Conservation Commission (February 2nd, 2026)

0015. >> Welcome everyone to the Ashlin Conservation Commission meeting for February 2nd, 2026. I'm calling this to order at 7:01 p.m. Our format this evening is a hybrid format where we're live at the select boardroom on at town hall being broadcast live through Wacka cable and we're also utilizing the Zoom conferencing platform for remote participation. So before getting to the agenda, we do have a quorum of the commission and I'm required to read a premeating protocol. This is the February 2nd, 2026 conservation committ commission meeting and under Governor Baker's March 12th, 2020 executive order, public boards are allowed to meet remotely. This order was most recently extended until June of 2027 by Governor Healey as part of the supplemental bill budget bill signed in March of 2023. Please follow these procedures for attending and participating.

002The meetings of the conservation commission will be held using Zoom. As I identify the agenda item, 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 present uh ta 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 call for a roll call vote. During the meeting, commission members will keep their video on and microphone muted unless speaking. Applicants and representatives, please keep video off and microphone muted until your agenda item

003is 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 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 raise hand feature on Zoom. If you are calling in by phone number, you can use the star 9 feature to raise and lower your hand. When acknowledged to speak, please state your name and address prior to speaking. Public comment is limited to three minutes per speaker. Comments must be limited to the Wetlands Protection Act, Ashlin Wetlands Protection bylaw, or Ashlin Storm Water Management bylaw.

004Questions 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 will occur during the week after the conclusion of the meeting. >> Yeah. >> Who's here from Bill? Okay. Yeah. I also at the uh table here at the um select boards meeting we have Michael Carter from GCG Associates. He is a representative of GCG which has been reviewing the storm water laws uh state laws for this project exclusively at the at the request of the commission. And then we have Andrew Gorman online who is from Beiel Beals and Thomas and he's representing the uh the work that was asked to be done

005on the wetland resources part of uh this project. So this is an offcycle meeting and we only have one agenda item. It's a scheduled hearing for notice of intent. 61 Waverly Street, map 15, parcel 12, the Guteras Company, DP file number 95-1016. And we've been under we've been um discussing uh the peerreview comments as well as D comments and our National Conservation Commission's comments. And we're this was last continued from about two weeks ago. So, the topics we really want to cover tonight are some things that we touched upon last time. It's really blasting or rock removal, peak runoff rates, and uh structural integrity of the of the covert. So, I can see you've made a lot of progress uh with addressing the comments, especially from GCG where there was 44 comments and we're sort

006of down to six. And uh we also have some other comments from uh Beiel and Thomas that we can touch upon too if there's time. But if you want to going to take the microphone and uh we can begin a discussion and uh where we left off. Thank you. Good evening uh members of the commission. For the record, my name is Israel Lopez uh for the Guitarist Company. on behalf of the applicant. Um, I would agree with that characterization. I I'd like uh I think we've made a good amount of progress on all the comments that we received from GCG which were I think you know 44 or some somewhere thereabouts. Uh we also received comments from the uh conservation agent which uh we responded to and and also received another response back from the

007conservation agent. So that was great. Um and we can certainly touch on those tonight. Um, we're happy to proceed however the commission would like if if you'd like to hear first from your peer reviewer or if you'd like us to kind of go through uh what we view as some of the remaining open items. I will say we just received the GCG comment letter this afternoon. So, we're still going through it. We've had a chance to kind of review it at a high level. Um, and I think there's some things there that uh we'll just need to review as uh with more time. Okay. Um, >> I would suggest Greg and Mr. Lopez that we uh expedite things by deciding what we are all in agreement on so that we can focus on the things

008that are still outstanding. >> So, I I guess we probably would need Mike and uh Mr. and to weigh in on what those issues might be so that we can eliminate the things that that that are that were settled on and focus on the on the outstanding that work for you. >> Yes. >> Yeah, >> sure. Mr. Carter. Yeah, you can take the floor. Yeah. >> Uh Mike Carter, GCG Associates. So, um our letter they are they are whittling down a lot of the comments. Um I would say the major things left up for discussion are one they still are the design has an increase in flow leaving the site um during the 100red-year event. Um it's in the revised calculations it's it's more than a CFS in certain areas. Um so I think that's

