001Welcome everyone to the Ashlin Conservation Commission meeting at which I'm calling to order at 7 o'clock p.m. We do have a quorum of the commission both in person and online. So since this is a hybrid meeting, I'll make a few um um announcements. So the first is that this is being recorded through WACA live and if there's any interruption uh of the signal, we'll still keep going with the meeting and it is also being held by Zoom. So we have two commission members that are online. And before we start, I have to read a premeating protocol specific to Zoom. This is the March 2nd, 2026 Conservation Commission meeting. There is a quorum of the commission and it is being recorded. Under Governor Baker's March 12th, 2020 executive order, public boards are allowed to meet remotely.
002This order was most recently extended until June of 2027 by Governor Healey as part of the supplemental bill budget bill signed in March of 2023. Please file these 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, myself, Greg Wanss, 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
003call for a roll call vote. During the meeting, commission members will keep their video on and microphone muted muted unless speaking. Applicants and representatives, please keep video off and microphone muted until your agenda item is discussed. Public, please keep your microphone muted until recognized. If you are calling in by phone number, you can use the star six feature to mute and unmute. If you need to share your screen, you may request permission to do so through the chair. 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 this raise hand feature on Zoom. If you're calling in by phone number, you can use the star9 feature to raise and lower your hand. When acknowledged to speak, please state your
004name and address prior to speaking. Public comment is limited to three minutes per speaker. Comments must be limited to the Wetlands Protection Act, Ashlin Wetlands 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, Becca Solomon, our conservation commission agent, will monitor the participants for raised hands and will be recording the names and addresses of commenters. Signing of documents will occur during the week after the conclusion of the meeting. For the public, if you have if you come to the podium, we have a sign-in sheet where you can put your name and address. And this is an offcycle meeting where we're handling only 40B projects. So, it's 7:04. Start at 7:05. I'll announce the first hearing. It's now 7:05 and
005I will introduce the first scheduled hearing. 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. So at this point, I'm going to turn over the discussion to our vice chair, Mr. Carl Hackinson and he will um cover the introduction and the topics that the uh conservation commission wish to cover uh for this particular hearing. >> Thank you, Greg. Um again, this is um our first hearing for 10 to 60 Main Street, also known uh amongst the the uh towns people as the mill buildings. Um, tonight's going to be a preliminary hearing to set the guidelines for meetings going forward. Um, the applicants are uh present, but they're present on Zoom. So, I'm going to read a little bit
006of of uh a description of the background of the project so that uh the people that are watching, people that are present, and the people that are participating will have a background of of uh where we've been, what this actually is, the type of uh permit that it is, uh and and what the jurisdiction of the conservation commission is, uh because it is limited to a certain degree. So, um, I already have a bump in the road here because I have, uh, my next note is representing the applicant. We have Chris Lucas from Lucas Environmental and John Cusich from Bowler Environmental. And the bump in the road is I thought they were going to be uh, present, but they are on Zoom. I guess their whole team is on Zoom. So, but Chris and John
007are here uh, on Zoom. Um, again, this project, uh, you're all probably familiar with it, but if you're not, it's across the street here. Um, it basically basically speaking, it's, uh, uh, residential units with some commercial space that will um, that will be in the place of the what now are the mill buildings. The 40B process is uh, is a Massachusetts specific uh, type of issue. It's it's Massachusetts General Laws 40B. What it allows for is a cert if there are a certain amount of um units set aside as um what are referred to as um affordable units under the um the state guidelines. um the applicant can circumvent the normal um permitting process and file what's called a comprehensive plan to the ZBA, the zoning board of appeals. And uh and it to a
008large degree, sometimes to a complete degree, circumvents all local control. Um it it goes through the process. that's been going through the process now in Ashland for for almost a year. Uh the ZBA has issued their decision. They approved the comprehensive plan and the comprehensive plan comes with a number of conditions and if you're interested in that, you can find it on the the zoning board of appeals website. Um the final decision is there with the conditions. Um, how the conservation commission is involved in this is usually we have limited jurisdiction anyway. The conservation commission usually is enforcing the state wetlands protection law and the local wetlands bylaw and the local storm water bylaw. As I mentioned before, uh, local control pretty much goes away during the 40B process. So what we're going to be
009looking at here uh for the next while during this series of hearings are how this um application um addresses uh the issues of um of wetlands and storm water um under the state law not the local law. Uh again, we have limited jurisdiction here. Um and uh we will be we'll be reminding people of that because a lot of times people when they watch our hearings have no idea what we're talking about because it gets technical. Um and we use a lot of language that's specific to what we're doing. What we're going to try to do over the co uh the process of this uh series of hearings is to translate some of this stuff into English so everyone knows what the heck we're talking about and and also what the applicants are talking about.
010The previous um 40B that started a few weeks ago, 61 Waverly Street, we've been doing that with them as well. Uh sometimes the experts in these fields tend to get a little uh into the weeds and people have no idea what they're talking about. It's sometimes difficult to to uh to translate this stuff, but we'll do the the best that we can or ask the experts to do the best that they can. So, um, in in the interest of saving time and streamlining, uh, the conversation and so that we're all reading from the same script uh, when the applicant starts to speak, we put together uh, for all the 40bs, we put together a template uh, to go through so that we can identify the sequence of topics that we're talking about, when we're going
011to talk about them, what documents we need uh in order to do that and also agree to what what I referred to uh is stipulated facts and the reason we have stipulated facts is so that we don't end up talking in circles uh about uh what we agree and what we don't agree on. So uh we're going to start this evening uh Chris do you want to identify yourself before we start begin and uh John as well. >> Sure. Thank Thank you. Um my name is Chris Lucas with Lucas Environmental. I'm a professional wetland scientist and registered professional soil scientist. Um and I I'll hand over John say I also want to let you know Jeff Angler the applicant is present on Zoom as well. Um as well as Eric De Bruy with Bowler Engineering.
012So we we have four of us virtually. And um Mr. Hackinson, I also want to say that uh we we had um some correspondence last week. Uh we had indicated we'd be here virtually. you indicated that was fine. We would have been here in person if u if we thought it was appropriate. We do plan to attend in person for future hearings. Um but based on the limited scope and agenda, we we thought virtual was appropriate tonight. >> And that's fine. I just is my error. I I thought Mr. Angler was going to be virtual and I thought that you and John were going to be in purpose in person, but uh right >> we plan to be in the future. We we will be in person for the uh for the meat of it
013when we get into the uh specific uh topics for discussion for the next hearings. >> Okay. I did run off um the template for both of you. I thought that you were going to be here so that you could follow along. So you some of this stuff is going to be the first time that you'll see it. We we've um um exchanged emails, so it shouldn't be too much of a surprise, but uh but so that we're clear, uh yourself and John have been um um approved by Mr. Angler to answer these questions, I'm assuming, or >> Yes, we're here. >> Stipulated facts, I'm sorry. >> Yes, we've been authorized to discuss the project and answer questions tonight. And Mr. Angler's on. If if if there's something we can't answer, he can he can chime
014in as appropriate. >> Okay. We have five stipulated facts that we'd like to clarify first before we can move on. And I can send you um I can send you this template after the meeting uh Chris so that you'll have it uh in front of you. And the first one uh is approximately 95% of the site is within flood plane. Do we agree to that? >> I don't know the exact number. I haven't calculated. This is John Cusk with Bowler. But a substantial portion of the site is within the flood plan. >> What was the last thing you said? substantial. >> Yes. >> Okay. Okay. You agree with that as well, Chris? >> I I I agree. I don't know the exact number, but uh a significant portion of the sites in the flood plane.
