{"citations":{"019fb693-b954-71e2-bb9f-8c609ad9034f":{"num":1,"sourceItemId":"019fb655-7f7e-7792-ae59-d894123aa34b"},"019fb693-b9fa-7748-baa3-fd4cdb2446c7":{"num":2,"sourceItemId":"019fb655-7f7e-7792-ae59-d894123aa34b"},"019fb693-ba02-704f-bdd7-03ccd7d1f8ff":{"num":3,"sourceItemId":"019fb655-7f7e-7792-ae59-d894123aa34b"},"019fb693-ba0a-74b4-ac29-679224688eaa":{"num":4,"sourceItemId":"019fb655-7f7e-7792-ae59-d894123aa34b"},"019fb693-ba34-7421-b3cb-250ef503247e":{"num":5,"sourceItemId":"019fb655-7f7e-7792-ae59-d894123aa34b"},"019fb693-ba2b-7531-8e73-edb805ff4059":{"num":6,"sourceItemId":"019fb655-7f7e-7792-ae59-d894123aa34b"},"019fb693-ba47-74f3-b0af-789ebab7fa30":{"num":7,"sourceItemId":"019fb655-7f7e-7792-ae59-d894123aa34b"},"019fb693-ba3e-7f1c-b9f2-3ade19db25e6":{"num":8,"sourceItemId":"019fb655-7f7e-7792-ae59-d894123aa34b"},"019fb693-ba13-7b0e-969f-912a55bdf979":{"num":9,"sourceItemId":"019fb655-7f7e-7792-ae59-d894123aa34b"},"019fb693-ba7b-7950-8582-393a5279110c":{"num":10,"sourceItemId":"019fb655-7f7e-7792-ae59-d894123aa34b"},"019fb693-ba6c-73b0-9214-fccfd9e3f443":{"num":11,"sourceItemId":"019fb655-7f7e-7792-ae59-d894123aa34b"},"019fb693-ba73-7999-9057-38d45f135a44":{"num":12,"sourceItemId":"019fb655-7f7e-7792-ae59-d894123aa34b"},"019fb693-ba64-7ead-a9fb-eacef93d4ce6":{"num":13,"sourceItemId":"019fb655-7f7e-7792-ae59-d894123aa34b"},"019fb693-bac5-7ecc-bd13-9f02404471af":{"num":14,"sourceItemId":"019fb655-7f7e-7792-ae59-d894123aa34b"},"019fb693-bacd-74c9-b0f5-df7b6b897001":{"num":15,"sourceItemId":"019fb655-7f7e-7792-ae59-d894123aa34b"},"019fb693-badc-77d7-ac11-ba0ea4e93aee":{"num":16,"sourceItemId":"019fb655-7f7e-7792-ae59-d894123aa34b"},"019fb693-baac-7cf2-bf89-ca559e8c1a6f":{"num":17,"sourceItemId":"019fb655-7f7e-7792-ae59-d894123aa34b"},"019fb693-b9d7-7f5e-9f04-ca85e2b72029":{"num":18,"sourceItemId":"019fb655-7f7e-7792-ae59-d894123aa34b"},"019fb693-bb22-72d2-bf0b-e97415e50e2e":{"num":19,"sourceItemId":"019fb655-7f7e-7792-ae59-d894123aa34b"},"019fb693-bb2a-7863-96f2-57ecb43c0e6c":{"num":20,"sourceItemId":"019fb655-7f7e-7792-ae59-d894123aa34b"},"019fb693-bb39-7160-8112-52c74deb8d77":{"num":21,"sourceItemId":"019fb655-7f7e-7792-ae59-d894123aa34b"},"019fb693-b9c7-7734-ad02-05f6e74c1d1a":{"num":22,"sourceItemId":"019fb655-7f7e-7792-ae59-d894123aa34b"},"019fb693-b9cf-7142-98e6-4ddc89c61a45":{"num":23,"sourceItemId":"019fb655-7f7e-7792-ae59-d894123aa34b"}},"sources":{"019fb655-7f7e-7792-ae59-d894123aa34b":{"sourceItemId":"019fb655-7f7e-7792-ae59-d894123aa34b","title":"Conservation Commission — 2026-07-23","videoUrl":"https://dkjpoal1tejoa.cloudfront.net/sites/a1000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000001/source-items/019fb655-7f7e-7792-ae59-d894123aa34b/Conservation_Commission_Meeting_-_July_23_2026.mp4","chunks":[{"id":"019fb693-b954-71e2-bb9f-8c609ad9034f","content":"Speaker 2: Good evening everybody. My name is David Morgan. I am Arlington's Conservation Agent and Environmental Planner. The June 23rd, 2026 meeting of the Arlington Conservation Commission will be conducted in remote format, consistent with state's legislation that extends remote participation and public meetings till June 30th of next year. Meetings being recorded and the recording may be made publicly available. All of the materials for the meeting are available at the link I put in the chat just now. Please note that the Zoom chat feature is, excuse me, may be used for questions and comments that contribute to the commission's proceedings and if it's used otherwise, may be disabled at the chair's discretion. Public comment period will follow each hearing tonight. The commission encourages attendees to ask questions and offer comments during that public comment period. Chuck Tierney is the commission chair. He'll facilitates tonight's meeting and we take each vote with a roll call vote and we begin with a review of the agenda and attendance so to you, Chuck for that.\n\nSpeaker 3: Alright, thanks David. Um, it's 7 0 2, uh, July 23rd, 2026 on our, we'll start out with, uh, reviewing the minutes and then brief, uh, they discuss correspondence, get into our discussion items with water bodies, tree Committee, sims, fishing line, and, and with an administrator's report. We have specific compliance for Miss Dick Lake Drive and three hearings tonight. We'll end tonight's session by going into executive session to approve minutes. And with that I will take, uh, attendance. So, um, Mike Gilda, game present. Nathaniel Stevens, Susan Chapnick. Here. David White. Here. David Kaplan. Brian McBride here. Associate members, Sarah Ferro Franco,\n\nSpeaker 4: Uh, present.\n\n","timeStart":15.595,"timeEnd":167.395,"chunkIndex":0},{"id":"019fb693-b95f-7770-84e6-3f9f500248fa","content":"Speaker 3: And Eileen Coleman. Okay. With that, we'll go right into our first item on the list list, which is, uh, we're gonna review the minutes. I believe these are from July.\n\nSpeaker 2: July 9th.\n\nSpeaker 3: July 9th.\n\nSpeaker 2: Let's just see, I guess Nathaniel was the only full member absent that night. So everybody was there approved of prior minutes. Some edits made, uh, David White, I guess updated this section on the auto bodies, his working group report, initial updates. And Susan, you put these together, right?\n\nSpeaker 6: Yes, Jackie did a draft and I, um, edited her draft. I didn't think it was worth putting track changes in for the person who is doing the draft that goes out to the whole commission. It just gets too cumbersome 'cause that's the draft that's going to the commission. So I didn't do it in track changes.\n\nSpeaker 2: That is okay. Okay. We talk 26 Dudley that night, just to continue it. 91 Sunny side. We had asked for additional materials on the engineering and stormwater infiltration also bumped the Reed Street conversation to tonight. And meaning adjourned. I actually don't have a timestamp on that one.\n\nSpeaker 5: Well,\n\nSpeaker 6: I thought it was on mine. That's interesting. From my version\n\nSpeaker 2: Off or something. I dunno.\n\nSpeaker 6: I dunno. I can check that. Um,\n\nSpeaker 5: Because\n\nSpeaker 6: My version is, is a is different. I know that Jackie does it in Word and then takes it back or something. I don't know how you do it. .\n\nSpeaker 2: Yeah. I believe it needs to be in Word to Okay. Get uploaded to the website and then\n\nSpeaker 6: Got it.\n\n","timeStart":169.035,"timeEnd":321.895,"chunkIndex":1},{"id":"019fb693-b969-70e0-8f76-c186b51f079e","content":"Speaker 7: Yeah. I do it on the website and then it turns it into a word. Uh, but then since we have to edit it, we have to do that in Word. I think I have the, the draft here. Oh no, that's a different one. I'll find it and find it.\n\nSpeaker 6: No, it didn't have the time on the meeting. Adjourn. That's interesting. We forgot to put the timestamp on. I think both you and I forgot that, Jackie. So maybe you can just, um, go to the end of the recording and see what time it was. I,\n\nSpeaker 8: Okay.\n\nSpeaker 3: So without, uh, any more comments, can I get, uh, motion\n\nSpeaker 9: Move to approve. Minutes\n\nSpeaker 3: As proceed. Mike kill game. Second.\n\nSpeaker 10: Second. Brian.\n\nSpeaker 3: Brian McBride. Um, Susan Chapnick. Yes. David White. Yes. Brian McBride.\n\nSpeaker 10: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 3: Mike Gilda game. Yes. And Chuck Terone says, yes, some minutes are approved. Moving on, uh, to correspondence. Correspondence, I\n\nSpeaker 2: Was one quick piece to bring to the commission's attention because it was concerning a development project opposite the high school in an area that the residents claimed had a spring. It's not mapped, it's not jurisdictional. We don't have any evidence to suggest that it should be, uh, other than reports of high groundwater, which of course are common in Arlington. So just wanted to point that out to you 'cause it is in front of the redevelopment board and I think was already approved. So, um,\n\nSpeaker 3: Just . So David, is this uh, correspondence or is this administrator's report? What, what is this, what is this that you're doing?\n\n","timeStart":322.405,"timeEnd":448.845,"chunkIndex":2},{"id":"019fb693-b973-7a3e-b1fb-ec4e8f00f8f4","content":"Speaker 2: Correspondence from Steven Vay who wrote in about 12 lock month half.\n\nSpeaker 3: Okay. And so that's, uh, that's the update. Any questions from the commission?\n\nSpeaker 10: Do, do we need to respond in any way to a letter like this?\n\nSpeaker 3: Um, with correspondence? I think that, um, our response would be to acknowledge the letter, decide whether it needs to be on a future agenda and, uh, or if any more discussion or actions need to take place. But, uh, that's, it can't go too much beyond that. And I think what David's telling us on this one here is it's, um, not jurisdictional.\n\nSpeaker 2: Mm-hmm . Yeah. And, uh, Brian, to be clear, I, I responded and said essentially what Chuck just said. Oh,\n\nSpeaker 10: Okay. Just wanna close the, close the loop with the correspondent.\n\nSpeaker 3: All. Alright, Brian. Alright. For other correspondence, uh, it's all available on the public, um, page for the Conservation Commission. If you're having trouble, uh, finding that, reach out to David Morgan. And I don't know if you did this, David, but, uh, David usually provides a chat, uh, a link in the chat and, um, he'll get to that soon if he hasn't done, done that already. Moving on from there, we have our discussion items. The first item on our list is the Water Bodies Working Group, uh, with an update from David White.