{"citations":{"b01288e0-0900-46ad-a878-a7cdc0a8cabf":{"num":1,"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30"},"6c56fb9f-1c8e-4476-bd76-4d26c8de2a81":{"num":2,"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30"},"10aebf5b-8ad8-4dd9-8781-b8245e20a47a":{"num":3,"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30"},"8f9f99a7-92bd-412e-a157-46f1c0b9357d":{"num":4,"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30"},"cf8f3f40-7a71-40b6-a6a0-470a0a148af5":{"num":5,"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30"},"bf05091d-4a37-4eef-8f20-6fae3cb3f21c":{"num":6,"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30"},"9c8b1a2b-1753-4a1d-862b-7678e27445c1":{"num":7,"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30"},"de8939c3-4ad1-445f-9bc9-817a84620701":{"num":8,"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30"},"d05a33cc-931d-432f-ae51-0f0df0e43800":{"num":9,"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30"},"7bf909b0-bf58-4fee-ad52-5da665cd8ee2":{"num":10,"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30"},"3b74ebd3-1804-4b8b-8b9c-42a1010d9ebe":{"num":11,"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30"},"6bd9c84e-a2fe-40fe-9df6-48061ce5f00f":{"num":12,"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30"},"e05620b5-43b8-4552-86f2-310245bdf5f8":{"num":13,"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30"},"58a9f41b-4284-403a-8230-a2f66698f956":{"num":14,"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30"},"13b2cb8d-d1ff-4f7e-a703-9ddbb5a20122":{"num":15,"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30"},"5a3ef588-ebcf-4186-917b-f31f18904236":{"num":16,"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30"},"300bc3e2-f82b-4615-88dc-74711a0e719a":{"num":17,"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30"},"f56977e0-0636-43f0-875b-91b5c3d7674e":{"num":18,"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30"},"22909a0b-339a-4947-82b1-0461500b8d4c":{"num":19,"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30"},"e9978645-ecbe-4eed-a69a-be1fd126ac1e":{"num":20,"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30"},"aae4d7cd-390c-48b5-bd13-5be0af87a64e":{"num":21,"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30"},"75dfadf7-b543-4f86-be79-26c683c8b7f4":{"num":22,"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30"},"aa239a02-7eaf-4678-95d5-d9d2713f11eb":{"num":23,"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30"},"0fbc6c0f-6e62-4154-9bec-7e48f8c88930":{"num":24,"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30"},"d0b0ea74-f81c-4671-8744-d2918116b79e":{"num":25,"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30"},"043c1981-28f1-4b6a-8347-89e0888ecd99":{"num":26,"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30"},"afc7fddf-5188-47c7-97ee-37d42a96cbec":{"num":27,"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30"},"8e9861a1-98cb-40ad-95a6-81970b1128ed":{"num":28,"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30"},"0f82a043-8900-4484-af51-6dd5631dc5fc":{"num":29,"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30"},"f1a335d2-1693-4620-9e6c-087dbf46c0c6":{"num":30,"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30"},"5011afbe-cce9-49ef-b640-82f478ec4815":{"num":31,"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30"},"435ca1f4-a64b-418a-bb69-2035c3fa1ad9":{"num":32,"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30"},"f885b154-eec5-4a5a-a8ac-89a695a8845a":{"num":33,"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30"},"556e3f0c-338a-45a9-995f-af39f1ef27db":{"num":34,"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30"},"cace2bb2-3abf-477e-bc46-0e1c64aa6d34":{"num":35,"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30"},"9c282f96-13c2-4d82-949c-ccd979b76604":{"num":36,"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30"},"9690a594-4af9-4edb-9719-ee52083e33f9":{"num":37,"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30"},"3174c849-0706-4b73-8485-8c0f4c1f9086":{"num":38,"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30"},"156e3978-4994-426f-a0c6-df01a9375615":{"num":39,"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30"},"b9a68df5-0b56-457a-b39a-084c2d8f6930":{"num":40,"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30"},"9944ed4f-b1d3-4a29-ab19-01d6c1e8e804":{"num":41,"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30"},"dc74b1e3-18c8-4b01-ba44-760e752e1272":{"num":42,"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30"},"35634355-4798-4ea4-899e-1d363a0a87e8":{"num":43,"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30"},"88e2e1aa-5126-4363-8f12-eafdb66bfa03":{"num":44,"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30"},"8f6f7575-8256-43ae-b83e-5e598180b4c9":{"num":45,"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30"},"3c8a0682-fce5-4226-befb-542fef7eecd8":{"num":46,"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30"},"2dcc8af0-95d5-430e-8dbd-6b6cd63eae56":{"num":47,"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30"},"bf7736ae-4740-46ec-ab5e-ad65f45feec8":{"num":48,"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30"},"2d43254a-fc3c-4b50-8977-b61750b5a693":{"num":49,"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30"},"71669f9d-e711-4e59-a183-42e8be4cb587":{"num":50,"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30"},"3cc59d1a-d13a-482b-9533-5710a4cc3bfd":{"num":51,"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30"},"6dd91641-00c4-4d63-bd08-a3497c0f119c":{"num":52,"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30"},"9cc945b6-4a59-44b5-bd57-2229ad0647ad":{"num":53,"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30"},"5737bfce-d5b0-4337-aa5d-799d65eff581":{"num":54,"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30"},"790ee608-b8df-473f-b56c-dc00e9401302":{"num":55,"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30"}},"sources":{"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30":{"sourceItemId":"b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30","title":"Conservation Commission — 2026-02-05","videoUrl":"https://dkjpoal1tejoa.cloudfront.net/sites/a1000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000001/source-items/b4d44831-02dd-4bdf-adda-4039f9645b30/Conservation_Commission_Meeting_-_February_5_2026.mp4","chunks":[{"id":"730b6f9a-d781-4b57-94fc-e61219001851","content":"Speaker 1: \n\nSpeaker 2: Evening everybody. It's David Morgan, environmental Planner and Conservation Agent for the Town of Arlington. The February 5th, 2026 public meeting of the Arlington Conservation Commission will be conducted in a remote format, consistent with an act extending certain COVID-19 measures adopted during the state of emergency, which further extends certain COVID-19 measures regarding public participation in public meetings till June 30th, 2027. This meeting is being recorded and the recording may be made publicly available. I would like to put a, there it is, chat. Um, link to the new, uh, agenda and minute system for the town where you can find all of the meeting materials. Uh, there in the chat, please note that the Zoom chat feature may be used for questions and comments that contribute to the commission's procedures, and if it's used otherwise, may be disabled at the chair's discretion. Public comment period will follow each hearing. Comment, uh, sorry. The commission encourages attendees to ask questions and offer comments during that public comment period. Dr. Is the commission chair facilitates tonight's meeting. Each vote taken during the meeting will be conducted with a roll call vote. So, Chuck, could you please review the agenda and take attendance?","timeStart":0.085,"timeEnd":101.495,"chunkIndex":0},{"id":"790ee608-b8df-473f-b56c-dc00e9401302","content":"Speaker 3: Yeah. Thanks, David. Uh, February 5th, 2026, and the time is 7 0 3. Uh, we have some administrative work to do, and we have minutes for January 22nd. Review, correspondence. Uh, we have a vote for chair and vice chair, some enforcement orders, um, certificate of compliance, and I'm gonna call the rest Liaison reports. Um, we have two hearings tonight. One is for, uh, both notice of intent, and they're both for Winchester Country Club. So, with that, I'm just gonna turn quickly to, uh, attendance. And so Mike Gilda, game present. And Nathaniel Stevens present. Susan Chapnick here. David Kaplan. I'm here. Brian McBride. I'm here. David White. I'm here now. Great. And Chuck is here, uh, associate member, uh, Eileen Coleman here. And, uh, Sarah, uh, let us know that she cannot attend tonight's meeting. So we're gonna move on and have the minutes, uh, go right to minutes. And those are the minutes for January 22nd, 2026. David,\n\nSpeaker 2: I opened them, but they're still loading.\n\nSpeaker 3: Okay.\n\nSpeaker 6: I can try sharing mine.\n\nSpeaker 5: Oh, yeah. Have it up.\n\nSpeaker 2: It's a race. Ah, you win.\n\nSpeaker 3: All right. You might wanna, yeah, there you go.\n\nSpeaker 2: Do you wanna walk us through the changes? Um, Jackie?\n\nSpeaker 6: Yeah. So it looks like it's starting on page two. Um, just, or no, page three, some small changes to the wording from Nathaniel and Susan and\n\nSpeaker 7: Jackie. Um, if you could scroll back up, because I did have some comments. Were they addressed?\n\nSpeaker 6: Um, yeah, I know there was one question for Chuck. Let me see if I can find","timeStart":102.845,"timeEnd":256.765,"chunkIndex":1},{"id":"5737bfce-d5b0-4337-aa5d-799d65eff581","content":"Speaker 7: It. Yes, I did wanna kind of go through the whole thing if we had a question that wasn't answered.\n\nSpeaker 6: Um,\n\nSpeaker 7: I think it was near the front.\n\nSpeaker 6: Yeah. Where did that go?\n\nSpeaker 7: It's near the beginning. There it is. Oh, ask Chuck. Whoops.\n\nSpeaker 3: Oh,\n\nSpeaker 7: If he is okay with this wording. I'm not sure this is what he said. I, I was, I was concerned with the word comfortable, but I mean, if you're okay with that paragraph. I'm fine. Chuck, this was relaying what you said about your conversation with Fish and Wildlife.\n\nSpeaker 4: Good.\n\nSpeaker 3: I think comfortable is fine.\n\nSpeaker 7: Okay.\n\nSpeaker 6: Yeah,\n\nSpeaker 7: No problem.\n\nSpeaker 6: Great. Um, so a few changes to the hearings, this paragraph in particular, more details, then a few additions to this list. And that's it. Did anyone have any additional comments?\n\nSpeaker 8: Wanted they say thank you to Nathaniel and Susan for all that extra time they've been spending. Appreciate that. Thanks\n\nSpeaker 7: Dave.\n\nSpeaker 3: All right. So with that, uh, if any further comments or motions on the minutes of the 22nd motion to accept as amended. Second. Steve Kaplan and Nathaniel Stevens. Mike Gilda game. Yes. Susan Chapnick. Yes. David White. Yes. Brian McBride. Yes. Nathaniel Stevens. Yes.","timeStart":256.765,"timeEnd":379.145,"chunkIndex":2},{"id":"b01288e0-0900-46ad-a878-a7cdc0a8cabf","content":"Speaker 3: And David Kaplan? Yes. And Chuck Terney says yes. All right. So, uh, correspondence is available. Uh, you can reach out to David Morgan at the office, or you can look at the Conservation Commission, uh, link. And we have correspondence there. If you have any issues with that, uh, get in touch with the office and, uh, David will walk you through, uh, the correspondence. So, uh, first on the discussion is, um, the vote for chair and vice chair. This is a two year term. And, and, uh, it is been me and Susan, uh, switching roles here. And we're comfortable, uh, extending that for an additional two years. But I think then at that point, we would like to, um, I'm speaking for Susan, but I'm gonna say I would like to, uh, hopefully someone else would be able to step in, uh, in one of these positions so we could roll along. And, and typically what ends up happening is we want, uh, Susan's position, the vice chair, to be the one that someone steps into. So they have those two years of, uh, vice chairmanship to kind of get acquainted with the additional duties. So, um, Susan, do you have anything to say about this?","timeStart":379.905,"timeEnd":464.495,"chunkIndex":3},{"id":"6c56fb9f-1c8e-4476-bd76-4d26c8de2a81","content":"Speaker 7: Um, no. I will say I appreciate, Chuck, you, your willingness to step into the chair role. I think that you've, you've grown into this position really well. And, um, I'm just here kind of more for guidance. And I would say just in the future, if anybody's concerned about stepping into the Vice chair role, even for two years, I bet you we could twist Chuck's arm to stay on a little longer, so you could be vice chair a little longer if you needed that extra time. , it is a le less of a commit commitment to be a vice chair than a chair, but it is a commitment. Definitely time commit.\n\nSpeaker 3: Anyway. Yeah, maybe I'll, uh, give Nathaniel's, uh, run, run for the money. Huh? That would take a while.\n\nSpeaker 7: , I don't think you're gonna make, what, 19 years? How long were you chair Nathaniel? Was it\n\nSpeaker 9: 19 years? I would curse that on you. . Yeah.\n\nSpeaker 7: I don't remember how many years that was.\n\nSpeaker 9: Uh, five. I blocked it. Yep.\n\nSpeaker 7: Yeah, you blocked it. All right.\n\nSpeaker 3: All right. So, um, I don't know if this needs to be done one at a time. I mean, maybe Nathaniel has, uh, one at a time or both at the same time. Would be\n\nSpeaker 7: Fine. Let's do a slate. Let's vote a slate. And, and I appreciate your support conservation commissioners, as does Chuck, I'm sure.\n\nSpeaker 3: Okay. So I'll just go and say, can I get a motion for chair and vice chair as presented on the agenda?\n\nSpeaker 9: So, moved.\n\nSpeaker 3: A second.\n\nSpeaker 10: Second.\n\nSpeaker 3: Mike Gil's game.","timeStart":465.155,"timeEnd":559.295,"chunkIndex":4},{"id":"10aebf5b-8ad8-4dd9-8781-b8245e20a47a","content":"Speaker 10: Huh? Brian.\n\nSpeaker 3: Brian Mcri. Oh, I saw Mike's hand go up. Sorry, Brian. Oh, that's okay.\n\nSpeaker 10: Kind of my voices might be similar. I don't know. Mm-hmm .\n\nSpeaker 3: Brian beat me to McRay. Okay. So Mike Gil's game, you can start us off.\n\nSpeaker 11: Yes. I think it's a great idea.\n\nSpeaker 3: Okay. And, uh, David White. Yes. Thank you all. Yeah. And, uh, David Kaplan. Yes. You have our utmost confidence and support, and please consider staying on longer . Uh, David McBride, , Brian McBride.\n\nSpeaker 10: . Yes. With much gratitude. Really appreciated.\n\nSpeaker 3: Uh, let's see. I said Mike Ellis game, right? So, uh, Nathaniel Stevens,\n\nSpeaker 9: Uh, yes. And echoing what Brian and David Coplan and David said,\n\nSpeaker 3: And Susan Chapnick.\n\nSpeaker 7: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 3: And, uh, Chuck Ney says yes too. And I wanna say that, you know, you never know how it, how it's coming across with the other commissioners. And, uh, I appreciate your support and, uh, and, um, thank you. All right. Moving right along. We gonna, uh, talk about an enforcement order. I know that, um, I know that Al Gala's here, so I'm hoping he's here for this. And so the enforcement order is for 66 and 66 R and Dudley Street and 9 93 Mass Ave. And Al is, um, come in the last couple of meetings and really move this along. So, um, I'm gonna turn it over to Al, but just ask him to introduce himself, uh, for the record, and bring us up to date since the last time we talked. Thanks, Al. Alright.","timeStart":560.075,"timeEnd":663.425,"chunkIndex":5},{"id":"8f9f99a7-92bd-412e-a157-46f1c0b9357d","content":"Speaker 11: Um, good evening, commissioners. My name is Al Gala from Gala Simon and Associates to represent SNR, um, Realty Trust for the property at 66, um, Bley Street. Um, we had a meeting on January 8th, in which I presented a preliminary plan and, and discussed with the commission what we, uh, were proposing to do. Uh, and basically the focus is to protect the site, uh, trees, which are of large magnitude. And, um, we also proposed, um, a couple of gian walls and to remove fill from the site. Um, since that meeting, I had the opportunity to communicate with the, um, the Millbrook Condo Association, send them the plan. Um, they, um, they actually reviewed a, a revised plan, which I would like to show, show you, if you allow me to share, share the screen.\n\nSpeaker 4: Yeah, please\n\nSpeaker 11: Share. Here we go. I'm getting better at this. I'm glad. So, this plan, uh, what we've done is, is, um, basically realizing that the commission was looking for additional, uh, flood storage and removal of fill, um, but with the same intent of, of, of, um, of preserving the trees on the site. Um, this Gabon wall, the one on, on the left, stayed exactly as it was proposed. This one, I rotated a majority of the wall towards, towards the, um, the drainage easement, leaving a, a few feet of, of distance from it. Um, that allowed us to expand this area of, um, of, uh, planting and also of, uh, flood storage. Um, additionally, uh, we already had proposed this, this fence, which is a dark line, but we also proposing an additional wood fence from the edge of the Gabon to the edge of the easement.","timeStart":664.085,"timeEnd":792.045,"chunkIndex":6},{"id":"cf8f3f40-7a71-40b6-a6a0-470a0a148af5","content":"Speaker 11: So we would like to have this easement open stand foot, so the town can have access to, to the draining structures, or if they need to repair anything here. Um, one, one, um, concern from the, um, from the Millbrook Condo Association is, uh, who is going to maintain these gian walls, um, and who's gonna maintain the fences. So I spoke with our clients and, um, they will take the, uh, responsibility of maintenance of the gian walls and as well as the fences. So this is our, our latest plan. Um, the, uh, Millbrook Con Association, uh, likes the plan, um, and I'm hoping the commission is, is satisfied with this plan. If so, we would like to move on to, to the next step, which, which would be to hand over the, the plan to, um, our, our associate, um, a wetlands person to, to prepare a planting plan.\n\nSpeaker 11: And, um, from our part, we also would have to add a de, uh, detail for the gian walls and, um, and put some erosion control measures on, on the plan. And that would be our approach to present the, the final plan, the commission, what we would think would be the final plan, um, at the, at the next upcoming meeting. Not, not the next one. We actually would like to, to be on the agenda, just, just in, in about a month from now to allow my clients to come back from, from, um, from, from, uh, out of the country. So that's, that's where we are today.","timeStart":792.825,"timeEnd":891.655,"chunkIndex":7},{"id":"35d9f95f-fd85-436d-9672-2de37d163c29","content":"Speaker 3: All right. Thanks. Um, so one of the questions I thought about is, uh, little notes on the plan. I don't know if you have to do notes or some sort of more formal, um, uh, agreement between you or the applicant, 66 r and 9 93. Just letting you know, for me, it would be the administrator know in future years whose responsibility it is, because I just don't want them to look at the, uh, property lines and say, Hey, 9 93, you're supposed to take care of this. So is that gonna be addressed in future iterations of the, of the plan?\n\nSpeaker 11: Um, I, I, I, I think it, we can put a note on the plan to that effect, but I think there actually has to be some kind of a document, um, besides the plan to a, that if an agreement, an agreement between the two, the two parties,\n\nSpeaker 3: Parties. Since, since that's the case, I think that, that we'd wanna add that to our, um, list of, um, you know, deliverables for the next meeting or the next time you get here. So we also can look at that, um, agreed upon document.\n\nSpeaker 11: Okay. Absolutely. Alright,\n\nSpeaker 3: Moving along. I see that, uh, David Kaplan has his hand up. I, so I'm gonna go with David first.","timeStart":896.145,"timeEnd":973.545,"chunkIndex":8},{"id":"1d679d46-928f-494e-9cd0-b8c8543be725","content":"Speaker 8: Well, thank you, Chuck. I'm not sure the order either, but, um, so just refresh my memory Al, um, so that the, the call out estimated FEMA a hundred year flood elevation at 73 1, that, that buffer around that was from the GIS Right. And that, and we're, we're to assume that that line is more accurately just wherever we see the 73 1 contours, we should follow that, correct?\n\nSpeaker 11: That, that, that, that is correct. Um, so what I have here is the old, old line, and if we look closely, where it hits is 73 and change right there. Mm-hmm . I also, I also looked at the, the, uh, flow profile, a detailed study of the, of the brook. And that's what I, I came up with also 73 point 0.1.\n\nSpeaker 8: Right.\n\nSpeaker 11: So that's,\n\nSpeaker 8: But okay,\n\nSpeaker 11: I'm just saying that, that this is no longer the case, that the water actually is ponding up over here on this side because of the, of the wall that's there. Right. And, and it goes out.\n\nSpeaker 8: Okay. Thank you for that. Um, couple more quick ones. Um, the proposed wood fence again, can you just remind me what the, is that just more of the property line delineation or is that serving an another purpose?