009probably the biggest thing that hurdle that they have to get over. Another main comment was we asked for a ledge profile or ledge topography of the site. Um we determined that um there's in the report that there's one corner of an infiltration system that looks like it's in ledge and we're recommending either additional test to in that corner based upon their ledge profile. And then the other um concern that I had before was down near Waverly Street where we have the ledge face that's exposed that you drive by and how close was the parking there and they did sections before and and with the ledge profile I've identified that there's catch basins that are off the main line and last time we talked about putting clay barriers along the pipe to prevent um groundwater breaking

010out. But there's a catch there's a couple the catch basins are 20 to 30 feet closer to Waverly Street than the main line. And one of the catch basins um based upon the ledge surface looks like they're going to be um removing ledge 6 feet down um to get to the bottom of the structure which puts us um elevation wise you can look at it and we could talk about it but there's a way to fix to address that concern. And I think that's just something that's why I wanted the ledge surface just to see if the catch basins were going to be a ledge and they are. Um and when you remove the ledge you open up possibility of crack open up fissures in the rock which we and then potentially allowing water to

011seep down to Waverly Street which is what we're trying to avoid. So that's still we made progress on it. Now we know where which catch basins are issues. There's really only one that I saw that was a concern. Um, and they can come back with a design to prevent that from happening, I'm sure, pretty easily. And so that's storm water. The run, the the rate increase is probably the biggest one, though. Um, those are the two major ones. I know in our office, we looked at the hydraulics and we've been offering we found a couple things that we've been sending to them, you know, that might help them. I'm sure they can accomplish it. It just might mean they might need to make their bases a little bigger. Um, and then the third thing is

012one of the things that they're asking to do is um they've agreed to replace the drain line from the the covert underneath Waverly Street to the site and put a new catch basin in. Um, I think what they're asking for is that they do the plans later on. Um, you you may want to a lot of commissions don't allow that to happen because you want the plans as you approve designed um instead of doing a new plan after. And one of the things we found is when we were looking at that is that 90 Waverly Street, which is right across the street from the covert, um they replaced their septic system recently and they had those wetlands flagged. So that work is all in a res a buffer zone. So I don't know if it

013is normal to approve a work in a buffer zone without having a plan. That's all. Um so I just make that suggestion. That's really up to you if you want to do that or not. But you'd be approving giving an order of conditions to do work without a plan. Those are the three major items. So those three things out the rest of the points that you made previous >> the points that you made uh at the previous meeting there were 40 something. >> The ones that you haven't mentioned you're in agreement with for the record >> there. For the record there there's still some as I redo the drainage calculations there's some smi minor little um nuances like you know is this labeled right or is that you know right elevation control structures those will

014get addressed when they revi if they if they are able to comply with meeting um no increase in runoff lead leaving the site. Um if they choose not to do that then under the storm water handbook they have to demonstrate whatever is leaving the site um doesn't impact the downstream areas at all and that's a that would mean that their drainage study would have to increase in scope out to the land outside of their their property. Um so it depends on which route they choose. Um there's still a lot of little not a lot. There's there's a handful of minor details, but as they go through their hydraulic calculations, those things are going to change and get corrected. >> Okay. It seems to me that those three things that you mentioned fall each one in

015a in a different category of what we had talked about. We've got a ledge issue. Yeah. >> We've got a a peak runoff issue >> and we've got a structural integrity issue. And uh maybe we ought to take them in in in those that order or do we want to hear from um Mr. Gorman and then go back over what the uh what the issues are? Anybody have a preference? >> I don't. >> Why don't we hear from Mr. Gorman for Bills and Thomas and then we'll just address them all at the same time if that works. Yeah. Is that is that okay, Mr. Gorman? >> Yep. Uh, thank you, Mr. >> Sure. >> Members of the commission, Andrew Gorman from Bes and Thomas, we were retained to do some uh very specific uh review