\n\n","timeStart":449.065,"timeEnd":546.605,"chunkIndex":3},{"id":"019fb693-b9ae-70a5-abcc-2ad918499fe9","content":"Speaker 11: Well, Carolyn is our liaison. She reported some items from the meeting on Tuesday. Um, first item, no temporary ban, no shaming hook in education, possibly designated fishing areas, signage, perhaps off a permit for an online training. And action items are basically to, um, connect various people together who are doing this work so they know each other and work together on things. And, uh, did she update you on the Susan, about the, about the meeting?\n\nSpeaker 6: No, not personally. I need to reach out to her. I also want to know if they scheduled the, the next meeting so I can see if I'm available.\n\nSpeaker 11: Things are moving.\n\nSpeaker 6: I'll, I'll work. I'll reach out to her. Thank you. Mike has his stand up.\n\nSpeaker 3: I'm sorry. Yeah, I see that Mike has his, uh, so Mike Hills game. Yeah.\n\nSpeaker 9: Quick question. There was some mention of a permit. What was that all about?\n\nSpeaker 11: There was an idea that was floated at the meeting. Nothing definite.\n\nSpeaker 9: Permit to fish, you mean?\n\nSpeaker 2: Yeah, I think a local permit.\n\nSpeaker 11: Fish. Yeah.\n\nSpeaker 2: For fishing. Yeah.\n\nSpeaker 11: A local permit. Maybe these are all just things she threw out. I don't know what the status is, but they were discussed at the meeting.\n\nSpeaker 6: I think they were brainstorming.\n\nSpeaker 11: I think so too. Yeah. Yeah. I think they were, I think nothing different. Decided. That's what I have.\n\nSpeaker 3: Okay. Thank you. David White. Um, we're gonna move on to our tree committee liaison. Sarah Ferro Franco.\n\n","timeStart":1221.365,"timeEnd":1324.275,"chunkIndex":10},{"id":"019fb693-b9b6-787f-a889-cddbaec79e0e","content":"Speaker 4: Um, I did not attend last week's, uh, tree committee meeting. It was one of those days where we had lots of, uh, bad, but, uh, bad air quality , uh, courtesy of, uh, wildfires in Canada. Um, Jackie, did you attend that meeting?\n\nSpeaker 7: Yes, I was there.\n\nSpeaker 4: Okay.\n\nSpeaker 7: Um,\n\nSpeaker 4: Chuck, is it okay for me to ask Jackie? Sure. Sorry about that. Jackie,\n\nSpeaker 3: Do you wanna, uh, step in, give us an update?\n\nSpeaker 7: Yeah, um, yeah, I can't think of any super major updates other than that. I am now a co-chair of the tree committee, potentially temporarily, because we have some issues with membership and, um, we now only have four valid members until the attorney general approves our town meeting warrant. So we're waiting to have all the other members reinstated. But, um, one of the co-chairs, Keith Schley, um, is moving out of town and had to step down. So we're gonna be down to three until the duke, the new, um, or the old members get reinstated.\n\nSpeaker 2: Jackie, just for my knowledge, who are the other two?\n\nSpeaker 7: Steve Moore is co-chair. Um, and Karen Thomas Allier is the other member. She's relatively new.\n\nSpeaker 2: Okay, thank you.\n\nSpeaker 3: So is that, is it typical in Arlington for staff to be chair and vice chair, or is this an unusual situation? I'm just wondering,\n\nSpeaker 2: Uh, I don't is necessarily tell you like, like it's not a distinction that we generally make\n\n","timeStart":1327.515,"timeEnd":1450.305,"chunkIndex":11},{"id":"019fb693-b9bf-7b5e-8121-f238d46b1b77","content":"Speaker 3: Are are you gonna throw your hand in the ring for, uh, you know, for the conservation commission when it comes up? Mean, is this a, is this an approved situation where staff can be chair and vice chair? I'm just, I'm, you know, I was wondering. That sounds,\n\nSpeaker 7: Yeah, I asked Steve. I haven't heard that before. And he said it was okay. So that's all.\n\nSpeaker 3: Okay.\n\nSpeaker 6: Also, also she's, she is a resident of Arlington.\n\nSpeaker 2: That's true. I don't know if that matters.\n\nSpeaker 6: She could be as a resident, she could, you know, rather than as her.\n\nSpeaker 3: I, we were\n\nSpeaker 7: Yeah, I know. I had that same question, Chuck, that\n\nSpeaker 3: I don't, I'm not buying that Susan. That's, uh, I think she's working for the town as a resident, so, but\n\nSpeaker 2: Technically you're all time staff, so\n\nSpeaker 3: I'm, I'm good. Yeah, it works. Yeah, we, we couldn't have David as, as a co-chair of Con Kong. Oh my God. I think he's, I think he's done officially that co-chair as most administrators are. Okay. Let's move on. Um, just wanted to put you on the spot a little bit, Jackie, with your, uh, appointment. So anything from, uh, Sims tonight? And that would be Brian McBride?\n\nSpeaker 10: Yeah. Um, I haven't heard anything since our last, uh, executive session meeting and the subsequent, um, feedback. Uh, I haven't, yeah, there's no new developments in the last week that I'm aware of. Nathaniel may have heard something that I didn't catch, but I don't, I don't believe so.\n\nSpeaker 3: All right. And we're gonna skip right to the administrator's report. Administrator's report.\n\n","timeStart":1450.405,"timeEnd":1551.505,"chunkIndex":12},{"id":"019fb693-b9c7-7734-ad02-05f6e74c1d1a","content":"Speaker 2: Uh, nothing additional on my end. Jackie, is anything from you? Okay.\n\nSpeaker 10: Sorry, .\n\nSpeaker 3: I see. Uh, alright, I guess we're clapping here. Okay. Um,\n\nSpeaker 10: I was trying to raise my hand and I clapped not that David.\n\nSpeaker 3: Oh, so you have something to say? Interesting. Uh, Brian? Yeah. Yeah,\n\nSpeaker 10: It was just, just about the CPA. Um, if you don't mind, Chuck. Um, so David, I'm wondering, you know, we, we tried last year to do a CPA request for enhancement of ComCom properties with signage and maybe trail enhancements and, you know, benches or, uh, you know, et cetera, et cetera. We had all a long list of things we thought might be enhanced, potential enhancements that might be funded by CPA, but at the end of the day, we, we turned it in a different direction. I, so I just wanna maybe, uh, start your thinking David Morgan, um, about this coming October and I'm happy to sit down with you and, you know, support you in any way. Uh, I, but I would love to have, like, you know, we talked about Meadowbrook Park and Windows on the Mystic last year, and I think those are probably still good ideas. I'd love to have two, um, kick butt, um, proposals to CPA on funding requests for enhancement those at those two properties. And we, we have some months to go and we could, we could do a nice job.\n\n","timeStart":1553.465,"timeEnd":1636.165,"chunkIndex":13},{"id":"019fb693-b9cf-7142-98e6-4ddc89c61a45","content":"Speaker 2: I agree right off the bat. I would say Meadow Brook Park would be the more advantageous one to pursue because we've got CDBG funds right now at work on, uh, advancing the concept design for Meadow Brook Park. And if we get up to like 25% design or something like that, then we can say we'll take it at 75 and then, you know, get a little closer to construction. So Oh,\n\nSpeaker 10: Fabulous.\n\nSpeaker 2: Yeah. Timely. Good suggestion. And I'm happy to meet. Okay.\n\nSpeaker 10: Yeah, I'll send you a note. Okay. Thanks Chuck. That's what I had.\n\nSpeaker 3: David White hasn't signed up.\n\nSpeaker 11: I wonder if all our ComCom properties have ID signs on them. Maybe that could be done simply\n\nSpeaker 6: Mm-hmm . That might help encroachment issues in the future. I know there's a little one near me that they're always putting something on the property, the neighbors, you know, and I think if they just don't know and if there was signage, it would help. Yeah.\n\nSpeaker 10: Amen.\n\nSpeaker 3: Yeah, maybe, um, when you figure out your signage for your CPA request, you can bring it back to the commission and sounds like David White might have some additional, uh, areas.\n\nSpeaker 11: Is that so? Unless you have one sign in my garage from years ago.\n\nSpeaker 10: Oh, I'd love to see it. David, maybe you could share it with me and David Morgan. Yeah, maybe you could be part of our team.\n\nSpeaker 11: Yeah.\n\n","timeStart":1638.045,"timeEnd":1734.505,"chunkIndex":14},{"id":"019fb693-b9d7-7f5e-9f04-ca85e2b72029","content":"Speaker 3: Alright, so we're gonna move on. Um, don't see any hands up. So we move on. So the next item on our agenda is A DEP file number 91 3 52. It's a request for certificate of compliance at five and seven Mystic Lake Drive. Um, we usually turn this over to Jackie or David. So, which one is going to update us on, um, our, uh, site visit report and compliance for the certificate of compliance?\n\nSpeaker 2: Sorry, I'll, it's\n\nSpeaker 3: David, David Morgan\n\nSpeaker 2: On this one. I can walk you through this site. I just had photos to share. So I'm going to present on this one. This, this is an old application for a certificate of compliance. We've received this a couple of years back and all the paperwork was complete and we, you know, verified over a series of site visits in the intervening years that everything was done to spec. Here's the access point port for the subsurface, um, containment, sys stormwater containment system plantings here in the backyard. Jackie and I, uh, reviewed this, I guess it was the 10th of this month. And you can see a couple of them, that little guy's probably dead, but I even the ones that had sort of been either eaten or died back a little bit were beginning to grow anew. So they met the threshold for vegetation survivability rate opposite angle, front plantings.