Conservation Commission

Minutes of the Taunton Conservation Commission January 14, 2019 Present: Chair Steven Turner, Vice Chair Debra Botellio, Commissioners Marla Isaac, Luis Freitas, Jan Rego, and Matthew Haggerty. Absent: Commissioner Richard Enos. Motion to approve the minutes of December meeting, DB, second MH, so voted. Certificate of Compliance: 1. Woodbine Street (Roadway), Coute/Brownstone Realty Group, LLC, (COC), SE73-2671 Field report states that his filing was for the improvement and extension of Woodbine Street, which included a 100 foot diameter cul-de-sac at the end of the road. A detention basin is constructed at the end of the cul-de-sac with an overflow that directs extraordinary stormwater amounts to the City’s stormwater system on Oak Avenue. The work on the road has been completed in significant compliance to the order of conditions issued on 10/18/16. MR recommends that the TCC issue a COC for this project. Motion to approve COC, DB, second MI, so voted. 2. 36 Woodbine Street, (Lot 7), Coute/Aspen Property Holdings, LLC, (COC), SE73-2680 Field report states that this filing was for the proposed construction of a single family home with driveway, rear deck, attached garage, utilities, and associated grading within the 100 foot buffer zone of a BVW. This lot was part of the existing skating rink lot which was razed prior to construction of Lots 6, 7, and 8. The lawn is not stable and the loam used is full of glass particles. There is also evidence of siltation/erosion into the street from the front yard. The deck was not built and the house is smaller 31’ x 28’ compared to 42’ x 30’. The house is 38.8 feet from the rear property line and 75 feet from the wetland. There is a shed, set up on sona tubes, in the backyard that was not permitted and was not part of the original filing. The shed will either need to be taken down or the owner must file for a shed permit in addition to a Request for Determination with the Conservation Commission. MR recommends that the TCC continue this filing to the May 20, 2019 hearing date so that the contractor has time to re-loam and re-seed the lawn areas and give the new owner time to file the RDA with the TCC and file for a shed permit with the Planning and Conservation Department. Nick Dufresne and Chris Coute present. Motion to continue to May 20, 2019, DB, second MI, so voted. 3. 24 Woodbine Street, (Lot 6), Coute/Aspen Property Holdings, LLC, (COC), SE73-2681 2681 Field report states that this filing was for the construction of a single family home with driveway, utilities, and associated grading within the 100 foot buffer zone of a BVW. This lot is a portion of the existing skating rink which was razed prior to construction of Lots 6, 7, and 8. The original plan called for a 34’ x 28’ home with no deck. The existing structure is 42’ x 28’ and has a 12’ x 12’ deck attaches to the southeasterly corner of the house. The driveway is now on the easterly side of the house rather than the westerly side. The lawn areas are unstable with evidence of siltation/erosion into the street from the front yard/driveway area. The southeasterly lawn area is also in poor shape. The loam used has a high concentration of glass particles. In addition, construction debris and leftover concrete were dumped behind the property line within NHESP area. This is a flagrant violation and must be cleaned immediately! MR recommends that this filing be continued to the May 20, 2019 hearing date in order to give the contractor time to re-loam and re-seed the lawn areas. All debris must be removed from  the rear of the property by the end of January 2019 and to be inspected by the Conservation Agent for approval. Letter read into the record from Chris Coute’s partner. Motion to continue to May 20, 2019, DB, second MI, so voted. 4. 40 Woodbine Street (Lot 8), Coute/Aspen Property Holdings, LLC, (COC), SE73-2682 2682 Field report states that this filing was for the proposed construction of a single family home with driveway, rear deck, attached garage, utilities, and associated grading with the 100 foot buffer of a BVW. This was one of three lots within the former skating rink area and within NHESP jurisdiction. The lawn is not stable and the loam used is full of glass particles. There is also evidence of siltation/erosion into the street from the front yard. The deck location is on the westerly side of the house and a poured concrete slab was put in by the new owner at the rear easterly corner. Both the deck and slab are 26 feet from the rear property line. The slab is 85 feet from the wetland and the deck is 92 feet away. The new owner also installed a stockade fence along the property lines. MR recommends that this filing be continued to the May 20, 2019 hearing date in order to give the contractor time to re-loam and re-seed the lawn areas. Motion to continue to May 20, 2019, DB, second LF, so voted. 