Conservation Commission (March 30th, 2026)

001which I am calling to order at 7:00 p.m. There is a quorum of the commission and this meeting is being recorded by Wacka TV and also being held live at the Ashlin Select Board meeting room as well as being held by Zoom. If there's any interruption of the Wacka TV signal, the uh meeting will continue. Before we get to our first agenda item, I will read a brief statement regarding the Zoom protocol. And also I would like to mention that this is a hybrid meeting, an offcycle meeting where we handle 40B applications. My name is Greg Wanss. I am the chair. And 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

002budget bill signed in March of 2023. Please follow these procedures for attending and participating. The meetings of the conservation commission will be held 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 will entertain questions and comments from the commission. When the commission's discussion has concluded, the chair will open up discussion from 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, commission members will keep their video on and microphone muted unless speaking. Applicants and representatives,

003please keep video off and microphone muted until your agenda item is discussed. Please keep your microphone muted until recognized. If you are calling in by phone number, you can use the star six feature to mute and unmute. If you need to share 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 star9 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, Ashlin Wetlands

004Protection bylaw, or Ashlin Storm Water Management bylaw. Questions and comments not related to the commission's jurisdiction will not be accepted. During the meeting, the host, Becca Solomon, the Ashlin 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. And for those in the audience, if you wish to come to the microphone at the select boardroom, there will be a sign-in sheet at the podium. So our our first scheduled hearing is notice of intent 10 to 60 Main Street map 14 parcel 128 SLV Ashland LLC care of Lucas Environmental LLC DP file number 95-1018 and at this point I will turn the microphone over to the vice chair Carl Carl Hackinson. >>

005Thank you, Greg. We'd like to uh begin these 40B hearings with a summary of uh where we are and where we've been in the process uh for people for the um sake of people watching. And uh we've tried to um also interpret some of the uh uh the difficult language uh that sometimes happens in these hearings uh so that people can understand where we are and where we're going. So as Greg said, uh this is 1060 Main Street. It's a 40B hearing. Um this is our third hearing, I believe, uh with 10 to 60 Main Street. Uh at the first hearing, we discussed uh the protocol that we'll follow. We asked uh the applicant to agree to stipulated facts. Um those are facts that that we agree on that we're not going to rehash back

006and forth over and over during the hearing process. Um we had five stipulated facts to which the applicant agreed to four. And um the first uh the first fact was that a majority of the site is within flood plane. The second site uh the second fact was that the conservation commission has jurisdiction over activities that alter flood planes. Uh the third was that the site is contaminated. The fourth was that the site is within 100 and 200 foot riverfront area. The fifth fact was that uh historically the buildings on the site uh flooded. Uh we did not come to an agreement on that fact. Uh we um uh the conservation commission uh feels that they that they have historically. Uh the applicant has not agreed to that. Then we move to the topics of discussion

007uh for the hearing and they are in this order. uh one contamination, two storm water, three flood plane and four wetlands and riverfront area. We asked for the following documents. Ram report which is a uh a report that discusses how remediation uh would take place on the site. Uh peer review for wetlands, [snorts] a peer review for storm water. We also asked for a peer review for the RAM report and all correspondence between the applicant, the LSP, the DP, the EPA regarding the RAM report. Subsequent to that hearing, uh the RAM report was uh determined to be invalid and so that is something that the applicant is going to be working on going forward. We asked at the second meeting that in lie of there not being a an effective RAM report uh that we

008have a soil management plan. I believe that the applicant's going to speak to that this evening. Uh we then conducted uh a sitewalk um a week ago Saturday and uh then scheduled this hearing. Uh we've also uh forwarded a number of questions, several pages of questions that are uh the conservation commission's uh peer review, if you will, um to the applicant. Uh we have not received a response to those questions uh to this date. So I think have I left anything out? I think that's where we are at this point. So, uh I believe this evening's uh uh discussion is going to be relatively brief. Um uh some procedural issues will be discussed and and if I'm not mistaken, unless things have changed, uh the substantive discussion of 10 to 60 will be continued to

009May 4th, but we will get to that uh shortly. Okay. Thank you, Carl. So, with that opening, would the applicant like to address these comments? >> Uh, yes. Good evening. My name is Chris Lucas with Lucas Environmental Professional Wetland Scientist and Registered Professional Soil Scientist. Um, but we're here tonight uh for for two main things. A brief update. We are in the process of preparing a detailed soil management plan. The applicant has consulted with the contractor. He's working with the LSP to prepare uh a detailed soil management plan as well as a deatering plan. Um that will we're looking to specifically address the conservation commission comments related to the contaminants on the site. Um this this will supplement the copy of the RAM report that you have on file. As we noted, we'll we will

010have to resubmit that RAM report at a later date within one year of construction, but this will the package we're putting together now um is comprehensive. So, obviously, we we're looking to have that discussion at the May 4th hearing. Um the team will be there in person with the LSP, the contractor, myself, and Bowler. Um we're working on a package now. We're hoping to submit probably within the next two weeks. So, we're hoping to have it to you, I think, by the end of next week is reasonable. And that will give the commission uh two plus weeks, if not more, to review everything. We wanted to make sure the commission had time to review it. That way, we're not just walking into a hearing and throwing it at you. We think this will be better

011use of everyone's time and give you time to go through the details and come prepared with questions or provide them in advance so we can try to address them at the hearing. And um as as Mr. Atinson said, we'll plan to focus on the topics for for the soil management, contaminants, and dewatering. um that will address comments. I believe it's 1G um 9E and 10 D and E I believe are the specific comments will address um with that and that'll that'll address the containment issue. And then the other item tonight was uh just we're seeking the commission's approval to move forward with the Bees and Thomas peer review um so they can begin the wetland review while we move forward with the contaminant and soil management plan. >> Mr. Lucas, could you speak up a

012little bit? But I don't know if I'm hard hearing or if you're just hard to hear, but uh >> sure. Would do you need me to repeat anything? >> No, I heard it. It's just for everyone else. >> It's good that you're clear. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Any other comments from the commission? Any comments from the commission online? Okay. So, what we're what you're asking for is a continuence then. So, our next [clears throat] >> we we are open to a continuence, but we would we're seeking the commission's vote and approval to move forward with the Bills and Thomas peerreview tonight. >> Okay. So, that's okay. All right. So, >> do you um >> Go ahead, Ch. >> Uh Chris, have you seen the uh estimate we got from Beals and Thomas. >>

013Yes. Uh we've reviewed it with the applicant and we we think it's reasonable to move forward. We we we find it acceptable and uh we we'd like to engage and get this moving. So we're we're amendable to it. >> Okay. All right. Good. >> Okay. So we're just looking for a a motion to approve Beals and Thomas is the peer review. Well, is everybody seen it and comfortable with it? >> Read it. >> Okay. >> Everyone on commissioners online were >> they're okay with the proposal from Beals and Thomas. >> And for the benefit of the public, we have two peer reviews here. This is for the wetlands peer review. Previous uh previously approved peer review was for storm water. Um, so they're two separate peer reviews. >> Yeah. And you looking for a motion?

014>> Can do I hear a motion to accept the proposal for be bills and Thomas as the wetland peer review for 10 to 60 Main Street? >> So move. >> Second. >> Roll call vote. >> Aim. I >> roll. I >> Crouch I >> Hackinson I >> Molton I >> I >> W's I. So the motion passes and the Beals and Thomas peer reviewer for the wetland portion of your NOI is approved. >> Excellent. Thank you. And um just just as another question for the commission, I know we had discussed at the last hearing about potentially setting up a short call with Bowler and GCG before they initiate their review. Um we were wondering if that's still amendable with the commission and potentially do the same with Bills and Thomas, maybe a joint call or

015we can have a separate call with them just to kick this off to explain the project and then let them do their review. >> When you say a joint call, what do you mean? I don't know if it would be worthwhile to have a call with Beals and Thomas, Bowler, Lucas Environmental, and GCG to we can present the facts to them and and then they can start their review. You think it would be useful or if not at least Boulder would like to meet with GCG in person or virtually to start their review before they start it. >> What um I have a question. What's what's the purpose of this? This is no one has ever requested that in my tenure on the conservation commission that the peer reviewer meet with the applicant prior to

016beginning their work. >> Uh just to provide a little history how we got here, what we've done with the design, point out some, you know, um the major issues, the concerns, how we designed the project. Uh we've done this in other towns. It's it's not uncommon. Um if if you're not a minimalist, they say so. We would like to do it. We think it would help with the peer review moving it along. I don't see any harm in it. >> I would suggest that um that someone from the conservation commission or our agent also be on that call. Just so we're all aware of what transpired during that conversation. the peer reviewers work for the conservation commission and I don't think it's unreasonable to have us in the room while they're speaking with the applicant.

017>> I I agree and that that's most of the times when we do this usually the agents uh will attend um commission's obviously open to it um but then you get into public meeting issues so usually it's the agent. We have no objection to that. My general feel on this what it is that it might be uh better if you could submit a letter to them because that way it's also in writing for uh that we could get a copy of as well. Um that way it's it's very you know there's no question of what was said or what wasn't said and everybody's on the same page. Um, but that's just one opinion. >> A letter to our peer reviewers or to the conservation commission requesting what Chris is. >> No, a a instead of

018a a inerson meeting, a a do it in writing. >> Oh, >> and that that way we could also have a copy of what you know it essentially be an additional document submitted as opposed to a meeting. Well, if our agent were present at that meeting, she could take uh minutes of that and and uh enter that into the record >> if she's comfortable with that. >> I can do that. >> Yeah, I think that would be appropriate. If Miss Alman's available, we can set up maybe a virtual call would be best just, you know, an hour or so just to present the project, give them a little history of what we've done, where we are, and let them ask some preliminary questions, and then we can we'll let them do their review, and we'll

019respond to their comment letter when it's available. >> W with all the people you we're talking about here for this pre-discussion, it sounds like a Zoom meeting might be the most efficient and effective way to do it. I I think so. I I think that would work. Um Mr. Lucas, this is uh something that we talked about at the first hearing. We didn't come to any uh conclusion, but we did discuss uh peerreviewing the RAM report. subsequent to that that there's no effective RAM report right now, but I think it would probably be in the um in the conservation commission's best interest to also request a peer review of the soil management plan. >> Um well, I believe this the review of that would fall under the civil review for your storm water. They're reviewing

020the overall site design and the soil management plan will be part of the construction of how soil is going to be managed and moved throughout the site. That's typically reviewed at least in all the jobs I've been involved in that's reviewed by the civil engineer as part of the overall project and their job is to make sure that the soil is being moved appropriately in um you know per the D requirements. Well, we what we discussed last time is is in and it's important that we get this right, I think, is that besides knowing how the soil is going to be moved, we need to know what's in the soil and where it is in the soil. So hopefully that will be part of that soil management plan. And I'm not sure if anyone on

021on this commission is is qualified to speak to the technicalities involved in that. Anyone else? 70. >> Yeah. I um it it's it's not just moving the soil around. It's making sure that how it's handled is appropriate for the contamination that might be found within it. Uh and I don't know that, you know, a civil engineer is necessarily the the appropriate u person to evaluate that. It would really be more like another LSP. >> That's what I would think as well. I I I would suggest why don't we get the material to the board, let you review the material once you have it, see see where you stand after that and we can have further discussion on this point at the next hearing. Well, we'll have our team there. You'll have an opportunity to review

