Conservation Commission — 2020-05-21
Minutes
CITY OF MELROSE CONSERVATION COMMISSION City Hall, 562 Main Street Melrose, Massachusetts 02176 Telephone - (781) 979-4312 Fax - (781) 979-4290 Melrose Conservation Commission Minutes for May 21, 2020 Present: Susan Murphy, Kate Hickey, Aaron Weieneth, Richard Doucette, Paul Moore Ryan Sloan and Mike Paiewonsky Absent: Staff present: Eric Devlin Ms. Murphy opened the Remote public meeting at 7:30pm and read the Remote meeting statement below. Pursuant to Governor Baker’s March 12, 2020 Order Suspending Certain Provisions of the Open Meeting Law, G.L. c. 30A, §18, and the Governor’s March 15, 2020 Order imposing strict limitation on the number of people that may gather in one place, this meeting of the Melrose Conservation Commission will be conducted via remote participation to the greatest extent possible. Specific information and the general guidelines for remote participation by members of the public and/or parties with a right and/or requirement to attend this meeting can be found on the City of Melrose’s website, at www.cityofmelrose.org. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time, or in the event that we are unable to do so, we will post on the mmtv3.org website an audio or video recording, transcript, or other comprehensive record of proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting. All Votes will be recorded via roll call votes. Extension to permitting deadlines applicable to Commission proceedings pursuant to Chapter 53 of the Acts of 2020. Deadlines extended out 45 days after conclusion of the State of Emergency. Minutes- Motion by Mr. Weieneth to approve the minutes from May 7, 2020 , as amended. Mr. Doucette seconded the motion. Roll Call vote: Richard Doucette – yes, Kate Hickey – yes, Paul Moore – yes, Michael Paiewonsky – yes, Susan Murphy – yes, J. Ryan Sloan – yes, Aaron Weieneth – yes 7-0 in favor. Public Hearing: 217-0208 Notice of Intent 0 Swains Pond Ave/Hillside Park - Ms. Murphy explained the public remote participation process. Frank DiPietro, peer review consultant, Sean Szekely, applicant, Rich Williams and Greg Hochmuth of Williams & Sparages, engineer and wetland scientist for the applicant present. Mr. Williams shared an updated plan with the Commission (same presentation that was recently shared with the Planning Board) and went over the items that had been addressed since the last hearing. Widening of pavement to 20 feet and inclusion of a sidewalk on the northerly side of Maple Terrace from the intersection of Patrick’s Place (name of new proposed road). Extension of culvert that crosses under Maple Terrace and replace the headwall at the new edge of the pavement. 30 square feet of wetland disturbance for the newly located headwall. Headwall to be of similar materials to existing headwall, natural looking stone material. Lot 9 stormwater pond, originally surface pond proposed, now converted to an underground subsurface system with a pretreatment device. Open space area plan has been formalized since last hearing. Previously followed the Collucci Estates plan. Deeded lot 10 of 90,000 square feet + easement area on lot 1 of approximately 20,000 square feet. Total area = 109,000 square feet. Lot 10 has a small easement on it for a drainage structure, rest of the property is mixture of wetland and upland areas, to remain mostly in existing condition besides the drainage easement. Lot 1 proposed treatment/plantings and grading-existing road to be removed and replaced. Screening type plants, white pines on the west side, blueberries and conservation mix around the restoration area and wildflower mix proposed for the remainder of the disturbed area. Restoration area, Greg Hochmuth described the site visit that was conducted with the Commission staff. Expanded wetland restoration area was appropriate based on site observations. Area was largely devoid of vegetation, made sense to make a larger replication area in this location. Expect adequate hydrology for plantings proposed, grading modified slightly to reflect comments from the peer reviewer. The replication area is not expected not to fill with water. Unique area and suggested addition of failsafe language in replication and construction methodology - have work supervised by professional wetland scientist or certified soil evaluator to determine prior to planting if it needs to be done slightly deeper than proposed. Goal was to make the replication area larger and more biodiverse. Mr. Williams - Final report from City Engineer anticipated soon, responses from peer review comments completed. Ms. Murphy - Requested a Maple Terrace headwall replacement detail. Wetland delineation area delineation doesn’t appear to be on the plan for the area. Mr. Williams - 30 square feet of wetland filling proposed for new headwall, reflected in the wetland replication calculations. Frank DiPietro, BSC Group peer reviewer, described the peer review process. Most comments have been addressed for the project, a couple of minor items still to be addressed. Comments/Recommendations for conditions: -Best to schedule the culvert replacement work for low flow periods/conditions to prevent potential for flooding. -Mulch sock downstream erosion controls ok for low flow, have additional erosion/sedimentation controls on site for storms. Many subsequent recommendations tied to the final construction documents. -Extensive ledge removal for project, 65,000 cubic yards of ledge to be removed based on latest information. Phased construction plan including 3 stages: blasting, roadways, and housing construction. More detailed plans should have areas showing where blasted ledge material is being stored near wetland areas should be shown. -Final draft of the SWPPP for City review condition suggested. Test pits in each of the stormwater infiltration areas to ensure the 2 foot ground water separation suggested. -Design for roof area infiltration systems should be reviewed at time of building permit review and require a test pit for 2 foot groundwater separation. Questions from Commissioners: Ms. Murphy- Infiltration areas with concern for depth to groundwater? Mr. DiPietro - Infiltration pond #1 (located at Maple Terrace) and infiltration pond #3 (located in future open space area) both had test pits in correct location with the required groundwater separation and reasonable soils. Infiltration area #4 (located on northerly portion of plan) no test pit in this area. Need to identify where ledge is on site to ensure system functions as designed, relatively steep slope in area. Infiltration area #2, (located