5. 48 Woodbine Street (Lot 9), Coute/Aspen Property Holdings, LLC, (COC), SE73-2724 Field report states that this filing was for the construction of a single family home with garage, deck, driveway, utilities, and associated grading. This property is on the southerly side of the cul-de-sac and the property falls within the NHESP Restriction Boundary. The boundary was depicted on the original two plans but is missing on the As-Built plan. The lawn is not stable and the loam is full of glass particles. There is evidence of erosion into the roadway. The deck is designed differently than the original plan making it farther from the NHESP boundary at 10 feet (rather than 6 feet) and is 23.2 feet from the rear property line rather than the original 26 feet. The house is set back an additional foot from the front property line and two feet farther from the edge of the cul-de-sac. MR recommends that the filing be continued to the May 20, 2019 hearing in order to give the contractor time to re-loam and re-seed the yard and a revised As- Built showing the NHESP Restricted Boundary is to be submitted. A permanent condition that no additional structures are to be built within the NHESP Restricted Area shall be placed on the deed. Motion to continue to May 20, 2019, As-Built Plan be redone including NHESP restricted boundary and addition of a permanent condition that states no additional structures are to be built within the NHESP area to be placed on the deed, DB, second MI, so voted. 6. 49 Woodbine Street, (Lot 1), Coute/Aspen Property Holdings, LLC, (COC), SE73-2725 Field report states that this filing was for the construction of a single family house with garage, deck, utilities, and associated grading within 100 feet of a wetland and in close proximity to a NHESP restricted area. The lot is on the northerly side of the cul-de-sac and a treed buffer along the westerly property line was required by the TCC. The lawn is not stable and the loam used is full of glass particles. The trees “planted” as a buffer will not survive as all of the root balls are above ground as a result of improper planting. The As-Built plan does not show the NHESP Restriction Boundary that was depicted on the original two plans. The house is 22 feet rather than 26 feet from the rear property line and the deck is 18 feet (rather than 10.9 feet) from the NHESP Restricted Boundary. MR recommends that this filing be continued to the May 20, 2019 hearing in order to give the contractor ample time to re-loam and re-seed the yard and replant- replace the buffer trees. A revised As-Built showing the NHESP Restricted Boundary must also be submitted. A permanent condition that no additional structures are to be built within the  NHESP Restricted Area shall be placed on the deed. Motion to continue to May 20, 2019, As- Built Plan be redone including NHESP restricted boundary and addition of a permanent condition that states no additional structures are to be built within the NHESP area to be placed on the deed, DB, second MI, so voted. 7. 57 Short Street, DaSilva, (COC), SE73-2603 The field report states that this filing was for the installation of septic systems, driveway and turnaround, and yard grading in connection to the construction of two single family homes. Changes from the original to the As-Built include a larger home 62’ x 39’ (proposed was 64’ x 24’), a 12’ x 14’ deck (proposed 12’ x 14’), and the addition of an 8’ x 25’ porch (none proposed). All areas are stable and work has been completed in significant compliance to the order of conditions issued on 1/15/15. The changes to the dimensions mentioned above do not come closer to the wetland and there is no indication of infringement into the wetlands. MR would recommend that the owner place splash pads under the roof drains to decrease erosion to the lawn and patios. MR recommends that the TCC issue a COC for this project. Motion to continue to February 11, 2019, have homeowner and/or builder present, DB, second JR, so voted. Extension: 1. 