\n\nSpeaker 11: Uh, it serves the purpose of preventing, uh, plows snow snowplow snowplows from pushing snow onto, onto the brook. So it's a good barrier. Um, we can have at four foot height or six feet high, um, whichever the commission will like. Um, but that the, the main purpose is really prevent, um, snow from going into the brook.","timeStart":975.035,"timeEnd":1086.075,"chunkIndex":9},{"id":"3b74ebd3-1804-4b8b-8b9c-42a1010d9ebe","content":"Speaker 8: Okay. Great. And that's, um, have we seen a detail of it? Is there an opening, I know there's, you know, minimum openings at the bottom of fences for wildlife passage, or\n\nSpeaker 11: I was thinking six inches would be appropriate, but if the commission thinks we should have more, certainly can do that. And we'll, we'll have a detail on the plan for that too.\n\nSpeaker 8: Alright. And that's, um, so it'll be, it's not like a, a post and rail fence. This will be a closed slat sort of fence with minimal, like, um, view, I guess, or Yes.\n\nSpeaker 11: Opportunities\n\nSpeaker 8: To. Okay.\n\nSpeaker 11: It'll be a solid, solid fence, basically. Solid.\n\nSpeaker 8: Okay. Yeah. Thank you. I didn't , I couldn't find the words. Um, so for the easement too, for that fence, if there, if it's serving a purpose and there's, you know, plowing in that area where the opening is, did the property owner consider some type of gate that could open up in the event that the, the city did need to access the easement, therefore having a more consistent barrier and less opportunity for plowing snow into the resource?\n\nSpeaker 11: Um, uh, no. I, I, I haven't thought about a gate, but I, I don't think we really wanna have anything, um, in the, in the path, you know, of, of the town getting a, a, a car, you know, a truck up there nearby. Um, uh, I was just, just leave it open. I mean, usually we don't want to put anything on an easement.","timeStart":1087.825,"timeEnd":1183.125,"chunkIndex":10},{"id":"c1d10a78-ecb0-41ac-99eb-7c398805465c","content":"Speaker 8: Right. No, that's understood. Um, and I also remember a comment too, from last meeting about the grass slope down to the planted area. And I think there was a little bit of trepidation on that being open and accessible. Was there any kind of, um, did you look at any kind of screening or denser plantings that would kind of prohibit access? Or, or is, did you take that into consideration?\n\nSpeaker 11: I'm gonna, uh, so we're gonna address that with the, with the, uh, planting plan. Um, there was some concern about the stability of this slope. Uh, it is a two to one slope. I mean, construction wise, it would probably be covered with some jute matting until, until it establishes itself. But what, what you're talking about here is, is an the upper portion to, to perhaps put some, some kind of bushes or some vegetated, uh, barrier. Is that what I'm, that's why I'm understanding, yeah.\n\nSpeaker 8: Yeah. That, that's what I, I thought so. Yeah. I mean, if that's, um, I'm not sure if this plan is still in the works, but yeah, it'd be good to see that\n\nSpeaker 11: It is, it is in the works. And, um, but the planting plan will, will show that. And, and my thinking is, is between the CONT 78 and, and the 77. Right. Right. In the end. This, in this band right there.\n\nSpeaker 8: Okay, great. Thanks Al. Um, that's all I have.\n\nSpeaker 3: Uh, sorry. Uh, Susan Chapnick was next.","timeStart":1184.415,"timeEnd":1280.325,"chunkIndex":11},{"id":"9c8b1a2b-1753-4a1d-862b-7678e27445c1","content":"Speaker 7: I love when, um, the other commissioners ask all my questions then, then I don't have to follow up too much . Um, so thank you, uh, Dave Morgan. Um, I wanted to thank Al, um, this is great. I, I see you, you put thought into changing this and, and, uh, making it more, um, uh, in line with what the commission had asked for in our last meeting in January. So that I, I appreciate that. Um, I am a little concerned about the easement as well as, as Dave Kaplan, just because I, I do understand the idea of nothing over an easement. However, if we are plowing in this area and that fence you're proposing is a reminder and, and a prevent preventative measure to get, preventing the snow from getting in there, I'm a little concerned about plowing there. I don't know if maybe that can get handled with an operation and maintenance plan, which I would like to see for this property as well. I know you talked about a maintenance agreement for the gian walls and, um, maybe a maintenance agreement for maintaining the fence for where a snow plow snow, um, where snow going to go, snow plowing procedures, that kind of thing. So, so maybe a, an operation and maintenance plan that would be formalized and, um, agreed to in, in some kind of a legal document by the, the owners of 66 and 66 R would, would ease my mind about that. And I'm looking forward to seeing the planting plan filled out, um, like you discussed. Thank you.","timeStart":1283.545,"timeEnd":1387.055,"chunkIndex":12},{"id":"f2a0ef39-3360-42d3-b06c-cb916855acbf","content":"Speaker 11: Can I, can I just add, um, oh, sure. On, uh, on, on, on this opening here, um, what one thought that I'm having is, is, is that we could plant bushes over here, just plant bushes. Small, small, small bushes that would also keep the snow out, um, but also not prevent, um, maintenance from the town. Just, just,\n\nSpeaker 7: Yeah, that sounds, that sounds like a great idea. Plus it would give a little more vegetation, so, yeah.\n\nSpeaker 11: Okay.\n\nSpeaker 7: Yeah.\n\nSpeaker 3: Alright. Uh, Nathaniel Stevens.\n\nSpeaker 9: Thanks, Chuck. Um, thanks Al, this plan definitely looks, uh, steps in the right direction. I think we're almost there. Um, I guess, can you just tell me how wide the town's easement easement is? I can can't, is it 10 feet? Is that what the plan says?\n\nSpeaker 11: It's 10, 10 feet, yes.","timeStart":1388.235,"timeEnd":1440.645,"chunkIndex":13},{"id":"9fd04b5b-b0b1-4843-921f-3addc768e782","content":"Speaker 9: Okay. All right. Because I guess I like, sort of like the idea that David Kaplan had of maybe, I don't know if you, I guess 10 feet is kind of wide for a, a swing, a swing fence, you know, that would be mounted. The, uh, the gate, essentially gate type of gate fence would be mounted on the, uh, 66 outside the easement, and then the gate could swing over it and connect it to the other side. So that's, that was what I was thinking. But 10 feets kind of long on that. Um, and turn, I agree with the others that I think we do need actual, an actual easement, uh, granted by the condo association to the owners of the 66 66 R to do the maintenance to maintain this plan. I would caution about putting all the specifics about an operation maintenance plan in that easement in case it needs to be changed. But there could be language just to the effect of they grant their, to, they grant the owners of 66, 66 r permission to maintain it per this plan and per any other requirements of the conservation Commission. So I would like to see, uh, uh, really ultimately a recorded easement before we do a final, final sign off, but maybe even a draft as we move forward. That's it. Thanks.\n\nSpeaker 11: Just,\n\nSpeaker 3: Uh, sorry, Al, go. Alex.\n\nSpeaker 11: Tha tha Thank you. Uh, just to get clarification, um, it'll be, I can, I can put a, I can put on a plan to a proposed easement for, for maintenance around these areas here. Is that what the commission is looking for? Or is, was it actually a le um, a written document?","timeStart":1440.755,"timeEnd":1543.015,"chunkIndex":14},{"id":"bf05091d-4a37-4eef-8f20-6fae3cb3f21c","content":"Speaker 9: I think we need a written document, because this plan won't be recorded. I think the owners, we need something on notice in case the condo association sells land or something that, you know, this is gonna stay. So yeah, it will be a separate legal document, an easement document that would be recorded at the registry of the land court that would formalize the agreement of the condo association to allow the 66 66 r folks owners to maintain that.\n\nSpeaker 11: Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 3: We have Brian McBride.\n\nSpeaker 10: Uh, ye yes. Uh, yeah. And I'll echo the others. Al this is great progress. I'm so glad you're, uh, you're guiding us in the right direction here. Just maybe a kind of technical question that others may already know the answer to, but looking at the drawing, maybe you could help me interpret at, at what level, uh, does the planted area flood, like how, how much higher than the, the marked Millbrook height does the river have to rise in order, in order for that section to flood? And the second related question, you mentioned the puddling on the neighbor's yard. Will this, do, do you anticipate that this change here will help or hinder or change their experience with the river in any way?","timeStart":1543.775,"timeEnd":1620.175,"chunkIndex":15},{"id":"c45505d3-cc94-416b-9b58-039d35513e3b","content":"Speaker 11: Um, okay. Well, uh, the, the, the, to to the first question, the, uh, the bank here is that elevation SE 75. Um, and the bottom we're proposing is that 72.8. 'cause we wanna get, we wanna get lower, we wanna get low to create some flood storage. Um, so we are creating the flood storage. That's why I have to go low. And this, this elevation is gonna be the same ation as the adjacent property. Now, this area is flooding here. This will flat out, uh, it's, and I also have a high point over here, 74.5. So I'm bringing down this, this little bit, a few inches lower so it doesn't build up as much, um, on the adjacent property. And, and, but it, the will, it will you, what you will see is, is water on, on both sides. That's what eventually you'll see, um, in, in large storms, it will just up and, and come out at 74.5 mm-hmm . Um, so I, I don't think you're gonna see this dry. Uh, let's put this in large events. No.\n\nSpeaker 10: Okay. Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 3: Uh, I had a couple questions. Al um, when I person out there, we had talked about a vegetated buffer strip, um, which in my mind would be located, um, probably from the gian wall all the way to the end of the, uh, maybe just in back of the, I think I'm gonna call one of those things a shed. So heading screen left. Yeah. So over there. Does, do we still have that, uh, in this plan? Are we proposing five or 10 foot buffer strip?","timeStart":1622.065,"timeEnd":1718.975,"chunkIndex":16},{"id":"de8939c3-4ad1-445f-9bc9-817a84620701","content":"Speaker 11: Uh, I'm not, not, I'm not proposing that at this, on this plan. No. I mean, we basically kind of isolating ourselves with these fences we just isolating from the brook.\n\nSpeaker 3: Sure. Well, the point wasn't to isolate, it was to restore. And so, um, this area next to the bank and just above the bank is, uh, you know, important habitat. And I think it would align pretty good with Nathaniel, David, and Susan's question about how do we stop snow from going through that gap. Um, and so if it was a vegetated buffer strip, which, um, you know, this might be something where you've come in on this project late, but it was something that was pretty much always talked about. So that, uh, raised area that would have some native plants in it, which would provide habitat, escape cover over wintering. Um, and bank stabilization, I believe is very important. And another thing that, um, I wanna make sure is that everyone notices that the, uh, the grade is heading from the street towards the brook, and there's gonna be a six, six inch gap underneath the brook. So we wanna, we wanna at least try to filter some of that out, slow it down, uh, you know, take the sediment side of it. And I think the vegetative buffer strip would do all that. So, um, I'm hear from commissioners. Uh, I'm not sure. Uh, well, I'm, I'm actually sure it's needed, but, uh, let's hear, uh, what, what commissioners say? Uh, Nathaniel Stevens.","timeStart":1719.995,"timeEnd":1822.825,"chunkIndex":17},{"id":"7f2c47a9-61b3-47b1-8541-7366095e4cf9","content":"Speaker 9: Thanks, Chuck. On that, I do recall we discussed a, a buffer strip, but to help me, uh, talk about more, Al can you point out where the existing chain link fence is, or existing fence fence that's up. Um, if, you know, is it because it, is it about where the proposed wood fence is?\n\nSpeaker 11: Or is it, I think it's, I think it's further down here for, for, for further down the bank. Um,\n\nSpeaker 9: But is it the same length?\n\nSpeaker 11: Oh, the same length? Um, yeah, I believe so. I think it starts over here and it goes around, yeah.\n\nSpeaker 9: Yeah. Okay. It is,\n\nSpeaker 11: It is, it is open over here. Yeah. Still, you know.\n\nSpeaker 9: Okay. Yeah, that's what I, I'm remembering because I kind of remember standing sort of on the easement about where the arrow is for the gian wall and discussing, having the chuck, having the vegetative buffer enhanced more where actually, where the new, the second fence is going to be in that area. I don't recall us putting, guess where,\n\nSpeaker 3: Where's that area? Um, um, al can you show\n\nSpeaker 11: That would be this area here? This","timeStart":1823.565,"timeEnd":1891.555,"chunkIndex":18},{"id":"4cf189d1-e99e-4804-8fb2-374e4f9071e1","content":"Speaker 9: Area? Yeah. Yeah. A little bit. A little bit to the right. A smidge towards the easement. Yeah. But from around the air, that area was gonna be more vegetated, but there wasn't, I recall that the fence, the fence was just gonna be replaced. And then after that, that new, the fence, existing fence was gonna be repair. Then the vegeta, the vegetated area and enhanced planting area would be, it's, it's just, it's so narrowed down by that one story building and the approaching the shed that there wasn't really much room to plant anything. The, the bank is so steep there really as a practical matter, you couldn't do any,\n\nSpeaker 3: Well, let me see if I can nudge your, uh, recollection. So it also had to do with the cars and trucks and material being parked right up against the bank and the fence that was there, the chain length fence. And then, so we wanted to back everything up. Um, I don't know how far it went. My recollection was we talked about all the way down to the only opening that I remember, which was down by that shed\n\nSpeaker 9: Shed. Yeah.\n\nSpeaker 3: Yeah. And so, um, that was the first attempt at solving this replant the bag. But, um, yeah, I'll take, um,\n\nSpeaker 9: Maybe David Morgan remembers. Yeah, I think the last time, I'm trying to remember. David and I have been out there twice, I think since we were, I was out there with you. Maybe. So maybe the conversation evolved and we'll just drop that point. I just don't, we were","timeStart":1891.555,"timeEnd":1981.585,"chunkIndex":19},{"id":"fcd4f27c-ab85-4a3c-b5ef-3a96004f2f56","content":"Speaker 11: Right. Can can I just say something, uh, we commission there, me mentioned earlier, I mean, I've talked about putting some vegetation here. I mean, we can certainly expand it through here up to this point. Like this whole area here provides some veg, some, um, vegetation. Um, I, I'm under the impression I, and, and as you mentioned, I, I'm come, come in a little bit late on this, but I think my client already had planted some, some, um, bushes here or some plants that the commission re requested, but I'm not sure.\n\nSpeaker 9: I think so. Yeah, David Morgan can probably help, but that, I kind of remember that a little bit, but I'm not sure.\n\nSpeaker 2: Yeah, I do remember that, uh, they put in fresh mulch and maybe installed a couple of plants, you know, there, there weren't anything, uh, beneficial. So I, I think whatever you hand to the wetlands consultant will be more appropriate for that area. One thing I wanted to point out, that dot where your cursor is at the end of the easement? Yeah. That's a tree that the owners planted, right?\n\nSpeaker 11: Um,\n\nSpeaker 2: I think that's the location I remember they have.\n\nSpeaker 11: It is a tree. It's a small tree, yes. It's a se uh, seven inch diameter. They, there's a name for that tree. Um,\n\nSpeaker 9: Is it evergreen? Is it the Evergreen? I think she,\n\nSpeaker 11: Yes, it is an evergreen, yeah.\n\nSpeaker 9: Yes. Okay. Yeah, she had a name for it. Evelyn had a name for it,","timeStart":1982.195,"timeEnd":2076.045,"chunkIndex":20},{"id":"0f949d4d-6315-4549-a4d4-a8edcb64e123","content":"Speaker 2: As I remember that was planted by their son or is like a tree dedicated to their son. So just at a decency, I would say let's, you know, plant around and, you know, allow that gap to remain all considerations about plowing and everything included in my recommendation there, because they're not gonna wanna plow through their sun's tree. And then if they have a buffer strip, uh, you know, like Chuck is suggesting from the tree up to the gian wall, all the better to minimize the runoff and other impacts. So, um, just wanted to call that to your attention.\n\nSpeaker 3: Uh, I'm not done with this, but Susan, go ahead, .\n\nSpeaker 7: Thanks, Chuck. Just, just the talk of the, the fence. Um, now I'm confused. So is the chain link fence getting removed because I, I don't think we want two fences parallel to each other.\n\nSpeaker 11: Yes, it would. Yeah, it would.\n\nSpeaker 7: Yes, it would. Okay. Okay.\n\nSpeaker 11: And, and, and I'm looking at the CAD drawing here. I see these little xs that, that means. Uh, i, it's the fence, the, the o the chain link fence right there. Okay. Okay. Was up there. So, well, it has to be removed.","timeStart":2076.985,"timeEnd":2159.725,"chunkIndex":21},{"id":"47a021bb-62a9-4647-8feb-913b56728f1d","content":"Speaker 7: Yeah. Okay. That sounds good. And I do recall, um, Chuck and Nathaniel, that, that we did ask for some planting by, you know, by the bank here, um, where the fence was. Uh, and it was some moderate planting done, I think in 2024 maybe. I mean, it, this has been going on a long time. So when we asked them to remove debris and, um, you know, remains of, uh, artificial turf carpet and machinery from, from the resource area. Okay. For, for what that's worth.\n\nSpeaker 11: Thanks.\n\nSpeaker 3: Yeah, sure. Nathaniel, were you gonna talk?\n\nSpeaker 11: No, thank I just thanking Susan for\n\nSpeaker 3: G clearing, clearing the stage. Sure. So yeah, I still have the same concerns. I think we're talking about important habitat area. We're talking about the bank. This is for all intents and purposes a construction site 24 7. This is where the trucks are parked. The, uh, the, uh, approach is gravel. Um, the runoff is likely to pick up, um, pick up, uh, sediment and go in there. So I do think a vegetated bumper strip would stop the plowing from going through. Um, I don't feel that I am restricted from asking for this because, uh, if I don't ask for it, I believe that we'll have stockpile areas right up against the fence in future years, uh, whether it's in the next two or three or four. But at some point we're gonna have trucks and whatnot parked there. And so that may destabilize the, uh, bank.","timeStart":2159.795,"timeEnd":2269.465,"chunkIndex":22},{"id":"d05a33cc-931d-432f-ae51-0f0df0e43800","content":"Speaker 3: So I wanna do the best improvement that we can do while this is in front of us, because it's likely to be the only time we see this, uh, again, hopefully. And so a vegetated buffer strip that's required and perpetuity, and I understand that there was this area that you needed to squeeze between the shed and the bank to get around the other side of the house. Um, you know, I would agree that we don't need that. Maybe it's not 10 feet wide, but it will keep, uh, material away from the bank. It will create the scape cover, it will, uh, be more habitat. Um, I think it's, uh, yeah, and it'll, it'll prevent the runoff from going straight into the stream, at least at the, uh, drainage easement. So I guess that's my last shot at it. Uh, any, oh, so I, sorry. Mike Gillis game has his hand up.\n\nSpeaker 12: Yes. Uh, regarding sediment, then habitat, uh, I'm wondering if it would make sense to, in addition to putting vegetation in that 10 foot easement area to bring it also along the, uh, large, uh, or the long piece of fence, if we plan, have plantings in front of that fence, uh, as well.\n\nSpeaker 3: Yeah. That, that's actually where I was talking about running along the stream, along the fence, creating a, a natural buffer. So yes, I absolutely agree. That's where we need from and, and go down, uh, stream as far as you can go until it may prevent someone from bringing material around the back, which is, uh, what we saw on the site visits.","timeStart":2269.605,"timeEnd":2377.525,"chunkIndex":23},{"id":"7ec8e5f1-401c-476c-8ae6-3172e9f92ab6","content":"Speaker 11: Um, can I, can I get clarification on something? Um, we we're talking about this area behind the fence, correct? Over here, planting this,\n\nSpeaker 3: Uh, I'm talking about the area in front of the fence. And\n\nSpeaker 11: You're talking about here,\n\nSpeaker 3: Mike Gilda game is talking about. Yeah,\n\nSpeaker 12: I'm, I'm talking about that area along the long fence on the upstream side. Yeah. Or on the up bank side. Yeah.