just upstream of the proposed wetlands road crossing culvert). Large changes in topography in area, no test pit in the proposed infiltration system area. Test pit needed to confirm 2 foot separation of groundwater. Suggested condition-Require test pits to be done prior to and commencement of construction and results submitted for review by City staff for proof that system will work as designed. Question on difficulty getting construction equipment onto the site for applicant engineer. Mr. Williams- Confident soils required exist on the site in the proposed locations. Infiltration pond located behind Lot #4 is difficult to access before starting construction of a portion of the roadway. Believe adequate soils exist in this location based on previous exploratory digging in area and visible surface inspection. Regular communication with abutters, Conservation Commission and other Cit departments to keep updates on project and maintain access to abutters during construction. SWPPP to be onsite and stockpile areas to be labeled as the site construction progresses. Combination of new soils and existing soils for infiltration basin that is above the existing elevation (Infiltration area #2). Mr. Dipietro- A barrier to culvert to be keyed into under the Maple Terrace roadway, minor detail still pending on elevation of the impermeable barrier under the roadway. Mr. Williams- Plan to dig a hole to get elevation of ledge at downstream side at edge of existing pavement to report back to DPW and Conservation, suggested this become a condition. Mr. Weieneth- Confirm if the inverts for the Maple Terrace 12” culvert replacement required to accommodate the widened road match the inverts of the existing culvert. Mr. Williams- Correct Mr. Weieneth- Additional protections for blasting erosion and runoff? Mr.Williams- Blasting of ledge, although intensive activity, this material doesn’t generally erode very much. Rocky soils expected, not much surface runoff due to increased infiltration. Daily Erosion controls checks, and copies of reports to the Conservation Commission. Mr. Doucette- What were the nature of concerns from abutters for the surface retention pond at Maple Terrace that has been converted into a subsurface infiltration system? Ownership and maintenance of system after construction? Mr. Williams- Nuisance of mosquito breeding, safety from open surface pond were main concerns. System to be maintained by the developer until transfer of system to Home Owners Association, similar to nearby Regan’s way development. Mr. Szekely- HOA will need to take care of all mowing/maintenance of the open space area on lot 1 along with all infiltration systems. HOA to take over responsibility of system after the majority of homes have been constructed. Either at completion or at least after 7 or 8 of the lots. Public Comments: Ryan Williams- Process for monitoring plans over time? Regular review process for changes over time? Rich Williams- Sequencing/changes on-site to be conveyed via email chain to Conservation/Planning and affected abutters. Changes to plan will need to have a formal change request. Ms. Murphy- Modification required for major changes, formal process. Certificate of Compliance at completion of project to confirm that it was built according to approved plan. Staff called off public attendees for comments/questions, no other questions. Public Comment period closed. Waivers 15’ No disturb work, 20’ No construction zone and waiver for work within a wetland resource area in relation to stormwater. Motion by Ms. Murphy to issue waivers, in connection to the stream crossing ,for work within 15’ No disturb zone, 20’ No construction zone and for work within a wetland resource area in relation to stream crossing. Ms. Hickey seconded the motion. Roll Call vote: Kate Hickey – yes, Susan Murphy – yes, Michael Paiewonsky- yes, Aaron Weieneth – yes 4-0 in favor – Unanimous among quorum Ms. Hickey stated she will not be able to attend June 18 meeting, concern if it would be an issue regarding quorum for the Special Conditions at that meeting. Signature can be completed outside of meeting, if it was voted and approved at a public hearing. Motion by Ms. Murphy to close the public hearing and issue an Order of Conditions at the June 18 meeting with Special Conditions. Mr. Paiewonsky seconded the motion. Roll Call vote: Kate Hickey – yes, Susan Murphy – yes, Michael Paiewonsky- yes, Aaron Weieneth – yes 4-0 in favor – Unanimous among quorum Discussion: Certificate of Compliance (217-0203) 785 Lynn Fells Parkway- Staff performed a site visit on May 20,2020. Plans appear to match construction. Lawn was seeded, grass growth is not full, appears to have been completed a few weeks ago, no sprinklers observed. No erosion on the slope into the stream. -Add watering of grass requirement, urge owner to water the grass to ensure soil stablity in the back yard. Motion to issue a Certificate of Compliance with only erosion controls inspection special condition by Ms. Murphy, Second by Mr. Doucette. Roll Call vote: Richard Doucette – yes, Kate Hickey – yes, Paul Moore – yes, Susan Murphy – yes, Michael Paiewonksy- yes, J. Ryan Sloan – yes, Aaron Weieneth – yes 7-0 in favor – Unanimous 2020 ponds treatment- contract prioritization – Budget to be before city Council next week. Enough in the budget currently for one additional task, algaecide treatment at Ell Pond. Motion to approve the algaecide component of the Solitude Lake Management contract using this year’s funds and to approve the rest of the remaining tasks pending approval of the budget for FY 2021 by Ms. Murphy, Second by Mr. Weieneth. Roll Call vote: Richard Doucette – yes, Kate Hickey – yes, Paul Moore – yes, Susan Murphy – yes, Michael Paiewonsky- yes, J. Ryan Sloan – yes, Aaron Weieneth – yes 7-0 in favor – Unanimous New/Old Business- The next scheduled meeting will be Thursday, June 18, 2020 at 7:30 PM. Motion by Ms. Hickey to adjourn. Mr. Sloan seconded the motion and it was voted 7-0 in favor. Adjourn 9:00PM adjourn ____________________________ _________________ Approved Date. Pursuant to the ‘Open Meeting Law, ‘ G.L. 39, 23B, the approval of these minutes by the Commission constitutes a certification of the date, time and place of the meeting, the members present and absent, and the actions taken at the meeting. Any other description of statements made by any person, or the summary of the discussion of any matter, is included for the purpose of context only, and no certification, express or implied, is made by the Commission as to the completeness or accuracy of such statements.
