Conservation Commission (May 18th, 2026)

001Welcome everyone to the May 18th, 2026 hybrid Conservation Commission meeting, which is an off-cycle meeting. I'm calling to order at 7:01 p.m. There is a quorum of the commission and this meeting's being recorded. This hybrid meeting is being held live at the select board room at Ashland Town Hall as well as being broadcast live on WACA-TV. If there's any interruption the broadcast, the meeting will continue. And this meeting's also being broadcast using the Zoom application. So, before we get to the agenda, I have to read a pre-meeting protocol for the Zoom aspect of this meeting. Under Governor Baker's March 12th, 2020 executive order public boards are allowed to meet remotely. This order was most recently extended until June of 2027 by Governor Healey as part of the supplemental budget bill signed in March of 2023.

002Please follow these procedures for attending and participating. The meetings of the Conservation Commission are being using Zoom. As I identify the item on the agenda, the applicant for that agenda item will be given an opportunity to provide a presentation and will be allowed to share the screen to show plans, pictures, etc. At the end of the presentation, the chair, myself, Greg Wands will entertain questions and comments from the commission. When the commission's discussion has concluded, the chair will open up discussion to the public. Upon the hearing or meeting conclusion, a motion to continue or close the hearing will be entertained. After any discussion, the chair will call for a roll call vote. During the meeting, members will keep their video on and microphone muted unless speaking. Applicants and representatives, please keep video off and microphone

003muted until your agenda item is discussed. Public, please keep your microphone muted until recognized. If you're calling in by phone number, you can use the star six feature to mute and unmute. If you need to share your screen, you may request permission through the chair to do so. When the discussion is open to the public, if you wish to ask a question or make a comment, you may request to speak by using the raised hand feature on Zoom. If you are calling in by phone number, you can use the star nine feature to raise and lower your hand. When acknowledged to speak, please state your name and address prior to speaking. Public comment is limited to three minutes per speaker. Comments must be limited to the Wetlands Protection Act, Ashland Wetlands Protection Bylaw, or Ashland's

004um Stormwater Management Bylaw. Questions and comments not related to the commission's jurisdiction will not be accepted. During the meeting, the host, Becca Solomon, our Ashland Conservation Commission Agent, will monitor the participants for raised hands and will be recording the names and addresses of commenters. Signing of documents will occur during the week after the conclusion of the meeting. Our first scheduled hearing is at 7:05 and we'll just wait um about 30 seconds until the clock strikes 7:05 and then I will enter introduce the first scheduled hearing. >> [snorts] >> It is now 7:05 and the first scheduled hearing is notice of intent Tandem 60 Main Street, map 14 parcel 128 SLV Ashland LLC care of Lucas Environmental LLC DEP file number 95- 1018. And at this point, I am going to turn the microphone over to

005the vice chair Carl Hakansson. Thanks, Greg. Um Mr. Lucas, do you want to come up to the podium? All right. Okay, a little bit of background for uh you people that are watching and watching for the first time. This is a again it's a 40B hearing. So, in in Greg's uh introduction, he talked about uh local bylaws. Local bylaws are not on the table uh because of the 40 uh B application eliminated the the local bylaws from this discussion. So, our uh discussion tonight will just be uh with regard to the state uh Massachusetts Wetland Protection Act. Um our This I believe that this is our fifth hearing uh with regard to this application. I believe it started on March 2nd. And at that time um we asked uh uh um for the applicant to

006uh agree to stipulated facts. We're going to revisit those facts, and we also um um we also sequenced the topics that we were going to discuss. So, we'll talk about that sequence again tonight before we start. So, if uh um So, Mr. Anglin, you're going to answer for these questions yourself? Uh uh yes. Are we talking about the stipulated facts or Okay. Would you like to introduce yourself? >> Sure. Uh for the record, my name is Jeffrey Anglin. I'm a managing principal um for Strategic Land Ventures and the applicant in this case, SLV Ashland. Okay, thank you. We uh and the reason for this is that we are trying to discuss the substance of this application, and instead of circling around um in in rediscussing uh who has jurisdiction and why, uh we agreed that

007we would discuss the stipulated facts first. Uh hasn't exactly worked out the way that I had hoped, but uh we will revisit this um begin. So, uh the first fact was that most of the uh or a large portion portion of the site uh was within flood plain. March 2nd, uh Mr. Lucas agreed to >> I think we the plan represents the portion of our site that's in the flood plain. >> you're you're saying >> We're stipulating that part of the site is yes in the flood plain. Okay, and number two was that the Conservation Commission has jurisdiction over activities that alter for flood plain. You're agreeing to that as well. >> Uh number three, I'm skipping number three, I'll come back to that. Number four is the site is contaminated. There is a RAM

008plan um that was submitted to DEQ. That's a yes or no answer. There is contamination on the site. Okay. And number four was the site is within the 200 100 and 200-ft riverfront area. Yeah, we would stipulate to that. Okay. Uh the fifth one that has seemed to be problematic is the site and the buildings have flooded historically. You didn't agree to that previously. Is that still your um position? Yes. Based on what? Based on an affidavit that we'll be providing from the owner of the site and um information that he has relative to the building flooding or not flooding. Uh to all of our knowledge, the building has not flooded in 50 years. Moreover, I've talked to our legal counsel. We're just not We don't I don't see the need to stipulate to that.

009We're going to discuss it as part of the public hearing. So, we can do that. >> really goes to the nature of our jurisdiction. So, So, your point is that you don't agree with that. Our point is that we have offered 18 uh slides that show the the building flooded, completely flooded. It's within the FEMA map of a flood plain and we have um correspondence from DCR uh that corroborates that it is in flood plain. So, we have a um um material difference of opinion on that, apparently. Uh for the record, my name is Chris Lucas with Lucas Environmental. I'm a professional wetland scientist and registered professional soil scientist for the project. Um that that is our opinion. I as I understand tonight, we had some correspondence on this. You have a limited time this

010evening to discuss. I I'm hoping we can stay on topic. The tonight was going to be focused on the soil contaminants. We have a lot to discuss. And I know the flood plain issue was a future discussion point. So, um, I think we disagree on this point and we intend to provide additional information. Um, we're also waiting for the peer review um, for that point to see what their opinion is on this matter. So, >> that and I'm not here to argue that fact. I'm here to reset where we were before for the people in the audience and the people watching. Okay. >> And maybe watching for the first time. >> Right. Well, I just I yep, that's fine. Um, we just we weren't planning on discussing it or answering questions on that tonight. Um,

011we we fully intend to at at a future hearing as you've scheduled the order of topics. Okay. Thank you. Fine. Do you Do you want to stay up there, Mr. Wittus? Um, the topics for discussion that we discussed in the sequence are one, contamination, two, flood plain, three, storm water, and four, wetland {slash} riverfront. You agree? Yes. Okay. And tonight's discussion will focus on the contamination issue. Yes. Okay. Okay. Now, do you have a uh a presentation that you would like to um share? Uh, we do. Do you want to Jeff's going to give a brief introduction and then I'm going to go through some of the points. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I know we have a lot to cover. I'll keep my um, statement brief. Um, it's been a while

012since we've been together and we think we've been using that time constructively and productively. The commission and its representatives have asked a lot of us and we've endeavored some of the questions required more time and effort than others. Um, we think that what we've provided uh over several supplements [snorts] is representative and responsive to those requests, but we look forward to talking about that tonight and to the extent there's open items after tonight endeavoring to get you what you need. Uh I just wanted to state, you know Mr. Lucas, he's here tonight uh representing us as is George Campbell from Campbell Environmental, our licensed site professional. We're also joined on the Zoom by John Cusick from Bowler, who's our civil engineer. Uh we have Joe Lombardo from McPhail. Uh McPhail will be providing geotechnical support

013as well as uh LSP services. And we're also joined by Bob Sanda from Callahan Construction, who's a VP of engineering and site work. So, those gentlemen are here to also answer questions and have a ton of experience um implementing and executing um construction plans on sites similar to this, and we think their um input will be helpful to answering some of the questions and alleviating some of those concerns. So, without further ado, I'll turn it back over to Chris and we'll walk you through uh what we have tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Great. Um Thank you. Is this showing up? Do I need I need to share here? Is that It is sharing. Okay. Okay, great. Thank you. Do a lot of hearings, you never remember exactly how it works at each of these. So.

014Okay. I was just saying, I do a lot of hearings. You never It's always a little different each hearing, the setup. Um can't remember each week. Okay. Uh again, this is Chris Lucas. Um briefly just going to recap. Um again, this is a little delay there. Uh again, this is our site. It's um primarily developed with uh historic mill complex. Um and it's adjacent to the Sudbury River running along the northern portion of the site. This next sheet again shows the resource areas. Um I guess it'll be to the east. Uh plan left is north. Sudbury River is flowing towards the south along the eastern portion of the site. Um there's also the old canal along the southern portion of the site uh that was delineated and approved through an ORAD process. Um there is

015riverfront 100 200 ft offset from the Sudbury River only. Um and being a historic mill complex, the riverfront would end at the uh developed portions of the site, which we'll discuss in more detail at a future hearing. Pop up here. Um so, tonight's focus uh we've submitted three supplements to the to the commission based on comments you received. The first supplement was back in February. That consisted solely of the RAM report. Um the RAM report has a lot of the details uh consisting of tables for all the sampling and the work that's been done. Um we submitted a second supplement >> Chris, I'm sorry to interrupt you. Can you just explain to the people what a RAM report is? It's a release abatement um management plan for the site. So, it deals with how the

016contaminated soils will be managed. Um it's it's uh MassDEP has oversight of the program. Uh that report is required to be submitted to MassDEP for approval within 1 year of construction. Um it's been submitted, reviewed, and approved by DEP. However, we will not be going to construction within that year. So, that report will have to be resubmitted to DEP for review and approval prior to construction. Thank you. Um, I think that the timeline right now will probably be submitting in the fall, um, pending how this this procedure proceeds with this commission. Okay. Sorry to interrupt you. Oh, no problem. Um, we submitted supplement number two in April, and that was a specific response to the Conservation Commission comments. Um, that that was dated March 5th. Our the comments specifically that we responded to in that

017letter were related to soil contaminants number 1G, 9E, 10D, and 10E. I'll go through those, um, a little bit in a little bit. And then recently we submitted supplement number three on May 15th, and that was a additional response to comments based on some additional commentary from the commission and a another comment letter, um, primarily focused on what the contaminants on the site are, the concentrations, their locations. Um, so I'm going to start there tonight cuz I think that's going to help set the table. Um, supplements two and three provide a lot of the information in the RAM report, um, reformatted in a little bit more easily digestible by the commission and members of the public. Um, we have the team here to answer questions, so I'm going to give kind of a high-level review.

018I'll present it. If you have questions, the team's here to answer your questions tonight. Um, and and then, uh, we'll go from there. Mhm. Um, so supplement number three, um, we we've discussed a pre-characterization of the site. Um, what we've done for this preliminary pre-characterization we think is appropriate for the scale. It's industry standard to do what we've done, um, particularly on the size of the scale and, uh, for the industry standards. We fully intend to do a full characterization of the site, um, as construction begins, um, cuz right now we can't test underneath the buildings and and whatnot. The plan in front of you, um, that's up on the board now is prepared by George Campbell, the licensed site professional for the project. And this plan shows all the various sampling locations and um

019that that have that have occurred on the site. Um the ones that I've circled in red uh currently and specifically show exceedances. Those are compounds or contaminants that we found that exceed specific MassDEP standards. Um our plan uh and the the applicant's plan for this commission is we we prepared a very detailed soil management plan. So that's that's and I'll get into that. That specifies how we're going to handle the soil on the site during construction, how it's going to be disposed, how it's going to be contained, and how we're going to prevent any of that soil from getting into the Sudbury or the resource areas. Part of that, we also have a detailed dewatering plan. So if dewatering is required, we're going to show how we're going to handle that water, where it's going

020to go, how it's going to be treated, and how it's going to be removed and discharged from the site. Um the pre-characterization that we've done or at least the information that we've used from the sampling gives a pretty good idea of what's on the site for volatile organic compounds, metals, other contaminants. Um the plan here is to seek approval from the commission for the soil management and dewatering plan. So there's a plan in place exactly how it's going to be treated. That plan works for everything we've identified that exceeds MassDEP standards and should also be sufficient for any unknowns. If during construction a when they're testing the soil because it is required by DEP bylaw by other regulation to be tested, if we find an additional contaminant, the LSP, who will be on site through

021all of this process and involved directly and engaged, will review that and make ensure that the soil management plan's appropriate for it. Um in most cases it should be. Um this this site has a long history of analysis um and we have a good idea of where the contaminants are. Um and again, Mr. Anglers brought in Callan Construction and McPhail early in the process here because of the sensitive nature of the site. So, you actually have the contractor here now, not later. So, you we know exactly that means we can be discussing means and methods and how things are going to be done here. So, the commission has additional assurances. Most cases, you wouldn't be talking then to construction and they might change the means and methods. We're not doing that here. We're doing it

022now with you. Um, so, the the summary, which again, this is all in supplement three. So, the details in there, I'm just going to give a bit more of a high-level overview. Um, it provides a summary of the compounds that were identified above applicable mass DEP standards from the 2022 to 2025 groundwater and soil gas sampling for air and soil I'm sorry, from the 2022 to 2025 groundwater and soil gas sampling. And we also have sampling for air and soil from the 2010 phase two comprehensive site assessment and the 22 to 25 sampling. So, we have quite a bit of testing that's been done here. Um, the RAM report that you have on record has all the compounds that were identified. Tonight, we're just talking about the ones that exceed safety standards that are required

023to be um, addressed for the soil management de watering. Um, uh, again, the information we're providing here is specifically prepared by Mr. Campbell and uh, he's done the sampling for the site, which again, is the RAM report. Um, we looked at air, water, and soil. So, starting with air, the indoor air data we have, um, which is is marked on the plans, it's about 16 years old. It may not represent current conditions. However, typically with air samplings, Mr. Campbell and the LSP expect that those concentrations would typically decrease over time. Um, so, we anticipate that they would be lower now than they were. The following list of compounds exceeded mass DEP residential threshold criteria, um based on the 16-year-old data. And there are two locations, the 50 sample which is shown here. Uh so it

024was in this portion and the Show Show that again. Uh it's it's right here. Thank you. >> You can see Everyone see that? Yep. And the other sample was the uh 1020 sample which is right here. And you said in the corner of the building. Those Repeat what that is again. But those sites are exceeding These sites exceed the MassDEP residential threshold value criteria. For what? Um the the Getting there. Um [snorts] the number 50 sample exceeds for 1, 4-dichlorobenzene. Um Do you want me to read off the numbers or do you just want to know what exceeds the standard? We can get into that detail if you want or I don't know if you just need to know that. >> going to have to talk about what what's there. What what it what these