\n\nSpeaker 3: Are you on the, uh, up side or are you on the, uh, stream side?\n\nSpeaker 12: Not stream side. On the front. Okay. Here. No, on the other side of the fence.\n\nSpeaker 11: On the other side in here.\n\nSpeaker 12: Yeah. I'm thinking that along there, because you're gonna have a gap under the fence anyway. Uh, but if you have vegetation there, it'll create a little habitat and also, uh, might prevent sediment from getting down to the stream.\n\nSpeaker 11: Um, I'm not, I'm not thinking, you know, of restricting movement in here too much. How, how wide was the, was the commission thinking? I I don't think 10 feet, 10 feet is not, it is, it's quite, quite a bit.\n\nSpeaker 12: I was just thinking four feet or three feet, just enough co plants of trucks and other vegetable\n\nSpeaker 11: . Would you, would the commission be interested also in having us plant on this side here?","timeStart":2378.825,"timeEnd":2453.725,"chunkIndex":24},{"id":"90790147-8ee5-47d7-9a62-603e9f6d2aab","content":"Speaker 3: So why don't we just say that that's something that's needed. You're gonna have, this is something for your environmental, uh, person to do. I wanna 10 feet, Mike. Others might be agreed to less. I think five is a, is a happy medium, but we're not designing it. So atmos is needs to, it needs to be, uh, uh, big enough to, um, you know, establish a green area that, uh, we'll stay there for a while and keep the sediment from going into the stream. And I see that David Morgan has his hand up.\n\nSpeaker 11: I have a","timeStart":2454.305,"timeEnd":2492.615,"chunkIndex":25},{"id":"5771316a-5d85-4497-8539-0d43d3f11698","content":"Speaker 2: Question for Al, but at first on this question of the buffer zone, um, or buffer strip, I should say, all this while I was thinking that we were talking between top of bank, it's labeled there and fences. And given that amount of area, you know, bank being the first observable break in the elevation, we can assume, and also remember from site visits that a lot of that area is planted with owner mentals and so forth, including that evergreen that we discussed just a few minutes ago. So I think there's ample planting area behind the fences. And to Nathaniel's point, it's true that it narrows as you get screen right, you know, towards the shed. And the bank you can see gets closer to the fence there. So it'll, it'll thin out. But I think that's a decent planting area behind the fence to, you know, prevent sediment and runoff from impacting the brook. I certainly wouldn't disagree with Chuck about or or Mike about putting some in front of the fence, but I would think that that would need protection. And that would probably mean something like a berm to prevent trucks from driving. You\n\nSpeaker 3: Don't have to design it, uh, on a table. Uh,","timeStart":2492.775,"timeEnd":2583.435,"chunkIndex":26},{"id":"7ea037a3-689f-4ae7-8b48-408bc0970352","content":"Speaker 2: Well, I, I, I, I'm not trying to design it. I'm thinking about the stormwater impact of putting something in front of the fence, which would direct flow in the direction of the shed. And then you've got a different problem when it breaks out into the brook past the point of the fence. That's already a very eroded area on this site because it is a low point and it's receiving a bunch of, um, surface flow. So I would just be concerned that like, if we're not letting it go under the fence or through the easement, then it's gonna wind up at that location instead.\n\nSpeaker 3: So how are you preventing trucks and storage from being par put in front with this idea that it already exists?\n\nSpeaker 2: So that brings me to my next question. What's happening with that brick patio that was preexisting? Like you've got fencing on top of it now and gian baskets, and you're excavating, et cetera, at least parts of it. But there is like sort of a triangular shape from the easement to the gian baskets and then down to the fence. My thought being that if that's going away and its entirety, then you're not gonna have the parking in that location. 'cause that was installed for the purpose of storing equipment.","timeStart":2584.105,"timeEnd":2666.375,"chunkIndex":27},{"id":"a610c771-e2cd-4ba3-8a65-33bdcc73f16d","content":"Speaker 3: You're not gonna have parking in that location unless there's a note on the pan and the restriction in the order of conditions. So this is not going to be a site that it, so another step would be to define what this area is going to be between the, I guess that's an erosion control line and the fence. And so for me, I still think I wanna push them back, um, because the town can't get to every spot and do monitoring. So the best we can do here tonight, and you cannot convince me that less is more. So a five foot to three foot vegetated buffer strip in front of the fence, and then leave it up to the environmental scientist or whoever the operatist is or, um, can, can look at that and uh, and decide whether we're going to need some sort of section to fix, you know, storm water. I mean, that, that seems like it needs to be thought about also. Um, what happens to the storm water.\n\nSpeaker 2: Right. So I guess I'll just bear that in mind, is you're designing the, uh, question about the brick patio still open. So could you speak to what's happening with the remainder of the patio?","timeStart":2667.275,"timeEnd":2749.455,"chunkIndex":28},{"id":"6bd9c84e-a2fe-40fe-9df6-48061ce5f00f","content":"Speaker 11: Well, according to what we have right now is to just leave it in place. We would be removing this, this portion of it here. We're not, we're not, we're not planning to remove this. Um, but as, as, as, um, as was mentioned, I mean, some, some, some of this will be probably taken up by, by, um, some vegetated buffer, three foot wide perhaps. Um, but we're not planning to take any more out, um, unless, unless we, we really have to do it. I, I don't see much of a point in, in, in doing it. But, um, the grade, the grades here will remain the same. Um, and the water would be allowed to go underneath the fence. And, um, my, my thinking too is to put some vegetated, um, berm on this side. So you have some on the front, some on the back. Uh, we'll do some on this area here too. As was mentioned before, this is kind of narrow. Um, maybe something can be done, but I'll leave that up to the, to the weapons person. Um,\n\nSpeaker 2: Alright, thanks Al. I, I have one suggestion and just we'll offer a reminder to the commission that, you know, the violation included addition of impervious surface, including the patio and the, um, conversion of the area directly to screen left of number 66 there. That's now a, a brick parking lot itself. So bear that in mind as you consider my suggestion for, you know, protecting plantings in front of the fence. Maybe there's, you know, a, a granite post or similar so that there's an obstruction. Just a thought.","timeStart":2751.125,"timeEnd":2874.045,"chunkIndex":29},{"id":"bb594955-b6cc-45f7-9838-60e066595b58","content":"Speaker 3: No, David, that was, I mean, I, I al I hope you're taking notes. All those things need to be considered. Uh, yeah, I'm thinking with this plan. Yeah. Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 11: Um, absolutely.\n\nSpeaker 3: Nathaniel Stevens.\n\nSpeaker 9: Thanks. Al. I don't know if you're, if you can measure quickly, but I'm just wondering what the distance is between the house, the, or the one story building and the fence at that closest corner. Yeah, from that corner to the fence and Oh yeah. That corner really to the fence. What's, yeah, I recall that being smaller than it looks on the plan.\n\nSpeaker 11: Okay. I have a plan here I can,\n\nSpeaker 9: Oh, okay.\n\nSpeaker 11: That number, it looks like 16 feet.","timeStart":2875.605,"timeEnd":2916.745,"chunkIndex":30},{"id":"b0b50547-541d-4492-83a7-ef2dafbb7467","content":"Speaker 9: 16 feet. Okay. Yeah, it did get narrowed there. Yeah, I just, my recollection of the one or two conversations with the property owners was, there was no mention they were just gonna do the fence and not the planting. So it's gonna, I think it's gonna come as a new, new ask to them. Um, mm-hmm . So just a heads up to folks, you know, one thought that sort of switching gears and maybe it, maybe it is related, is move that planting area over to where the brick patio is next to the avian wall and have the sort of, the more, the mitigation planting area there. I dunno if that's gonna serve all the purposes that Chuck had outlined in terms of trying to capture the stormwater coming down down the site. But, um, I don't know. It would be a more, more, um, wildlife habitat. 'cause it'd be connected with a, a more congregated rather than just a linear strip. But I realize it might have less of a storm water function. So just another, another thought.\n\nSpeaker 3: All right. Um, Brian McBride,\n\nSpeaker 9: You are muted. Brian,","timeStart":2917.255,"timeEnd":2986.775,"chunkIndex":31},{"id":"6ea78418-18f4-41bd-8f0e-bf57846449a5","content":"Speaker 10: I'm just sort of turning over my head, what, what is enough? We've sort of had so many zigzags in this project. Uh, I sort of feel just the, it's a substantial construction project. We're asking the, um, um, owner to do on the left side. And I'm getting the feeling from al that planting along the bank behind the fence may be considered onerous. Uh, maybe a compromise would be planting that triangular area near the brook. Um, and it may not be, uh, a hundred percent what, uh, one would ideally like, but maybe it's a compromise given the substantial nature of the work they're doing in the other part of the property. Just my opinion.\n\nSpeaker 3: Okay. Um, I don't wanna take, it seems like we don't have an agreement on where to go. I feel very strongly about what I said, even though Nathaniel, um, it came up with a compromise. I guess we all see it our own way. Um, so any, uh, anyone, Nathaniel, how do we get it still from here?","timeStart":2990.165,"timeEnd":3056.195,"chunkIndex":32},{"id":"7bf909b0-bf58-4fee-ad52-5da665cd8ee2","content":"Speaker 9: I don't know. I guess Steve, see what others think. I just think that, again, I, I dunno, you know, I, when I was at the, uh, out of the field with talking to the owners, you know, several times I try, did try to make it clear to them that I was not speaking for the commission. You know, David Morgan and I weren't, or I think when the four of us were out there the first time I was out there. What now? Four years ago, three years ago. Uh, but so it's too bad that they're not here to have this discussion, but I do think that they will feel that that's a very narrow area to get access to the shed where that 16 foot dimension is. And they do use that area quite a bit. So to have a five foot, uh, planting area in front of the fence will, you know, be a significant change to the ability of them to use their property and what was discussed.","timeStart":3056.675,"timeEnd":3110.525,"chunkIndex":33},{"id":"ed1ab658-6f15-4f66-9c34-51674abe94f4","content":"Speaker 3: Sure, sure. Well, that's, that's designing and, and we're all not there. So if we say, Hey, the wetland sign comes up with a plan, the plan is that this little corner next to the gian wall that needs to be filled out more. It sounded like a few commission. I would, this is how I would say it. We talked about that. So you fill that out more. There's a desire to have some vegetation in front of the fence, but also a desire not to, um, impede any kind of, uh, service area. So it's stops somewhere in front of it, but not so far in front of it that it looks like you're not doing what we asked. So, um, you know, and this is why you get paid the big bucks, al, so you take that to the wetland scientists and you come back with a plan and we all, uh, we all talk about it again. But I think that's what you're gonna get from the commission tonight, except for what Susan and David Moore, uh, David Kaplan's gonna say. So, um, uh, I don't know who went first. Um, I'm gonna go with Susan.\n\nSpeaker 4: It was David.\n\nSpeaker 3: Okay. Mm-hmm .","timeStart":3110.525,"timeEnd":3173.375,"chunkIndex":34},{"id":"17dba78b-4b9f-4cc4-bf7d-48c86bc8328e","content":"Speaker 8: Thank you. Thank you Susan. Um, yeah, I guess, you know, after all the conversation, I guess what Al comes back with next time, you know, I just like, like to see how this does systematically the proposal does systematically address, um, what was spelled out in the enforcement order and how it mitigates that, you know, just, I was thumbing through the, um, the near map aerial photos and historically, and it does seem that most of the new development that wasn't permitted encompasses that, that brick patio area. And there has been a lot of disturbance or historic disturbance and development between the building that's marked one story, um, to the yes, that one, and then south to the fence line. Um, so I guess, you know, my preference, I guess, would be to see a plan that comes back that has more robust planting to the left of that easement. You know, connecting to the gian wall, uh, either, you know, in front of and behind the fence and, uh, po and for the, um, property owner to consider some planting, you know, behind that, uh, proposed wood fence to help with any kind of stormwater runoff over that bank and to stabilize it a little bit from the sheet flow. So that'd be my preference, but again, I think ultimately, uh, we'd just like to see the final plan systematically address, uh, the issues in the enforcement order. Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 3: Yeah. Uh, Susan,","timeStart":3175.385,"timeEnd":3273.765,"chunkIndex":35},{"id":"8c3a20d0-362f-4dcf-8488-f9cd8f5f5c6b","content":"Speaker 7: Sorry, I was muted. Um, I did find the sketch, if you want me to put it up from 2024, where we did identify planting in the area that Chuck is talking about. We didn't say if it was in front or behind the fence, but we were just identifying this was what Nathaniel put together. Um, kind of a, a quick sketch if you wanna share it, or I can just email it again. It should be in the files.\n\nSpeaker 3: No, just put, just put it up for a second. If, um, if it's a quick second, because I'm just, I just think it's really in Al's hands at this point. We're still in loggerheads Sure, sure. With where we're going. Okay.\n\nSpeaker 7: Mm-hmm . Um, can I share?\n\nSpeaker 8: I,\n\nSpeaker 3: Um,\n\nSpeaker 7: I think I can. Do you see it? Yes. There you go. Okay. So the, the blue areas were, um, I, I think we were talking about planting in the red areas. Were where we talking about there was disturbance. Um, I don't, I didn't pull up the meeting minutes from this meeting. Um, I, I don't seem to, there must be, let's see, 11 July 11th, 24. I could try to pull those up, but this has been going on so long. I, I, I fear that we've forgotten some of the things that we've said.\n\nSpeaker 3: Um, so the blue, the blue area is the planting or, or the red area was the planting, which was it Susan,\n\nSpeaker 7: I thought it was the blue area, but I could like, and the red area\n\nSpeaker 3: Was, that would be my recollection,\n\nSpeaker 7: Flood storage.","timeStart":3282.795,"timeEnd":3371.775,"chunkIndex":36},{"id":"f9c32791-b57c-46ab-9f1a-86e4be963a2a","content":"Speaker 3: I think we went out there with the under with an idea that maybe we could just plant our way outta this. Yeah. So, um, okay. So that's enough. Um, let's just conclude this. Lemme stop sharing. I appreciate what David Captain said, but I, I don't think planting behind the fence addresses future storage area and cars and material parked there. There was, when we were there, um, there were plows just parked there all summer, kind of right up against the bank. Um, and some, and some other things. This is an active site. This guy's a landscaper. I think there's going to be things around. So I'm just trying to create a buffer. Uh, so I'm still stuck where, where I wanna be, which is just some sort of buffer in front to keep the front of those trucks back a bit. And it would also stop the, uh, sediment from going through.\n\nSpeaker 3: But I'm just gonna say to al that, uh, again, you know, we're gonna, we're gonna leave this up to you. You've heard all of this, like to see a plan that has a vegetated buffer strip and you'd have to justify it because of all the different opinions on this commission and maybe you might even have to change it when you come back. So that's it. So as I understand it, you wanna be, uh, continued for a month? That would be, yes. March 5th. And, uh, so I heard, yes. Okay. You get a motion to continue this item on March 5th.\n\nSpeaker 11: So moved.","timeStart":3372.455,"timeEnd":3461.255,"chunkIndex":37},{"id":"e05620b5-43b8-4552-86f2-310245bdf5f8","content":"Speaker 3: That was Nathaniel Stevens Second. Second . Yeah. Mike Gil's game. That's all, that's all I'm saying. Um, okay. And so we have Susan Chapnick. Yes. And David White. Yes. David Kaplan. Yes. Brian McBride. Yes. Mike Gilda game. Yes. And Nathaniel Stevens. Yes. And Chuck Terone says yes. Alright, Al uh, appreciate you, uh, taking the time and, uh, we'll see you in a month.\n\nSpeaker 11: Yes. Um, I just wanna thank, uh, the commissioners for taking the time to go over the plan and to, um, for offering all the, the great ideas that, that we just discussed. And I'll, uh, take them into account and, and come back with a plan that hopefully will be, uh, we'll be, uh, um, amenable to you. Sounds good. We\n\nSpeaker 3: Appreciate it. Well, you, you are actually doing a really good job. Yeah. You're getting, you're getting close. Well appreciated. Thank you. Yeah,\n\nSpeaker 11: Thanks a lot. Have a good night. Thanks Al.","timeStart":3461.925,"timeEnd":3527.995,"chunkIndex":38},{"id":"4ef55d56-a37f-4202-89ac-ac332501c06f","content":"Speaker 3: Okay, Jackie and David Morgan. This goes on the agenda and stays on the agenda, and I wanna see underneath that everyone knows that, um, that this is being continued until March 5th at the applicant's request. So it'll be on the next agenda, even though we're not gonna talk about it. And so that's how we're gonna set up the agenda, uh, moving forward. So not wondering, our commissioners are not wondering when the next time, time we'll see something. So, uh, I'm gonna go on to the next item, which is, um, Milton Street. So it's, uh, 1 0 2 through 1 0 4 Milton Street, request for a certificate of compliance. And I know that this is an LEC project and I see Rich Kirby here. So I think the best way to do this is to have Rich introduce himself for the record and bring the commission up to date with, uh, this request for, uh, compliance. And when I looked at the, when I looked at the information, it looked like it had come in front of the commission before. 'cause I saw a date of, uh, 2022. So maybe you can explain that, uh, to me in the commission also, rich.","timeStart":3529.215,"timeEnd":3602.955,"chunkIndex":39},{"id":"58a9f41b-4284-403a-8230-a2f66698f956","content":"Speaker 13: Sure. Uh, good evening. Rich Kirby from LEC Environmental with me this evening is also Stephan, uh, Bihar, who, uh, is the, uh, was the applicant. He's the, uh, was the proponent. The property has since been sold to the, uh, homeowners that live there now. But, um, yeah, I think, I think likely what happened was is Stefan, uh, applied for the certificate of co compliance back in, uh, 2022. Some towns do partial certificates of compliance. We understand Arlington does not until the monitoring period, uh, for the plantings has, um, been completed. So, uh, that has since happened. We've monitored the plantings, we submitted our memorandum with photographs and receipts, documenting, um, everything is, uh, up to snuff, if you will, with respect to the, uh, with respect to the plantings. And so I think we were proceeding now with the, uh, with the certificate of compliance request.","timeStart":3604.375,"timeEnd":3659.515,"chunkIndex":40},{"id":"13b2cb8d-d1ff-4f7e-a703-9ddbb5a20122","content":"Speaker 13: Um, I have the plans on my screen. This is the as-built plan that was submitted. It shows all of the, um, correct construction for the patios, the permeable pavers, the um, flood vents, et cetera. And, um, Stefan and Albert had installed Albert, uh, ante, his Stefan's business partner. Uh, they had installed a vinyl fence around the property when they had, um, as they were completing construction in that, David noted that that was not in the notice of intent application or on the approved plans. And, um, looking back, he is correct. There was a chain link fence surrounding the property. And, and, uh, Stefan and Albert simply replaced it with a, a poly vinyl fence. Um, this is the mitigation plan here that, uh, was submitted with this project. And, uh, you know, it shows all of the plantings, but, um, does not, we certainly doesn't, um, indicate offense.","timeStart":3660.735,"timeEnd":3730.855,"chunkIndex":41},{"id":"d05c3f9f-6cc2-47ca-ad84-271cac962533","content":"Speaker 13: So we had talked a little bit about that. Here's our mitigation memorandum here. Um, are some photographs of the plantings in the back there. And of course the, the poly vinyl fence. To provide a little bit of context, uh, this site is in the flood zone near the outer edge of the flood zone. It's about 1200 feet from male wife brook. Um, the flood zone elevation here is, uh, roughly seven. Here we have the USGS map with the distance to a life brook. Here's a scale for, uh, context and of course the aerial image. Um, this is a different scale, one which is 200 feet. So the brook is way down here 'cause you can see all the development separating the brook from the actual, uh, project location. Um, we had talked with David about that. And then if, if the commission recalls, we had also worked with the commission on getting permits for two other projects with Stephen and Albert.","timeStart":3731.995,"timeEnd":3791.045,"chunkIndex":42},{"id":"5a3ef588-ebcf-4186-917b-f31f18904236","content":"Speaker 13: Uh, namely 14 and 16 e the street, and then more recently, 51 Birch Street. Uh, both of those sites were also in the floodplain. And, and those plans actually showed a, a proposed poly vinyl fence, uh, perimeter fence around the property. Um, and the, uh, the commission had had approved it. So while we are, um, while David is right, that the, the notice of intent and the plans for Milton Street to not include the perimeter fence, it is replacing a chain link fence that was there. And we're hoping that it's a relatively, uh, minor thing considering the commission has approved such fences on other projects in the floodplain since this permit was issued. Uh, I do have the details for, uh, Edith Street and Birch Street, if you'd like me to get into that as well. But thought I would start the conversation off there.