022what we submit and that I think would be better guide the commission on the next step from there. >> Um, okay. if you want to do that. But I but I we we still I think feel pretty strongly about having a peer review of it and if we don't move forward with establishing that it's just going to delay the review. >> I understand at this time the applicant uh is is not willing to discuss that tonight um for this hearing. So okay I think we can well I'll make sure your your points noted to the applicant again and uh we can further discuss it at the next hearing. >> Okay. We understand if there's a delay, we understand. >> All right. >> Any other points before I open it up to the public? Go ahead,

023Preston. >> Uh, if it would be appropriate, I just like to comment on a few things that were observed during the site visit. >> Sure. >> Yeah. Okay. So, um, uh, most of the board was there and, uh, we noted as shown on the plans and has been mentioned, there are three different pipes that go under or through the wall that connect to the Sudbury River for um that allow water to flow out and potentially in. Uh, and there's a burm along the south side of the property, uh, at the edge of the parking lot. And on the other side, there's a little stream that I believe was originally the uh, a raceway where water flowed under or through the mill, used to power the mill. I don't know the exact details. Um it's believed

024that that is closed off and no longer flowing uh from Mil Pond. Uh however, where uh where we observed where it's first visible on the surface, uh Becca disturbed a little bit of the rust that had was there in the sediment and we could see it flowing. So there is water some water still flowing through there and uh there's a question of where is that water coming from. So u that's probably the most interesting thing we observed. Uh everything else was pretty much as uh shown on the plans. If anybody else was there and would like to comment that'd be fine. Um Chris, you don't have to speak to this this evening, but um just so that you don't feel ambushed at the next meeting. Um we and and for everyone else's information, we asked

025for a second uh sitewalk because we weren't able to enter the buildings. And we we made this known to the applicant and the applicant um said there was no need for a second sitewalk uh because the buildings were not jurisdictional. Uh we received an email today from DCR that corroborated our position that the buildings are jurisdictional. Uh they're jurisdictional for flood plane and they're jurisdictional for contamination. And so I would um I would suggest one more time that we do have a second sitewalk and that we are allowed to go in the building. You the the response that that there are people working in there. We're not going to be going in dentist's office and and and like will probably be in the bowels of the building, but uh it's someplace that we need to

026get in order to uh continue this deliberation. So you can uh speak to the applicant about that and get back to us at a later time if you win. >> Yeah, I can do that. Uh two two points on that. One, if you could share the information you received from the DCR with >> We will. Yep. >> You can share that tomorrow. That' be great. >> It just came in this afternoon. >> Um I did speak to the team. There actually is no basement. This building was built on slab at grade. So there there's no basement to view. Um, we can I'll let the applicant know you still want to pursue a second sitewalk, but it would be at grade level first floor and you would be interfering with businesses. So, if we're going to

027do that, we would have to make arrangement with the businesses and we can't guarantee they're going to let you in. I don't know what their lease arrangements are, but I will let the applicant know you're still interested. >> Okay. Well, we're going to have to get in. So, >> just be aware that there's um >> there's there's no basement level. >> Yeah. >> And I I'll talk to the applicant. And I don't know >> relative to the street relative to the farm, >> right? I I'll talk to him and we'll see what arrangements we can make with businesses. Um, you know, I I have a business and I have a lease and I and no part of that contract would I have to let you in my building, my office, if I chose not to

028under my lease agreement. So, I'll talk I'll let them know. I'll talk to the applicant and I'll see what arrangements can be made for, you know, whatever access we can get you. I'll talk to them and see what they can do. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Any anyone else on the commission online? >> All right. Hearing none, I will open it up to the public for comment and I'll start with those who are on site at the uh select boardroom if anyone would like to come to microphone and speak. All right. No. Okay. All right. Next, I will open it up to the online viewers. There's anyone who would like to make a comment at this point? No. Seeing none. So, Mr. Lucas, are we uh are we are we good for tonight?

029Want to move on to continuing this hearing? >> Yes. I think uh we we've got the motion for the Bills and Thomas to review. I've got notes to talk to the applicant about access to the building. Um the commission will send the information we got from the DCR today and uh we'll we'll have a packet to you in the near future on uh your your your staff and the commission's comments on the soil management de. So I think we're good for a motion to continue if the board's ready to >> one final question. Uh Mr. Lucas, you mentioned certain points that you were going to send answers to. I believe they were four. >> Yes. >> Um what about the rest of them? They were like seven pages that we sent to you. >> Yeah.

030As we previously indicated, we fully intend to answer those uh once the peer reviewers have chimed in on those um items because there's comments on flood plane and some other details. We think it more appropriate to allow them to comment and then because we anticipate there'll be additional comments and then we'll provide a more robust because a lot of the other comments are related to flood plane resource area storm water. Um, as those are future topics, we wanted to advance the contamination for you. So, our focus is on that right now. And those others, we fully plan to address them all in a in a a future response. Um, as we said, we think it'll be more appropriate to have Been Thomas and GCG's review and we can provide a comprehensive package on those issues.

031uh the comments that we put in that letter we want answered. I I'm not so sure that waiting for the peer reviewers to get involved. That's not going to change our mind. We still want answers to those questions. So, you can go ahead and start preparing those now. You don't have to wait. We we are evaluating some of them right now, but we'd also like the input um you know on I mean there a couple points we differ on. We'd like to see what the peer reviewers say on some of these things as well. So I I think it we we do intend to address them. Um we just we we don't want to be focusing and doing things and then have the peer reviewer have a different direction and then have to redo it.

032It's a cost and and a burden. And I you know we started looking at some of them. So it's not like we're sitting here waiting. We started looking at it. We're just not prepared to um fully respond and we think it appropriate to wait for the peer review. >> My concern is that uh for the record that the record needs to be clear and the record needs to show a clear separation between your answers to our questions and your answers to peerreview responses. And so if they're comingled, that's going to be difficult. >> So the the the responses won't be comingled. What we plan to do is prepare a revised plan and stormwater report for in response to your comments, both peer reviewer comments. But what we will do is have a letter and that

033letter will have the numbered letters. So we'll have a section that specifically responds to one through the 10 pages of the agents comments. We'll have a separate section that responds to GCG with the comment and our response. And then we'll do the same for Bills and Thomas. So we'll have each of them will be responded to separately. So you'll have a clear and concise answer, but we want to have one plan set, one package um submitted. So it'll be that that plan set will refer to those those comments. >> Okay? And in your notes, uh you may have said this, but I didn't hear it. If you did, you should uh uh note that we're asking for a review of the uh so management plan as well. >> Yes, I do have that. I'll I'll

034highlight that. >> Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? No, I think we're ready to uh schedule a date for continuence. So, I believe it's April 20th is our next >> May 4th, >> Star Wars Day. >> Pardon me. >> April 20th is Marathon Day. >> Oh, that's right. Okay. >> May the fourth be with you. The fourth with you. Okay. >> Or with us. I don't know. [clears throat] >> This is not >> Okay. I'll make a motion to continue this hearing to um Monday, May 4th at 7:05. >> Second. >> Roll call vote. >> Eman. >> Crow. I >> Crab. >> Hackinson. I >> Molton. I >> I >> Jan's I motion passes. >> Great. >> All right, Mr. Lucas. >> Yeah, we'll see you on the fourth. Yeah, >> Thank you. I appreciate your

035time. Thank you. >> Next on the agenda is notice of intent 61 Waverly Street, map 15, parcel 12. the Gutierrez company PEP file number 95-1016 we have yeah and I'll as previously done I'm going to turn the microphone over to Carl Hackinson the vice chair thank you Greg okay this is the um 40B application for 61 Waverly street um this be this hearing began at the beginning of January, I believe. Uh subsequent to that, we had uh we set the parameters for these hearings. We conducted a sitewalk. We agreed for peer review for wetlands and storm water. Uh we um sequenced the topics of discussion uh as uh bedrock, wetlands uh and storm water and infrastructure integrity. Um we've gone through all of these uh I think in great detail. Um the applicant has asked,

036I believe, to close the hearing this evening. Um at the last hearing, we um we discussed conditions, and I'll just talk about that for a minute. At the end of all of our hearings, if we approve the project, we issue what's called an order of conditions. and it's a number of pages of all the conditions that apply to what the applicant needs to do in order to be in conformance with their project. Um at the last um last hearing, we decided that we would not do that at that hearing that we would do it at this hearing. Um and so we sent our proposal to the applicant. the applicant sent uh uh their proposal back to us and that's what we will discuss uh this evening uh before we close the hearing. That sound right,

037Mr. Lopez? And just before you start, Mr. Lopez, for everyone else, usually uh discussion of our conditions takes about five minutes. Uh so just so that you realize that we're not picking on you this evening, uh this is a 40B. It's a different animal than most of the stuff that we have. Um, so there's going to be a lengthier discussion. You've commented uh in great detail. Uh, we'll be responding to those comments. Okay. >> All right, Mr. Lopez. Yes, the floor is yours. >> Okay. Thank you and good evening, members of the commission. For the record, uh my name is Lopez with the Guitaris Company on behalf of the applicant. Um just uh one housekeeping item. I received a note from Will Park who's joining us by Zoom that the room there was no visual

038uh on the Zoom of the room itself. I'm not sure if that's intentional or not, but but I would just mention that. When you say the room itself, the entire room or just >> I think of anything. >> We're not on camera is what he's saying. >> We're not on camera. >> Oh, >> correct. We can hear you perfectly fine. >> Well, we're on Wacka, >> but that's not on Zoom. >> Connor, are we able to turn the video feed on on the Wacka Zoom feed? >> Thank you. That to our attention. >> Not being on camera is fine with me. kind of defeats the purpose though I guess. [clears throat] >> Okay. Uh great. Uh so thank you for uh sending the draft conditions uh to for the project. We did uh have them

039reviewed internally through our by our internal council and then also the design team. We made some comments um that we have provided and these I will just uh say to the vice chair's point about the extent of the extent and extensiveness of the comments. We've we've designed and built projects going back to the 70s where we've built a million square feet with an order of conditions that was four pages long with you know four or five conditions. Now these are you know 80 conditions or so. So a lot of the I would characterize a lot of the comments uh here just really to try and um create an unambiguous process where uh you know changes and things can be dealt with on the field or within the field with scratch that changes in the field

040can be uh addressed as necessary uh with very clear very clear process uh within this order of conditions. So, I I I'd say uh everything I don't I don't see any major uh disconnects uh with any of the conditions that were proposed and would be happy to just kind of do a page turn if that's the what the commission would like to do. >> Yeah, that's typically what we do. We can start from the top >> through the commission. I do have the applicants comments and some additional comments from uh Mr. Crouch. um on one document. If you would like me to go through that in the usual fashion, I can do that and the applicant or the commission can excuse me call out a stop whenever necessary. >> Yeah. Whatever streamlines the process. >>

041The conditions you gave us, these are the original. >> Uh yes. So >> they don't have um the comments from the applicant. The version in front of you on paper is the non-redlined version. The version I have screen shared has everybody's comments condensed together. >> Okay. >> Uh so you're also just as a reference point for anyone watching and for the commission's benefit, anything in black is original language to your standard conditions. Anything in purple is the red lining from the applicant. The blue um appears to be what uh Jean has provided. Anything in red is removals or red lining from myself and I'll reflect it accordingly. In highlighted is the additional new com uh conditions or change in language that was originally prepared. Um, under your initial administrative conditions, the first change is from