016of the application material. Understanding that uh CGC was performing the more comprehensive storm water review of the project. Um, I myself was the wetland specialist reviewing the wetland line in the three areas the conservation commission had questions about. That resulted in three flag changes. Um, one being the area of the northernmost stream. We pulled out a wetland or a bank flag further to the southwest. That's uh flag S4A. That resulted in a a slight bump out of the 25 ft as well as the 100 foot buffer zone. And then there are two additional areas of bordering vegetated wetland that we field reviewed. One was approximate to flag trying to pull up the number uh GCA46 the area surrounding that and we recommended a flag change in that area based on the presence of hydrophic vegetation

017and hydric soils looking at um red maple, dogwood, high bush blueberry and some remnant herbaceous growth that we were able to observe. So that resulted in a change in that area. We also had a change in the area around GC 35 by swapping flag 36 with A36R resulting in that spike. Both of those areas of bordering vegetative wetland growing slightly and increasing the 25- foot as well as the 100 foot buffer zone. And based on the response to comments that we re received, we understand that the applicant is conceding to those flag changes and it appears the plans have been updated accordingly. We also provided some commentary based on the mass EP feedback that was received as well as our own review of the erosion sediment controls that were proposed. The plan has been updated

018to include erosion sediment control blankets that those are reflected on the detail sheet as well. And I believe we had only one outstanding comment which referred to the snow storage areas and that is comment number three which amplifies the comment made by mass D and I think in this one because again CGC CGC is the storm water peer reviewer we're deferring to their verification on that relative to the catch basin. Um, and we're happy to answer any questions the commission has about the delineation review or the comments that we provided in the letter. >> Are there any comments from the commission? My only comment would be I think maybe we should uh ask the applicant to respond to the Bills and Thomas uh peerreview first because it seems less substantive um than the GCG and

019um if everyone's okay with that. >> Yeah. >> You okay with that, Mike? >> Yeah, I'm fine with that. >> Okay. Hey. >> Yeah. Did you want it to Uh hello everyone. Uh my name is Will Park, uh senior civil engineer at SMMA. Um thank you Andrew uh for your comments and for your review. Um it sounds like um the only remaining item that Andrew said was an outstanding item is um confirming that the snow storage areas are shown on additional drawings and that uh we confirm that they're not placed over catch basin areas. Um that's frowned upon. Um the idea is to keep the catch basins exposed so the snow melt can enter them uh more freely. We have the snow storage areas already showed up on the layout and materials plan. We've duplicated

020them onto the grading and drainage plan that shows the catch basins and confirmed that um they were they no snow storage areas uh cover catch basins. They didn't originally, so we didn't have to change anything just for the record, but um now they all show up on the same plan and that can be easily more easily confirmed. Any response to that, Mr. Gorman? >> Yep. It it does appear to be reflected on one of the plan sheets. It sounds like forthcoming revisions are happening to to carry that forward. And I I think that addresses that comment. But again, as terms of the the full comprehensive storm water review, um that that was not in our scope specifically, but it was something that D raised. So, we did call attention to it. Thank you. >> Okay.

021Thank you. I have a question, Greg. >> Yeah. >> That that kind of bridges between Mr. Gorman's jurisdiction and Mr. Carter's jurisdiction. Um, and it's kind of it's it hasn't been really addressed and I don't know if it's just a lay question and not a technical question, but I think one of the concerns that we had uh why we had a separate peerreview for wetlands from storm water is a concern as to whether work in the bedrock, whether that included blasting or or removal or whatever, uh, might result in either um a decrease or an increase in the water uh of the wetland areas. And so um and in in the GCG response uh to a similar question under uh C-101 on page five. It says um the applicant describes a losing system with regard

022to the wetland in the north corner. And does a losing uh explain to me what a losing system is? Is does that mean that for some reason the the uh the wetland area there is going to the water in that wetland area will be decreasing or is it it's decreasing naturally? So, I guess my question to to Mike and to uh Andrew and to the applicants are is any of this work uh to your in your opinion going to either cause a significant increase of of water in the wetland or a significant decrease of water in the wetland? >> I can I can try to answer that and Will can certainly if you add to it. So what they're trying to do in their their design is they look at different design points. One go