\n\nSpeaker 3: Yeah, maybe we don't have to get into some other projects. Uh, but, uh, any con anything from the commission? Uh, I have a few questions, but I just wanna see if others, any questions first? So I don't see any hands. So I'm looking at the, uh, certificate of compliance, uh, checklist. It looks like it's dated. Uh, it's either one 18 or seven 18. So is it one or seven 18? Uh, anybody?\n\nSpeaker 13: Stephan, you might have to chime in there because I Stefan's outfit.\n\nSpeaker 3: Well, I think this is something, uh, that our staff fills out.\n\nSpeaker 13: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were talking about the request.","timeStart":3791.585,"timeEnd":3888.995,"chunkIndex":43},{"id":"da6b9f41-6d92-488d-8ba3-30ae7e1fa8dc","content":"Speaker 3: So, so, alright, let's say it's seven. I'm gonna say it's seven. So this wasn't reviewed just before this meeting. No one has gone out there in seven months, six months to, to review this. David Morgan.\n\nSpeaker 13: We have not.\n\nSpeaker 3: Okay. Um, so that was my first question. And then it says, uh, on this checklist it says three years moratorium or monitoring. Yeah. This is pretty small, so sorry about that. And it says non-compliant, but we're over, um, h how did we get there? Are we three years now because, um, the planting had gone in or we're still a little shy of planting.\n\nSpeaker 2: We're out on planting\n\nSpeaker 3: The, you're good on planting? So this is in compliance that we've gone three years?\n\nSpeaker 2: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 3: Okay. And then it says driveway is slightly larger than the approved plan. Could you let us know what's slightly means and numbers like half inch to two feet along the entire length? I mean, it's just, it doesn't really let us understand where the problem is. What end or what side?\n\nSpeaker 2: Jackie, do you recall details about that one? I believe you did the site visit for this.\n\nSpeaker 6: Yeah, I think it was minimally, it looked minimally larger than the plan, but I don't remember exactly how much I, I have the photos here if you wanna see the photos for my site visit.","timeStart":3890.095,"timeEnd":3991.645,"chunkIndex":44},{"id":"3080bab1-02cf-4f44-8a3a-c01c23d79785","content":"Speaker 3: But as, um, you know, we're all doing this all the time. Uh, you're not concerned about the amount that it was, uh, over the approved amount that we, uh, that we conditioned. So in, in your opinion, since you saw it, is this an issue we have to pick up and, uh, discuss or is it something we should just understand that these things happen during construction?\n\nSpeaker 6: Yeah, I didn't think it was a significant enough issue. Um, I did note there was an additional planted area in the back, and then there was also a fence going across the middle of the yard.\n\nSpeaker 3: Yeah. And it sounds like from, uh, from, uh, Rick Rich Kirby's, uh, description that we never addressed the fence. So it was, it was just basically swapped out with an existing chain link fence. I think that my initial concern would be, do we have some sort of, uh, wildlife access gaps in these fences? And any pictures of those, those are the only pictures that I think that we would need to see. And I know that there's snow out there now. So those were really my questions. Uh, 'cause I know that if we, if we permitted a fence, we would've asked for that. Right. And,\n\nSpeaker 2: And Rich, when we spoke, we talked about there being a gap at the bottom of the fence right there. As I remember, there's there sort of mulch at the","timeStart":3992.745,"timeEnd":4094.475,"chunkIndex":45},{"id":"798b8f32-471e-4b1c-b5b6-ee2e6682deaa","content":"Speaker 13: . Yeah. If I could, I'll share my, share my screen again. I have some photographs from the, uh, from the restoration monitoring or the planting monitoring. Uh, it's, it's hard to see. The gaps are, seem to be intermittent because there's mulch in the, in the landscape bed. But you can see, and you know, certainly mulch is easy enough for any critters to, you know, dig through and, uh, make a path. But you can see some daylight shining through the fence there and back here in the corners. Um, so I, I mean, we're, we're in a pretty densely developed area. We're talking about squirrels and chipmunks for the most part. Obviously, you know, chipmunk or rather squirrels can get over. Um, it'd be very easy for chipmunks to get under that fence. I don't think we're having, you know, turtles nesting in these backyards or anything like that. Um, but, you know, I defer to the commission on it.\n\nSpeaker 3: Sure. Um, and we're gonna go right to Nathaniel Seitz.\n\nSpeaker 9: Thanks. Yeah. Along those lines, I was also thinking not so much of wildlife for the, maybe for the reasons Rich said that floodplain, you know, just make sure some water can get under there. I, you know, we're not in the velocity zone. Looks like we're on the edge of the floodplain, but I think Yeah, there's some sunlight there on the, on the right. So it's not blocking too much flood.","timeStart":4095.565,"timeEnd":4175.325,"chunkIndex":46},{"id":"300bc3e2-f82b-4615-88dc-74711a0e719a","content":"Speaker 13: I, I, yeah. And I think in this area, there's so much, um, structure between the river and this lot that when, when this site does or when it, when it will experience flood water. I, I really think it's gonna be a rising and lowering. I don't think we're gonna have, you know, water moving in, uh, like a wave. Right. Right, right through the backyard. Right, right. So I, I fully anticipate, you know, first of all, if there was any, um, flood level differentiation from one side of the fence to the other. These fences are, are so, um, fra, fragile, delicate. I mean, , I'm not sure what you, what word you'd use, but I imagine it would get pushed right over. Uh, we're not talking about, you know, uh, uh, a solid wooden fence or, you know, anything like that. I, that's my opinion. I I, I think the flood water would be, would equalize on either side.\n\nSpeaker 3: Thanks. Alright. I'm gonna go to David Morgan and it looks like David has a picture.\n\nSpeaker 9: David, you're muted.\n\nSpeaker 2: Thank you. So, um, Richard was sharing the map from the flood map. That was from 2010, I think there was the previously approved one. And so they got updated, as you might remember in the last year. And so now the flood plain ends about halfway through the property. You can see here the fenced areas.\n\nSpeaker 13: Oh, okay. Yeah.","timeStart":4176.235,"timeEnd":4271.705,"chunkIndex":47},{"id":"f56977e0-0636-43f0-875b-91b5c3d7674e","content":"Speaker 2: In the back. And so it's receded considerably from mm-hmm . The previous modeling. And I think with this new information, we're talking about a difference of inches rather than feet and elevation change. And so that area that's underneath the fence might be sufficient even if there is, you know, water flowing to allow just that amount to go through. So, you know, when Rich and I spoke, the first thought we had was like, this is so at the edge that probably it's going to be from deposition and the flooding will result from, you know, water coming down, the groundwater being so high that it starts to accumulate. That's, that's likely what will happen. Seeing this, I think that even if there is water coming up from Alewife and rising slowly, you're gonna allow a sufficient amount of it to enter that small area that it won't, the fences won't have a significant impact on changing where the water goes.\n\nSpeaker 9: Thanks. Yeah, I also agree. It's likely not gonna be very deep either, so thanks.\n\nSpeaker 3: Alright. So here we are. And I think it's always better to be lucky than good. And so that installation, uh, seems to have, um, so we never would've permitted that. So I think you got lucky and you got some little bit of light going through there. I don't want anyone to escape anybody's mind that, you know, this was not what we would've allowed. So there's always a visible gap and every fence, I understand we're far out and blah, blah, blah and all that. But it sounds like\n\nSpeaker 13: Yeah. And, and\n\nSpeaker 3: Just","timeStart":4271.925,"timeEnd":4390.345,"chunkIndex":48},{"id":"22909a0b-339a-4947-82b1-0461500b8d4c","content":"Speaker 13: If I could, um, Stefan also understands that for, uh, Edith and Birch, the, the four inch gap at the bottom of the fence was specified on the plans as requested by the commissions. So they know that they need to make sure that that exists when they go for the certificate of compliance, certificates of compliance for those two properties.\n\nSpeaker 3: Yeah. And that's why this missed on this one because it wasn't, defense wasn't talked about, it wasn't part of our discussion, so we didn't, weren't able to condition it. So, uh, yeah, I don't wanna, I don't want, I like, I like to be consistent, but we, we went through that on, uh, what was that, the one down on, uh, right in Manor. Can't think of the name. Park something part. We let them move the fence. It took forever. So I don't wanna go through that again. I agree. But I'm concerned that mulch will be continually piled up against that fence. Um, and that there will, there'll be issues and we can't rely on the gray squirrels to continually create holes for the water to go through. So I'm okay saying all that. We can't have this, um, you know, I'm, I'm, I would, I'm on the fence. Ha ha. Uh, either way. So I would, I would like to know what, if anyone else has an issue with the fence, if not, we're just gonna move on and take a vote. 'cause I see all the rest of these things are resolved. Seeing no hands, uh, comments or motions.\n\nSpeaker 9: I'll make a motion to it. Issue certificate compliance.\n\nSpeaker 3: Nathaniel, and then seconded by\n\nSpeaker 9: That one yet. second.","timeStart":4390.885,"timeEnd":4501.575,"chunkIndex":49},{"id":"e9978645-ecbe-4eed-a69a-be1fd126ac1e","content":"Speaker 3: Brian. Brian McBride. Second it. Okay. So, uh, let's say you Mike Gilda game. Yes. Mike Gilda game and Susan Chapnick. Yes. David White.\n\nSpeaker 14: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 3: David Kaplan. Yes. Brian McBride. Yes. Nathaniel Stevens. Yes. And Chuck Terone says yes. Okay, great.\n\nSpeaker 13: All right. I appreciate that very much. Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 3: Alright, Rick, rich, I . Alright, rich. Thank you very much. It's not like I don't run into Rick all the time. Sorry about. That's all right.\n\nSpeaker 13: I get it a lot. Have a good night everyone. Thanks again.\n\nSpeaker 3: Yep. Bye now. Thank you. Um, okay, so we're moving right along on the agenda. So our next item is, uh, you know, I might have written these down a little bit, uh, differently than the agenda, but let's go with what I'm saying instead of jumping in because I do have everything listed. So right now I have a Water Bodies Working Group update by David White.\n\nSpeaker 14: Okay. We had a brief meeting tonight and we talked about the budget for next year. We're asked to reduce our a application by 10% general town wide thing. So we're put together a new budget lower than last year by 10% and we're gonna review it and bring it to the commission at the next meeting for review and approval. I hope also have a water brother report that's almost done as well. Also, we'll bring that to the commission at our, at the next meeting for review and approval as well.\n\nSpeaker 3: That's great. And you, you're definitely, uh, gonna be ready for the draft to be on the agenda, I guess. Uh, on, on distribution day.","timeStart":4502.345,"timeEnd":4628.205,"chunkIndex":50},{"id":"46a7365d-56a6-4d62-b4b1-90b8cf479aee","content":"Speaker 14: It, it's basically, basically pretty much done now, but we'll have it ready.\n\nSpeaker 3: Sure. How much time do you need?\n\nSpeaker 14: I'd say half an hour to talk about things.\n\nSpeaker 3: Half an hour. So we're gonna add that to the agenda. I'm not, uh, so I,\n\nSpeaker 14: It might take less.\n\nSpeaker 3: I guess I'm gonna talk to about, you know, David Morgan. So this is gonna be on the agenda as a timed item for, uh, David White and the water bodies working group to present these two items to us. And, uh, it'll be at next meeting. And, um, I think we're probably looking pretty good that meeting to, for this to come up. So that's crazy\n\nSpeaker 14: Draft\n\nSpeaker 7: Ask a question, sorry.\n\nSpeaker 3: Uh, yeah, absolutely. As long as, as long as David's finished. But, um,\n\nSpeaker 14: I was gonna say we at draft materials probably next week for people to look at.\n\nSpeaker 3: Okay. Alright. Susan, uh, you have a question?\n\nSpeaker 7: Sure. That's what I was gonna ask. So I was gonna ask two things. One, where you're gonna have the draft materials at least a week ahead so we could review them because just definitely report and the, and the budget ends up being very dense is my law. Yes. Thank you. And then, um, understanding that you need to do a 10% reduction are, are you still going to leave some money, um, in the kind of miscellaneous pot in case we have things that come up? Or are you getting rid of that as your 10% or do you not have an approach yet?","timeStart":4628.265,"timeEnd":4709.335,"chunkIndex":51},{"id":"aae4d7cd-390c-48b5-bd13-5be0af87a64e","content":"Speaker 14: I think we have some money there, right David? We have a little money in miscellaneous here. We do,\n\nSpeaker 2: We're maintaining 2,500 in the contingency bucket and end of year balance is looking like something on the order of $40,000, which is something that we keep in reserve for work at the start of the following calendar year. 'cause there's a mis mismatch between the contracts and the fiscal year. So, um,\n\nSpeaker 14: It's going down.\n\nSpeaker 2: But suffice it to say that there's wiggle room in that 40,000. That's the remainder if we need to dip into it. Mm-hmm .\n\nSpeaker 3: Okay, sure. So there's a bucket for miscellaneous and then there's 40, part of that is 40,000, but we could,\n\nSpeaker 14: The reserve have a reserve about 40,000.\n\nSpeaker 3: We could go beyond the reserve and use some of that 40,000 if we had to.\n\nSpeaker 7: Well, we always use some of it for spy pond 'cause we usually start treating before the\n\nSpeaker 3: Next mm-hmm . So nothing is in a, uh, a bucket that you can't touch. We can, we can shift around the money that we're not intend to use this year if, uh, if things\n\nSpeaker 2: Can't, we'll, we'll have some flexibility there. There's enough of a buffer.\n\nSpeaker 3: Okay.\n\nSpeaker 7: Thank\n\nSpeaker 3: You. That's, that's great. David, do you, uh, is that, is that it And we'll hear from you at our next meeting? I think so. Okay. Uh, so, uh, staying with, uh, the aquatic theme, we're gonna have Susan, uh, Chapnick who is going to talk about Hill's Pond, and she's gonna give us an update on, uh, some discussions that's been happening.","timeStart":4710.525,"timeEnd":4817.325,"chunkIndex":52},{"id":"5180750f-e302-4fbe-8e1b-d317586f00b1","content":"Speaker 7: Thank you, Chuck. Um, so at the last meeting, um, you might recall that Chuck and I and David Morgan had a meeting with Jim Feeney, town Manager, um, about, um, fishing issues, um, in the town, fishing waste issues and how it impacts fisheries and wildlife, um, and our concerns about that and forward. And we, we have a summary of that in our meeting minutes, um, so that we reviewed at the beginning of, of this, so I won't go over that again. Um, but in, in order, um, to keep the momentum going, um, because we have found that sometimes we get agreement in meetings and then, uh, bullet points and action items end up not happening in a timely fashion. Um, we also have a separate small group fishing group that has been meeting to discuss potential, um, options going forward. And one of the potential options, which I personally support is getting some independent scientific investigation on Hills Pond, um, in addition to, to kind of, um, overlap and complement the water quality, uh, data that we're getting from water and wetland.","timeStart":4818.215,"timeEnd":4911.935,"chunkIndex":53},{"id":"d7520af4-c429-4089-8bfa-11a7424a0ae7","content":"Speaker 7: Um, the fisheries data, we're not, we don't know anything about the fish there. We don't know the population. We don't know the sizes. We don't know, um, if they're stressed or not stressed. Um, and I, for 1:00 AM in support, and I'm presenting it here just to see, um, if there's, um, interest from the commission to do a scientific study on a fisheries assessment of Hills Pond. And it, it would be focused on fisheries, but it would also, um, it, it wouldn't put blinders on. So I spoke to a, um, fishery scientist at Norman Doe Associates. Um, they're a firm I've worked with before. Um, they're located in New Hampshire. Actually worked with them on helping, uh, evaluate the Boston Harbor, um, outfall, you know, from the, the digester eggs that have cleaned up all the sewage and the outfall that goes out into the Boston Harbor, and whether that's affecting, um, the, the ecology and the environment.","timeStart":4913.385,"timeEnd":4987.045,"chunkIndex":54},{"id":"aa239a02-7eaf-4678-95d5-d9d2713f11eb","content":"Speaker 7: Anyway, the great scientists, in my opinion, I spoke for half an hour with Tyler parent, um, who's a fishery scientist and was, was, um, very generous with his time, uh, and not charging me, um, to just pick his brain on what this would be. And he said there's, there's a whole bunch of, um, options we could ask for. But after I explained what our concerns were and what we're already doing for water quality, he suggested we might wanna do, um, a fish assemblage study, um, which he likes to do three times a year, spring, summer, and fall. But understands that a small town and a small pond may not be able to handle that in terms of budget. And so he suggested a field study that would just happen in July. And what they would do is, um, they would, uh, take a raft and go out electro fishing.","timeStart":4987.265,"timeEnd":5053.525,"chunkIndex":55},{"id":"75dfadf7-b543-4f86-be79-26c683c8b7f4","content":"Speaker 7: And I didn't really understand electro fishing, but for some people might understand it, it does not harm the fish. It just temporarily stuns them and they go back in the water so it's not actually killing the fish. Um, and they would do length, weight species, um, take photographs, um, try to assess if the fish are stressed. They would also, they said, um, opportunistically, um, record other wildlife and environmental, um, concerns or, or wildlife. They see, um, you know, turtles, uh, birds, et cetera. Um, because they wouldn't, you know, they would try to do it a little more holistically than just fish, but their focus mainly is fish. Um, they, he said to me that in his opinion, in working on this for years and years at large ponds and small ponds, is usually it's dissolved oxygen. That's the stressor. Um, often from the algal blooms from after the algal blooms when the algae falls down into the water column and eats up the oxygen.","timeStart":5053.665,"timeEnd":5125.885,"chunkIndex":56},{"id":"a832b470-03ca-4698-8203-5c9d3852f5b5","content":"Speaker 7: And he, he says that's often the biggest stressor in small ponds, but it, you know, he doesn't know, you know, what, what he's going to discover at this pond. He said we could, um, make a list of the kinds of an questions we want answered and he could put together a plan, and then we could choose from that plan what we could afford. Um, I understand that the, the reason I asked about the budget is because I understand that we don't have a budget for a fisheries assessment. Um, the Save Arlington Wildlife, uh, which Laura Keel, who's presented to the commission before, um, runs, has some funds that she could put towards this. Um, I was wondering if we could put some funds from miscellaneous, from water bodies and, and get a study done. The reason I think an independent study is important is, is just to keep the pressure on the town to actually do something.","timeStart":5126.305,"timeEnd":5193.685,"chunkIndex":57},{"id":"6d3d4566-4030-4053-a6dc-b0f714ae979a","content":"Speaker 7: We have a list of things that we said that the town manager said is either in progress or might be, and we're expecting that list from Natasha Den from Park and Rec, but we haven't seen it. And if we have an independent study that gives us scientific information on what's happening at the pond, it can give us more justification for putting some of these other things in place. Like maybe signage or maybe, you know, fishing designated areas or maybe education or maybe what he said. Um, there's something called serv Creole surveys, which I never heard of, but I'm not an angler, so I don't know. And he said those are educational conversations that, uh, managers of the body of water sometimes go out and just talk to the anglers and say, what have you been catching? Um, you know, how many of you been catching, have you had any problems with, with your line tangling? Um, you know, how often do you come out here, you know, just to get the information and start the discussion of, you know, these issues. So anyway, I just wanted to open this up to the commission to find out the temperature of the commission of whether there's interest in doing a scientific study. Um, I'm not saying we're paying for it, but I'm just saying is there interest? And then, you know, we can go from there. So,\n\nSpeaker 3: So, uh, before I go to Nathaniel, I was, uh, I was under the impression that you were going to go through this like you just did and say that Norman Doe was gonna come here and give a presentation. They","timeStart":5194.145,"timeEnd":5302.395,"chunkIndex":58},{"id":"46de9903-1e12-49a0-9187-63a26146b4a9","content":"Speaker 7: Can, but they asked me what they should present on, and I said, why don't I find out if the commission wants to do this first?