015>> Okay. Okay. Um stipulated fact two, the conservation commission has jurisdiction over activities that alter a flood plane. Agreed. >> Yes. >> Okay. stipulated fact three. The site and the buildings have flooded historically. >> The the site will have flooded. I'm not aware of the building flooding. >> We have evidence of that. Would you like to us to share it? Hold on for one second. These have been these are pictures that were taken over the years of that site. We can we can send these to you as well uh Chris and John. >> Okay. >> The one in the right hand corner uh on the bottom there is the water coming over the falls and across the Myrtle Street. The rest of the pictures are uh from the site itself either in the parking lot
016or the loading dock or uh in the building itself. So, can we agree that the site floods historically? >> Mr. Chairman, can you hear me? >> I can. Is that Mr. Angler? >> Sorry. Yeah. Yeah. I didn't realize I was unmuted. Um, if you could send us these for the record, Jeff Angler. I'm obviously the applicant from SLV Ashlin. This is the first we're seeing these photos. Um, I'm not sure stipulations for me are in a legal sense. So, I'm not sure the objective here. Please send us the photos. We'll review them. I mean, we can't authenticate these photos. We don't know where all of them are, obviously. I see one of them looks like the mill building, and I'm not saying they're not all of the site, but we're not going to stipulate to
017anything that we haven't seen um before this evening. Uh, this is Chris Lucas. Do you do you have dates with each of these photos as well? >> They're from 1955. >> 1955, >> correct? >> Okay. Do you have any any photos of flooding within the last 50 years? >> Do we? We'd have to check. >> Or how about this century? So, are you suggesting that this is a oneand done? >> No, I'm not. But I mean, it's 70 years old. I was just thinking perhaps it would be more applicable to have something more current that >> Well, the fact that flooding is more prevalent now than it was 50 years ago, I would say that uh that kind of speaks for itself. Um I think these speak these pictures speak for themselves. the the the
018um >> the stipulated fact was that historically these buildings have flooded. None none of us own we do not own the buildings. The consultants were not involved and I do not think could attest to whether the buildings flooded or not. As I said, we will stipulate that this is the significant portion of the site is in the flood plane. And if you'll share the photos with us, we'll review them and get back to you. >> We will do that. Thank you. and and uh to to the point of flooding too, we we'd like to take a look at the the storm events that occurred um in 1955 as well. We can take a closer look at that. And um just too, we also have an order of resource area delineation for the site confirming the
019limits of the flood plane. Um and as part of that ORAD process, it was assumed the building didn't flood. Um so we just we can take a closer look at that um and have further discussion when we have a more detailed meeting to get into the flood plane issues. >> Okay. Noted. >> Thank you. >> We'll we will send you the pictures and any other information that we have. >> Great. Thank you. >> Okay. Stipulated fact four. The site is contaminated. Uh I think we're we're uh okay stipulating that there are uh reportable materials on the site. >> Okay, that's Mr. Angler speaking. >> Yes. >> Okay. And the last um fact, the site is within the 200 foot riverfront area. >> Yes. And I'll add to that that it is historic mill complex which
020has you know it affects how we review the performance standards for certain parts of the site and exemptions >> but that's not what we're asking. The site is within the 100 200 foot riverfront area. >> Yes it is. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. That's it for stipulated facts. The next section that we have are topics for discussion and the commission has divided it into um four different topics that we would suggest that we um discuss separately um because of the nature there's an enormous amount of information as you uh are aware of and we are now aware of uh that we have to go through uh in order to complete our deliberation and to um and to get our peer reviews back from. So those topics of discussion are one contamination, two uh which would
021include the RAM report uh two a discussion of storm water, three a discussion of flood plane and four a discussion of wetlands and riverfront. Um these aren't stipulated facts, but those are the uh the areas that we'd like to uh sequence in our discussion going forward. >> I I I believe that's reasonable, excuse me, reasonable and covers the topics. Um I I do believe flood plane riverfront wetlands could probably be handled in in one hearing based on the the the the flood plane being the more significant and likely discussion topic whereas the riverfront and the wetlands are um that there's much less impact to those resources. >> I don't disagree but let's see how those discussions go. >> Okay, >> Mr. Chairman, what what was the first one? I got storm water flood plane and
022then weather. >> Yeah, the ram report. >> Yes. >> Okay. And and Mr. Angler, I can send you what I'm reading from as well. Or maybe you can get it from Chris if you if you don't already have it. >> Okay. The the document requests that we uh would uh like or and this is a question I have for you, Chris. We've we we have several versions of the RAM report. Um we are under the impression that the current RAM report is invalid. Is that accurate? >> No. Um, as I responded last week, the so the LSP indicated that the December 2022 RAM report that was and um there was some email conversation about last week is the first one prepared for the site with his firm. Mass DP reviewed and commented on that report.
023>> This is 2022 is >> Yes. I'm just giving a short history of the RAM for the commission so you're aware. Is that appropriate? >> Okay. Sorry. You said I thought you said December 22nd, but I think you 202 >> 2022. Go ahead. >> December of 2022 was the first RAM report. Mass DP reviewed that. Um they had a series of comments on that report. Um so it was later revised to address all of Mass D's comments. Um status reports are required every six months and were prepared in prepared in 2023, 2024, and 2025. The most recent report that we provided the commission a copy of uh recently was the January 2026 report which is the most current and it is valid um that's been provided that deals with stockpiles, dust control, vapor barriers and
024the overall management of the soil and the site which is going to be critical for the project and overall redevelopment. um mass D is indicated to the LSP that as the earth work is likely more than a year away for the site that the applicant will need to resubmit that to mass D prior to beginning any earthwork. Um we provided you the release tracking number and the link so you could go through and see the full history. All these documents are publicly available. If there are specific ones you'd like us to submit on the record, we're happy to do so after the hearing um before the next hearing. And um so that that current the January 2026 report we provided is valid and is the most current for the site. >> Okay. Okay. Do you
025want to clarify that, Becca, because that's inconsistent with the email that we got from D? >> Uh through the commission, uh an email received by the conservation department from D on February 13, 2026 states, "Since RAM activities were not initiated within a one-year period, the RAM plan is no longer considered valid and needs to be closed. We expect that a new RAM plan proposing the same activities uh will be submitted in the future. >> So, all right. Yeah. So, so that's D's indicated to the LSP that because it's more than a year away, they have to resubmit and D will review it again. Um they don't anticipate much changing on D's end, but yes, we will need to resport submit as we get closer to earthwork. Um the intent is not to do it now
026because we're more than a year away. we would have to do it again. And the January 2026 contains all the information that D and the commission would need to review the site for critical uh for um redevelopment of the site. So um and again we're happy the LSP is planning to attend um one of the the night that first topic of discussion for the contaminants so he can answer all the questions and address your in more detail. We can discuss it then. >> Okay. We we probably ought to get on the same page as D. the the the email that I have said that the LSP said he would refile by March 13th, which I believe is next week. So, um that should be clarified. We won't go into the detail tonight, Chris, because it's
027a preliminary hearing, but um we we probably need to get that straightened away. We're going to ask for a peer review of the RAM report. So, we want to make sure that we're peerreviewing the correct RAM report. Um I would ask if this correspondence if um if you could share with us after the hearing from any correspondents from D on that so we can coordinate with the LSP. >> Yeah, certainly. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Well, we we um we need the most recent RAM report. I have all the other ones. I appreciate what you've sent to me, read them several times. Um and it will be a discussion. Uh the second point for for requests is uh a peer review for wetlands. The third is a peer review for storm water and the fourth
