Conservation Commission (March 16th, 2026)

001Welcome everyone to the March 16th, 2026 Ashlin Conservation Commission meeting which I am calling to order at 7:00 p.m. There is a quorum of the commi commission present and before we open up our first hearing I have to make a few protocol announcements. My name is Greg Ws. I am the chair. This meeting is being held live at the at the um town hall at Ashland and it's also being recorded by Wacka Cable. If there's any interruption in the Wacka cable signal, the meeting will continue. This meeting is also being held live by Zoom. And before we get started to our first hearing, I have to make a premeating uh statement regarding Zoom. Under under Governor Baker's March 12th, 2020 executive order, public boards are allowed to meet remotely. This order was most recently extended

002until June of by Governor Healey as part of the supplemental 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

003video on and microphone muted unless speaking. We have two members of the commission who are online right now uh using the Zoom app application. Applicants and representatives, please keep your video off and microphone muted unless uh until your agenda item is discussed. Public public, please keep your microphone muted until recognized. If you need to share your screen, you may request permission through the chair to do so. When the discussion is open to the public, if you wish to ask a question or make a comment, you may request to speak by using the raised hand feature on Zoom. If you are calling in by phone number, you can use the star nine feature to raise and lower your hand. When acknowledged to speak, please state your name and address prior to speaking. Public comment is limited

004to three minutes per speaker. Comments must be limited to the Wetlands Protection Act, Ashlin Wetlands Protection bylaw, or Ashlin Stormwater Management bylaw. Questions and comments not related to the commission's jurisdiction will not be accepted. During the meeting, the host, our conservation commission agent, Becca Solomon, will monitor the participants for raised hands and will be recording the names and addresses of commenters. Signing of documents occurred during the week after the conclusion of the meeting. I will also acknowledge uh Michael Carter from GCG Associates. He's a peer reviewer and he's online and we will be hearing from him. So, I have uh 7:05 p.m. I am going to open up the first hearing. Notice of intent 61 Waverly Street, map 15, parcel 12, D the Gutterius Company, D file number 95-1016. And before we hear from the

005applicant, I'm going to turn the microphone over to the vice chair, Carl Hackinson. Thank you, Greg. We've been asked to do a summary um before each one of these hearings for uh the benefit of the citizens that are watching this um both uh in the room and on WACA and um and over Zoom. These hearings tend to be multiple evenings uh and um so sometimes it's easy for the the viewers to get lost. It's also uh easy for them to get lost because of the technical nature sometimes. So, I'm going to give a quick review of um 61 Waverly Street and then we'll hear from the applicant. Uh again, this is a 40B uh application. It is um it has been before the um zoning board of appeals already for a comprehensive permit. Uh it's

006now before the conservation commission. Um the local bylaw uh has been waved by the ZBA. So we are enforcing state law here at the conservation commission. Our limited uh our jurisdiction is limited to that. This particular application has um um offered to acknowledge our 25 foot no disturb zone from the local bylaw voluntarily. Um a little bit of the summary here as we uh this uh hearing began at the beginning of January. I believe it was January 5th. Uh it opened with a discussion of the parameters of how um how the the hearings would take place. Uh we did a sitewalk in January that was very uh productive. I think um uh we uh requested a peer review both for the wetlands and the storm water. So it was two separate um peer reviews. Uh

007Beiel and Thomas did the p the first wetlands peer review. There was one iteration of that. They made some changes that um that the applicant agreed to. uh the storm water peer review is a little bit more involved and I believe that there were four iterations of the storm water peer review uh that has been worked through between the commission, the applicant and our peer reviewer Mike Carter. Um we'll address the remaining issues of that this evening. Um we all then we decided to uh to sequence the topics of discussion and the topics are going to be different for uh for u for each um hearing depending on the nature of the property. And for 61 Waverly Street, it was divided up into uh the bedrock, discussion of the bedrock, um discussion of the peak

008runoff for storm water, and the um uh structural integrity of some of the areas that the storm water is draining to. They were our three major topics of discussion uh over the next few hearings. Um the wetlands discussion is is settled. The bedrock discussion is mostly settled. Uh I think we have uh at least I have a couple of uh uh outstanding questions for this evening. And the storm water discussion is making progress. The infrastructure discussion is making progress as well. And and uh those were the the most outstanding between the last hearing and this hearing. Uh I believe that we um uh have come to an agreement. Uh but we will see soon. So is there anything I left out uh Mr. Lopez? >> Uh no, I thought that was an excellent summary. Thank

009you. >> Well, thank you. Uh that the I will say that the applicant has made a number of changes to the plan. Uh quite a few actually. And I won't go into all of them. Uh there were 45 suggestions in the first GCG review, but the two major ones uh that are really outstanding are the um the agreement to uh increase the size of the infiltration um basins significantly to hold storm water on site and um to connect to replace the 12-in pipe that connects the two storm drains uh uh on Waverly Street where a lot of the storm water is going. We had a discussion about the the culvert that this pipe goes to. Uh that was an issue while there was still an increase in peak runoff. uh subsequent we will hear that

010this evening I believe uh between Mike Carter and the applicants working together they have changed the size of the um uh um infiltration basins to allow for no increase uh in peak volume therefore no impact on this culvert. So um I guess that's all I have. Greg, if you want to >> Sure. Mr. Lopez, do you want to take us where you're at? I know that there's been significant progress and we've gone down from 45 to just a handful now of of comments to address. >> Yeah. >> Do you want do you want me to One second. Mr. Lopez, you want me to read this? >> Yes. >> Okay. I was passed a note. It says there's a quorum of the select board members on Zoom. Uh in case they want to um address that

011and prevent an open meeting violation, it's up to you. Do no one speaking to that? >> Yeah. Does anyone want to speak? >> Uh >> I think would you like to come off mute and address this uh this finding? >> Can you hear me? We can hear you, Joe. >> We're not going to make any deliberations tonight. We're just here listening as citizens as well. So, uh, we don't have comments that they're their personal comments. Uh, they'd be individuals and not as a board. >> Okay. For those in the room who may not have been able to hear because it's a little quiet on the volume on our end, um the chair of the select board responded that they are not planning to deliberate on anything jurisdictional to them. Um so any uh comments on

012their own uh that they say are on their own as individuals, not as select board members and would not be an open meeting law violation. >> Thanks, Joe. Welcome. Thank you, sir. >> Yeah, Mr. Lopez, the floor is yours. >> Yeah. >> Uh thank you and uh good evening members of the commission. For the record, my name is Israel Lopez with the Guitarist Company. on behalf of the applicant. Um the only uh thing I would add just in the form of additional background and summary um to augment uh the vice chair's comments is uh there were in addition to those broad topics that uh were laid out, there were um significant numbers of uh improvements to the to the plan set that we submitted initially. and we haven't talked about uh all of those at

013each of the hearings, but I I think it's fair to say that there isn't a single uh sheet on that drawing set that hasn't been modified with additional notes and clarifications at at the request of uh the commission and and the peer reviewers. Uh and we also um exchanged a number of uh comment memos uh with the conservation agent um responding to emails and and comments from the agent uh with respect to uh changes to the plan. And so I feel um uh pretty good about uh where we are with the commission and all of the work that we've done uh with the plans. I will uh turn it over to uh Will Park with SMMA, our civil engineer, just to give a quick overview of the changes that were uh made in response to

014the last hearing. uh touching on uh what the vice chair indicated were some increases to the subsurface detention system to um get that hydraology uh level to be net zero even in the 100redyear storm. So um with that I'll just turn it over to Will Park with SMMA. >> Uh good evening. My name is Will Park, senior civil engineer at SMMA out of Cambridge. Good evening. Um, so it's been mentioned a few times that we uh had one more round of revisions and review uh revisions from our firm and review from GCG Associates. Uh some of the comments uh in their last letter were duplicative or all um or overlapped quite a bit. So, our latest memo dated um March 6th. We kind of grouped them into um four buckets. One has to do with

015the mass um D stormwater handbook standard 2 related to peak discharge rates. Uh as as it's been mentioned, um we reviewed the hydraology model one more time and by adding a trench drain um towards the bottom of our uh driveway, we were able to capture more area and as it's been mentioned, the subsurface detention system at the bottom of the access drive has been uh was increased roughly eightfold. um four four times the footprint and twice the depth. Uh and that was the necessary storage to get the 100-year um peak discharge rate uh below existing. Um it was already satisfactory in the two and 10year storms, but that's what was required to hit the 100red-year storm below. Uh next topic was groundwater recharge. uh standard 3 recharge to groundwater. Uh GCG asked just to confirm

016that uh at least 65% of the imperous areas are routed to infiltration basins. Uh and we simply we didn't make any changes. We just recirculated our original um groundwater recharge and draw down calculations highlighting the cell where it say states that um we're routing 75% of the proposed imperous surfaces to infiltration. Uh next bucket was um standard 4 total um suspended solids removal. Uh we uh we disagreed that the um third party testing for their proprietary pre-treatment devices um did not provide 81%. Um but that's fine. Uh to to compensate for that, we daisy our the design now daisy chains um two pre-treatment uh water quality units uh back to back each providing 50%. So that treatment train now has the deep sump catch basins at 25% removal. a water quality pre-treatment at 50% followed

017by another water quality pre-treatment at 50% for a total of 81% TSS removal in each of those two treatment trains. The last and final bucket was just very miscellaneous items throughout the drawings. Um installing very small uh there's a few outlet control structures that have very small orififices where the water leaves the system and goes downstream. uh they're very small because of the very small numbers we're dealing with here in the peak discharge rate uh summary. Uh GCG recommended that some of those smaller orififices have a trash rack to prevent uh help reduce the risk of clogging. So, we um looked up or we we researched um trash racks that are appropriate for these installations and uh noted those accordingly in the details uh on the detail sheets for those outlook control structures. There was

018several comments regarding the um impermeable liners that will be used below the surface detention basin and fully wrapped around the subsurface detention system. Again, that's part because they're partially they're they're low enough that they're partially within the uh estimated seasonal high groundwater table. Um GCG asked that we provide additional notations on the drawings to ensure water tightness of those. So, we installed some uh additional notes based on our personal experience with these installations and from manufacturers recommendations to um again I think I mentioned at the last hearing these sheets of impermeable liner are huge. Um you know they probably cover the whole floor of this building. Um so it's unlikely that a single sheet won't cover the bottom of the surface basin or fully wrap the subsurface basin. But if it does uh we in