\n\n","timeStart":1737.525,"timeEnd":1848.845,"chunkIndex":15},{"id":"019fb693-b9df-75b2-9f23-524f3ad6cbe7","content":"Speaker 2: These were not jurisdictional, but some had been added. Um, one notable difference was that this is p gravel or something on the left hand side driveway that was replaced, that this was grass in the proposal. Now gravel not impervious. So I don't think that it rises to the level of concern tied in the downspouts. There's the other driving area. And in fact, this area was, uh, presented as mulch in the, um, plans. It was actually, I believe meant to connect from there to the planting area that's behind me in this photo and to my left. Um, but they've maintained it as turf grass instead, which I think is favorable. Also, you notice the other downspout tied in on that corner, more of the front yard. And that would be it for photographs. Um, as I say, they've submitted everything certifying that's to spec. Uh, John Barrows, the engineer stamped the letter saying that there's an as-built plan included. And, um, everything's in substantial compliance based on Jackie and my site visits over the years. We can confirm and recommend approval. Muted.\n\nSpeaker 3: I see that David White has his hand up.\n\nSpeaker 11: I just wonder who's in the lawn? Maintenance looks very barren as if they're mow every week or so. It looks it doesn't look healthy at all.\n\nSpeaker 2: The lawn.\n\nSpeaker 11: Yeah, you're out.\n\nSpeaker 2: Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's true. It has been drought and\n\nSpeaker 11: Very, very cut. Very close. Cut. Very close too.\n\n","timeStart":1848.845,"timeEnd":1985.315,"chunkIndex":16},{"id":"019fb693-b9e7-76d3-b88c-0c1ee4ed2464","content":"Speaker 2: Yeah, it is. It's, it's mowed quite low. You're right. The applicants actually reached out because they wanted to do additional plantings, especially in the mulch bed area, I think. And so there's, there's more to come. Um, you know, we gave him guidance on the native plantings and so forth and I, I think they're gonna try and fi in some,\n\nSpeaker 3: Uh, David, in your presentation, did you let us know, uh, I, I had to get a light for a sec, um, but I might have missed it. Did you let us know what jurisdictional areas, uh, we're, uh, working with here at this site? Is it just flood floodplain,\n\nSpeaker 2: Floodplain for sure. A touch of it might be in riverfront area. Lemme see if I got the form. I'm pretty sure I have the order open here, so\n\nSpeaker 3: Yeah, I was just wondering if it was all just, just floodplain. Okay. And while you're looking, I'm gonna go to Susan Chapnick.\n\nSpeaker 6: Thank you. Um, that was my question then that I noticed that the fence, which I don't know if it's existing or new for the project, didn't look like it had clearance underneath it. Now if it's just floodplain and they have enough flood storage, maybe that's not an issue, but if it's riverfront, you'd probably want some passage.\n\nSpeaker 2: Uh, it is riverfront. Lemme see. I think it's just the angle that I took the photo at.\n\nSpeaker 6: Okay. That could be just\n\nSpeaker 2: The side facing. I remember checking for that and thinking that it was sufficient. And\n\n","timeStart":1985.665,"timeEnd":2085.275,"chunkIndex":17},{"id":"019fb693-b9f1-7908-b51e-0654c99062cb","content":"Speaker 6: It might be because I can't tell with the turf and the mulch and stuff, you know, so maybe I couldn't see\n\nSpeaker 2: Mm-hmm . I mean, it might be a little bit built up with mulch, but like\n\nSpeaker 6: Okay, I see what you're saying. Sure. And you know, if you are gonna have a continued dialogue with them, you can tell them to pull the mulch away a little bit.\n\nSpeaker 2: It's just the front actually. Yeah. Yeah. And so, I mean, you can see it there.\n\nSpeaker 6: That's better. Yeah. Yep. Okay. Thank you. That was my question.\n\nSpeaker 3: Alright. Um, any other comments or motions from the conservation commission?\n\nSpeaker 6: So David, um, I had one. I'm sorry. Did you complete the, um, certificate of compliance paperwork and were there any continuing conditions that we should be aware of?\n\nSpeaker 2: Uh, the continuing conditions are pretty basic on this one. I'm pretty sure it's just restricted chemical use and, you know, our other typical conditions. And looking quickly over it now, yeah, just maintaining mitigation area and perpetuity, the chemicals one and standards for planting.\n\nSpeaker 6: Okay. Did I miss the, the form that usually fill out and you list those?\n\nSpeaker 2: No, I, I think we didn't get,\n\nSpeaker 6: You didn't do it. Okay. I, if you could just do that for the file. I think it's important when we go back to these things in the future and we forget what happened. Um, it's good to have that with your people.\n\nSpeaker 7: I think I might have done it earlier, like several months ago. Oh, okay. But it might not be up to date anymore.\n\n","timeStart":2085.455,"timeEnd":2185.445,"chunkIndex":18},{"id":"019fb693-b9fa-7748-baa3-fd4cdb2446c7","content":"Speaker 6: Okay. Thanks Jackie. Appreciate it. I'll make a motion to, um, to approve the certificate of compliance for five seven Mystic Lake Drive.\n\nSpeaker 3: I get a second. I'll second. Mike Gil, this game. David White. You look frozen. Uh, Brian McBride?\n\nSpeaker 2: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 3: Mike Gilda game. Yes. Susan Chapnick.\n\nSpeaker 6: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 3: And Chuck Terone says yes. So we do have four, uh, David. Oh, there you are. David. Do you, uh, what's your vote on the certificate of compliance? Okay. Yes. Okay, great. All right. And we move on. So now we are into our hearings and our first hearing is, uh, does this have a file number? This, uh, zero Reed Street?\n\nSpeaker 2: I will check DEP now, but as of earlier this week it did not.\n\nSpeaker 7: No, I just checked that it doesn't have one.\n\nSpeaker 3: Okay. Okay. Um, so, so DEP has not issued a file number for a notice of intent at zero, uh, Reed Street. The Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing to consider a notice of intent for construction of a single family home, uh, an accessory, uh, uh, at zero Reed Street. Uh, areas proposed to be altered, include the buffer zone and the adjacent upland area. So I'm not sure who's here for that. I've seen several people, but if you could just raise your hand. I, David Swanson, I just turned on. Is this this who I'm talking to? Or Nicholas? Yes. All right. So David, I'm gonna ask you two things. Uh, you're gonna introduce yourself for the record, and then mm-hmm . Let us know who's on your team so we can, um, call, call on them if needed.\n\n","timeStart":2185.915,"timeEnd":2322.365,"chunkIndex":19},{"id":"019fb693-ba02-704f-bdd7-03ccd7d1f8ff","content":"Speaker 13: Awesome. Uh, David Swanson, uh, VAR Capital, speaking on behalf of Zero Reed Street. Uh, additional members for my team are Matthew Moore and Ryan Wittig. They said they were on here. Uh, and then I also see some, uh, a couple folks from the LEC environmental team, Nicole Ferrera and Rich Kirby. I'm not sure how much, uh, their input will, uh, be taken into account tonight, or their, their comments, I should say, uh, since we're still kind of working through the progress process. So, but, um, appreciate everyone's time. Uh, zero Reed Street. Interesting lot. Uh, for those that don't know, we went through a, a pretty extensive process with the town to determine the actual lot itself before getting to here. So, um, we've already had several discussions about the lot itself, and now we're onto the conservation piece. So we are here to talk with the Conservation Commission about developing a single family home and ultimately getting to a vote to, uh, approve any sort of plan in place that we could, uh, build is within the, within the wetland boundaries.\n\n","timeStart":2323.375,"timeEnd":2387.105,"chunkIndex":20},{"id":"019fb693-ba0a-74b4-ac29-679224688eaa","content":"Speaker 13: And so at its current state, we have done a wetlands delineation survey. I think part of the reason the DEP number's not ready is the, uh, full survey of, of mapping out the flags is, is coming. We should have that next week. Um, so that'll be added to the application. I know that's been, uh, that was I think, uh, part of the comment from DEP that I received from David Morgan and Jackie. Um, but, so our goal for today is introduce the project, get an understanding of what we need to do to gain approval, to build within the wetland boundaries. And ultimately, you know, what that footprint within the boundaries looks like. What all does that constitute from a building perspective? You know, does that include driveways? Does that include walkways or is it just the footprint of the building? I think we're, we're just trying to get an understanding of what we can and can't do within the boundaries and, and open it up to the, uh, commission for comments feedback in, in some direction.\n\n","timeStart":2387.125,"timeEnd":2446.785,"chunkIndex":21},{"id":"019fb693-ba13-7b0e-969f-912a55bdf979","content":"Speaker 13: And, uh, the buffer zones that we are looking to build within are, I believe, the wetlands, uh, vegetation, which I think is a 50 foot no build buffer. Um, and then if you guys do look at the lot, there is a stream or a creek of sorts that goes down the right side. Uh, it was determined, I believe by David Morgan and Jackie, that it is not a perennial, uh, was it perennial riverfront? I believe so, uh, we were concerned about that, which would make it a little bit unviable to build, but, uh, that's been determined. It is not the case. So really just trying to get, uh, clarity on what we can do within the, um, bordering wetlands. Bordering vegetation, wetlands.\n\nSpeaker 3: So David, lemme just ask you a few questions before we go on to the commission or other comments from your group. Uh, you said at the last, uh, the last thing you said was that, um, Arlington staff determined that that stream was, uh, an intermittent stream and it's not a perennial stream. Did your wetland scientists also make an independent evaluation of that stream and do you know, or has that happened? Or do you expect that to happen in the future?