]: Yes. Do I have a second? Second that. All in favor, Caroline?
[SPEAKER_01]: Aye.
[Heidi Davis]: Eric? Aye. Jeremy? And myself as an aye. So thank you for working with us on this, Mr. Marchando.
[SPEAKER_02]: Absolutely. Thank you. Have a good night. Have a good one. Thank you.
[Heidi Davis]: And one more item before we sign off. We have minutes for one hearing. Yes.
[Denis MacDougall]: I think I finally cracked the code. using that software to make minutes. It still took me a while, but it took me way less time than if I had actually just been transcribing my notes and listening to the meeting, which is what I usually did. It usually took me about twice the length of, no, two to three times the length of an actual meeting to do at a minimum, just stopping and starting. So it's, you know.
[Heidi Davis]: Great. Excellent. I've reviewed them and corrected some typos and sent them back to you, Dennis.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yep. I've added those in, I've included those. But it wasn't all of them. No, that's the one slight issue is that it does some weird things that I, you know, and every time it's different. I was doing another one and gosh, what is, I know it's, where do I have it? It basically, it was the, instead of, Misty Valley road and just completely butchered the name. So I'm just going to do a cut and paste. There's a few things like that where it just, because it's going by the audio.
[Heidi Davis]: Has the rest of the commission had a chance to review those?
[Jeremy Martin]: I'm reading them now.
[Heidi Davis]: They're kind of long.
[Jeremy Martin]: Yeah, I know.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: Yeah, I have not, but I can read them, but we can hold off voting.
[Denis MacDougall]: And there'll be a few more as well in addition. So I'm hopefully going to try.
[Heidi Davis]: We can take care of that.
[Denis MacDougall]: And just to give you a heads up, we are going to be getting the filing. It's been submitted through EDEP. So I'm just sort of reviewing it with clients for a property on Ronald Lee Road. I don't know how many of you, maybe there was the property on Ronald Lee Road that, you know, they would basically be added on a porch in the back of their property. It's literally the next door neighbor who just wants to add on beside their house. And so it's the exact same principle. So Ronald Lee Road is basically, the road itself is, you know, The property itself is probably about 10 to 15 feet higher than the resource area below it. So it's very much like it comes in and then just sheer drop off to where the actual resource area is. And when we did the last one, we just asked them for an RDA. And so given that this is basically the similar type project, I said, we can do an RDA on this one as well. And then if the board does determine to go further, we can. given the similarity to the project site, had them go that route. So I've sort of been helping them out with a few, like, that time we did like a cross-sectional map and like a wetland map sort of showing what the area is, just to sort of delineate exactly what it looks like. So that's, she submitted it through, yeah, as I said, through EDP, and then I'm sort of reviewing it now, and I'm going to just help them with a couple of Of those types of figures since I did it for the other property and we've already done it. It's not too much bad hearing me. I would say, you know, maybe the 12th might be too early. So. Since we haven't determined it, I'll let you know. Maybe that might be the best way. So I'm just not 100% sure. So if it's right, it'd be the 12th at the earliest. That means if I, but given everything else that just sort of, given that I have three decisions to work on in the next few days, so, and I have zoning decisions to work on too, it might, I'm gonna talk to them and get their, I'll talk to the applicant as well and get their availability. So maybe, probably I'll give them the 19th and the 26th might be more logical for that.
[Heidi Davis]: That's fine, yep.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: Interesting timing, Dennis, I was going to mention that I had been writing up with more broke road, which is the resource area behind these properties. And there's been what I would characterize as some vigilante wetland clearing activity along the roadway back there. It happens periodically and it's usually. Pretty minor, but you can tell people I've been talking about for lack of a better descriptor. I was in there a couple of weeks ago and it's. far more substantial, particularly up past Ronald Lee Road, where there's often a very wet crossing. They have some large rock, you know, three to four inch sort of broken cobble type stuff through that wet area. Okay, but I just want to raise that for now.
[Denis MacDougall]: I appreciate that. So that's like a part that I don't get to that often. So I will go.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: It's all frozen right now, so it's hard to tell. But once this snow sort of goes away, you can really see what they've done, including they rebuilt. It looks to me like that. There's a small bridge over one of the crossings, which whatever, but.
[Denis MacDougall]: Okay, no, that's good. It's a good heads up. So, yeah, that's we see those crop up every now and again through different places. So, you know, I'm closer. I'm near the. The hospital, and every once in a while, going through the walk through there, I see something that's been sort of created and I sort of like, you know, let's just kick that off.