24 Laneway Street, Dutzmann, (EXT), SE73-2636 Field states that this filing is for the construction of a single family home and garage to replace the original home destroyed by a fire. The applicant is requesting a three year extension to the order of conditions issued on 2/25/16. The applicant is wishing to sell the property as he and his wife will be moving to Maine in May after his job ends in Boston. MR recommends that the TCC approve the request and issue a three year extension to end on 2/25/22. Ingo Dutzmann present. Motion to grant an extension for 3 years, DB, second LF, so voted. Public Hearing: 1. Massasoit State Park, Straub/MA DCR, (NOI), SE73-2776 Massasoit State Park, SE73-2776 Field report states that this project is an Ecological Restoration Limited Project 310.CMR 10.53(4)(5) with the applicant seeking to control invasive and nuisance aquatic vegetation, algae blooms, and eutrophication in Middle Pond after the completion of the Middle Pond Beach Maintenance Project through the combined use of herbicides, hand harvesting, and algaecides. NHESP has determined that the project as proposed will occur within the habitat of the Plymouth Gentian, a species of Special Concern. They further state that a portion of the project, as currently proposed, be conditioned in order to avoid a prohibited take of the state listed species 321 CMR 10.18(2)(a). The following condition must be met to avoid a prohibited take: -“The drawdown elevation shall be achieved outside the period from July 1 to September 1 to avoid changing the hydraulic conditions required by Plymouth Gentian..: The above condition will be added to the Special Conditions for the Order of Conditions. Invasives within the project location include common reed, purple loosestrife, Eurasian milfoil, and fanwort. Excessive algal growth will also be treated. DCR will utilize multiple management techniques to control the spread of the non-native invasive aquatic species. These techniques include using herbicides, hand harvesting, and algaecides. A. Proposed Herbicides (The Herbicide Product Labels are found in Attachment C of the project submittal): Fluridone (Sonar): This is a systemic herbicide applied either in liquid or pellet form that inhibits the formation of carotene in affected plants, resulting in rapid deterioration of chlorophyll, thus leading to starvation of the entire plant. This is a slow-acting herbicide resulting in gradual plan dieback and minimizes the risk for marked decreases in dissolved oxygen levels in waterbodies. This is the only herbicide effective on fanwort and can also be used to control Eurasian milfoil. Fluridone applied to the approved concentration rate has not been found to be toxic to waterfowl and wildlife (Washington State Department of Health (WSDOH), 2000). No adverse effects were observed on crayfish, bass, bluegill, catfish, long neck soft-shell turtles, frogs, water snakes, and waterfowl from the use of 0.1 to 1.0 ppm of fluridone during field experiments (Arnold 1979, McCowen et al, 1979). Fluridone is not considered to be a carcinogen or mutagen and is not associated with reproductive or developmental effects in test animals (WSDOH, 2000). No adverse human health effects are anticipated due to exposure to fluridone under the expected conditions of use. Diquat dibromide (diquat, Reward): This is a quick working herbicide that interrupts the photosynthesis process resulting in dieback of leaf and stem cell. It is effective on Eurasian milfoil but not on fanwort. According to PIP (Pesticides Information Profile), when diaquat is applied to open water, it disappears rapidly because it binds to suspended particles in the water. Diquat dibromide is a moderately toxic chemical (EPA, 1988). It may be fatal to humans if swallowed, inhaled, or absorbed through the skin (Chevron Chemical Company, 1986). Diquat dibromide is acutely toxic when it is absorbed through the skin and the possibility for poisoning increases with repeated exposure…the demonstrated toxicity of this compound is sufficient to raise serious human health concerns (Office of Pesticide Programs, 1986). Diquat dibromide also causes eye irritation Direct or excessive inhalation of diquat dibromide spray mist or dust may result in oral or nasal irritation, nosebleeds, headaches, sore throat, coughing, and symptoms similar to those from ingestion of diquat (Chevron Chemical Company; 1986, Hayes, W. J., 1982). Diquat dibromide ranges from moderately toxic to practically nontoxic to birds (Office of Pesticide Programs, 1986) and is slightly toxic to fish. Its toxicity to fish and food organisms on which fish survive, has been reported in many studies. Some species of fish may be harmed, but not actually killed, by sublethal levels of diquat dibromide. Oxygen can become depleted in diquat treated water by decaying aquatic plants. Glyphosate (Rodeo, AquaPro, ShoreKlear)/imazapyr (Habitat): Glyphosate is a non-selective systemic herbicide and is effective in controlling common reed and purple loosestrife and has no activity in the surrounding soil or water. It is usually formulated as an isopropylamine salt. According to PIP, Glyphosate is only slightly toxic to wild birds (Forest Service, 1984). Glyphosate is practically non-toxic to fish in the Rodeo formulation, but is highly toxic in the Roundup formulation. In water, glyphosate is strongly absorbed to suspended organic and mineral matter and is broken down primarily by microorganisms also. Its half-life in pond water ranges from 12 days to 10 weeks. Glyphosate may be extensively metabolized by some plants while remaining intact in others (The Herbicide Glyphosat,e Grossbard, E. and D. Atkinson, Editors, 1985). Once in the plant tissue, the chemical is translocated throughout the plant, including to the roots. Glyphosate translocates to the plant’s rhizome (starch storage) and so treatment of stunted immature plants in subsequent years does not provide effective systemic control. The combined use of glyphosate and imazapyr following the first year of treatment may be followed to improve long term control. DCR’s management plan includes using a combination of fluridone and diquat dibromide for controlling fanwort and Eurasian milfoil to be applied early in the growing season (late spring, early summer) over the course of one day. Follow up treatments may occur later in the summer or during the next growing season depending on effectiveness and plant regrowth. Long term control typically requires consistent reapplication to the same beds over several years. Public access to Middle Pond will be restricted on the day of treatment as standard practice. The pond will also be posted by the applicator prior to treatment in accordance with the label requirements and the License to Apply Herbicides to Water of the Commonwealth (BRP WM 04). B. Harvesting: DCR is also seeking approval to control invasive plants through the uses of hand harvesting, which can be used for small areas as a follow-up to herbicide treatment or where herbicides were not able to be applied. Hand harvesting has the advantage of keeping the desirable native plants while removing the nuisance and invasive plants. Harvesting may include wading, snorkeling, or SCUBA diving. Hand harvesting aims to remove the entire plant, including roots, thus preventing re-growth. Pulled plants and fragments will be disposed of by removing them from the pond and composting them to prevent material from re-entering the water. C. Algaecides: Excess plant matter may be present in the water following hand harvesting and herbicide treatment, leading to decomposing plant matter which is associated with algal blooms due to nutrients released during decomposition. There is also reduced competition for light, creating ideal conditions for algal bloom production. Algal blooms, which contain potentially toxic cyanobacteria, are a particular concern in Middle Pond due to its function as a public swimming beach. If a bloom would occur, an algaecide treatment would provide rapid control of the developing algae. Algaecides are primarily copper or aluminum based and result in almost immediate control of a broad spectrum of planktonic and filamentous algae. The algaecides would only be used at Middle Pond if recommended by a Certified Lake Manager and applcied by a Massachusetts licensed herbicide applicator. All of the proposed herbicides and algaecides have been approved for use in Massachusetts waters by Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources and MassDEP. Products will only be applied within the pond; therefore, there will be no impact to vegetation growing in BVW, Inland Bank, BLSF, or buffer zone areas. MR recommends that the TCC approve the project and issue a Order of Conditons to include the attached special conditions. Alex Patterson from DCR present. DB asked if this will be toxic to the birds? Alex Patterson stated that no in this dosage amount. In these percentages it will not be toxic to birds. Motion to approve with special conditions 1, 2, 25, 26, 27, and 28-Per NHESP drawdown elevation shall be achieved outside 7-1 to 9-1 to avoid changing the hydraulic conditions regulated by Plymouth Gentian, and DCR stated that this will not be toxic to any of the birds in the area, DB, second MI, so voted. 2. 