042the applicant under 21B. Um, it's just specifically calling out the reference to the plan set. It does however add an inclusion for field changes um to be uh any changes to the proposed project including field changes as the addition um shall be submitted to the Ashlin Conservation Commission administered per condition number 49 in this order as opposed to prior to the start of construction. Um the commission as a reminder the wetlands protection act does not actually have any allowance for field changes in their regulations. Any changes have to be provided in writing to the conservation commission for approval to determine if it warrants a new notice of intent or an amended order of conditions. The commission has a minor modification policy that allows for minor field changes in the reduced uh scope of review. However,

043that's part of the local bylaw that was waved by the ZBA for this and would not apply. Um, I believe Jean's comment is to clude in to keep the language at the bottom of that condition uh for the commission to determine if the proposed change warrant submission of a new notice of intent which had been originally proposed for removal by the applicant. >> Could we add um or conditions? >> Yeah, that's what I was thinking too is when we were reading that you've got a comment. >> I do. So um just a point I I think this is a u an important correction. Uh my understanding is that the minor modification policy sits outside of the storm water management bylaw has nothing to so the fact that the bylaw was the local bylaw was waved

044would not preclude the commission from allowing the minor modification policy to apply. Uh and I do think that having that policy in place provides that it doesn't give us anything. It simply just provides a very clear avenue that we have to follow even if there are any changes uh that essentially we get back to the same place. It's just through the uh minor modification policy. So this is just really making it >> in favor of keeping the minor modification policy >> in effect for this order condition. >> Correct. Yes. >> And we pull it back in whether it was waved or not as part of condition 49. >> Correct. >> By citing it. I will scroll down to condition 49 real quick just to make sure that we have the same language in mind. >>

045And there's actually uh if I may just one well I'll let you get through that. I have another I think there's just a duplicative comment in 49. [clears throat] >> Uh condition 49 refers to changes to plan. Any proposed changes to the plans approved under this order of conditions shall require the applicant to file a request for an amended amendment to this order of conditions, the filing of a new notice of intent or to file under the commission's minor modification policy. It then goes into further language of what that entails. >> So basically what you're saying is by referencing 49 in the sentence before that, you don't need the last sentence. >> Correct. because it's basically saying the same thing in that in condition 49. >> Correct. Correct. >> I I I see that. I

046don't have a problem taking it out. Then >> I'm all for limiting duplication if we could. >> Well, also uh as I heard uh town council for the ZBA say multiple times, if you say the same thing twice, courts are going to wonder what which time did you if you say it twice but differently, which one did you mean? So eliminating any ambiguity, I think, is a good thing. Um, and to that I think you can just strike just because it's duplicative beginning with on or otherwise inquire in writing whether a change is substantial enough to require a new filing. That is said in the very prior sentence that very same thing. >> I apologize. I think that language is backing condition 49. I've already scrolled back up. Oh, >> sorry. Yes. >> 49. >>

047Yeah. So it says I'll I'll let you read it, but essentially it's the same comment uh twice in the same sentence which gives the says or otherwise inquire in writing whether a change is substantial enough to require a new filing. That's the end of that sentence. Uh but it's also stated at the beginning of that sentence. >> We like to make sure people understand All right. Well, we we can revisit that when we get to 49. Yeah, I I think that actually is different in that it says that if you think it you have a change and the specific things listed aren't the correct course of action if you inquire in writing as to how it's supposed to be handled that that's allowed. So I think it actually gives one more option as opposed to

048being redundant with the previous ones. >> Okay. Remember that description when we get through [laughter] >> I'm not a lawyer. >> Uh if there's no further changes then on 21B other than uh removing that last line which is now shown in red. We'll move on. >> Yep. The next changes were in um 21D. Um it's mostly language changes. Um changing appropriate federal and state laws to applicable federal and state laws. Um removal of reference to local laws and regulations. Um as this is a 40B and I believe almost all of those were wave. um the addition of as reasonably necessary to review the project and monitor compliance with this order of conditions. Um uh the removal of additional language um so that it reads instead of at any point between the issuance of this order

049and the issuance of a certificate of compliance to read uh or sorry at any point between the filing of an application to the issuance of this order of a certificate of compliance. changed to the issuance of this order and the issuance of a certificate of compliance. >> I didn't have any problem with that. >> Um, this will be a recurring theme throughout just changing of language from project plan or notice of intent plans or order of condition plans to simply read approved plans. Yep. That's okay. >> And those are the ones we cited specifically in B in the the amended. So, it's not ambiguous. >> It's also cited on the actual order of conditions form um with a date and reference to who signed and stamped it. So, it's very clear. >> And those will

050match. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Mr. Lopez, if in this process you have a problem, speak up. >> I will. Thank you. Uh, under 21H, this is the same thing as before, just changing it from notice of intent plans to approved plans. Um, and this order of conditions. >> Yep, that's fine. >> Uh, under 22D and E, the commission typically requires statements to be recorded on the deed of a property with all notice of intents. um with D referring to fertilizer use uh to be low in nitrogen and phosphorus and use sparingly um within jurisdictional areas under 22E. Um just noting that resource areas are present on the property. Uh the applicant recommended suggested these be removed as it is um cumbersome uh for them to implement. Uh, Jean's comments are to keep them in.

051Uh, that's something the commission should discuss. >> If I may, sure. >> I just give my um rationale for it. So that exact language is included in conditions 83 and 84 which we did not strike. So that language and that requirement will be followed uh exactly as it's presented here. We're just simply asking that it not be also written on the deed because in past experience, it causes a lot of problems for uh lenders and attorneys as they start looking at the deed. This is going to show up as a title defect. Uh someone is going to say, "Well, wait a minute. Why is it why is this specifically called out here?" You know, it's these are institutions that are going to be reviewing these documents. It's a hundred million dollar project. So, uh, everyone

052will be aware that there's a recorded order of conditions. This will be recorded in there. So, we're not trying to get away from the requirement. We just think it's more appropriately um put in the order of conditions. And also, uh, and and the O andM plan will also be recorded. So, uh, that that's our that's our concern with this. >> Do you agree with Mr. um Lopez's interpretation? to the commission. Uh you've had these deed recording statements required on every notice of intent since the early 2000s. There are hundreds, possibly more properties in Ashlin that have this recorded on their deeds or as a permanent agreement to run with the land. And this has never been a problem other than sometimes it needs to be recorded as an agreement to run with the land rather

053than directly on the deed. Um, however, properties that are actively in the process of being sold when they come to you, such as for subdivisions, um, and I believe this property as well, it's typically easy to get it put onto the deed during the sale process. Yeah, I understand both sides of this argument um with um title search problems as well as people not paying attention to the conditions uh when the when the property transfers. No. >> Well, the the the requirement to put a notice on the deed that there's a wetland resource on the property or or buffer zone or whatever was we did that because I can't tell you how many times we had to issue enforcement orders on people who bought a property, maybe not the first owner, maybe the second or

054third owner from when the order was issued >> and they filled the wetland or did something egregious on the property with regard to the wetlands protection act and we get there and they go I didn't know I how would how was I supposed to know because the order has been you know uh the certificate of comp compliance has been issued years ago so there's no there's no uh nothing on the deed anymore that there's an order an order had been issued on that property so the only way and we said well you know It's your responsibility to figure this out, not ours to tell you. But we're going to do this to tell you because now it's on your deed forever. That it goes with the land that this property has wetlands on it or

055a resource area on it and you need and all it says is that you have to come to the conservation commission before you do anything. It doesn't say you're going to be you can't do what you want to do. It just says you have to come to the commission. And for a single family home, I can completely see that scenario happening. As a single family homeowner, you know, you might not even know what that means, right? >> Uh or might not know what wetlands even are or that you have them on your property >> or have read your deed, >> right? Uh for a project of this scale, you know, that's just not ever going to be the case. I I I think uh our preference would be to not put any of this language

056on there. I think we would be okay with something that said that there are wetlands on the property. um the the f the use of fertilizer and you know those kinds of things um just raise antenna unnecessarily and I think just cause uh concern where I don't think the commission is gaining anything um by putting that on the deed uh because that's going to be followed obviously it's part of the order of conditions and something that the applicant will have to comply with. You don't have a problem with saying that there are wetlands. How about the language wetlands and accompanying conditions? >> Sure. Order of conditions, you know, wetland and order of associated associated order conditions. >> As soon as your project's done, you're going to probably come in and get a certificate of compliance.

057And then >> I I I don't know how long you can own the property. I don't know if you're going to be managing the property, >> but the uh the on andm plan is also a recorded document. So that >> which >> and that's tied to the deed. >> Sure. Absolutely. It's it's uh noted when you when you do the title search for the deed, the recorded on and m plan will show up. >> Now as a 40b, this is also got a deed restriction on some of the some of the apartments being rented. I mean, they're rented. They're >> it's they're only at 80% market value, right? >> It's not in the deed per se. It's just within the comprehensive permit. >> So, the 40B the comprehensive permit as the order of conditions will

058be recorded against the deed, but not the [snorts] specific stipulation about, you know, any of the stipulations specifically within the 40B uh within the comp permit. Are you going to manage the property when it's built >> or do you have a management company do that for you? >> It would be a management company >> and they get copies of the deeds and all these conditions and so forth that >> Absolutely. >> So they know what they're doing. >> Absolutely. They have to uh manage the property according to that operation and maintenance plan >> and you know all of the other operational plans that they have to follow. for sure >> through the commission. I would just note in terms of reference these conditions have been put onto larger projects such as the entirety of Captain

059Circle, Alunquin Trail, all of those condo associations, American Boulevard, YMCA, and Cirrus Apartments. Cirrus Apartments um promised the same with their management team and they have gone through numerous management in at least the five years that I've been here and uh every time there's a new manager, they have no idea what the order of conditions is. I've never heard of it and we have to go have a conversation with them because they're not complying with the perpetual conditions in that order or don't even know that there's wetlands or storm water on the property. But that but you wouldn't show them the deed in order to educate them about you know the order you know the the work that needs to be done on the with respect to the >> apparently in the case of Cirrus

060they're not getting the deed so they're not getting it I mean this is not foolproof this I guarantee that putting a notice on the deed is not foolproof but it's the only mechanism that we have to put something out there that the future land owner, if he's smart enough to look at his deed, will figure it out. Otherwise, >> you know, most people don't know what a wetland is. A a real estate attorney reviewing the deed for purchase and sale would call this out to their um you know, to the buyer or not. Well, I mean, when I bought my house, they called out that there was um going to be a betterment fee on it. Consumer plan for front of he called that out. It wasn't at that time that I said down the

061road, but he let me know that that was going to happen. A good real estate attorney would do the same thing. They would see that, okay, you have these issues that you need to be aware of. >> Yeah. And and if it says there a wetland and then it references the um order of conditions without going into the specifics of of fertilizer and that kind of thing. Doesn't that that would also put them on notice that that there's something to look out for here. >> Yeah. And if it if it references [clears throat] the order conditions and the order conditions has those conditions in perpetuity for um [clears throat] for the low fert fertilizer and low nitrogen phosphorus. um then it should be you know brought to their attention by their real estate law lawyer