[Heidi Davis]: Yeah, I've noticed that in the past. On Whitmore? Yes, exactly.
[Jeremy Martin]: Does anyone know the, I'm just curious, the history of that trail? And it's interesting the way that it aligns with Placeteb Road. Was it the Middlesex Canal at one point?
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: I don't think so. I think at one point, it was an actual road. And at one point, there was military installation up there. I'm not sure if it was discontinued around that time when that was created or after it closed.
[Denis MacDougall]: Right on Ramshead Hill, there was a military tower up there. And I think there was a connecting between the two. Interesting. And there were a few other, there's been a few other sort of. Back, you know, there's old farms that are way back there years ago that have been removed and there's a lot of strange things in and around there. I saw a fisher back there a couple of weeks ago too.
[Heidi Davis]: No way.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: Wow.
[Heidi Davis]: Also, the canal was a bit further west of that.
[Jeremy Martin]: Closer to the west, right?
[Heidi Davis]: Yes, but are you familiar with the Winchester Town Forest that's just north of the Brooks Estate? It's adjacent.
[Jeremy Martin]: Say the name of it again, the Brooks-Parkhurst State Forest?
[Heidi Davis]: The Brooks Estate's in Medford, and so immediately to the north of the Brooks Estate is Winchester Town Forest. They're adjacent, it's the same woods. But within the Winchester portion, there are canal stones. And there's an ancient sign. Talk to a tree that says 2 canal stones. And it points to the canal stones that are in the woods. Sadly, a developer went and took several of them and incorporated them into a retaining wall for a house.
[Denis MacDougall]: So if anyone is interested, I'm pretty sure we still have them here. We were gifted a box full of books that were published by the Medford Historical Commission about the canal. I don't know exactly where they are, but if anyone, I'll look for them tomorrow and if I find them, I'll let you know. You are more than welcome to come in and read them, even if you just want it as a lending library so you can just read through it. But I remember when we got them, basically, I think, I just, I don't, I'm not, it probably was actually John and Heather. They probably heard me talking about it, like, hey, guess what we've got? And then they just came by, you know, a day later and dropped off a box full of them for our office. So.
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: I'm going to share my screen if you're looking to kill a whole bunch of free time at work. Map junction, if you're not familiar with it. Yeah, so going back to a 1938 aerial, you can see. What more going up through.
[Jeremy Martin]: Okay, I've got more question for the folks who spend time in the fills and then I'll. Let it go, but there's a up at that old Ram's head hill site. There is what you can see used to be the fire tower. But there's some kind of telephone pole with a metal box on the top of it. Is that a nest? Is it an antenna? Do you know?
[MCM00001777_SPEAKER_08]: It was a weather or air quality monitoring. Heidi, do you know?
[Heidi Davis]: I don't know, but I don't think it's a wildlife box at all. I think it's either military or. Yeah, some kind of weather related. Yeah, I know exactly what you mean. It's been there since I started going there in the 80s.
[Denis MacDougall]: My mother told me a story just after she started driving, she was driving on South Border Road and she had like skidded off something and drove off the road and was in a ditch and a bunch of the soldiers from the base that were stationed there at the time all came out and basically pushed the car out back onto the road and got her on her way. That's good.
[Heidi Davis]: Excellent. Well, there's good work everybody. We've had three hearings in four weeks.
[Jeremy Martin]: So have we cleared the deck of open NOIs?
[Denis MacDougall]: Everything but South Street, which I'm working on. So that is still there. I just, honestly, I sent an email to the applicant, the owner, but I haven't heard back from him yet, but I only did that, I think on Thursday of last week. So I said if he was available to please come on, but I shouldn't.
[Heidi Davis]: If we don't hear back, we'll have to consider other technologies.
[Denis MacDougall]: And I'll basically tell him that in my next one. Aside from that, that is pretty much it, I think. And no other... I don't think I've gotten any other news for you all.
[Jeremy Martin]: Three hearings in four weeks and two site visits. Well done.
[Heidi Davis]: That's more activity than we've had in some years, honestly.
[Jeremy Martin]: My wife will be thrilled to hear that. That does not.
[Heidi Davis]: No, it's not usual at all and not in particular to have. I don't have a motion to close the hearing.
[Jeremy Martin]: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
[Heidi Davis]: Was that a second? Yes, I second that motion. All right, all in favor, Jeremy? Aye. Eric? Aye. Caroline? Aye. And myself is an aye. Thank you all, good work.
[Denis MacDougall]: Thank you all very much. Take care, I'll talk to you soon.