019we included notes that um the two sections have to be overlapped and a water se uh watertight sealant or tape be uh a two-sided tape be installed between the overlap or a singlesided sealant tape be installed on either seam to ensure water tightness. Um and I'm might be getting ahead of myself a little bit. Uh GCG just recommended that um there be a condition that all of the components of these systems, the um the the impermeable liner, the outlet control structure, the boots that receive the inlet and outlet pipes, all be reviewed for water tightness, and that a professional uh engineer um observe the installation and certify that it that it was installed in accordance with the drawings and the manufacturer's recommendations and we're in complete agreement with that. Uh so we submitted that um

020package on the 6th to GCG and the town. Um, and since then on the uh 11th I believe GCG submitted a comment letter um rather than paraphrase their thoughts uh any reason not to uh ask Mike to chime in on his >> review. Yes, we can do that. Thank you. >> Uh Mr. Carter, would you like to come off mute? Yeah. >> Good evening. My name is Mike Carter from GCG Associates. Um Will has described things very well. Uh basically they've they've addressed um our comments with respect to the storm water, increasing sizes of things, adding things. Um they have demonstrated that there is no net increase in the rate of runoff leaving the site during a 100-year event. Um, we do recommend a couple conditions and Will just mentioned the one that's with respect

021to the infiltration system and I think there in our letter there's another condition that references I'm just verifying the some test holes when they construct the um these infiltration bases just to confirm more confirmatory test holes than anything to make sure that it's um separated from the water table or the water table is what we believe it is which we have no reason to think differently but I typically recommend that And especially in these big infiltration systems, it's kind of it's very important. But they have addressed our comments and um our letter basically says they resolved all the issues that we had outstanding. >> Thanks, Mike. >> Uh that's all I to say. I believe Israel uh additional did you? >> Sure. Go ahead, Jean. >> I have a couple questions from what you said

022and what what you put in your report here. Uh the the the trash racks that you you discussed, are those on the outlet from the infiltration systems? >> Uh one is in the outlet control structure of the surface basin, the only surface basin um in our design. Uh GCG acknowledges and we agree that a 20 there's a 24 inch diameter pipe at the bottom of the basin that will have a trash rack but those are typically you know quite large like one inch diameter maybe one and a half openings. So if something were to get through that leaves animals whatever they could then clog a one inch orifice in in the structure. So, we have a trash rack that covers um quite a you know, it's I think a foot by a foot covering a

023one inch orifice to make sure it doesn't get >> clogged. It's set aside from the actual opening so that if something does get stuck, there's another way for water to get through. >> Correct. There's inside the out control structure, there's a weir wall just going right down the center of it and the trash rack will be mounted um to that weir wall. >> Okay. or uh you know on the face of it. >> Okay. >> Sidemounted is what they call it. >> Um the reason I ask is because are these going to be in a readily accessible location to check and clean if necessary? >> Yes, this outlet control structure is directly next to the driveway. >> Well, well, that one is out in the open, but um what I was wondering is it is

024I thought you said it was also for the infiltration systems and they're all underground, right? The Ella control structures will have a standard drainage manhole cover on them and they're part of the >> from the infiltration chambers. >> Correct. >> So you could somebody needs to pop the lid and look down in there to see make sure it's not clogged. >> Yeah. They're they're part of the um they're referenced in the operation and maintenance manual. Um they'll be observed and cleaned as necessary >> periodically throughout the year. I just I just don't like underground systems generally because out of sight, out of mind. Um people forget things when they don't see them. That's my opinion. But um the other question I have is regarding the uh the um material that's the going to seal the

025uh chambers the make them watertight >> impermanmeable liner. Yes. Thank you for correcting me. Um, correct me if I'm wrong. Wouldn't a manufacturer have a mechanism for sealing a seam? >> Uh, what I described is the manufacturer's recommendations. Um, it is some of them supply their own um, double-sided tape or singlesided sealant tape, but yeah, it's right out of their recommendations. >> Okay. So, they have a procedure and you'll follow that procedure to to do Okay, fine. I just wanted to make sure that because I know like like a liner over a hazardous waste site, it it's a different process. They I believe they use like an ultrasonic welder to actually weld the liner so that it's um essentially becomes one piece and not two pieces glued together. >> Yeah. um for a hazardous material

026that might be required for >> for storm water. Um >> the double the sealant tape, you know, this isn't like scotch tape like this. It's a, >> you know, 4 inch thick. You don't want to touch this with your bare hands. >> Um sealant tape. >> Yeah. >> And like I said, it either goes between the two overlaps or goes on like the seam there and the seam under here. >> Okay. And there's no folding of it. >> Uh it's overlapped at least six inches. and but not and then fold it back on. >> No, I think having it just two two clean sections on top of each other is the cleanest way to do that. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. That's it. >> Anyone else from the commission like to ask a question?

027Anyone online? Bill or Gabe? Hearing none. >> I have a couple of questions. >> Okay. Sure. Go ahead, Carl. Um just so that we're clear because we did speak about this uh in an earlier meeting. One of the concerns and Mr. Lopez, you and I have had several conversations that I think were uh were very good conversations about the concerns of uh both blasting and flooding. Uh the concerns of of of most of the people that have been following this um they're concerns of ours as well. Um, but for the record, there's not going to be a lot of blasting. Correct. If I remember correctly from that discussion, most of the blasting was just to lay utilities and that was fairly limited. >> Uh, that's correct. And I'll give kind of just a general yes

028answer to that and and Will can um fill in additional details, but that's generally correct. And we've also so uh just going back to the presentation made by uh our geotechnical engineer there was um the the site has sort of a a bedrock contour that kind of bisects the site um which you know uh kind of comes up uh in the central part of the site bisects it from sort of Waverly Street over to East Union and then falls off uh from there. And what we've um demonstrated with the test pits that we've done, I think there about 23 different areas within the site that we've uh done test pits to establish uh the bedrock uh layer of the site. Um and and that's thank you for uh bringing that up. That was what I

029was describing. And the the brown line that kind of bisects the site is what I was referring to as the sort of the the the ridge if you will uh that cuts across the site. The so principally what we've done and this was sort of a foundational uh design element was to raise the building above as much of that bedrock uh layer on the site as possible. that that's why the site entrance is where it's located along Waverly Street and that's really the chief way in which we've minimized the amount of uh any kind of bedrock removal at the site. So what this uh plan demonstrates is the blue lines are uh what you were referring to as being the utility trenches where we expect some bedrock removal that can be done without blasting. Those

030can be uh hammered or um or uh removed mechanically. Um and so in general we don't expect uh much of any blasting uh to occur on the site. Having said that, as part of the uh conditions within the ZBA comprehensive permit, we have to provide a blasting plan uh that has to be sent to the fire department and the police department and approved by both of those departments in addition of course to to the town um to review uh any blasting procedures um that would be taking place on the site. that would include a survey where we'd notify people within a certain radius and kind of all the the uh very detailed standard uh requirements for that. >> Okay. I would just suggest um that if you have to deviate from that plan at all

031that that the conservation commission be involved in in those further discussions uh so that we can revisit what we've already talked about and see if that uh potentially but would change anything as far as uh any uh storm water runoff or groundwater breakthrough from that. >> Is that agreeable? >> Yes. Yeah, we're agreeable to that. >> Okay. I guess my other comment is a comment and not a question. I um I know that you're tired of me talking about storm water, but uh it is it is a concern. It is a big issue and we want to get this right. I know that uh when I was before the select board uh uh to talk in general terms uh the concern was how can you and you've heard me say this before how can you

032take that much pvious surface and make it impervious and not flood everybody down at the bottom of the hill and I wasn't able to to effectively discuss that in that meeting but uh just so that we're all clear on this is it it is through infiltration bas for the most part um that collect this water and infiltrate it back into the ground instead of having it running uh down the driveway and down the roads. Uh that's what we've worked uh really um long and hard to get right and we appreciate you. I know it's been uh something that we've talked about a lot. We appreciate you working with us on on those issues >> and and we want to make sure that we get it right also and um we certainly understand the commission's concern.

033We've seen the the photographs and um the video of what happened at the site uh down by the at the public safety building. Um certainly want to make sure that nothing like that uh happens on our site. We've talked about how our two sites are different um and some of the challenges that that site had that our site um does not have. But uh putting all that aside, we certainly understand that and um that's why we've we've sort of taken gone the extra step of putting, you know, just in this last iteration trench drains at the bottom of the driveway to capture that last bit of runoff uh at the bottom of our driveway. I think if you compare we've increased the size of that subsurface structure as will mentioned um significantly um and if

034you compare the footprint of that structure in the first set of plans that we submitted to uh this last iteration it's uh four times larger um precisely to try and get at that. So, we want to make sure that that area at the entrance uh to the project site uh is dry and is safe. Uh and and we think uh the plans that we've the design changes that we've made um go to to all of that in addition to uh the replacement of that uh concrete pipe. Uh which I should also mentioned um as an additional improvement that we've talked about. Uh we're putting in a new catch basin and sewer manhole at the near the entrance to the site. Again, sort of improving that overall condition uh at at that location. >> Okay. As

035you know by this time in in your hearings both with us and the ZBA, probably the two outstanding concerns of the town are traffic and storm water. Uh we don't have any jurisdiction over traffic, but we do have jurisdiction over storm water. So that's why we've been um relentless in u in dealing with that. So thank you. >> Um I think that's all I have for now. >> Anyone else from the commission like to ask a question? Sure. Go ahead. Preston. Just want to follow up on something that Carl said about you know how do they take an imper this much uh surface and make it impervious and not create uh huge amounts of runoff. Uh as you mentioned infiltration is one one big part. The other thing is the state law uh regulates what

036the peak runoff is. So a lot of their system is designed to hold the water and discharge it slowly so that the peak runoff at any point after the storm it is not larger. But that means that it's discharging water for a longer time after the storm. Uh we have a local bylaw that says that the total discharge can't also be increased but the local bylaw has been waved by the ZBA. So that has not been a factor and we haven't we haven't looked at those calculations because they're not jurisdictional in this case. So it's just or just general understanding of anybody watching this. >> Anyone else from the commission? One more. Yeah, Jean. >> Yeah, I have another question. um in going through um uh GCG's uh comments um something hit on me um

037about um using a low uh permeable material as a in a core in the burm for the basin. Um and then you're going to obviously have an outlet pipe through that. I would I don't know how you were planning to build it, but I would suggest you build the pipe in the burm as you build the burm and not build the burm and then dig it up and put a pipe in it because now you've compromised the core in that burm by digging it up and weakening it. Um, I was involved in a project that a basin was built that way. It was an elevated basin like this. it failed miserably and flooded into a wetland and put a ton of sediment out in a wetland. Um, so the way to build this is to