1000 County Street, McArthur/MADOT Hwy Div., (ANRAD), SE73-2777 This filing has been submitted for approval of a wetland delineation which was flagged by Kimberly Degutis, Jacobs Engineering, on August 9 and 13, 2018. This area was previously flagged in 2012 for the MassDOT road widening project and in 2015 for the proposed new interchange exit as part of the First Light project. This area is not an NHESP area, ACEC, or flood zone. There are no vernal pools within the area. Two wetlands were flagged within the project site. There is one intermittent stream that flows between the two areas but the top of bank was not flagged. Wetland A is an extensive Palustrine Forested/Scrub Shrub was flagged using flags marked WFA 1 to WFA 91. Dominate vegetation includes red maple, with highbush blueberry, and sweet pepperbush in the understory, and cinnamon fern, royal fern, and skunk cabbage in the herbaceous layer. This wetland also includes a newly created mitigation site that has been stressed due to recent drought conditions. Wetland C is a small Palustrine forested wetland dominated by red maples, with an understory of white pine and highbush blueberry, and a colony of Common reed. There are areas of ponded water and saturation near the surface throughout this wetland and appears to be fed by the unnamed tributary of the Cotley River to the northwest. This wetland is connected to Wetland A via culvert underneath a previously constructed road bed. The delineator used flags WFC1 to WFC15 to mark this area. MR walked the project area on 12/11/18 with Kim Deguits, Jacobs Engineering, Andrea Coates, MassDOT, Susan McArthur, MassDOT, and Corey Beckwith, MassDOT. MR recommends that the TCC approve the delineation and issue an ORAD. Present Andrea Coates and Kimberly Deguits. Motion to issue ORAD, DB, second MH, so voted. 3. 1361 Middleboro Ave., Martel/MA DCR, (NOI), SE73-2779 Field report states that this filing is for the proposed rehabilitation of the Big Bearhole Pond Dam, located within Massasoit State Park, and under the auspices of the DCR. The dam is classified as an intermediate size, high hazard potential structure. The dam is approximately 250 feet long, 17.5 feet high, with a hydraulic height of 9 feet. The dam was rated in poor condition based on recent visual inspections by Weston & Sampson and in a follow up inspection report by Fuss & O’Neill, Inc. in 2016. The deficiencies include: -Brush, trees, and woody vegetation cover the up- and downstream slopes and abutments; -The upstream slope is unprotected and over-steepened; -Eroded footpaths are located on the upstream slope; -Small trees and vegetation are growing through the grouted riprap on the downstream slope in some areas; -Seepage through the downstream riprap near the toe of slope on both sides of the discharge channel; -Seepage through open joints in the discharge channel walls near the end of the box culvert; -Based on model simulations, there is less than 1 foot of available freeboard during spillway design flood. The proposed work to improve the dam and address the above deficiencies includes: -Remove all trees, woody vegetation, and stumps from the up-and downstream slopes and within 20 feet of the abutments; -Regrade the upstream slope to 1.5:1 or flatter and armor with riprap; -Re-grout the downstream riprap as needed; -Install drainage along both sides of the discharge channel walls; -Repair the open joints in the discharge channel walls near the box culvert; -Clear debris from the outlet structure; -Replace the existing timber stoplogs with aluminum stoplogs; -Construct a timber framed platform above the outlet structure; -Raise the crest up to 2 feet; -Relocate the metal access gate to the left abutment. A cofferdam will be used to isolate the work area on the upstream slope and facilitate dewatering so that the work can be completed in the dry. A bypass pipe will convey flow from Big Bearhole Pond over the dam crest and outfall downstream of the dam to allow normal streamflow and conditions downstream of the work area. Resource areas within the work zone include BVW, Riverfront Area, LUW, and 100 year Flood Zone. The BVW and MAHW to the perennial stream and to Big Bearhole Pond were delineated by Weston & Sampson on 4/3/17 using the following flags: BVWA1-BVWA5 (southeasterly BVW), BVWB1-BVWB5 (northeasterly BVW), MHWA1-MHWA11 (Big Bearhole Pond0, MHWB1-MHWB5 (westerly side of perennial stream), and MHWC1-MHWC6 (easterly side of perennial stream). There are no good proposed impacts to the BVWs, but work will occur within the 100 foot buffer zone. The applicant estimates that 1,290 square feet of LUW will be temporarily impacted of which 1,150 square feet is associated with the area that will be