028is a peer review for the RAM report. Does the applicant agree to those? >> Uh uh this is Jeff Angler. Uh in general uh we agree to the peer review. However, per uh customary policy and practice would like to see uh the scope of services and would like to see the bids from three uh qualified respondents for each of those. I I assume there may be uh one company that may bid on all of it, but um we do we would like to see that. >> Well, we do have scope of services. We don't have it for three and that will slow down the process. But if that's what you want. >> How many do you have? >> We we have on retainer uh uh GCG has done our storm water. They're doing currently uh
02961 Waverly Street project. We don't have an estimate yet on the um um wetlands, but we we uh did have uh a peer review for 61 Waverly Street, which is the previous uh 40V project, and we were in the process of getting uh um bids for the um RAM report peerreview. >> What What What firms are you reaching out to? I think we we would uh it' be helpful if we knew where they were to ensure there's no conflicts um or other issues on the applicant's end. >> If well let's in in the in the sake of of time we can do that offline if that's okay Chris as long as we can agree to the general premise of uh peer reviews for those three topics. Is that agreeable? Uh I I think uh storm
030water flood plane wetlands for sure. I'm I'm not sure about agreeing to peer review of a RAM report that's under the jurisdiction of D and it's a stateisssued report a stateisssued permit. So I'm not sure why the conservation commission would be peer reviewing that >> because it's jurisdictional for us working in the flood plane. So we need we need some kind of a plan to review for the purposes of this permit. >> So if it comes in the form of a RAM report or another report for remediation, we have to know what's going on there. That is jurisdictional for us. >> Well, m Mr. Chairman, we'll get back to you on that. I think in the interest of time, I think the other ones we can agree to, but I think it So, what you're
031saying is you not necessarily wanting to peer review the RAM report. You're just interested in the flood plane. >> We'd like to peerre whatever work that you're going to uh work in the flood plane that has to do with the contamination there. Yeah, that we're not going to agree to because the contamination is uh specific to D. It's their jurisdiction and their jurisdiction only on how we handle um you know that remediation and the regulations that we need to adhere to. So, we had this conversation, as you know, with the zoning board, and they didn't they didn't pursue or push peer review of anything that that uh George Campbell is is submitted to D. So, in this case, I I think we're we're okay with one of your consultants looking at the flood plan, but
032we're not okay with the peer review of the full ramp plan. Well, that may be problematic because we do have jurisdiction over that and the ZBA does not have jurisdiction over that, which is probably why they didn't push it. We have juris hold on one second. We don't have jurisdiction over public health, but we do have jurisdiction over environmental health. And if there's contamination in the flood plane and it's going to be moved or altered, we have to know that. And we're going to have to know that in order for this to to proceed. Well, Mr. Chairman, I'll confer with my team and we can provide a response for tomorrow. >> Okay. >> But the the other peer review that that's one item of several. There's there's plenty for peer reviewers to chew on. So,
033we're asking for you to provide the scopes and the names of the the consultants that you've reached out to to peer review the other disciplines and they they you know we're like to review that. We'll get back in due time. We don't have any interest in dragging this out. So, and we'll get back to you on the issue of peer review of uh the ramp plan or or certain parts of it. >> Yeah. Well, okay. Well, it's not unprecedented for conservation commissions to review those documents. Matter of fact, it's suggested. >> Did you want to speak to >> Yeah, I one of the reasons many one of the many reasons why we're interested in this is during constru we are responsible for ensuring that no contamination is moved into the river or into the wetlands
034adjacent to the site. Uh and since the entire site is flood plane, it's going to be excavated, dug up, it's going to be, you know, material is going to be handled. It's going to rain at some point during construction. We need to make sure that uh we are comfortable that the contamination that exists on this site is not being transported into the river or onto uh adjacent wetlands. That is why we are concerned about what happens to this contamination on site and why we need to look at your RAM plan. I >> is not is D not charged with that identical thing >> perhaps, but so are we. We've got a we've got a responsibility to the Wetland Protection Act to do this. >> There's separate scopes. D is looking at the remediation. We're looking
035at the impact on the resource areas with >> All right. Well, we understand your your request and we will get back to you uh in due course right away. >> Okay. Thank you. And the last uh documents is kind of an encompassing all correspondence between the the applicant, the LSP, the D and the EPA uh that we may need with regard to the RAM report. We do have some of that that's public information. Uh but if they're subsequent, we would uh we may ask for those documents. >> I I don't see a problem with that. It's it's all public record. So we're we've we've provided the link and if we need to make copies and provide what's on the D website, we we can do so. But again, uh commission has access to everything related
036to that at this time. >> I agree, Chris. Um but we want it to be part of the record. We don't want to have to research it. That's why we want it to be part of your application and part of your record. >> Then I I would suggest if the commission's amendable, um, if you can work with your conservation staff over the week and provide a list of specific documents you want, we're happy to provide. It's a it's a pretty long list of documents. Um, so I just want to make sure we're happy to provide you whatever you want. I would just suggest you provide us a specific list. >> Yeah. >> Um, you know, and we can we can provide that. >> We don't have a a list currently. We have what we need
037currently. That's if something comes up subsequently. >> Okay, no problem. >> Thank you. >> Okay, the last two things. Uh we we'd like to schedule a site visit and we'd like to schedule a followup uh of a date and topics for the next meeting. So, is there a time when uh you and Mr. Cusk could be available um to do a a site visit with us? Sure. What uh what's the commission's preference? Do you prefer weekends, week, end of the day? What uh what's the availability of the commission? I can't speak for John, but we're usually very flexible with sitewalks or we can be. >> We usually do Saturday morning. Uh if we can. >> Okay. Um um I'm I'm I'm fairly flexible this month except for the full morning of the 14th. >> John,
038>> I'll make myself available. Just let us uh let us know what works for the commission. >> So, um every weekend except for the 14th. Is that what you said, Chris? >> I have a personal commitment with my family on the 14th. >> Okay. >> I c I could send someone else to my team if that's the best date. Um Devon Taber from my office is familiar with the site. She's been involved in the project. She could attend if if that's the preference of a date. I I'll have to check her schedule, but um if she's available, but we also may want the snow to melt a little more. It looks like we have a good thought. >> Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. >> Um >> yeah, I was thinking that also. When
039would the next meeting be that we would scheduled before that I guess and yet late enough that we might lose some of the snowpack we've got. >> Run that one. Fast me again. When is the next meeting with >> When are we thinking the next meeting? >> I'm assuming two weeks from tonight. >> Okay. The 16th. So the 14th is out. >> Well, Chris can't do the 14th. >> And uh we're supposed to get more snow tonight. >> Yeah. It's supposed to be 60 this week though. I don't think >> Oh, that's true. >> It's supposed to Anything we get in this storm, they said, is going to u likely melt Wednesday. >> What about the week after the 14th? Is that the >> Well, that's the week of the meeting. The the week of
040the 16th would be the 21st. >> 21st. >> But that's after the first meeting. But that that can be that's okay. Yeah. Yeah. We It doesn't have to be before the next meeting, I guess. Yeah. can do the 21st >> 21st 21st work for um you Chris. >> Yes. Uh I I can I can make that work. >> And John as well. >> Yep. I'll make that work. >> Okay. The commissioners >> uh there's a 3-day school weekend. Is that that weekend? I'm not sure on the the school calendar >> for the entire state. No, for I I think there's a um >> a an Islamic holiday that uh is causing a three-day weekend. Or is that in March? >> Oh, that >> This is March. Yes, that is in March. So, I don't know.