038as you bring your lifts up and compact them, you put your pipe in and you build it with your lifts as you go and so it's it's done when you're done. >> Uh, agreed. >> Okay. But I just want to make sure you do that because I know that could be a huge failure if uh problem if it um failed. Is it right on the edge of the wetland? >> Yes, agreed. >> Anyone else from the commission? We good? Okay. I will now open it up to the public. If anyone would like to come to microphone or raise their hand on Zoom, if you'd like to ask a question or make a comment, you're welcome to do so. Mark Done online has his hand raised. >> Mark Done, you can come off mute and ask

039your question. Okay, thank you. Good evening, Mark Sony, 119 Main Street. Um about the flood planes when there when there's a loose flood planes in one spot and you got to be blasting maybe in that other spot in the spot near it. What's the regulations of doing that correctly and where your responsibility that nothing will be um pushing against each other? Mark, this is Carl. Uh, there is no flood plane issue in 61 Waverly Street. The flood plane issue is in 10 to 60 Main Street. So, um, so do you want to rephrase the question? Does it have to do with blasting or flood plane? >> Okay. Okay. with the the blasting and um they would have wouldn't they have to go out there and do surveys and and make sure the soil and all

040that is going to be correctly um suitable. >> Yeah, we've had uh a lot of discussion of that in earlier uh hearings. They brought in their geo uh um hydraologist. Uh they've done a lot of uh work in the makeup of that site. the bedrock. We raised the issue of of concern of what happened uh the flooding over at the public safety building when the blasting went on over there. So, the applicant is well aware of that. It's a different situation with much much less potential blasting there. And what we've asked this evening is if um once this project starts, if it's outside the scope of what they are uh giving to um the police and fire as a plan that they come back to the conservation commission as well to make sure that there's

041no negative impact from blasting and and flooding. So um let's see the I the peer uh information counselors that's that is here you get other that information also >> does and we have to be careful here Mark because we really don't have jurisdiction over blasting per se we only have jurisdiction over the impact that blasting may have on uh storm water and groundwater. >> Okay. Now will um CG >> GCG >> what's it? >> Yeah. >> Will they get that that same information at the same time the Hong Kong people will get it if case it's needed? >> That if I remember correctly they did weigh in on that. GCG has been uh at these hearings uh all along the way and has weighed in on that. Mike, do you want to comment on that

042anymore? I think some of the conditions that we're recommending would address some of the ledge questions. Um, and there if if you follow the recommendation, you're going to either require their consultant, a PE to stamp it and verify it or um if the de commission deems necessary, um it could be an outside person that goes and reviews it or someone from the town. But I I think as as Carl indicated, we've been pretty conscientious about the ledge. They're putting clay barriers along the pipes to prevent any potential water, groundwater breaking out where they blast ledge. Um we've done everything from an engineering standpoint at this point that you can do. Um and the important thing is things are can be different in the field and it just we have some conditions that we recommend they

043put in that those conditions change that they can be addressed. That answer your question, Mark? >> That answers it. My last real comment would be that there could be something out of the ordinary that could happen >> if not seen or foreseen. Is that correct? That is correct. Um >> it it's hard to predict groundwater much harder than storm water. >> Okay. Thank you. That's it. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else online like to ask a question or in person? >> I see no one else with their hands raised and no one at the podium. >> Okay. So, what's left to do is is uh continue this. Did you want to speak? Yeah. Uh uh sorry I didn't mean to interrupt you. >> No, I was just if you had anything more to say. I

044was just gonna kind of >> Yeah. >> go to the next steps, but sure. You're absolutely if you have something else. >> I I was just I I have jotted down uh the two comments uh regarding conditions that were made this evening. And I also have um gone through all of the memos and correspondence uh and sort of made a list of all the things that we've talked about uh and agreed to during the hearing that could be conditions within uh an order of conditions for the project. And I think um I'd be happy to share those just for the sake of um sort of um helping the agent go through that and the commission go through that. Um uh but I I I think we're at the point where we've provided um you know

045all the information that the commission has requested and I think we've closed out uh all of the issues um that have been put before us and I I would uh request that the commission uh vote to close the hearing uh and uh you know begin its deliberations on on our project. >> Okay. Did you want to go through your uh your remarks first? Um the specifics? Yeah, >> sure. >> Can I ask a question first? >> Yeah, go ahead. >> Before we before we go into talking about conditions and things, at the last meeting, I asked about looking at rellining or rehabilitating the culvert under Waverly Street. I just like to hear what you have to say about that. >> We we uh appreciate the the question. We did look at it. Um I think

046for a variety of reasons, we concluded that it was a pretty major undertaking >> um that we didn't feel the project uh was able to support. Um it's possible that well just to back up, I think we all agree that the culvert is sort of showing its age. It's it's been around um I don't know significant amount of time, maybe more than a hundred years. Um but it is functioning um in its current capacity. Uh it's a pretty significant piece of municipal infrastructure. Uh it may be that a sleeve could work. The the culvert does have a little bit of a jog in it. >> It does been I haven't seen it. So I >> we've been in it and we've we've walked through it. Um and I and in kind of thinking through uh

047the your questions, we looked at these photographs again and so there are some protrusions and and things that >> uh you know that that would sort of narrow that um if you were to put in a two uh it would narrow it. Uh but it it's possible. We just it's it's a pretty complex um undertaking. uh you and I I think it's the kind of uh undertaking that the DPW should really uh undertake um decide what they want to do if anything at this point is needed. Um the connections into it are also pretty tricky. Um there's a couple there are a couple of different um pipes that connect to it. Uh and you know just for a number of reasons uh it's a pretty complex undertaking. We we feel the the best thing that

048we can do um is control the the runoff from our site, make sure that we're not contributing any additional flow >> into that structure and and so we've we've done that and with the RCP repairing that piece of it, um it should improve the condition uh in that location. >> Now you to replace the pipe that you've offered to replace, you're going to have to tap into the side. Is that correct? What? What? We're going to uh tap into the last segment of pipe that currently goes into the culvert. >> Oh, you So, you're not actually going to do anything in the culvert connection itself? >> We're going to put a collar in. >> I got you. >> To connect into that and leave that piece of it undisturbed so that we're not um undermining

049it or or doing anything to um >> So, the last section is in good shape. >> Yeah, you can >> Oh, that's it. >> That's it. >> Okay. So all of that kind of disjointedness that you can see that all of that will be replaced. Y >> and it'll just uh be that one segment with a collar that will be set in level. >> Okay. >> A couple of follow-up things on that. Um what initiated that discussion was initially the the potential increase in rate of runoff at that site. And so what they've done is work on the other end. increase that uh right >> so that there is no net increase. The other thing uh I guess for the record and I'm not sure if he's on the call or not >> but I

050did speak with uh the head of DPW this week about uh after we got your plans to see if he was uh >> he's here. >> Oh, so Doug, do you want to uh speak to this issue? >> Sure. Come on for me. >> Uh yeah, thank thank you. Um thanks Carl. Um, yeah. I mean, it's it's um I I thought Jean asked a really good question there about how far to the covert are they actually going to go. So, that was that was good information. I was under the impression that we were going to be able to see the inlet side um during the the construction, but um as far as um like you said, Carl, by by not increasing by decreasing the peak flow or making it level um that kind of um

051changes things for in our like who respons responsibility is it? You know, so and obviously this is a very complicated covert. Um I I don't have an answer yet. It's it's something that that the town we're going to have to plan appropriately, you know, as far as figure out when when we can replace that actual culvert or or shore it up. Like you said, slee it could be the way to go. That would be a home run. And um and Jean, I know you mentioned the interlocking and all that, but but the way it lines up was not not ideal for for that from what I understand. But so it it's it's you know, I can't give a solid answer or plan or whatever. I just think it's something that we're going to have to

052um spend some time on and and you know, maybe somehow fit it into a five-year capital plan. Well, they have agreed to replace the 12-in pipe and they'll have to work with uh the DPW with to that. >> And I thought that was great. Tell you the truth. I thought that was >> I was thankful to hear that. >> Okay. Next up, anyone else? Yeah. Okay. So, yeah, you mentioned a desire to close the hearing and we're with you on that, but typically when we close a hearing, we have we follow up with an order of conditions and I I think we're going to need some more time to pull together a draft. And so, uh I think it's wise to keep the hearing open until then. So, we can put you on the schedule

053on our off cycle meeting and take care of that. >> Okay. So, uh would we should we then expect to receive the draft in the interim between uh this hearing and the next hearing? >> Absolutely. >> Okay. >> To the commission, just to add on that, the other reason to continue rather than closing the hearing is once you close the public hearing, you only have 21 calendar days to issue your decision. Um if you're keeping your current cycle, um your next hearing would be in 14 days. So you wouldn't have much time to get through all of those conditions. Um so it's just for the benefit to make sure that we're all in agreement with what's being decided on for that. >> Okay. Uh so with that I I I can go through the list

054of uh conditions that uh we've uh discussed and agreed to during the hearing or I can provide this as a as a document. Why don't Why don't you provide it as a dollar? >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, we did a motion to continue that. >> Yeah. So, we're looking at uh March 30th. Is that our next off cycle? Yeah. >> Uh that is correct. March 30th. >> March 30th. Okay. How does that work for uh for your team? >> That works for me. >> Okay. Okay. Do I hear a motion to continue notice of intent 61 Waverly Street, map 15, parcel 12, the Gutierrez Company, D file number 95-106 to March 30th at 7:05 p.m. >> Second. >> Roll call vote. >> Acriman I. >> Crow I. >> Crouch I. Atinson I >> Molton I

055>> Toledo I >> W's I motion passes and this hearing is continued to March 30th 7:05 p.m. All right. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. I think right now um we're in between our two hearings and we would like to take a short recess if you all don't mind. Yeah. Welcome everyone. We're back from our our break from the Ashlin Conservation Commission meeting. We just concluded one hearing and now we're going to move on to our second agenda item. We have 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 as previously done, I'm going to turn the microphone over to the vice chair. Thanks, Greg. Um, again, as a 40B, uh, this is the second hearing

056for, um, 10 to 60 Main Street. Uh, previously after introductions, we agreed to stipulated facts which included, and correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Lucas. Um, we agreed that uh the majority of the site was in uh within a wet uh a flood plane, I'm sorry. That the conservation commission has jurisdiction over activities that alter flood plane. Two, uh three, the site is contaminated. Four, the site is within the 100 and 200 foot riverfront area. Uh those are the four uh facts that we agreed on. we were unable to come to an agreement on the fifth fact which was the site and the buildings have flooded historically. Um, having said that the or to that point, we did receive for the record an email from the um, president of the Ashlin Historical Society with regard

