• No units have been dropped
• The southern 10 units have changed little in size or position
• The underground stormwater detention system next to the southern 10 units has changed little
• Few units have been moved further from the wetlands
• Total new impervious surface has been reduced only 6%

Video time 3:00:22... Commissioner Paul Wetzel: "...I'm just going to say something, we've spent a lot of time listening... right now as this plan...I'm inclined to deny it. And it's just because...if we were looking at whether this development has an impact on the wetlands, I think it's going to have an impact on the wetlands. And, I see, a number of things, primarily the underground [detention basin] getting in the way of the hydrology connections underground..."

3:01:06... Wetzel: "...and the fact that everything is so close, and the people are...it just seems too crowded, and it seems like for a first project it's not a precedent I want to set..."

3:11:40... Wetzel: "So to me, getting rid of these guys [points to the southern condo units 1-10]...is a big help" because they are at a relatively low elevation close to the water table. He wants more room to be made for the development's normal operations, such as snow clearing and snow storage. He believes that violations of wetlands protection covenants are likely to occur over time.

3:21:00... Kevin Lake says he would prefer a less dense project but says this is not enough to induce him to vote against the proposal based on the mandate of the commission.

3:33:39... Meyer: "...I see the planting plan, and I think the planting plan is a significant benefit. I think that removing the invasives that are there, and planting species that are high value for habitat, and...food sources for birds and other wildlife is very important. But, I also see a lot of the grading...and a lot of disturbance of existing uplands. That is, there are non-native species, but they are functioning, as upland habitat, and I guess I also see...at the north end--and this is where it's...interesting that Paul points this out that for him, this is the unproblematic part of the project, because it's higher--...unit 21 that falls inside the 50-foot boundary..."

3:34:59... Meyer: "...and I guess on balance...if I look at the grading, I look at the structure, and the small parts of the structures that are inside that, I can't say to myself that this is improving the upland. And I don't think I can argue...that development within 100 feet improves the wetland. If that was the case then I don't think we would have a Wetlands Protection Act, because we could just develop within 100 feet and it would somehow...improve the wetland.

"I think you are hamstrung in this situation by the fact that you can't, under this ordinance, do anything within the wetland to improve it. And, what you're left with is this, 0 to 50 foot zone, which is very hard to do adequate mitigation to compensate for the significant amount of grading, and the conversion to...continuous human use for the rest of the future."

3:36:12... Meyer: "Now...how would I change the plan to address this? ...I think that for me, more significant than the grading...are the actual units that are built within the 50-foot boundary. So, you know, unit 21 seems to me like it's...going to involve...the most disturbance of soil, and, and its going to be...it will be the human structure that will be in the boundary or in the buffer zone for good.

"...I don't have to redesign it, but...I think that it's fair to say that those things, again, if I'm speaking now because I'm trying to give some indication of why, I think it's only fair to say that structures, I think that Mr. Kohl...made a very concerted effort to get almost all the structures outside the 50-foot boundary. I think that that's a statement in his letter, in his latest letter...one of the things he has tried to do. I think there was a concerted effort to get the flood control, the stormwater management structures outside the 35-foot boundary. And so, as it stands...I can't say that I see this as meeting the test of subsection 2.

"And if I could just say about...I think I was even one of the people who pointed out that this wetland was, had been degraded. Obviously, it's been near to a rail line for 100 years--a narrow gauge rail line. It's been there for, I think the first train arrived from Boston in 1884."

3:38:39... Meyer: "But at the same time, this is the wetland that the people living in this part of the city have. It's their wetland. It might not look as beautiful as a pristine brook out in Mineral Hills that someone may have behind their house up there. But it is the wetlands that these people have...and I don't think I can say that because it's ugly now, because it has been abused, that lets just keep on, let's keep on impacting it.

"So, I'll echo what Paul said, I have been impressed throughout by the applicant's willingness to work with the commission. To take into account...not just the input of the commission, but the input of the community, which has at times been, I don't know if they've necessarily taken into account that flexibility that the applicant has shown, but right now as it, as it is submitted to me, I don't think that it meets the test of the ordinance as I interpret it."

3:45:39...: Commissioners Kevin Lake and Susan Carbin signal their inclination to approve the proposal. At 2-2, the commission is deadlocked. A majority vote is required to approve the proposal.

3:51:13...: Meyer: "This has been the problem with this project from the beginning... When the footprint of the project impinges on the wetlands, there's no other place to do improvements... If you had the project heavily concentrated in one end of the site, going right to 35 feet, but nothing was happening down at the other end of the site, then there's some place where you can do significant mitigation in the 35 to 50 foot zone... I don't think that the difficulty is something that is set in stone. I think it's generated to a certain extent by the design of the project."