041I'm a little discombobulated, but >> Well, I can go with the 21st. Can you go with the 21st? Well, the only thing I've got on my calendar that I didn't put there is Elid al Qar >> to the commission. >> I don't know what that is. >> I believe the holiday that uh Preston was referring to is the night that is the end of Ramadan, which ends on March 20th. So, if you are looking at the 21st, I think you should be okay. >> Yeah. Well, I I'm out of town that weekend is the issue because with it being that a day off of school. >> Well, I could make a comment about your attendance to sidewalks, Preston, but I'll hold it. >> Um, >> I can make the 21st. >> Yeah, sounds good. Or
042do you like the mornings like uh 9:00, 9:30? >> Uh, yeah. Yeah, 9:30. We >> How about 9:30? Yeah, >> 9:30 works for me, John. Good for you. >> Okay. 9:30. >> All righty. >> Okay. So, we have to um schedule a follow-up meeting and topics. Now, I know that you guys were initially planning to do a presentation this evening, and I kind of stole your thunder. Um, but I think it's important to get this stuff done before you do your presentation so that everybody knows what the parameters are. Uh, and the people watching know what the parameters are. So, would you like to do that at the next uh, hearing an overall presentation of of the project or what would you like to do? >> Yeah, I think that I think that would be
043a great idea. If you're meeting on the 16th, we could do um you know 10 minute 15 minute presentation of the overall project, go through wetland resource area impacts, etc. Answer any questions the commission have. I think that'll be helpful before the sitewalk and uh I think that I think that'd be very helpful for the commission. >> All right. >> And the public. >> Okay. So you in the u interest of fairness, you'll probably be the second hearing on the second instead of the on the u the next meeting instead of the first one. >> Um okay. So we have a topic. We have a meeting date. Um um we we would like to allow the public to ask any questions if uh if you would be willing to stick around for that. I realize
044this is preliminary so there probably won't be too many but uh >> tonight or at the next hearing? >> Both this evening and next >> we could tonight. I think it might be more beneficial after we give a presentation because the presentation may answer many of the public's questions if they have any. But if if the commission would like to tonight, I I just find question Q&A is more useful after we present. >> Yeah, I don't disagree with that other than the fact that we're trying to be and and we've talked about this. I think we're trying to be as transparent with all of these 40bs as as possible. Um this >> this is a hearing. >> Yeah, I think we're required to >> I think we're required to have public input to a hearing.
045So >> great. >> Okay. Okay. >> All right. Uh so yeah, let's open up the discussion to the public. Is there anyone in the room who'd like to come up to the podium and ask a question from what's been discussed tonight? >> There's somebody online, too. >> Okay. Okay. I'm not see anyone on site here. So, let's go to let's go to the Zoom Zoom participants. What do we have here? >> Julie. >> Oh, okay. We have uh let's start with uh Mark Done. You can come off mute and ask your question. >> Mark. Mark. It's >> not Mark. It's Julie. >> Oh, it's Julie also has his hand up. It's just cut off on the TV. I >> think you're still on mute, Mark. >> Okay, thank you. >> Okay, >> Mark the Sony
04619 Main Street. Um, at least this is a good start to get get a starting point for the uh what could be going down the road. I have two two questions. on the flood plane and the um the ram issue. First on the flood plane where the the middle building is the base of the buildings. I'm I'm just wondering will those buildings be strongly flood preventable by the by the um developer or how that how's that going to work? That's one question. And the other question is that the RAM peer review seems like be like a like an issue saying that u they don't want to not saying they don't want but they kind of don't want don't agree that that should come forward. Why is that ram uh issue a difficult one to agree
047on? first the um base for flood planes of the mill building itself. It was who's going to uh make it upgradeable and then the ram issues. Thank you. >> I'm not sure I heard the first question. >> You >> Mark, can you repeat that first question, please? >> He was building the the mail when you showed those 1955 flood >> um issues. >> Yeah. I'm just wondering a building the build the mill builders now who's going to make sure that those buildings are be um capable to withstand the um any sort of flood that does actually happen. >> Yeah, that's going to be part of the discussion of the flood plane, Mark. That's something that we're going to talk about in depth going forward. So it'll be discussed at great length here at the conservation
048commission >> future meeting. >> And your second qu what was the second question? >> Oh the RAM report. Yeah, the RAM report is a release abatement measure and it has to do with uh with in essence what's there and how is it going to be uh um remediated without it uh being problematic. And so usually that is a um is hazardous waste is is a D issue. The fact that it it's complicated in this case because it's in a flood plane which is jurisdictional for the conservation commission. So trying to put it into to lay terms D for the most part is concern is concerned with the impact on human health of these things. The conservation commission has no jurisdiction over human health. our our jurisdiction is over environmental health and so the flood plane
049and the river and the wetlands uh area there will they be impacted by uh this ongoing project and that's why we are suggesting that we have jurisdiction uh concurrently with uh the D but over different issues slightly different issues that make sense We'll be discussing that in great length going forward though. Okay. Is that all set? Mark, >> thanks Mark for your questions. And then we had one other person online. We have uh Julie. >> Julie. >> Yeah. Julie, you can come off mic and uh ask your question. Um, this is Julie Nardone, 86 Elliot Street. Um, the Rivers Act exemption for historic mills exist to renovate, restore, and readapt these historic buildings. Um, it isn't to tear them down and replace them with new buildings. um why would there be an exemption for historic
050mill sites if they can be demolished? And then two, can we please get a state expert in here on that exemption to explain uh why these mill buildings could be demolished given the exemption? Thank you. Yeah, I think the answer is um we will have um a discussion with regard to this. It's something that that the applicants have raised in their notice of intent. It's something that we uh will discuss uh again in great length um going forward. So stay tuned for that. But that certainly is on the agenda. Julie to the commission. I see no more hands raised online and there is nobody standing at the podium. >> Okay. So, we have an an agreement on a follow-up um meeting. Is that correct, Chris? >> Uh yes. I have one clarification um regarding the
051topics for discussion. I assume the next hearing we'll make a general presentation, do some Q&A, and then from there we would schedule meetings for those specific topics. Is that correct? >> That's what I would prefer if that okay that works for you guys. >> That way you can schedule your your uh experts to either be present or not present. >> And is your preference the order you discuss them the ram and contaminants storm water and then the resource areas or is that open for discussion? >> It is. >> That's your preference. Okay. >> It is. Yeah. Okay. >> All right. So, what's left is uh reschedule I mean to um continue this hearing. Do I hear a motion to continue notice of intent 10 to 60 Main Street, Map 14, Parcel 128, SLV, Ashlin LLC,
052Care of Lucas Environmental LLC, DP file number 95-1018 to Monday the 16th at 7:05 p.m. >> So moved. >> Second. Roll call vote. >> Eron I. >> Crow I. >> Crouch I. >> Hackinson I. Molton I >> Toledo I >> Jan's eye. So motion passes and uh we'll pick this up again on the 16th at 7:05 p.m. >> Great. Thank you. We appreciate the time this evening. >> Thank you Chris. >> Thanks everybody. We appreciate it. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Next on the agenda is notice of intent 61 Waverly street map 15 parcel 12. the Gutterius Gutierrez Company D file number 95-1016 and yeah Mr. Carter you want to join us? Yeah. Okay. So now at the table we have Mr. Mike Carter from GCG, peer reviewer for storm water management. Okay. So, where