057to the pictures that we showed at the last hearing um, authenticating that they were pictures of uh, the Lombard building which is 10 to 60 Main Street and that they were the property of the Ashlin Historical Society. So that is now part of the record. We then again um set a sequence for discussion topics of discussion which were uh one contamination two storm water three flood plane and four wetlands and riverfront. Following that we had a a request for documents uh which included the RAM report which is a release abatement report. Um we asked for a peer review for wetlands. We asked for a peer review for storm water. We asked for a peer review of the uh RAM report itself. Um and we asked for all correspondence between the applicant, the LSP, the D

058and the EPA regarding the RAM report. Um I believe that the applicant agreed to uh uh at least to consider peer reviews for wetlands and for storm water. was looking for um scope of work from the conservation commission. There was not an agreement as to a peer review for the RAM report at that time. We then scheduled a site visit for um Saturday the 21st and um and then we set a date for this meeting. And that's all we have for this uh hearing to this point. Would the applicant like to uh respond? >> Yeah. >> Yes. Good. Good evening. Excuse me. And for the record, my name is Chris Lucas with Lucas Environmental Professional and certified wetland scientist and registered professional soil scientist. Um just going to pull up screen here and we have

059a presentation. >> Before you conclude uh present, Mr. Lucas, >> do you agree uh with the the summary? >> Uh we genuinely agree. Um I you know when uh John Cusk and I at the last meeting stipulated to the site being in the flood plane, our intent to clarify that was we do agree the site is in the flood plane. I think we may have a disagreement as to the building. Um I'll get into more detail as to that, but we do not believe the building floods or is part of the flood plane. >> Okay. Floor is yours. >> Okay. Thank you. Let me just pull up the share here. Okay, everyone can see that there. There we go. Okay. Um, so tonight we're here with on behalf of the applicant SLV Ashland LLC and

060Jeff Angler is on virtually on the on the call. We're also here with John Cusk from Bowler Engineering, the engineer of record. We're also here with George Campbell from Campbell Environmental, the licensed site professional for the project. Um, so through I'm going to I'm going to give a somewhat short presentation this. Give me one second. Uh so we're here for 10 to 60 Main Street. As you noted, there is a mass DP file number 0951018. Um this is the existing site highlighted in the pinkish colors. Um it's it's labeled 50 main. That's a relic from the ZBA process, but we are working with 10 to 60 Main Street. We've corrected that with the application. Um the parcel itself is approximately 7.8 acres in size. Um, it's located, just so you're clear, north is to the

061left on this. It's not up, it's to the left. So, we are east of Main Street. We are south of Myrtle and Mil Pond. We are north of Conquered Street and we are west of Raymond Marquetti Street. So, we're kind of tucked in that that area as many of you are familiar with the site and if you're not, you will be come Saturday morning. Um the developable area of the project site is currently very disturbed and consist of impervious materials including areas with soil contamination. Um the site is accessed through two main access points um driveways. One's here off Main Street if you can see that on the cursor and another one is located here um toward near Mill Pond. And that provides access to the north and south parking lots of the site. Um

062as as we've mentioned um the site does consist of a historic mill complex and that has pertinence for the wetland protection act regulations which I'll get into and the site has fallen into a state of degradation. Um there's an existing mill approximately 91,000 ft on the site and the gross floor area of the whole property um the buildings is 177,000 ft. The mill has currently been converted into a complex that houses several various businesses and the Sudbury River is located along the eastern property borders the eastern property of the development. Um, as you've noted, the project is subject to went through a comprehensive permit application with the ZBA. Um, and because it's associated with the 40B comprehensive permit application, all local permits and approvals go through the ZBA. Um, a decision was issued by the

063ZBA in January of this year in which they approved um, all the waiverss for the requirements of the local bylaws that were stipulated through that process. And as such, we're here solely tonight under the wetland protection act. The existing site um, the just going through just a so this is a graphic showing some photo locations. Uh, there's four photo points on here. Uh the first one's number one is up here near Mil Pond facing south towards the site. Second one's along Main Street facing east towards the site. Uh third one is facing northwest. And then the fourth one is down towards the other end of the project facing northward. This is that first one to give you an idea of the site if you haven't seen it. This is the second one facing east northeast.

064This one's facing up north towards no pond. Um this this graphic is an aerial overlay showing the resource areas. Um this was compiled from the ORAD. Uh this graphic does not show the riverfront through the site, just on the uh undeveloped areas. The existing conditions plan, which I'll get to next, does show the riverfront through the entire site. Um the the area may not come out clearly on here, but the there's a wetland located Um there's a wetland located to the south southern portion of the site where there's a canal that discharges towards the Sudbury. We've the delineate um the mean annual high water line of the Subbury River has been delineated along the east. The riverfront area of 200 feet are offset from that mean annual high water line. Um that's also coincident with

065the inland bank. We also have land underwater bodies and waterways down gradient of the mean high water line and um those those are and we also have the FEMA under flood plane. Um on this graphic it's depicted in the yellow line around the building. U there's no rare species habitat on the site. There's no certified or potential vernal pools there. The site is not located in an area of critical environmental concern or outstanding resource water. The site is not located in a surface water protection area or public water supply wershed and it's not located in a mass D wellhead protection zone. Um uh this graphic shows the existing complex. Um this portion of the building here is proposed to remain as well as this one. The rest of the complex is slated to be removed.

066This shows the existing parking lot configuration along here. And there's also some parking along Main Street. Um, we also show, as you can see here, this one does depict the 200 foot riverfront area through the entire parcel, not just the non portions. Um, one thing I would like to point out on this graphic, um, there's currently three discharges. Um, the site doesn't currently have any storm water management treatment. Everything's most of the storm water flows towards the back of the site. Um small portion flow is towards Main Street. There is a small existing drain located here. Uh there's another one right here and there's a third one located right here. These currently storm water flows untreated through these drain pipes directly into the Sudbury River. There's also a fourth point here. Um there's an old

067pump house located here which we'll see um on the sidewalk. There's also a drain that that's connected to this that discharges immediately adjacent to the main high water line. Uh that pump house is no longer operational, but the drain pipe still exists. Um there's some erosion there. I point that out because we will be discussing that a little bit more. Um this is before I get into the Yep. No, this is the right one. Um the overall site plan, this shows the overall configuration of what we're proposing. Um the redevelopment consists of a highdensity mixeduse project on a significantly degraded um historic mill use site. Our current program includes structural restoration and adaptive reuse of two historic mill buildings roughly 11,000 gross square feet for commercial and retail occupancy. Um we're proposing a 54,000 plus

068or minus square foot residential building with 250 apartment units. The project you see here. So this this portion is proposed to be reused. This will be the new portion of the building with the new residential. Um this includes obviously partaking part paved parking areas, various amenities such as a uh there's a little pla open plaza here um and associated utilities and a new storm water management system that meets all the state requirements. The site improvements include the storm water management. We're also proposing some improvements to landscaping, lighting, and signage. And we're also reducing the impervious area on the site overall, which is a significant improvement. Um, all points dis source discharges to the Sudbury are going to be retrofitted with tide gate check valves to maintain hydraulic capacity while preventing backflow and riverine intrusion during

069larger storm events. We'll discuss that further as well. Um, so again, this is the overall site design. Parking will be through the perimeter underneath the building. Um, I'll get into some of the storm water. I'm giving a high level review. Obviously, the team's here if we want to get into more detail tonight or we can save that to one of the future hearings on contaminants and storm water and such. Uh, regulatory compliance, we have no impacts to the bank, the BVW or land underwater bodies. So, no further discussion is warranted. Uh the two main components that we will be discussing through this process are obviously the flood plane and the riverfront area. Uh we maintain that we fully comply with the performance standards for boarding land subject to flooding per section 310 CMR 10.574 for

070the performance standards. Um, currently on the site there's um the the the owner has indicated that during the 2020 2010 storms, which we're all familiar with, the significant March events that flooded everywhere. Uh, and in 2013, which was a 100red-year storm, the building did not flood. Um, we'll be working with him to get an affidavit to that effect. Um, we also wanted to discuss the possibility of getting documentation that no insurance claims were filed. So, obviously, if the building flooded, an insurance claim would have filed for the damages. Um, we can look into that if the commission feels that's a appropriate pathway to demonstrate that the building in fact is not flooding in a 100-year storm event. Um, for the standards, we have provided compensatory storage. Roughly 23,000 cubic yards is being proposed. Um, we

071have just under 21,000 cubic yards required. Uh, we fully understand the need for providing footby-foot flood storage. Um, and we've provided that for elevation 185 and above. I know there's been some commentary from D staff and others on the issue of what's occurring for the those three pipes where flood waters may flow through the pipes into the site at elevations below 185. Uh currently, and I didn't mention this, there's an existing wall that um runs along the perimeter along the Subbury River. Um that wall over tops at elevation 185. Um we maintain that the uh foot by foot is not needed and John can get more into this because this was a lengthy discussion through the ZBA process that went through peer review with Hancock Associates. um to everyone's satisfaction. Um comp storage is needed

072when in the judgment of the issuing authority there's uh potential to um adversely affect flows at those lower elevations. In this particular case, those pipes are creating a restriction. So this isn't a typical case where flood waters rise slowly. You have a the pipes are down low and they're they're a restriction in themselves to the flood waters getting into the site. Um, so based on that, you know, we we we can get into further detail on this, but we we believe it's been adequately done and the tide gates are appropriate. We're open to more discussion with the commission and such on this matter. Um, and we we provided the comp. We're happy to provide the data for the elevations below that so the commission has the data. Um, and we can do that moving forward.