023design points going to the wetland, design points going to Waverly Street and design points going to Union Street. >> And they're trying to balance what goes there today with what will go there in the future. Um so the in theory the perfect world there would be exactly the same amount going to all those different design points. Now if if for example Waverly Street has a couple design points um if one of the design points is a little higher here and the other one's a little lower the net going to Waverly Street is zero. That's they met, you know, the intent they met the intent. Um so we're trying to make sure that the wetlands are not losing water. In other words, they don't just take it all and dump it on the Waverly Street and

024and that's how they're designing it right now. They're not designing it to dump it all in one location. into keeping it kind of spread out as it as it is today in the end. Um the concern with the ledge is that you know was are they going to be just blasting to put the building and then all a sudden they open up these fractures and they're lower than the wetlands and then the wetlands starts draining there. And I think what they try they're showing us is that the they're not going to be blasting as much as we originally thought or I shouldn't say blasting removing the rock however they choose to do it. >> Um and that's we're we're working through that. I have less concern about the building more it's the infiltration basin. We're

025not we're looking at the storm water but we're also we look at the buildings the whole overall site as much how much ledge are they going to have to remove and will it impact the wetlands? >> Okay. Well, what is meant by and maybe Mike maybe you can answer this maybe the applicant. What is meant by a losing system? >> And is that language up there Becca? Is that what you're putting up on the screen? I see the commission. I'm trying to find it. >> Oh, his letter. >> I believe it's on page five of the >> chasey. >> I'm sorry. >> Yeah, I think simply it means the wetland is losing water to groundwater as opposed to a gaining system where you groundwater is feeding the wetland. So, it's gaining water from the groundwater.

026But you also say that it's a losing system and over the years it has gained organic content which has now created a perch system. Well, you can't have it both ways. It's either a perch system or it's a losing system because if it's a perch system, that means you've got an a confining layer that's preventing water from getting into groundwater. So, what is it? Huh. >> Um. >> Oh, okay. >> Good evening, uh, commissioners. I'm Luke Norton with Sanborn Head and Associates, uh, geotechnical, uh, engineer and, um, hydrogeeology. Um so this question about uh losing versus gaining um is a kind of a common distinction with uh wetlands and um your members accurately portrayed kind of the the distinction between whether one is putting water into the ground versus one where the ground is feeding

027into the system. And in the comment we made about uh the material being perched um through accumulation of fines and organic matter um the the the perched system um still will lose water into the ground but at a very slow rate. So it's not a a a completely uh uh impermeable or or pvious um uh barrier. Um, and so, uh, it's a very slow, uh, loss over time. Uh, but it's precisely that perched, uh, condition, which is why the the wetland sits there, uh, above, uh, the ground surface, the rock surface, um, and any potential, you know, groundwater that sits there on top of the rock. >> So, >> most wetlands are both, >> okay? >> Depending on what time of year it is. In the summer, they're a losing system. in the in the

028spring when there's high ground water everywhere. They're gaining water from groundwater. >> So, you can't really depict the wetland system as one or the other. They're more or less generally both. >> So, I guess my question is, is the uh proposed work in the rock area um going to impact that? Is it going to raise or lower or or don't we know uh what the uh what the water will be what the water level will be in the u in the wetland? >> That's the question. >> So um Luke at a previous hearing um explained the lack of evidence from their you know 25 borings across the site that there is groundwater perched on top of the bedrock. the bedrock that they did encounter um was dry on the surface for lack of a better

029explanation. What we do know, what we can control. So the the question was will the project or will the anticipated ledge removal albeit minimal significantly increase or significantly decrease? It's our I think our combined professional opinion that there will be the ledge removal will not significantly alter the wetlands which were substantially far away. We we can control a few things which is where we um we've in uh installed a perimeter foundation drain around the building that is directed to the wetland so that the groundwater that's there now once the site stabilizes will constantly be refeeding the wetland. um with like a base flow if you will. And also we've strategically um placed our infiltration basins on the wetland side of that um bedrock ridge that we demonstrated with the bedrock contour plan. >> And we