025exceedances are. So you could say it now or you could say it later. Well, the point is they exceed standards so that just requires specified treatment of the soil to ensure it doesn't contaminate. And that's what our soil management plan does. It's a plan to treat these contaminated soils. Um if you So the 50 sample, the 1,4-dichlorobenzene is uh 2.2 What is that? It's 2.2 parts per billion. The threshold is 0.5. Uh the other one is um TCE was identified at 2.7 parts per billion and the threshold is 0.4. Both of those were found uh in this corner of the building in this air sample. The other location is in this corner and that was the 1020 sample um with tetrachloroethylene which is PCP and that was found at 9.4 parts per billion and the

026threshold is 1.4. And TCE at 1.1 parts per billion and the threshold is 0.4. So, we note they exceed the standards. That's why we have the RAM report. That's why we have these requirements with the DEP. They oversee this. And again, Are those special gas? Uh Are those special This is air. This is air sampling. Yes, everything I'm discussing right now is air. I'm going to go through each air, water, and >> it's all gas measurements. >> This is gas measurements, right. >> Okay. Yeah, and do these imply um soil contamination that that's where the gas is coming from? Yes. Good evening. Um it it may not necessarily be soil, but it it could and likely is groundwater contamination. Okay. Could you introduce yourself, please? >> Oh, I'm sorry. I'm Schwartz Campbell. I'm an LSP

027with Campbell Environmental. Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay, sorry to interrupt, Chris. No, no problem. I'm trying to put this in perspective for other people besides the commission that are watching. No, that we understand. It's a complicated subject and we we tried to make it uh a little more digestible and easy to review for for everyone here. [clears throat] Um The next uh soil would be the next category we've looked at. Um a phase two comprehensive site assessment was conducted in 2010. As part of that assessment, soil sampling was conducted uh throughout the site. Soil samples from six soil borings were analyzed for volatile organic compounds or VOCs as I'll refer to them. One compound, again PCE, was found in soil sample ARC 1. Was detected in concentrations that exceeded accept applicable S1 MassDEP soil

028standards. And that again, that's up here. This is outside the building up in this corner. So this is a this is a hotspot on the site. Um 13 soil samples from seven soil borings were also retained for RCRA eight metals and or lead analysis. Lead was detected in three soil samples, arc one, arc four, and arc five. So again, arc one is here. Arc four is >> [clears throat] >> Um apology. Arc five is here. And arc four I lost arc four. Hold on. We can't help you on that one. We can't beat that one. George, where is arc four? Behind the building. It's behind it. It's behind it? Oh, here it is. I'm sorry. It's covered by my circle. It's uh it's right here. Arc four is right here. Okay. So, apologies. It's a

029lot of data. >> [snorts] >> Um in 2022 in anticipation of future on-site construction, seven soil borings were advanced in the site. Soil samples from the borings were retained for the lab analysis for total petroleum hydrocarbons, PCBs, metals, and VOCs. Analytical results indicated that none of these soil samples exceeded MassDEP soil standards. Additionally, based on the prior analytical data, soil impacted by VOCs and lead is present on the site. So we have VOCs, we have lead. Um we have the air sampling. So this is giving you now a picture. We've shown you where they are. We're trying to paint a nice picture here for where everything is so it's clear to the board uh the location and what we're doing here. And TCE and correct me if I'm wrong, TCE and PCE are both VOCs.

030Correct. Yes. And both also known as DNAPL. That's something that that people may be familiar with in Ashland. Um yeah, it's uh we haven't detected any DNAPL, uh you know, which is dense, non-aqueous phase liquids on on the site. You know, that would be like a free phase of They are the same compounds, but a DNAPL is a free phase um, solvent. So, we haven't seen that on the site. But but but you're saying that um, TCE and PCE are forms of DNAPL, correct? Uh, in in its pure form. Absolutely. Yes, it in its in like If you had the solvent itself, you know, it could it could sink, you know, and you can have DNAPL, but the concentrations that we've seen are not DNAPL. Okay. Thank you. Sure. Thank you. That's beyond my expertise.

031>> So, um, no problem. We're happy We're here to answer your questions tonight. Um, so again, in accordance with the MassDEP Contingency Plan or MCP, all of the soil we excavated and appropriately disposed of during future construction. And again, we have a soil management plan that we're seeking your approval on and the dewatering plan. So, we put forward a plan, which I'll get into detail. We're looking for approval as part of this order of conditions that you're satisfied that that plan is appropriate for what's here. And we had We recommend a condition that if additional compounds are identified during construction, when the when the buildings come down and we analyze the soil, cuz any soil that's being removed has to be tested. If there's another compound in there, the LSP will review it. They'll determine

032if the soil management plan's appropriate, and if it's not, we will come back to the board for review and approval to make sure that it's still applicable. So, you'll have all kinds of assurances in place. MassDEP is part of the RAM and the review of that is also involved. So, there's layers of protection here uh, for the commission and the public. Um, the next category is soil gas sampling. Um, based on the 2024 sampling, one compound, TCE, exceeded the MassDEP residential criteria. No compounds exceeding commercial or criteria were identified. Um and that sample was the SG3 sample. Um which is right here. This is the SG3 sample down here. Um >> sample under the building? Oops. Yes. Yes. So So you did test through the floor there. Right. Okay. Um and finally groundwater. Oops. Um

033groundwater has been monitored for VOCs at both the upgrading and downgradient locations on the site. VOCs exceeding the MassDEP GW2 criteria during the 2022 through 2025 groundwater sampling results are summarized in the tables that we included in um supplement number three. So you have the the data there. That data is also in the RAM report. We just summarized the exceedances for you so you have it in convenient format. Um and the groundwater exceedances include the following compounds. We found them at four locations: MW1, 2, 3, and 5. Um MW2 is here. Um the center of the site. MW3 here is to the south. MW4, nope, that wasn't one of them. Uh and then MW5 is located up here. MW1 is located down by Main Street. Um so VOCs were found at those locations. They consist

034of TCE, cis-1,2-dichloroethene, vinyl chloride, uh those are the three that were identified uh beyond exceedances. >> And the second one that you said is also known as PCE, correct? Uh Uh No, that's cis-1,2-DCE. Yeah, we have TCE, cis-1,2-dichloroethylene or cis-1,2-DCE and vinyl chloride. Okay. Um and then groundwater sampling for all VOCs was substantially below MassDEP GW-3 standards. So, we weren't even close to to those standards. Um so, in summary, the response actions we have will unequivocally and substantially improve the existing soil and groundwater quality at the site from the current conditions. So, we're we're cleaning up the soil as part of this project. Um this improvement in site conditions will translate to improved surface water quality down gradient of the site. Um and the closure at the site represents a regulatory finding of no significant

035risk to human health in the environment. Um that's that's a um short summary of the you know, um with the contaminants and compounds we found, where they are, and the concentrations. Um continuing on with supplement number three, there were some questions about the the vapor barrier. And I'll circle back to soil management plan momentarily. Um there were questions about the vapor barrier and, you know, concerns with stormwater leaking into the groundwater. Um the underground stormwater basin at the rear of the site is going to be designed such that it will be watertight and no contaminants will migrate into the system. Uh there's a detail that this will be incorporated into the plan set and make it very clear in the plans that this is the case. Um this will be incorporated into the project to

036ensure proper installation and coordination with the LSP during construction. Um and then the detail the the detail for this is on sheet C905 of the plan set. When we submit our revised set, this will be updated to include this. Um comment number three was related to Yes. >> Before you move on, am I missing something? Is there like the red line I assume is your waterproof barrier. I believe so. Why does it not cover the other the right-hand end of that graphic. Uh um John Cusack, can you address that, please? Yeah, absolutely. It It covers the entire area. That's just showing a kind of a cutoff, but the intent is the barrier would be around the entire the entire system. So, it really would wrap around and up up that side. That's correct. Yes. What

037My other question is what is the hash the hatched area on the left side that's surrounded by a heavy dark line? I couldn't read that on the plan. It's just backfill. It's It's just a graphical representation of backfill that would go in there. Okay. And And this structure is going to be on the order of 10 to 12 ft deep? Uh no, I I I think it'd be more more like um 5 ft deep. 5 ft? Yeah, they'd be 5-ft chambers. I thought the when I looked at this, I thought the bottom interior of the chamber was 8 ft down, not counting the slab or any cover on the top. So, the chamber the chamber itself is about >> on the side? There's a dimension on the right hand left hand Sorry, right hand side.

038Co- Co- Correct. I I may have answered your your misunderstood your question. Let me Let me Let me try to answer a different way. The The chamber itself is is approximately 5 ft in in depth. Um and then there'll be cover on top of that to get to the ground elevation. It'll be a It Again, that will vary a little bit depending over the length of the of the chamber. Uh but that could be a few feet. Um the chamber could be a few feet below below ground depending on where you're measuring from. Okay. Well, we'll we'll I guess we'll be discussing this when we talk about storm water cuz this is obviously important feature of your storm water system, so we can come back to it. Yep. Okay. Great. Um there was a comment

039on hay bales. The contaminated soil stockpile detail has been revised to reference straw instead of hay. Mhm. Um again, that will be incorporated into the the plan set. Um there was some discussion about how we're going to filter the ground water. Um contractor and his team are here. We uh proposed activated carbon for filtering ground water. This temporary water treatment system is going to be designed to remediate total suspended solids, chlorinated volatile organic compounds, and metals that could be recovered during dewatering. So, we have a plan in place for that. Um and and and we have um Bob and and um Joe are on the calls and if you want to get into further detail, but we we have a plan that that system in place will treat what's we've identified so far. And again,

040if something else is found that can't be treated, we'd come back to the commission before any dewatering were to take place. Um the next two comments are on cut and fill information. We've updated the soil management ground water storm water plan to address those comments. Um regarding the flood plain and compensatory storage, we'll circle back on that uh once the peer review is completed and we move on to that next topic. There was a comment on the buffer line on the plan that was misrepresentation. It was meant to be the wetland line, so it represented the approved resource area boundary. Um and then the last comment was about having an LSP. As Mr. Anglin stated, an LSP will be directly involved through construction on this project. Um there's full intent to do that. It's required

041by MassDEP. Um and so they'll they'll be an LSP on site throughout construction. Um Question. Yes. Does that mean anytime there's excavations going on that an LSP is going to to on site? Yes. Um I have a follow-up question. >> Sure. Um if I remember correctly, in your application to the Zoning Board of Appeals, uh isn't there a condition there that that they could have uh an LSP that works for the town instead of for the applicant as well? Um honestly, I'll have to go back and there's a lot of conditions. I think though it was the LSP um let's just say for discussion's sake that is a condition. I think it was just to review what our LSP was doing, but it was not to actually serve as a primary LSP. That would be

042very unusual to have an LSP retained and representing a municipality working on behalf of the developer. I'm not sure if I'm answering your question. >> No, I remember I was at that hearing uh in the audience. And uh the comment was made that this would all be supervised by an LSP. And I believe it was Mr. Crouch suggested that the LSPs that the ZBA had hired uh that their job was done. And once this uh was finished that the ZBA, they were through. And it in unless I have this wrong, and I don't uh it was stated by counsel at the time that there would be a condition that um that there would be subsequent LSPs um a subsequent peer review, as one of them being an LSP, uh to monitor the construction. Do you

043remember that? Yes, I do. Okay, you plugged uh turned on. >> Sorry, I do. Okay. Well, rather rather than speculating, why don't we look I'll endeavor to look at the permit and we'll come back and >> That's fine. Uh well, you I can say this to the board. We will have an LSP on site at all times during construction relative to the supplemental LSP or somebody additional to that, we'll we'll look at that, but um so Okay, thank you. Uh I have a follow-up question on the treatment system. I I I know you're doing sort of a broad brush approach here. I don't know, do we want to get into detail at this point? Well, it it I would say not tonight. I mean, we're we're going to be unless you feel differently, Mr. Mr.

044Lucas. Well, I have a million questions, so we're not going to get to it all tonight. Uh I've read all of this stuff several times and formulated a bunch of questions, but I'm trying to do the the general overview tonight so that we at least can take the next step all in the same on the same page. If that works. I I'd say let's get through as much as we can you're comfortable with tonight. You know, let's let's hit the high stuff and then maybe we can dive into some of those tonight. We have the whole team here that's ready to address these questions tonight, so we we'd like to move it forward as much as we can. >> Well, I'll hold off for now. Yeah, it's it's going to be more than one hearing.

045We anticipated it might be. It's it's a complicated issue. We thought this might go a second hearing on this topic. Okay, continue. Um so, supplement number two, we we focused um specifically on how to handle the soil contaminants and water contaminants. Um that was the response to the March 5th letter and that specifically addressed comments again 1G, 9E, 10D, and 10E for reference in the March 5th ConCom letter. Um the the first question was specific on how we're going to handle soils and we prepared a detailed soil management plan. Um we can get into the details on that, but generally that plan specifies how it the goes through the general provisions of soil management during construction. We go through all the QA/QC quality assurance quality control measures that are in place. We discuss the soil

046conditions, how we're handling pre-excavation activities, worker health and safety, specifically soil excavation, how that will be handled, how transportation of soils will be managed, dust and odor control, um, backfilling of the soil, and then ground management and dewatering, and then any contingencies that need to be required in place. Um, so that's that's what we put forward to the commission, um, that we we think is appropriate for the site and scale and what's been identified. Um, number nine specifically focused on a dewatering plan, which is included in the soil management plan. Um, and then 10D and 10E were related to the stockpile details, which we've updated. Um, and um, we provided additional update in supplement three with uh, straw. So, um, just just briefly and um, Callinan prepared this this document here. Um, just briefly what

047we have in this portion here, this is the proposed building. The the red portion line here is the area of the buildings that are proposed to be removed. Um, we have the blue line here shows the traffic patterns through the site. Uh, these purple areas along here show the temporary basins that we've proposed to contain water on the site. Uh, we've proposed to cap all the drain pipes along the back. There are four of them. They will all be closed and capped during this to ensure no water gets into the Sudbury. Um, and uh, >> [clears throat] >> plan looks like like it got corrupt I can't read it. Second. It looks like the PDF may have corrupted it. Do you have a clean copy and uh Actually, let me see. If you bear with

048me, I believe I I have one here. Um I can try I have another copy of it if you'd like me to take a minute to pull it up or you want to stick with this and we can just discuss it. You can see the color. You want to see this? Why don't you just Um So, the the the main point is this this portion of the site down here we have an 18,000-gallon frac tank. And this is where water will be stored and treated with the active with the carbon filtration. Um and then we've proposed our two discharge locations, option A and option B. Um this does need to be worked out further with the town. Option A, which is preferred, is to uh we have to coordinate with the DPW on this. Would

049be to discharge in >> 6 ft into the uh municipal system. Uh the alternative discharge location, option B, would be discharge by this this riprap pad here um before it goes into um the buffer of the canal. Again, this is all clean treated water. It's it it'll it it's um We can get into the details exactly how it's being treated, but this will be treated and clean water coming out of that frac tank um that'll be being discharged. Um That's that's kind of the high-level view. We've got the team here if you want to get into any details on the soil management plan. We we're happy to go through that point by point. Um and uh All right. Sounds like you have a lot of questions, so we can So, you're all set, Chris? I

050I think that summarizes unless you want me to Okay. That's good. I have a couple of questions. I you know, that I have a million questions, but I don't want to um I don't want to ask them all this evening. Um a couple of things I want to clarify and then a comment I want to make and you can uh respond to it uh however you wish. But uh this ju- Some of the things that we're talking about here, particularly TCE and PCE, are carcinogens, correct? I'm sorry, the carcinogens. Yes. I would consider they would be considered carcinogens I don't want to judge I don't want to juggle the terminology. I'll let George I'll let George answer that. Um And you I'm not an epidemiologist, so um but I believe they're at least suspected carcinogens.