073Um, riverfront area. Um, as we stated, the majority of the site is located within a historic mill complex. This is very clear from aerials and the site development in the history. Um and per 310 CMR 10.586 um certain activities or other areas are grandfathered or exempted from requirements for the riverfront area which includes specifically activities within a historic mill complex. Therefore, the performance standards for riverfront area are not applicable or not we don't we're exempt from them specifically in the limit of the historic mill complex which are the developed areas of the site. uh we do have some minor work outside of those areas and that work is generally for two purposes. One is to make stormwater improvements which we think are significant on the site and two for safety for sighteline. Um there was

074lengthy discussion through the ZBA process about sighteline distances and safety here under Myrtle. Um, so there's going to be some minor impact in this location and then there'll be some minor impact um for storm water here in the riverfront and here which are both improvements. Um, in total that area is 3,520 ft. So it is it's fairly dimminimous. Um 321 square feet is specifically for the storm water improvements along the river um for the discharge locations. 242 square feet is for the sight line for the safety and roughly 2171 square feet is temporary impacts um to the south along the canal to regrade that area. So it'll be restored. There'll be a pipe underground and then the the flared end uh for the storm water improvements. Um we we meet the rest of the requirements

075of the riverfront area um because right now the existing work there's a drain pipe that discharges immediately to the river which you know if you want to climb over the wall on Saturday you can take a peek. we can show you where that is. Um we provided the table with all the documentation for those impacts. Um regarding the release of basement measure plan or the RAM plan, um for the record, um the site is located in a notice of activity and use limitation or AOL per MGL chapter 21E section 6 and 310 CMR40. Mr. Campbell's here to answer any questions on that. I know there's been some debate. Um the the in December of 2022, a report was submitted to DP. DP had comments on it. Mr. Campbell updated the report to address all their

076comments. There's been status reports submitted. The most recent plan was submitted in January of 2026, which a commission has a copy of. Um that report will, as I understand it, will need to be resubmitted to D because D wants that report submitted for review and approval within one year of construction. At this point, our anticipated construction is likely more than a year out, potentially 18 months. So, it's too soon for us to submit to D for a plan. However, you have all the information that that's going into that plan. Mr. Campbell can get further into detail on that. So, um we've also reviewed staff comments um and we fully intend to provide a response to those. We anticipate doing that concurrently with the third party peer review. I think it'll be easier to provide a

077comprehensive package addressing all the comments that come in. Um, we did have a question about the timing when you may anticipate the wetland peerreview consultant fees to come in. Um, we did uh the the applicant is amendable to working with GCG in this case. Um, we we think the applicant's okay with that uh first review fee. However, we would request confirmation of additional for the second and third review fees in advance before we proceed. Um I know those those things can fluctuate depending on the initial comment. I think that's a reasonable request. Um we also if the commission would entertain we would like to have a call with them prior to them digging and and starting a detailed assessment. I think it would be useful for Bowler and GCG to get on a call just

078to discuss the overall project, the history, where we are um and go through some of the storm water and the flood plane and then then allow them to do their review. We think it basically a working session with them we think would be useful a short call go through that material. Um we've also received mass DP comments. Uh their general comment was similar to staff comments on the flood storage and the incremental for the lower elevations and uh we'll continue to work with you on that. We'll provide the data. Um and then we'll entertain the peer review and we'll work through that with the teams to hopefully reach a satisfactory conclusion on that matter. Um in summary I I believe that covers it. I don't know if you have anything else to add to John.

079I think that's a high level review of everything. Wanted to keep it as short as we could. Here to answer any questions and obviously we'll get into the meat of these at subsequent hearings as you noted the contamination at the next one, storm water. This will give us some time to flesh out some of the details on the flood plan for that third hearing. Um and I would still request I think I still think we could do flood plan and riverfront in the same hearing, but um just because I I don't think there's a lot to the riverfront here. Um it's pretty straightforward whereas the flood plan's a little more convoluted. This isn't a typical This isn't a standard flood plane case. Thank you. I have a couple of questions. >> Go ahead, Carl. >>

080Before we get into the minutia, which we will in subsequent hearings, I imagine um we sent a sevenpage document with our comments on it. Um we didn't hear anything back. Why did you think that that was uh adequate response? We sent that last week >> because if if we have fundamental differences of opinion on these things, we can't start a discussion on it if we're if we're speaking from different pallets. I we we acknowledge receipt of that. Um it was it was a lengthy document. Um as I stated tonight, we fully intend to address those comments. Um I understood tonight was not going to be a detailed analysis of that type of work and we would present that material in more detail at future hands. >> Well, an email to us explaining that would have

081been adequate. Um subsequent to that you also uh we asked for a RAM report. Your RAM report has been expired for three years and it's for a previous project. Why do you feel that that was adequate to send to us? Sure. Why don't you step up to the mic and introduce yourself? >> Yeah. >> Good evening. Um, my name is George Campbell, Campbell Environmental, and uh, I think the permitting here has taken a lot longer, uh, than, uh, the client expected. So, that's, uh, an explanation of so much time has taken place since the original grant plan. Um it's been updated. Uh the client's done quite a bit of work uh during that time. Uh continued to sample groundwater. Um also sample soil, sampled soil gas. So there's been quite a bit of work that

082has happened during that time period. Um but as was previously mentioned um you know as we get closer we're going to resubmit the ramp plan because obviously permitting isn't completed and and I understand there's issues uh that need to be resolved. So certainly understand that. Um but that's that's an explanation. I think the client certainly uh it wasn't 40B came to be. Uh there's been changes in the design. It's taken a lot longer than originally anticipated. Um, but there's been a lot of work that's occurred during that time. Uh, just uh if you could just please understand that. Uh, and uh the other thing I can say just big picture is uh you know this is an old milk complex. There's absolutely historical fill. Uh there's going to be really quite a bit of cleanup

083if this project goes forward. They'll certainly improve surface water quality. Um so just keep that in mind. Um this is really a green cleanup. Uh you're going to be improving soil and groundwater quality. There'll be soil removal, proper soil removal under the MCP and also dewatering, treating groundwater. So this is really a good thing. It's environmental cleanup. So just please keep that in mind. I understand your question and I can appreciate that. It took a long time. The permitting took a long time. It's still not complete. It's still probably going to take a lot longer than we originally anticipated. So, that's why there was a delay. And I understand your question. I totally appreciate where you're coming from, but it's taken a long time. >> Okay. Mr. Campbell, before you sit down and and to

084Mr. Lucas as well, this is a big deal in this town. You know, you're in a 21E site. You know you're in the plume of a super fun site and you know you're in the shadow of a factory that's been there for 200 years. Uh we have lived here in Ashland in the shadow of Nyanza for 50 years. It's a big deal to the people in this town and it's a big deal that we get this right. So we have to know what's there. We have to know where it is. We have to know where it's going to be during your construction and where it's going to be after the construction. That's our jurisdiction. It's all in a flood plane. We need to know that stuff. So, this stuff is not going to uh um

085be discussed in one hearing. This is going to be a lengthy process and we have to discuss that aspect of this process before we get into historic mill complex discussions or flood plane storage. Having said that, if we have a fundamental difference as to what's included in the flood plane, we need to flesh that out before we start having a hearing so that we're not uh standing here, you know, playing tennis at these hearings. We need real figures and real evidence that this is going to be a green site when it's finished. and what's going to happen between now and then to make it a green site, where that stuff's going to be, uh, how it's going to be removed. We have to know all of that stuff. And if it can't be in a

086RAM plan, because we we expected to approve a RAM plan before we had any further discussion. If the ramp plan is not going to be uh um submitted to D until all your permits are in place, this being one of them, then we're going to have to have some kind of a soil management plan that lays out what's there and a plan that people can understand what's there, where is it, where's it going to be during construction, and where's it going to be post construction. We need all that information. I I can appreciate your questions. I I believe a lot of those were answered in the most recent RAM status report. Um but I I definitely appreciate the NASA the impact it's had on the town. Absolutely appreciate that. Um this site is up impacted

087by the upgradient by no fault of its own by impacted by the upgradient nanza release. um and the client is absolutely going to manage soil and groundwater appropriately in accordance with the Massachusetts contingency plan. So your questions I can completely appreciate and uh you know we can certainly address those questions. I I really can't speak to flood plane issues. I g have to defer to Chris and the engineer. >> I understand. >> Okay. Thank you. Can I I just want to clarify um the information you're looking for is in the the RAM reports we've submitted and and George correct me if I'm wrong if if we were going to construction and within a year from now DP would theoretically approve that correct as it >> that's that's correct that's so >> that's right >> and

088I don't mean to interrupt but the requirement it's just too far in >> you're going to have to stand up yeah Sorry about that. No one can hear you online. Yeah. >> Apologize. >> Um just >> just start from the beginning again. >> And and I I think you're aware of this. Um but the D's requirement is that they want the plan submitted as we're closer to construction. And not every single permit has to be issued, you know, prior to submitting the ramp plan, but it needs to be closer to construction. And the rule is it can't be more than a year away, you know. So what they want us to do is resubmit the land ram plan as we get closer to construction. Just so I understand that but we could use our own

089soil management plan that that would not see we're not D. We're the conservation commission. We live here. >> We don't visit here. We live here. So we have to justify everything that we approve in the areas that we have jurisdiction over. We have to live with the people in this town. And so we have to have evidence that what we're doing >> is safe for the environment. We don't have jurisdiction over of uh public health, but we do have jurisdiction over um environmental health and uh so we need we need specifics to your comments on the RAM report. I've read the RAM report about 10 times and there's not enough information in there for what we need. So there's maybe we'll have to work on offline as to what we do need. >> I'm happy

090at another time to meet with you individually or respond to your questions, you know, at another time. Absolutely. >> Okay. Appreciate that. Thank you. >> Sure. >> Mr. Lucas, did you want to say something or you wanted Yeah. No, I think I think that I think that addresses the comments. >> All right. so far. Okay, I'll entertain any questions from the commission so far >> on the project or >> on the project on what's been presented, the uh overview of the um the narrative for the for the project, the notice of intent because we're sort of at the high level, right? So, >> and we do have a site visit scheduled for this Saturday. >> Yeah. One thing that I would like to see is um looking at the plans there, there's nothing that shows

091a cross-section of the site. So, I see buildings. I see a some sort of a courtyard area in between the buildings. I don't know what the ground is. Is that the ground or is that a a a floor? Is there parking under it? I mean, I don't know where the parking is because these plans don't show it. >> We have architectural plans. We can provide some additional information. >> Okay, that would be helpful. I'd also like to see a ground level surface. Now, you've got an existing conditions plan that shows that, >> but I'd like to see the final product ground level. >> Okay. >> Surface. So, showing, you know, spot grades and all that sort of thing, what whatever it's going to be. >> That's not included in this plan set. >> Okay. >>

092At least that I've seen. >> Okay. >> I don't think that'll be a problem, John. >> Okay. >> We can provide that. Anyone else? Yes, Preston. >> Yeah, I just wanted to mention some things that um that were mentioned that uh I think may be items of contention. uh just as a a heads up and to uh think about uh obviously whether or not the buildings themselves are in the flood plane is an issue because that affects you know the a lot of uh you know of the calculations uh the you mentioned the exemption uh concerning uh historic mill buildings and uh I've heard a number of people talk about uh to what extent that applies for uh the uh the portions that are not being preserved with the old buildings. Um so there's uh

093I I know a number of of residents have mentioned that in the past. Uh so it's something we're going to definitely uh want to pay attention to. And uh uh what sounds like a little detail, the um the tide gates, which I assume basically it's something effectively like a flap. so that the water can go out the hole but then water coming in is blocked. Uh that affects um the amount of water you know if the river is flooding you know that may keep water out of your site but that's water that instead of coming onto your site is then going downstream. Um so that has um that is a concern that um it could be causing other problems and that's something that obviously um uh we'll have to uh look at and address. So