062to the commission. I've adjusted the language on 22D to read record the following statement on the deed. Wetland resource areas and associated buffer zones exist on the property and work done in these areas are subject to review by the conservation commission and in order of conditions with perpetual conditions issued under Mass D file number. I haven't finished writing the file number yet. Um this language must be on the deed or on a restrictive document acceptable to the town and recorded with the registry of deeds. Proof of recording must be provided to the Ashen Conservation Commission prior to issuance of a certificate of compliance and then 22E is removed. >> We'd be okay with that. >> Okay. >> I I would accept that. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. Thank you. Okay. >> Uh moving on. Uh

06324. Um this is again largely minor changes from the applicant shown in purple. Um it's changing the commission's right to enter inspect the premises to specifically be at reasonable times which is not defined. Um that the requirement of submitting data is uh when deemed reasonably necessary instead of just necessary. Um the change that the Ashlin Conservation Commission reserves the right to require additional measures if determined necessary to protect resource areas is changed to only be in the event of a violation of the order to be corrective measures um and to if determined necessary to restore compliance and protect resource areas. Um, this is pretty basic language that mass DP uses in most cases. Um, without those amendments, the applicant also suggested removing the last line which specifically lists out the type of information the commission

064or its agents may acquire on the property during these inspections. Um, which is shown on the screen um, listing the specific things. This is to a certain degree outlined um I believe in the regulations for the Wetlands Protection Act. Um however, it's been Mass D's recommendation for many years to list it out in your order of conditions in the event of any non-compliance that ends up um becoming contentious to have clear language of what you can and cannot do on the property so that there is full clarity for both parties. Uh, one thing that I think the proposed uh, change in language from the applicant would mean is uh, we could require correction to get back to what the orders the plan and order of conditions say. But if it turns out there's a problem

065on the site where the plan is insufficient for managing drainage during construction, which is always the biggest problem with projects like this, that this takes away our flexibility to say, "Yeah, the plan said during construction you do A, B, and C, and we can see that with the weather we're having and the A things are actually working on the site. That's insufficient. You need to do D also. And this would take our the option D away. Um I think that's also that specific circumstances covered in a in a subsequent condition um that I'm sure we'll get to. We're we're we're fine with um the commission uh requiring corrective measures so that the project stays in compliance with this order. We're just trying to tie this condition to com compliance with the order. And I think

066the way that it reads currently, the commission could sort of make any determination about just about anything and say we, you know, uh, we we'd like you to implement X, um, without having X be tied to compliance with the order. Um, I think so that that's the intent here. We don't care so much about the reasonably um, you know, that those are attorneys that put that in. I'm sure the commission will, you know, go on to the site um at reasonable times even if that word isn't there. In terms of the language, you know, uh and what data the commission can seek, I thought it was covered in the first um part, but you know, we care less about that strikeout, the last strikeout. If you know uh commission wants additional information, we're happy to

067require it. It's really just tying uh trying to tie any changes to compliance with the order >> to the commission. If you remove this language, it is something you as a conservation commission can still require by rights. if there is issues that are um becoming something that you determine has an adverse effect out on the wetlands or the interests of the wetlands protection act related there too. Um you would just issue an enforcement order instead of correcting it without having a document saying that you had to take enforcement action. Um, this condition allows you to do it just by a conversation with no formal enforcement order that is also reviewed by D. Um, if you change the language to Preston's point and something happens beyond the scope, you just have to issue an enforcement order

068instead uh that D would also review and it would be a formal document. >> Um, Mr. Philip, as we've talked at length at these hearings about unanticipated issues, particularly with the sites around your site, >> and I think that that's why we're reluctant to um to not consider what happens if something unanticipated happens and we have to take some kind of >> um some action outside of the scope of of the normal conditions. Does that make sense? >> It does. It does. Um, and as I said, I I don't remember the exact section, but we'll get to it eventually where it says, you know, to uh may require, for example, uh added or different or new uh storm water soil sedimentation and erosion control measures um to enhance what's there. even if you are comp

069you know complying currently you might have you know what you designed might not be enough and so that circumstance is fine um you know to me this this read if you just if you just read it as it was it says the Ashlin Conservation Commission also reserves the right to require additional measures if determined necessary to protect resource areas and the interests of the wetland protection act. um you know that could mean a whole host of things that no one has you know contemplated or or has been approved. So uh again it was just trying to tie this to the order but >> well we usually don't go fishing for these things. [laughter] >> They usually find us. Uh, so >> right that that's that's a an important point that unless somebody tells us there's

070something bad going on, we don't we don't necessarily go looking for trouble. >> Yeah. >> Um, now, you know, for a big site like like your site, I I imagine Beck is going to stop by every once in a while just to sort of, you know, say hi and make sure everything is, you know, all buttoned up and >> in good shape. It's a big site and and uh you know your proximity to wetlands is pretty close. So obviously we're going to be a little bit concerned about that just to make sure that you know things are things are okay. Um but other than that, you know, we we don't actually go looking for problems. We have enough problems that come to us. >> Okay. Um >> so >> we can move on. I'm uh

071I'm okay with >> and and bear in mind this is only for the period of time of the that the order of conditions is valid. Once this certificate of compliance is issued then then this these all go away. So um then it is an enforcement action if somebody tells us there's something going on on that property that shouldn't be. Um but I'm sure that's not going to happen. you know, you've you've designed a project that is um in keeping with our interests and in protecting the wetlands. So, I'm I'm expecting that it is going to be fine and that there's not going to be any issues. >> I'm knocking on wood. >> All right. uh to the commission based on conversation. I've just changed that middle section to say the Ashlin Conservation Commission reserves the

072right to require additional corrective measures if deter determined necessary determined necessary to restore compliance or protect resource areas in the interest of the wetlands protection act. I think that includes some of the applicants language as well as maintaining the intent of the commission there. Um, if there's further changes or you disagree with that, speak now. >> I'm fine with that. >> I I would like to leave at reasonable times off. Uh, if there's, you know, huge storm in the middle of the night and somebody needs to go out and look at it, let's >> That's fine with me. I was thinking of the same thing. I mean, you >> I think that would be reasonable, but somebody else might not. >> That would be reasonable. >> Yeah. >> I'm sure everyone's going to act reasonably.

073>> Yeah. I mean, your your construction guys are gone home and this has happened to us in the past on other sites where it's a weekend or it's after working hours and people have left >> and it's we get a downpour and then the site goes to hell and um nobody's there to do anything about it. So >> through the commission for the benefit of the applicant, uh, conservation staff go and do inspections every time there's a quarter inch of rain in 24 hours. I think more than a certain amount within one hour. Um, even on weekends and early morning and late night as long as it's safe to do so. >> But we're all set. >> We're all set. Yes. Uh moving on, the next change is in 27 the pre-onstruction meeting. Um I

074see the applicant adjusted the numbering here for which condition is being referred to. Um I'm just going to highlight that all these numbers are going to change by the end. So we'll correct that um at the very end. Um some minor spelling and references. Um the final change was the applicant had um suggested excuse me removing the requirement at the pre-onstruction meeting for all individuals present to sign each page of this order. um and the language um requiring the agent and the or the commission to be provided in writing with the name and contact information for who's responsible for supervising the work on the project. Um, Jean had suggested that instead of all individuals signing the order, it could be limited to just the site supervisor if that's um acceptable to the applicant. Um, >>

075that's fine. >> I somebody's got to have read this because otherwise they won't. I've been on enough construction sites to know they take the order and they throw it in a drawer and nobody looks at it. So, we gota This is the only way we could figure out a way to make someone look at it. Well, isn't should there wouldn't be there a deputy or assistant site supervisor or project manager because you don't know what's going to happen that site supervisor they ill or something that there should be at least one or two other people that um are you know have read it completely and understand it completely. So if somebody gets sick or they're on vacation that the other, you know, one or two other people have, you know, knowledge of the order conditions

076know exactly what needs to be done. We're okay with having the site supervisor and >> and his assistant or um uh site super site supervisor on behalf of the applicant and site supervisor on behalf of the site contractor >> maybe want to put their assistance >> that that's a good idea because the contractor is the one who's actually doing it. >> Correct. He's the one that's going to be there on a day-to-day, you know, kind of managing all of the different uh subcontractors doing the site work. >> Yep. >> I think I got that language right. >> I think there's no period though. >> All right. >> I can't even read it. >> Can we leave in [snorts] the um the providing of the name, telephone number, the contact information of the person responsible. So

077if there's ever a >> it's it's in 21 I that same exact requirement. >> Okay. Is it >> it is uh Yep. 21 I reads, "Prior to any work being done on the project site, applicant shall inform the conservation commission rather than the agent or the commission in writing of the name, email, and mailing addresses uh in business and mobile phone numbers of both the project supervisor um for ins uh who's responsible for ensuring on-site compliance with this order and their alternates. >> Okay. >> The applicant shall also notify the commission in writing of any changes in this information. >> That's fine. >> Yeah. You understand why we need that? >> Absolutely. >> Things happen. >> We need to know who to get a hold of get them to fix it. >> So through the

078commission since um it's in the previous condition, the language will be removed from condition 27. Okay. >> Under condition 28, again, uh basic language changes regarding the plans. Um this condition uh typically read under 28A. The conservation commission or the agent may require additional or modified erosion control measures at any time during and after construction. It has been adjusted to read and I apologize I have things in the way preventing me from reading this comment. Um in uh additional or modified erosion controls in the event that installed measures are not functioning as intended or non-compliance with this order of conditions I think needs to say is found. I don't know why it's typing all the way up there. >> So, so some of this was just I didn't understand it. Um the before construction begins

079or after construction is ended. I'm not sure what erosion control measures would be in place after construction is done. uh I guess prior to when they're removed. >> Well, if if you know required that the site be stabilized, you could be finished construction, but you still not have a slope, you know, completely be ve, you know, vegetated or stable. So, it might require um additional um >> Yeah, I matting or something. put down additional seating. Even though, you know, the building's up and everything, it's functioning and um it would still need some um additional work to be done to make sure it is completely stable. >> Understood. So maybe it's after construction prior to um the site being >> Well, certificate of compliance >> is the automatic deadline on this. So it's That's fine. That's

080fine. uh through the commission I if if you are to accept the language from the applicant of in the event the installed measures are not functioning as intended or non-compliance with this order of conditions is found I would also add the language or if installed measures are not adequately addressing concerns because they could be functioning as intended but that may be below it may not be functioning to the extent needed to address a certain rain precipitation event. If we get one beyond what those controls are intended to address, >> goes to the whole unintended >> consequences thing. >> We may spot something where it's working right now, but we're getting an extra three inches of rain tomorrow and it won't work through that. >> Right. And this this is exactly what happened at Mind School.