\n\nSpeaker 3: Yeah. So\n\nSpeaker 7: Before they come,\n\nSpeaker 3: If, if we're going to have Norm and doe present here, there might be some other questions. Plus, you know, for me, I feel like if this was going to be put in front of the commission, we didn't, we didn't offer any information. Nothing was uploaded. The commission is just kind of shooting from the hip with their questions at this point.\n\nSpeaker 7: No, I understand that. I was just trying to, yeah, I don't want to invite Normand Doe to come and speak if there's not an interest,\n\nSpeaker 3: So I'm okay. Yeah. Okay. If, um, yeah, we ask some questions and that's fine. Mm-hmm. But then we figure out what Normand do should do, um, or if we even want them. Right. Or if this is even appropriate for conservation and not for water bodies working group. Right. Um, and, um, or where this should lie, uh mm-hmm . You know, which is fine with me if it's one or the other. And then, uh, we ask some questions tonight and if it's gonna be Normand Doe I don't wanna do it twice. So if they're coming at our, at an upcoming meeting, let's hold off on some of these deep questions. And with that, I will turn to,\n\nSpeaker 7: I wouldn't have the answers anyway. I'm not the fishery scientist.\n\nSpeaker 3: Yeah. So,\n\nSpeaker 7: Yeah.","timeStart":5302.395,"timeEnd":5381.245,"chunkIndex":59},{"id":"0fbc6c0f-6e62-4154-9bec-7e48f8c88930","content":"Speaker 9: Thanks Chuck. Uh, yes. Uh, Susan, I think studies are great. I, again, funding is my main concern. I might suggest, I guess David White might know if there's been previous studies done on the pond already. Another thought is to see if we can get some graduate students to do this. I know in my graduate coursework we did electro the electromagnetic, what is it called? Electro whatever it is. Phishing to count fish in a stream. I, I didn't do it. A place\n\nSpeaker 7: Electro fishing. Yeah,\n\nSpeaker 9: Electro fishing. Yeah. So I did, I I have had experience with that, so I know it doesn't\n\nSpeaker 7: Do it. Nathan. Nathan.\n\nSpeaker 9: Yeah, exactly. It spare time. But, uh, but I'm saying is, you know, I'm sure there's a graduate student or graduate students who might do it. Certainly their, the Tufts program has done a lot of, um, study on the chemistry of the water quality of Spy Pond, which I know is different from studying the ecology, uh, uh, over the, you know, the fish fisheries of the pond. But I would maybe, instead of paying a consultant first explore with all the Boston area schools, we have to see if we can get someone to do it for a better price, um, on that. And, and also we should probably wrap, uh, rope in someone from Friends of Mati Rocks Park. They may have some historical knowledge about studies or resources in the neighborhood, people in the neighborhood who might have connections to some of those graduate programs. Those are my thoughts. Right.","timeStart":5383.125,"timeEnd":5462.495,"chunkIndex":60},{"id":"fa7a13e6-5e4e-4a1c-9587-38b487f638b6","content":"Speaker 7: So I Do you feel like you need to That's a good idea. I do. We, I do know that there haven't been fishery studies as far as we know. And the, um, one of the members of the Friends of Mono Rock Park, I think it was Ellen on the Water Bodies Working group, thought the study wasn't needed because they know that it's just a small pond and there's, you know, whatever.\n\nSpeaker 9: Oh, okay. Alright. It's like, thanks. Okay. They've been consulted. Okay.\n\nSpeaker 7: Yeah, I think, I think that, um, but, but your idea of a graduate student, maybe that's something we could explore. I don't know of any, but that doesn't mean we can't put feelers out.\n\nSpeaker 3: Nathaniel, how did you feel about a presentation from No. And do\n\nSpeaker 9: I, I guess fine. I, yeah. I, I I I almost feel like that's the, uh, water Bodies Working Group should vet this a little bit more before we to see if they, it's something that should be recommended before we have Invite Normand do.\n\nSpeaker 3: Yeah. Okay. Um, so I think, I'm not sure who was next, but I'd like, 'cause how that was left off, I'd like to go to David, uh, white, uh, because he's the chair of the Laurie's Working Group.","timeStart":5462.835,"timeEnd":5532.525,"chunkIndex":61},{"id":"043c1981-28f1-4b6a-8347-89e0888ecd99","content":"Speaker 14: Okay. Thank you. Um, I, I think we need to get a larger group involved. I've passed this on to the Friends of Mountain R Park. I've not heard from them as yet. I think we need to get a larger group beyond just this commission involved in this discussion and possibilities. And, um, if we have a presentation should be a public presentation. People shouldn't be invited to be there and ask questions about it. I feel we're sort of like, we're not really engaging people widely enough at this point to, uh, move forward with it. I mean, interesting thing to do, but, um, think we need to get more involvement from Park and Rec perhaps. Definitely. From Friends of the Park. I mean, uh, I reached out to them, but I've not answer back from them as yet, but they need to. That's a good point. Some way,\n\nSpeaker 7: Right. So, so that was one of the reasons why I did want Norman Doe to do a presentation, because it would be a public meeting. It would be on our agenda. Maybe we could send out a little, you know, we\n\nSpeaker 14: Do a prep first\n\nSpeaker 7: Email blast, you know, because some people don't look at the agenda. Um, you know, or something like that. And that would be a public meeting. But I hear you, David. I think it's not getting enough. Um, dissemination.\n\nSpeaker 14: Yeah. You need more mm-hmm . Processing. Mm-hmm\n\nSpeaker 7: .\n\nSpeaker 3: Okay. Does anyone know who was next? Mike, uh, Gillis Game or Brian?\n\nSpeaker 15: Mike. Mike. Mike. Go ahead.","timeStart":5533.915,"timeEnd":5623.315,"chunkIndex":62},{"id":"afc7fddf-5188-47c7-97ee-37d42a96cbec","content":"Speaker 12: Okay. Uh, I, uh, would echo what, uh, Nathaniel said in terms of seeking information from, uh, or input from other sources that I was gonna suggest that Fish and Game, uh, may already have some information or they might have some resources that we can, uh, use. Uh, I would, uh, also ask the question, uh, so we, uh, find somebody to do a fishery survey, uh, and maybe some ancillary issues. So then what, what do we do with that information? I think that if we're talking about a management plan for, uh, for, uh, Hills Pond, uh, I don't know if there's any, uh, funding available that, you know, would lead us to manage that pond in some way different from what is currently being managed. So I, I would caution that this, this little pond is, uh, . I'm not sure if it's worth the effort actually at this point, but I think it might be interesting to explore further to see what kind of information might be developed and what we do with that information.\n\nSpeaker 3: Thanks, Mike. Uh, Brian McBride.","timeStart":5624.425,"timeEnd":5702.495,"chunkIndex":63},{"id":"d0b0ea74-f81c-4671-8744-d2918116b79e","content":"Speaker 10: Yeah, maybe similar comment to Mike's in the, what, what if, if we do this, then what? Um, I guess my working theory on this is that the victims of this, uh, harmful, potentially harmful activity are the turtles and the birds who are getting tangled up in the excess fishing lines. Not per se the fish in the pond. And therefore, would this study address the harm to turtles and flying, um, you know, birds that are getting tangled? And if not, I think it kind of misses the mark in terms of driving the action that, at least in my mind would be, how are we gonna restrict phishing there? Are we gonna limit phishing? Um, because the, the victims are not actually the fish. We, we intend to kill the fish. You know? So that's, that's my comment.\n\nSpeaker 3: Would the money be spent best elsewhere? So maybe that's what we're thinking about at this point. Does anyone else have any questions? I, uh, hope it's my privilege. I'm going to say it as if it is, uh, when I finish with David White, I am gonna open this up to people that are attending tonight's meeting because I see a few of 'em, a few names out there that I recognize and maybe they have something to say. So David White, uh, floor, yours.\n\nSpeaker 14: I was gonna ask whether we had anything back from Park and Rec Hill on the fishing line issue.","timeStart":5703.965,"timeEnd":5789.835,"chunkIndex":64},{"id":"d0cf8d66-2ee0-440f-9a5c-865734414924","content":"Speaker 3: Sure. Hold on with that. No answers. That's coming up in our next, uh, discussion item. Yeah. Thanks for asking. Uh, so with that, does anyone, uh, who's sent attending tonight's meeting have, uh, a comment that they would like to make? Uh, as far as having, uh, I guess we're thinking about is the phishing study needed, um, should we have Norman do here? When should we open that up to a, uh, broader audience and, um, you know, what are we actually trying to achieve here? If it's, uh, if it's assessing the fish and their stress through algal blooms, or is it the fishing line issues and, um, how best to manage those. So I'm just gonna wait a few, few moments. If someone likes to speak, just use your raise hand function or turn your video on and, uh, start speaking. Sure. Seeing none, I'm going to go back and say there was a comment about having, um, the Water Bodies Working group take this on and flush it out a little bit more. Uh, David White. Is that something that you would like to do and come back to the committee when\n\nSpeaker 14: You have after have, after the budget is approved?\n\nSpeaker 3: I think a plan. Okay.\n\nSpeaker 7: Now I know that you're busy with that.\n\nSpeaker 3: That's okay. So we'll be in touch with you also. Um, maybe we'll go two weeks and then, uh, or so and then get back in touch and make sure that this is, uh, um, you know, something we can get back on the agenda","timeStart":5790.345,"timeEnd":5881.445,"chunkIndex":65},{"id":"699dddad-8d7c-4eba-af85-bf861fc7c154","content":"Speaker 14: Soon. Yeah. More than two weeks, I think. 'cause we had to also be sent to fin com and so on, so that takes Right. A lot of our time.\n\nSpeaker 7: That's fine. And David, um, that's fine. Yeah. When you do put this on the agenda, could you give me, uh, time so that I can make sure I can be there to answer questions? And I would like, if it's okay with you to invite, uh, Laura Keel if she's available. Um, because she's been instrumental in, in, in trying to Okay.\n\nSpeaker 14: Laura to town to come and speak. She should be there for the whole meeting.\n\nSpeaker 7: Excuse me.\n\nSpeaker 14: It's not a public meeting. She can come and speak, but she can't, don't think she can.\n\nSpeaker 7: Yeah. No, just to do e either do a little mini presentation or answer questions. Yeah. If that's okay with you. A brief,\n\nSpeaker 14: Brief portion. 'cause\n\nSpeaker 7: I think it's an educational thing to make sure that the members of the Water Bodies working group have\n\nSpeaker 14: Informations information.\n\nSpeaker 7: Yeah. Mm-hmm","timeStart":5881.555,"timeEnd":5939.545,"chunkIndex":66},{"id":"8e9861a1-98cb-40ad-95a6-81970b1128ed","content":"Speaker 3: . Alright. Another, another couple of minutes we're gonna be, you guys could have, can talk about that, you know, outside of this meeting. I think it's a great idea. Again, David's the chair of that, uh, committee. So Susan, please talk to him about when that, and I, I think it, what would be great, David, if you knew approximately when you were gonna come back, if you could let us know. 'cause we're trying to track dates on the agenda for, um, future events. So we don't, we don't forget and everyone understands what's coming up and when. So if you have that, it would be great just to email it to us when you,\n\nSpeaker 14: If the board buddies group might be able to talk about this in April mm-hmm. And come back.\n\nSpeaker 3: So in May or, uh, end May of\n\nSpeaker 14: April, may,\n\nSpeaker 3: May 1st meeting in May. May\n\nSpeaker 14: Most likely May.\n\nSpeaker 3: Okay. We'll check into you with you, uh, prior to the first meeting in May. Okay, good. Thank you, David. Um,","timeStart":5939.585,"timeEnd":6000.715,"chunkIndex":67},{"id":"0f82a043-8900-4484-af51-6dd5631dc5fc","content":"Speaker 3: So I think what makes sense is to have a recreation update from David Morgan. But I have something to say be before that and just to, I'm not sure if David, if this even happened, but it is according to my emails. Um, so I reached out, we had a meeting with Jim, uh, Feeney Town manager, myself, Susan and David Morgan. And there was some, um, uh, timelines that we were, we wanted Natasha to, um, put together that had to do with fishing line cleanup, uh, educational, uh, events, uh, cleanup days, and, uh, putting back, uh, those, um, line receptacles. And so I reached out a couple of times, and I think it was this week or last week, he said that he finally got, no, it was on the second. He finally got, uh, an email out to Natasha and they expected to meet this Thursday morning.\n\nSpeaker 3: And once he receives the timeline, not only was gonna share it with all of us, he was gonna share it with the select board members. And so Susan, I wanted to just, you know, hit you with a, you and me are going to, we have, we've been talking to select board members, and once that happens, once we receive this list, it would be our turn to reach back out to them now that they have the timeline and talk to them about it. And so, um, with that, David, did that meeting happen? Has it been rescheduled? I guess most importantly, do you know anything about this?","timeStart":6003.685,"timeEnd":6100.825,"chunkIndex":68},{"id":"f1a335d2-1693-4620-9e6c-087dbf46c0c6","content":"Speaker 2: I just have to say no. I mean, I, it's between Jim and Natasha. I presume the meeting happened, but I haven't had any communication about it. Um, and it was scheduled just for this morning. So, you know, by tomorrow, Monday maybe I might get a follow up, but I haven't yet. Okay.\n\nSpeaker 7: David did, did you have a meeting with Natasha recently or\n\nSpeaker 2: Not? I have one next week. Uh, we met, I guess it was two, three weeks ago, and we sch scheduled our regular meeting time for, what is that, the second Friday of the month in the morning. So we'll meet again on the 13th.\n\nSpeaker 7: So I trust this will be an agenda item for\n\nSpeaker 2: You. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Okay. There's, uh, this and many other things. Yeah.\n\nSpeaker 7: And is she in receipt of that? Um, the notes from our meeting with Jim Feeney, which had the, remember I, you, you sent me a Google Drive of the notes, A Google Doc. They're on the Google Drive. Yeah. I directed them . Um, and then, um, they're basically the notes of our meeting. Is she in receipt of that?\n\nSpeaker 2: I'm not sure.\n\nSpeaker 7: So she's not surprised what we said.\n\nSpeaker 2: I will need to check and see.\n\nSpeaker 7: Okay. But\n\nSpeaker 2: That's\n\nSpeaker 7: Probably a good idea to give her that before you meet so she understands what we Oh, yeah.\n\nSpeaker 2: Talk, yeah, yeah. Before the meeting on the 13.\n\nSpeaker 7: Yeah. We don't want any surprised. We, you know, we're, we're not, we're not trying to work in a vacuum.\n\nSpeaker 2: Right.\n\nSpeaker 7: We're just having trouble communicating .","timeStart":6103.665,"timeEnd":6208.965,"chunkIndex":69},{"id":"5011afbe-cce9-49ef-b640-82f478ec4815","content":"Speaker 2: So, um, per Jim's town manager's guidance, um, he wanted to meet with Natasha and have that conversation directly this morning. So I haven't followed up with her, you know, he suggested I take a back seat and let them drive for a while, so I'm following his direction. But for the meeting on the 13th, I'd be happy to keep her in the loop about the meeting. And she knew it was coming up, so, okay. Um, you know, it would just be follow up from my notification I gave her earlier.\n\nSpeaker 7: Thank you. All right. Chuck, did you see we have a question in the chat?\n\nSpeaker 3: Yeah. That someone just asked if you were still talking about the fishing line issue. I think in a way you were, but you were also just trying to follow up on our meeting. This is a fishing line comment ever since we finished with David White. And so Ms. Susan's request to have Normand Doe here. And then my relaying what Jim Feeney said about having a meeting with Natasha, that was certainly about putting a list together. I went over the list. We were hoping to have some dates on that. We hoping that David Morgan knew something about it. But, um, yes, it was all fishing line related. I think, uh, you know, next steps as far as this goes is, you know, we, I I just think that, you know, let's give Jim a little bit of time to see if we get that, uh, note. As I understand it, the meeting was supposed to be this morning and then we can reach out if it doesn't come sometime next week and find out if that meeting ever happened.","timeStart":6209.225,"timeEnd":6313.165,"chunkIndex":70},{"id":"f90e9b65-90c4-4ae5-8717-49b6bafc4847","content":"Speaker 3: Um, I don't know how close that is to David's meeting, but, uh, I think that we have to, you know, David's gonna do his thing and we're gonna do our thing. Uh, so, um, I can send another, uh, letter out. So I don't know, does that answer all the questions out there? Put it in the chat if we, uh, have something else to discuss. If not, I'd like to move on unless there are other comments from the commission. You know, this is, uh, well, I guess one last thing. Yeah. We already talked to David. David's going to take this up and decide if it's appropriate for the water bodies working group, figure out some dates and then come back to the commission. So you're gonna have to, you know, talk this through with everyone. There's little balls in the air. Yeah, I know. It's a, it is a tough thing.