Transcript
▶ 0:00 Being held remotely due to the COVID emergency, there's a statement that I need to read at the beginning of each meeting, according to the governor's order. Pursuant to Governor Baker's March 12th, 2020 order, suspending certain provisions of the Open Meeting Laws, General Law Chapter 30A, Section 18, and the governor's March 15th 2020 order imposing strict limitation on the number of people that may gather in one place. This meeting of the Melrose Conservation Commission will be conducted via remote participation to the greatest extent possible. Specific information and the general guidelines for remote participation by members of the public and or parties with a right or requirement to attend this meeting can be found on the City of Melrose's website
▶ 0:49 at www.cityofmilleros.org. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time, or in the event that we are unable to do so, we will post on mmtb3.org website an audio or video recording, transcript, or other comprehensive record of proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting and other aspects of this are that all votes will be be a roll call vote and we are still subject to an extension to permitting deadlines 45 days after the conclusion of the state of emergency all right so the first item on our agenda is uh the may 7th 2020 meeting minutes i did have a chance to review
▶ 1:52 them i didn't have any edits to them did anyone else have a chance to look at them or make edits yeah i read them they looked fine to me i did notice a small typo just before the motion to adjourn like in the last sentence that was it I think Karen sent me some small edits. I don't think there's anything major there. Just some editorial minor things that I caught. So I move to approve the minutes as amended. Second? Second. And we'll need a roll call vote. Eric, go ahead. Richard? Yes. Kate? Yes. Paul? Yes. Susan? Yes. Mike? Yep. Ryan? Yep. Aaron? Yes. Great. All right, then the next item on the agenda is the continuation of the notice of intent filing 217-208, zero swains pond avenue realty trust for construction of a roadway stream crossing
▶ 3:20 stormwater management system utilities and construction of nine single-family homes and driveways with associated grading uh there are four members of the commission who form the quorum for this matter so that's myself and kate and aaron and mike uh but the other commissioners will part can participate in you know questions and such um so that's who will be voting on this so where we had left it that there were a few um requests that we had made for changes and there was also a peer review of the project um and and some back and forth between the applicants and the peer review so the way we're going to do this is we're going to have the applicant um explain what has changed on the project and where we are now um and particularly some of the changes we had
▶ 4:14 requested and and what they've changed in response to this peer review um we have the peer reviewer here also is that right so we'll ask the peer reviewer to to comment as well as to how his uh comments have been responded to and the commission will ask questions and then we will have an opportunity for members of the public to ask questions i think the the way we're going to handle that is if you are going to want to make a comment or question if you could indicate that in the q a and chat section and we'll get to those first but we will um before we close public hearing just go through and make sure no one else wants to say anything else if you in case someone doesn't know how to use those functions um anything else i forgot eric before we turn it over to the
▶ 5:02 applicant uh no no we're gonna mute pretty much everybody at the end if they you know weren't able to use that chat function thing that's it yeah yeah so we'll unmute people so you can speak up if you couldn't use the chat or um so if you're an attendee um eric has you muted right now um panelists please do keep yourself muted um when other people are talking so i think we'll hand it over to is it rich williams who's going to be presenting for the applicants now so i'll hand it over to you rich to bring us up to speed on where what changes have been made and where we are now okay um would it be okay if i shared my screen i don't have a problem with it go ahead yeah okay okay so um this presentation that you see on my screen is a presentation
▶ 6:05 um that we made to the planning board and uh many of these changes are applicable to the conservation commission so i'm going to use this um this present these presentation materials and i'll just take you through the items that were were amended so um First of all, since our last hearing with the Conservation Commission, we have settled on a proposed construction of Maple Terrace, and that includes the widening of the pavement to 20 feet and the inclusion of a sidewalk on the northerly side of Maple Terrace from location where Patrick's Place meets it out to Swain's Pond or towards Swain's Pond with a street crossing and then ultimately a connection of the sidewalk to the existing sidewalk.
▶ 7:06 In doing that, we have proposed extending the culvert that exists under Maple Terrace. currently the culvert that crosses Maple Terrace from north to south, is a pipe that is at the surface of the pavement. You can actually see the top of the pipe kind of sticking through the pavement. We're going to replace that pipe and replace the headwall that exists today. There's headwall at the edge of the pavement. Today we're going to move that or replace that and that will be at the edge of the layout and the edge of the pavement which are pretty close to each other there at that location. Doing that creates about 30 square feet of disturbance of a combination of bank and and some wetland area this head wall will be reconstructed um it is likely to be a
▶ 8:20 stone and masonry structure and we'll build it around the uh the pipes that are there we we've got um a lot of material that's going to be generated that will be good for building walls and the stone masonry will be a natural natural looking material there And it will, the orientation grade wise would be much the same as the culvert that's out there today with the exception that there'll be 8 inches to a foot of additional cover over that so that that pipe is in the ground. There's also an additional outlet that we're putting out of that headwall and that's That's an outlet from drainage that is generated within the site and within our drainage system. In addition to that, we have on lot nine,
▶ 9:22 we had one of our stormwater ponds was a surface pond. We amended that to be subsurface based on requests from some of the abutters. It doesn't change the nature of the drainage system other than it is now on the ground with a pretreatment device. In addition, we have, as we said we were going to do at the last meeting, we have formalized what the open space is going to be for this project. As you recall, the prior plan, which was the Colucci Estates Plan, had some open space that was allotted in the wetland area. And there was another area that was allotted in this general area, which is in the general area of lot 1. Total open space, and it's a combination of a deeded lot, which is lot 10, which is 90,000 square feet,
▶ 10:49 roughly two acres, and an easement area on lot 1, which is about 20,000 square feet. The total open space is proposed to be about 109,000 square feet. The parcel 10 is comprised of wetland areas, upland areas. We do have a small easement that contains our drainage system. We've confirmed through the city of Melrose that they would prefer to have that land and have the easement on it rather than change the shape of the land to go around the drainage structure. So, again, in total, it's 109,000 square feet, and that's about one and a half times the open space that was proposed in the prior plan. Lot 10, other than the small drainage easement, will remain in its existing condition, and The easement area on lot one is an area that will be restored, there's some grading that's
▶ 12:11 going to go on there, there's an existing road that takes you through the site to Hillside Terrace today, that road will be removed and replaced and I'm going to pull up a rendering that uh show us what we're proposing to do for treatment in that open space bear with me for one second please okay so uh this line which is this white dashed line is the existing uh road that goes through the property uh out to hillside place um and our proposal is to again to regrade it remove the pavement. We've got some screening type plants that are proposed to the west side. There's some white pines. Then we've got a patch of blueberries and a conservation mix that's in this location. And then the remainder of the
▶ 13:23 disturbed area will be um will be a wildflower mix um that's so that we can maintain uh site distance around this corner but also have a natural um a natural area something that will be attractive and and provide some wildlife habitat and an attractive an attractive open space in addition within that open space is the wetland replication area that we at the last meeting talked about increasing the size of and since since the last meeting Eric Devlin and Greg Hawkins from our office has gone out and looked at that area I'm gonna let if if you can unmute Greg I'm gonna let him talk a little bit about that replication area i'm going to i'll get that plan up on the screen um but he'll take you through the uh the process of enlarging that and why that happened
▶ 14:30 can everybody hear me okay yeah i can hear you okay great great um so it's my understanding i think it was probably a couple meetings ago where the commission had asked us to go back and take a look in the area that we're proposing replication to see if there was any way to make it larger and I wasn't at that meeting but when I heard that I said sure we'll go look at it but you know oftentimes taking down mature or healthy buffer zone doesn't quite make sense just to make a replication area larger so I fully expected to meet with Eric and and say this doesn't make any sense sense let's just keep it the size that it is we went out I was very surprised and I didn't remember seeing it it was actually an area that was void of