\n\nSpeaker 13: It is noted in their delineation survey, and, uh, I am trying to pull it up right now. I think they came to the same conclusion that they didn't believe it, but it was to be confirmed by the commission.\n\n","timeStart":2447.405,"timeEnd":2542.915,"chunkIndex":22},{"id":"019fb693-ba1b-7841-93f9-0f4e11041f51","content":"Speaker 3: Okay. They didn't believe it. They didn't believe that it was intermittent. We'll have to read that. Uh, my, my next point is that, um, you know, you came into the Conservation Commission, I would call it a little bit unprepared. And we are looking at a plan. We rely on data and we'd like to see the data stamped and signed. And what we're working with was a, is like a desktop approximation of a wetland line drawn off A-G-I-S-I don't know, something\n\nSpeaker 13: Sure.\n\nSpeaker 3: Myself, I'm gonna find it hard to talk about the wetland line because I don't wanna steer you in the wrong direction. I don't know exactly where it is. I'd feel more comfortable with the one you seem to be coming in within another two weeks. And I, I really wish we started at that point. This is, uh, um, especially when you have that kind of waiting in the wings, I'm surprised that we're, we're here tonight. Uh, looking at, um, like I said, I'm, I'm gonna call it a desktop approximation Sure. Uh, map. So, uh, that's my comments. Uh, I don't, um, know what other commissioners think. But, um, I'll leave it at that and I'll follow up with some comments after I hear from everyone. I see that Mike Giles game has his hands up right now. Um, I would only ask, are you finished with your presentation, David? And can I move on to the commissioners? Uh,\n\nSpeaker 13: Yes. Uh, yes, I can, I can respond to your comment on the timing, but I, I'll take it through the commission and then we can continue with any comments afterwards.\n\nSpeaker 3: Sure. Uh, Mike, well,\n\n","timeStart":2544.225,"timeEnd":2644.925,"chunkIndex":23},{"id":"019fb693-ba23-7599-8d30-9e886effd382","content":"Speaker 9: I was just a little confused and I see three David Swansons on my screen, and I thought for the record, we might wanna have the actual folks, whoever they may be, uh, sign in.\n\nSpeaker 13: Interesting.\n\nSpeaker 9: I don't\n\nSpeaker 13: Know. I know there's another David Swanson in Arlington. There's, uh, some confusion between myself and that specific David Swanson. I don't know if it's the same one from Yeah,\n\nSpeaker 9: I'm seeing, I'm seeing three. This\n\nSpeaker 14: Is Matt Moore. I'm on Team K here, and the other, the other David Swanson is Ryan Wittig. We're all, uh, we're all representing the same team here. Okay. We just happen to be using the same link to sign in.\n\nSpeaker 9: Hmm. Got it. Thanks.\n\nSpeaker 3: I'm Ryan Whittick. Hello. Okay, thank you. Um, okay. So, and I think we have your team identified now. Uh, any other comments, Mike? Or can I, um, just turn this over to Susan, um, Susan chapter, turn it\n\nSpeaker 9: Over to Susan. Yep.\n\n","timeStart":2644.925,"timeEnd":2699.235,"chunkIndex":24},{"id":"019fb693-ba2b-7531-8e73-edb805ff4059","content":"Speaker 6: Sorry, I was on mute. Um, so at a minimum, uh, I, I totally agree with Chuck Teroni. I think this, this NOI wasn't really ready to present to the commission. We rely on data to make decisions, and we don't have the proper data. That said, since we're here already, um, could we, uh, either Jackie or David Morgan, can you put up what's in the proposal, at least just the sketch so we get an idea of what we're talking about? Um, based on that sketch, in my opinion, uh, I hate to give you the bad news, David, but in my opinion, it's not a buildable lot based on the Arlington wetland regulations, where the, the adjacent upland resource area, the, what we call the aura, which is a hundred feet from any, um, stream, even if it's, you know, well, we don't know if the stream's intermittent or not, or if it's real stream.\n\n","timeStart":2704.615,"timeEnd":2767.865,"chunkIndex":25},{"id":"019fb693-ba34-7421-b3cb-250ef503247e","content":"Speaker 6: So I'll put that aside, but from BVW. So, so for, just to explain, in the state, under the State Wetlands Protection Act, you have a hundred foot buffer, a buffer zone mm-hmm . And the state allows a lot of things to happen in the buffer zone. Um, with conditions we're stricter in the town of Arlington, we have, um, a 25, we have a hundred foot jurisdictional area. It's jurisdictional wetland. You're not supposed to do anything in it. Um, we, we do make certain allowances for working in the outer part of our aura. That's the outer 50 to a hundred feet. And we have standards for that in our regulations. We do understand that there are non-conforming lots already in Arlington with structures on them. But when we have a lot that's not built, you know, you're, you're gonna have a hard time with that. And, and with, with this aura.\n\nSpeaker 6: That said, I will also explain, because you seem to want some clarity on what you could put, where we count a structure. A structure is a structure that's a building that's a driveway. If it's imper permeable, that's not pervious. So any structure that is not pervious a shed, um, stairways a deck. If it's not pervious, those are all structures, um, that are not allowed in the jurisdictional area. So I don't wanna speak too much more about that because we kind of don't know the lines for sure. But when I'm just looking at this map, I'm, I'm real. I, I think you are gonna have a really hard time fitting anything in there compliant with our local regulations. I'll say that. So that's, that's what I wanted to say.\n\n","timeStart":2767.925,"timeEnd":2892.725,"chunkIndex":26},{"id":"019fb693-ba3e-7f1c-b9f2-3ade19db25e6","content":"Speaker 3: Thank you, Susan. And yeah, and I do think, looking at this mass GIS map, I think it takes away from your project. I, um, I'm not sure if Rich is here to speak, um, but since Susan opened up, uh, the can, if Rich is here to speak, it might be interesting to, to hear that, or it can be saved. I, I'm not gonna put 'em on the spot, but, um, we did start talking about the wetland, the wetland line. So, um, there's a lot of lines on this map. Someone has to explain them to us and to everyone watching, because, uh, we just wanna make sure that we have, uh, an understanding of what's your property, where your property is, what lines are the stream, what lines are the wetland, you know, all that. Um,\n\nSpeaker 15: So if I could just take a moment Sure. From LEC. Thanks. So, LEC was retained to delineate the wetland resource area boundaries and prepare a sketch for a surveyor to go out, locate our flags. Um, this sketch is not intended for public distribution, or in fact, there's a qualifier in the top right corner there. So I'm not sure how it made it into the notice seven 10 application, but we, we haven't been involved since the delineation. So we're here for 26 Dudley tonight. We're not really prepared to talk about, uh, this site. Okay.\n\n","timeStart":2893.255,"timeEnd":2977.345,"chunkIndex":27},{"id":"019fb693-ba47-74f3-b0af-789ebab7fa30","content":"Speaker 3: Thanks for that. Okay. Uh, understood. Um, okay. Back to the applicant. Um, as you can see, we've created a little bit of confusion here. Um, I don't know if you want to, um, request a continuance to, whenever you have the, the plan and some more information, maybe you reach back out to LEC and then come back to the Conservation commission. And, um, I would say, you know, just like anything, you wanna give it your best shot and, and you don't wanna, uh, like take a half swing. So that would be my recommendation that you, even though you know we're here, I, you can't make that, uh, if you, so you can't, you can make the request, but I still have to hear from the people who came here tonight to talk about this. But if we know that you're just gonna continue into our next meeting, um, I think that might take a little bit of the, um, conversation away from any abut. So our next meeting would be, as I see it, August 13th. Um, if you think you can have everything avail available, let's see, what's our date? Our date is, um, it's the 13th. It would be, we would need your material by the fifth. I think I have that right. Correct me if I'm wrong. David Morgan,\n\nSpeaker 2: Bear with me while I get the dates.\n\nSpeaker 3: Sure. Um, as you're looking at the dates, I see that, um, is, I see that someone's raising their hand. I'm not sure if they're with you or not. Is Nicholas you? That's part of the\n\nSpeaker 16: Public. It's a\n\nSpeaker 3: Member. Okay. Hold off, Nicholas. Hold off a minute. Um,\n\n","timeStart":2979.085,"timeEnd":3091.945,"chunkIndex":28},{"id":"019fb693-ba5a-7aa2-be43-42e3162f1f8e","content":"Speaker 13: Well, David, is David Morgan's looking that up? Yes. We would like to continue to that next meeting. We plan on having our, uh, survey of the flags mapped out. That's been a little bit of a challenge trying to get these surveyor out there. There was a previous survey done, so we were trying to work with him and there was a whole nother story that I won't bore you with. So that actually took more time than we would've liked and obviously wanted it for, for this meeting. But, you know, while the, the board probably feels it wasn't, uh, quite a productive meeting, it, it was certainly helpful for us to get a sense of kind of where, where the thought li uh, stands right now. Kind of the, the uphill battles that we have to go with. And obviously the, the, you know, you raise a fantastic and fair point that data is the key to every decision. So we will have that data, we'll get the, uh, actual survey done and, and get that over to you guys before the next meeting. And, uh, we can take that from there with more data and actual lines, uh, that will be ready to go. Sure.