dewatered and regraded upstream of the dam. The remaining 140 square feet of LUW impacts will be downstream of the dam. There will be no work within the stream channel. A temporary crossing (cribbing) of the stream will likely occur to allow transport of equipment from one side of the stream to the other. The stream channel downstream of the work area will be protected from siltation either by a silt curtain or sand bag check dam across the channel downgradient of the work area. There is about 34,750 square feet of riverfront area within the limit of work and impacts within this area include: -Temporary construction staging area and access road; -new pavement, guardrails, curbs, etc.; and -Loam and seed with minor grade changes. There will be no impacts to flood storage area, no loss to flood storage, and compensatory storage mitigation is not required within the 100 year flood zone. The work as proposed will address safety issues regarding the dam condition, creating a safe environment for park users as well as areas downstream of the dam. MR recommends that the TCC approve this project and issue an order of conditions to include the attached special conditions. Timothy Blair and Mel Higgins present. Motion to approve the project and issue an order of conditions with special conditions 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 19, 25, 26, and 27, MH, second DB, so voted. 4. 0 & 2318 Bay Street, Gulf Resources, Inc., (ANRAD), SE73-2780 Field report states that this filing is seeking approval for a wetland delineation performed by Robert Gray, Sabatia, Inc. on May 10, August 2, and November 5, 2018. Both sides of the BVW, which includes an intermittent stream, were delineated using flags marked BVW1 to BVW22, and WF2-1 to WF2-14. MR reviewed the wetland lines on 12/18/18, and she agrees with the placement of the flags. The intermittent stream was running when MR visited the site. The property is bounded on the southerly side by Interstate 495 and on the westerly side of Bay street. The BVW is a wooded deciduous swamp with red maples dominating the canopy, and the intermittent stream most likely receives stormwater runoff from Route 495. The understory consists of greenbrier, poison ivy, princess pine, blueberry, carex spp. (sedges), and juncus spp. (rushes). MR recommends that the TCC approve the delineation as follows and issue an ORAD: Flags BVW3 to BVW22, WF2-2 to WF2-11, with flags BVW 1 & 2, and WF2-1, WF2-12, 13, & 14 for reference purposes only. Motion to approve ORAD, MI, second LF, so voted. 5. Preservation Drive (49-27), Aspen Properties, LLC, (NOI), SE73-2780 Preservation Drive (49-27), SE73-2781 Field report states that this filing is for the construction of a single family home with septic system, driveway, deck, utilities, and associated grading. The wetlands were delineated by Brad Holmes, Environmental Consulting & Restoration, LLC on 2/21/18 using pink/black flagging material marked B1 to B27 (northerly limit of the BVW). The entire site is within the 100 foot buffer zone of the BVW. The site is not within NHESP habitat and is not within an ACEC. A portion of the site is within an area mapped as BLSF according to FEMA maps. The flood plain limit is missing from the plan as well as a depiction of the entire lot. MR visited the site on 12/26/18 to walk the line. MR is in agreement with the placement of the flags. The site is flag and at the end of the cul-de-sac with the wetlands surrounding the property on three sides. The wetlands are at elevation 106, and the test pits hit groundwater between elevation 105.2 and elevation 105.7. The proposed house is 42’ x 28’ with a garage under (floor at elevation 107.5). The entire constructed area will be raised 8 feet above surrounding properties and roadway. This is roughly 10,874 square feet of area, and approximately 43,650 cubic feet of additional material. Even though stormwater will be directed toward the wetland to the rear, the stormwater in front is directed to the edge of the cul-de-sac. There is no stormwater structure to carry heavy rainfall away from the road’s edge prior to heading to the wetland, just a swale. This could be problematic in large storm events. The septic system will be located in the front as it needs to be at least 50 feet from the wetland, and through necessity, the recharge chambers will be 4.1 feet above groundwater level (elev. 109.80). There is no other viable location for the system. The plan shows two retaining walls, a 90 foot long wall along the northeasterly property line and a 39 foot long one along the northwesterly