\n\nSpeaker 3: It seems like it's a water bodies working group thing, but it, whatever your decision is is fine, is fine with me. And we can do it, we can do it here also. Um, hopefully we'll have a light agenda moving forward. All right. So with that, uh, I'm gonna put David Morgan on the spot. And so I understand that this is gonna be something that Susan May weigh in on also, but let's just keep it short and brief because I don't, I think it was kind of like no harm no far. So, Susan, if you don't have to say anything, that's fine with me. David, can you update us on the, uh, administrator's report for the Mystic Valley cleanup that we, that everyone was talking about in last week?","timeStart":6314.065,"timeEnd":6410.165,"chunkIndex":71},{"id":"435ca1f4-a64b-418a-bb69-2035c3fa1ad9","content":"Speaker 2: Yes. So, um, I can't really take credit for the information that's come in. I've received info from, uh, well, Beth Moffic vis-a-vis Susan and from engineering in the town manager's office about the incident that's over on Mystic Street. So bottom line, there was, um, electrical wire with the fluid that sometimes contained in there for connectivity and insulation and so forth. Um, that spilled to the tune of 10,000 gallons. It was all contained in a hole within the roadway. There's no impact to the surface waters, no leakage into, um, storm drains or anything of the sort. Clean harbors and other professionals were mobilized. They contained it and have been working on the cleanup. You can see that that's ongoing. And my understanding is it'll take another two weeks to wrap up. I expect to get the final report from engineering and or Eversource who's responsible for the work, um, to ensure that we have everything sufficiently cleaned up. But, you know, they've got clean harbors out there. It's reputable firm, everybody knows about it from EEA all the way down to little old me. So we are, uh, keeping eyes on it and certainly aware that there will be follow up. So, uh, Dave, you got a question or comment?\n\nSpeaker 8: Yeah, just, just, uh, this is the work that's ongoing at the corner of Mystic Street and Mystic Valley Parkway in front of the police station. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Yeah.","timeStart":6411.665,"timeEnd":6536.365,"chunkIndex":72},{"id":"f885b154-eec5-4a5a-a8ac-89a695a8845a","content":"Speaker 3: But David, are they mobilized underneath that white tent that's up towards the fire? Uh, towards the lights, the intersection? Yeah. Yep. Okay. So if you drive past there, there's a big, big tent, you know, 30 feet by 25 feet and they're underneath there. And I guess that's where the spill happened. I\n\nSpeaker 7: Think it's gone now.\n\nSpeaker 3: Oh, is it?\n\nSpeaker 7: Yeah. 'cause I think they did the cleanup portion and now they have to do some sampling, um, and analysis to prove that it's cleaned up.\n\nSpeaker 3: Sure. Well if anyone, uh, I just didn't want, because we have that bridge project going on, right? So this is, this is same street, but up the street at the intersection happened in a hole. And, um, I think, I think, uh, the appropriate action had taken place. Susan, do you have anything to add? Oh, we're good.\n\nSpeaker 7: Nope, we're good. Unless somebody has a question for me. 'cause I I know the process, or you can email me later if you want to understand. It's, it's a process under the Massachusetts contingency plan to do cleanup of hazardous waste.\n\nSpeaker 3: Sure. Okay. Uh, seeing none, uh, we're gonna move on. And, um, let's go for a CPA update if there's one from Brian McBride.","timeStart":6537.785,"timeEnd":6616.385,"chunkIndex":73},{"id":"873ee9fd-26a3-4e8b-8903-d0f935cc4bbe","content":"Speaker 10: Yeah, Chuck, uh, just quickly, um, we had a couple site visits this week, which was a new addition to the CPA process, which was really helpful. Um, , they were sort of arbitrary, so I didn't get to go on the one yesterday that was at Cooks Hollow. Uh, David, I don't know if you happen to be included in that visit. Um, I dunno if you have a summary. I, I heard it went well and people were supportive, but","timeStart":6617.735,"timeEnd":6641.165,"chunkIndex":74},{"id":"556e3f0c-338a-45a9-995f-af39f1ef27db","content":"Speaker 2: Yeah, we had 1, 2, 3 members of the committee, two members of the open space committee turned out to support, and then Christine Bonjourno, who staffs CPA, was also present. I just walked through the final plans and, um, helped give folks literally the lay of the land, um, showing people where things were gonna go. I think the nicest thing about that site visit is that, uh, they were paying a visit to Ack Terrace just before we met at Cooks Hollow, and that's the affordable housing development directly next door. Jack Nagle, who heads up Arlington Housing Authority, was on that site visit at Cusack Terrace and sang the praises about the Cooks Hollow Project, saying that it was really important to residents at, um, Cusack Terrace, that they had been engaged in the public process around it and were looking forward to it, even that they were gonna make some plans, which we had discussed previously to better connect the Arlington Housing Authority property to Cooks Hollow. And this remains to be seen exactly how or if it will come to pass, but we're going to try and share some maintenance duties potentially as well. So, you know, more or less mentioned all of those things to the committee and they thought it was a, a really good stamp of approval to get. So I was reassured that he was there. It was a nice thing that he said all that.","timeStart":6643.035,"timeEnd":6749.165,"chunkIndex":75},{"id":"cace2bb2-3abf-477e-bc46-0e1c64aa6d34","content":"Speaker 10: Well, I think between your sort of reduction of the ask and the genuine support for this project, it's looking promising. The voting is actually next Wednesday. Um, and, uh, I'll be flying to Mexico for a vacation, but I'll try to make the meeting. They've had some snake scheduling snafus, but I, I think it looks, looks positive for us. The, the only other note I would say about CPA is we have this sort of looming issue with town hall and the exterior of town hall decaying and needing some significant, like hundred million dollars or whatever the number millions and millions of dollars of, of funding that will be, people will be hitting CPA for that money and it may squeeze the availability of money for the future CPA project. So that's just something on the horizon I wanted to let y'all know about.\n\nSpeaker 3: That's an appropriate, uh, expense for CPA.\n\nSpeaker 10: Uh, there's a big debate about that, Chuck. I got, I I got it is historical preservation, but my, my argument with a couple people has been we're not doing maintenance. We're not doing maintenance across the town, and they're, then we're paying the piper. Um,\n\nSpeaker 3: It's a facilities building. I mean, and it's already built. I'm, I'm just wondering, I'm, you know, I know it got, it gets it gets loose sometimes, but that takes a, so when you take away money from other projects, so Yeah. Yeah, that's definitely another park that was renovated, you know? Yeah,\n\nSpeaker 10: Exactly. Exactly. It's, it's a year or two away.","timeStart":6750.035,"timeEnd":6838.915,"chunkIndex":76},{"id":"ee066119-ca5b-40fb-aed9-e4d43da8de81","content":"Speaker 3: Well, I'm glad you're having that conversation anyways, that someone is at least saying, well, let's, let's make sure this is, uh, uh, what's, what is it? The feasibility chart? I forgot what the name of that thing is, but let's see if fits into the, the chart and, uh, where it fits. Yeah, it seems like a capital expense to me. But anyway.\n\nSpeaker 10: Well, you, you know, don't wanna take it from much chart, but they, they are using capital expense money for the interior, um, damage that's been done over the past decade with water. Um, and the CPA money, they're asking for the exterior envelope repairs, which is the source of the leaks. Um, um, and you know, the, the pitch I, I've taken too much time. The pitches, there are these amazing ceilings in the auditorium and the various rooms that are on the verge of being permanently destroyed or damaged, that if, if we don't do something dramatic soon, it will be a, a permanent loss of historic interiors of that beautiful building. That's the emotional sales pitch.\n\nSpeaker 3: Yeah. Well, good. I'm glad. Like I said, I'm glad the conversations happen. Uh, so, so I, you know, Nathaniel, do you, do you want to give an update on the sims uh, conservation restriction?","timeStart":6838.945,"timeEnd":6910.955,"chunkIndex":77},{"id":"9c282f96-13c2-4d82-949c-ccd979b76604","content":"Speaker 9: Thanks. Uh, would you like Sure. Yeah. Just, uh, I wanted to get actually a question for the commission, and I don't wanna take too much time, but I will be missing the next meeting. We're dealing with the encroachments as people know. I guess I just wanted to get people's sense of, if we're dealing with two or three property owners who are being a little recalcitrant, so would people be willing to compromise and allow maybe 50 square feet of encroachment into the conservation restriction area for as long as the people own their h their house, which could be anywhere from, you know, one year to 40 years, I guess, is there any tolerance for that type of relatively minor, minor, minor encroachment? Or do people say no frigging way? So, I don't know. I guess, I guess think about that. I, I, 'cause we're running late, I don't wanna take any more time, but that was the question I wanted to pose.\n\nSpeaker 9: So I will ask, I guess our, our meeting in two in, in a month, if I could, to get, to be, get people to think about that. 'cause it, it's getting down to a practical matter of trying to get some sort of agreement on some of these encroachments. You know, some people are willing to pull back a bit, but want to keep, you know, there's a paved patio that's over that's gonna be really hard to move and, you know, is that, is it worth the effort or just compromise, um, and let it stay for a bit and the next owner take it out.\n\nSpeaker 14: My question is, if it's temporary, how does that enforced?","timeStart":6912.175,"timeEnd":7008.505,"chunkIndex":78},{"id":"9690a594-4af9-4edb-9719-ee52083e33f9","content":"Speaker 9: Well, we have an, we we come have some sort of agreement with it, with a written agreement. Would\n\nSpeaker 14: It be in the part of the deed somewhere or,\n\nSpeaker 9: Well, that's, that, that's, that's the thing we'd have to get into. We're not sure. Yeah, it would have to be, that'd be recorded, I would think. So\n\nSpeaker 3: Can you go down the road of if they want to leave these encroachments because they put a patio or whatever, there's some sort of, um, there's some sort of agreement where we would get services for that to help us, uh, to help, help us with well payments or just, I don't know, maybe they have to, I, I don't know. But if they wanna leave something there, what are they giving us?\n\nSpeaker 9: Oh yeah. Good, good point. Okay. Yeah, I don't wanna take more time. I know it's getting late. We have another hearing, so, but just, uh, just put, put that thought in your, in your minds and if we can discuss it further into in four weeks, that would be great. Thanks.","timeStart":7010.005,"timeEnd":7068.185,"chunkIndex":79},{"id":"5df8cd1f-83a7-4a72-bdc6-81b3372692f3","content":"Speaker 3: Yeah. Okay. And with that, we're gonna turn to, uh, one of our, the first of our two hearings and it's DEP file number 91 0 3 7 4. So notice of intent for the Winchester Country Club located at 4 68 Mystic Street. A public hearing will be held for the conservation commission to consider notice of intent to perform golf course, fairway and green reconfiguration and improvements areas posed, uh, to be altered or include the buffer zone, the adjacent upland resource area, the riverfront area, and associated with Herbert Meyers Brook. And at our last meeting, we noted that we, uh, were out there on January 21st, Susan Nathaniel Stevens, Mike Gil game, and myself, uh, where there was Sarah Stearns and others. And Sarah has turned her video on. And so my first question is, um, is the storm water, I'm gonna let you, but I need to know this first. I'm like, which one of these has the storm water in it? Or both one? So that's the one's, that's kind of what I was wondering and then introduce yourself for the record and bring us up to date since we talked last.","timeStart":7069.195,"timeEnd":7145.245,"chunkIndex":80},{"id":"b9c32166-9692-4597-98f6-739c23aa0681","content":"Speaker 16: Great. Of course. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, for the record, Sarah Sterns with Beales and Thomas, uh, with me tonight is my colleague, civil engineer Matt Cody, um, the club gentleman manager Jim Simmons and Superintendent Blaine Doherty. Um, great. Uh, recall on the site visit date. Um, thank you for reminding the commission of that, Mr. Chair. Um, we did meet after that and kind of walked through it with photographs from Jackie and Susan, um, and just kind of talked about the, um, improvements proposed on the 18th fairway and the first tee. Um, to answer your question, our stormwater management design and report is associated with the, our other filing. Um, that's to, um, attend to the, uh, drainage meeting the performance standards for the additional impervious area in this project. Under this notice of intent, we're not proposing any new impervious area. Um, no tree removal change in tree canopy, no vegetation removal, um, other than some ornamental shrubs adjacent to the first tee.","timeStart":7145.775,"timeEnd":7221.635,"chunkIndex":81},{"id":"a4e5e9fc-81e2-4ea1-8f7d-013b4d093dbf","content":"Speaker 16: So if you recall this project, I know Matt has the, um, plan up of the other project, but the point of having that up is that we have submitted to the commission, um, last week an overview kind of under the heading of our other project, but it will, um, al also include a native landscaped area right adjacent to the first T where that, um, improvement is proposed. So we included, since it's such a small area, we included that on the overall plan. And I know one of the things we talked about at our last hearing is kind of comprehensively including, um, you know, some of the, uh, planted areas and no maintenance zones on both sets of plans just for continuity going forward. So we thought it, we could just use this plan for tonight to talk about both hearings, but just to sort of hone in on the, um, landscape or the, um, planting area associated with this project.","timeStart":7222.375,"timeEnd":7282.235,"chunkIndex":82},{"id":"3174c849-0706-4b73-8485-8c0f4c1f9086","content":"Speaker 16: Um, Matt circling it right now, um, that is adjacent to the first tee where there's a couple of, um, shrubs coming out. I think one, uh, co one or two rotor dunns and a burning bush, um, to reorient the tee box slightly. And so we have outlined an area, um, that we've spoken about at the past couple of hearings in our site walk to replace those shrubs, um, with, uh, some native grasses on the slope there as well as, um, you know, three shrubs or so. And I think the goal for tonight was just to, um, get the commission's feedback on this planted area as part of this notice of intent. And if that is acceptable, um, we can prepare a more, um, you know, specific planting plan and include that as a supplemental, um, piece of material, update the plan with that. Um, and that that way we'll have, you know, a true planting plan. We're just kind of looking at the area tonight and just making sure that everyone is on the same page with that.\n\nSpeaker 3: Okay. Do you want questions about that now?\n\nSpeaker 16: Um, I'll pause. Yep. And, you know, we can go over it in as much or as little detail as the commission would like. I don't wanna overdo it, but I think probably a good time to just have a conversation now above next steps.\n\nSpeaker 3: Sure. Susan Chapnick. Thanks","timeStart":7283.015,"timeEnd":7372.985,"chunkIndex":83},{"id":"d7bd0796-c5c8-4fc3-9a9a-5783ddf683bd","content":"Speaker 7: Chuck. Um, thanks Sarah. Uh, I am fine with that area. We, we saw it on site, uh, that's what we discussed is removing the invasives and replacing with, um, native grasses and some shrubs. We added shrubs, um, because there were shrubs there. Yeah, of course they would be native. Yes. Um, the other thing we also discussed is, and I know how this is complicated and that's why you put together this plan for both pro, both NOIs that in, in also as mitigation for this work, we would request some enhancement of the brook as well, um, you know, no more areas and replanting, but I understand that's going to be more associated with the second NOI. So, um, I'm fine with this because, but I would like, when, when we, um, when we go down the road as a practical matter what, we have to make sure that in our findings we mention the other NOI for this NOI, so that we have documentation of where our mitigation plantings for this NOI are. I, I guess I just wanna make sure we don't lose that. Yeah. I don't know if Daniel has a way of doing that, but I, I thought maybe in findings eventually. So, so obviously we're not appro approving a planting plan because you didn't give it to us, but Right. I, I can I support, I I can say that that's an accurate representation of what we discussed on site, uh, and what our intent is. Um, yeah,","timeStart":7373.465,"timeEnd":7479.965,"chunkIndex":84},{"id":"ca91d7ff-f7f7-49c4-ad4e-88d315461396","content":"Speaker 16: And I think if I could just respond quickly, um, through the chair, um, agreed with all of that, and I think, you know, we took that feedback from our last meeting and that's honestly the reason why we didn't wanna submit a full plan update because we wanted to have this conversation tonight about making sure we're presenting it and documenting it the way that everybody's comfortable with. So this is sort of a, a, a stepping stone to getting to the final plans, I think, on both, uh, proposals. So I think, you know, I guess I would just be looking for additional feedback from other commissioners about this, you know, very small, um, but important, uh, area to be planted. And then we will again, you know, present a more formal planting plan at our next discussion.\n\nSpeaker 3: So Sarah, this is obviously not, uh, uh, res restoration. This is mitigation here. Do you meet the two to one on this based on the, uh, work at the first T?\n\nSpeaker 16: Yes. So, um, to further comment,\n\nSpeaker 3: So, so I, I'm not, I'm only talking about that area that says native landscape area. Yes. And so that's because to me, if we could not point to the other notice of intent and it holds, you know, it stands by itself Yes. With all the other mitigation. That's, that's kind of where I'm heading. And so that's why I asked that question about the two to one.","timeStart":7480.585,"timeEnd":7573.985,"chunkIndex":85},{"id":"bf7f9eb9-cebb-4e61-acf2-a8804eb612f8","content":"Speaker 16: So, um, in the first NOI, um, we, we filed that under three 10 CMR 10 58 4. And our assessment of that was that that project met the performance standards under the general standards for riverfront area. Um, if you recall, we didn't initially propose mitigation or restoration just because there was very little change to drainage patterns, canopy cover. Um, the fact that this area is all managed, um, I know it doesn't necessarily for this first NOI qualify in DPS assessment of degraded. So, you know, that wasn't filed that way. Um, so this area for this one, NOI, um, I'm not sure that this is technically mitigation under those performance standards. Um, I guess I'd have to go back and look at the exact language that we filed under there, but I guess I'm interested to hear your thought on that as well.","timeStart":7575.765,"timeEnd":7641.895,"chunkIndex":86},{"id":"afd79fd2-c099-4ed8-97d5-431572d8fff2","content":"Speaker 3: Um, yeah, , hearing that, I would probably wanna look at it myself. I thought it was mitigation, you're, you're disturbing and then you're taking an area that was hardly, um, you know, like a covered landscape and you're intensifying it and doing, uh, you know, herbaceous and uh, and shrub color. And so I felt like that was, um, and an improvement over what was there and what was, there was a lot of, um, mulch, right. And so, um, yeah. So you're saying calling this a native landscape, so I'm, I'm assuming, uh, did we, we asked for a shrub, so it, we didn't ask for a tree, but Right. But still we're getting more than that. What was there and a and a higher value on Right. What's being planted. And it also looks like it, it shows a spot around what used to be the, uh, caddy shack or what's is the caddy shack. It's gonna be converted, and so that might be included also. And it's the same native landscape you're expecting. So, uh, unless someone else has an opinion, I, in my mind, I thought we were, um, we had a mitigation area here.","timeStart":7645.965,"timeEnd":7724.235,"chunkIndex":87},{"id":"26e9e8be-19be-4ad9-8f57-2c576b9ea351","content":"Speaker 16: So we're definitely proposing mitigation in our second NOI. And again, I know we're trying to not complete the two, but I think we're really in, you know, I, unfortunately, there's a leader coming where it says native land landscape area to both the social pavilion, which is a part of our other project. And this first tee area, again, it was just to have everything in one place for the discussions tonight. So I think we're really just talking about this area next to the T and just again, it's, it's all sort of the same thing. You know, we're not really changing anything substantially that's there today versus what's proposed next to this first t. Um, so, you know, it's sort of like to like, I guess is what I'm getting at, if that makes sense.\n\nSpeaker 3: Right. So do, do we have, yeah. So did we meet the performance standards on ten five eight? 