030feel that that you know it's not directly next to it. still probably 100 or 100 to 200 feet away that the water infiltrating there will naturally be feeding the wetland kind of horizontally. Um and we feel the combination of those structural um pieces, the f the constant foundation drain and then the storm water systems that discharge there uh will will replenish the wetland and keep the water budget as it is. Now, as uh Mr. Carter mentioned, um, we've selected our design points around the perimeter of the site and those are the existing flows that we're matching through our storm water model to make sure that we're not sending 10 times as much somewhere or decreasing something by 90%, we're essentially going to be matching it around the site. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Can I

031have a question? it based on the bedrock model or surface. Um there is a ridge kind of across the site and then it dips towards the wetlands. Pretty much that whole side of the site is the bedrock is sloped down to the well. One of your infiltration systems is sitting on that edge or on that slope. So any groundwater or any water that's infiltrated from that system is going to go down to ground to bedrock and then flow towards the wetland. Correct. >> Uh that >> and is that going to emulate existing conditions? because I'm assuming groundwater or water that infiltrates now hits the bedrock layer and is moving along the bedrock surface because that's the only way water can get out of the ground is either leave through an it escape through an an

032edge like the edge of the the burm the bank or or um um evaporate and it can't evaporate if it's in the ground. Yes, we we believe we Sorry, was that the end of your question? >> Well, I just wanted to make sure both of these seem to be in a position that they're sort of pitched towards the the wetland. I'm I'm looking at your bedrock map right here um on my computer, but the one and I don't know the numbers. I couldn't figure out what the numbers of these infiltration systems are. There's a 2B >> one simplified it >> and I still don't know what their numbers are. So the one in the back of the building I guess closer to Waverly Street that looks like it's pitched say down towards where the road

033is down more or less towards Waverly Street not really towards the wetland. The other one on the side of the property closer to Union Street is on a slope that the where the bedrock pitches towards the wetland. So that I assume is going to go to the wet one, but the other one I'm not sure where it goes. >> So, >> um, Becca, can I share my screen, please? >> Should have permission already? >> Yeah, I think that might be helpful to Pina. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Can everyone see um my site plan? There it is. >> There we go. >> Okay. Um, so what the commission member was asking about, uh, the basin labeling was confusing me also. So clear as day, the one >> just me. >> The one in the bottom right

034is system two. >> That's two. >> And the one in front here's the label system one. >> Oh, okay. >> One is in front, two is to the side. >> I couldn't see any label numbers anywhere. So >> um so to answer your first question uh this infiltration basin yes will most likely replicate the existing conditions where it goes down >> wherever bedrock is under it. It will continue to flow in that direction. >> Um just due to site constraints and wanting to spread the systems out. Yes, this one did land um not directly next to the wetland but kind of split the difference. We also didn't want to get it too close to the um Waverly Street and in the ledge area. So, we think that's the right spot for it. I don't have

035it queued up right now, but I'm happy to share that uh those bedrock profile sections that we've shared previously. Um the the loca the depth of this system relative to Waverly Street, it the system's quite low. Um, it's not like it's on top of it like uh so the bottom of system. Well, maybe I should pull it up before I say something. >> Well, you have a profile or a cross-section of all that too. >> Yeah, I don't have that. Um, I don't have that queued up if you'll just bear with me for one second. The one thing I didn't queue up. Can't see this, right? >> No, I'm good. Thank you. While we're waiting for that to come up, uh Mr. Lopez, are you good with uh or consistent with Mr. Gorman's assessment? You

036had mentioned that there may be some Beals and Thomas things outstanding. Is is >> is his analysis as you understand it as well? I I think what I uh yes, short answer and I think um what I wanted to get clarification on is that all of the comments we had addressed all of the comments uh from Beiels and Thomas. So it sounds like we have um and so I think that's all set. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So here are the bedrock profiles that have been mentioned several times tonight. Um just so everyone gets their bearings, uh this is um a slightly earlier version of the bedrock contour plan. Um the uh expected bedrock contours are shown in blue and the two sight sections that we drew are section B which

037is what we referred to as the worstase section kind of through the um goes directly through up the the ridge of the bedrock and then section A is kind of a more typical site section. We we should make note for everyone that all this bedrock surface is underground. It's not on the surface. >> Correct. >> Yeah. I just don't want people to think if they go out there, they're going to see it. It's not there. >> Yes. Thank you. Um yeah, the uh Sandborn Head and Associates uh interpolated these contours based on where they did encounter bedrock in their test pits. >> Right. The the reason he said that probably is several people have that watched the last video I mean the the video of the last meeting were completely confused as to what we