▶ 15:32 vegetation looked like an old parking lot and an area that the neighbors have been dumping debris on for many years it was pretty much void of vegetation so it made all the sense in the world to make the replication area larger so what we've done is we've tried to fill that space that was void of vegetation with additional wetlands and it results in over a 2 to 1 replication ratio we've enhanced the species list a lot more than it was in the initial submittal we put together a detailed species list that contains sweet pepperbush sensitive fern red maple speckled alders silky dogwood winterberry holly and then we're proposing to seed the area with a new england wet mix it's a little unique in that you know without that
▶ 16:31 stream channel flowing through here i don't think there'd be a wetland there at all i think the fact that the stream channel is there it's going to allow us to tap into some of that hydrology that's working its way down the slope and as a result of that we've had to grade the replication area slightly different than your typical replication area by pulling a low contour within it we don't expect it to fill with water but we do expect it to have adequate hydrology to support the species that are proposed we have tweaked it based on a recommendation from the peer review consultant and that's reflected on the plan that you see here it just it modified the grading slightly and just as a failsafe because this area is so
▶ 17:22 unique we don't want to build a replication area that doesn't have adequate hydrology we've put language in the replication and construction methodology that will have this work supervised by a professional wetland scientist and or certified soil evaluator so that prior to planting we can take a really close look just to determine whether or not we have to make it slightly deeper we don't expect that to happen but we figured we'd throw that in as a failsafe so yeah I'm long story short it was a great idea and we were able to do what we think you were asking us to do make it larger and more more biodiverse thanks correct yep in addition to in addition to those items we've gone back and forth with the peer review consultant two times responding
▶ 18:24 to comments that were made I BSC as well as responding to comments that were made by the city of Melrose in their DPW department and we I think are at the five-yard line with that we've responded to all those items and we expect a final report very soon but I don't think any of the outstanding items will affect what you're what you're seeing today um rich can i jump in for one second i spoke to denise this afternoon you know the last word out of engineering is that they're satisfied with everything that we responded to they're looking into a few more questions about uh some of the traffic stuff that they was brought up at the playing board meeting that exists on maple terrace but all the other stuff the last question we had about four
▶ 19:30 four foot versus five foot uh catch pace and they're satisfied with the answer so so far everything we've given them the most set thanks sean so i think with that i'll i'll um give it back to you susan and see if there are questions that we can answer uh specifically about the changes that we've made since the last meeting okay thank you rich the one one thing i wanted to ask you before we I was going to have the peer reviewer just tell us what just happened so far but just do you have a more detailed plan of the work on Maple Terrace and the replacement that headwall work when it looked like the detail you showed is that you know it doesn't have the wetland delineation it doesn't have some stuff that we normally see when people are doing that kind of
▶ 20:26 work in our jurisdiction we we located that stream the wetland areas confined to this stream and I do think that our revised plan has the the wetland fill area you put that up I guess is the question can you share that screen we did a separate sheet I've got to find it hang on one second okay so many pieces of information here yeah I was having trouble finding if I was looking at the right spot that's why I wanted you to show us yeah this is it this is the plan with the with the most detail it's got we've added erosion control elevations and it's not in here but we included in our um in our uh wetland replication area that it includes um the 30 square feet that is being filled here is is um included in that
▶ 22:21 filling and replication okay thank you all right so i what i would propose now is that um we ask the peer reviewer to just tell us where this stands from his end if there are any outstanding questions um anything he'd like to bring to our attention good evening uh my name is frank dipetro i'm a e with the bsc group and i've been involved in the peer review for this uh project with both you folks conservation commission and the planning board um bsc provided our first peer review letter on march 9th we then were involved with some of the meetings uh there was a plenty board hearing uh may 4th where a bunch of material was filed we reviewed that provided a peer review letter dated uh the 11th of may uh the folks um rich and his folks responded very quickly and a bunch
▶ 23:28 of information came in on the 15th and there's been material coming in even up to today to respond to those comments so um i have um sort of played a little bit of catch-up by get up to a point where i have my review done and then more stuff comes in and so then i revise it and my understanding and correct me sean or rich there may be some minor additional stuff coming in as well but to sort of cut to the chase the latest material that i've looked through which is as of today uh pretty much all of our comments have been addressed there's some questions some minor items that tweaks but i think the folks um at williams and sporadius have been very good in responding to the comments i'll go through a couple things the maple terrace plan is in front of us right now
▶ 24:14 so um again a couple of very minor things i've looked at this latest plan i think it looks fine my only comments or recommendations this may be something you may want to think about putting in as a condition is that it would be best to try to schedule the recovered replacement work to low flow periods so that you might avoid having a heavy storm come in and cause some backup flooding and then the other item with regard to that would be again it's very suitable for low flow conditions the downstream erosion control is a mulch sock which should be fine in low flow it might be worthwhile to have handy and typically you have extra hay bales and other stuff on the site it might be worth handy to have some additional uh oil erosion and sedimentation
▶ 25:06 controls the thunderstorm came up or something like that you could put them down there uh when the couple is being replaced and just make that edit that's a lot of my companies are going to be more towards means and methods this is a design right now and so these are a lot of these will be tied to the final construction documents and so a lot of my recommendations are going to be having a condition or something that would require a more detailed uh design at or prior to construction that gets reviewed by folks um the um not directly applicable uh to um you folks there's a considerable amount of wedge removal uh the latest information that we have there's going to be about 65 000 cubic yards of ledge removed the uh applicant has provided a
▶ 26:00 number of detailed materials over the last week or so regarding that um and again these are adequate these are general and really what is needed is the blaster to go out and basically do the pre-blast survey in my opinion and to get an idea of what's out there and that will then come up with a plan i think there will be a little more detail than what's presented right now they have provided plans that show the phases for construction they have information that demonstrates the length of that construction what's happening where uh it's a generally logical way of doing things but um particularly for the conservation those areas near nearest to wetlands are uh within the buffers or need to be looked at really carefully um i would suggest that there's a lot of legend removal
▶ 26:48 there'll have to be some staging areas as to where you put the blasted ledge there'll be a number of trucks taking in and out of the site or off the site and coming into the site to pick it up again that needs to be scheduled and that's something in my mind that has to be addressed when they have a final plan so maybe before they do the blasting they come back with a a detailed plan after they've done their research before they do the construction scheduling they have a plan that will again be a little more detailed than the general plans to put together um over the site the my understanding is it's going to be really a sort of a three-stage uh construction one will be the blasting one will be the roadways and then the houses themselves are going to be on
▶ 27:33 a separate item basically when they have sold a lot they'll go into the lot and do that um they have provided a draft stormwater pollution prevention plan swip again it is a standard very good addressing all the items and stuff like that i think as they start going through and working up the construction details they'll want to modify that and provide that additional detail uh they've got some general stuff for example to address the culvert uh replacement they've got stuff for the cream the clean air the stream crossing and again they may find a different way of doing that or there may be something that the ledge modifies so that i would say again could be approved subject to a condition that says we want to review with more
▶ 28:17 or maybe the final draft of the swift before it goes in to the epa is provided to the city to take a look at those things uh um the applicant and the engineers have done a number of test test pits across the site. And generally, probably about half of these were in what are now considered the major, there are four major infiltration basins. One at Maple Terrace that is now an underground. There's one just upstream of the culvert. And then there were two at the northern end on either side of the culver sack. Two of those have test pits that were in there that based on the information, the design that's shown right now of the infiltration infiltrations and meet DEP standards, as well as the engineering practice.