051>> Well, I'm not one either and I know that they are. Okay. So that's the important issue here is that we're dealing with dangerous stuff. This is you know, we've been down this road before at previous hearings. This is dangerous stuff that has a legacy in this town and so we need to be careful with it. And that's the only point that I want to make is that we're not dealing with oil and we're not dealing with antifreeze, we're dealing with dangerous things. And we understand and we could not take this more seriously. Callahan Construction probably has done more remediation on similar sites than any contractor in Eastern Massachusetts. We've brought them on board because we want the best to handle this. So this isn't their first rodeo. We obviously understand there are things in

052the ground. We are removing them from the site and taking them to facilities that would accept them. So whatever it is, whatever exceeding levels it is, we have an LSP that has to provide the register and it has to go. I'll Bob Sandis on from Callahan. We have McPhail on. These guys have done many, many of these projects. If it makes the board feel a little bit more comfortable, we've talked a lot about this in a theoretical standpoint. Why don't they talk about actually they're going to be boots on the ground removing soils, doing all this stuff. If you want to hear from them, we we invited them for that very purpose. Maybe >> we will get to that. When we get to specific questions. That was a generalization. It was a general question. TCE

053and PCE are carcinogens. Yes. Okay, so we have dangerous stuff. We acknowledge. >> Okay. My next comment is um with regard to the correspondence from Mr. Lucas's office on May 13th. And I And I guess I'd like some of the other commissioners to weigh in on this because this is my opinion and we haven't We haven't discussed this as a as a commission. But uh on question one on um uh the commission's comments to um in response to um I believe it was supplement two. And this was answered in supplement uh three. Um It says the Conservation Commission as been as has been stated in hearings requires characterization of the site as part of the notice of intent process. As they must know what contaminants are present, where they are, and in what concentrations. What

054we have before us and what you've explained to us this evening was in the original RAM report that I read last year. Uh and the subsequent RAM reports restated them and you've restated them here. My own perspective is that there's not a whole lot of characterization of this site. This is a big site and I don't understand your comment about you know it was your comment um that um that you haven't checked under the buildings because that's not an industry standard. Um it's not unusual when sites old factory sites um are are transferred to know what's under the building. We know that uh I think that that you know as well that um some of this contamination is probably from Nyanza and some of it is probably not from Nyanza. And TCE was something that

055was found in abundance in the Nyanza plume. PCE was not. Which probably suggests that PCE came from the uses at the factory. Um and a lot of your uh testing sites are on the periphery of the property and very few are under the building. My feeling is that that's where the problem is, under the building. And it would be hard for us to deliberate on the best way to approach this if we don't know what is under the building. I would think that you would want to know what's under the building. So that's you can answer that uh Mr. Lucas and then maybe the other commissioners can weigh in. Maybe I'm on an island here. I can start. So um uh other members of the team can chime in here, but there there's a couple

056reasons. Number one, you have an active building. There's active use in there. Um there's been a lot of testing across this site. We have a pretty good idea what's there. To your point, do we know what's in all the soil on the site? No. That will be done as part of construction. Second point is it's very costly to do a full characterization of the site. Mr. Angler doesn't intend to spend tens of thousands of dollars without having permits in hand before you go into doing that level of testing on a construction site. It's not industry standard to characterize the entire soil on a site before construction before permits are issued. What we've done is provide a specific and detailed protocol that the commission can approve that should address whatever we find under the building. If

057something is found that doesn't fit into that protocol, we'll recommend a condition that we need to come back to this board to have further review of the protocol to ensure it's appropriate. I think that's gives um I I think that's a more than appropriate way. It's common practice in this industry and uh it it gives this board some insurances here. I would add to that and once again, if to the extent that you want to hear from McPhail or Callahan, we've done There's very few pristine sites in Massachusetts that are not developed. So, it's common to have RAM plans and contaminants [snorts] and things that need to leave the site. It is very unusual and we have never done it where you do a full characterization before you have permits. It's done as part of

058the prep for the construction. Moreover, if something is found, that's our risk, not the town's. All right? If we find a compound or something that needs to be removed, we have an LSP that identifies it. We have a general contractor that has to find a a place that will accept that. That is fully on us and DEP is overseeing that. So, if we find something, it's not like you would grant us an order of conditions and we don't represent something and it's like, "Oh, you missed your opportunity." No, it's not That that's not how it works. So, we will do a full characterization. We'll talk about that more in detail tonight if you'd like, but we're not going to do a full characterization in the next several months during this public hearing. It's just not

059customary on any project. Um certainly not one that Callahan or we have been involved with. Well, I agree that and that that was my point is that uh it it is your liability if you find something. So, why wouldn't you want to know what was there? It just And and we can we can discuss that further. But, does anyone else have any commentary on I have some comments or questions. Um from what I gather of the information you provided, including the most recent information, there's been no testing out there since what? 2022? 2016? 2010? I don't know. It sounds like it's all pretty old stuff. And that there hasn't been any new testing of any sort. Is that correct? No. No. Um a lot of >> That's not correct. No, that is not correct. There

060was quite a bit of sampling done between 2022 through 2025. So, we have sampling data as of a year ago. So, we have current data um particularly for the groundwater. >> Sampling from existing hole borings and wells and such? I mean, no new sampling points have been created. Is that correct? >> Um that's not correct. No. Um Yeah. Um starting in 2022, you know, in anticipation of you know, redevelopment of the site, um we've sampled both up gradient and down gradient with new monitoring wells that were installed. Okay. >> and in in addition to that in 22, in anticipation of future construction, uh we did seven soil borings. Uh and those seven soil borings were sampled for, you know, an extensive list of of compounds. Um and those seven soil borings, uh none of the

061samples exceeded the most stringent MassDEP criteria. So, are all these additional testing points on this map? >> Correct. What are they called? Um you have MW1 through MW5. Those are Those are all new. >> monitoring wells that were installed, yes. Post-22. 2022. And uh C1 through C7 were seven soil borings that were in advanced in anticipation of future site redevelopment. So Oh, okay. So C1 through C7, okay. And those are all on the on the right-hand side of the site. I'm not sure whether Oh, C1 is in the front. Um >> [clears throat] >> But these all seem to be around the site in the perimeter of the site. Oh, in addition to that, we did soil gas sampling underneath underneath the building. That was underneath 10 Excuse me, Jean. Building 10? Why did you

062just do building 10 and not 10 through 60 or something? >> Well, I my the plan is to remove those other buildings. Well, which is going to expose what's under the building? And that soil will be remediated. Okay. I'm sorry, Jean. Uh okay. All right. So um So I guess your philosophy is that you did the soil gas testing under building Is that building one? Because that's going to stay and you want to see whether or not or building 10, I'm sorry. And that's going to tell you whether or not that can be used What use that can be converted to. It was additional assessment. Correct. >> Okay. So I I get it from your plan is to characterize not characterize more or to to characterize more before you do going to demolition. We may

063do a little bit of strategic characterization in some locations, but we're not going to do the full characterization until we're ready to mobilize for, you know, full construction. So, our this full characterization is going to be before the buildings come down or after the buildings come down? I think before. I mean, I I defer to McFail who would handle the full characterization. Uh but like no, likely it would have to happen part of it after because once the buildings are removed, we'll have access to the full surface area that of for fair testing. If you're doing it before, then why not do it now? Well, I I just we just explained that. It's a very, very expensive process. We don't know how this is going to end up with this commission. We hope favorably. We're

064working very hard to answer all your questions. We have a long way to go. >> that. But we're not going to spend $50,000 or more doing pre-characterization and then have to be in an appeal to DEP. I mean, it's just too much money to spend up front at risk and our investors aren't going to agree to that. We feel very comfortable where we are that we've done enough characterization. We have superior professionals on the team. We recognize that there may be other things in the ground that we're going to find and we have to, you know, handle those in a accordance with regulations and protocols. But we're not going to do a full characterization now. We never have and we're not going to do it on this site. Would it not make good business sense

065to at least do a preliminary survey within the buildings? Not not a full characterization. >> And there may be some additional geotechnical work that have nothing to do with the environmental or things that we're talking about, but have to do with load-bearing capacity and things of that nature. At that time, when we're doing that work, may there be an opportunity to do some additional environmental testing? Yes. Um but that wouldn't be a full characterization, but there may be some additional selective testing done. I'm assuming there are floor drains in the building, correct? Yeah. John, do you know that or I I have not seen any floor drains. There currently. Um I haven't been in every square foot of the building, but I I have not seen floor drains. I guess that's why we wanted to

066do a site walk there, because if you can't find floor drains, maybe we can, and they seem to be logical places to test underneath the building. That's how usually these PCE and TCE were disposed of in the old days was in floor drains. Particularly in an area there where there's no down back to dump it. It's been contact I mean it's been discussed. If we want to schedule a site walk, we can do that, but let's just say theoretically, we do that testing and we find something. How is that any different than the things we've already found? It just means we have a soil management plan, we have the infrastructure, we have the policy. It's just more soil remediation that we have to do. It's more cost to us. But what what is that a

067Well, your cost is not our problem, first of all. >> It's just weird. It's But um we have to write conditions for this. And our conditions are going to be based on what we find or what you find over there. This is a challenging site. You've You've mentioned that. We know that. Um and you knew that when you got involved in the project, I'm assuming. Of course. Of course. >> going to be certain challenges. >> is you need to remediate all contaminated soils, you agreed. Or you need to handle any compen- contaminated soils in this protocol, agreed. Whether it's And And forgive me, my nomenclature will be wrong, but whether it's this much in terms of tonnage or whatever, it doesn't change the strategy and the policy. That's the point I'm making. It's we're going

068to have a an infrastructure and a strategy in place that will be approved by this board. And then when we do additional testing, if we find other things, it needs to be handled in accordance to the policy and the approach that we're setting up. So whether it's so much dirtier or maybe we get lucky and there's not much other stuff, it doesn't change the approach. That's the point I'm trying to make. So I'm not clear on why finding the additional stuff is so important cuz we it's our risk and we need to remediate it regardless. Well, I understand. And you don't have to You can sit down if you want. Uh and I don't want to talk this to death all night. Other than the fact that that we do this with every site that

069comes before us, whether it's somebody's backyard or somebody's store or an old factory. This is not something that we're making up and applying to this site specifically. This is something that we do for everyone. That's what our job is here. That's what our job under the Wetlands Protection Act is. And that's the oath that we take to serve in the town of Ashland is to ask questions and make wise decisions. And we can't make wise decisions if we don't have full disclosure of what we're asking for. That's what I'm saying. Okay. Well, we can move on, Chris. I Yeah, so I I do believe you have more than enough information to make a wise decision here. Joe, Bob, do you have anything to add on the process here that might that might help uh provide

070some assurances here? Uh yes, I can chime in. Bob Sander with Callahan Construction. Um just to try to address some of the the questions in regards to the the process of the the characterization of the soil. Um >> [clears throat] >> I think Jeff had a very good point is there is additional geotechnical investigation that will likely happen in order for us to uh figure out what the bearing capacity is of the of the existing soils. So, at that time there will likely be some additional um investigation work. That investigation work will also include uh some environmental sampling. Uh the intent of the the characterization program that everyone is is talking about is to properly characterize the soil that is going to be removed from the site during the construction activity. So, as you're looking

071at the um the soil management plan that was presented to you and that there's a cut and fill image in the uh top left-hand corner of that of that diagram, uh all the areas in red represent locations where we're going to be cutting into the existing soil. The intent is that soil is going to be removed from the site. There is approximately 6,000 yd of material that will be removed from the site. And within those areas, we need to properly characterize the soil such that it can go to an approved disposal facility that's licensed by the state and it will be tracked appropriately under the RAM plan as well as the the the mass continue the MCP regs. Um So, during that that process we will remove the soil but again it where we're only

072characterizing the soil that's getting removed from the site. So, there's been a couple of questions about um why aren't we sampling under the building? Um because if you look on the the cut and fill [clears throat] image you'll see that um some of the areas under the existing building um are really going to stay there. So, the intent is even if the soil is uh has contaminants in it if we're not exporting it off site then there's no reason to do any further testing on that soil. It's going to be remain on site. We're going to build a new project over the top of it and it's going to have all the proper environmental controls within the footprint of the building. And I'm I'm sorry, who uh your name is I'm sorry. Sorry, it's uh

073Bob Sanda with Callahan Construction. Okay, thank you. Um but you will be altering the site. You know, whether whether you're removing the soil or just moving it around it's an alteration which triggers our jurisdiction for that stuff and that's that's why we're concerned about it. So, even if it stays on site uh it it may be uh relatively stable now and we don't know if it's going to be stable. This is a huge development. It's going to impact the ground over there. Probably going to impact the both the soil and the ground water and we really don't know in in what way. So The reason that we're asking is if this were virgin soil and virgin water it wouldn't be such a big deal except that we are charged with protecting downstream, protecting the river

074and protecting the flood plain and the and the river front area and it's it it will be impacted. So I appreciate what you said. It and I appreciate you chiming in. But um we still think that all of this is relevant to our deliberation. At least I do. I have a question. The you brought up the point about the cut and fill diagram. It's my understanding that's a final grade cut and fill. That's not necessarily all the excavation you're going to be doing on site. Is that correct? >> [clears throat] >> No, it's not actually. It's the intent of that cut and fill images. It's a little bit different. We from our from our construction and a contractor standpoint, we look at it more from the the contractor side. So the image that you're seeing