\n\nSpeaker 3: Alright. Thank you. And, and with that, I'm gonna, I don't see any hands up from the commission. I think that's appropriate. And, uh, I'm gonna ask the, anyone attending tonight's meeting to either raise their hand or just let us know. You can just raise your hand up in the, in the video and I'll call on you. And I think Nicholas had his hand up. Did you want to speak now?\n\nSpeaker 17: Um, first of all, can you hear me?\n\n","timeStart":3098.045,"timeEnd":3184.475,"chunkIndex":29},{"id":"019fb693-ba64-7ead-a9fb-eacef93d4ce6","content":"Speaker 3: Yes, we can. Great. Yeah.\n\nSpeaker 17: Um, introduce, just, yeah, can\n\nSpeaker 3: You introduce your first and last name for the record, please?\n\nSpeaker 17: I'll, yeah. Uh, I'm Nicholas Corso. Um, go by, uh, Nick. I live at 11 Reed Street, which is the property, uh, essentially across from zero Reed Street. Um, but based on what I'm hearing, um, I might just think it's best to save my comments to the next meeting. Um, but I will just put on the table that, um, there are a number of concerned abutters, including me, um, uh, with this proposed, uh, bill of a single house there. Uh, and a number of them go around water flooding, uh, and wildlife concern and vegetation and tree replacement and those kind of items. But I will, um, I'll hold off to the next meeting. Uh, I think it'll be more appropriate then.\n\nSpeaker 3: All right. Lemme just found out that's August six. The materials are two by 7 29. David, uh, I don't see anyone else raising their hands who's attending tonight's meeting.\n\n","timeStart":3185.015,"timeEnd":3251.305,"chunkIndex":30},{"id":"019fb693-ba6c-73b0-9214-fccfd9e3f443","content":"Speaker 18: Can I just interrupt a minute? Two? Sure, Patricia. Sure. I'm Patricia Laro. I live at six Reed Street in Arlington, and I did reach out to our neighborhood and I did get feedback from a lot of our neighbors. I do have letters. I do have signatures. I have a lot of comments. They, we are really worried about the flooding and the flooding in the wetlands. My, my yard abuts the wetland in the back. And I know recently we haven't had a lot of, well, we recently, we've had a lot of rain, but prior to the years we haven't. So it hasn't really been all of that issue. But in the past, I've been hit 30 years when we've had a lot of rain. The water does come up to my yard almost. And I think the neighbors who live on that side of the street also have that worry of if the wetland, and we know if you alter the land, water has a way of finding its way somewhere.\n\n","timeStart":3251.305,"timeEnd":3307.705,"chunkIndex":31},{"id":"019fb693-ba73-7999-9057-38d45f135a44","content":"Speaker 18: And I think the neighborhood, from what I've gotten back from the feedback is that's where we're mostly worried about the floodings, the wetlands, the, the, the de you know, the devastation of the trees and, and the nature behind there. We do have, you know, a really nice area back there, the wetland conservation land. So I'm just, I'm, again, we'll, we'll talk about it the next meeting, but I do have a lot of people in the neighborhood who are thinking and hoping and willing to fight to probably not have this go forward. And if you need those letters or signatures, I don't know how to get them to you, if that would help in this, um, kind of aspect of it.\n\nSpeaker 3: So I would encourage you to send those or scan and send those to David Morgan Okay. At Town Hall. Okay. And then we would post those, um, uh, David Swanson, I wanted to ask you a question. Do you own the lot?\n\nSpeaker 13: We're under contract.\n\nSpeaker 3: Did the owner of the lot sign the notice of intent?\n\nSpeaker 13: Uh, we are working on behalf of the owner.\n\nSpeaker 3: The owner of the lot needs to sign the notice of intent from my understanding. So could you take care of that between meetings, update those pages?\n\nSpeaker 6: Yep.\n\nSpeaker 3: Okay. Um, any other questions from people attending tonight's meeting? I see, uh, about,\n\nSpeaker 19: Yeah. Uh, the cell.\n\nSpeaker 3: Cell,\n\nSpeaker 19: Yeah. Yeah. Seal. Just building off of what Patricia just said, is there anything else, um, the people living on that street can do or provide you to make a stronger case for not having the project go forward?\n\n","timeStart":3308.405,"timeEnd":3417.035,"chunkIndex":32},{"id":"019fb693-ba7b-7950-8582-393a5279110c","content":"Speaker 3: Um, so we, we take, uh, testimony from Abutters and, uh, we would like to, so we don't, we're not there all the time, so we'd like to know what you know about the project mm-hmm . Or about the land, about, uh, the floor and fauna that's out there. Uh, any, um, water patterns that may not be obvious from the plans. And that's what you can bring to the, to the meeting. Uh, you know, unfortunately, just having everyone abutting a property not wanting it, there's not an allowance in the WPA to make that a consideration. We have to stick to our rules and regulations on the WPA and our own wetlands protection bylaw. And so I would also encourage everyone to read the application and look at our regulations and the WPA and, um, you know, look for, look for, I mean, the applicant is supposed to prove that they can meet the standards in the act.\n\nSpeaker 3: And so that's what we're looking for. And so the, the abutters can also do that, plus the testimony and, um, like I said mm-hmm . Like water patterns and, and things like that. So, uh, that's what I have any other commissioners want to add what, um, abut can bring to the next meeting. And I encourage you to write to the commission with this information because it, you know, we don't often allow everyone to say something if there's 50 people that want talk and mm-hmm . You know, you get cut down to two minutes. So your letter first would be a great first step.\n\nSpeaker 19: Got it. Thank you. Yeah.\n\nSpeaker 3: Any other comments from commissioners? Any other comments from anyone attending tonight's meeting?\n\n","timeStart":3419.375,"timeEnd":3531.355,"chunkIndex":33},{"id":"019fb693-ba83-765e-9b8a-a256994f3e61","content":"Speaker 6: I would just say that we, we do encourage communication, as Chuck just said, um, written as well as, as, um, verbal communication, you know, at these Zoom meetings. Yeah. Um, and we do post them. And, um, the areas I, we wouldn't expect you to understand the Wetlands Protection Act, or even our regulations, which are,\n\nSpeaker 3: You never know who's out there.\n\nSpeaker 6: You never know. I guess you never know. I know, I know Nick Corso and he's a smart, smart fellow, so he might, he might delve into it. But, um, what I would encourage you to do is, is look at what, what we try to protect under the Wetlands Protection Act on our bylaw. What are we protecting? And talk about those things in your neighborhood. And if you look at just the beginning of our regulations and they're posted online under the Conservation Commission website, it tells you what our jurisdiction is and what, what we're protecting. And so talk about that. Talk about flooding, talk about wildlife habitat. Talk about, um, you know, uh, pervious impervious surfaces. Talk about buffer zones, uh, around wetland jurisdiction areas, talk about streams, et cetera. Um, you'll see, uh, you'll see those, uh, bullet points. That's all I wanted to say. Yeah.\n\nSpeaker 3: Alright, great. Uh, no. Any other comments from commissioners or can, if no comments, can I get a motion to continue this to the August 6th meeting? Uh, and like I said, the, uh, information needs to be at David's office by, uh, July 29th. So motion to continue to, I'll make that move. Motion. That's Da David White made the motion. Second. Second. Mike Gilda game. Susan Chapnick.\n\nSpeaker 6: Yes.\n\n","timeStart":3532.595,"timeEnd":3650.485,"chunkIndex":34},{"id":"019fb693-ba8d-7c9c-8c39-f84a41e76afb","content":"Speaker 3: Brian McBride. Yes. Mike Gilda game. Yes. David White. Yes. And Chuck Terone says, yes. Okay. Thanks everyone. We'll see you at the next meeting. Thank you everyone. Thanks everyone for showing up. All right.\n\nSpeaker 16: I\n\nSpeaker 3: Moving right along. We have, um, 91 Sunnyside. So, um, we're gonna open the hearing for 91 dash 3 78 Notice of Intent for 91 Sunnyside. It was continued from seven nine 2026. The commission, the Conservation Commission holds a public hearing to consider the notice of intent for construction of an addition to a single family home sunroom carport expansion and repla expansion and replacement of deck stairs, uh, replacement of landing, uh, grading and utilities at 91 Sunnyside Ave. Areas proposed to be altered, include the buffer zone, adjacent upland resource area, and bordering land subject to flooding. And the riverfront associated with Ale White Brook. And I believe Maureen Harold would be here. So Maureen, can you introduce yourself for the record and, uh, update us on, uh, the project?\n\n","timeStart":3652.295,"timeEnd":3747.575,"chunkIndex":35},{"id":"019fb693-ba95-78f0-8111-fa8f82d7b7a4","content":"Speaker 20: Sure. Good evening everyone. Maureen Harold from North Environmental Services. Um, so at the last commission meeting we had a hiccup, and that was the rooftop infiltration. There was a question as to whether or not it was designed in the water table, and in fact it was designed in the water table. So, um, I spoke to Jack Sullivan, who is the design engineer. He took another look at the plan and he revised the plan to show a five foot by 15 foot stone field with a four inch perforated pipe. Um, this can handle the two 10 and 25 year storm event for the roof addition. Um, and he also provided hydro CAD calculations as well. Um, and I believe that was the last concern or only concern that the commission had. And I can open it up with any questions.