081Well, they put in a new ball field and it was a huge area of exposed soil and then they went away for the winter and now we had this massive source of erosion. But they put in a whole bunch of lines of erosion controls along it, not just around the ed edge of it, but all the way across it. And it actually stabilized it pretty well. still had some failures and along the way, but it was better than just putting a substance around the corn around the edge of it because it never would have worked. >> Right. >> I've just added um or are insufficient after the reference to if they are not functioning as intended. >> We're okay. I'm okay with that. >> Um under I think we're on 2828B. Um the applicant suggested

082uh removing that uh condition entirely. The condition refers to um should the commission determine additional erosion controls are needed. The developer contractor shall immediately comply with the request from the Ashlin Conservation Commission or its agent. of the comment here is that it is duplicate with condition A. Uh I think the main language here is immediate compliance with the request from the commission whereas condition A does not necessarily specify immediate compliance. >> Can we add that to A? >> Yes. >> And then you could get rid of B. add the word immediate after require before additional >> on a and it says may it doesn't say it gives a little bit of flexibility for us too in terms of that. >> So the uh 22A now reads the conservation commission or the agent may immediately require

083>> we would >> what about required >> immediate? >> Yeah, I would put it the other way. >> Immediate. may require >> immediate >> the immediate installation of additional or modified erosion control measures. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> And then then we can scratch B. >> Uh as this is already going to be changing some numbering and lettering on these conditions for anyone following along. I'm going to refer to the original numbering and lettering which will now show as crossed out because track changes is on on the document. Um the new condition here which would be condition E under 28 um which is one related to conditions required by mass D and I believe suggestions from the peer reviewers as well. All slopes greater than a two to one or greater grade shall be stabilized

084using jute straw matting or an equivalent made of natural material no plastic mesh in parenthesis and excluding hay if it is to be left exposed for more than seven days. The condition goes on to referencing the stabilization um through planting with deep rooted native grasses and herbaceous species which was DP's condition um within 14 days of reaching final grade. Um and reference of what should be done for erosion control if a seed mix is used rather than plugs of native plants. Um there's an additional note that any seed mix must be free of non-native invasive stabilizer plants um which would include crown veetch which is frequently being mixed into native seed mixes as a temporary stabilizer while the plants establish DP was very clear it had to be a native mix and so that would

085need to be requested to be removed I don't believe the applicant had any comments on this condition >> correct >> so you highlighted that it wasn't there Yes. >> It wasn't you guys. Wasn't in our previous draft. >> Oh, okay. >> The >> Oh, this is added. >> Yeah, >> I got it. >> Anything yellow highlighted was added based on hearing discussions. >> Got it. Okay. >> Should we u qualify that with a perennial seed mix rather than annual? I know that there's a there's a difference. Any seed mixes must include a variety of perennial species. Uh under uh 28i, the commission typically at this point would determine the minimum extra number of feet of erosion and sedimentation controls or put in as a percentage of the total needed for the erosion control plan. I

086will leave that to the commission to discuss. >> Yeah, I was think I'd like to say five, but I don't think you've got five feet from the edge of the erosion controls. Um generally um I'm thinking maybe two. What? >> No, this is the amount quantity of >> of erosion. >> So I was thinking of feet. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> I was going to say 8 800. It's a fairly big site. >> 800. >> Yeah, you could get uh four uh 200 foot sections of um >> of filter sock >> unless you think that's too much. >> Is that is that it's a burm that's being left between the wetland and the site? Is that not Is that correct? >> Uh yes. >> Well, around the around the basin around the subsurface or surface

087basin, there's going to be a burm. Uh the other areas will grade down. Well, I'm thinking also along the roadway stuff, you know, you know, like look what happened to the >> This might be a good one for our engineer to chime in on. He's uh >> Yeah. >> online >> safety building right across the road. >> Yeah. Yeah. Um the uh perimeter erosion control um around the site and especially between the disturbed area and the wetland is called out as um compost sock with silt fence. So um you know typically we we've included this as a sheet note uh in the past and it's usually around 100 ft um which we think is reasonable. You know I don't think there's a scenario where the erosion perimeter erosion controls will fail around the entire site

088all at once. 100 ft is I usually enough to uh address a problem area. These materials are pretty readily available. So, um, you know, another 100 or 200 feet could be available the next morning. Um, I think we typically see 100 feet available on site at all times. >> I think different erosion controls have different failure rates. I think, correct me if I'm wrong because I'm not the expert on this, but I think it's the silt fences that I have seen fail most uh frequently. So, if we could have more uh footage of silt fences than uh the others, I would feel more comfortable. I think if you're going to put down an emergency, you know, this is be like emergency situation when you get a higher rainfall than anticipated that um and you're starting

089to see some breaches. Um that a filter sock would be a better because a a sil fence you have to trench in where a filter sock you're just going to put it down, anchor it down. You can anchor it down with concrete blocks or whatever, but um >> this is why I'm not the expert. Um so how how what's the total of erosion controls around the site that >> uh it's multiple hundreds of feet. Um uh >> how much of a total how many what's the total amount of erosion controls in linear be or is going to be around the site? >> Yeah, I understand the question. I don't have that number readily available. I can calculate it if you'd like. Um but again, you know, you referred to when these typically happen, they are

090usually very isolated situations when they occur. Um, so 100 or 200 feet to address that, you know, point source discharge is usually enough. And I agree that, you know, if you're installing silt fence from the be day one, it is supposed to be keyed in and everything. Uh, in an emergency situation, um, silt fences, I think, actually do a pretty good job, especially if they're backed up with the straw bail. um because they do have, you know, a foot or two of head for uh water to build up on versus the um compost sock or straw waddle is 12 or 18 in high and can be um overrun more easily >> through the commission as a reference point. uh on the previous YMCA application which is similar in scale to this project you required 300

091feet of extra controls on that site. >> I think that would be appropriate for this site as well. >> Okay, sounds good. >> Correct. >> Thank you. So that's >> uh moving down to condition 29A. >> The applicant is just clarifying the abbreviation for the Ashlin Conservation Commission and adding in or its agent >> under 29D. Um and for reference 29 is all language related to the erosion control monitor. Uh 29D typically um reads that the monitoring shall be performed while work is underway within the buffer zone or wetland. Um and requires the monitor to report to the commission progress on construction and site grading any changes in construction schedule. um and steps taken i.e. corrective measures to address any problems encountered. Um this is something that's typically required by the commission and and by

092other communities. Notably, most communities would require the monitor to be an unbiased third party that the commission chooses but the applicant pays for. your conditions allow the applicant to choose with approval from the commission. Um the commission has never disapproved of an erosion control monitor. Um but has always required these updates. The uh progress on construction and site creating typically is required as far as it's in relation to um any impacts on erosion control management and storm water management. >> And they're asking for this to be removed >> and they're asking for the line um progress on construction and site grading and any changes in construction schedule to be removed. They are adding or for steps taken and recommendations to read steps taken and or recommendations and they have added language monitoring shall continue until

093work in the buffer zone is completed and said disturbed areas are permanently stabilized. I have found on some of the sites that sometimes this work is the first completed and work continues upgradient and then ends up um causing new erosion uh in that area. So I would recommend to the commission uh if you accept that language to refine it to um say any work within the buffer zone or those that are upgradient uh or up a higher elevation um that could impact erosion on that area. >> What's the rationale Mr. Lopez for this request? >> So the the rationale here is just simply to so uh an erosion control monitor is something that's very typical. We have one on every site uh project that we do. uh they essentially administer the SWIP um recommendations. So

094they're there to monitor >> uh soil conditions and erosion and control through uh site stabilization. Um, one comment uh that I would like to clarify here just to save some discussion is that I um uh this inadvertently uh cut off the monitoring uh at completion of just the uh work within the 100 foot buffer. It should be through uh all until all the sight soils are stabilized. So, um, like I think if you just add the word and, uh, I'm sorry, add the word all after completed and all disturbed areas are permanently stabilized. I think that's what you were probably getting at. Um, so just to step back again, um, we're totally fine with the notion of a a monitor. It's, uh, completely standard. They'll provide bi-weekly updates on all the sedimentation and erosion control.

095What what they're not intended to do is provide a general construction update, construction progress uh report, if you will. Um you know, they're not privy to the construction progress that uh or schedule. Um they're really there to monitor the erosion and control measures, how effective they're being, any issues, addressing any issues, making recommendations to the commission, and so forth. So um so that's just the what we're striking is just the changes in construction schedule progress on construction I guess site grading we could um not sure if that's really part of the scope. Uh but the other components of what the site monitor is there to do we're retaining. Well, I I I it would be useful for the insp the inspector to have a heads up on what grading is coming up in the in

096the week. Uh so that they know either what to expect or um you know where road controls might be need to be looked at a little more carefully than other areas. Um I think that was the purpose of that. I don't obviously they're not directing construction so they don't really have much say in the the construction sequencing. But I [clears throat] think knowing what's going on. I mean, I've seen construction contractors put out a a a list at the beginning of the week that says what they're going to be doing for the next two or three weeks. I'm I'm sure you're going to have a a heads up schedule that goes out a couple of weeks so you know what they're doing on the site. Uh I guess if if we could if the inspector

097could get that list that would be probably adequate. >> We're okay with including grading um within the scope. I think it's just the idea of just the general construction schedule type um aspect to this report. We just don't want to create the expectation that it's kind of a report about construction progress and it's really >> No, I we don't care about your construction progress and I don't think they will either. But >> but to know that well next week you're paving the road that's going to stabilize the road now. So that's that's a good thing. then we don't have to worry about that eroding anymore. >> I would say uh changes in sight grading uh stabilization or storm water management systems. >> That's fine >> because that's clearly within their >> their area. Yeah, >>

098I would suggest to the commission if this condition is taking out a report on construction schedule um that a condition elsewhere should be added um for that to be provided to us by the project team just for everybody's safety. If we have to go out and do a storm water inspection or a regular bi-weekly inspection and you guys are doing blasting, we don't want to be out there when you're doing blasting. Um especially if we have to walk onto the site and get to the trailer and potentially if the construction parking is not available, we're walking from somewhere offsite. We want to make sure that we are avoiding the areas where your construction is actively occurring. um so that we're not in anyone's way and everybody is safe. >> Um yeah, we're we're fine with

099I'm not sure uh the wording or where it would go, but I I think we can accommodate that as a as a condition somewhere. I think we could just add up under administrative conditions that the constru uh weekly or bi-weekly construction schedule will be provided to the commission or its agent. Administrative conditions, this would be a new condition J. Uh h >> how about the spec h how about we provide a construction schedule at the onset of the project and we will notify the condition of any um you know changes to that schedule any meaningful changes to that schedule I don't think the commission necessarily um wants to monitor the weektoe progress of uh construction on the site Yeah, that's going to change and you know it [laughter] >> to the commission. >> It will,

100but it may it may uh you know I don't if if it's if it's pushed back a month or two months. I think that's something the commission probably wants to know if if with if certain milestones within the construction >> uh time frame are changing, you know, the windows are going to show up 3 weeks later than anticipated. I don't think the, you know, the commission is really looking to monitor that. >> Well, that's true. We wouldn't care about that. But if something meant that the site was going to be unstabilized for a longer period of time than was anticipated, that's something that we would want to know. Well, and that would be in the bi-weekly monitoring reports. Uh the bi-weekly monitoring reports for storm water controls would say, for example, you know, um we

101anticipate >> our monitoring are the inspectors and monitoring reports or your monitoring reports. the inspector's monitoring reports >> to the commission for the public safety building and for Mendes. The project team on both of those um construction projects provided the weekly schedule at the beginning of each week and had a weekly virtual meeting with every department which myself uh which I also applaud. um attended as well as um members of our DPW who at the time were responsible for assisting in the overseeing of storm water and erosion measures um without those meetings or at least that schedule. There are several times where we would have accidentally walked on to active blasting or other construction that was occurring that was being done ahead of schedule um that was not otherwise notified to us. Do we want