075represents the the subgrade conditions of the site. So in the areas where there's pavement, what we've considered is the although there's a finished grade of the site, there's the thickness of the pavement and there's a layer of 12 inches of soil that's below that pavement. That thickness is not factored into our cut and fill um shading what you're seeing here. So, all all the shading is really um indicating the existing soil that's going to get moved around on on the site. After the fact, we'll bring in additional clean gravel for your pavement subbase. We'll bring in additional stone that's going that's going to go under the proposed building footprint and and house the subslab venting system. Um it also does include, as you can see, the kind of uh the the red area on the

076top of the screen there, uh which is what John talked about, which is the stormwater detention system. So, that represents the the cut of around 8 ft, which is about that includes the the 5-ft thick chamber system as well as the soil cover that's above that. So, this this is not showing where your excavations are going to be or whatever they may be for the foundations. Is that correct? Not at this time. What we've Well, it shows that the the cut for the building footprint. But your foundations might be quite a bit deeper. The the foundations will end up being um I believe the finished floor of the garage is at um uh 182.5, which would mean the the footings would be around 178.5. Um once we have the final foundation plan and the footing

077design, we will enter all those footings into the cut and fill and get a more accurate volume. Yeah. But for the intent of this, what we did is we took the building footprint, which was at uh, elevation of 182.5, and I uh, I dropped the subgrade 2 ft to account for the thickness of the slab as well as thickness of some footings. Okay, but you don't know yet whether you're going to have spread footings or pilings. Um, we do with there's some been there's been some initial geotech investigation and McPhail can can chime in, but uh, we believe the soil profile here has somewhere between uh, 3 to 7 ft of fill material. Um, and we think by the just the general cuts and fills and by the time we get down to uh, virgin

078material, we should have standard spread footings on the entire building footprint and we should not need any types of piles or ground improvements. Okay. All right. So, what's going to happen to the material that comes out of the foundation holes? Again, what you're seeing on your screen does show excavation coming out of the building footprint. If you can the area in kind of pink Yeah. above the blue right there. Yeah. That all is a is a cut within the proposed garage footprint. And then you're going to put some sort of gravel over it. Uh, >> Some sort of import? Correct. Yeah, so the way that we looked at this site is uh, because we didn't want to reuse too much of the existing soil is all of the material that we excavate out will likely

079just get uh, hauled off site to the appropriate disposal facility and then all the material in blue is going to be imported material that we bring in, which will be clean gravel material. Okay. Um, I I one of our concerns is during construction you going to have a lot of exposed soil, whether it's clean or dirty, you don't know. And you're doing construction and along comes a thunderstorm and you got a ton of water raining down out of the sky and now you've got a ton of water eroding your site, whether it's clean or dirty, um and where is that going? How's that not leaving the site? That's our concern. Yep, and I understood and it's a great point. Um and I will just say that uh you know, that concern is also a concern

080of both EPA and NDEP and they're both covered in one there's will be I'm sure you guys know there's a storm water uh pollution prevention plan which is required as a mandate by EPA which at some point you guys will get a copy of of that once the um job further further uh progresses. There [clears throat] will also will be a um dewatering remedial general permit required for this project uh on the same um concept you will also get a copy of that permit which will um identify our final dewatering activity and plan for the site. Um but I can tell you in um in in general terms, our approach to storm water management is as shown on this plan is we're going to uh use the existing retaining wall um with some environmental controls

081in front of the wall to help containerize storm water runoff. Um as Chris said, all the outlets to the Sudbury River will be plugged and then blocked. And then that water after a rain event will get collected in the low points, will get pumped to our dewatering treatment system, which is the frac tank associated with the different type of filtration process. System will get treated to appropriate standards and then discharged either back in the storm drain system or back into the into the canal, option A or B. Well, from experience on construction sites, if that event happens and it will, it's not a question if, I guess. You're going to have a hell of a lot of sediment to contend with. And your filter system is going to get overwhelmed very quickly. I can guarantee

082it. Um even if you use a you're proposing an 18,000 gallon frac tank. That's I'm assuming that's what that our purple square is. Yes. I mean, I've seen sites with 40,000 gallon frac tanks get overwhelmed. So, I We can revisit this when we get to storm water. >> No, it's well, it's a question of contamination because that that contamination is going to get distributed back out to the river, I think. Now, in your in this plan, there are three circles connected by a dotted purple line. They're purple circles, ovals. It says IP. LP. LP. Or I'm sorry, LP. What is that? So, that's intended to be um uh prescribed low points on the site where we're going to collect the storm water. And the storm water would get pumped from uh each low point. Uh

083we're also intending those low points to be temporary storm water basins. So, to your point about uh sediment, we're hoping that some of those basins uh that could be a just an open water basin. It could also be a um another frac tank, to be honest, a smaller size frac tank where we get some additional treatment in inside there to knock out some of the solids. Um so, they the the treatment process for the storm water system um you know, we would we do try to plan for it as best we can, but uh we're also going to have to react out in the field to the different different conditions. Now, you're with Callahan >> Callahan Construction. >> Do you handle the removal of this material and hauling it to wherever your disposal site is,

084or do you use a a contractor to do that? Uh we typically use a contractor, so uh in the same sense for dewatering, we'll also use a contractor for that. So, one of the main contractors we use is LRT Technologies. So, they'll handle all the dewatering components, the treatment system, and the monitoring of that. For the hauling out of the soils, we will uh work with a a third-party vendor who will uh supply the trucking and the transportation to the the proposed disposal facility. So, that'd be like a Clean Harbors or somebody? Uh typically, we use someone like a um like a W.L. French. So, Clean Clean Harbors does more with more environmental um oils or waters. Um where W.L. French really manages in in soil soil conditions. Okay. Yeah, um along these lines, you

085know, we often see construction sites where you know, they have all the erosion controls and then along comes a storm and they end up failing and you know, they hadn't planned for a storm as big as what they got. With the level of contamination on this site, uh we want to be extra sure that doesn't happen and my thought is that our uh during construction plans should be prepared for us to get a 100-year storm during construction. I think that that might be a a good safety threshold. Uh I don't know how the rest of the commission feels about that. Well, if we have a 100-year storm, it would flood. I Yeah, that that's my thought on the topic. Mhm. Well, I got a question regarding um you're going to be moving at least 6,000

086cubic yards of contaminated soil. It's a lot of truck loads. Um do you think the track pads will be sufficient to keep that contaminated soil on site? Um I know they talked about um also street sweeping. I mean, if you streets uh sweep the streets, how you going to test that um sweepings for to see if it's contaminated? So, I'm just wondering if I mean, I've seen track pads and they're not maintained well and stuff's going out onto the road and if it's contaminated, we can't we can't allow that to leave the site. So, um are track pads sufficient or do you need to use wash stations or um Yeah. Uh yeah, I think it's a great it's a great question. It comes up a lot on on sites. Um and I would say are

087track pads sufficient? I would say they are as long as they're well well maintained. Um and that main that maintenance process is all part of the the SWIP plan, which is the stormwater prevention pollution plan. Um and that um as part of that process, we monitor and walk the site once a week and look at all these um these best management practices, these environmental controls, which is all of the the silt fence fence around the site, all of the track pads, um making sure that all the discharge locations to the the river will be plugged properly. Um and we also plan for certain rain events. Um so to your point, yes, we will try our our best to plan plan ahead. Um but it to answer follow up more on the track pad conditions, um

088I'd say it's it's standard standard practice. Um we will if a a wheel wash station needs to be addressed uh during uh certain rain event, the site's um got a lot of mud in there, uh we will not let a truck off the site if there's uh too much mud on on the tires. We'll make sure that the tires are clean. And the these are great questions, and this is where we were hoping this would go this evening. Um I I think what we've done is put forward a soil management plan, exactly how we're going to handle the soils on the site. We will start incorporating your questions. I think it would be helpful if the commission could provide their comments to to Ms. Solomon, you know, specifically on that plan. Like for example, treating

089under your storm, the track pads, um and questions along that and the like, you know, and then we can update that soil management plan to address those questions. Um the goal here is to try to get the soil management plan in a place where everybody is satisfied, where it's reasonable for the applicant, satisfies this board, we've answered your questions, that way you know, no matter what contaminant's on this site, it's being accounted for with our plan. Um that you're approving. Um to that point, as Mr. Angler said, you know, we we are not going to do a full characterization of the site right now. Um I think you know, we could test do another 10 or 15 borings and maybe we find nothing in them and then 10 ft over you might find something in

090construction. All right, so say we find another VOC or five more VOCs. The soil management plan is still accounting for that because it's telling you exactly how we're handling that soil. The only thing would be that we recommend a condition that if another VOC or metal is found, cuz we have metals and VOCs on site, we just confirm that the soil management plan is applicable to that. We anticipate it will be cuz they're similar in many ways. But if something new does is found during that full characterization of the site, we will be back before you. Condition it in the order. So you have assurances, so we can come back with our LSP and say, "Nope, we found two more VOCs, for example, hypothetically." Uh the soil management plan fully accounts for them just like

091the PCE and TCE. So we're satisfied and you're satisfied, DEP satisfied, and then we move forward with removing that that area. Hopefully we don't find anything else. So if we do, it's more than likely going to be one of the ones we've already found. Um cuz we do have a good sampling of the site. It's not like we're coming in here blind with one soil boring. We've You've seen that plan. There's a lot of testing on this site. We have a pretty good idea what's there. Do we know for a fact that's it? No. Um but our soil management plan has been put before you to account for that. Um and this is where we like the conversation to move forward with these type of questions, um which which are really good questions and we

092if you have any others, I'd recommend putting them in writing and we can provide another supplement as as as you said. Um we anticipated this tonight and we'd probably have another hearing and we want to address those questions and we want a solid plan before you for how the soil and water are going to be handled on the site because no one wants anything to happen here. We don't want any soil water getting off the site that is contaminated. It's It's It's We don't. And Mr. English committed to that. One thing I'm sorry. Yeah, I Did you want to ask a question? I just had a a general question. So Go ahead. One of our a comment, yeah, that I'd like to see a little more information on in um item four of your most

093recent submission, you talk about um the um water treatment system with a quite a few components to it. And yet the drawing shows one purple square and a arrow going out. And And that's it. So I mean, this talks about the weir uh weir tank. I'm assuming that's a frac tank. Um the pump system, the filter system, the chemicals settling system, chemical aided settling. Is that what you're using like PAM or some sort of uh flocculant or something? I'm assuming. I'll defer to Bob on that. This Yeah, I can chime in. Um So, yes, there's there's more components to the treatment system. Um and I just want to point out is we we will be required to um submit and apply for a dewatering remediation general permit, which is a permit through EPA. Um a

094requirement of that is that we give the Conservation Commission a copy of that permit. So, eventually you will see a a more detailed dewatering plan from our our consultant LRT, which will have all these components Okay. laid out on the plan. That's what I was asking is I mean a purple square on a plan is not adequate to explain all of what you're saying you're going to be doing. And I would want to see something that was diagrammatically at least showing the the treatment plan, the flow of the water and how it would work. Okay. Okay. Yeah, I just I had one follow-up question. So, since your soil management plan revolves around testing during construction, can you just touch touch upon the frequency of the testing and the turnaround time for the data. So, it

095sounds like you're going to be making some on-the-spot decisions on what to do with excavated soils. And if you can kind of just make a comment on that. I can't, but George can. Yeah. I I can do that, George. Oh. Yeah, if you don't mind. Sure. Um so, as part of the the soil pre-precharacterization process is what we were we're talking about before. Um our intent is really not to address it on the fly. Uh so, what we would like to do is to as you see the on the the plan that you have, the cut and fill image that shows all the areas in red, those are the areas where we that's going to that represents that 6,000 yd of material coming out. What we do is we take that area, we grid that

096area off into different cells. Each cell represents a certain volume of soil. Within that grid is um a certain number of tests that will represent the 6,000 yd. Typically, the disposal facilities like to see at least one test per every 500 cubic yards. Um so, we get that plan in place, we we all those test test results back. We summarize that. Um and then we submit the that plan as well as the proposed disposal facilities. Um and then we get disposal facility approvals for each one of those cells. And so before we start our work, we know exactly where that soil is going. So when we're digging on site, the intent is not to dig it and put it in a stock pile. The intent is to dig it out and put it on a

097truck and export it off the site. Okay, thank you for that. Any other questions from the commission? Yeah, I have a couple of questions for Mr. Lucas. Um let's find a path forward here. I guess maybe we can um um circle the wagons here for this evening. Um and come back for a subsequent hearing with more specific questions now that we have some of the general discussion out of the way. And in the meantime, I was wondering if uh Mr. Engler suggested uh that we that we maybe could do a site walk. And I think that that would be helpful. And uh and if uh during that site walk, if you're not going to do a full characterization, if we found areas of concern to us, maybe you could do a partial characterization of some

098of these areas that might make us feel a little more comfortable with what is um under the floor and particularly um I guess that would be building 30 and building 40 or [snorts] 40 and 50, or whatever the last two buildings are. And then we we could resume in uh a couple of weeks and have more specific questions. I have I've read all the stuff that you've sent and and you're right, you have sent a lot of stuff, and I've read it all several times. And I still have a lot of questions, even though I've done a lot of speaking this evening. Um with regard to the RAM to to a large degree to the RAM reports. And maybe any subsequent questions that we have. So, is that uh is that a path forward for

099for the applicant to I think it's a path. I'm just confused as to so, the sidewalk would be the first item, then you would submit written comments. Then we would have the time to um respond. It strikes me as cuz I think our team and your peer reviewer will be ready probably at the next hearing to talk about item number two. So, do we take the environmental discussion and plan for it at a future hearing to provide adequate time to do this, or does everything get, you know, pushed down the line until we kind of reconvene for public hearing number two on this item. I'm just asking the question. >> So, what you're suggesting is that in the next hearing we move on to the next topic and bring this back subsequently. I think personally,

100I think that would be a good use of time cuz I think your peer of I don't I don't know. I'm speculating, but I think your peer review consultant may be ready. We're certainly ready for that next topic, but it sounds like a site walk and then written questions, we're going to need a little bit of time to respond. That's going to take a month, you know, or so. So, it'd be a shame to push everything down until we reconvene to do that. How do the rest of the commissioners feel about that? Well, one of the things that we discussed early on, very early on, but got no answer on was a on. >> [clears throat] >> Um, as having a LSP peer review. That would help us reviewing all this material, um, you know,