053we left off were uh kind of answering um uh the the comments from both the peer reviewer and our our conservation commission agent and also we were left off speaking about uh peak discharge rates. Um we're going to work on the math a little bit to uh get those compliant. So, why don't you um Mr. Park. Yeah, I see you're here. And uh >> uh Sure. Should we wait for the vice chair to return? >> Yeah. Okay. >> Okay. All right. So, we're going to um undergo a fivem minute recess uh so everyone can uh cycle out and uh wait for the vice chair to Okay, the fivem minute recess is over and we're we're back live. So, >> yeah, recess is over. >> Yeah. >> Uh, good evening everyone. Um, my name is Will
054Park, senior civil engineer at SMMA. Uh, with the project team tonight is Israel Lopez from the Gutieras Company, the applicant, and online is Mark Arnold, um, the project wetland scientist, um, from Goddard Consulting. So, as the chair mentioned, um we had a productive hearing on February 2nd, um and reviewed um the comments that we had received from, uh GCG Associates at that time. Um at the time um or shortly thereafter the that hearing, we submitted a um a response package to their comments where the roughly 49 outstanding items were um windowled down to about 17. Um we submitted a package to them on the 13th. Um and then the following Friday on the 20th, we submitted um a several page memo responding to um several comments we had received over the last month or so
055from the conservation agent. Um as recently as last night, we received indication that GCG was um finalizing their uh their review and we received their letter uh this afternoon. Um, we dropped what we were doing today to try to address those comments. Um, it was a pretty short list. Um, my account of the comments was >> close. They got a um so our our read of the GCG um comment letter today was um that there are about 20 uh outstanding items. They added a few comments from that 17 I quoted a moment ago. Um, our review of it is that the majority of them are agreeable. Just little plane cleanup things, changing a number here, adding a note here, and we are down just to uh, you know, two or three items um, that we
056feel confident we either scrambled to submit today just to get it out there. will follow up with more backup um or things that we can easily incorporate in the next few days and submit. So, we really do feel that we're uh have whittleled their comments down. Um would you like me to discuss those at the high level or go through their memo with like all the the red comments that remain and address them one by one? >> What do you think? Well, personally personally, I'd maybe just go over the ones where there's any discrepancy still. I mean, if if uh GCG is comfortable with your answer, then I think I am. And why don't we just go over the ones that are yet to be resolved? >> Sure. So, I'll I'll go through their letter
057uh and just I'll just pause on the one I'll Mike, if you don't mind me paraphrasing in the interest of time. Um, please do >> I'll I'll paraphrase and comment on the ones that I think um are worthy of of an update. >> Okay. Sorry, I've seen the page numbers at the bottom. I will take credit that the response we submitted this last time had page numbers. >> Thank you. >> All right. Um on GCG's uh letter page four um at the top there's red text regarding the um peak discharge rates uh to our design point one which is the 12-in RCP culvert beneath Waverly Street that the applicant has offered to replace. Um I got it. Uh GCG is of the opinion that the 100year um 24-hour storm event um discharge where the existing
058flow rate is about 1.1 CFS and the proposed discharge rate is 2.25 I believe. So we're increasing it by 1.15 >> CFS. Um the project team, it is our professional opinion that one CFS increase in the 100redyear storm when it's raining 8 in um over that time period is not significant, but we've re received indication that um that is a substantial increase. Um I just want to pause before we go any further because we haven't heard this feedback from the commission. I don't believe if the commission is in agreement that a 1 CFS increase during a 100red-year storm is substantial and needs to be addressed. >> Well, according to this I mean I looked at this is your summary sheet of the runoff, right? it. This is dated uh 32. Is that >> uh we
059submitted that this afternoon? Yes. >> Yeah. >> I don't see where there's an increase of one CFS. >> Yeah. Cuz that's the what we scrambled to prepare today to show what a solution would be to address that. We think that the solution we've come in to address that with the numbers you see in front of you >> is substantial a substantially overdesigned system for this what we consider to be a dimminimous increase um for a 100redyear storm. So >> is that when you say an over overd design of what you're already proposing or is it just making the components bigger? >> Making the components roughly four times bigger than they need to be >> to catch that one CFS. >> And that's at the 100redyear storm. >> Yes, sir. And can is the the I
060think we you said that the pipe has about 2 and a half cfs capacity. >> Yes. >> And this fits within that capacity. >> Yes. The the comment was that where the 12-in RCP daylights into the stone box culvert. >> Yeah. >> And then where the stone box culvert discharges to uh a small channel um on the north side of Waverly Street that that is going to cause flooding during the 100red-year storm event, one CFS increase. And it is our professional opinion that that is not the case. We just wanted to ask one more time before we went down the road of catch chasing that one CFS if the commission agreed with the peer reviewer that that was a substantial increase that had to be addressed. >> Well, why don't we hear from Yeah, I
061I agree. >> Okay. Uh Mike Carter, GCG. Um during our previous discussions over the last three hearings, the commission has indicated they don't want to see an increase leaving the site and um that has been the case in pretty much most of the last 25 years. I've been doing peer reviews for the planning board in the town of Ashlin. Um and so with that with that goal in the last few hearings, we've asked them to meet that. um and they're close. One CFS doesn't sound like a lot um when you're looking at the overall thing, but it's one CFS in one direction towards the culvert. And just to give you an idea, during a hundred-year event, you know, there's a it's a curve that goes up and down like this. Um one CFS is about
062eight eight gallons a second. Um and for about a two-hour period during that hundred-year event, that's that's 350,000 gallons of water. So it's it's it's In broad terms, it's not significant, but in isolated areas, that's a significant that's a significant volume of water. And it looks like they presented something that would address that. This has been the case on other ones that we've done where all a sudden they make it bigger and it goes away. The issue gets addressed. Um the other option that they have is to do an analysis of the entire watershed that goes to there. And if they show that the one CFS is insignificant um then the our our comments may change. That's happened once in 25 years since 1993 that I've been doing work in Ashlin and they were able
063to demonstrate that but it's a significant level of effort and it's up to them if that's the approach they want to do. Well, we talked about that a little bit and and you indicated that a lot of the water coming into that culvert is coming from somewhere else that you can't really model. >> That's correct. Uh we >> so we don't really know what one CFS means to the overall amount of flow coming going through there whether it's a large percentage of what's going through there or not. really >> is there a percentage of our project contribution that would be acceptable to prove that we are not impacting it? Like if I were to prove that 100 CFS is entering that stone box covert in the 100redyear storm and we are adding one for example
064what a 1% increase be >> well I unlikely that that's 100 cfs given the public probably couldn't handle that anyway >> call it 50 so we're raising it 2% Um, what facil what of your components do you have to make four times larger? >> So, there there's a small um Stormtech detention system at the bottom of our access drive. It's those yellow arches you see. Yep. >> They make them in 18inch deep, 33 inch deep, and 45 in deep models. That that's this. Is that correct? >> Yeah. That's the big big system that we were trying to avoid, >> right? >> Um >> so this is the enlarged system. >> Correct. >> Cuz now it's going under the road where it didn't before. >> Correct. And in our professional opin I mean when we first