038were talking about. So we're trying to speak as much in lay terms as as we can so that people understand what we're talking about. >> Understood. And before I forget um the catch basin that Mr. Carter uh referenced um I I'm sorry did I'm coming right back to your question. >> Sure. No, I was going to ask about this anyway. Um so on the C131 grading and drainage plan, you'll see we've called out in uh numerous locations bedwalk bedrock water migration prevention measures. Um one located directly um in that bedrock ridge and then spaced um about 100 ft on either side. Um those will either be a um pre-manufactured um anti-seep collar which is like a a rubber membrane you slide down a pipe to make sure that water doesn't migrate along it. It just

039makes it stop and slow down and settle. Um or uh I believe the recommendation at the last hearing um someone mentioned it could also be like a bentonite clay material just putting in a slug a wall of that um similar to what we're proposing uh in the burm of the surface detention basin. Um and Mr. Carter mentioned, I believe it's this catch basin here that just um you know is between the utility corridor and the exposed ledge. And I'm in complete agreement that this one and perhaps this one we can revise the fine grading of that parking lot so they're not on the outside curb um just so there's le even less ledge removal um adjacent to Waverly Street. Could just on that, could you put in a shallow basin and then have that feed

040into a deep sump manhole some part? You know, where you didn't have to dig into ledge >> because that way you'd get your sump, but you wouldn't have to go very deep for the catch basin. >> You know what I'm saying? You know what I'm suggesting? >> Um, that's something we could consider. Absolutely. >> I mean, you would add a manhole somewhere, but uh it could be a a manhole you got to put in anyway as a connection point anyway. would make that a deep sump. >> Yeah. Excellent. Thank you for that suggestion. Okay. Um back to the profiles. So, um this bedrock elevation profile on the bottom is the worst case that we would anticipate. Um so, for example, um existing grade is uh existing grade is shown the dash line, >> the dash

041line on top. >> Proposed grade is the one with the earth um looking hatch right here. And then the anticipated bedrock is shown in blue. So, as we've mentioned, one of the many um site constraints that were considered um in this site layout was uh the presence of ledge and wanting to minimize ledge removal um to the maximum extent practicable. And we feel that by sitting the finish floor where we have we've um successfully done that um not only is this the primary building but the the foundations that go around the whole building. We think in only small little pockets um ledge may ledge removal may be required but we we've talked about this um at the last hearing. It's a long way to answer your question. the subsurface system one in between the building

042and um Waverly Street. Uh you'll see, you know, here's the property line and here's Waverly Street all the way over here. Um infiltration, you know, will go through the bottom of the system. It won't stay straight going straight down forever. Some of it is bound to flow horizontally. Um but we we don't believe that we're uh introducing an issue um where groundwater will travel, you know, essentially horizontally and create issues at Waverly Street. So, we feel like we've selected um the ideal locations for these two subsurface systems. >> Is that where's the profile that that's showing? Could you just go back to that? >> So, that um we were just looking at subsection A >> A. Okay. >> And and there's that system one right here. >> Okay. So, that's beyond the ledge that's exposed

043on the side already. >> Yes, sir. Um the exposed ledge is is over here, >> right? Okay. Now, Mike, you mentioned that one of these infiltration chambers or systems has to be built into bedrock. >> Yes. curious which one that was cuz I thought they were all above it. >> Number one, the back corner when you look at I believe if you look see where the your contour is right there, the blue contour in that back left corner. I think what we picked up on is that that's close to being in the ledge the um number one the bottom left corner right there >> because that's not depicted on the ledge plan. >> The ledge plan has I'm assuming the blue lines are the areas where you're going to be encountering ledge. Correct. So uh

044again where the profile goes through system number two uh is you know more than halfway up. Sure. >> So I'll go back to that section >> and we believe that for the majority of the system uh we'll have at least the 4T of separation. We think on average um the this is the 225 contour here um where our estimated bedrock is. Um we don't dispute that there's a possibility a corner of the system may have bedrock above this. Um we in in reviewing the GCG memo um this afternoon um they make a recommendation to um provide additional test boring uh test uh explorations prior to construction um in support of the you know the the full building design. um the applicant uh would be more than happy to do that and have those areas witnessed