101from for us. Um, and that was not agreed to by you at the time. You said you would take that under advisement or something. I'd like to revisit that and and get ourselves a a peer reviewer just like we have for you know, stormwater peer review. I I agree. I I think that we didn't get a response or at least a positive response from the applicant with regard to that. After we received the supplements from Mr. Lucas, I wasn't sure that there was enough substance there to peer review. Um, but I think that before we settle on the environmental plan that we should have it whatever that is the the final plan peer reviewed. Well, I mean, we've got a lot of material that's been provided to us that I think it I guess it's

102preliminary information because this we don't [snorts] have our detailed site review, but I think there's enough information here that a peer review could give us some some guidance. Well, we had we had lined up if I remember correctly, a peer reviewer when we first got the RAM report. And as we went forward, we realized [clears throat] that the the the RAM report had expired. And so, we had contacted someone about peer reviewing that, and then that went by the wayside because the RAM reports were expired. We could We could revisit that if the commission thinks that's appropriate and if the applicant would agree to it. Well, that's a good question then. I mean, the the new RAM report you prepare if you're not doing any more sampling, you're not generating any more data, and you

103you all you've got is what was generated from 2022 and now 2016. What more information is going to be provided in this new RAM report when you file this in a year? Well, they're going to do a full characterization as they Under construction. Yeah. But the RAM report has to be done before the start of construction. So, if there's nothing new being done, you could prepare that right now. Although you can't do it because you can't do it before it within a year of the construction. I understood that. But my point is if nothing new is going to be put into that report, everything we have is something is what that RAM report's going to say. I mean, what new is going to be in it if you're not going to do anything else? Am

104I missing something? It's a timing issue. Depends when we do the RAM report. If there's additional data collected before we submit it, then it would be incorporated into it. If there's no additional testing, uh RAM report would effectively be the same and would be submitted to DEP for review. And the DEP's You said you didn't want to do more testing. >> No, we don't. >> [laughter] >> So, so there's nothing more going to be generated than what we already have. We can't say that for for certain. I I said we do not want to do a and will not do a full pre-characterization of the site. I also said over the next several months we may do some additional work, geotechnical work relative to understanding the soil bearing capacity for the building. At that time,

105you know, if we're doing some digging, we probably can get some additional sampling. That would be included in the RAM report. To cut to the chase, if it means getting across the finish line here, and you I mean you're asking me now, you know, for you to go on a sidewalk and tell us where to do the characterization. You're asking for an You're asking for peer review on something that's not commonly peer reviewed. To give To show you how much this means to me, I will agree to both of those. I want a scope on the LSP cuz I don't I want them to review They're They're not reviewing the RAM report. The DEP ultimately is the judge during the executive. But, if they want to look at our soil management plan and some of

106the approaches there and say, "That looks reasonable. Add this, you know, whatever." Fine. All right. I think it can be done for, you know, 10 hours of work. It shouldn't be more than that. I I'll agree to it cuz I want to get make you feel comfortable. But, you know, I'm kind of going above and beyond here, and I hope the board can appreciate that. So, let's get a scope. Let's get a couple proposals from LSPs. And, you know, once we're going to we're going to get additional questions, we're going to do some additional work. We probably can be doing that before they're even finally contracted. So, when we're going to have a nice clean package, if you will, and then you can turn it over to the LSP and say, "What do you The

107peer reviewer and say, "What do you think about this?" Okay. I You know, to your point about you acquiescing to this stuff, I don't think these are un um uh unnecessary requests or unreasonable requests. This is what we're supposed to be doing. And, uh it we would be negligent if we didn't ask for this information. So, I'm glad that you're acquiescing that that that you'll go forward with this stuff, but don't make it sound like we're being unreasonable because we're not being unreasonable. I'm not saying you're being unreasonable. You're definitely There's being a lot asked, and let's I I don't want to bring it up, but you represented lots of people here [clears throat] in a public hearing that I refuse to agree to peer review before this commission. I've agreed to stormwater, I've agreed

108to wetlands, I'm now agreeing to, you know, LSP. So, I think we're both being reasonable. Let's leave it at that and I want to get you guys comfortable with what we're doing and if it means hiring a peer review for a few thousand more dollars and having them write a quick report that says, "Yeah, this looks compliant with what I would expect or they may be missing something." Fine. You You've your consultants have basically described everything as per industry standards. This is not our industry. We don't know what these standards are. We need someone independent working for us to tell us, "Yes, they're right. That's an industry industry standard and typical of what should be done." Okay. Um since we're on peer review, is there a status update on the stormwater and wetland peer review?

109Cuz I I believe those funds have been in place for a bit and I know we had requested a uh virtual meeting with both of them. Um we haven't heard back and we don't know >> Well, we we we skipped over that because we wanted to do this evening first. Right. Um they are on board with doing uh the peer reviews and I believe that they're on board with with having that meeting as well. Okay. So, we can um We just need to schedule it. Yeah. >> Okay. Is that something we can work on in the next week scheduling a meeting? Not saying have it in the next week, but can we start working on the schedule offline? During the week. Yeah, could we work offline during this week to see if we can schedule

110something in the near future? >> with that, Becca. Great. Thank you. Um Okay, do we want to try to schedule a a site walk uh this evening? Do you want to wait on that or or what? How much time do you need to get something scheduled with the landowner? Obviously, it's not your land, so Right. It is holiday weekend. No, it's not going to be this weekend. Um I mean, if it pleases the board, if we can coordinate through Becca, we can provide days and possible days and times, and you guys can circle up, and we'll eventually come to a time that works for everybody. It works. Okay. Um One one clarification, there is a use restriction on this property, is that correct? Yes. That was How does that work? I mean, obviously, you're going

111to have to change it, cuz right now it says no residential. >> Yes, we There's an activity and use limitation that we will have to modify and get approved, but that cannot be my We've had it reviewed, yes, but it can only be reviewed in concept, and it cannot be approved until we put in the vapor barriers, until we demonstrate that all the various construction elements have been So, that's another risk that we undertake, but we know what's going to be required in order to get the AUL modified. And there'll be other restrictions like you know, you can't plant tomato plants or things, you know, some some limited things like that, but obviously, our concern is being able to have residential use, which would have to be a modification. So let me make sure I

112understand. You basically have to build the project and then ask to change it? Well, you don't have to build the entire project, but you have to you have to put in the vapor barriers, you have to do all the various steps that have been required of and then you demonstrate and they confirm or refute and if they say you missed this, we have to do it in order to get um that done. But we've had DEP look at a draft. We've had our legal counsel, Goulston and Storrs, look at it. I We feel based on our current understanding quite comfortable it will be approved. Obviously, I mean, it would be stupid to go forward through all this and not have it be approved. So, you know, we're we're comfortable understanding what the expectation is. Now,

113and that was kind of my concern is you go build this spend millions on this building and then you can't use it. That would be That would not be good. So, this process would happen in in the midst of construction. Okay. Yeah, go ahead. Something. Just a clarification on the activity and use limitation. It comes at the end of the process. So, after the response actions are conducted, you file a new activity and use limitation. >> Oh, I got Okay. The paperwork is at the end, but you've still got to get it basically approved during construction. It's really filed. The The LSP will file it with uh the property owner at the end of the process. Okay. >> After the response actions are conducted. That's That's the regulation. >> But by the end of the

114process, you'll know if DEP is going to approve it. It's really It's It's really the LSP. It's It's a semi >> It's the LSP that's It's generated Absolutely regulated by MassDEP, but it's the LSP who files >> Makes the call? with the property owner. That's correct. Yeah. And I just wanted to just very briefly >> So, is that you? That is correct. Yes, that's correct. Yeah. I just wanted to mention on soil characterization, it's really I view it as waste characterization, you know, because the different disposal facilities have slightly different parameters. So, depending upon where it goes, you know, you'd sample for that uh facilities parameters, their requirements. So, just a clarification. I I just one quick question about disposal. My understanding is when you take a bunch of soil you think is contaminated, put

115it in a pile, you test it, decide how contaminated it is, and and then figure out where it can go. How long does that take? Um it's it's typically uh a fairly quick process, and you you'll submit the analytical data and an LSP opinion to the disposal facility. And it's it's also regulated by MassDEP. The soil will be moved with a a 21E bill of lading. But that was characterized as being material being put into a truck and then hauled off site. My understanding was it couldn't be moved until you had a place to put it, and you don't know where to put it until you know what how contaminated it is. Yeah, I I I could jump in here maybe and help a little bit. This is Joe Lombardo with McPhail Associates. Um typically

116in the process from when we get the samples to to what Bob was describing, get the pre-characterization samples, get the testing, get the data. Yeah. That data tells us which type of facility can go to, what in-state online landfill, asphalt batch plant recycling, out-of-state landfill, um sometimes to New Hampshire. The process from when we have that, we get together, pull a package together, LSP opinion letter, um as George had said, and I would say from when we submit to a landfill to when we have an approval with some time for feedback from any given facility is usually in the two to four week range. Two to four weeks, but it was characterized as though this material is being put in a truck and then hauled away. Well, exactly. >> in a truck for two weeks?

117No, no, no. That That That that approval process happens before they're before they're ex- >> in the truck. So, we have So, so we have, in working with Bob, um we would have all the approvals from the various facilities in hand before they're starting their work, so that that way they can do what we call load and go, excavate, load a truck, >> Okay, I guess and approve the soil. >> of gets back to why we think you need to characterize the site. Well, part In part of all the other reasons that they had were discussed tonight, another factor to consider, too, is a lot of these facilities, the various landfills, the recycling, they like to see data that's less than a year old when it comes to this characterization. And what we see sometimes

118is when you're getting over a year, close to two years, facilities may want you to go back and retest some, uh maybe all of it, to confirm the data. And now, um when we were talking earlier, you know, maybe we're spending $50,000 up front, now you're going and and reproducing that effort. Maybe it's not the full 50, maybe it's 25,000, but it's a lot of redone effort just because this was done so early in the game. That That's why full site pre-characterization for offsite disposal of soil, we like to keep within a year of construction. Okay. All right. We can pursue this a little more in our comments, I guess. Okay. So, does the commission Is the commission comfortable with moving on to, um, flood plains. Uh at the next hearing and coming back to

119contamination. Sure. Subsequent That's okay. >> me. I'm okay. Excuse me. Um I believe the next topic was storm water per the commission's request. I believe it was the contaminant storm water then flood plain and the and the wetland and the resource areas. Okay. >> So storm water was last? No. Wetlands were last. Yeah, I I had requested maybe we could do riverfront and wetlands together. You said we would revisit that later, but storm water was next on the topics. >> Yeah, storm water's fine. Okay. Um we are going to open it up to the public if the Conservation Commission has no more questions. So either come up to the podium or if you're online, raise your hand. Through the commission, I'll also remind anyone in person, please as you come up to you make your

120comment, use the sign-in sheet so we can get your name and address correct for the meeting record. And those commenting online, please state your name and address clearly. And we should try to keep it to 3 minutes, but [snorts] we'll take it a comment at a time cuz it looks like there are a lot of people that have comments. Mark DeSaulnier, go ahead. Okay. Mark DeSaulnier, 119 Main Street. Looking at the time, we're both 10 of 9, so we're going to talk for almost 2 hours. Are we going to get 2 hours of comments? Yeah, you're you're down to an hour 2 minutes and 45 seconds, Mark. Okay. Characterization, site walk-ins, and testing the soils. Why did it take 2 years to come up with this when it could have been done that two years

121ago when it first got put on the site plans. Think people are are dragging their feet waiting for excuses, waiting for the state to to overrun everything in the town to try to get an advantage. So, I'm I'm going to go wholeheartedly why do we have to wait if nothing's going to get done nothing's going to get started. Yes, there is contamination. Yes, there is pesticides. Yes, there is Ten Apple. We know that as town as a history. We didn't have We waited 50 plus years to get that land to what it is now and still it's not in pristine shape. I said it once before and I'll say it once again. It would be the development of the here EPA DEP instead of DEP EPA listen to the developers. Thank you. Thank you, Mark.

122Name and address, please. Uh uh Johnson Road four Roberts Road. Um the applicant said it's not customary to do all the environmental testing or pre-characterization for contamination before obtaining the building permits. We've talked about it. But it's also not customary for a developer to build a residential apartment complex on the plume of a federal superfund toxic waste site that borders the Sudbury River that has signs warning not to eat the fish. So, I was just wondering have the uh applicant's contractors worked on projects that were within a superfund plume site before? Someone want to speak to that? Thank you. Uh as I've represented, McPhail and Callahan have done as much work as any suburban contractor and yes, has worked on many many contaminated sites. I believe the question was Superfund sites specifically. Yeah, this is

123downgradient from the Superfund site to the best of my knowledge. It's not actually a Superfund site. I If you want, Bob can Bob, you want to talk about a handful of projects you've worked on that have had a lot of contamination. >> I'm just trying to get it answered. Yeah, I can address it. Um So yes, I I I would agree this is uh this project is not a Superfund site project. It may be downgradient from one, but to answer your question about have we worked on other projects? Yes, we we have. Um we've worked on a couple of projects in Woburn uh and those were truly on Superfund site um uh projects. Uh so the same uh environmental controls uh are are in place on those projects as we have here. So there's uh

124a ramp plan involved. There's a soil management plan involved. There's a a dewatering plan involved. So all the same procedures and requirements for those projects we're following here on this project in in in Ashland as well. Thank you. online that has a hand up? Uh to the commission, there's no one online with their hand up raised. Uh however, I would just like to point out for the applicant's review uh straight from the EPA's website, the green I'm trying to get a right zone zoom here. The green is showing the boundary of the Superfund site for the Nyanza chemical waste dump, which does include at least part of the site. Thank you. Next. Hello, Bill Novakowski, 39 Lakeview Terrace. Um first question, uh we've spoken about acceptable levels of carcinogens, and there seem to be a

125fair number of carcinogens in this site. Um >> [snorts] >> Have Have any studies been done to see if an admixture of lesser quantities, acceptable quantities of carcinogens when mixed together could form a negative synergy and be more dangerous? Yeah, that's that's beyond my pay grade. Um >> Well, mine, too, but you know, there's there's a bully base of schmutz there. The Sorry. Mr. Campbell, do you You're probably the most qualified to speak to that. Could you want to? Um yeah, I'll I'll try to respond to that, but um as I mentioned, I'm not an epidemiologist, um but what I will say at the end of the day, um this site will be much better than it is today with um after the response actions are conducted. And uh the intent is to eliminate any

126exposure pathway to residents, to future residents, through excavation of 6,000 approximately 6,000 cubic yards of soil, dewatering, um and addition of uh vapor barriers and construction of an open-air garage. So absolutely, at the end of the day, this site will be a lot better than it is today. Okay, well keep in mind we're not the Board of Health, we're the Conservation Commission. So some of those things, it's kind of inseparable to to take environmental health and separate it from human health, but our jurisdiction is environmental health. I can appreciate that. Thank you. Um Mr. Novakowski, did you did you have a a follow-up question? I have a statement and maybe a question for Mr. Angler. Um you tossed about the sum of $50,000 to do a full characterization study, I believe. Um And this is