065submitted this it was the 18inch uh model and then we received feedback and the 33inch model with a footprint less than half of this >> left us with the one CFS increase which in our professional opinion was dimminimous. Um and as I've stated, we've heard from several parties that that is a substantial increase. We is our professional opinion it is not. And I guess before we went just to reiterate before we went any further, we wanted to hear it from the commission that that is the direction. Well, my concern is um the cumulative effect in that culvert area because what looks like it just runs downhill on the on the north side of Waverly Street is actually a proposed house lot now. So, there's a lot of scouring over there. I know that when we
066were there on the sidewalk, it was dry, but it's not always dry. Um and it's not like this is just running into the woods and it's always going to be wood. So, I guess I'd like to hear from Mike and the other commissioners, but whatever we come up with, I think we got to get this right. >> Understood. >> Yeah. Uh, point of clarification. Um, there's been several mentions that the Stonebox covert that this project is referring to is connected to the other notice of intent at 90 Waverly. our our quick GIS analysis um disagrees with that. We believe that the 90 Waverly Street project is the next covert north on Waverly. This stone box covert discharges to 68 Waverly Street. >> It's not on 90, but it's close to it. >> Right. Just it's
067not discharging to the 90 Waverly. >> No. No. And and I wasn't suggesting that it was. It's in that direction though. Agreed. >> To the commission. Just to clarify on that, the culvert does discharge to the Waverly Street address of 68. Um, from there, the stream leaving the culvert takes a northerly turn and goes on to 90 Waverly Street before it passes through the wetland in the rear of that property and under the MBTA tracks. I agree they do connect at some point, but the the wetland that was delineated in the 90 Waverly Street notice of intent is not connected to the stone box covert that we're discussing. >> Okay. So the the the off-site drainage study that could prove that our site is contributing a very small fraction to this system. Um that itself
068could be peer-reviewed for three months with assumptions and everything. I don't think we want to get into that. And I'm sensing that the commission is wanting to see the postdevelopment flows equal each other. Is that correct? >> Well, as you know in the regulations, if you can demonstrate that you're not causing flooding to the 100redyear storm, you can have an increase in the 100redyear storm amount as opposed to the 10 and one and 10. Um, I just I'm a little confused here by this. Um, oh, could you bring that back up? >> Sorry. Which one? >> The this drawing. Um, my my question is I thought the water going into this lower basin was coming from the catch basins on the roadway. Um, oh, I guess no, I guess they are. They're coming in through
069that manhole in the middle. Is that correct? >> Yes, there's a catch basin located in either drive aisle. >> Each side of the drive aisle enters the water quality unit that um Becca is highlighting. What is this line coming out of the other basin? Is that feeding into it as well? >> Yes, sir. >> Oh, okay. So, that's the that's the discharge from the other open basin. >> Yes. Uh it's it's a not a typical design where the outlet of one detention basin is entering another detention basin, but that's the extreme measures we're taking here to chase these fractions of CFS. very unconventional. >> And to your point a second ago about proving that flooding will not occur, we feel that we've demonstrated that and we haven't really heard uh you know, we haven't heard
070otherwise other than there's some scouring there and there's been mention of this off-site drainage study. Um, we just feel like there's no numbers that we could come up with that would be satisfactory to prove that whether whether we're proving 50 CFS go to or 250 >> Israel. >> Um, just uh Israel Lopez for the applicant. I wanted to just interject one other um thought as we were kind of thinking through this initially and uh with respect to the 12-in RCP that we've offered to replace in the road, you know, that that gesture in doing that recognizing that, you know, there was a dimminimous increase to that pipe, uh we thought there'd be some benefit uh to replacing that RCP, that the town would view some benefit in doing that. um now where we're talking about
071increasing the size of the subsurface structure to be four times greater than what it really needs to be so that we're at zero zero net. So now we're really not increasing any flow through that 12-in RCP. just I wonder whether you know if we do replace the uh existing subsurface structure with this uh system that's four times bigger than it needs to be whether um what's the point of kind of replacing the the RCP in the roadway and maybe that's a you know we can um >> well I mean I understand what you're saying but um I'm not so sure D would uh agree with a horse trade um process like that to be perfectly honest with you. Um and they've already commented on this issue of the increase in the rates. Um so they're
072going to be looking at whatever we do. >> Okay. Um >> we may say, "Yeah, this is fine. Don't build the big system, the bigger system." But the EP may still appeal that. Okay, why don't I'm going to turn it back over to to Will. Maybe maybe we we pause, we put a t thumbtack on this issue and kind of go through the other comments, see and maybe circle back at the end and see where we are. >> Sure. >> All right. Yes, let's move along. So, uh, Mr. Crouch kind of beat the punchline. We wanted to check with the commission just to confirm that the direction agreed with the peer reviewer that we needed to chase that one CFS. Today we scrambled once we got indication that it would still not be in GCG's
073mind uh that it was still substantial. We scrambled to show what an enlarged system would be required so that there is no net increase. So that's what Mr. Crouch is looking at a simple sketch showing the enlarged footprint um and the peak discharge rate summary table that shows zero increase in the 100red-year storm. Okay, next comment. Uh GCJ acknowledges that the um 12-in RCP pipe replacement is within the 100 foot buffer. Um we all agree with that. We showed it on the replacement sketch included in the drawings. Um, next topic number seven is same is consistent with all the peak disundredyear peak discharge rate increase discussion. The next comment number eight has to do with um porous pavement. Um they acknowledge there's some planning considerations in the D handbook. Um, we believe we meet the
074in um the placement of this um porous pavement to help with our storm water design uh meets the intent of those um planning considerations and we acknowledge the extra additional signage and maintenance that will be required and it's a comment further down but we will be adding that to the on andm plan and be submitting that in the next few days. The next comment number nine has to do with uh pre-treatment uh sorry has to do with uh re uh groundwater recharge. My understanding of the comment is, as this commission may be aware, when not all of a site can be routed to an infiltration basin, you can do a weighted calculation where you oversize the groundwater recharge to compensate for areas that aren't routed to it. Um, we submitted those calculations with the notice
075of intent. Um, but I believe they're just acknowledging there's a rule that at least 65% of your area needs to be routed to infiltration if you're going to if you're going to go with that weighted calculation. And we we provide 75% of our area is routed to infiltration. So we meet that um we will resubmit the calcs and and underline um that coverage requirement as well. Uh comment number 10 and there's a few others uh are regarding the um imper impermeable liner that the subsurface um detention system will be wrapped in. Uh the details uh do show that infiltrate that jez that impermeable liner. Um we can provide more specifics on it. I believe it shows the liner fully wrapped around on the bottom, sides, and top with geoexile um fabric on the inside and
076outside to further prevent um puncture or wear and tear of that system either during construction or after installation. um we can provide additional specifics like the type of um product that we typically see in these applications and maybe add a few notes on the installation that if these come in enormous rolls. They're meant to cover very large systems like you know reservoirs and stuff. Um they come in very large rolls and the off chance it can't cover the whole system in one piece. Um, the installers know a system where you overlap it and then tape on both sides with a water-resistant tape so it's a seamless installation if they have to have a seam in it. So, we can add more notes to that effect if the commission would like. Um on GCG page six,