\n\nSpeaker 3: Sure. And I'd like to turn it right to the, we, I did see that the updates were made. I, uh, understand, I, my only question when I looked at it was why just one pipe? But I was that new plan stamped?\n\nSpeaker 20: Yes. Yes. Okay. I can bring it in if you wanna see it, but Jack did stamp it and provide the calculations as well.\n\nSpeaker 3: Okay. Okay. That, that's gonna cover my questions for that part is does anyone else here, uh, on the commission have any questions about 91 Sunnyside and the new material?\n\n","timeStart":3748.765,"timeEnd":3845.165,"chunkIndex":36},{"id":"019fb693-ba9d-7792-ba1f-28c8e9c26a55","content":"Speaker 6: Uh, I'm, I just wanted to say that thank you for looking at this and redesigning it so that it's going to work. Um, and, uh, I think that it is a greatly improved project with the compensatory flood storage you added under the stairs like Chuck suggested and various other plantings that we recommended. And, um, I'm sorry that I, I think it was, uh, Dave Kaplan who questioned whether this infiltration unit was in the groundwater table. So I wanted to thank him, but he's not even here. So I thank him in Cent , but I think this is a good, um, a good solution. Thank you Maury. Sure.\n\nSpeaker 3: Anyone else want to, uh, talk about the plans and the updates? Anybody attending tonight's meeting? Have any comments on 91? Sunnyside? Seeing none. Back to the commission. Any more comments or motions?\n\nSpeaker 6: I make a motion to close the hearing.\n\nSpeaker 3: Susan Chapnick makes motion. Can I have a second?\n\nSpeaker 21: Second.\n\nSpeaker 3: So that would be Brian McBride and, uh, to close the hearing, Mike, uh, Gilda game? Yes. And Bri, uh, wait a minute. David White. Yes. Brian McBride.\n\nSpeaker 21: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 3: Susan Chapnick.\n\nSpeaker 6: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 3: And Chuck Terone says, yes. Uh, let's talk about, uh, conditions. Any conditions need to be. Um, do you think of any conditions, uh, are warranted besides our boiler plate conditions?\n\nSpeaker 6: I was wondering if there are any special conditions for this, um, new gravel area with the perforated pipe? Is there any kind of operation maintenance that needs to be done to make sure that area stays clear and infiltrates? I, I'm just asking 'cause I'm not as familiar with that.\n\nSpeaker 20: There is\n\n","timeStart":3849.275,"timeEnd":3976.695,"chunkIndex":37},{"id":"019fb693-baa4-77bc-bcc9-f91440cdc900","content":"Speaker 3: Or if you Yeah, it's okay if you want answer.\n\nSpeaker 20: Yeah. So there is an overflow area, um, off the gutter line that's part of the design. Um, I think it's really more or less just maintaining the gutters, making sure that they're clear of leaves and debris. Yeah. Um, that type of things. And there is an inspection port, um, on the plan for the pipe itself. So they will be able to inspect it and check it out if need be.\n\nSpeaker 6: And did you put in, we forgot to ask that so we could put it as a condition. Did you put in, um, an operation and maintenance on how many, how many times a year should be inspected? What does that entail or anything like that?\n\nSpeaker 20: You know what, I didn't even think about that, Susan. Okay. Um, but\n\nSpeaker 6: We could put it in as a condition. I mean, we can talk\n\nSpeaker 20: About that. I can have Jack write something up and submit it to Dave. That's not a problem.\n\nSpeaker 6: Okay. What do you think, Chuck?\n\n","timeStart":3976.915,"timeEnd":4035.505,"chunkIndex":38},{"id":"019fb693-baac-7cf2-bf89-ca559e8c1a6f","content":"Speaker 3: Um, um, a little unusual. Uh, I don't see how we could move forward without looking at that. W why don't we come up with some, I mean, I think the inspection should be twice a year for the first three years. Um, I think that they would definitely want to maintain the, um, the, uh, gutters and downspouts and check those again twice a year. Um, summer and fall or spring and fall. Um, making sure the leaves, it looks like the, the point where this thing would fail would be where the leaves are. Mm-hmm . Mm-hmm . And, um, we also would prefer that they kept a log. So if, uh, something came up, we could, we could, um, look back and make sure that what we asked to have happen actually did happen. Um, that's where I'm at. I David Morgan, you do this also. Um, if you can think of anything else, um, what you would need for an operation maintenance plan for such a, I'm gonna say pretty simple, uh, infiltration area. I mean, it's, it's basically a taco, uh, with a pipe in it.\n\nSpeaker 2: I think that covers it. I guess. Are, are there additional, no, there are no additional pervious surfaces being installed on site, right? No. So it's just the, the addition and the infiltration area then? No, I don't have anything additional. It is planted. Right.\n\nSpeaker 6: What is planted?\n\nSpeaker 2: The infiltration area on the left side of the driveway if you're looking at the house.\n\nSpeaker 20: Yeah. So we are proposing like a wildflower seed mix over it,\n\nSpeaker 2: Right?\n\nSpeaker 20: Yeah.\n\nSpeaker 6: And so we do have our standard conditions about for survivability. Survivability, yeah. Right. Yeah.\n\n","timeStart":4038.235,"timeEnd":4150.675,"chunkIndex":39},{"id":"019fb693-babd-717f-a6a7-3f71728d5645","content":"Speaker 2: That's the only thing I could really think of.\n\nSpeaker 3: Yeah. Oh, that's interesting. I didn't realize the survivability went to the y wildflower seed mix.\n\nSpeaker 6: Makes sense. Well it goes to any ground cover. That makes sense. Yeah,\n\nSpeaker 3: Makes sense. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Um,\n\nSpeaker 6: Oh, Arlene Coleman. Hi Eileen. We didn't know you were there. She had a good comment that there is something on the plan about, um, wait, let me read the comment. The two point o and m of the stormwater on the plan\n\nSpeaker 20: There is, Eileen, you are a lifesaver.\n\nSpeaker 22: Yeah. If that helps. I was just looking at the plan while we were talking. And it does say drainage system o and m plan, um, inspected annually and drain field inspected annually. Does that work?\n\nSpeaker 6: I think it should be twice a year at the beginning. I, like Chuck said, because we don't, I don't know, what do you think Chuck? 'cause we don't know what to expect\n\nSpeaker 3: You. Yeah. You overdo it when they first put in, so you understand how it's operating and then you back off from that once you understand it's doing fine. Right. So that's why I said twice a year for the first three. But, um, you can modify that if you want. Uh, I do think the gutters and downspout do need to inspect it, as I said.\n\nSpeaker 6: Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 20: Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 6: Thanks, Eileen.\n\nSpeaker 3: Okay. Uh, all right. So, uh, any further conditions? If there are none, we could have a motion. Motion to issue would be what we're looking\n\n","timeStart":4151.335,"timeEnd":4250.695,"chunkIndex":40},{"id":"019fb693-bac5-7ecc-bd13-9f02404471af","content":"Speaker 6: For. I may, I'll make a motion to issue an order of conditions for 91 Sunnyside, um, with the special conditions we just discussed about, um, maintenance and inspection of the, uh, infiltration areas, uh, the downspouts, and there's an inspection port and keeping a log about these inspections and maintenance and adding our Stan other standard conditions on vegetation.\n\nSpeaker 2: Did we close the hearing yet?\n\nSpeaker 6: Yeah. Yes, we did. Close\n\nSpeaker 15: To go for,\n\nSpeaker 2: Okay. Sorry.\n\nSpeaker 3: Um, yeah, it was Susan Sha and Brian Mcpr, uh, first and second. Um, can I get a second on that\n\nSpeaker 15: Second\n\nSpeaker 3: Mike Giles game. All right. Um, David White. Yes. Brian McBride.\n\nSpeaker 6: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 3: Susan Chapnick. Yes. Mike Gilda game.\n\nSpeaker 15: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 3: And Chuck Ney says yes. All right, Maureen, you're all set. Appreciate it. Great.\n\nSpeaker 6: Thank you. Have a good evening. Thanks, Maureen. Thanks. You have a good thanks with mm-hmm . Take care.\n\nSpeaker 3: All right. Moving right along. We're gonna go into our third and final notice of intent for tonight. It's 19. Yeah, it's 19. It's 19. It's supposed to be 91, but 91 3 7 5. It's a notice of intent for 26 Dudley Street continued from seven nine 2026. The Conservation Commission holds a public hearing to consider notice of intent to demolish a detached structure, construct two additions to a commercial structure, and repay the parking lot at 26 Dudley Street. Areas proposed to be altered, a outer riverfront associated with Millbrook. Um, I'm not sure who's here for this. If you just, um, let me, oh, rich Kirby? Uh, yes, rich Kirby, introduce yourself for the record and, uh, update us.