127a project, I believe the the cost is going to be in the tens of millions. Um it's I would say it's got to be and for 250 units, you're going to be pulling out probably a high seven-figure, low eight-figure annuity for rents. Um and when you consider the $50,000 could find out some pretty valuable information both for yourself and for the town, considering the amount being invested, the amount that's going to be pulled out, why not build goodwill instead of digging in your heels and acting the wounded virgin because it's not customary. I don't understand it. It's not sound business. Um So that said, since I have the microphone, I'll also say that this edifice has all the elegance of a Soviet apartment block from 1950. So shame on you. Thank you. Next. Jolene Friday,

128One Shaw Road. I believe um I'm >> Speak up little bit. I'm sorry. Um I believe we have to go back probably and listen, but I believe when Mr. Angler agreed to some of the tacit um issues that he also um tacitly agreed to do in full testing. Um and if you're not going to do additional testing, um you said it's on you, not the town, Mr. Angler. But my understanding is the plume with TCE is going to continue to flow into the site. What happens if you tear down the buildings and find too much contamination and the DEP denies the change to residential? We will now have lost historical granite buildings, 100,000 square feet of commercial, and have a huge hole in the middle of downtown. I would never allow my children to live

129in the site and I am guessing you would not either. Um if you're going to mitigate air contaminants, that's one comment. Um my question is, how are you going to mitigate air contamination if you're not sure where it is coming from, which is what I heard at the beginning of the meeting? And what is dewatering? Is that groundwater removal? Someone want to speak to that? The indoor air is a little bit off topic for the Conservation Commission, but but um only a little bit. Sorry. All right. Yes, de- dewatering is um basically if if we encounter groundwater while we're excavating, which we fully anticipate and Ms. Solomon has confirmed based on other sites she fully anticipates as well, uh we have a plan in place to address how we're going to handle that water when

130we intercept it. And that part of that goes back to the de- dewatering tank and the part of the soil management plan how that water is going to be handled and treated and discharged. Thank you. It dewatering could also require uh or be um trench dewatering during construction. If they dig a trench and it gets filled with rainwater, they have to get rid of that water. That's also dewatering. Um, I I do wonder why um, what what I heard through the meeting was this this group demands testing ahead before they'll take the soil. This group demands testing ahead before they'll take the soil. So, I'm wondering why it is not acceptable for the Conservation Commission to demand testing before they give their before they give their answer. Well, I think I can speak for the

131commission and suggesting that we think it is uh, that should be required. That's that was the gist of the there are certain issues uh, during this deliberation uh, that we have to work uh, through. Uh, you heard one at the beginning of the meeting. Uh, you'll hear probably uh, many more as this goes forward. Um, that that's our position is that we would like to see uh, the the full characterization. Um, we're not deciding that this evening, although the applicant has suggested that he's not in favor of that. Mr. Chairman, we've had McPhail and Joe indicate that these plants will not take information that's more than 12 months old. We're not going to do we have to do it somewhat in efficiently. So, we we we just can't do it. It's going to be stale

132data and then we have to do that the whole testing again. It makes no logical sense. Whether we do it now or then, you're going to have we're going to be going through the same process. Might we do some additional limited testing as a show of good faith? Yes, but we're going to take the full pre-characterization of the site off the table. We're just not going to do it. You've heard from McPhail why. I don't know how much clearer we can make it. So, Well, I didn't ask the question, Mr. Angler. Um we're just trying to get answers to the public's questions. That's it. Thank you. Thank you. Next. Good evening. Catherine Rooney, 136 Foundry Street. I have a bunch of questions. I think some of them are more germane to stormwater. Well, we're going

133to have more stormwater hearings, so save those. I will. Yeah, we're doing contamination tonight. Thank you. >> Yes. I have a couple Well, I have a lot of contamination questions, but I think the one that sort of most struck me as I listened to the developer was that I think the building, Cliff, you could probably tell us, was built in the 1700s, 1800s, so industry's been happening there it's since 1860, and then the Mayans have dusted up when we first discovered it happened sometime in the '70s. So, let's say it's been being polluted before then. We just didn't know it. So, the way I look at this site is we're going to go into settled ground and unsettle it. So, what happens when the ground gets unsettled and all kinds of contaminants come up where

134the groundwater plume surfaces? So, that's the first part of the question because I heard the developer characterize that his investors don't want to spend $50,000 to pre-characterize the soil, and I'm like, that's cheap money for a project that's eventually going to be making him 7 to 8 million dollars in annuity each year. And more, perhaps. I'm I'm stunned that they wouldn't invest that for their investors. So, then I'm wondering when they decide it's too much money to fix all the contaminated soils that suddenly surface, we're going to be left with a big contaminated hole in the ground. What happens when this project goes bankrupt and we're stuck with a big hole in the ground where we used to have a at one point, before this entire process started, a thriving business community. Thank you. We

135are concerned about the altering of of the wetland area as well. And um and the answer to your second question probably should have been answered at the previous hearings at ZBA, not at the Conservation Commission. But, thank you. Uh as as to what happens if they go bankrupt in the middle of this and the site is not stable uh is a site restoration bond on the table? Is something we could um have them post and for that? Well, that's a good question because that is part of our local bylaw, which as you know, has been waived. So, we would have to would have to have that discussion. I I think I'm I'm concerned that the risk is actually to the town. This is not to the developer. The risk is to the town if this

136project goes belly up. And I don't understand how we could have gotten this far and have this risk in front of us. So, I appreciate all the questions about dewatering and the cleaning off of the trucks and things like that cuz I think those are all really are important. I remember when the public safety building got built and there was untold amounts of mud ended up in the Sudbury River. And when we built the Mendes school, the same thing happened. So, these storms aren't theoretical and only in a hundred years. They're happening all the time now. Thank you. Name and address, please. Claudia Bennett, 9 Sandstone Way. I think uh the previous uh Ms. Gunfraday and Ms. Rooney uh touched upon something one of my major concerns is what happens uh if this gets disturbed

137and building begins and then it's decided that it is not feasible or not safe to move forward. You know, whose responsibility is that and what does it look like? Um a couple other comments and I guess the flood plane's not in discussion tonight, but I think it is in terms of the fact that I think over 300 cars in this open-air parking area are going to be in the flood plane. And what happens uh when indeed we do have a flood plane? Um if you've ever been in that building, um you know that there's some kind of water there somewhere because there's a lot of mold and mildew um odor. It's it's hard to segregate these things because they all are interrelated, but we're doing the best that we can so that we're not all

138over the place as far as topics go. >> Right, I understand and I'm just um running off of common sense here, just Mhm. I don't have any particular knowledge in this area. Um then you know, I also I agree that it this might in some respects make the site cleaner than it is, but is it clean enough? And um so to say that it it will be far better, you know, I'm not sure what that means if it still isn't safe to be inhabited. Um you know, the thought of somebody saying that it we might not be able to plant tomatoes there. I mean, are we going to put a sign? Are we going to have somebody that's in charge of no planting tomatoes? I don't know what that that looks like. Uh I know

139that at some point moving if there if there was going to be a flood that there would be a couple of days warning so people could move their cars. I don't know where 300-plus people are going to move their cars to or even if they would. And what how does that contaminate if if indeed the area floods? Um and finally, you know, with all due respect to Mr. Campbell, I do think that maybe the town needs to have uh another LSP working on the project. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. Uh Kim Lanthier, 79 Hilldale Road. Um a comment and a question. So, I thought it was brought up at a prior meeting that uh the EPA does define the area as a Superfund site. It's on their website. It's listed everywhere and has been.

140My concern then becomes if that's downplayed now, what else is going to get downplayed along the road? And that's just I think um a reasonable question. But the the specific question I have, and I apologize I don't know last names, but I do know first, so I I no disrespect um there, but Jeff mentioned that in 22 seven boring samples were done, and then at that time there was nothing that was above level. But Chris had mentioned that there were samples done within this 22 to 25 um soil testing that did result in above the residential threshold. So, I was wondering when those soil testings were done. Thank you. Do you want to answer that? Thank you. So, just uh just for clarity, um in anticipation of uh site redevelopment in uh 2022, uh we

141did sort seven soil borings, uh and it was sampled for a variety of compounds. None of those samples came up above the most stringent residential MassDEP standards. There was soil testing done back in 2010 as part of a phase two comprehensive site assessment um and site closure in regulatory site closure in 2011. Those are the samples that exceeded MassDEP standards. So, that's a just a clarification. Okay, thank you. Can I just ask a quick follow-up on that? >> Sure. Um what was the change in location? Were they exactly the same location for samples, or were they different locations? Um I believe that was um identified on the figure. Um all the sample locations were were on the figures. Uh the 2022 and the 20 10 sample locations that exceeded So, um some of them were

142different, and some were at similar locations. Ms. Lentros, everything that they have submitted to the Conservation Commission is available on the Conservation Commission website. So, if you want to follow up on this stuff, uh am I correct, Becca? Yes. Wonderful, thank you. >> Okay. Mhm. Mhm. I'll just be as quick as I can. Lorraine Armenti, Chestnut Street, 418 Chestnut Street. Um there's three quick points. Um dams are being removed across the state, across the country. There's a dam across the street from this property. Hopefully, within the Conservation Commission purview, we'll be removing that dam at some point in the not-too-distant future. My first point. Second, um I would like to have seen charts rather than a map of the chemical list. The visual display of information really helps if it's a chart rather than a

143location. So, that would be much more uh readily communicated what what we're hearing. And then >> And that is on our website. If you want to go Yes, all of those things are. Yes. Graphics. Mhm. And then the uh twice somebody said there's no significant health to human impact to human health. I guess the obvious question is what about wildlife, fish, and birds. The issue isn't the human beings. We are it's a conservation commission that should be focused on wildlife, even though we have such a terrible history with human health problems. I'd like us to focus on the wildlife as well. Thanks very much. Yeah. Thank you. I On on the wildlife issue, I remember when they were talking about the remediation of some of the mercury and other stuff farther down in the Sudbury

144River in Framingham. Uh they're saying, you know, humans shouldn't eat the fish, but it's not a problem for the fish. Mhm. And that didn't make any sense to me, and I I pushed back on that at a presentation, and they they um the the people who are managing the proposed project said that the way the studies are done for human health, they look at is this going to be a problem for individuals? For wildlife health, they look at is this a problem for the population? So, it's actually the human health is a a much tighter threshold than for the wildlife health. And And fair or not, that that's apparently the way it's done. And that is kind of my point in bringing up what's there. Not that DEP and EPA thresholds aren't important, they are,

145they're relevant, but it's not our jurisdiction. Our jurisdiction is the environment, and so what may be safe for humans may not be safe for other things. So, it's important to know what's there. Any other comments here before we ask for a continuance? Just a point, Mr. Chair. I was not being rude while people I was listening closely. I was looking at the decision the comp permit decision and there was uh we have to uh write a check for $10,000 to the town for review of the activity and use limitation um documentation as well as uh to be used at the discretion of the town uh to make sure we're complying with MassDEP. So, that strikes me as LSP-related work or so. It's condition 30 if you want to look at it. >> ZBA? In the

146ZBA decision, yeah. >> Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Um do you want to move for a continuance? We're doing Um is that our next unscheduled date? The next regular meeting of the commission is on June 1st, which would make the next available date for a 40B meeting be June 8th. June 8th. And and to confirm that the commission would like to get into the stormwater at that hearing. Correct? That's what will be and we'll we'll circle back to the contaminants stormwater. >> work with Becca to schedule Okay. that stuff. Um No, I know, but will he be ready for the 8th June 8th? Mike, does that work for you, Mike Carter? Mike, we can't hear you. Is he muted or is He's He's unmuted. The sound is not coming through. >> not coming through. Uh

147how about a thumbs up or a thumbs down? Thumbs down? Okay. That doesn't work for June 8th. Okay. Mhm. It's off. Well, then we can continue with contamination on June 8th or we can go to the next available date. The next available date would be June 22nd. Notably, I will not be here for that. [laughter] Yeah. What's your suggestion, Mr. Lucas? Can I Can I ask you I mean, considering it's that far out, we may just stick with this. I mean, if if the board thinks that you can get us comment, we're going to have the site walk. Let's just say for discussion's sake, we have it in 2 weeks or whatever, well within the time frame. If you can get us back additional comments, um you know, in the next week or two, that

148gives us 2 weeks to respond and a week to get it into the next hearing. Seems reasonable, no doubt. And then we have continuity between tonight and the next hearing. The only thing we probably won't have, maybe they've started, is the discussion on the peer review. If you want to get me the scope and some of the proposals, maybe we can get them commissioned in the next couple weeks. We're probably realistically, even after the next hearing, there may be, you know, one or two issues that are straggling out there, and you're going to want the LSP to come back at some point. That's fine. But I think it makes sense probably just to stick with this topic at the next hearing. Okay, which would be June >> of June. The 22nd, is that what you

149said? Okay. Okay, 22nd. So, we'll continue to the 22nd. Is that Is that what we're saying? Yes, we we would like to continue to the 22nd so we can continue the soil contaminated discussion. >> Okay, and then we'll schedule the site visit offline. Right. And we'd also like to advance the peer review for the wetlands and civil so hopefully we can have a peer review letter prior to that hearing so at least we can start reviewing it. Okay. Um like a plan. Okay, so uh we need a motion to continue the hearing to June 22nd at 7:05. Roll Roll call vote. Ackerman, I. Crow, I. Crouch, I. Atkinson, I. Molton, I. Toledo, I. Wands, I. Motion passes. Thank you. We'll see you on the 22nd. And thank you for all of your questions in public.