▶ 29:08 Two of them do not have the plenty board hearing on Monday. The applicant has agreed that prior to construction there to go out, do additional soils investigations in those I'm calling the major infiltrations patients to make sure you've got the two foot separation before above estimated seasonal high groundwater. They're also proposing to undertake a number of stormwater, smaller roof infiltration systems, one for each residence. Several of these, there are test bits that are nearby that may want to be looked at a little more carefully. Again for each of those, and this is probably even delayed until when they know what the houses are going to look like, these are standardized houses, but maybe before the building permits
▶ 29:54 issued for a house. design of the underground infiltration system needs to be looked at uh designed for the roof area that's going to be going into it and a test bit done so that again we can make sure that there's enough clearance between the seasonal high groundwater ledge or whatever else the roof infiltration systems are more flexible they can be shifted around and really they impact that one lot I'm so I'm not so much worried about that they may it may show something now and they may find out they can't do that in the future when they do the soil testing but again it's something that needs to be looked at prior to construction on those areas just so that there's not a problem when it's half
▶ 30:36 built or something with regard to the wetlands replication area the latest material the plan that you showed it was great that showed earlier addresses the issues that bsc had with our original and with our secondary peer review comments i don't really have any major issues on that um overall comment again is i think as far as a design permit though this is in really good shape a few minor items here and there um i would just recommend to the commission they look very carefully about what conditions would be required for example for the ongoing um installation and maintenance and observations over two or three years period for the wetlands replication area those kind of items so that um it's not just getting the permit
▶ 31:28 it's during construction what's going to be happening um i'm sure the residents will talk about this um there obviously has got to be some kind of communications program and the applicant has talked about this during construction um but around long enough that no design plan goes ahead without some kind of edits for unforeseen circumstances and so both items i think you want to take a look at um the swift plan has general stuff but again if you're going to have a large area that you might be storing maybe five or six thousand square feet of uh blasted ledge material that will need special precautions as far as sedimentation erosion control goals things like that those items you won't know until you go farther on but you need to have those safety
▶ 32:13 items in there that get an ongoing review by the conservation commission that'll be happy if any questions or shut up and let other people speak thank you very much so i think we'll have the commissioners ask questions i'm going to start with one for for you frank um about those infiltration areas if you could just be more specific which ones is it that you were concerned about the test bed and what was the concern is it the is it that the ground water is whether what are we looking at here okay sure so um test pit I'm sorry infiltration pond or one which is down at Maple Terrace and they're a little bit farther down it's at Maple Terrace right there and then number three which is the one in the future open space area the test bits in
▶ 33:10 those two were in the right location there was a separation that you need per DEP stormwater rigs to the bottom of the system the soil seemed reasonable in those two areas in I'll do the northern one in the infiltration area essentially the left uh infiltration area number four right at the top um right there there was no test bit in that area so again um it may be perfectly fine but we really need to understand where the ledge material is where the estimated seasonal high groundwater is to make sure that design will function and if that one fails it would potentially spill out onto the slope and that's a relatively steep slope on uh towards swains pond avenue the other um infiltration area is that area
▶ 33:59 infiltration area two which is just north of just upstream of the wetlands uh the new uh covet that area um there's large changes in topography so there's maybe about i don't know 30 or 40 feet away to the east there is a test pit that is higher up on the slope has a higher uh estimated seasonal high groundwater in ledge than the bottom of that system there is not an infiltrate there's not a test pit in that infiltration system so again that area needs to have its own infiltration uh its own test pit done just to confirm what the material is just to confirm that we've got the uh separation between the estimated high groundwater and the ledge underneath it those would be the two items that really i think are the more critical ones and would it be your
▶ 34:52 recommendation that we get that information now i'd say i'm concerned about permitting it not knowing if two key components of the drainage system will function as designed appending test pits later um again i think so and i may throw this back on on the the applicant in a way that i think if there was a condition that said the test fits have to be done prior to any commencement of construction the results have to be provided to the commission planning about appropriate town staff for review to ensure that what was originally proposed will work or if it's not the case then the applicant has to come back in and with a new design that essentially addresses those issues um again i'm it would be if the test bits were done now
▶ 35:43 um you wouldn't have that issue maybe getting to these locations might be difficult i think in some of the cases there may be some ledge removal the the infiltration basin floor um having walked up there i might have some questions about how easily you could get an excavator up there maybe rich or someone could address that a little bit more clearly but again i think the key would be to have this information before you go into any construction stock thank you and rich do you want to um comment on yeah i'd like to respond to that and then there were are two other things that I think we should talk about. We feel pretty comfortable that we're going to find the soils that we need. We've got pretty good separation to above the existing
▶ 36:38 grade on this one, so I feel like we're in good shape. The one that's back behind lot four is It's really tough to get to. We've got to get some work started over here to do that, to spare a little bit of a road. But we'll do that early on. And again, I feel confident that we're going to have it. I walked out there and there's not like lead sticking out of the ground in that location. I think there's dirt we've dug around enough to kind of have feel for what's going on so i feel like we're in good shape there um one of the things that that um frank touched on briefly and we've been talking a lot about with the planning board is the um the communications that are going to go on and and uh there are it's it's a bit of a puzzle
▶ 37:44 um getting this road built and keeping all the residents uh with access to their homes so we we're going to set up a uh a means of communication through either email or a blog or some sort of um some sort of chain that includes the butters the planning board and we'll also include the conservation commission um there'll be regular announcements as to what's going on, when it's going to happen, and we think that that is going to be very valuable in this project. It's a little bit unique. We normally wouldn't offer that at the beginning of a project, but we're going to be doing that because we're maintaining access and i think it will help uh with communication uh with with your staff um so i wanted to point out that we would be doing that um and then we do have a as as frank mentioned
▶ 38:54 we have a draft uh a stormwater pollution prevention plan that uh includes the general all of our general erosion control documents and inspections and things like that but this this project again it's going to be a um it's going to be a project where things are going to move entrances are going to move we've got temporary roads set up and we'll have the SWPPP on site and we'll be updating it regularly so that we've got stockpile areas labeled as they move and tracking pads and things like that. So we are aware that it's going to be something that your staff is going to be looking at closely and we'll be communicating with them closely as well. thank you rich and when you said that the the first infiltration mission you were looking at