5 8 5 with 5 8, 4 5 8 4 with this alteration and this little bit of enhancement in the native planting area. So I think we have the two people we wanna talk to with their hands raised right here. Yeah. Um, so Susan, you believe you put your hand up first.\n\nSpeaker 7: Actually, I'll let Dave go. Dave Kaplan go first. 'cause I'm checking the regulations while he's talking.\n\nSpeaker 3: All right, Dave.","timeStart":7725.875,"timeEnd":7804.665,"chunkIndex":88},{"id":"156e3978-4994-426f-a0c6-df01a9375615","content":"Speaker 8: Okay. I'll, I'll still let you check the regulations, but, you know, I'm just going with my gut here. You know, I, I tend to agree with Sarah that the alterations are fairly di minimis. I remember the tee box maybe getting slightly closer to the river, which was what, you know, I initially looked at as potentially triggering, you know, some kind of, of mitigation. But I think what's proposed, uh, offsets, like the slight differences, you know, I think land cover to land covers staying the same. Uh, and we're getting some native landscape out of it just in that one polygon, uh, off the tee box, you know, even though it's pointing to both. Um, so I'm, I'm, I'm good with what's proposed. Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 3: Sure. Thanks David. And we're gonna find out if Susan is a quick reader.\n\nSpeaker 7: Yeah. So, um, no significant impact is what I'm looking at under 10.58, four D one, and I think it meets that, um, criteria talks about less than 5,000 square feet or 10% of riverfront area. Um, provided that there's, uh, a hundred foot wide area of underserved vegetation maintained along the river or existing vegetation vegetative cover is preserved or extended. That's where I was getting to the fact that these are kind of coupled, because in my mind they meet that with the, um, vegetation enhancement or mitigation, whatever you wanna call it, in the second NOI, which is a long Herbert Brook.\n\nSpeaker 3: So you're key in\n\nSpeaker 7: On, so that's why I'm, I'm a little, i, i I don't know how you separate these as, as you would like, Chuck,\n\nSpeaker 3: So you're keying in on that, uh, preserved or enhanced.\n\nSpeaker 7: Yeah.","timeStart":7805.295,"timeEnd":7925.685,"chunkIndex":89},{"id":"b9a68df5-0b56-457a-b39a-084c2d8f6930","content":"Speaker 3: And you don't feel like this is an enhancement that qualifies to, uh, for the pro performance standards, so it doesn't meet the performance standards because this is not enough. No, it does meet\n\nSpeaker 7: Performance standards because it's less than 5,000 square foot alteration. Right. Is that true, Sarah?\n\nSpeaker 16: It also, uh, this planting area is about 400 square feet. Yeah. So just to give you a scale.\n\nSpeaker 7: So let's, than a 5,000 square foot alteration. So that's number one. Then removing what, sorry? I\n\nSpeaker 16: Was was gonna say we're also removing an invasive and add, enhancing what's, you know, ornamental there to something that's native.\n\nSpeaker 7: Right? And so it's, it's got to also then maintain undisturbed vegetation along the river or preserve it and extend it to the maximum extent feasible. And so that language to me is met on the second NOI with the, the vegetated buffers along Herbert Brook.\n\nSpeaker 3: Uh, I think it, I think it directly talks about this area. So it is along the brook mm-hmm . It, it enhanced it. Mm-hmm . And I don't remember what other the, the other one is, but I, but I think, you know, we're, we're splitting strides\n\nSpeaker 7: On this. I think we're the same thing, that it's, it's meeting the performance standard the way I, I think","timeStart":7926.445,"timeEnd":8015.205,"chunkIndex":90},{"id":"98fbd3b5-d198-402a-a2bc-d622bd967128","content":"Speaker 3: It's meeting, meeting the performance standards. We don't need to go near the brook. So I, it sounds like in your, my mind that you're saying you would be more comfortable if this restoration was closer to the brook. You see that as being closer. But it does say to the extent practicable, this is the spot for it in this situation. And I think that's where you're able to kind of rest your head on, on, um, these standards and keeping everything, you know, right here, uh, uh, you know, instead of adding that mitigation that's along the brook.\n\nSpeaker 7: Right. And, and the, the, um, the standards also say no significant adverse impact at 10.584 D one. And I think we're not creating a significant adverse impact because, because of the vegetation that we're putting in removing that pathway, which we didn't talk about, but that's also happening. Um, which is, which is impervious surface there right now. Um, it is,\n\nSpeaker 16: It is proposed in the other notice. Just\n\nSpeaker 7: Clarification, but Yeah. But yeah. So\n\nSpeaker 16: In reality, , all of this\n\nSpeaker 7: Is in reality going be boots on the ground. Yeah. Yeah.\n\nSpeaker 3: So in reality, Susan , you don't have to go over the ones that it meets because it's, it's pretty clear that the, the one that you would concerned about is, um, the one that you needed to do the improvement as close as possible to the river. I think this is as close as possible, um, um, here, and it's an enhancement over the existing conditions. So it feels\n\nSpeaker 7: Like, like with it.","timeStart":8015.205,"timeEnd":8121.635,"chunkIndex":91},{"id":"9944ed4f-b1d3-4a29-ab19-01d6c1e8e804","content":"Speaker 3: Yeah. I, I mean, if you just even compare it to the project, you're, you, you're, you're pretty good. Yeah. Um,\n\nSpeaker 7: Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 3: Okay. Uh, Sarah, uh, and in conclusion, I guess we're gonna get a planting plan for this area. So it's gonna be her base shrub air, um, and, uh, you know, monitoring plan and, and you know, monitoring for invasives and some sort of reports, which is pretty standard, such standard condition. Um, so anything else on this one here?\n\nSpeaker 7: Just as a reminder, Sarah, we have a three year monitoring requirement. Okay. In the\n\nSpeaker 3: Viable and a percentage. Right.\n\nSpeaker 7: And it's a 80% survival rate Okay. For these types of plants, a hundred percent of trees, but you're not planting trees.\n\nSpeaker 16: And I just presume that would be in the condition.\n\nSpeaker 7: Yeah. But I just wanna give you notice, because when you are writing, when you're writing your planting plan and you're monitoring for invasives, you know,\n\nSpeaker 9: I think it may be in our regs as well. Hopefully\n\nSpeaker 7: It is.\n\nSpeaker 9: Okay. Yep. So\n\nSpeaker 7: In the vegetation,\n\nSpeaker 9: Sarah can take a, take a look at the regs. Yep.\n\nSpeaker 16: Great. And I'll use the, um, native planting list, um, that you have on the, um, available to us on the website. Perfect. I've got it printed out. So we've been using it. Um, and that sounds great. So I, I appreciate that I, if the commission is satisfied with that, we'll take that action item and get that, um, submitted through the office, uh, in advance of our next hearing, and hopefully, um, conclude that discussion.","timeStart":8122.185,"timeEnd":8227.205,"chunkIndex":92},{"id":"dc74b1e3-18c8-4b01-ba44-760e752e1272","content":"Speaker 7: So when would you like this continued to? I'm, I'm usurping Chuck. Chuck, you're supposed to ask that. Sorry. .\n\nSpeaker 16: Uh, what is the date of the next hearing? Is it the, oh,\n\nSpeaker 3: 19th.\n\nSpeaker 9: 19th?\n\nSpeaker 3: Yeah. Okay.\n\nSpeaker 16: Uh, I think the 19th would would be great\n\nSpeaker 3: If you please. Okay. So we're gonna ask for a motion to continue this hearing until the 19th\n\nSpeaker 9: So moved.\n\nSpeaker 3: Nathaniel Stevens. Second. Second.\n\nSpeaker 7: Oops. David. Got it. Nope.\n\nSpeaker 3: I'll give it to Susan.\n\nSpeaker 7: Okay.\n\nSpeaker 3: . And give it to Susan. Uh, Mike Gil game. Yes. Uh, David White. Yes. David Kaplan. Yes. Brian McBride. Yes. Nathaniel Stevens.\n\nSpeaker 9: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 3: Susan Chapnick. Yes.\n\nSpeaker 3: Chuck Terone says yes. Okay. Has continued. Now we're gonna move on to our next one, which is, uh, GDP file number 9 1 3 7 6. As a notice of intent for the, uh, Winchester Country Club 4 68 Mystic Street, the public hearing will be held on the Conservation Commission, consider a notice of intent to conduct improvements to the facilities within the buffer zone adjacent upland resource area, and the riverfront associated with Herbert Meyer Brooks and within the buffer zone and or of the bordering vegetative wetland. And again, a site visit was conducted with Susan and Nathaniel Stevens, Michael Gil, the game, and myself on January 21st. And so was, uh, Sarah was there and others from Bees. And Thomas, Sarah, can you again introduce yourself for the record and bring us up to date with this project?","timeStart":8229.135,"timeEnd":8334.405,"chunkIndex":93},{"id":"affef323-205d-4f9b-aaa4-1e3c4c3b2027","content":"Speaker 16: Yes. Thank you again, Mr. Chair. Uh, for the record, Sarah Sterns with Bees and Thomas. Um, my colleague Matt Cody pe is with me as well as, uh, members of, um, the club staff. Uh, so, uh, what you see in front of you is part of a package that we submitted to the commission last week, um, summarizing what we talked about. Uh, last, and the way we broke it up just to try to stay somewhat organized is kind of by different scope items. So we have a section on the, um, caddy shack slash Social Pavilion, the putting green, and then the clubhouse edition, just to try to organize it in some somewhat logical way. So, um, Mr. Chair, what's, what's the preference here? Shall I just kind of go through the letter? Do we wanna focus on what this exhibit shows and just kind of go left to right or does anyone have","timeStart":8336.035,"timeEnd":8393.085,"chunkIndex":94},{"id":"8f6f7575-8256-43ae-b83e-5e598180b4c9","content":"Speaker 3: Any? So let's address, uh, the town engineer and letting everyone know that the town engineer, uh, does not anticipate any significant design changes as a result of the, uh, his engineering review. And he sent an email just saying that yes, you're, what you're adding impervious versus are altering it. So you are required to go through that review. And since you are with the Conservation Commission, uh, he is suggestion is to continue with the Conservation Commission. And he believes any change that he asked for will be notes on the plans. So I think I, I, yeah, I think I got that right. And so I wanted the commissioners, and that was put up on our, on our website for commissioners to review. But I want them to understand that it did get, uh, informal review and that we've been told that, um, it's going to be fine and we wouldn't have to have them come back. Although if there are significant changes, you do have to come back. You understand that. So I would add that. And I see that Nathaniel Stevens, uh, his hand up.\n\nSpeaker 9: Just a small administrative point, could you please forward that email if it hasn't been sent already to the agent for the Winchester Conservation Commission, recall the site visit that they requested that?\n\nSpeaker 3: Good point. Yes. Uh, that's a good idea. Thanks for the reminder,\n\nSpeaker 17: Nathaniel. I'll do that next.\n\nSpeaker 3: That's, that's in your lap, David Morgan. Okay.","timeStart":8393.085,"timeEnd":8482.125,"chunkIndex":95},{"id":"8eed3e34-f986-4106-ac99-7898b85f4a90","content":"Speaker 7: And also, um, just to clarify, um, and it says this in the email that you will need a permit, a stormwater permit from the town. And our standard conditions do say that you have to obtain, you know, all appropriate other permits for this project before proceeds. So,\n\nSpeaker 16: Yeah. Yep. Um, Matt has had some good discussions, um, with the town engineer, both in Arlington and in Winchester. Um, so we have made some slight modifications, um, just at the request of the Winchester Town engineer. Um, nothing that will change this design, um, in a substantial way at all. They just use a different system. Um, what we have designed exceeds their standards. Um, so, you know, you can feel confident that this design meets all of the local and state best management standards for stormwater. Um, but those conversations are ongoing. Um, we'll stay in touch with the Arlington engineer, you know, as this process continues with this commission, just so he knows when, um, this is concluded, assuming an order is, um, issued for this, and then we'll, you know, do the more formal permitting with him and take care of that as well. So, um, I think we're on the right track with that.","timeStart":8482.465,"timeEnd":8568.725,"chunkIndex":96},{"id":"c183a12e-0780-462c-9cd8-c15e4c7ba22f","content":"Speaker 16: He was pleased, didn't really have any, um, issues with it. So I think as far as stormwater goes, I think we're in good shape with both towns, um, for the portion of the project that's in Winchester as well. Um, and you know, in our letter response to the commission, we did, um, do a kind of a deeper dive in reporting on impervious perus versus impervious kind of existing proposed and change in the area in the pertinent areas. So hopefully that is some clarity on that and, you know, kind of where the focus is there. And that obviously relates to the stormwater review as well.\n\nSpeaker 3: Sure. And so, um, so we have two options at this point. So Sarah was, uh, you know, volunteering to go through that list of, uh, responses, but if anyone has read it, you can, uh, see that a lot of those responses meet the performance standards. So I was just wondering, giving that, if, you know, I mean, I can, I, I anticipate some people may not want to do it this way, but let's just see if there are merely questions that people have, uh, in certain areas, um, that I guess in weaker spots where maybe the town bylaw wasn't, uh, fully, uh, addressed in that, in their performance standards. So do you want to go through the entire list of, uh, answers and, uh, or do you wanna just start talking about specific areas that we are interested in after ourselves, our own review, uh, in hands?\n\nSpeaker 9: I, I would prefer not going through the letter. It's lengthy. Um, I assume everyone read it, but maybe di as you suggest, Chuck, just dive in with questions.","timeStart":8568.985,"timeEnd":8683.585,"chunkIndex":97},{"id":"71669f9d-e711-4e59-a183-42e8be4cb587","content":"Speaker 3: Sure. So let's do that. And, um, oh, um, yeah. David Kaplan, uh, do you have a comment?\n\nSpeaker 8: Oh, just gonna start diving into questions. Um,\n\nSpeaker 3: Then since you're like right there, let's, let's go with you. Okay.\n\nSpeaker 8: I'm ready to go. Thank you. Yeah,\n\nSpeaker 3: Ready to go.\n\nSpeaker 8: Um, so I guess my first question, I saw your comment on, um, you know, not being able to turn the bunker into a rain garden. I think that was an original comment from me and that that's fine. It looks like there's a nice buffer strip of native plantings between the toe of the slope and the wetlands. So I think there'll be, um, you know, some nice, um, you know, uh, rain attenuation at that point, and it'll be better off than it was. So thank you for that. And, um, I had a second question, but it's, oh, um, the materials for the decking, I saw that you had a couple of different options and I guess I'd be just, my preference would be the, uh, the temperature, what is it, the, the thermal wood rather than the composite. I think that sort of more aligns with our climate, um, uh, goals and, you know, having less plastic in the environment. So,","timeStart":8684.575,"timeEnd":8765.195,"chunkIndex":98},{"id":"3cc59d1a-d13a-482b-9533-5710a4cc3bfd","content":"Speaker 3: So I have a, I have a comment only because, um, I was talking to a consultant and they said they had a hard time sourcing that, so I'm not sure if it's, um, and I don't want them to come back. So maybe we can think of a condition that would put this first on the list, but if it's something that can't be sourced, uh, in a reasonable amount of time that they, uh, have a fallback option. I dunno if you looked into that, David, but that's, that's what I've heard.\n\nSpeaker 8: But it could be another wood product. Yeah, they, they just, you know, had mentioned that they had those two options available. So I was just giving my preference, but I don't want to bootstrap 'em into one thing that they can't source.\n\nSpeaker 3: Okay. And Nathaniel said it can just be another wood product, so maybe, maybe that works. But, um, Sarah, you looking to close tonight?\n\nSpeaker 16: Well, uh, similarly to our last discussion, um, we have proposed this to have, you know, feedback from the commission on, um, the sizing and location of our mitigation plan. And yes, in this project we are calling it a mitigation plan. It does meet the two to one, uh, ratio and then some. Um, so I think from here, if we could sort of come away tonight with the understanding that everybody's satisfied with what we are presenting here tonight, conceptually we can once again come back with a more formal planting plan, um, and just kind of outline some species, um, for the areas that we're actively proposing planting. And then, you know, anything else that may come up tonight try to resolve at the next hearing.","timeStart":8766.885,"timeEnd":8869.925,"chunkIndex":99},{"id":"31073659-9962-4c29-9c92-2707c4ae462e","content":"Speaker 3: Great. Okay. And all that being said, I was just gonna say, add options for the decking to your list. Come back with some in case or determine whether you can get this, uh, this wood product.\n\nSpeaker 16: I will, um, coordinate with the club's architect those two options came from them. Mm-hmm . Um, and relay the commission's preference and see if they can come up with some additional alternatives if possible.\n\nSpeaker 3: Great. Uh, any other questions from the commission? Nurse commissioners, , excuse me. Yeah, and I have some too. So Susan, go ahead. Uh,\n\nSpeaker 7: Yeah, can you just briefly go through the imperious surface, um, comparison? I mean, you don't have to go through all the numbers, but just show me where everything is. Um, sure. Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 16: So I'll just kind of touch on the, the big ticket items. The big\n\nSpeaker 7: Ticket items. There","timeStart":8870.655,"timeEnd":8931.735,"chunkIndex":100},{"id":"3e1f0751-332e-4b10-bfaa-2a59fdb4b1fd","content":"Speaker 16: Aren't any real large areas as part of this project as you can imagine. But just to kind of focus on the changes. So going from left to right, um, you mentioned in the other hearing, um, the sort of short, um, paved cart path is being proposed to be removed and um, turned to a gravel cart path. Um, just to really encourage pedestrian use rather than golf cart use, given how steep the slope is. So that's one, um, change to the good. Um, the social pavilion current caddy shack. So the roof that you're seeing here, the proposed, it's overlaid on the existing caddy shack, um, which is impervious other than um, sort of the right hand side where Matt's, um, cursor is where that sort of gravel picnic area is under a tent. That's really the change in the impervious area as far as the, um, proposed social pavilion goes because that would become, you know, fully under the roof line\n\nSpeaker 7: Covered. So that's, that's impervious area.","timeStart":8931.735,"timeEnd":8999.935,"chunkIndex":101},{"id":"936173c3-5155-4187-9b5c-072228b45271","content":"Speaker 16: Yes. So that is going to be an increase in impervious area mm-hmm . Under that section of it. Mm-hmm . Um, and that's calculated into the stormwater management. Um, again, just holding the line of the existing building at the, you know, closer edge to the stream as it is today, not getting any further. And then as this plan shows, including a fairly robust, um, native planting plan where as we saw when we were out there, there's really nothing out there other than Right. Managed turf and a couple of, you know, arbor variety type mm-hmm . Evergreens next to the, um, end of the building. So, um, yeah, so there is a small increase in impervious at the pavilion. Um, the upside is that there's a ton of planting and it will be captured, the roof line will be captured, um, in a stormwater management system. Whereas it's nothing, it's not captured at all to in today, today's system.","timeStart":9000.515,"timeEnd":9057.055,"chunkIndex":102},{"id":"35634355-4798-4ea4-899e-1d363a0a87e8","content":"Speaker 16: Um, and then I'll just continue on and if you have specifics we can do Sure, mm-hmm . And then at the putting green area, you can see that there's an existing paved cart path, um, that under the new putting green, uh, layout gets removed and then replaced sort of to the left of that, um, in a smaller footprint. So there's a, a net loss of impervious area in this area. Um, and so, you know, we've kind of calculated that in as well. Um, and then just kind of shifting over to the clubhouse edition, it's so nice having someone else. Um, scroll for me. . Thank you Matt. Um, so, and here where the clubhouse edition is proposed, um, it's proposed partially over existing impervious area, but um, also over existing, um, maintained lawn. So this area is an increase in pervious area, um, from what it is today. And again, that went into the stormwater calculation. Um, I think that's it for kind of impervious versus pervious in terms of new proposal.