150We have a second hearing. So, I would suggest that we take a 5-minute break if people want to file out and give the commission a chance to stretch. >> Mhm. >> Welcome back to the Ashland Conservation Commission meeting. We are back from recess. This is May 18th, 2026 for our second hearing of the evening. We have a continued hearing request for stormwater management permit Highland Road and Ballard Road map 9 parcels 199 to 207 and 255 to 257 to Peachtree Group LLC care of MP Design Consultants SMP 2026-1. Good evening. It's nice to see you in person and not on a computer screen. Uh for the record, my name is Jason Panos, practicing law at 246 Andover Street, Peabody, Massachusetts. I'm joined by Sandra DePietri, uh applicant principal. And uh John Graniero is online, our

151uh project engineer. Uh really uh we noting the late hour, we tried to get a ahead of as many of these issues as possible. There have been active conversations between John and Mike Carter. And so I'll hit the easy stuff first. We got the DPW letter this morning. And we believe that your condition 27 adequately uh reflects what's in that letter. So I don't think you know, and you may hopefully have the same opinion. I don't think we really need to talk about that too much. Uh but I noticed that Mr. Mar is on as well. Uh who may want to inform that. Uh we looked at the proposed conditions and uh and I'll have John Graniero speak to the technical aspects of these, but we reduced issues down to two. Uh conditions number 22

152and condition 32. Condition 22 is phase clearing plan. So on the phase clearing plan, we only uh suggest that there be some clarification to that. Uh there's clearing trees and then there's clear cutting the site, which would be once you clear the trees, cut the trees, you stump and grub. And we think that that uh distinction ought to be made clear in um in section 22 of your conditions. Uh so, modify to state that phase one shall only include clearing, stumping, and grubbing necessary to install erosion and sedimentation controls, as well as temporary basins and swales, prior to uh full stumping and grubbing of site for complete construction. So, identifying the areas where the stormwater appurtenances are located, clear stump and grub there only, and then proceed to stump and grub as the development takes

153place. Uh this distinction is to allow cutting of trees for the full site, but not stumping and grubbing for the full site until sedimentation controls are in place. Obviously, that Well, to us, um simply cutting the trees, but leaving the root structure in place, continues to create stability to the ground cover. Um so, we feel that even if the trees are cut, without that stumping and grubbing, the the the the town's concerns are adequately addressed because that ground really isn't shifting. It's not going anywhere. Um and uh again, I'll invite John Granier to step in and inform that a little more technically. Can I Can I ask a question about that? Yes. Typically, how would you do your clearing? With mechanized clearing or with crews with chainsaws? I think it'd be a combination of both.

154Um you know, up on the Highland Road side, which is not developed at all, uh certainly a combination of both where we'd need some machinery to move boulders and things like that, and and we'd have to get into some fairly thick um >> So, you'd be using like skitters and and whole tree chippers and things like that? Right. I can chime in on that if if it helps. Yes, John. Through the chair Yeah, through through the through the chair John Grenier with MP design. Typically what they do obviously that that they go in there they'll cut the trees methodically and then they would have some machinery on site. If if not to hold the trees to cut them but also to stockpile the trees so that they can be loaded onto trucks and hauled off

155offsite. Those are all rubber tired machines. They're not tracked machines that would really start in place grubbing it. There would still be the leaf litter. There's still would be the stumps left in place so that we believe that that would adequately keep the [snorts] site stable. The downside to doing that is if they go to they just cut in areas where they're going to do some either the basins or temporary basins and then they have to shift about and start another area where they want to do a temporary basin or whatnot. Now you're bringing the tree clearers back in. It's it's much less efficient than you're going to leave areas that are open for erosion potentially longer. The more efficient you can do it, the more the quicker you can get your erosion control in,

156the quicker you'll stabilize the site. Well, my my concern about the way it's done is if you're going to be using skitters, they're typically very tracked rubber tires with chains and that really tears up the ground. Doesn't matter if you leave the stumps in, you're going to have a lot of disturbed, exposed soil left over from the skidder operations. Um not to mention when they drag a tree, they the branches on the tree wipe all the leaves off the off the ground and expose all the soil. Um I and I understand you want to clear the site, you want the clearing crews out there wants, you don't want to have to keep getting them back there for every lot kind of thing. And I understand that aspect of your construction. Um I guess what I'd

157like to see is some kind of a a a more um involved erosion control plan that doesn't just use per perimeter controls. Something that maybe you um cordon off each lot or something so that you you break the site into smaller pieces so there isn't as much runoff running for such a long distance to gain speed and cause the erosion. Um some sort of internal erosion controls, not just perimeter erosion controls. We will definitely be doing that. We'll have um temporary sedimentation basins within the site as well and we'll be directing water towards them. Um and and again you need the ability to um you know, carve swales, dig temporary basins, um which obviously would include doing some stumping and grubbing. Right. Uh we just want this site to work smoothly. Yeah. Um but we

158understand the concern that we don't want the whole site opened up at at once and just have perimeter controls in place to to try to hold everything back. That's not We just want to be able to have the flexibility to install temporary whether it's swales, temporary basins, installing the the permanent basins and and make everything flow um smoothly and not chopped up. So. Billy, you got anything? Any ideas? Well, I mean if as far as using skitters, you could and at club and for sensitive site they use forwarders which probably a little more expensive. Um but I'd say if they do clear the site, I agree that breaking it up and creating um creating some additional you know, road control barriers throughout the site to especially on the steeper sections cuz I know one site

159when I was at Wachusett, that was putting a lot of sediment in. They opened up a hillside and a lot of sediment came down and one way was was they created a a a lot of barriers going up the hillside. >> almost. >> Yeah, of of erosion controls and then they also used flock logs too. Um and as a way of um dealing with the steep slope. So um Oh. Yeah. Probably forwarders maybe overkill for that site, but I think as a way to get around. Yeah. So If you think about it this way as well if I could add um there are storm water appurtenances throughout the site and if you recall what I said in my introductory remarks, um we're going to be identifying locating those first and that's where we would stump

160and grub first and because they are located throughout the site by [snorts] the nature of the activity, it's going to be segmented into smaller pieces. Um so we won't be attacking it as as a whole. We'll be identifying those those segments and uh I guess uh if I were going to characterize it we're going to be working internally out. Does that make sense? Mhm. At least from a lay point of view because I'm not an engineer and I don't play one on TV. So it says the commission, I've re-worded that condition to read the applicant shall submit a phased clearing plan to the commission for review prior to construction which shall include the segmented clearing of the property with the erosion and sedimentation controls around each segment. Can I ask our engineer to weigh in

161on that? Yeah, that makes that makes sense and on top of that too, once a site contractor is is chosen and um they will be part of the process of knowing how they want to work the site um knowing that we don't want to open up the site in its totality. So um I think if that's prior to construction starting, we can get on board with with the contractor and know how they want to work the site the most efficiently and and pre- um prepare something that can uh be submitted to your agent. Who who is just speaking? Uh that was Sean Graney. Oh, okay. Um I think Mike Carter's got his hand up. Yeah, he does. Yeah. Um Mike Mike Carter GCG Associates, um they're going to have to do a SWIP in this

162project because they're over an acre. So, that would normally be something that's included in the SWIP. So, if you want to add to that condition, that cuz you know Yeah. as required by the SWIP. Yeah. Because that's that's something that's required under a SWIP. Okay. John, do you concur? Yeah, no, I'm fine with that and and that's why we have you here, Mike. Thank you. >> Yes. It's exactly true. I'm good with that. And all right. This isn't something that Dan's going to comment on, is that correct? Or Yeah. Um I don't see a hand raised by Dan. Oh. Okay. So, the next condition kind of has two two issues we'd like to address, and this is following our conversation from last week. Um and this is with regard to condition 32, no uh uh

163with regard to new impervious surface. So, uh John went out, and there was, you might recall, some discussion around what the capacity of the system is, and is there any additional capacity available for new impervious surface. And in fact, uh there is. There's 300 square feet per lot capacity under the current proposed system. So, we would propose some kind of a mechanism that uh would allow a so-called de minimis increase in impervious surface up to, and I remember Mr. Crouch uh Commissioner Crouch um had some thoughts and concerns about this particular issue. Um so that we would identify de minimus um additions to impervious surface up to not exceeding 300 ft per a lot and then we'd have to figure out a an enforcement mechanism for that and then anything beyond that would require an

164applicant a homeowner to come back before the board for a modification of the stormwater management plan. The other issue that came up in that condition was the definition of impervious surface and we would like to see that moderated slightly to not include decks so long as they are not covered by a rooftop that type of thing. A deck usually sits on pilings on the ground the water you know kind of flows through it. If you're standing under a deck in a rainstorm you're going to get wet. Uh and into the ground so we would ask that so long as the deck is not roof covered and closed that it not be included in impervious surface. So those are the two subsets of the that that that issue. And John do you have anything to add?

165No you stated it very well. Okay thank you. Um are there any questions or comments by the commission on that issue? Would we say no increase of greater than 300 ft be on yeah beyond the permitted footprint. Okay yeah. Is Mike okay with this? Mike Carter? Uh Mike, do you have any uh comments on this? No, I don't think it's if if you could John and I talked about this. If you could just give me some calcs that just demonstrate the area to make so I can confirm it. It should be pretty easy. Mhm. >> Not a problem. We already ran the numbers. Yeah. And with respect to the um the deck, I do agree. You know, as long as the deck doesn't have a uh roof underneath it, the water goes into the ground

166under the deck, and usually there is um you know, I guess I would say that under the deck it can't be a paved area. It has to be a you know, a crushed stone or or it could be pavers that are, you know, allow infiltration, but not paved there. hard surface. Yeah, and and to clarify that for Mike, a lot of times people will they'll have a deck, but then they'll put if they have a walkout, they'll put a patio below it. Well, no, that patio, if it's a concrete patio, that's impervious, so that would count. But if it's just a stand-alone deck, that wouldn't count unless it has a roof over it. I think they could also use pervious pavers. And they could use pervious pavers, correct? >> Mhm. The way you have that

167written, I think The way that's written, I think is backwards cuz it's in the list of what's not allowed. So, it'd be covered decks, comma uh decks over a pervious surface would be a separate category. Yeah, so those those are things that are not allowed Mhm. as impervious surface. Um, again, we've got this concept of order of conditions, which this is not. Sorry, I don't see >> Right in the middle Uh, you just added it. Yeah. approved by this order of conditions, this permit. Have it. You're right. I figured. Okay. >> [snorts] >> Um, and the final issue really, and we really wanted to get ahead of this as soon as uh, it came up at the last meeting is this issue of surety. So, we provided to the commission through the conservation agent last

168week a budget for a proposed surety, and then this morning we provided a confirmatory letter um, that the surety is in fact in the process of being put in place so that you could have it. Uh, but the surety basically provides for a total of $213,473 in phases, two phases. Uh, the Highland Road phase and the Ballard Road phase. The Highland Road phase would be the first phase, and that is for $90,050. And the Ballard Road phase, which is where a lot of the stormwater appurtenances are located, is for $123,423. Um do you have a copy of the uh the budget that was sent to the commission? Oh, terrific. So, we took to heart the uh conversation that that we had and we incorporated within this um you know, the concepts of restoration and completion

169surety. So, you'll see that there there is a line item uh in each for loam and seed disturbed areas. That is in the event that we cut, perhaps stump and grub, but then something happens and we don't go any further. Well, that would be covered under the surety of loaming and seeding disturbed areas. And then the rest of the items um drainage catch basins, manholes, concrete alleys, etc. uh would be more of the performance bond issues. So, that if we started those things and for whatever reason could not finish them, the town could come in with the surety bond and finish them. Um are there any questions about how this will work? Well, what about a contingency cuz you've got the the cost there, but you always throw a contingency in there. Yeah, I believe

170>> And and inflation. Well, we had a 10% built into this, didn't we? Not into these, but we can get them out. Yeah. So, we can do a 10%. Is Mike, is that sufficient? Do you think 10% is sufficient nowadays? Uh so, you know, I'm looking at the unit prices. Typically, when I do these bonds for the the planning board or any any board in any town, pick a town. You use you use prices that are you would have to pay, the meaning of the town. Not the prices that the developer would have to pay. And you know, I I got to commend them for trying to get this all together. But like for example, they have a installed two catch basins. They have a catch basin costing $3,000. >> [clears throat] >> You know,

171if you if you if the town had to go do that on a public works a public project, it would be eight eight to $10,000 for them to install it. So, the intent of the bond is so if it ever had to happen that the town could go had enough money to go do the work under chapter 30, which is the public bidding law for Massachusetts. So, your numbers are low substantially. I mean, that I'm looking I would have carry 8,000 for a catch basin you have 3,000. So, and then one of the biggest things that from the stormwater permit, it's the the initial phase when you got it cleared, stripped, and you got to come in and you you start working and that site is barren, there's just stumps and not much left. You

172got to be able to restabilize it. That's usually a pretty big number. And then you at the second phase you usually come in and say, "Okay, you've got that done. Now you're just doing the pipe work and everything." So, I think the numbers is low. Um I don't know how to I don't know how to commission wants to proceed with this. It's you know, it's not it's a little different than the planning board process. It's So, basically what you're saying, this is not based on the prevailing wage costs that the town would be subject to. That's exactly what I'm saying. Yeah. And before we complete the that thought, Um one way one one provision we would like added uh for structural purposes regardless of the numbers at this point and I'm I'm sure we'll resolve

173that hopefully tonight. Um as one phase is complete, we'd like a release of that bond so that we could go to the next. So that way we're not carrying because it's a liability to us. So we'd like to mitigate that liability. So if there's a phase that's done, we'd like that released. If it's not done, it's not released. I thought I think that's standard. Yeah, isn't that the way it's done? Yeah, but I want to make that clear because you have this hybrid concept in your stormwater bylaw and it's not fully fleshed out like a planning board. Yeah, it's I understand this is not something we have a lot of experience with on the sports side. >> I think this is the first time you're doing it, right? According to Commissioner Hakanson. Yeah. So thank

174you for inviting us here. >> with this though if this is low? Um so how low is it? If I may through the chair ask Mike and ask our engineers input because uh you'll recall Mike, we went to you first. Uh we wanted to start this discussion and figure out how how the numbers were going to flesh out in this discussion. Um so hopefully and I'm not putting anyone on the spot. Hopefully we've had time to kind of think about this a little bit. If we are low, how much are we low? To what tune? Yeah, I would just say when I was on the planning board, the actual numbers that we voted on were usually presented uh from uh Mike Carter or or another uh town uh peer reviewer. Yeah, that's that's why Mike

175is the first person we sent these to. >> Yeah. Last Thursday, I want to say. Mike, do you have these estimates? Yeah, I do. Yeah. Okay. How I thought I had that one. I know. I got it Friday. Friday? Yeah. Friday at 2:00. Um But So, what's the problem? >> [laughter] >> Exactly. No, no problem. Do you Do you necess- Let me ask this question. Do you necessarily need the bond to issue the permit? Can you make it a condition that you know, like the planning the planning board, I don't think you get your money, the bond, until um they have a permit in hand and then they start construction. And then I do a restora- I They call it a restoration bond. And you get that bond before they're allowed to do any work.