094that that that may be of concern as well. Um those are the things that came up tonight that immediately raised flags that we're going to have to talk about. So, I thought it was uh worth mentioning those now uh so that none of this comes as a surprise later. >> Yes, thank you. I I I fully agree with the the the discussion items I think based on comments we've received from the commission and staff and DP. The the building in the flood plane will be further discussion and the tide gates. Um regarding the historic mill complex, um it's it's it's not so much what's there now as far as the historic buildings. That's a historic issue that's not applicable to the Well Protection Act. It really comes into um whether or not you meet the

095definition of a historic mill complex, which we clearly do in this case. Um therefore, based on the regulations, if you're in the footprint of that mill, it solely means you're exempt from the riverfront performance standards. That's all it means. It doesn't have anything to do with historic buildings and whether or not they should be torn down or not torn down. That's that's not the jurisdictional one protection act. It really is more just to are you in a mill complex or historic mill complex or not? Yes. Um I think that's that's pretty clear here, but we can further discuss that. And then if we are, we're exempt from the rivers act and the performance standards within the footprint. It it would also just be interesting to get a sense of how important that detail is for

096the project. Um, so I I know some of the residents feel very strongly that they disagree with your legal interpretation and I'm not a lawyer. So, and I don't I don't know that we've uh had legal counsel of ours weigh in on this yet. But it just, you know, if it turns out that that we there's a disagreement in the interpretation, but it doesn't actually change the outcome, that would also be uh useful information going forward. Just >> Right. No, that's good. I do believe the peer review should resolve this. Um it's it's a pretty common thing we deal with with the Rivers Act. So I think, you know, once once you have a peer review, I'm I'm pretty confident they'll they'll agree with us and if not, we'll discuss with them and see what

097we can resolve. But um I think hopefully that'll resolve the commission's concerns there. Um hopefully the public's as well. >> Yeah. And and if it does turn out that that uh you're correct on that, then uh we we definitely need to be uh very clear with the the public as to the legal reasoning on that. >> Right. And and on the if what and playing devil's advocate, if we didn't we weren't a historic mill complex, I'd be confident we could meet the redevelopment standards of the riverfront anyway based on what the site is and the improvements we're making. Um we have significant improvements and um actually I didn't give you the number. Let me just the number here. Um, we're reducing the impervious surface on the site by almost half an acre. This is a

098pretty small site, so that that's pretty significant in addition to the significant storm water improvements. So, you know, we we understand the commission's concerns with contaminants and we're very very well aware of that. Um, I think we've put a comprehensive package together that acknowledges we're aware of these issues. Um, we presented our facts. Now, obviously, we're going through the process. You have your comments. We have a discussion back and forth. We work with your peer reviewer as you did with the pre the predecessor here this evening and you know we our hope is to reach a consensus on all the points um and then make sure all your concerns are taken care of and addressed. >> Thank you. >> Just to follow up on the half anacre reduction is is that all in riverfront? >>

099Uh it's across the site. I I don't know. We'd have to calculate the number from the riverfront >> because the riverfront doesn't cover the entire site. >> It it does not. I don't think it's the whole I think it's the whole I think the halfacre is the whole site. We can verify the number. >> All right. >> Well, when we get to that, >> but we can calculate it >> when we get to that part of the discussion. That would be good to know. >> Yeah. >> Hold on. Um, what do you think is the I think it would be um a good first step for you to to uh send responses to our comments so that we know what we agree on and what we don't agree on and what we have to work

100through. And so that being the case, how do you want to proceed here? I know that we have a sitewalk on Saturday, but we have some what seem like kind of serious disagreements here on certain things and and clarification on what it is that we need uh to move forward if our first discussion is going to be contamination. >> Um well, my understanding it seems like the main item we're disagreeing on is the building, whether it's in the flood plane or not. Um, regarding these other issues, >> one of of seven and a half pages of things that we sent to you that that we have an issue with. >> Well, I believe we can address those comments. Um, our intent was to conduct a sitewalk with you this weekend because I think it'll be

101useful for the commission to see the site and have a better understanding what we're discussing. >> Um, and then the intent was to move forward with the peer review. Um and then concurrently because I think we we we we've done this how many decades we've been doing this. Um it gets messy and a lot of paperwork if we're responding one set of comments and revising the plans and then responding to another set. I think it would be more beneficial if we can conduct the peer review with the stormwater and your wetland consultant, receive their comments and work with them and then provide a comprehensive response to it all to Miss Solomon's comments, the commission's comments. But aren't we jumping ahead of the contamination discussion by doing flood plane and uh storm water? I mean, it

102seems to me that that's a ways off those discussions. >> Uh basically, >> what was that? >> Um I >> Yeah, sorry about that. >> Yeah, go ahead. Well, I think moving forward on the contamination issue would be appropriate for the next hearing. Um, but while we we look at those and hopefully engage the peer reviewer that way we can have the peer review completed and then we can come back at that future hearing and discuss all the comments then and hopefully, you know, we can agree at that point. Okay. Well, we probably before we have another hearing, we should decide on what it is that we're going to discuss at that hearing so that we're not all over the place and then there can be kind of collateral uh discussions about the peer review

103things, but the topics remain the same. >> Sure. I see. Uh Mr. Engler, would you like to come off mute make a comment? >> I think I think I think Uh, Mr. Angler, we're getting quite a bit of feedback from your microphone. If you can try turning down your speaker, um, then we should not have that feedback as long as we can still hear your mic. >> Is that better? >> That's >> Oh, yeah. It's still weird, but it's better. >> My speakers are off and my phone is off. You're good now. You're not echoing. You're clear. >> Okay. Um, for the record, Jeff Angler, I'm the applicant from SLV Ashland. Um, Mr. Chairman and members of the board, we we understand um your concern relative to the RAM plan and the overall uh condition

104of the site. I I think one thing that my LSP, Mr. Campbell did not communicate clearly enough is that D will not entertain an updated RAM plan until we are closer to moving soil around the site. And I can assure you under no circumstance will we be ready to begin construction here probably until September or October of 2027. Thus, the ram plan cannot be completed for some time. However, with that said, Mr. Chairman, I understand the concern of the commission and between the ram plan status report. We can also talk to um we've not selected a general contractor but we have somebody that has great experience with this type of thing and we can provide some sort of you know strategy and approach um to the soil removal to the stockpiling and to the various

105handling uh of the contaminated soils. Uh and we'll do that and we'll see if it's adequate or if more detail. However, at this time, we do not know the full extent of everything in the in the in the ground. We do know there are things that don't need to be removed if we're going to be paving over it or it's under pavement. Um, if it's exposed or, you know, durosed outdoor recreation space is, we're going to need to uh remove that. Where exactly that goes, we cannot tell you yet because we do not know um what that soil is. But depending on what is in that soil, it will need to go to uh you know a variety of different distribution centers or excuse me not distribution but centers that accept such soil and depending

106on quote unquote how nasty it is that's where it gets taken to. So, we can lay all this out for the benefit of the commission and continue to have a discussion, but we are not going to have an official ram plan during the course of this hearing. Um, because not because that that's the way D wants it and they've told us that specifically and we can get that in writing if it pleases the board. So, with that said, I I've heard your concern. We will do our best to address that. We will say, and somehow this keeps getting lost, under no scenario will this site be less clean in its in its finished condition than it is now. It will be more environmentally friendly when we are done than it is right now. Yet somehow

107we seem to be getting taken to task for our approach here, but in no case will it not be in in a better environmental condition. So, with that said, Mr. Chairman, I'll shut up. I' We've heard your comments. We'll roll up our sleeves and see what we can do to begin to address some of these concerns. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Angler. >> Greg. >> Yes, Jean. >> I I I kind of I mean, I echo Carl's concerns about the site and what's been pro prepared and submitted to us. This soil uh abatement measure status report uh dated January 26th um was prepared for Ashlin Properties LLC, not for the applicant. Correct. I don't know what this project is that this was prepared for, but it does not seem to be have been prepared for

108this project. And yet this was given to us as the RAM report. And there's very little information in here about what soil is being removed and where it's coming from and where it's going. >> These are the things that we need to know. And yet you can't tell us this. >> Well, first of all, we're not the owner of the site. The ramp plan gets prepared for the owner. We are not the owner of the site. So, I'm not sure what the commission's confusion is for that. >> Moreover, the site is the site and the soil. me if I'm wrong, but a ram plan should reflect a project, not just a site. You're doing things that the land owner isn't going to be doing. And you need to take precautions in doing those activities. And

109yet, that should be in this report, I'm assuming. >> Am I wrong? Am I wrong? I I understand the commission's concern and and your purview for reviewing soils and where the water's going on the site. I I I feel like we're going in a circular argument about the procedure with the ram process. If there's specific items, I would suggest if there's specific things you're looking for that we haven't provided, >> um maybe append that comment letter >> like to add a soil management plan. Mr. Campbell said we can we can prepare that. If there's other items in there that you would like to see, please provide it in comment form and we can look at it as a team and hopefully respond appropriately to. I think that's the the best method. We're not looking to

110hide anything here. This is the the first real meeting we're having where we're getting into any discussion. We fully intend to address your comments. Hopefully, we agree. Um but that that's that you know, we think we've presented a very scientific and technical >> um package for this commission to review. It's going through a third party review to make sure we've crossed our tees and dotted our eyes. And if we haven't, we will. Um, and you know, I think if there's specific things, Mr. Crouch, Mr. Hackinson, that you would like to see that maybe aren't in the RAM, we may not update the We're not going to update the RAM report, but we can provide that. We can provide the soil management. Um, if there's other information, I would just provide it. Let us know specifically.