▶ 40:01 you're saying it's it's above the existing grade that means what it's going to be discharging into is material that you all are putting there is that uh it'll be a combination of those of soils that we'll be putting there in soils that are existing and one of the comments we had previously on that basin that basin one by maple terrace was a concern that um at some point there was ledge and if the infiltrated water hit the ledge would it break out uh onto the slope or onto maple terrace though one of the latest revisions that richard and his folks have done is they're going to be putting in an impermeable barrier potentially vertical on the downhill slope they're going to somehow key that in so that berry will go below the elevation of maple terrace
▶ 40:52 that's a detail i haven't quite seen yet that last part but that's the understanding and then that will potentially force the water to go where it goes right now it goes underneath maple terrace and wherever else it goes down toward the stream that's an additional design detail that is still pending the they've actually got a detail that shows the impermeable barrier the one part of that is uh seeing the detail that puts that barrier the elevation of the bottom of the barrier underneath the roadway so nothing can break out onto maple terrace that's a relatively easy thing to do in my mind but that is one of those minor details it's still pending yeah and i think i think we'd like to dig a hole um at the downside adjacent to the existing pavement
▶ 41:43 We'd like to dig a hole and be able to report back to DPW and the Conservation Commission about the elevation of that ledge and confirm that we've got that right. So that can be a condition as well. All right. Thank you. So I think we'll go through the commissioners for questions. Why don't we start with people who are the quorum for this matter. Do you want to just do it alphabetically? who would be first is that uh kate i don't have questions right now okay how about uh mike do you have any questions right now i don't have questions right now either all right aaron yeah i have a couple one's just a clarification i think i caught it on one of the plans that um was pulled up by richard but could you just confirm for that maple terrace the culvert
▶ 42:54 replacement I think it's existing 12 inch and it's going to be replaced with a 12 inch so are the inverts relatively matching upstream downstream I just wanted to confirm it was for all intents and purposes going to have the same that's a conditions just kind of an extended culvert to accommodate the widen road that is correct that is correct okay thank you and then as was noted by the peer reviewer and just from what we've seen there is going to be a fair amount of blasting and removal of ledge and whatnot could you just provide I know you haven't looked at the erosion sedimentation control plan and all the details but could you just spend a little bit of time kind of expanding on the on the what steps measures are going to be taken to kind of accommodate the
▶ 43:52 the blasting program any kind of additional protections for this particular site and this kind of unique development plan are you talking about both from from the aspect of runoff and controlling sedimentation yeah just just from that intensive activity so we've got we've got permanent controls like we normally do proposed on the plan and and although it's it's it's intense and there's a lot of activity the the blasting of ledge it those soils don't erode like like like if you had a glacial till that you were you were disturbing and moving around with very fine materials those sites tend to create problems with sedimentation and runoff of that sediment into the wetland areas. These materials, we expect it's going to be rocky and they're going to blast up,
▶ 45:02 but they blast up into coarse materials which allow for increased infiltration. um and you tend not to have much runoff uh once the blasting begins in the areas that are blasted um it you don't get a lot of surface runoff because the um the stormwater goes into the ground uh and probably more than it than it had in the past so um we we feel like like the erosion controls that we've got on the plan will be adequate but we we've got uh operation and maintenance um a plan and inspections that happen bi-weekly or enough the storms that we've got to go out and walk the perimeter and make sure that those things are functioning um and that's typical of of most sites that we work on um that we've got to go out and look at those those controls
▶ 46:00 and make sure they're working if they're not working then we've got to come up with a new plan and we would create a new plan put it in the in the trailer or in the on the site and provide the provide the reports to the Commission the Commission gets copies of those inspections sure okay thank you I don't have any other questions for now and then for the other commissioners who are on Richard do you have any questions about the plan yeah the drainage structure at the bottom of the hill it was originally an open detention base and now it's underground because the neighbors had some concerns I wonder what were the nature of their concerns they were concerned about having a surface pond that had water in its safety safety in that aspect and
▶ 47:04 And then the nuisance of breeding mosquitoes was another one. I guess my only other question is who will own and maintain the drainage system after construction? It'll be maintained by the developer until such time as it's turned over to the homeowners association. will be responsible for the uh the maintenance of that system and it's similar to uh we did the same type of uh this the same mechanism for our regan's way down the street where a developer took care of it or is taking care of it until it's a homeowner's association takes it all i have no questions thank you uh time just jumping at that also uh we discussed with the the city and the dpw the reason why it's an open space is that the homeowners association will also
▶ 48:14 be uh in charge of maintaining the open space if we had given that needed that property over to them then it'll be for city of maryland's we have to take care of that open space so So all the maintenance and mowing and cleaning up will have to be taken care of by the HOA. Same as all the infiltration stuff. That's on lot one, right, John? Yeah, the only place on lot one. Yeah, sorry. Does the Homeowners Association take that over after the last house is built? Does the developer maintain responsibility until the very last house is built? I believe that to be the case correct Sean yeah typically that's why it would be yes or at least a majority right you know probably all the way to the end but
▶ 49:13 at least you know at least so seven or eight houses are sold yep okay thank you Paul Moore, did you have any questions? No, I did not. Thank you. How about you, Ryan? No, no questions here. All right, Eric, so I think we'll open it up for public comments or questions. I think first, I saw at least one question in the Q&A, but I haven't looked at the chat. Do you want to just call out and unmute whoever has express the desire to raise a question? I don't see anything in my Q&A yet, so I'm going to unmute the attendees. I think we had a, I saw a question from Ryan Williams here. Are they unmuted? So my only question was, I've heard a lot in the plan about future actions and changes in plans and contingency plans, and I'm wondering if
▶ 50:39 Ryan Williams: you could explain to to me and other members of public on the call kind of what's the process for monitoring those plans over time to ensure that the outcomes that we're looking to meet are in fact mad i mean these are complex projects so is there is there a regular review process that goes on when changes need to be made or how does that work out from the perspective of the city and and the developer working together richard do you want to rich do you want to comment on that yeah sure I guess I'll answer the two questions that might might relate to that and that number one is from a construction sequencing and you know monitoring the construction as it goes those changes will be handled on site
▶ 51:40 will be will be conveyed to the Planning Board the Conservation Commission and to the the affected abutters through an email chain any changes that need to happen to the plan would would need to be a formal change request so I'll add to that so our process is um so it needs to be built according to the plan there are certainly cases during construction where something will change and if it's at all significant um it will require a modification that's another proceeding before us and then at the at the end when it's all built there's a certificate of compliance uh component where And all this affects the title. The order of conditions is in the Registry of Deeds, and so to have it all cleared out, they have to come in and show us that it was built according to plan.