077uh believe everyone is acknowledging a commitment to um provide additional confirmatory test pits at the start of construction witnessed by the town. Further down on the page, um, on page six, uh, GCG agrees, um, the applicant has the right to choose any acceptable pipe material that meets the loading requirements in a private development. That just, uh, has to do with the CMP pipe and the steps we're taking to make sure the corrosion resistant is maximized. There's a few comments on page seven. Um, GCG acknowledged that we've reviewed removed um or deleted rather uh the catch basin that was close to the exposed ledge along Waverly Street just to having to avoid any um rock removal that close to the ledge face and we did some minor regrading to make sure that parking area drains to
078other catch basins. 17A is just a very small uh modeling observation. Um we'll will not have zero effect on the modeling but we'll we'll check that when we submit the calcs to support this similar to the one that right below where they say is resolved. Um just a little dotting eyes crossing tees. Skipping ahead to GCG page nine. Um, this all has to do with the 100red-year storm. So, let's punt on that. Um, further down the page, buoyancy calculations um were acceptable and again they ask um for more details on the impermeable liner to ensure water tightness. The bottom of the page is another resolved comment. Next page 10 towards the top. Um they recommend uh orifice a trash rack on a very small orifice in the outlet control structure of the surface basin. Uh
079and we agree um water leaves the basin through a 12-in culvert. Um and it's more prone to get something in there. So, we'll add a trash rack. Halfway down the page is another comment on the confirmatory test pits uh in early construction. Next to page 11 towards the top, um same 100year storm uh comment. Halfway down uh as I mentioned earlier, we will add porous pavement to the onm plan. Uh, comment 14 on that page has to do with TSS removal. Um, we've had a good amount of back and forth with GCG on TSS removal. Um, and at this point, just to clean things up, we are leaning towards relying on the um third party testing, the NJCAT testing of this contact cascade- CS4 model. Um, we submitted those materials and and they they show
080the the third party testing shows uh 80% removal. So, we're >> Yes, >> that's surprising. >> It's a good product. That's why we like to uh specify it. Um so uh we submitted today the standard DP worksheets for TSS removal that show um deep sump hooded catch basins uh removing 25% water quality pre-treatment units removing 80% and where infiltration is provided an additional 80% um through the BMP itself. So depending on the final BMP and the treatment train um each each train provides either 85 or 97% removal and these are uh you know D worksheets and these removal rates and the and the NJCAT um verification have been um widely accepted by D on dozens of projects um that our firm has done. Can I what what is about this design that makes it so
081much more efficient? Because most of these things don't get anywhere near 80%. I mean, in a in I did a study, a real life sampling of of a storm center, we didn't get anywhere near 80%. We didn't we were getting like 30% at best. In some cases we were getting higher numbers downstream than upstream. >> So it was putting turbidity into the or yeah >> tss into the system. Well, we, you know, we get a lot of vendors who try to sell us their products, and I should have paid more attention in those lunch and learn so I could answer that more clearly, but a lot of it has to do with the design of the um the vortex thing, uh, you know, the you the insert that goes into the structure. my understanding the
082biggest um contributor to and probably the exact reason why you experienced that is the sump depth and size. Um, that's where a lot of manufacturers save money is having a sump that's inadequate for the the sediment that's removed and that coupled with a bad maintenance plan. Um, that sediment is just sitting there ready to get scooped up in the first flush. >> Whereas I think contact in particular prides themselves with sizing the sump correctly uh along with the TSS removal depending on the flow rates. you know, it's a diff you can't put you can't spec the same product that's expected to remove sediment for one CFS versus 10. >> Um, and we work with them early and check in often during these designs to make sure that we're using the right products. Um, and on
083this project, I think four of our six products are the um, Cascade 4 and we upsize them accordingly. Um, >> if the flow >> and they're offline, I assume, >> correct? your offline designs. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Or there's a sorry uh there's an internal bypass once it exceeds that >> it's internal. Yes. >> Oh, okay. Okay. I don't know. Just I went through the numbers on your spreadsheet and I said even if you considered only 50%, you're still making 93% or something like that. um with the unit um because you've got a um infiltration system downstream that gets you 80. Anyway, >> uh you're you're correct. Um GCG made the comment and and we agree that the the two systems that are detention only do not provide 80% that downstream BMP. So
084that's why we, you know, raised our hand and said this third party does say they have 80. So that the the two BMP treatment trains that have detention at the downstream, uh, those are the ones that have 25% multiplied by 80% gives you a 85% removal. >> Can I jump in for a minute? >> Yes, sir. I could use a drip of water. I think everybody could after that discuss um what we're talking about for anybody that's still watching this is is a storm water evaluation and the reason that I raise this is because uh we were at a couple of us were at a select board meeting and an overriding concern of uh both the board and the citizens of Ashland is How do you take the top of that hill being all forested
085and build what you're building without flooding everything else around it? And I tried to explain it in lay terms, which is why I'm trying to bring us back to lay terms again, that that there are these performance standards in place that you have to meet. Um, and that's fine except when when we start talking about how we meet those standards, we still lose everybody. So, I guess what I want to reassure everyone is why we're going through this stuff with a fine tooth comb is that uh the uh the rate of runoff from the hill can't increase with your development. That's that's our goal, right? And that's that's what these performance standards are set up to do to make sure that not not the volume but the rate of water coming from that development. Even
086though common sense would tell you you can't take all of that imper all of that pvious surface make it impervious and not have a flood on the edge. That's what we're dealing with as far as infiltration rate of of uh flow and all of these types of things. We're we're just trying to get this right because it is a concern for uh people in that neighborhood obviously, but uh people throughout the town including the select board. So, >> understood. Thank you for that. Um >> Okay, that's just a little bit of a reset. Sorry. >> Yeah. And the the you know the the headline, if you will, is that there are two enormous infiltration systems designed on this site that we've highlighted. one in the front parking lot and one on plan right >> those
087are 4 foot high >> corrugated metal pipes you know twice as big as this room a field of them >> and in the 10year storm it takes rough numbers 20 cfs go into those two systems 10 each and 0.0 zero comes out in the 10-year storm. >> And that's that's the thing that we couldn't get really into the weeds in at the select board meeting is that you've got these infil that this water is not just going someplace, it's going into an infiltration system. >> That theoretically at least puts it back into the ground and not down in the street. >> Yes, sir. And the 90% of what we've been talking about these hearings is, you know, what happens to the kind of perimeter stuff that we can't physically grab >> or, you know, it's
088just harder to model and the nuances that happen in every project. It's just this project there quite nuanced. >> Thank you. >> Yep. Thank you. Okay. So, we're just talking about um page 11, comment 14. um and the NJCAAT uh verification that we've submitted. Next comment down once again buoyancy calculations were submitted and accepted. Um the comment at the top of the last page 12 um similar to previous ones uh we believe that we've demonstrated adequate uh treatment and pre-treatment with the third party verification that we submitted. So no no additional design or overd design of the uh detention only basins is required. Uh and then um their final comment at the bottom of the page goes back to the 100red-year storm event. >> Um Mike, you were uh any any commentary on how I