045by the town and if uh modifications to um the system need to be made to accommodate that, we'd be happy to do so. >> What What's the ramifications of it requiring ledge removal? Um do you need to do a mounting comp mounting analysis? Does it I mean clearly groundwater is not going to infiltrate into ledge. >> We've um this this happens in in construction projects in New England where bedrock does pop up where you don't expect it. We've seen several different outcomes from that. >> One is you know if this you you take a few chambers where it where the bedrock was a little higher than you expected and move them to an area. >> Oh okay. So you could relocate some aspect of >> change the geometry of the foot the footprint of the

046system. Uh other times uh town engineers or conservation agents have allowed that small corner of ledge to be removed to provide the two ft of separation and install the system as designed. >> So you'd actually have to take two feet below the bottom of your system. >> Yes, sir. We believe it would if it is encountered it would be a relatively small area. >> Okay. >> To the commission just on that point of um whether or not the commission allows the agent to accept small field changes such as that you have in um the past set precedent to not allow that. You have a minor modification policy which is under the local bylaw which has been waved so would not apply to this project. That would normally allow it um to be reviewed by the

047commission without a full amended order. Since that's been waved, the policies related would be waved. So any changes would need an amended order of conditions before the commission. Well, not only that. I mean, there's a lot of stuff going on on around this thing. And you start moving the pushing the system around, you're going to start pushing it into other utilities and constraints that don't allow you to move it too far. You got a drain line just to the above that, not too far away. You know, on the other on the other side of the I'm looking at the plan on the other side of the system. Um we're confident that we can we would be able to accommodate any field revisions if required. >> Okay. >> Do we have any uh questions from the

048commissioners that are online? Bill or Preston, would you like to weigh in? Yeah, I I actually have a question on the subsurface uh infiltration system. You're using corrugated metal piping. Um what's the life expectancy of the pipe you're using? >> Uh you are correct, sir. Um corrugated metal pipe. Um I get asked this question quite often. Um, and I believe the answer is a roughly 75 year life expectancy, possibly 100. Um, >> okay. >> We are proposing that the system is draped, each pipe is draped with a um impermeable membrane. Um we do this especially um in systems uh under parking lots where the salt may enter the may enter the soil above the system and corrode the system faster than its natural life expectancy. So as a precaution we always drape contact recommends this

049and we agree with them. Um that definitely uh extends the lifespan of these significantly. >> Yeah. Um and then you you call out in the operations maintenance plan um inspections once a year of the um subsurface uh infiltration system. I assume that's going to be done with cameras or >> uh these these systems um typically have inspection ports um located in you know each quadrant of the system or one strategically placed in uh within the system near the inlet pipe and the outlet pipe. So you can get a good idea for how the system is operating. Um and then uh it's tight, but you can also observe quite a bit from the uh inlet and outlet structures too. Albeit in just one of the the one chamber they're aligned with, but still you can get

050a pretty good idea of how the systems operating from those between the inspection ports and the uh inlet and outlet structures. >> Right. So you're just going to have two inspection ports. Um, if the detail doesn't specify or show them in plan yet, we're happy to add that if there's a number of inspection ports the commission would like to see. >> I think I had called out to in the uh detail. >> Yeah. Um we're we're happy to increase that um to a reasonable number if the commission would like. >> Guess that's more question for Mike whether he thinks two ports would be sufficient to provide um you know a suitable inspections of the interior of the system. >> Um I would say probably at the most one in every other row. Um they tend

051to be in a parking lot and they get destroyed if you have too many of them when they freeze thaw and they plow but typically what every other row would be more than adequate and you can just take a look down like like Will said you can take you can see you know if you see all kinds of water in there you know you got a problem you don't see anything it's fun it seems to be functioning fine >> I I I concur u with Mr. Carter. Uh, too many of these and you know they're small castings that lids can fall off and get jammed up. So, finding that right balance is ideal. >> Okay. >> Go ahead. >> So, does does this system have isolator rows? These systems? >> Uh, no sir. Um, the