176I don't know No, it's It It sounds reasonable to me. >> yeah, cuz we we this condition could be written that this surety bond has to be provided prior to the start of construction. Mhm. And who, if I may, because again, I I I read your uh provision from the bylaw and it's unclear. Who administers this bond? Is it the DPW? I Um Article 1 of the stormwater bylaw is administered wholly by the Conservation Commission. So, any conditions in there where it's not specified um would be related to the Conservation Commission's purview. But I guess who would have the technical expertise to figure out you know, whether the numbers are adequate, whether the budget's adequate. I would imagine >> Who's helping you out in that regard? >> I When I was on the planning board,

177uh the applicants were would uh would pay additional funds for the peer review to uh validate the numbers. I believe is how it worked out. Mike could confirm. Right. And it's really pretty quick. It's just you know, you're you're you're getting ready to go and I and it would be a restoration bond is what I would recommend. And it's just take the area assuming that you cut all the trees down and you walked away, then just what what what would the town have to do to just put it to establish growth out there and protect it. And that that would be your restoration bond. And then that that's you could do it in phases. You could just do like you said Ballard, but if you're going to clear cut the whole thing, you're going to

178have to do a restoration bond for the whole thing. And then once you have once you start then that allows you to keep going. The town's got security. And then what happens in the planning board is once you go put all the drainage in and you don't come back to them until you need a lot release and they could say, "Okay, you know what? It's site stabilized. We can release the lot and he doesn't need the bond anymore or we adjust the bond down or whatever needs to be." >> Mhm. And perhaps I can propose a different way of thinking about the phasing uh that kind of carries our previous conversation, which is we're going to identify the areas where the storm water appurtenances. This would go to the restoration bond aspect of this. Uh

179we're going to identify the areas that where the storm water appurtenance appurtenances are going. And that's where we're going to start our stumping and grubbing activities. And perhaps that would be phase one of the echo Did I hit something? It's already fixed. All right. Um yes, I was talking to myself. You entered the outer limits. So, maybe that would be phase one of the restoration bond uh is that something and grubbing within the site? And phase two of that would be the areas that are stumped and grubbed outside of the site. Um and then you'd go into the uh next phase of the restoration bond of the completion bond uh surety. I don't know if that overly complicates things, Mike. John, does that make sense? >> complicated to me. So, you're talking about having a

180restoration bond in it two phases for restoration bond or two components. And then you'd then you'd have the highland performance bond and the balance performance bond. You're talking about Right. It's almost like four components. Right. Or three components with two parts in in the restoration bond. >> If I heard Mike Carter properly, I think that's kind of what you con- contemplated. Is that two components of the restoration bond? the um restoration and the completion, right? Or were you talking simply restoration? Yep. No, I was I was talking I was talking both. Okay. For example, we [snorts] have one on Memorial Drive right now with the planning board where they restoration bond if they did the whole site was huge, so So, did it in phases like you're asking to do. And it worked out so

181far. But, it's it's it's it's been That's not the first time we've seen it in the town. I've seen it many times over the years. For you, these You get a big site. This is small, but it's it's still dollars. That's fine. That makes sense. John, do you have anything to ask through the chair? What Mike said sounds What through the chair, um what Mike said sounds reasonable. Mhm. So, we can we can have a restoration bond for for both sides. And if the other side gets before it gets opened up, then obviously a bond would have to be in place. So, um if it can be in two phases, a Highland, which they anticipate starting first, would go with the high a Highland um restoration bond. And then as that gets completed, um then

182they would go into a Ballard restoration bond. So, it all makes sense to me. I I think we want something along the lines of the applicant shall post a sufficient restoration uh or completion bond, as appropriate, before doing any uh construction. Uh and uh something about, you know, that they can you know, phase it as needed. And that uh >> Keep it flexible. >> The the the bond will be reduced as uh work is completed. Um and that the board shall use a satisfactorily completed It satisfactorily completed uh as and uh something about uh the board has the right to do peer review for this. Because you know, we don't have the technical expertise on this, obviously. And I I would want to make it clear that we would want all of this released uh

183prior We would not want a lot release mechanism like you would on a planning board situation because it's all going to be done and completed by the time we're selling lots. I mean, all of those storm water appurtenances that are subject to the storm water permit are going to be done. The roads are going to be in. So, I think that prolongs it too far down the down the road. I think we would get our completion our satisfaction our letter of completion notice of completion by that point and we would want the whole thing probably released at that point. And is there a concept I know this came up I was thinking about this. Is there a concept like an order of conditions where you can get a partial notice of completion? So, let's say

184we completed Highland Road first. Would we be able to come to you and ask for a partial? Well, for the the bond amount the the surety Mhm. Um, I I'm not great at wordsmithing this but it should say essentially that at any time uh, you want to have the amount adjusted that uh, assuming that the peer review uh, agrees that >> Sure. that the the adjusted total is sufficient for the remaining work or restoration Mhm. uh, that the amount will be adjusted. Great. You know, I don't I'm I hope uh, our agent is able to wordsmith this. Huh. She's the one typing. I'm I'm trying I'm not keeping up as well as I usually do. Right. I I know I I think we're all on the same page as to the intent here. I think

185so, too. And I think kind of kicking the can down the road to give everybody enough time to come up with adequate numbers as an appropriate solution. And I don't think the actual number belongs in the in this decision. Sure. I agree with you. We just wanted to start thinking about it >> [clears throat] >> as I said, we knew this would be a late night and we wanted to just get ahead of it. Out of respect for the commission. My hour plus ride home. Well, at least we all live in this town. Yeah, exactly. What's that? Yeah, there you go. Yeah, I wanted to see you in person tonight. The commission I may have completely misinterpreted this, but I have done my best. So, I have added a condition for restoration surety, >> [snorts]

186>> which I still have to copy over more language to but the basis would be the applicant shall post the surety bond, irrevocable letter of credit, cash, or other acceptable security. Same language as the other one. The change is the surety shall be of a sufficient value to restore the site. The surety may be released in phases to be an agreed upon value designated for each phase prior to finalization of the surety. These phases may include but not be limited to phase one Island Road, phase two Ballard Road. Yeah, and I think you want to take that and copy it below. Um and just turn that into completion, not restoration. Is that Is that right? I mean, I'm perfectly happy with that language. I I would just have one that says restoration and completion. completion.

187Yeah. So, combine the two. Yeah. I would put that I'd do it up above where it's the wording's already more correct, but whatever. Sorry. There was additional language that I was going to copy over, so I'm going to do this and then wordsmith this bottom section. Ignore the 36. Um the remaining part that has not been touched was if there are any of the storm water features as approved in this plan um that are not constructed to completion, the commission shall utilize the surety bond to pay for the completion of such features. The bond may not be fully released until the commission has received the final inspection report for the site and has issued a notice of completion and shall consist of the value of the bond that was not utilized for any completion of

188storm water features as described except that it may be released partially in phases as described above. The applicant may request the partial release of the bond for completed work for which the released amount of the bond shall not exceed the amount designated for said work which was completed. The commission shall keep a record of all funds expended for the completion of storm water features. No work shall commence on the property until the surety bond is posted. Um I would only add to the next to the next to last sentence uh the uh hold on. The commissioner the commission shall keep a record of all funds expended. I would add if expended because we intend to complete this project. I mean we don't anticipate you guys are going to even need this bond. >> [laughter] >>

189We don't need >> All right. In In the future it might be good to get language from the planning board that they use for this kind of thing, but they probably have it in their bylaws. I don't remember. I'm sure of it. It's in their subdivision controls and regulations. >> Yeah. You have a hybrid of that as I indicated, but it's not quite the complete Gives you more flexibility I guess to craft projects with specific language which isn't a bad thing. Just keeps us up late. Well, hopefully we're almost done. Uh to the commission I also just added since we've combined the language of the two after acceptable security to secure the SAS factory restoration of the site have also added and the completion of the storm water features on the site. I'm okay with

190that. Usually this is a planning board issue because it would it would be a subdivision and not an A&R. Right. And so it would be taken care of by the time it got to us. So that's because this is a unique situation. But you have the ability to do it in your your own bylaw for a reason. Well, we do and now we know what that reason is. >> [laughter] >> And perhaps it was prescient. But here it is. There are other projects that I could name that are the reason, but Becca, I would say storm water management features, not just storm water features. Just to be clear. This same thing in the first line of the next paragraph. >> All right. Dan and Mike okay with these changes? I'm okay. This is good. Yes,

191I'm I'm fine with it. Yeah, thanks for hanging in there, Dan. Yeah, no. I know it's been a long night. Thank you. >> Okay, we want to move this forward or what? >> Yeah. Um public hearing. Any more for the public? Public comments online, in house? I see no comments raised on hand, online, and nobody at the podium. All right. So, is your group satisfied with these conditions? We're happy. Okay, great. >> we really um I want to reiterate we're very appreciative that the commission invited us in so quickly. We have a closing coming up in a couple of weeks, and thank you for accommodating that. Okay. All right, very good. So, we're all in agreement. Yeah, well, thanks for working with us, too. This has had its bumps in the road that we've worked

192through, so there was no reason not to. All right, do I hear a motion to approve the storm water conditions as discussed and modified and amended for storm water management permit SMP 2026-1? Somerville, Second, Preston. Roll call vote. Ackerman, aye. Crow, aye. Crouch, aye. Ackerman, aye. Moulton, aye. Toledo, aye. Lyons, aye. Motion passes. All right, congratulations. Yeah. Thank you very much. Yeah. So, we'll get the signature page signed this week and and mailed out to you all. Yeah, and thanks for showing up in person. This was a lot easier in person than it would have been if you were up there. Yeah, it makes a difference. It does. No, we you know, immediately after um the hearing last week, we just decided exactly that. You're welcome. And it really is a beautiful town. I love

193this town. Yeah, thank you. Thanks. Okay. All right. Appreciate it. Thank you. We'll move on to To the commission. We do have the signature page ready for you tonight to sign. So, we should have it ready for you very quickly this week. You guys mind doing the minutes at the next meeting? Nope. All right. Is that okay legally? Uh what was the date on the last one? May 4th at time. It's cutting it close. Yeah, you can you can do it at the next meeting, but you will have to do it at the next meeting. Okay. All right, we promise. Uh I think you do have a ratification of the emergency cert >> Yeah. Okay. Uh so, that's it for scheduled hearings. Good night. And next on the agenda under general business is emergency certification

194ratification, Shore Road and Greenwood Road, Ashland Department of Public Works emergency exploratory dig and installation of a sleeve at the culvert. And we have representation online. >> to the commission, uh it looks like Dan's already hopped off, so I'll present. Okay. But essentially >> [laughter] >> Um essentially, uh this is the culvert that we've been talking about for a while. You guys have done emergency certifications to clear beaver dams there before. Um the culvert itself is a double-barrel culvert. Um one of the barrels is completely collapsed. The other was mostly collapsed. Uh we have been as a town trying to find the money to repair it for a long time. It is the only way in and out for this entire community. Um and there's regulatory floodway that goes through it. Um we have not

195been successful in getting that money. And as a result, the conditions have deteriorated further. Um it got to the point where for the past for the past month, the DPW has been running a pump to pump the water physically over top of the road into the other side because it was not possible for the water to pass through the culvert um with uh enough volume to actually uh relieve the pressure against the road. Um and so they requested to um get in there, do an exploratory dig, see if it was possible to do a temporary fix of sleeving at least one of the barrels, um and make it so it was safe for those residents to be going over that road and emergency vehicles to be going over that road and the risk of flooding

196to be dealt with. Um that I administratively issued. Um the work was done I I think the next day or the the day after. Um they were able to get a sleeve into one of the barrels. The other one was too collapsed to even manage that. Um we are still working on getting funding for a full replacement, which at that time and come to you all as a notice of intent. In the interim, this is relieving enough of the water pressure that it's not an immediate threat um unless we have a a serious flood event. What were the culvert sizes that were in there originally? That had failed. You know? Yeah, do you remember? It's 236-in culvert. >> 236-in culvert? Yep. So, the problem that you said you might put a bridge in. Yeah, so

197>> The problem is that needs to uh no rise certificate. Yes. Cuz this is a floodway. The main issue There's There's a lot of issues with this culvert, which is why it's been so hard to get done um cuz it's going to be an expensive culvert. Um the regulatory floodway for that area is wider than the width of the culverts. Um so, right now if there is a flood, the culverts are not capable of actually accommodating the existing floodway. Um it's also not meeting stream crossing standards um and we know from historical um writings that fish did used to pass through that from Wachusett Pond to go upstream, which right now um they are unable to do so. Uh so, to meet the stream crossing standards and to provide for the regulatory floodway, um a

198bridge would have to go in or at least a three-sided box culvert um that is wide enough for it. That culvert also passes under a private driveway um which may necessity necessitate two bridges or box culverts instead of one. Um it's a complicated matter probably best suited for a more in-depth online discussion given the late hour um but it's a work in progress and the grants requested to do the full replacement covers getting a no rise certificate. Oh, okay. How long is the culvert? Uh under the actual road itself, about 40 ft. Then there's another 20 ft of grass, and then the length of the driveway uh for a total of about 73 ft estimated online. I think we have an exact number from the field, but I don't have that right now. >> All

199right. But still, it's well it's an improvement, and if I mean, putting a bridge in obviously is probably the right thing to do. Problem is, if you let more water down, what's your next choke point downstream? You're going to be flooding out, cuz now they're getting the water that would have been held up here. I believe this summer or next summer, uh the outlet for Washington Pond is being replaced. They will be Is that the outlet? Is that the next point down? Yes. It is being replaced and upsized. Um I believe they're actually closing part of 126 to do it. So, everyone stay tuned to our social media and manager's newsletter on when 126 will be closed again. They will be rerouting traffic. Um but that should be I believe this summer or next summer

200that they're doing that. Um that would be the next check point down. From there, it enters uh Beaver Dam Brook, uh where it travels quite a distance. All we need is a ratification here, right? Yes. Yeah. All right. That's why. Any more discussion? Okay. Do I hear a motion to ratify ratify the emergency certification Shore Road and Greenwood Road Greenwood Road National Department of Public Works emergency emergency exploratory dig and installation of a sleeve at the culvert. So moved. Second. Roll call vote. Ackerman, aye. Crow, aye. Crouch, aye. Atkinson, aye. Molton, aye. Toledo, aye. Once, aye. Motion passes and emergency certification is ratified. Who wants to sign this? I got to sign it here. Then you can sign it. Yes, you can sign it. Why don't you pass one around that we can all sign?

201Do we Here, here's one. Yeah. Should we adjourn first? >> going to table the the May 4th meeting minutes until June 1st. Yep. And then uh any member prerogatives? Hearing none. Do I hear a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second. Roll call vote. Ackerman, aye. Crow, aye. Crouch, aye. Atkinson, aye. Molton, aye. Toledo, aye. Once, aye. Meeting is adjourned.