\n\n","timeStart":4250.835,"timeEnd":4378.095,"chunkIndex":41},{"id":"019fb693-bacd-74c9-b0f5-df7b6b897001","content":"Speaker 15: Thank you. Good evening. I'm Rich Kirby from LEC Environmental Consultants, and with me tonight. Also from LEC Nicole Ferrara, also on the project team. And here tonight, Christian Klein and the applicant Greg Santini. We've been before the commission, uh, several times now, and I believe at the last hearing, we just had a couple of loose ends to, uh, to tie up, uh, one of which was a meeting with the town engineer, which happened, uh, last Friday morning, I believe. And, uh, town engineers seemed to be good with the design. Just had one relatively minor comment on, uh, the stormwater operation and maintenance plan. If I could share my screen, I will review the changes with the commission. So let's, let's see. Which of the 50 screens I have is the operation and maintenance plan. Uh, bear with me here, please. There it is. Okay. So the town engineers, uh, only comment was to add the street sweeping to the inspection log. So the, uh, inspection, evaluation, uh, inspection schedule and evaluation checklist. You can, it's sideways here, but you can see, uh, pavement sweeping bi-annually. So that was added to the inspection log. Uh, can you see the revised plans now?\n\nSpeaker 3: Yes.\n\n","timeStart":4378.465,"timeEnd":4468.215,"chunkIndex":42},{"id":"019fb693-bad5-7abf-baf3-6e7c4c838f93","content":"Speaker 15: Okay, great. Thank you. We also modified the, um, planting schedule for the offsite mitigation area. Specifically, Christian Klein modified the plans in a number of ways. First, he replaced the red maple with the Ironwood. Um, David Morgan had requested that, I guess there's a commission sees a lot of red maple, and one, it's a little bit more diversity. So we got rid of the, um, red maple and replaced it with the, uh, iron wood. We also reduced the size from four to six feet to two to four feet, sorry, 18 to 24 inches. And we did that because we had talked with Susan and other commission members about, uh, the issues that the self-storage facility next door was having. And so, um, we were going to plant more small saplings as opposed to the fewer larger saplings. So a note on the plan was revised to, um, to, to a two to one planting schedule for the trees, the invasive trees to be removed instead of one to one. And we also have a, uh, this detail, which requires the, um, 18 inch tall chicken wire cages around the seedlings to keep the, uh, critters away from, uh, chowing down on the, on the, on the new plants.\n\n","timeStart":4468.605,"timeEnd":4554.135,"chunkIndex":43},{"id":"019fb693-badc-77d7-ac11-ba0ea4e93aee","content":"Speaker 15: Lastly, we submitted a photometric plan. The bottom left here, um, which basically shows the, uh, the, the spillage of light, if you will, will, will largely be on the subject property and not extend, um, offsite into the, uh, certainly the Millbrook, um, but will largely be within the, uh, footprint of the, of the development. And I believe those, uh, were all the comments that we received at the last hearing, but I'm sure you will tell me if I'm missing something.\n\nSpeaker 3: I, I thought we talked about snow storage a little bit. Also, I'm not sure if that was resolved at the last meeting. Can you just go over where the snow storage is? Uh,\n\nSpeaker 15: Sure. Take place. So it's actually, and\n\nSpeaker 3: What happens when it fills\n\nSpeaker 15: Up? Yep. So snow storage is going to be provided in, uh, in this area here, and a little bit over here. Um, if the commissioner recalls, we added a couple of spot grades within this area, and, um, we're seeding it with a native pollinator mix. And so this will be slightly depressed. So as snow is stockpiled there and it melts, it'll infiltrate into the ground in place, uh, any snow that, um, I believe the civil engineer, Fred Russell, indicated that that area would accommodate, uh, you know, a few inches of snow, two three inches of snow. And then any snow beyond that would have to be, uh, trucked off site. And the, uh, the applicant is aware of that.\n\nSpeaker 3: Okay. Well, the plans are up. Uh, any other comments from the commission? I hope I'm not stepping on your rich, your presentation. No,\n\n","timeStart":4558.305,"timeEnd":4666.885,"chunkIndex":44},{"id":"019fb693-bae5-7799-b4d2-6f0e6ec8e503","content":"Speaker 15: That, that, that was it. I think I covered all of the, um, comments that we had at the last meeting.\n\nSpeaker 3: I see Susan Chapnick has her hand up.\n\nSpeaker 6: Yeah. I just wanna say, um, rich and team, thank you for addressing all our comments. I know there were multiple comments on multiple meetings and continuations, and, um, I think this is much improved project, um, with the snow storage being defined with the, um, two to one plantings of smaller plants. So they have, would probably see more survivability. Um, and I, I appreciate you working with us on this. I have no comments. I think that, that this is, um, this is a good approach now,\n\nSpeaker 3: Great further comments from the commission or motions. It would be a motion to close.\n\nSpeaker 6: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. Oh,\n\nSpeaker 3: Sorry. Wait a minute.\n\nSpeaker 6: Sorry. Oh, you forgot to do public\n\nSpeaker 3: Comment. I did, yeah, I did. Yeah. Okay. Uh, anyone here at tonight's meeting would like to make a comment about, uh, this project at 26 Dudley? Uh, please raise your hand or turn your video on and let us recognize you. Uh, seeing none. Back to you, Susan.\n\nSpeaker 6: I'll make a motion to close the hearing for 26 Deadly. NOI\n\nSpeaker 3: I'll second I'll David White. Susan Chapnick. So I'm gonna go with Mike Gilda's game. Yes. Brian McBride.\n\nSpeaker 21: Yes.\n\nSpeaker 3: Susan Chapnick.\n\nSpeaker 6: Yes.\n\n","timeStart":4666.885,"timeEnd":4768.615,"chunkIndex":45},{"id":"019fb693-baed-7711-bfcd-f40a26cbd575","content":"Speaker 3: And David White. Yes. And Chuck Terone says, yes. All right. Do we, uh, wanna talk about conditions now? Any, uh, special conditions above and beyond what's written in the, on the plan or in the operation of maintenance plan or our standard conditions?\n\nSpeaker 6: Um, I think I'd like to put in writing about the snow storage. The way Rich just said it. Um, that, um, snow storage sh shall be in areas as marked on the plan. And, um, snow above and beyond what can be, um, handled there will be trucked off site.\n\nSpeaker 3: Yeah. But, uh, rich, can you tell us what, uh, what that was? It was something about two inches or\n\nSpeaker 6: Three inches\n\nSpeaker 15: Off that, Hey, um, hold on a second. I'm reading the o and m plan to see if that level of detail is in here. Uh, uh, the ONM plan does state, when designated snow storage areas are no longer capable of accommodating additional snow accumulation, excess snow shall be trucked offsite to an approved snow disposal location.\n\nSpeaker 3: Yeah. Okay. Uh, can you,\n\nSpeaker 15: If you want to repeat that, I can share my screen. I suppose if you wanted to repeat that,\n\nSpeaker 3: We can grab it from the, from the operation maintenance plan. I think it's, it's quite clear. I would expect you guys to fill it up as much as possible. And then at that point you could truck it off the site, not, not two to three inches. I think that would've been\n\nSpeaker 15: Inches. Well, I'm saying two to three inches across the entire parking lot will likely Oh. Can fill up as piles in those designated areas.\n\n","timeStart":4769.715,"timeEnd":4878.485,"chunkIndex":46},{"id":"019fb693-baf6-77d6-a3eb-bb386f0bae26","content":"Speaker 6: That makes more sense. Yeah.\n\nSpeaker 15: Depending on, depending on how quickly it melts and all that sort of thing, you know, they may use it again, if we get back to back storms, they may need to truck it off site. Um, no, I, we're a pretty management company that that will be, you know, that owns the building and will be operating out of it. So that's well within their wheelhouse to, to deal with that.\n\nSpeaker 3: Yeah. That, that makes, uh, that makes some a lot of sense there. Uh, rich, I, I actually just, um, was talking past me. I was thinking of snow storage area two to three inches, but I got it now. Right. Susan, do you need to make a comment, uh, a condition\n\nSpeaker 6: About this, or do you think it's covered? I was just gonna say the mitigation areas, um, in perpetuity, so mm-hmm . So normally we have plantings for three year survivability, but isn't this mitigation? Uh, tell me if I'm wrong. 'cause I don't remember. I might be confusing different projects. Mm-hmm .\n\nSpeaker 15: Yeah. So we're, we, we proposed, um, mitigation if, uh, uh, in order to meet well Right.\n\nSpeaker 6: The river fund standards. Right? Yeah.\n\nSpeaker 15: Right, right.\n\nSpeaker 6: And, and so that's in perpetuity, is what I'm trying to say.\n\nSpeaker 15: Well, of course the, the, the, that land will remain, you know, unaltered in perpetuity. Right. But, but our, but our monitoring is for the three years that the commission typically requires. Is that\n\nSpeaker 6: Okay? Yeah.\n\nSpeaker 15: Okay.\n\nSpeaker 6: Yeah.\n\nSpeaker 2: Can I jump in on the monitoring question, because that's what my comment concerned?\n\n","timeStart":4879.235,"timeEnd":4970.985,"chunkIndex":47},{"id":"019fb693-baff-7cc5-b91b-46128bfbc91e","content":"Speaker 6: Yeah, I'm done. .\n\nSpeaker 3: Go ahead, David.\n\nSpeaker 2: Um, since this applicant proposed putting in saplings much smaller size and much more quantity wise, I wonder if we should change the survivability threshold given that they are younger and more plentiful than a one-to-one replacement kind of approach. So, just wanted to offer that thought.\n\nSpeaker 3: So could you, can you, uh, continue and tell us what you would suggest?\n\nSpeaker 2: Uh, I guess since it's two to one, you could go as low as 50% with trees, since they're not removing anything. But then since it is mitigation, you might want to bump it higher. I mean, we have, I believe 80% for other vegetation maybe make it match.