▶ 52:48 So those are sort of the real, like, is it built according to the design? Some of the stuff we've talked about of us sort of responding to things happen has to do with erosion and sediment control and just responding to the changing conditions of the site over the course of the construction to make sure that the wetlands are protected, the waterways are protected, and there isn't sediment getting into the wetlands, there isn't erosion. that's a that is like a an operational piece that's a shifting picture but there's there will there is a process for reporting and and checking on the conditions and Eric spends a lot of time at these sites to catch those kind of things development Melrose and we've worked with Eric and Elena and Rick
▶ 53:49 canton i mean there's plenty of opportunity for city people to come up and and and discuss things and make suggestions and we've always complied with any any requests that the city made for us does that answer your question ryan yes thank you so much anything else you wanted to ask or comment on that's it for me thanks is there any other member of the public who would like to either ask a question or make a comment on this if you do I'm state your name Gina Preziosi would you like to why don't you just do like sort of a roll call of the attendees and just get a response from them as to whether they want to speak would you do that no questions no questions thank you no questions thank you no questions thank
▶ 56:10 Thank you. Is that everyone? There's 12 of them. Okay. All right. So we will close the public comment portion of this hearing. So for those of us who are in the quorum here, do we feel like we need additional information or is there anything we're waiting for before we can make a decision on this matter? I think we've had everything that we've requested, is that right, Erica, anything we're missing? Erica, as far as you know, do we have everything that we've requested? I believe so. We asked for the filtration basin detail, which I believe we got larger replication area and then the stormwater pyridine commons, so yeah, we have all that stuff. Okay. All right. so then I believe going to move forward on this we need to discuss these
▶ 57:27 specific waivers that are required for this in connection with the stream crossing before moving on to the machine or an order of conditions do you have list of waivers required under the ordinance just to clarify so what we're talking about is under the specific the local ordinance as slightly a different approach to stream crossings because at the time we were concerned about Massachusetts on stream crossing standards and we wanted to make sure we had the opportunity to impose more stringent standards than the state did require a Massachusetts has since upgraded its stream crossing standards to be more what we were looking for we do need to we also wanted to make sure we had the opportunity if there was an alternative means to a site to require
▶ 58:38 the applicant to use a feasible alternative means to the site but can you find it eric we can does rich williams do you do you have your list of waivers that you were requesting rich yeah if you give me one minute i'm trying to pull it up here okay mitchell had a copy too he's here i don't know if he has it available yeah so um there are you Melrose has a 15-foot no disturb, which we will need a waiver for working in that. A 20-foot no construction, which we will need a waiver to work in that, and a waiver to work within resource area um for that crossing so those those are the three items that we'll need a waiver from all right so specific so this is all related to the stream crossing correct all related to the
▶ 1:00:29 stream crossing and the extension of that headwall all right so before we get to a vote does do we have any need to do any questions about the waivers or discussion among the commission regarding the waivers that are needed to in order to do a stream crossing here no susan i don't have anything are there any questions from members of the public with respect to the waivers all right so these are just uh we have you know specific requirements that in general we didn't you know do not allow work within or within a certain proximity to the wetland but in the context of a stream crossing um that is something that's required for a stream crossing you have to be able to to cross the stream so that's the purpose of the waivers
▶ 1:01:38 um all right so we will do a vote with respect to uh the waivers for this project should be issued an order of conditions um regarding a stream crossing i think uh i think we could do all of them in one vote is that's fair eric so i would so the motion would be i will make a motion that um we issue a waiver uh in connection with the stream crossing for this project should an order of conditions issue uh with respect to the 15 foot no just no disturb zone the 20 foot no construction zone and the requirement for no work in the wetland in the resource area you have a second I'll second all right so we'll need a roll call vote Richard yes voting on this oh yep sorry it's just the four of us yes Susan yes Mike yes
▶ 1:02:53 Aaron yes okay all right with that being done I'd say that it's my opinion that this project has been done in accordance with the requirements of the wetlands protection act and the most wetlands ordinance it's been designed according to our standards with some of the conditions that have been discussed today we will have to be putting together a list of conditions for the construction that will follow this I know that this is a has a big impact on neighborhood and for those of your attendees who are neighbors i i understand that we have very specific standards that we are applying in terms of meeting storm water and wetlands protection requirements um and there's been a long process and back and forth between the developer the
▶ 1:03:53 applicant and the peer reviewer and it does appear that those standards are met in this case So, with that, I believe that we are in a position now where we will close the public hearing and issue an order of conditions within 21 days. Any discussion on that from the Commission? Any other comments? a process so I cannot be here for the next meeting and so I wanted to understand how that impacts the process in terms of our quorum and and issuing the order of conditions yeah that's a good point normally we try an issue they at the next meeting this only the quorum can be involved in the order of conditions i think we the four of us would have to sign off on the order of conditions would we need to set up a special meeting just to do that order of conditions then
▶ 1:05:13 or could kate come in separately to sign sign the order if it's to sign if it's to sign can i yeah can i issue a signature in some other manner do you think that that's probably okay if we if she's we're in on the commission that we have done the hearing and voted to do an order of conditions we don't have to do the signing necessarily at a meeting is that right eric does that sound right i believe that to be correct yeah i think it's all right you're not positive on that though i believe that to be correct i think if you have voted to close the hearing and issue an order that the order can be signed outside of a meeting well I think we'll operate on that premise if we determine that there's any concern about that we can continue it
▶ 1:06:24 briefly at the next meeting to a time that we're all available to actually do issuance but I think that sounds right to me as well any other comments or thoughts where we proceed to I guess finally comment is I think it's the vote that's more important than the signature the signature is more ministerial all right thank you Richard all right so I will now move to close the public hearing and issue an order of conditions for the zero expense plans of realty trust project at our next meeting on june 18th do i have a second second that all right we'll need a roll call vote eric pete yes susan yes mike yes aaron yes all right so we will be putting together the order of conditions and the special conditions that we'll be asking for in this project and plan to issue
▶ 1:07:50 that after our June 18th meeting any other anything else we need with it for you just a quick quick question for you Susan I think you meant and the order conditions shall be issued within 21 days if our next meeting isn't until because I made the motion as not for the 21 days I made the motion for the June 18th meeting to confirm I think they're normally we need permission to go beyond 21 days but I don't think believe that's the case in the current environment so so I just made it that works thank you all right is that clear all right well thank you very much thank you guys very much appreciate it thank you guys appreciate the help thank you good night okay so we will move on we now have the