\n\nSpeaker 7: So just remind me 'cause I don't have the plan in front of me. What is the in in total increase in impervious surface?\n\nSpeaker 16: I believe it's 4,800 square feet total. If I can, lemme just pull up my,\n\nSpeaker 18: Yeah, that that's correct, Sarah.\n\nSpeaker 16: Okay. 4,800 increase in impervious in,\n\nSpeaker 18: In, I guess with the, in Arlington there's a small also increase in Winchester, but the, but in Arlington it's 4,800. Yes.\n\nSpeaker 7: And is that all within 200 over front? Looks like it.","timeStart":9058.795,"timeEnd":9162.945,"chunkIndex":103},{"id":"88e2e1aa-5126-4363-8f12-eafdb66bfa03","content":"Speaker 16: It is, yeah. I mean the whole, the whole entirety of the clubhouse you can see right. Um, is in the 200 foot. Okay. So everything that we're talking about today Okay. Is in riverfront, um, predominantly in the outer right\n\nSpeaker 7: A hundred feet in the outer port. And so we're meeting the two to one mitigation along mainly with plantings along Herbert Brook and some of them around the putting green.\n\nSpeaker 16: Yes. So the planting area planted areas, um, at the pavilion and um, sort of at the toe, the lower end of the putting green, that alone meets the two to one mitigation impact mitigation ratio. And then, you know, we're also including the invasive species, uh, management at the edge of the pool in that sort of small area of the bank. Um, and then the no maintenance zone, um, sort of shown in that cross hatch pattern, which, you know, all in is more like a, I think it's seven and a half to one ratio.\n\nSpeaker 7: Right, okay. It looked like more than two to one. I forgot what the numbers were. Thank","timeStart":9163.165,"timeEnd":9232.865,"chunkIndex":104},{"id":"959ebda1-1c01-4c5a-9ba2-fb37b38fe521","content":"Speaker 16: You. Yeah. Yeah. Mm-hmm . So, you know, I think clearly this is an effort to, you know, um, enhance the area, restore quite a bit of it, kind of a hands-off approach, um, formalized as part of this review, um, in an important area. You know, as we have been saying, a lot of this infrastructure and development was developed decades, several decades ago. And so, um, you know, by today's standards I'm sure this would never have happened. But, you know, this is where we are today and it's a very limited area and scope that um, the club can kind of give back. Um, and I think that with our discussions and the helpful info from the commission, I think this plan accomplishes that.\n\nSpeaker 7: And then I had one other question. So there's another stormwater system along Mystic Valley Parkway and remind me, is that getting changed?\n\nSpeaker 16: Um,\n\nSpeaker 7: That's underneath that, that's underneath the, um, basketball court.\n\nSpeaker 16: Yes. So that is the proposed system to address the clubhouse edition, the impervious area from the clubhouse edition. And I think what we talked about on our site walk was, you know, placing it there to, we originally had it placed a little bit to the north, but there are several trees there that the club wanted to ensure did not get disturbed. And so we, you know, we didn't wanna touch anything that didn't needed to be touched. So we came up with the plan to put this beneath the existing, it's a little sport court areas, basketball hoop, um, and then just kind of put that back on top of it in its exact same footprint. But again, yeah,","timeStart":9232.865,"timeEnd":9337.125,"chunkIndex":105},{"id":"3c8a0682-fce5-4226-befb-542fef7eecd8","content":"Speaker 7: No, that looks like a good location. I just wanna make sure that the town engineer reviewed both stormwater systems.\n\nSpeaker 16: Yes, he did. Okay,\n\nSpeaker 7: Thank you. Yeah. Okay. No, I saw David, those are all my questions, Chuck.\n\nSpeaker 3: Sure. I saw David Kaplan's hand up. Yeah, sure. David.\n\nSpeaker 8: So yeah, I just had a question too, a little more information about that no maintenance area. So some of that maintenance area closer to the tee box that was in, was that incorporated into any kind of like mowing or any, any kind of management or, I guess my broader question is, has any of this no maintenance area been involved in any kind of maintenance so far?\n\nSpeaker 16: Some of, some of it does get mowed. Yeah. Um, a lot of it, particularly as we kind of go downstream is sort of hands off for the most part today anyway. And this kind of formalizes the fact, you know, so that going forward the club has, you know, sort of a, um, template for the next people who, you know, are in management or whatever, you know, when there's the consistency sort of gets lost inevitably over time that this area isn't to be touched. Um, so I think, you know, up by the culvert, that's an area that, um, gets mowed once a year mm-hmm . Um, and then sort of as you go downstream that's largely hands off today.\n\nSpeaker 8: So you, so you're proposing now moving forward to no longer mow that once a year that'll just, it'll just be allowed to rewild and","timeStart":9337.125,"timeEnd":9435.605,"chunkIndex":106},{"id":"2dcc8af0-95d5-430e-8dbd-6b6cd63eae56","content":"Speaker 16: I, I believe that was the, um, agreement. I think Blaine Doherty is on still the su club superintendent. If he, if it's okay, uh, Mr. Chair for Blaine to weigh in as the groundskeeper here, he is probably the better person to respond to those specifics than I am sure Blaine. Yeah.\n\nSpeaker 19: Yes, we have agreed not to mow that area from only mowing it once a year to zero times a year.\n\nSpeaker 8: Okay. All right. Um, so I mean, I guess just for that area, if all the other areas, you're basically just codifying what you're doing already and that is a pretty visible area. I mean, I, it might be a good idea just to see what's coming back. It's kind of an edge habitat, you know, when you do have, you have, um, signal that you'd be interested in helping manage the knot weed. But I guess, you know, if you could have some sort of monitoring plan and you know, if, if, if it does just turn out to be a bit of invasives and that's what comes back, um, yeah, I mean I'm not necessarily proposing that that be a planted restoration area, but again, it's, I would just hate to see it, you know, come back in a way that's, um, gonna be aesthetically unpleasing to you, but also ecologically, um, impactful.\n\nSpeaker 16: Yeah.","timeStart":9436.565,"timeEnd":9519.965,"chunkIndex":107},{"id":"7cc3ddf8-51e7-48ee-9cd1-81011f00ad7a","content":"Speaker 8: So is there, is there, it is something that, you know, some kind of informal kind of monitoring plan and you know, if there are invasives, maybe you can, um, you know, come back to the commission in five years or something and let us know and we can help you figure out what to do with that space if it becomes an eyesore for everybody.\n\nSpeaker 16: So we did, um, include with our submission last week, a proposed, um, invasive species, um, management plan for\n\nSpeaker 8: The, I guess my, I I was thinking that would just cover that not weed space, but you're,\n\nSpeaker 16: You know, I think cover one of the things we had talked about, I believe at one point along the way is, you know, no maintenance in this zone other than kind of scouting and keeping an eye out for invasives. Oh, okay. Anything that would be the only thing because there is, you know, as you said, um, you know, particularly on the southern side of the bank, you know, it's pretty well vegetated and it's pretty diverse on its own. But I think, you know, having this in mind to keep, um, you know, an IO for invasives particularly while, um, actively managing the area closest to the pool, I think is reasonable. And, um, you know, something that assuming the invasives plan is approved, I would guess there'd be some kind of monitoring and reporting associated with that. So that could be","timeStart":9520.465,"timeEnd":9612.845,"chunkIndex":108},{"id":"e54fbde3-d267-4be8-8d2d-b856ac05f167","content":"Speaker 8: Part of this as well. Okay. Yeah. Well, as, as it's currently submitted, it looks like it's just specific to not weed. So if you do want to make it mm-hmm. A little bit more general and incorporate other, um, uh, other areas of the club, um, perhaps you should take another look and, um, let us know what maybe other potential species or other management techniques you may wanna imply to different areas. But I appreciate your taking a look at that.\n\nSpeaker 3: Great. Uh, and that's a great segue into what I was gonna talk about my specific discussion points for as about those mitigation areas. And, uh, I too read it as it was a not weed only review, so I wanted you to work on that. And so I wanted you to, and you've said as much here tonight, but I just didn't see it written down. So we would, uh, require that all mitigation, um, the areas that are designated for that and the no mo zone are patrolled, and that can be once, twice a year depending on what Blaine uh, puts in. I, I guess he's gonna be putting in together this plan or maybe at least being, uh, consulted on it. And so you would monitor for invasives and for, uh, winter die off. And so we certainly don't want these areas which could, uh, turn completely into knot weed as it's happened by the pool.","timeStart":9612.995,"timeEnd":9710.195,"chunkIndex":109},{"id":"663ae9c6-272a-46fe-a13a-67d4e3e990b2","content":"Speaker 3: So, um, annual monitoring after the winter would be my preference. So we could include winter die off in that, and then you would give suggestions for replanting in, in those cases. Now this includes everywhere, so you can make it more specific. 'cause I understand the bank and the slope, those weren't really touched that much, but you're creating a whole, um, habitat area just below the putting green. And so we certainly wouldn't wanna have invasives encroaching into that area. Um, and as it, as it is, um, part of the approval process for the projects that you're doing, this is going to be maintained in perpetuity. So in the next, and I don't know if you're here, at the beginning of the meeting, I was basically strong armed into agreeing that I'll be the chair for the next 16 years. So, um, we have to ensure that when you come back here again, that this, uh, both sides are, um, vegetated left wild, and this in place.","timeStart":9711.215,"timeEnd":9780.755,"chunkIndex":110},{"id":"bf7736ae-4740-46ec-ab5e-ad65f45feec8","content":"Speaker 3: So that creeping down to the edge of the stream does not happen anymore. So this is in perpetuity. I'd like to see those notes on the plan because certain people review plans and certain people review the orders of conditions and, and other things. So that would, that's, that's what I want. So it's a, um, more than just Japanese, uh, not weed. We, we want you to review. And I, I can see that's probably mostly what you have. And I also wanted to put in some sort of, um, like a monitoring trigger. And I'm not sure if the commission agrees that if, if we'd like to see at least 85% of this area, um, native, and when it falls below or above 10% invasive, you have to come to the commission and present a plan to uh, uh, you know, get it back into the lines that we would like. So no more than 10% of this area can ever be, um, uh, invasive, uh, laden.","timeStart":9780.935,"timeEnd":9847.775,"chunkIndex":111},{"id":"ed55e025-89ff-4d70-8fc0-480cfb5d45d2","content":"Speaker 16: So just to kind of say it back to you to make sure I'm getting mm-hmm . The gist here. Um, and I agree that the knotweed plan was just sort of in response to what we talked about by the pool, but I think even if it wasn't written, I, I definitely heard the, um, concern for monitoring for other invasives in this area kind of throughout time. Um, so the club will be tasked with monitoring and managing in any invasives that crop up in the newly planted areas as well as the no maintenance area, um, in perpetuity. And if things, you know, under a different management regime down the line or whatever, get wild and, you know, become overtaken with invasives, they will be required to come back to the commission to develop a more robust plan for management. Is that generally it?\n\nSpeaker 3: It's generally it, but we put some percentage in there so we would know. Okay. And I suggested 85% native. If it ever turned, you know, less than that, you would have to come back to the commission and, uh, with a plan it is in perpetuity. And I also believe with that, so should be the monitoring reports. I don't think that's a big ask considering there's a grounds, uh, uh, you have grounds people and you also have Blaine there to, uh, who could actually put that report together for the commission.\n\nSpeaker 16: Sound good to you, Blaine?\n\nSpeaker 19: Yeah, that sounds great.\n\nSpeaker 3: Okay. Okay. Uh, Blaine, I wanted to ask you a question. Are you a licensed applicator?\n\nSpeaker 19: I am indeed.\n\nSpeaker 3: Thank you Susan. Um, uh, I just wanted to clarify,","timeStart":9851.855,"timeEnd":9963.285,"chunkIndex":112},{"id":"2d43254a-fc3c-4b50-8977-b61750b5a693","content":"Speaker 7: Um, and I know we're not writing conditions now, um, but when you say 85% native, I think we're better off saying no more than 15% invasive because some of our plants are not native, but they're not considered invasive. Naturalized, like overtake. Exactly. They're naturalized, you know, due to climate change or whatever, and they don't overtake, you know, other plants. So I just wanna be careful of how we word that.\n\nSpeaker 3: Yeah. I accept your, uh, uh, your condition. That sounds fine with me. Okay,\n\nSpeaker 7: Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 3: Any other comments? Are we ready to, um, oh, I should ask if anyone's here, uh, uh, attending tonight's meeting, who has any comments about this project? And if you do, please uh, speak up, turn your video on, or use the raise hand functions to let us know that you would like to speak for the last one standing Chuck. Well, I have the big plan in front of me, but, uh, that was good. I thought you were someone for, I was like, oh, here's somebody. Um, so given that, um, we need, uh, permission to uh, extend this to who do we say the 17th? Can't remember what that date was. That's the next meeting. Do you think you'll be ready on the 19th?","timeStart":9964.225,"timeEnd":10052.065,"chunkIndex":113},{"id":"6dd91641-00c4-4d63-bd08-a3497c0f119c","content":"Speaker 16: So, uh, yes. What I'd like to do is, um, for both of our notices, uh, prepare our planting plan, submit, revise stamped plans, um, that, you know, feel final to us, um, ahead of the next meeting. We can do that within the next week and get that to the commission so you have plenty of time to review. Um, and hopefully, uh, discuss closing at the next meeting. So, yes, uh, February 19th, I think it was Mr. Chair and we agree.\n\nSpeaker 3: Great. Uh, okay,\n\nSpeaker 9: I just have a procedural suggestion that the more I think about this, I think it would be better to have one plan for both projects, especially for the mitigation.\n\nSpeaker 16: Thank you for bringing that up. Um, that is what we're gonna do. Um, and tell me what you think about this. Just to have everything in one place, but sort of clarify which projects are under which DEP file number? Um, yeah,\n\nSpeaker 9: Have a have a chart or something on it. Yeah, you could do like a a is everything for the first one and B Yes.\n\nSpeaker 16: The little baby first T planting plan. So different hatch pattern with DEP, file number, whatever. And we can show the remainder sort of as a, you know, screened pattern, uh, gray, lighter gray or something like that. And then for the other DEP file number, just do the reverse. Um, but that way everything is captured on both, you know, particularly for the larger project. I know that's kind of the meat and potatoes of this whole thing. Um, but not to lose sight of the, just for compliance on the other project as well.","timeStart":10053.485,"timeEnd":10157.765,"chunkIndex":114},{"id":"9cc945b6-4a59-44b5-bd57-2229ad0647ad","content":"Speaker 3: Alright. Okay. We got that. And, uh, so with, without any other comments or motions,\n\nSpeaker 9: Motion to continue to the next meeting? 19th? Yes. On the 19th, which I, I'll not be at, but I'll make the motion anyways.\n\nSpeaker 3: Can I get a second?\n\nSpeaker 12: Second and I won't take the meeting either.\n\nSpeaker 3: Okay. Yes. There you go. So let's go with Susan Chapnick. Yes. And David White? Yes. David Kaplan? Yes. And Brian McBride? Yes. And Mike Gilda game?\n\nSpeaker 12: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 3: With Daniel Stevens?\n\nSpeaker 9: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 3: And Chuck Charney says yes. So you continue to the 19th. And um, yeah, very important that we would get this information prior to the meeting and again, notes on the plan. Uh, so, and don't forget to update the operation maintenance plan to what we also discussed tonight. That would be, uh, important.\n\nSpeaker 7: Chuck, I see that David has his hand, David Morgan, but I would just like to make sure we have a quorum for the 19th. I\n\nSpeaker 2: Was just gonna ask, that's what I was gonna do. Yeah.\n\nSpeaker 7: Okay. See I read your mind. I will be here.\n\nSpeaker 10: I'll not, Brian will not\n\nSpeaker 7: Brian, Brian, Mike, not Brian will not. So it's me. Chuck, will you be here?\n\nSpeaker 3: I will be here. You're at four?\n\nSpeaker 7: David White? Yes.\n\nSpeaker 2: Dave Kaplan. Yeah,\n\nSpeaker 8: Dave Kaplan. Sorry, I was checking my calendar. It looks like I'm, I'm gonna be\n\nSpeaker 7: Here. Oh, okay. 'cause that's school vacation week. So I didn't know if you were gonna be Yeah,\n\nSpeaker 8: That's why I was checking. I wasn't sure.","timeStart":10159.855,"timeEnd":10263.235,"chunkIndex":115},{"id":"8f56944c-610b-4ec2-b6a1-255d54cd94fb","content":"Speaker 7: But you will be\n\nSpeaker 3: Basically. Yeah.\n\nSpeaker 8: Yeah. We'll, we'll be around.\n\nSpeaker 7: Okay, so then we have four. Okay,\n\nSpeaker 3: Well I'm the definite, so, and if you know, if everyone else can make it, we do have a call.\n\nSpeaker 7: Okay. Uh,\n\nSpeaker 2: If, if we, I'll get sick, have something come up or somebody gets sick or whatever, I'll do my best to notify you as early as possible so you're not Yes. Saving the date for a meeting. That won't happen\n\nSpeaker 12: If needed, I might be able to chime in from Colorado.\n\nSpeaker 7: Wow. Okay.\n\nSpeaker 3: And that's good.\n\nSpeaker 16: Of the four of the four that are planning on attending, is everybody still eligible? Everyone has, if anyone has missed a meeting they've caught up with done\n\nSpeaker 7: A Mullen rule. What? You know what, that's a good point. Um, I'll, I'll ask um, Jackie to check that because she can check the minutes. Jackie, if you could check\n\nSpeaker 3: The minutes. I know I've been there.\n\nSpeaker 7: I think I've met\n\nSpeaker 3: Susan David Kalin meeting. Yeah. Yeah. David White. What do you say? You know, we can have Jackie check, but I think we all remember this project. So David White,\n\nSpeaker 7: I, I'm not sure Dave missed any meetings though. No,\n\nSpeaker 3: We don't miss meetings. I don't think anybody missed any meetings. Oh, okay.\n\nSpeaker 8: Yeah, I, I, I can't recall. Um, but if I do miss one meeting, that means I just have to watch the meeting I missed.\n\nSpeaker 7: Right, right. And fill out the Mullen rule, the mu the form and then that's fine. You're right.","timeStart":10264.255,"timeEnd":10348.925,"chunkIndex":116},{"id":"7049b0f4-6be6-4d69-864b-9b5d49b9798f","content":"Speaker 16: The very first hearing we were missing a couple of members and um, so just maybe let's just double check that just 'cause that would be disappointing for everyone. Yes. Come that didn't work out, didn't have the right group of people. Absolutely.\n\nSpeaker 10: Yeah. I missed one of the early meetings, but I'm not coming anyway.\n\nSpeaker 16: Okay. Okay. Mm-hmm . Okay. Well it sounds like we can figure it out. Um, either way we'll work on getting revised plans. Matt's also gonna be away for that meeting, so we'll make sure to get everything done, um, the week before just so you have it in hand. And then we'll see what happens on the 19th. Sounds good. Sounds good. Hopefully everyone stay healthy. .\n\nSpeaker 3: All right. Well thank you for coming. Thanks everyone. Uh, we'll see you on the 19th and uh, hopefully David doesn't give you a, send you an email telling we have problem issues, so, okay. With that we're, uh, we're moving on and our agenda. I know it is completely. And we're just looking for a motion to uh, adjourn. I move to adjourn. I have a second,\n\nSpeaker 8: Second, second.\n\nSpeaker 3: David Kaplan second. All right. David White and David Kaplan. So everybody just wave and it looks like its, and everybody have unanim, those and Sarah joining the commission. Nice.","timeStart":10350.545,"timeEnd":10426.425,"chunkIndex":117}]}}}