side of the driveway. Because there is a 7 foot rise in elevation, MR is concerned with the integrity of the wall. There is no detail of the wall at this time, but MR has put in a request for that detail. Because the slope along the westerly side of the proposed house is at a 41% slope, MR recommends drywells for roof leaders to decrease the erosion factor. A siltation barrier is shown on the plan as the limit of work and will be 4 feet from the BVW to the east and 15 feet from the BVW to the west. MR recommends that the siltation barrier be extended to the front property line along the easterly retaining wall. Approximately 1,020 square feet of the clearing of trees and brush along the southwesterly work zone falls within the 25 foot WPZ, while 1,600 square feet of clearing is along the easterly (driveway) side of the project. MR recommends that the project consume less of the 25 foot WPZ than proposed, where possible. Unless the following are received prior to the meeting, MR recommends that this filing be continued to February 11, 2019: A revised plan showing: -the entrie lot (can be small scale plan); -Flood Plain; -retaining wall detail; -siltation barrier running to cul-de-sac along easterly side; -25-foot WPZ; -depict drywells and detail on plan. If the TCC chooses to approve this filing, MR recommends that the attached special conditions be included.Nick Dufrene present. Discussion was had over the property, what type of retaining wall is to be put in. The Commission would prefer to see what materials will be used for the wall prior to approving it. Public Input: 1. Gerald Croteau 570 Tremont Street. Dr. Croteau said this was created in 2002, he bought his land in 2003, and moved in, in 2004. He stated there was excess water at the end of the cul-de-sac. 2. Dave Pina 86 Heritage Way. He is concerned about the wall being put in with the water situation as it is right now. Mr. Pina said the lefthand corner of the site they are discussing tonight, has a lot of water in that spot. Will this retaining wall stop that from coming over into his property? Again it was asked if there is water at the end of this street? Lynne Pina stated yes there is. Nick Dufrene said they typically just use earth and grade out, here they will use a wall, its actually the best case scenario. ST asked why they are building up? There is high groundwater there. ST house will be at regular level and raised septic in the back? It is a foundation and will sit on the ground, no digging down. MH footings all on existing ground level and fill brought in for the front, correct? Nick said yes that is right. Dave Pina wants to know how far down the retaining wall will go into the ground? Nick said wall will rise up and level out before it drops back down. Stacked blocks with some rebarb type to keep it together. 5 feet at its highest point. MH asked why stacked blocks and not poured? Poured is more expensive and does not look as nice. JR wall will be locked together so it doesn’t fall over right? Nick said yes that is all part of the standard design. MI size of blocks? Depends on the company that they use. Nick said each company uses different size blocks, some have rebard, some lock. MR connected underground? Yes structural engineer will determine how that will work. DB wall is in TCC jurisdiction so they have a right to know what will be used, the structure of it, and how it is tied in. 3. Michael Costa and Danielle White 572 Tremont Street. They are worried due to the amount of water that they currently get. Will they end up with more, how will this affect them? LF is worried about the Pina’s, he would like to go out there again to walk the site and he wants more information on the wall structure before he feels he can make a decision on this. DB agrees. ST spoke with Chris Coute of Aspen Properties. He wants him to work with the neighbors and speak with them regarding their concerns. Motion to continue to 2/11/19, applicant needs to have met with neighbors and get TCC a plan detailing the retaining wall structure before the meeting, MH, second MI, so voted. Other Business: 1. Tinkergarten Request. Motion to approve it, get us the certificate of insurance as soon as possible, DB, second MH, so voted. 2. Snake River waterway and land. Motion to refer to the Law Dept. and City Council, ST, second LF, so voted. 3. Bass Fishing Tournament. Motion to approve the tournament on 8/10/19, 530am-3pm, DB, second MI, so voted. 4. TRWA 6/9/19 River Fest. Motion to approve, DB, second ST, so voted. Motion to adjourn, DB, second ST, so voted. Meeting ended at 8:50pm.