102to specifically say uh they should also uh tell us explicitly uh blasting schedule or or any other time when the site will be particularly hazardous? >> That's already provided for in a condition where we have to provide a blasting plan and we're going to be providing a copy of that to the commission. So that would be uh the schedule for that work would be part of that. Uh so you know I don't that that's uh information that would already be shared. Uh we're happy to provide the commission if we the commission wants to be buried with a weekly report on the project. Uh you know it's uh okay um with us you know I personally I think that would be better. I mean if it's just a matter of adding the the agent to the

103list who gets it distributed. Um then we or she can decide whether or not there's something out there that want that she wants to look at. And um you know then we know what's going on out there without having to go out there every day. Uh how about we make it uh bi-weekly? Is that okay? just a weekly construction schedule report just seems like um sort of overkill for where there's going to be already a bi-weekly report on the monitoring during the entire time that the site is not stabilized. >> What is what is the condition under the ZBA's set of conditions for this? Anything? There's no um ongoing monitoring of the same kind within of the same type within the ZBA within the comp permit. They they do have the ability to um hire

104a consultant to review plans and ensure that the project is being designed and built according to the plans. Um but there isn't the same kind of ongoing monitoring requirement. >> But there is for blasting. There is for quite extensive blasting. >> Absolutely. to the commission. The language I have written down is a construction schedule will be provided to the conservation commission or its agent um at the pre-construction meeting as well as submit uh bi-weekly schedules throughout construction. I apologize for word smithing as I'm reading. Um the this schedule will include the dates for blasting and any changes to those dates shall immediately be provided to the commission or its agents as well as the dates that excavation and installation of storm water basins shall occur. Um, I would just request that instead of uh saying

105throughout construction that it be uh until the site is stabilized, construction could continue, you know, for a year or more uh after all the soils have been stabilized. I don't and you know I think that's uh reasonable for the the reasonable purview for the commission. >> We don't care what's happening inside the building. >> Correct. >> Any further changes on that condition. I will scroll back down to condition 29. So on this next condition, Becca, I had sent um a modification to the to condition E, which uh I just sent earlier this afternoon. I'm not sure if the >> reflected in red on the screen. Um, this language changes the authority of the erosion control monitor um from having the authority to modify existing controls um or um additional controls as they deem necessary to

106the erosion control monitor may recommend modifications uh to existing controls or the installation of additional controls they deem necessary. Uh it also adds in the language that the applicant in con consultation with the project engineer shall implement the recommendations as appropriate to maintain compliance with the order of conditions. the the the you know the concern here is just we can't obviously have uh some third-party consultant kind of unilaterally deciding uh what erosion control measures should be implemented um without having uh some kind of approval process with the applicant and the owner. Uh so we're not at all opposed to we know we have to comply if there's non-compliance obviously we have to bring uh uh address any issues. There's plenty of language already within uh prior sections that we've talked about where the monitor will

107bring any issues to the attention of the conservation commission. Conservation commission we have to comply you know with uh the order. So, this is really just trying to um properly outline what what the authority and the the role is of the erosion control monitor. They don't just show up on site and say, you know, um you have to implement this that or the other thing. Um, and I'll let Will Park uh, you know, we can talk to some real kind of world, uh, examples of, you know, these modifications are made in the field all the time. So that's that's not something that's unusual. I think it's just the idea of the monitor having a unilateral authority to change something. It it has it should be tied to either a problem or non-compliance with the order.

108Again, it's kind of just the same sort of theme here. >> What about changing may recommend to shall recommend? May seems not very decisive. You know, I also have a sort of another compromise to this that I can I'm happy to share or or kind of talk you through it. So, I would keep the language that's in place uh within the existing condition and just add Um, the erosion control monitor shall have the authority to modify existing controls or the installation, I'm sorry, or additional controls here or she deems reasonably, so just adding the word reasonably necessary in order to bring the project into compliance with erosion and sedimentation controls. So that's a new sentence there. So they have to deem it reasonably necessary and it has to be in order to bring the project

109into compliance with erosion and sedimentation controls or uh into compliance with the order of conditions and I will just say this is a very strong condition. We don't have this kind of condition where someone can just unilaterally say you have to do X Y or Z on your project site in in any project that we've ever done. We do have conditions already that we discussed where the commission can say you need to do this because we've seen that this isn't working. >> Absolutely. And the commission always has that right >> and the erosion control monitor uh is working for the town. So, in the event that the erosion control monitor says, "I think you should do C." And you say, "Yeah, we don't think we need to." The erosion control monitor will presumably tell us,

110"Hey, I told them they should do C and they're saying no." Then we could take that up. Correct? It's just slower. So the change in language with this latest proposal would instead read, "The erosion control monitor shall have the authority to modify existing controls or additional controls they deem reasonably necessary to bring the project into compliance with the erosion and sedimentation control plan." And I added and this order of conditions. The erosion control monitor shall ensure that any erosion problems are addressed immediately and shall notify the Ashling Conservation Commission of any problems that occur. >> Should that be or this order of conditions? >> It would just be the section that's currently highlighted in gray. I can accept that. >> Yeah, I'm hopefully it doesn't get to the point where this monitor is making decisions

111like that in the field that things are going to be buttoned up and stabled and done properly to begin with. Yeah. Or if they are, hopefully it'll be obvious to everybody that yeah, that's the right thing to do. >> Uh, moving on to 22F or sorry, 29F. Um, this is mostly language changes um referring to the monitoring period rather than construction. And this refers back to a language change from earlier um and just cleans it up. Um it removes that summarization of the work has been completed but keeps basically everything else. Um however it does remove um a status report on uh problems progress on construction grading changes in construction schedule to just be um erosion or sedimentation control issues um actions taken to address such issues. Um and any other recommendation for specifically erosion

112and sedimentation control site management rather than site management as a whole. >> And we can add back grading here as we did in the prior condition to be consistent again with the scope that we agreed to in the prior uh condition. There any comments from the commission on that? >> Reasonable. >> It it Yeah, I'm okay with that. >> I'm fine. >> Uh the commission typically requires bounds in condition 30 along the 25 foot no disturb zone. The no disturb zone was in that language waved by the ZBA. However, the ZBA did require a 25 foot vegetated buffer. Um and so that language has since been uh changed accordingly in this condition. The applicant has clarified the location of that buffer. And then the additional language that's highlighted in yellow here is specifically calling out

113that additional signs um in addition to the ones shown on the plan sheet will be placed on the chain link fence proposed along the parking lot near the trash enclosure adjacent to garage number seven. garage number seven um or the trash enclosure, excuse me. The trash enclosure adjacent to garage number seven is at the top of the the slope that goes down to the wetland. Um and in experience with other apartment buildings and developments in Ashland that have trash at the top of slopes near wetlands, the dumpsters get full and people start throwing the trash over the chain link fence and down the hill and into the wetland. Um, this condition just would add additional signage there as the uh signage currently shown on the sheet is at the bottom of the hill. >> Not

114hearing any comments. I'll >> We didn't have any comments on that. >> Are there going to be a lot of dogs on this site? Uh we we did a sitewalk at the Cirrus Apartments and it was appalling what the residents were doing walking their dogs. It was and and they had like >> walking their dogs and everything. >> Well, I'm trying to be polite about this, but I mean they they had a thing there a waste can and plastic bags and and I don't know if anyone ever used it or not, but it was it was a pretty disgusting site. >> Well, it's pretty hard for him to predict how many dogs. >> I know. I know. I just you know, but the problem is that they're going to be walking in the only place

115that has natural vegetation and it's going to be right next to the wetland. >> So, >> well, there is going to be a dog park area. Um Oh, there is. There is. And so, and that's >> not next to the wetland, I hope. Not next to the wetland. No. No. Uh adjacent to the building. It's sort of in that triangular uh area on the page right side as you look at the plan. >> Oh, good. Okay. >> And and and that'll be fenced and so they'll be appropriate facilities for uh >> for picking up after their dogs. >> Exactly. >> Okay. Good. All right. I'm happy. >> Does this uh chain This is the chain link fence that that has a gap. Yes, the chain link fence is uh required to have >> I don't

116remember the exact size of the gap. >> 8 inch gap on the bottom for the vernal pool wildlife. >> So we don't have to spell it out here. It's already baked into the plan. Okay. >> Uh the next condition 32. Uh this condition typically refers to the types of bar and chain oils that can be used during land clearing and requirement to follow Massachusetts best management practices for forestry. Um the applicant is uh suggesting uh removing the language that requires um the proposed bar and chain oil type and specification to be submitted and approved by the submitted to and approved by the commission prior to use. Um and just that bar and chain o oils used in the buffer zone shall be biodegradable and non-toxic and suitable for use in environmentally sensitive areas. That's fine.

117>> Um I apologize. The one other language here is no further approval by the agent shall be required provided these performance specifications are met. Uh continuing on under condition 33 highlighted again this is just changing the no disturb zone to the vegetated buffer to match the ZBA's conditions. you get to skip ahead a little bit. Um, under condition 37 for soil stabilization, um, this is just repeating that all disturbed slopes, uh, well, it's just integrates repeating disturbed slopes greater than 20%. Shall be stabilized by November 1st using core mats or the equivalent if there's not at least 70% vegetation on the slopes by that date. uh choir match shall remain until the slope can be planted, which shall be no earlier than April 15th. I'm not entirely sure why that's in parenthesis. Uh corats are

118equivalent. Materials used cannot contain monofilament, even if UV degradable. Most of that language is from D's comments. Um they required um the erosion control plan. they specifically called out quoats, which for those who are unfamiliar is coconut husk. Um, it's kind of the strongest you can get for that. Um, and the dates specified are the growing dates that you use in your conditions for any planting requirements. I don't believe the applicant had any comments on this. I'm not seeing comments from the commission, so I'll carry on. Um the next several here are just spelling errors and again discussions about um plans uh changing things to approved plans rather than notice of intent plans. Um the big change here um is in 39B. Uh typically the commission requires silt sacks to be installed on all new

119and existing functioning catch basins and drop inlets within the project area. Um the applicant is rephrasing this to just be new catch basins or inlets within the project area um as there's no existing ones on the project site. I will note uh that does still include uh catch basins located within 100 ft of the site to be protected um in 39A. >> Yeah. And I changed I said to keep it in. I think your recommendation was to take it out. um at the direction of the Ashland Concom. Uh the reason being is even if you put in catch basin protection in the catch basins within 100 ft, it the the water may be going further than 100 ft away from the site that is still, you know, turbid water on public streets. Um, that was

120unanticipated. So that that's the only reason I kept that in is to say that uh, you know, you >> that's fine. >> There may be more than 100 feet away that but it's still something that needs to be protected. I mean with the public safety building it went across the road across the river >> and and down way down the street and then down into the river and made a I mean catch basin protection wouldn't have stopped that because it was a freaking river across the road. But it would made a huge mess in the river. >> That's okay. We're okay with that. >> So that >> maybe add just a sentence that if it can be proven that it's related to this project. >> Um that's fine. I mean obviously we're not asking you

121to fix all the e evils in the world of Ashlin. I actually I would almost think that that's without I mean that goes without saying that obviously it's related to this project. Uh so I've added uh as determined reasonably necessary to address runoff that travels further than 100 ft from the site and is reasonably attributed to the project. >> That that's that works. Thanks Will. >> Moving on to dewatering. Um this is a what's in yellow is a change in language. Typically the commission has a full dewatering plan at this point and so the condition just refers to that as you do not have that uh language was added specifying what the watering plan should include that it will be reviewed by the commission um for approval before any site activities. Uh the applicant has