▶ 1:09:01 certificate of compliance for 785 Linfels Parkway you want to fill us in there sure so this is the house that they well originally there was a house that was condemned on the site they had an in-ground pool in the back and there was a dilapidated patio back there and chain-link fence I think kind of surrounding portions of it they bought the property demolished the house rebuilt a new house slightly closer to the road so it was a little bit further away from the stream filled in the pool in the back and got rid of an accessory shed and something else back there I visited the site on Wednesday I took a look at it the fence does appear to have been moved in the three to five feet like we specified uh they've hydro seeded the lawn
▶ 1:10:06 i it started to grow in it could be better but uh it's you know it looks like they just did it maybe a couple weeks ago so uh everything looks stable i didn't see any erosion i took a look back in the stream nothing looks like it moved back there so i don't have any issues with it uh i was pretty much matches the plan there's some slight deviations but nothing that would have gone into a jurisdictional area for us that I was concerned with okay any questions before we move forward with the certificate of compliance Eric you didn't see any sprinklers in the backyard did you because I don't think it's gonna it's not gonna stabilize unless somebody's watering it so if you any watering maybe you could urge them to water it in the next week or two we want to wait for it
▶ 1:11:11 to stabilize are they trying to sell this house and they're looking for their certificate I believe trying to sell the house that was a thought that crossed my mind about you know I was trying to see were there any sprinkler heads there is somebody what stuff I mean we've been lucky up until this week with it raining pretty regularly every week to begin with I know I'm not sure going forward what it's gonna be like are you living there now okay so it's a spec house I would just Eric she just urged them when they come in to get the certificate of compliance urged them to be watering it maybe that's good enough that sounds fair anything else and I would move that we issue a certificate of compliance to
▶ 1:12:13 7085 Linfells Parkway. Do I have a second? Second. Okay we'll need a roll call vote in this Eric. Richard. Yes. Yes. Paul. Yes. Susan. Yes. Mike. Yes. Ryan. Aaron. Yes. Okay and the next item on the agenda is the ponds treatment contract uh apparently we our budget will be before the city council next thursday so we'll know then what we have to work with um i think we have to determine eric we have enough in this year's budget to have them move forward with the um algaecide and lpon is that yeah there was enough for one thing and i believe the algaecide was the one that made the most sense technically we could have gone for the herbicide but that pricing was contingent on doing the algaecide at the same time and since we don't have it for both plus
▶ 1:13:40 the timing works out for the algaecide treatment which would typically be around this time anyway yeah um what was going to happen at the same time as they all just said the uh the uh submerged herbicide uh-huh like coontail and um what was the other thing there was there was something else that was starting to really expand out way beyond where it was supposed to last year all right well what i was going to propose is that we have a sort of a contingent vote so we will have a vote to definitely authorize them to go forward with the alga side um but that we also vote that we are prepared to tell them the rest of the contract can go forward if we get our funding approved um on thursday uh so so that we won't have to go back
▶ 1:14:35 and do more votes um if we if they approve our budget because i haven't heard anything about what they're planning to do with our budget but they have been approving budgets right i know that they've had one month far i think i don't know what happened at it well i know that i think they had two meetings but the one last night they they ran out of storage space on the webex and they had to stop it so i think they haven't gotten very far but uh any other suggestions that's what's what i would proposed so we say we'll definitely do the alga side and then we'll have a sort of pending pending our budget being approved we'll approve the rest of the contract is that okay with everybody yeah that makes sense all right so I'm
▶ 1:15:25 going to do this on one motion so I move that we approve the alga side component of the solitude contract using this year's budget funds and that we approve the rest of the tasks in the contract pending approval of sufficient budget for the 2020 to 21 fiscal year. Do I have a second? Second. If I'm not clear enough, is that too confusing? Alright, I got a second, so we'll need a roll call vote. Eric? Susan? I'm sorry, Richard? Yes. Kate? Yes. Paul? Yes. yes susan yes mike mike yes yes okay so the only other thing on the agenda is the open space where even steve locke emailed me and said we can't do an open space thing right now we just this this is crazy um so you guys want to pursue an open space
▶ 1:17:15 thing i'm willing to listen i think we'll let's wait till june and and regroup is that fair yeah i think so i think we're going to get anyone's attention on that right now all right i think that's it on our agenda we still have three attendees do we think that they are here for anything that we should ask them awesome we lost one of them no there's nothing from this no thank you hey susan yes um you mentioned there was a budget hearing next thursday yes if uh if there's island information for a virtual meeting if that could be sent around to the commissioners in case uh we're looking for something exciting to do i looked uh last time i looked at them it wasn't posted yet but we'll send it out all right
▶ 1:18:30 i will move to adjourn second second second are we gonna do a roll call vote for this all right before susan can i just ask one last question so in terms of signature eric will you reach out to me and tell me how i can give you my signature on the order of conditions Yes. I'm assuming that hopefully we'll actually have the electronic signature thing. Okay. So, since I voted vote from you here, I should be able to type your name onto it. You know, the my signature on there and then the book and page provided that the registry actually gets us the page thing that I need so so Mike wasn't here at the meeting where we authorized you to to sign for us Eric are we just gonna have to get him to sign it rather that we're not going to redo this whole thing right that was
▶ 1:19:36 such a nightmare getting that ordered since we're all here is it worth just having another quick vote that would cover everyone the problem is that it's a document that has to be filed with the registry first it's going to be referred to probably since it's one person that needs to have a another signature on there i don't know maybe i can drop off the form you know mike's house to have them sign it or something since it's just one yeah i mean we've done that before so i think i think that's the way we're gonna have to do it rather we're not gonna do a whole nother thing with the registry of deeds because that took you this long to get it done right i'm it's still pending i still have to get it has to be mailed
▶ 1:20:35 into the registry and then they take whatever time they take in order to then send me back the recorded document reference not an easy fast process all right so mike's gonna have to explain it himself your punishment for missing mike fair fair enough i deserve it all right well thank you very much and uh stay well and see you guys in june except for you kate so all right all right well um hi everybody thank you finished voting there oh yeah we didn't i seconded your motion to adjourn do we have to actually vote on that all right vote us off then there we'll just just at least do the the second uh because since the kate stopped it oh okay well then i just seconded yeah I think an all in favor works for this you know to the new good job staying
▶ 1:21:47 awake through this right probably hear him in the background now thanks again guys have a good month see you soon hey good night