111If you want to go through it tonight, great. I think it might be more appropriate maybe to append that comment letter to ask for it specifically and and we'll have a written record so we're all on the same page and the team can start working on on a proper response which as I said before we would um there's a cost into responding each time. We really think it would be more appropriate to do that and respond to all those comments from the commission with the peerreview comments. I think it's appropriate. It's cost savings. It's what the applicant prefers. if we need to continue for appropriate amount of time to do so to respond to that then that that's on the applicant's burden but we we would like to kick off the peer review here. Um,

112>> yes, Jean. >> Regarding the RAM plan, I understand you can't do it because it the EP won't accept it until it's it has to be within a year of the work, >> but all the components that go into the RAM plan have to get prepared. You can prepare those, share them with us. Soil management plan, your characterization say Mr. Angler even mentioned that that the site needs to be characterized. >> I just >> correct me if I'm wrong. >> So the the the Do you want to >> I was just going to say that my comment to that was the D commented on the initial RAM report and it's been updated to address their comments. I I think it more appropriate if the commission has information you want to see rather than us filing

113and updating the RAM report at this time because it's premature, we will directly respond to those comments. So, if there's specific things you would like to see that aren't in that report, comment to us and we will attempt to provide it. >> Right. Here's one thing. What's under the buildings? >> We know there were spills in those in those buildings. >> I just like >> Yeah. >> Take a minute to recognize Mr. Campbell. Yeah. Go ahead. Thank Thank you. Um, so just this site, there's been a lot of work that's happened on the site and not everything's reflected in the plan. There's there's a big file, you know, P file. Um, the site has um obtained regulatory closure 15 years ago um through a a permanent solution. >> So it's a closed site. Um there

114was a lot of work done, you know, way back in the 90s and 2000s. The work that's been done since then has confirmed those findings. Um and we have soil that's contaminated. It's an old mill building. That soil will be managed appropriately during construction. You know, as Jeff said, you know, you'll end up with a site that's a lot better than it is today. Um but it is understand it's a closed site. It's obtained regulatory closure. Um there's been decades of work that's occurred on the site >> and we've been sampling twice a year since the original plan was submitted. We've been sampling ground work. We've sampled soil. We've sampled soil gas. There's really been a lot of work that's occurred on the site. I'm happy to sit down, you know, in person and go

115over the findings. Um you know, this isn't adversarial. Um you'll end up with a much better site than it is today. It's going to improve soil and groundwater quality which will improve surface water quality. So, you know, I'm happy, you know, uh with the client's permission, of course, uh you know, to sit with you and discuss the data. Um but absolutely the the work you know which is quite a bit of time away you know probably late 27 uh you know will happen in accordance with the Massachusetts contingency plan. >> Mr. Campbell before you leave um again I don't want to belabor the point but I will reiterate it. It's a sensitive issue in this town. We we bought a piece of property 15 years ago in this town. uh that someone said was contaminated

116with arsenic. Uh no evidence that it was, but they had to do um a grid of the entire property, hundreds of soil samples to show the rest of the town that this property was actually not the next nanza. And no one was living there, no one was working there. It's conservation land. But that was that was the the the the hoops that uh that the town had people go through in order to do that. I would expect that they would feel the same way about an area that's known to be contaminated. That's why we're being careful with this. >> I I can appreciate your concerns and we certainly want to address them. >> Thank you. Anyone else from the commission like to make a comment or ask a question that online bill Gabe? Okay. Hearing

117none, I think we can move on to uh public comment and I see a few raised hands on Zoom. I >> Yeah. And people in the room. We got two people in the room. So, um we'll start off with the room. So, uh, I'll recognize, uh, yeah, your name and address. Yeah, please. >> Hi. Um, good evening. Thank you everybody for being here. Uh, Kimberly Lentros at 79 Hillale Road. Um, my dad was a kid in the 50s and lived at 6 Chestnut Street. Um, which people now know as the Texas Meat Market. He used to be Dairy Queen and long before that it was a house. and he used to tell us the stories of the mutant fish and toads and things that they would find playing in the river behind the house. And

118I bring this up because it's about a half mile from Nyanza. And this particular site is even closer. It's 2 miles from the Nyanza site, which was in operation from 1917 to 1978 as Multiple Textile um corporations. It's listed on the United States um EPA site with a laundry list of the chemicals that they found at the time and since as being um admittedly um dumped into the area and and therefore as part of become the um permaculture around and for 50 years that soil has been sitting and been containing itself as you would hope after any kind of environmental fallout things would just sort of settle and contain themselves. And I know for me, I'm concerned. I do um hold space in one of those buildings and am close to the area regardless um

119that once that soil is disturbed, if they're doing soil testing on stationary soil that's been sitting and had other um permaculture roll into it to help to sort of settle it to where it is. What happens when you start digging that up and what kind of environmental fallout and impact will that have and how can you anticipate or accommodate um that potential? >> Thank you. That's exactly what we're trying to get to in in asking for these reports. >> Thank you. >> We we don't have that answer, but hopefully we will. >> Thank you very much. >> Stay tuned. >> Thank you. >> Okay. to the commission. Just before you continue with comments, I just want to remind the public the commission has a threeminut limit on comments. Um I will be keeping track of

120that. >> Okay, sure. Go right ahead. >> Jun, one shore road. I'm on the historical commission, but speaking as an individual resident, um I reflect what Kim just said. Um I appreciate everything that she said and I agree with it. Um, I also want to say that um I just if I just if I understood correctly, I just heard that um this was a closed site previously by the D and I understand that it was but I believe it was closed as a commercial site, not as a residential site. We are now looking at this site to put families with children in it and if this site floods and or as they dig up the contam dig up the dirt and contamination and create and create a problem there. We had children die in this

121in this town from the contamination at Nyanza and I think that we need to be very very very careful about what we're doing here. Thank you. Okay. Thanks for your comment. So, anyone else in the in the select board room like to make a comment? Okay. Uh seeing none, we can move on to uh the online questions. Uh, I'll recognize Julie if you want to come off mute and speak your three minutes. >> Uh, hello. Um, this is Julie Nardone, 86 Elliot Street. Um, what do we mean when we talk about the footprint? What is included in footprint? And by what year did it have to be there? I am pretty sure I read that all the buildings included in the footprint had to have been there by 1947. >> You want to? >> Yeah.

122>> Um I can actually read you the definition. Just give me one second. While you're looking that up, Chris, uh, Julie, we will discuss this thoroughly as time goes on. So, but Mr. Lucas is going to try to give you an answer here, at least for this evening. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Knew I had it here. Um, per the Wellen Protection Act, uh, the properties within a historic mill complex, which quote means the mill complex is in but not limited to Holy Oak, Tauntton, Fitchburg, Haver, Mthuan, and Medford in existence prior to 1946 and situated landward of the wide facade of a retaining wall, building, Slooh, or other structure existing on August 7th, 1996. An historic mill complex also means any historic mill included on the Massachusetts Register of Historic Places. An historic mill

123complex includes only the footprint of the area that is or was occupied by interrelated buildings, manufacturing buildings, housing, utilities, parking areas, and driveways constructed before and existing after 1946, used for any type of manufacturing or mechanical processing and including associated structures to provide water for processing to generate water power or for water transportation. Um, I think it's pretty clear the site meets that definition and there's um it's it's pretty clearly demarcated with the wall on the site. That's that's the limit we're using is that wall and then the the edges on the north and south side. So, um it's pretty clear in aerial imagery. We've gone back prior to 1946. Um it it's very clear and we can provide further documentation if needed, but it's that's the definition of what the state massp protection act

124requires for a stone mill complex. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Lucas. Julie, uh does that answer your question? Um, >> that was a verbatim Yeah. description. >> Yes. My only other question is, is a dirt parking lot considered a parking lot? >> Is a dirt parking lot considered a parking lot? >> The the the regulations say parking areas. They don't specify, but it's generally um the m the the parking areas associated with the mill are part of the complex itself. So, >> yeah, I think it predates asphalt anyway. So, yeah. >> So, it's it's part of it and that's that's common practice with this this with this type of um project. >> Okay. Great. >> All right. Thank you, Julie, for your question. >> Be discussing that further as we go along. >> Okay. Uh

125Mr. Minani, would you like to come off mute and ask your question or make your comment? >> I do have a couple of questions. Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that. I'm somewhat confused with respect to the conversation that was just had this evening. Uh specifically uh pointing to I'm sorry, Joe Manyani Two Hopper Lane, a lifelong resident here in Ashland. Uh I am a select board member, but I'm uh asking questions and clarification as a resident. uh after uh for tonight's purposes. Um I have uh during the conversation tonight, there were several uh references to a RAM study that was already presented. Um if if I remember and I know Mr. Angler made a comment about that as well and uh another gentleman that was at the podium. I guess was that RAM

126uh report was that for a prior project which is totally different in scope and in nature on this landsite and if that's the case then anything that the DP has considered as a result of that I don't know how that can be correlated to this new project which is totally different from the previous uh project where this RAM report was filed um so I'm assuming that That RAM report was filed by a previous uh developer andor property owner and from what I heard tonight from Mr. Angler, if I if I heard it correctly, that they haven't filed a RAM report yet. But are they basing your their opinions and uh discussions on the previous RAM report on a project which is not in any way close to the scope of the project that uh that's

127in front of you folks right now. I I just need some clarification and and uh answers to that. Thank you. I appreciate that. >> Mr. Campbell, you want to speak to that? >> I believe you did the original, right? >> The plan was updated and it's true it's changed over time and the original plan was not 40B. It became 40B. Um the footprint changed, but the most recent status report represents this project. >> So a quick >> Oh, go ahead, Joe. >> I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Kyle. A quick followup. So the changes that were made were made by the current um developer that's in front of you folks right now. And if that's the case, am I to assume, and again, I'm not an attorney, but if you're using somebody else's RAM report and you're

128making uh adjustments and or statement uh corrections to that, um I don't know if that's actually an an accurate um presentation that to be used uh for representing the current project. and and I appreciate the cander from the gentleman that was just there saying that they've made you know some corrections and stuff who made those corrections and what corrections were made as a result of that because again uh Mr. crouched who said that uh previously mentioned that you have to you folks need answers to these to these to their questions and uh not having the proper questions uh answers to those questions. It's just going to I think you use the expression you're going to be playing tennis back and forth and without getting any proper response andor uh decisions to be made. So I

129just need that clarification. Thanks >> Joe. I think I'm going to try to answer that one. Greg, um if I understood the explanation, I mean it is it is um confusing because it seems uh that the original RAM report expired after one year. So if it was done in 2002, it it it had to uh at least commence by 20ou uh 2022 commence by 2023. It did not. So, all of these updates have been updates to a plan that seems to be uh invalid, which and that makes that confusing. Uh to your original point, the the original um plan was done by the building owner, not the applicant. So, the building owner and the land owner is still the same person. It's just a different plan. But why why it was amended with updates over

130the course of three years when it was uh invalid is is kind of hard to follow >> to the commission. That was also the three minutes for Mr. Manani. >> Thank you. I appreciate your time. >> Okay. Thanks for your participation. Is there anyone else online that would like to ask a question? I see Mark Done. You can come off mute. Three minutes. >> Okay, three minutes. It's kind of kind of tough to get going. >> No, it's 2 minutes and 50 seconds. >> Okay. the this it's is this RAM record that is a major issue. They're trying to bury that to put into place other lighter things to do in place of that. If this was in front of the ZBA, the state housing authority would be trumping that and saying they don't have