122added in the language um excluding installation of erosion controls. Um and that such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed provided that the dewatering required adheres to the approved plans um approved plans being in place of the plans approved by the conservation commission. Not hearing any comments. I will assume the applicant suggestion is acceptable and carry on. >> Uh, >> yep, that's fine. >> Downstream impacts. Again, just some language clarification. Um and prior to that um in yellow again no disturb zone to vegetated buffer uh plantings. The line here in purple is relocated by the applicant from a perpetual condition in 87 to this condition. Um notably it was in the per perpetual conditions so that it ran with the lands and had to be continued to be implemented. uh whereas in this condition

123um it would expire with the issuance of a certificate of compliance. >> So I actually think that it does continue to run with the land because uh it's part of the on&m plan and the on&m plan is an ongoing document um by design. So that um we we didn't intend for it not to be a perpetual requirement. Um, we just thought it was more appropriate here. >> We should at a minimum state that uh you're not just submitting a plan uh that it should be part of uh a long-term invasive species management plan as part of the operation maintenance plan. >> Otherwise, it's just some amorphous plan and it's a plan. >> Completely agree. We we completely agree. We were trying to take a light touch and not make more red line, but we agree

124it does belong in the O andM plan as all you know all in one place along with the ongoing monitoring and uh maintenance provisions within that plan. >> So that has been added uh as Preston described. Moving on. >> Yep. Condition 46 is a new condition um regarding the replacement of the 12 in RCP located in Waverly Street. This is a long condition so I will just summarize and I'll zoom out a little bit so you can see the whole thing. um essentially explains uh that the new pipe uh its location, how it shall be installed to not impact the structural integrity of the stone box culvert that it flows into. Um the applicant's proposal is for this to be submitted to DPW for administrative review and approval. Um the proposal from myself was that

125it also is submitted to the conservation commission and that it's not an administrative review and approval, it's a regular review and approval. Um as that uh pipe also passes into the buffer zone of a jurisdictional stream. Um and the stone box culvert itself is a naturally naturally occurring stream that is culverted. Uh and it would be the commission's jurisdiction to ensure that any um replaced existing storm water features that are in those areas um comply with the uh relevant regulations. Uh the applicant did have a copy of the plans shall be provided to the commission forformational purposes concurrently with delivery to the DPW and that um approval and permit issuance shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed provided the plans are consistent with the approved plans from this order of conditions. No details for the

126pipe has been provided to the commission. So, I'm not entirely sure how um the conservation office would be able to determine compliance with the plans if we have nothing to compare them to. Um, >> this this plan list that you gave us, >> it it has a stamp date in it and they all say either NA or ND. And don't we need a stamp on the plan set that we're referencing? >> They were >> uh the they are stamped. The stamp itself was not dated. >> Oh, okay. Jennifer House stamped. Okay. But it doesn't have a date. Is that right? >> So ND is for no date. >> Not not dated or Okay. >> But plans date. Yep. >> Yeah. The the issue log states the final date. >> Oh, the final rev date. Okay.

127>> Um Okay. All right. I was just looking at the last column and going, "What's an ND mean?" >> Um on these plans, um I guess it might be the utility plan. Does it show the culvert replacement? >> It shows a line um depicting the culvert. It's on uh details five, details V. Um I have the big plan set on the table here if we need to review it. There's detail A1 that I've just been notified about uh which was added March 12th. >> So this should Well, do you want to bring up the plans maybe >> long before March 12th? I see that that enlargement was has been there since at least uh February 12th, not March 12th. >> It doesn't have a detail of the trench. The the um stor the storm drainage

128trench detail appears on detail C7 on sheet C503. Could I um maybe just sort of explain our uh rationale for the modifications that we made um to this condition. >> So essentially we we sort of agree with the the process um as generally laid out. So the commission has and through its peerreview consultant has reviewed um the impacts uh the storm water impacts from our project. So we've talked extensively about the fact that we're not adding any net new flow through the culvert etc etc. So in terms of the jurisdictional uh impacts, the commission and and the peer reviewer have already approved that. The only thing that's left to do now is to simply install the pipe. Um we've provided a general area for where the pipe obviously is going to be replaced. We've provided

129a general uh cross-section trench detail um and and sort of delineated the the area with the limit of work. Mhm. >> So, in terms of uh the approvals that need to happen now, um it's really the DPW needing to review the more uh slightly more detailed set of construction drawings, providing them with everything that they need in order for them to review the replacement of that pipe and, you know, approve that work and issue the trench the street opening permit to do that work. there are no new jurisdictional you know wetland impacts uh to be reviewed because they've already you know been reviewed. So the process the way that uh is laid out here is uh we provide a set of detailed drawings deliver those drawings to the DPW. At the same time we'll deliver

130a copy of the drawings to the conservation commission and then the DPW reviews and approves that work and issues the permit and we do the work. Um, and the, you know, we we've sort of created this new title for the set of drawings. We'll call them the RCP drawings. We'll submit those drawings to the DPW and submit them to the Conservation Commission at the same time. Um, so I don't I there from our standpoint there really isn't any additional wetland, you know, jurisdictional issue to approve by the conservation commission. It's really now the DPW that needs to review the plans, approve the plans, uh, and issue the work >> to the commission. Uh just a correction on the record. GCG's recommendation was that the culvert replacement and all details related be submitted as part of

131this notice of intent or as an additional filing before the commission. The commission at that meeting um agreed that an additional filing would not be needed if uh the details are prior to construction provide to the commission for review and approval. Yeah, and that's what I was kind of getting at is I don't I don't see a need for a new filing or an additional filing for this culvert. It's on the plan. It's on the plans. The details in there for the trench line. All you need is DPW approval to do it. Um I don't really I don't want to go through another protracted permitting process for something we've already looked at and agree with. >> I I agree. Yeah, >> I don't have a problem with this. >> This is just going to be

132a fivem minute item at some meeting. Unless you're doing something really wrong. Uh, you know, we have a number of things like this that show up where where it's just a a you show that the developer shows us, oh, we said we were going to do this. This is the details of how we're going to do it. And usually it's like, yeah, go ahead. But it's fairly a DPW issue >> that it's a courtesy that we're involved in. >> It is jurisdictional to us. >> It's jurisdictional, but I think we can handle it all in this process and not have to do it through a whole another process. >> So do I. You've already done it. >> So I I your wording is that you would give us the final plans concurrent with the DPW

133and then we would just >> voice approve them >> and I'm I'm fine with that. >> Well, No, that this says it's the the wording that they had was that it would beformational to us as opposed to >> approved. >> Yeah. And I again that's fine with me. I don't Okay. I'm I'm >> you know we're going to approve these plans and it's showing on these plans. So it's approved >> as far as we're concerned. >> Correct. And and these plans are really at the same level as you know with respect to the RCP replacement as everything else. These are not construction documents per se. So >> those will have to come in in due course for the entire project. >> Yep. >> And should something show up that the agent has concerns about, I'm

134sure she'll let DP W know, hey, think twice about this. And I don't foresee that happening. But >> correct. Ultimately, they have to approve the plans and issue the road opening permit for the work to be done. Moving on, since it seems the commission is accepting the applicant's language, >> I think so. Yeah. >> Uh, condition 47 is new language regarding blasting. Um, it's just referring to the blasting activities and ledge removal plan that the ZBA requires to be submitted to the fire department to also be submitted to the commission. There's no review and approval process on this and the only language here is again that approved plans language. Beneath that condition 48, stone box culvert. Um this was a condition added um requiring the stone box culvert which the previously mentioned RCP ties into

135um to have a structural integrity analysis prior to construction as well as after construction. Um and that the licensed structural engineer who performs that analysis, if they determine any deterioration to be reasonably attributed to the construction activities for that to be repaired and addressed, the applicant has suggested changing that from structural integrity analysis to a visual inspection. >> I I would also add uh to this um that we would I I'm proposing a modification to the language here that we've uh proposed so that the post um inspection be done after any blasting work. >> Yeah, I would agree. I guess that that could move things too. >> So, I I think we're all talking about, you know, I think we're all talking about the same thing. Uh you'd want to have video photographs taken of

136the condition of the culvert, have that very well documented in a report. We provide that prior to any work being done and then we provide at provide that at at the end after uh all blasting activity has has uh been completed. >> I would imagine DPW is going to probably be looking for that as well. >> No doubt >> given given the condition of this culvert and >> the culvert's not called out in your CBA blasting. Is that correct? Uh it's not but uh there's a general uh catchall that says any abudding property or structures within 250 ft. The culvert is actually over 500 ft away from what we think will be the closest point uh of any blasting. So >> um you know it's it's quite a distance away typically you know you're within

137200 that pre-blast survey of course it's dependent on the size of the blast. If you have a really large blast, it's a larger area. Uh obviously, um so the blasting contractor will will determine that. But in any event, >> uh regardless for the purpose of this condition, we'll do the the post uh inspection after any blasting. >> I'm good with that. >> Yeah, I think I'm pretty I'm good with this. Um, further moving on, uh, condition 50, request for certificate of compliance. Uh, the commission typically requires the asbuilt plan, um, an engineer letter to show compliance with this order of conditions in addition to the approved plans. The applicant is suggesting just in accordance with the approved plans. I mean, we >> I don't know that we can just go with the approved plans because

138if you go out there with the approved plan, you don't know that everything is in the same place that it's supposed to be on that plan. There's no way just looking around the site with a plan you could you could tell whether things are in the right place or not >> or at the right elevation. Um I would just ask Will Park if he can uh chime in because this is a a representation that the engineer would need to make. >> Yeah. >> Um yeah, I I think it's fine to keep in the the that it's a in accordance with the order of conditions as well. >> I agree. >> Yeah. I mean, we don't >> I don't think we I don't you know, I don't think we want to just to set expectations that

139we won't be submitting a 50point response to each one of these comments or conditions. um it'll be more general, but um there are things in this in this order that would not necessarily appear on the plans >> through the commission and to the applicant. Typically, the affidavit simply states that the engineer has reviewed the site conditions and confirms that all work was done in substantial compliance with the approved plans and order of conditions and leaves it at that. >> Right. the order of conditions legally as a an amendment to the plans on the planning board. I thought we said it was, but I don't know if it is here. But anyway, no, I this is fine. >> Any conditions on the order of conditions typically would supersede um in the event of any conflict with

140the plans? >> That's good. Okay, we're good with this one. Uh the final section of that um also deleted failure to request the certificate of compliance or extension before expiration of the order of conditions will constitute a violation of the bylaw as the bylaw is waved doesn't apply >> right >> uh storm water conditions most of this is just language things however conditions 53 regarding the construction entrance stabilization um and 54 storm water inlet protection are proposed for removal. These are as the applicant pointed out duplicative of earlier conditions. >> Yep. >> Condition 54, post construction storm water management structures. Um, this typically states that uh no storm water runoff shall be directed to a post construction storm water management structure until written approval is received from the commission. All storm water management systems that

141include plants shall be fully vegetated before seeking written approval. Um, those last couple lines were removed and it was changed to until the conservation agent has provided written approval. If the commission is comfortable with myself as agent um providing that approval um that can stay. However, I would recommend that the language that storm water management systems that include plantings um should still be fully vegetated um prior to storm water being directed towards them. This would include um any bio retention. >> We used to have a bio retention. We don't have it anymore. So that's why that was. That's that's the only reason why it's not there. It's just not applicable. But >> yeah, they're all underground now, right? Everything >> there is a surface basin, but it's not >> surface. Okay, that's right. >> It's