\n\nSpeaker 6: I would be okay with that, given that they're smaller and you'd expect maybe some die off.\n\nSpeaker 3: So usually\n\nSpeaker 6: 80, we expect a hundred percent for trees, but those are larger trees. Yeah.\n\nSpeaker 3: So we're gonna do 80% for the trees. Mm-hmm . Of these saplings and 80% for any shrubs that are out there or, okay. So that sounds like we Thank you. And it's for three years. Okay. So that's a condition. Any other conditions? Okay. Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to issue.\n\nSpeaker 6: I make a motion to issue a permit for 26th Deadly Street with the, um, conditions discussed.\n\nSpeaker 3: A second. I'll second David White seconds. I go right to Mike Gilda's game. Yes. And Mi Brian McBride. Yes. And David White. Yes. Susan Chapnick. Yes. And Chuck Terone says Yes. Okay.\n\n","timeStart":4971.255,"timeEnd":5105.425,"chunkIndex":48},{"id":"019fb693-bb06-78e8-893c-6c0809e14703","content":"Speaker 6: And can I just add one thing? I'm sorry. It, I know we go voted, but I just wanna make clear that when we are voting, and in the previous one as well, we are voting to, um, issue a permit under the Wetlands Protection Act, as well as the Arlington bylaw. Just wanna make that clear. Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 3: Yeah. You could put that in your motion too. You could, you could.\n\nSpeaker 6: I know. I forgot to Yeah.\n\nSpeaker 3: Issue under the act and bylaw. Right. And then go Yeah, you could, we could do that. We could make that the standard now.\n\nSpeaker 6: That would be great. Thank you.\n\nSpeaker 3: Okay. Rich Nicole. Thank you. Uh, Santana. Thank you. Okay. Thanks everyone. Thanks a\n\nSpeaker 6: Lot. Have a day. Yeah, you too.\n\nSpeaker 3: Bye-bye. All right. So, um, on our agenda, we have, um, open forum executive session, and new business. I think I wanna do open forum, new business, and then executive session. So, uh, any, anyone here tonight wanna talk about, uh, something new that the commission should consider who's attending tonight's meeting? And if I don't see any hands, um, and I don't see any hands for that, any commissioners wanna bring up something that we would want to address in the upcoming, uh, meetings or the upcoming agenda?\n\n","timeStart":5105.485,"timeEnd":5187.285,"chunkIndex":49},{"id":"019fb693-bb0f-78a8-b776-62278082ec87","content":"Speaker 6: I won't be at the next meeting. So I, I know earlier we said we might have a topic that Brian and I would discuss, and then I forgot it was August 6th. I will not be here. Hmm. So I don't know if we wanna postpone that, Brian, or we should just, you and I can discuss it offline and I think you could present it very well anyway.\n\nSpeaker 3: Yeah.\n\nSpeaker 6: With my support,\n\nSpeaker 3: Why don't we go forward with that, Brian. That seems like it would be fine. It's, it's have Brian present.\n\nSpeaker 6: That sounds good. We don't wanna wait, so,\n\nSpeaker 3: Sounds good. Sounds good. Um, so I guess new business, uh, is, is very similar to what we just did, but is there any new business that anyone wants to discuss, uh, here at, um, who's attending tonight's meeting? Any new business from commissioners? Seeing none, I'm gonna turn, uh, I'm gonna, uh, go to our,\n\nSpeaker 23: I was trying to, I'm trying to raise\n\nSpeaker 3: My hand, but, oh, is that what you're doing? Sorry. Yes. Yes. Similar to other, I thought that was a, uh, person.\n\nSpeaker 23: It wasn't letting me, so I clapped .\n\nSpeaker 3: I was expecting, uh, to hear from you, Laura, so please, uh, take the floor and, uh, let us know.\n\n","timeStart":5190.765,"timeEnd":5269.955,"chunkIndex":50},{"id":"019fb693-bb22-72d2-bf0b-e97415e50e2e","content":"Speaker 23: Okay. And I'm sorry, I, I stepped out, so I literally just walked back in the door. Um, but I, I, um, so I'm just getting my bearings for a second, but what I wanted to mention was, um, I am conducting, I'm completing a crowdsourced analysis of Hills Pond, um, from data that is already available online, uh, from, from apps and doing a cross-sectional analysis looking at it in comparison to other ponds. And I'm writing up a report that I hope to have by the end of this month that I was going to submit to con com and Parks and Rec. Um, but just on a high level, I wanted to mention, uh, that from what I see, there is ample evidence that Hills Pond is very stressed, um, ecologically more so than other ponds in the Boston Metro area of comparable size and shallowness. Um, it, both in terms of the biodiversity or the diversity of the fisheries is a lot more minimal than other ponds, but also the fish themselves are much more stunted in their sizing, which, um, could likely be, and I'll, I'll know more as I complete the analysis, but it does seem that angular pressure, angling pressures are contributing to that.\n\n","timeStart":5270.825,"timeEnd":5355.565,"chunkIndex":51},{"id":"019fb693-bb2a-7863-96f2-57ecb43c0e6c","content":"Speaker 23: Um, and it does seem that it is experiencing more angling pressure than other ponds of comparable size in the Boston Metro area. Um, so I wanted to submit that report, but the other thing I wanted to ask, which I'll be also mentioning in the report, is I'm not sure where a ComCom is in terms of like getting a biological assessment, but I was wondering if I could under save Arlington Wildlife run my own assessment where we do DNA testing of the pond, um, which would just be taking water samples and setting, um, setting it out to a lab for like, um, DNA analysis to see what species are in the pond, to see if the sampling from the apps are reliable or if there's more fish than, than it's showing. Um, and also maybe doing some camera work to see what we're seeing under the water. So that would be like doing, say three days in a row of camera surveying, um, under the surface of the water to see what fish we're seeing, if they look a certain way, et cetera. If we, if I did that, the best time to do that would be the end of September or early October. So I realize that's only a couple months away, which is why I wanted to bring it up tonight.\n\n","timeStart":5356.305,"timeEnd":5429.285,"chunkIndex":52},{"id":"019fb693-bb31-7ea7-9b4a-625372050a68","content":"Speaker 3: Sure. Uh, I would say with that, uh, it would be great to have, um, that, uh, request written down so we have exactly what you're proposing. Yep. And I would, I would, um, I would say I, I don't see any problem with it, but I would add that the Park Recreation Committee would also need to know about this. Sure. Um, yeah, I would, um, yeah, and when you finish your assessment, if you could come back and, uh, let the commission know the findings, that would be, uh, really nice.\n\nSpeaker 23: Okay. Yeah. So I hope to have it by the end of this month and, and at the end of the report will be like what I'm asking in terms of to do in the fall. Okay. To compliment this. Great.\n\nSpeaker 6: And also, Laura, if, if you need, I don't know if you have the Hills Pond reports, the annual reports that we get from, um, water and Waste. Do you get those? Have you been accessing those?\n\nSpeaker 23: I've seen 'em, I haven't read through them yet.\n\nSpeaker 6: Oh, okay. Because they should be online or David Morgan can get them for you. Okay. And also, I would, I would, um, encourage you to share your report with the, um, the fishing line working group. Mm-hmm . I know if you give it to Park and Rec, maybe it goes there anyway 'cause it's Natasha's group, but just specifically they, it's very important for them to have that data, I think. Okay.\n\nSpeaker 23: Yeah. Great. Thank\n\nSpeaker 6: You for taking the initiative to do this.\n\n","timeStart":5430.555,"timeEnd":5515.495,"chunkIndex":53},{"id":"019fb693-bb39-7160-8112-52c74deb8d77","content":"Speaker 23: Yeah, I actually thought of it 'cause you showed me that app that, um, I think someone from Fresh Pond showed you. Yes. And you can actually pull a lot of that data and, and US Fish and Wildlife Service and Noah have actually used that for their own analyses of fisheries. So I decided to just do that.\n\nSpeaker 6: No, I know there's so much out there, but somebody has to like yourself, has to pull it all together and make sense of it. Yeah. Great. Thanks Laura. Thanks\n\nSpeaker 10: Laura. Just one quick comment. Keep, keep in mind if you're trying to get permission from two groups that meet twice a month that have follow up questions, you may have to hurry because\n\nSpeaker 23: Yeah, that's why I wanted to come on tonight and I'm gonna write Parks and Rec, um, and go, you know, try to make their next meeting. 'cause Yeah, the timeline is tight.\n\nSpeaker 10: Yeah.\n\nSpeaker 3: Okay. All right. Thank you Laura. And David took his hand down David Morgan, so I'm sure that, uh, Brian McBride must have asked or answered or asked your\n\nSpeaker 2: Question. I'll just follow up with Laura separately. It's all good.\n\n","timeStart":5516.245,"timeEnd":5577.155,"chunkIndex":54},{"id":"019fb693-bb41-745d-9561-943f153cbb1c","content":"Speaker 3: Sounds good. Let's move on. Uh, so that's that. And, uh, so right now we're going to, um, let me get the, uh, paperwork up. So, okay. So we're gonna move into executive session. So in accordance with, um, GLC 30 A 21 A three, the board will convene an executive session. I'm not sure I have to say this, but it's part of the, but to discuss the strategy, respect to litigation, because to discuss that strategy and open, uh, meeting may have a detrimental effect on the litigation, uh, position that the public body and or chair so declares, um.","timeStart":5577.895,"timeEnd":5628.065,"chunkIndex":55}]}}}