131to do that. But this is this board, the concom Yes, we all know we live through it. But I'm just saying to the developer and his team, don't discard the ram is because of so many years and think it's stagnated and the ground they want to work on. I said this last time is the building itself on the ground will be certain to be contaminated there. And that part of the build question is the uh the original foundation of the middle building and the and the pipe lines that's underneath the ground. that should be ram inspected by third parties and rams. So I'm just saying that they got to do that work underground in the main building the foundation to see what the RAM report actually is and have D actually tell them not them

132telling D but D tell them what to do. Thank you. >> Thanks Mark. Mark, you raised an interesting point. Uh if if this RAM report was uh part of the record before the ZBA, it was invalid. Did they did their peer review obviously didn't pick that up? >> I wasn't fully involved in the entire ZBA process, but as Mr. Campbell indicated, you know, the the intent was to start construction sooner. We're at a point now because permitting has taken longer than anticipated. We're more than a year out. Um, and again, um, >> yeah, but you're five years. >> I I I don't want to beat a dead horse with it, but we're we're we're happy to provide you the information you want. We just want to know specifically what you want. >> Okay. >> So,

133tonight, so far from this commission, what I've gathered, you definitively want a soil management plan, which we can work with. >> You also want to know some more detail what's under the building. I we're happy to provide that. Okay. Okay. If you have other comments on that RER plan, if you feel there's other things that are lacking that you would like to review that are pertinent to how soil is going to be addressed in the site, we we'll provide it to us and we'll respond appropriately. We're not looking to hide anything. We're not looking to keep anything from you. We've provided the documents you've asked for. Um there's been some confusion on whether they're appropriate or not. We believe they are. If there's something lacking, this is part of the process. It's a back and

134forth comment. We respond and hopefully address your question. So, you know, we're in the really the first step of this process tonight and uh you know, we we definitely want to work with you and move this along. Um we're not looking to be adversarial here. We want to work with this board. We want to satisfy you and uh hopefully get an approval here. Um so again I would suggest maybe the board can work offline on a list of comments related to the Rama plan and contaminants that um your your your team can provide to us and we can add to the list of comments and um coordinate with the peer reviewer on. >> Okay. As long as if we can work on this offline but we have to have that discussion in public form so

135everyone hears the answer to those not just >> No. Absolutely. No ab right. I we can go through tonight if you want to get the comments out. But I just thought it more appropriate as we re the comments provided by >> staff. As long as as long as those questions are answered in a public form and not on a website or in private someplace. >> No, our our intent is to respond to comments. Uh everything will be public. Um the the response to Miss Solomon's and the commission's comment letter will be public record. We'll have a written response to that. Ideally, as we've done in the past, normally what we would do is provide one package. It'll have a response to comments to to to her comments to the peer reviewers, to the wetland consultant,

136and we'll we'll have a nice letter, have each comment listed out. We'll provide a response to each one and the supporting documentation, soil management plan, um maybe a revised plan set if there's some modifications to the storm water, etc. Um and I and I think that'll provide a nice compreh comprehensive package that can come back and then um you know we obviously we can still have other discussions in the meantime with the board but I I think that's an appropriate way to proceed here and we'll hopefully >> so we're clear you're you want us to have the document that the notice of intent peer reviewed for storm water as is. Is that correct? We we we do I don't think there's any >> without consideration of our comments. >> Cor well I I think that

137the the peerreview should receive your comments. Um but I think it would be appropriate for them to review what we've submitted along with your agents comments and any other comments from the commission and then we can respond appropriately to their comments with them. I I think it's a better path forward. It's still getting all resolved. It may just take a little more time on our end which which is fine. But we we want to initiate that peer review ideally tonight if the if the board makes a vote to initiate that peer review. Um we we would like to proceed and I think it'll be in the commission's interest because if they have additional comments or reiterate or you know her comments I think it's it's a path forward for all of us >> to the

138commission. uh just in response to the applicant's uh suggestion to have the peer reviewer uh be in receipt of the comments that uh I had submitted as well to them. Um that was not included in the scope uh that GCG provided for storm water. Um I'm not sure if it would change the pricing if they would need to spend an hour or so reviewing the nine pages of comments submitted. um or not just for the applicant's consideration. >> I I don't see an issue, but I don't want to speak for Mr. Angler. Jeff, I don't think that'll be an issue if if they need an extra hour or two. >> No, he said no, it's not a problem. >> Thanks for the interpretation. just in case um as related to the peer review, I I

139would just um if if the board is going to entertain that tonight, we would appreciate it. And then um on that matter also, um wondering if there's been any update on the the wetland side, if there who you may have reached out to, what the statuses >> uh through the commission, the wetlands, we did get a response from one wetland scientist firm. Um the scope they provided included storm water which is being done by GCG. Um I sent that back to them to request a revised scope uh that did not include the storm water. Um so the applicant wasn't being charged for storm water twice. Thank you. >> Um they stated they would get that to us. Um we just have not received it yet. >> Okay. Who's the consultant? The >> uh that one

140is Beals and Thomas. >> Okay. Okay. Great. Anyone else from the commission commission more questions or comments? So we we do have our site visit scheduled for Saturday and uh if we want to um let's continue this hearing till our next offcycle meeting on March 30th. We can entertain that if that's agreeable. Let's let's approve peer review first before we continue the hearing. >> Okay. >> And and with that, just uh the just to reiterate the two requests we made earlier because I know there's been a lot of discussion. Uh one would be like we said the applicant is fine with the initial peer review. We would just ask for consideration that uh the fees for the second and third review just be confirmed before we proceed. And secondly, we would also um if the

141commission want to entertain a call between Bowler Engineering and uh GCG to kind of kick this off. I think it'll be helpful for both parties to have an hour, hour and a half call to go through the project, the history where we how we got here through the ZBA and then allow them to do their their review on encumbered. >> Yeah, that that may um >> be an add to scope, but >> okay, >> it's fine with me. All right. Uh, do we need a motion? Yeah. To approve. Yeah. >> Are we approving both peer reviews? >> No. Storm water. GCG. >> Yeah. And GCG. >> I move that we um engage GCG for stormwater review of 1060 Main Street project. >> Second. Roll call vote. >> Acman. I. >> Crow. I. >> Crouch. I.

142>> Atinson. I. >> Molton. I >> I motion passes. >> Great. >> Okay, Chris, before you sit down, uh so let's have a path forward here for the next hearing as far as an agenda. >> Um so that we're not chasing our tail in two weeks. I know I know initially you wanted to discuss the contaminants. I don't know how quickly we can pull something together. >> Are we going to be ready to do that in in two weeks? >> Be ready in two weeks to have especially on the weekend. What I'm hearing is requesting management. They're going to get to talk to Jeff, but certainly my perspective Yeah, you could say that again. >> Can that be repeated into a microphone, please, for the public? >> Yeah, >> maybe we should discuss at the

143next meeting the scope of the soil management plan. Does that work? >> I think that works. >> Does that work for everyone? >> Yes, >> I guess. Sure. >> Instead of the specifics because I think if you spent the next two weeks and never slept, you probably wouldn't be able to come up with >> an appropriate >> that that works. >> Okay. >> Is that the extent of of what we want to do at the next >> hearing or? >> Yeah, I think that's appropriate and we can have a discussion following the sidewalk if there's any additional comments or question or information needed. I I would request if the board can um provide some comments before that hearing. It would be allow us to better prepare and discuss at the hearing. So if you have

144like we've heard we've heard you want a soil management plan. If there's other comments on the soil contaminants on the site, I think it would be helpful to have a even if it's a preliminary comment letter in advance of that meeting would be very useful I think so we can have a good discussion. >> But you don't want to provide commentary on our comments until you get the peer review. >> Correct. We fully intend to comment and respond to them. I think it'd be more appropriate to do so once we have GCGs and potentially Beiels and Thomas' review if it's uh appropriate. I I would think that for the next meeting, we'd also like to have like a an overview of what contamination is known to be on site. um what can what potential contamination

145you know what the unknowns are as well um as much for the public as for us I think that's a something a lot of people are u wondering about and uh just so we have a good sense of the scope um probably be a good uh introductory presentation on that >> yeah I think that's that's a good idea and you know if in le of formal comment letter. If you just want to email us, Miss Alman, a list of the items the commission would like to see, I think we can be prepared that we we're not coming and saying we'll get back to you. If we can address everything, we will. And if we can't, we'll we'll let you know during the presentation items we still need time to provide. But I think that would

146be more efficient time use of everyone's time if we have that preliminary items such as that. Those are those are good questions and we can be better prepared to answer them >> through the commission. I believe everything that was discussed and brought up by the commissioners tonight is included in the nine pages the that was sent in the comment letter last week. The soil management plan is listed in comment item 1G. Um there's more with other question uh comments on contaminants in regards to dewatering in comment 9E1. There are others throughout the uh letter as well. So, if you review that, I think you'll find your list. >> Okay. I just want to make sure if that was a comprehensive list, then that that won't be a problem. >> We'll we'll look at it and

147if there's anything additional to what's in that already in that letter, we'll we'll provide that for you. >> Perfect. That that would be helpful. Thank you. >> Bless you. Bless you. >> Okay. Are we at the point where we can continue this hearing? Any other comments? So, we're looking at March 30th at 7:05 p.m. >> Okay, that that's that works. Thank you. >> All right. We have to say they're all at 7:05 p.m., but um I think the one before you should go pretty quickly. Yeah. >> Okay. So, they get to go first again. >> It's fine. Thank you. >> I think the subsequent one Yeah, you'll be first. Yeah. after that. Okay. So, do I hear a motion to continue notice of intent 10 to 60 Main Street, map 14, parcel 128, SLV Ashlin

148LLC, Carl Lucas Environmental LLC, D file number 95-1018 to March 30th at 7:05 p.m. >> Move. >> Second. Roll call vote. >> I crow I. >> Crouch I. Atinson I >> Molton I >> I >> Jan's I motion passes and >> meetings continue to March 30th. >> Thank you. >> See you on Saturday. >> Mr. Chairman, can we can we confirm the time for Saturday? >> 9:30. >> Yeah. >> 9:30. >> That's right. >> Okay. >> Thank you. We'll see you. >> I imagine we'll see you there then. >> We'll be there. Thank you. Appreciate that. >> All right. Thank you. Okay, take care. >> Anything else? >> All right, so we'll have to adjourn here. >> The agenda had a set of minutes. Are those >> I didn't notice them. >> No minutes. >>

149No, not available. >> No minutes. Okay. So, and member prerogative anything there. Okay. Do I hear a motion to adjurnn? >> So move. >> Second. >> Roll call vote. Acriman I. >> Crow. I. >> Crouch. I. Atinson. Molton I >> I meeting is adjourned.