089paraphrased or anything? >> No, maybe maybe one thing. You know, we're talking about this 1.5 CFS. Maybe I think if you take a look at you're existing on a 100redyear for the site itself and then your proposed for 100year the overall is is I didn't I'm not I'm trying to add them up in my head right now >> for the net for the site >> for the site >> it's maybe mention that >> it's I believe exactly 3.1 what we submitted before today >> yeah before today >> it was for the whole site was 3.18 existing and proposed >> yeah so So >> overall so he he is he is meeting the requirement during a 100red-year event for the entire site of zero. And I bring that up >> using the macro method. >> But
090that water's flowing in different directions. >> That's right. And that's that's just so everybody's aware. So he has met the overall one, but he's got some going east and west that more is going to the cover than was before. >> Does it all go to the river eventually? >> It all it that's the point. It all goes to the river eventually, right? Yes. You know, so sometimes we get into these micro analysis and you know the he's he's meeting the I believe the intent, but you got to make sure that is that one CFS going to cause flooding, you know, and will that covert not be able to handle one CFS downstream, right? One thing we've tossed around a little bit is the culvert under the road. I mean, it doesn't look like it's in
091very good condition. Um, is there a possibility you would consider rehabilitating that culvert? And I don't mean rebuilding it and reconstructing it, tearing up the road and all that sort of thing. Um, I'm thinking in terms of something like a a relin from below using like snap type type culverts where you basically take a c HDP cover and you basically push push it in until you get it across and then you just grout this the voids. It's a lot cheaper than cutting the road open. >> Yeah. Um, I I guess I hadn't thought about that and and >> I mean it would have to be evaluated obviously. I haven't even seen it, so I didn't even know if it's suitable for it. But, um, it's it's a system that company I work for has used,
092uh, to do long culverts and without having to dig up the road. And, uh, >> so you're talking about essentially kind of a liner on the inside. >> Well, they're they're round. They're round culverts, but they're heavy HDPE. They're not corrugated. They're smooth. >> You push one 10 section in, you put another one in front of it, and then you push it in. You basically just push it in with a backup or an excavator and you push it through until you get come out the other side. And then you just route the void around it. Yeah, I'm I'm not familiar with it, so I really can't um >> It reduces the volume, right? I'm just suggesting this because I know this is a system that can be done. It's a way it can be done.
093I'm not saying it it has to be done this way, but um >> what >> it rehabilitate rehabilitates the culvert. There you go. Thank you. Yeah, we we uh we've had some experience with that. And I think what we've heard is in systems where you've got an older culvert uh where you've got rock pushing in from different angles, they can kind of pierce or crack the PVC. >> Um so unless the PVC were significantly smaller that you know you would avoid any kind of intrusion into it from the existing structure. Well, you would you would grout the outside of it. I mean, you'd use like flow fill or something like that around it to >> to you wouldn't want to leave void spaces under the roadway. So, the road would potentially collapse. But by doing
094something like that, you could basically replace the functionality of the culvert for 100 years >> um at without having to tear up the road and put in a whole new box culvert or whatever. Yeah, I I I don't know that that's something that we would um consider. I appreciate the the request uh and certainly understand where you know where that's coming from. Um >> could I don't know that for a second before you >> Sure. Go ahead. >> the pipe that you have um suggested that you would replace >> eventually exits in this cover. Correct. >> Correct. >> So, you're going to be working in the area of the culprit. Um, so let me take the first half of Mr. Crouch's question uh and say would you be would you consider re or firming up
095the culprit somehow even if it's not the way that Jean's talking about some other way that would be uh uh yeah >> that would be beneficial in supporting the end of this system something that we and you and D uh DPW could agree Well, this is what I would propose. I because I don't know what that would look like. Um, we haven't obviously done a study of the culvert. Not sure what what would be required. What I can do is I can go back and have a discussion >> um with our team and see whether we could propose anything and maybe it's >> okay >> and you know come back and have the conversation at at the next hearing. >> Okay. >> Um so I you know we can do that. Obviously, you know, we'd
096like to I think what Will has outlined tonight is really comes down to the the hydraology model and chasing this last one CFS. Other than that, I think we're pretty much there on all the comments. I would have uh liked to have had some more um back and forth with GCG so that we could have come back and been absolutely clean tonight with all of their comments, but just given the timing when we received the comments, that didn't happen. Y >> um I I think we're pretty much there uh with respect to the rest of the design and I I was hopeful that uh the commission would be in a position to you know start uh uh drafting conditions >> um for a decision uh for the next hearing. And maybe we can certainly we'll
097follow up with uh an updated set of plans that picks up what's left in this letter that we talked about tonight. Um and and maybe kind of leave the discussion on the culvert till the next hearing. But hopefully that doesn't hold up. >> Well, if you can look into it and then maybe be able to back and >> Yeah, you could send us and I can and I can send something in advance of the hearing so we can have some dialogue around that. >> That would be great. Thank you. Yeah, by doing this lining of a culver like that, you by design, you're going to reduce the opening >> and and I would just pause and and just obviously if we're doing that um you know, we've done calculations based on the capacity of the
098cover. We wouldn't want to go back and now redo all those calculations based on >> a smaller if that's what we ended up. But the thing is, you might actually increase capacity by putting the smooth pipe through there as opposed to that rough opening that's got rocks and everything else in there. You know, the way the engineering would work is you might actually increase the throughput of the pipe by putting a smooth pipe in even though it's smaller. >> Yep. >> Okay. Um, yeah, if you could look into that, I think we would appreciate that. And I like the idea of considering the macro approach here. If we can write that up in our findings so that uh you know it it it's clear to the D that we considered um their comments, their initial
099comments on this issue. >> Okay. >> Anyone else? >> Yeah. Anyone else on the commission like to weigh in? Okay. Yeah, we can open this up to the general public. Is there anyone on site who'd like to make a comment or ask a question? No, not seeing any. Okay, we'll open it up to uh people watching online. Is there anyone who'd like to make a comment or ask a question >> to the commission? I do not see any hands raised online. >> Okay. >> All right. So, it looks like we have a pretty clear path forward and we can res um continue this hearing. So, we're looking at Monday, March 16th. Sound good? >> You'll be up first. >> Yeah. All right. Okay. All right. Do I hear a motion to continue this hearing? Notice
100of intent 61 Waverly Street, map 15, parcel 12, the Gutierz Company D file number 95-106 to Monday the 16th at 7:05 p.m. So move >> second roll call vote. >> Aman I >> Crow I. >> Crouch I. >> Atinson I. >> Molton I. >> Toledo abstain. >> Wes I. So the motion passes. So we'll we'll see you on on the 16th. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you guys. >> Thank you for your work. >> Thank you very much. All right. Good. >> Okay. So we don't really have any general business or other business member prerogative. No. Okay. Uh do I hear a a motion to adjurnn? >> So move. >> Second. >> Roll call vote. Aman. >> I. Crouch. >> I. Hackinson I >> Molton I >> Toledo I >> Wants I meeting
101is a journ >> Okay thank