142not a bio retention basin. >> I do believe it is vegetated with a wet mix, however, for stabilization. And if storm water was directed into it before that was vegetated, um that sediment may end up clogging. um any outlet pipes for the basin. >> Yeah, we're okay with including vegetated uh with that, you know, retaining it. >> Okay. >> Uh moving on, temporary swailes and settling basins. Um the language here in uh yellow is just uh citing where it is on the site plan um and noting that additional uh swailes and settling basins may be constructed um provided that's not within the wetlands and other requirements. Um and then the applicant caught a reference error for environmental monitor and changed it to erosion control monitor. uh 56 compaction prevention. This condition refers, excuse me, uh

143to roping off and flagging areas where subsurface infiltration systems are to be located. Um as well as being a generic condition that cites other types of storm water structures as well. Um the applicant um revised this language to say the location of the two subsurface infiltration systems uh shall be clearly identified on the surface to prevent compaction by heavy equipment. >> I think the intent's the same. >> Yeah. No, I'm I'm good with that. I You said you were going to be building these early anyway, right? >> Correct. So, they'll be constructed and then and they're under roadway, so you would theoretically be driving on them after the fact anyway, >> right? >> Um, condition 57, just changing con uh the infiltration basin shall not be uh constructed until the entire contributing drainage area stabilized

144to brought online. Um, this goes back to Jean's point that they're being built early on in construction. Uh, condition 58, additional test pits, is an added condition um for an additional deep test pit at subsurface infiltration system 2. This was recommended by GCG. Condition fif uh sorry that was condition 60. condition 61 storm water basin liners was also recommended by GCG. Um GCG's uh suggestion was that uh the installation [clears throat] of the imperous liner to ensure water tightness um and that the shop drawings for that be submitted to be approved by the conservation commission. language was adjusted to be um the project engineer and the conservation commission and the applicant has suggested to change it just to the project engineer. So this is really this, you know, includes things like approving shop drawings, um,

145you know, detailed constructions of it. Um, so >> we're not in the business to to do that. >> I agree. >> Um, assuming that language is accepted, um, condition 62, surface detention basin BM. This is another recommendation from GCG um just requiring that the BM be constructed in a way to protect the impermeable clay membrane from in I'm realizing there's a typo there. Um from the installation of the outlet structure pipe or other construction related activities. Um I think Jean you had also mentioned this at a a previous meeting to ensure that the the phasing of that um protects the clay center >> and condition 63 roof runoff collection um was another requirement from GCG or suggested requirement from GCG um requiring the applicant to provide a document specifying the architectural roof runoff collection system

146according to the watershed subcatchment divides. >> These are new now, right? Because they're yellow. So, are you okay with these? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Uh the next several conditions, which I'm just going to scroll past, do not apply to the project and are shown in red. >> Uh your typical conditions for vernal pools and wildlife habitat protection. Uh the applicant just changed the title to potential vernal pool. Um most of the language here is specifying within condition 62 and 64 that it is potential vernal pools. And then in condition 64 um instead of requiring the vegetated buffer to [clears throat] be planted with highdensity diverse native plantings to provide a variety of structure and food variety for vernal pool species to simply read that it shall remain in its undisturbed vegetated condition um except

147that it shall be kept free of invasive species. And that's the language that's also consistent with the ZBA uh condition. >> Are there any comments from the commission on that? >> I I'm I'm good with that. I you know, leave the pools alone. >> Do do we want to say, you know, if restoration is required, it should be planted with high density diverse it >> if restoration is required separate. Never mind. We're going to be in an enforcement action. >> It'll be a restoration plan. >> That's true. >> And moving on to the perpetual conditions uh condition uh what would have been 80 uh storm water operations and maintenance. Um the applicant has adjusted the language and I apologize it's a little hard to sparse off uh to sparse what's changed and removed. Um, >>

148actually I just the entire section of it was just replaced with the first section. Um, I'm happy to go back to the prior language. I just thought it was very confusing. Um and I I don't I take no pride in authorship but I think the idea here is that um so long as the site is being managed according to the O andM plan subsequent uh any work that's done in order to maintain compliance with the O and M with the storm water management system uh you know shouldn't require a new filing. >> Right. So you the part that part you've replaced and took out the stuff at the bottom. Correct. Just rewarded this. Correct. [snorts] Kind of the same thing. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> It looks fine. >> Yeah. Do you need to highlight

149the month, day, year, something that needs to be updated? Yes, we would uh put in the language citing the operations and maintenance plan uh prior to this going out to signature for you all as is the typical procedure >> and I apologize it's highlighted but the track changes is not showing it. >> Yep, that's good. Uh the remaining changes um in the perpetual conditions are all just removal of language specifically saying the condition will remain in effect in perpetuity um and shall not be be released by the certificate of compliance um or that the condition shall survive the expiration of the order of conditions. >> That's already covered by the heading up above. The last one was a condition that was added uh for a permanent vegetated buffer. Um this is just referring to the

150ZBA's vegetated buffer um and clarifies that it shall be maintained around the wetlands um and that it shall be kept permanently vegetated. Um that's duplicative of the earlier conditions. And then the bottom section is that long-term invasives invasive species management plan um which was added to an earlier condition as well which is part of the >> right that that's the end of it you got to I will note that as of right now That's only 72 conditions. [snorts] >> Get rid of three. >> We've probably dropped a few pages, too. >> Yes. >> And for the record, I'm assuming that you're okay with the the conditions. >> We are, as we've discussed, [clears throat] very thorough. Well, I'll make a motion to accept the order condition. >> Wait. Um, I think the hearing's still close.

151>> Is there anybody in the >> Yeah, I was about to ask if any I know it's >> public. >> Is there anyone in the audience that'd like to ask any questions or comments at this point? >> There's still a few hangers on. >> I don't think so. I see no hands from our one resident remaining. >> All right. Okay. >> So, we need a motion to close the hearing. >> Yep. >> Yeah. Do I hear a motion to close the notice of intent 61 Waverly Street, map 15, parcel 12, the Guteras Company, D file number 95-1016. So moved. >> Second. >> Roll call vote. >> Amen. I >> Crow I. Crouch I >> Hackinson I >> Molton I >> Toledo abstain >> WS I motion passes the hearing is closed >> right now I

152can yeah >> I'll make a motion to accept the the issue >> to issue the order of conditions um as discussed for 61 Waverly street map 15 parcel 12 dutier company D number 95-101 [clears throat] Six. >> Second. >> Roll call vote. >> Acriman I. >> Crow. I. >> Crouch. I. >> Atinson. I. >> Molton. >> I. >> Toledo. Stand. >> Wan's eye. Motion passes. Order conditions are accepted. >> Thank you. >> That's it. Uh before you go, uh we've come a long way since we started these hearings and I think it was pretty efficiently. Um I know that we had some differences uh on our first sitewalk on different things. I I can't speak for the whole commission, but um I appreciate the fact that your team worked with us on these things to

153try to get the best uh project possible. Whether these projects are popular or not is another it's another discussion. We've had that discussion prior as well. We only have jurisdiction over what we have jurisdiction over here. um and you've worked with us with that to accommodate uh the concerns that we have. Um I hope it's a good project. I hope for the town it's a good project and uh so thank you. >> Yeah, I think we've done everything we can to make it the best project that we could within our jurisdiction. >> Yeah, I agree. >> Thank you. Um and I appreciate the all the work and the time that's gone into um the liberation. I think the town um has been served well by the review process that the commission put forth. I'm not

154just saying that. Um I do think that uh the comments and the the information and the topics that we covered were um you know were good to talk through and uh we're excited about the project and uh we we uh thank the commission for all the work. Uh >> well, we appreciate your willingness to work with us uh and make this a positive experience for both of us. I think I hope >> well we've been doing this a long time. Um you know, we're a small company, but we you know, we kind of live and breathe uh permitting projects and building projects and all uh around, you know, inside of 495 and just on the outside of 495. That's uh we don't do projects outside of Massachusetts, so uh we take a lot of pride

155in everything that we do. >> Good. Well, good luck with this one. >> Thank you. >> I also want to before we finish, publicly acknowledge the work that Sophia and Becca have done. It's an enormous amount of work that they've done. It makes our job easier. Um and we very much appreciate it. >> Agreed. >> Yep. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thanks. All right. Thank you. >> All right. Thanks very much. >> Have a good night. Good night. >> Do we have any minutes that we have to do tonight? >> You have one set of minutes you need to approve tonight. And uh just one second before you get to it. As a note for anyone coming in to sign the order of conditions on the topic of a lot of work to do. It's

156going to take us a little bit longer than normal to clean up all the formatting and everything on the that those conditions. So, it may not be ready for signature tomorrow, but we will try to get it to you this week. >> You have my comments on these minutes, correct? We did that last week, didn't we? Um, can we were going to do them at the last hearing last week and we deferred it to this week, I believe. >> Yes, I do have those comments. >> You have my comments. >> I am pulling them up now. And then I also have comments uh that I received from Jean and unfortunately they are not compiled. So uh >> well mine are very simple. >> So I'm going to show the ones from from Carl and then

157uh Jean if you can call out yours. >> Yep. I think I only asked to reference um the speakers that were appearing virtually since we had an hybrid meeting that um uh Chris Lucas and um I forgot the engineer's name and then um that Jeff um >> Angler was appeared virtually. Oh yeah. >> Do we want to just put that as a line at the top that the applicant >> representatives all appeared virtually? >> Yeah, >> for this hearing. >> We can do that. I I put it after each when they were referenced in the body of the the first time or remotely or whatever. However, you know, I initially I said appeared virtually but then I I guess appeared remotely also works. >> All appeared remotely for this. Uh the changes I have from

158Carl on this is just uh clarifying Massachusetts general laws plural um as opposed to just the chapter 4B process as there's more than just chapter 4B applicable to the site and Jean call me out with any of your additional changes. Oh, that was the the three references to the people were the only things I put in. >> Uh Carl also called out a spelling error on my part. Uh changing Scriber to Scriber. >> Still don't know who that is. um clarifying language on lines 88 and um to say that he received an email that Matt's D uh had sent to the LSP stating that the RAM completion statement should be submitted by March 13. Um, this was something that uh we had just gotten the language a little bit incorrect and so Carl corrected it.

159Um, removing some unnecessary duplicated words on line 91. I think that may be it, but I'm scrolling through to make sure. >> 218 >> or maybe there's something there was it was like uh maybe it's 221 now. Independent on the direction or independent of the direction. >> Think of the direction. >> Yeah, that was it. Continuing further. That seems like the last of it. >> Okay. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of March 2nd. Is that it? March 2nd. Um, as amended. >> Second. Roll call vote. >> I >> Crow I. >> Crouch. I >> Atinson I. >> Molton. >> I. >> To I. >> WS I. Motion passes. March 2nd 2026 meeting minutes are accepted. Next on the agenda is member prerogative. Commissioner education various topics. Does anyone have a member prerogative?

160No. No. Okay. I have no prerogative. >> All right, that's uh that's the end of the our agenda. >> Okay, motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> Roll call vote. >> Aman I >> Crow I. >> Crouch I. >> Hackson I. >> Molton I. >> Toledo I. >> W's eye. Meeting is adjourned. >> Thanks everybody. All right.