052isolator row is a pre-treatment method for the subsurface system. We've opted to uh all systems on the site, not just the subsurface, have um a water quality unit as pre-treatment >> like a contact or um >> storm scepter or the commentary. >> You provided some detail on that and it was not a system I'd ever >> uh Yeah, they they really changed their products. You got to keep your head on a swivel and they're always >> It's not something I've ever seen or heard before >> emerging and acquiring. But yeah, they're all contact. We're proposing contact products. Um CDS is their main product and um they've also I believe their cascade project product. >> Cascade, that's what it was called. >> Yeah. Is a newer product of theirs. I think it's meant for the smaller

053systems. They found it's more efficient and cost effective. >> Is it a swirl? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> They all are. And yeah, please don't ask me the differences. I'd be happy to do my homework and remind you is just how the the number of inlet pipes and the vertical drop um contact just re recommends one model versus the other and in every single location they their recommendation changes. Did did you provide I mean there's a a a detail sheet on it that I noticed that talked about um the removal efficiency but it didn't really describe what it is. >> Um yeah that's actually um Mr. Carter didn't mention that, but one of the comments we saw in their letter this afternoon is >> um they have comments on our treatment train calculations, >> our

054TSS removal treatment trains. Um just uh to take a minute to describe what that is. Um >> thank you. The um the treatment train is when a drop of water hits the pavement, what are the various treatment um BMPPS that it goes through to reach the receiving um the the design point and each one of those per mass DP has different um total suspended solid or TSS removal rates. You get a 25% reduction for deep sump catch basins with hoods. Um you get depending who you ask between 50 and 95% removal rate for these pre-treatment units. Uh and then the basin themselves um whether it be a subsurface infiltration basin or a wet pond or a grass swale. um they they also provide different um TSS removal rates as well as phosphorus and nitrogen and

055um various other uh nutrients. Um one of GCG's comments this afternoon is uh that we'd like to follow up with them. Doesn't need to be here and now. Um just uh wondering if we're um calculating those treatment trains correctly and using the the correct percent removal rates for these proprietary devices by contact. Um this is a very typical uh coordination we have on peer reviews and I'm sure we'll they also recommended a different form I believe than the D treatment train forms. So, we're confident we'll we'll we'll uh get to an agreement on that. >> I I can assure you that the manufacturers TSS removal rates are inflated >> on any of their products, >> right? And which is why we often have to use third third party testing from like uh I'm going to

056butcher these acronyms, but NJCAT um the New Hampshire storm water folk, >> right? And I believe there's another tri-state that does their own independent third party testing. >> A lot of a lot of New Jersey uh what was it? NJCAT or something like that. >> Yeah. >> Is often used as a as a source, >> right? >> As well. And I think a lot of most states sort of accept that. Mass used to have a program, but they've abandoned it like many many years ago. >> Yep. Agreed. I think actually in our letter you'll see we referenced the New Jersey standard. >> Okay. >> As the general guideline of and then there's some EPA requirements which we which we brought up and mentioned and you know it's as Will said depending on what who you

057speak to it could be 50% or 95%. Manufacturers got 95 >> right >> and jerseys got hypothetically 50 but >> that doesn't instill a whole lot of confidence. Well, now I can tell you from my experience, you're not going to get 95% out of one of these units. Not anywhere near it. >> And it it's very nuanced. It has to do with depending what the flow is, also what sediment, the size of the particles you're settling, is it micro down to the micro um meter, I guess it is, or uh so there's all sorts of ways to do that. And I'm confident that uh SMAMA and GCG will come to an agreement on the removal calcs >> to try to >> go ahead. I'm sorry. >> Do do you want to go into something else?

058I was going to try to summarize. >> Nope. >> So to summarize, uh you're confident that these infiltration basins are not resting on bedrock. >> Yes. And those that are partially will have fill in between or what if if they're partially on bedrock. Is there some kind of fill between the the system and the bedrock or >> uh again in that in that instance very recently where a very large infiltration system happened to have just a little knob of bedrock in it in another town. the agent um was comfortable with us chipping it down to 2 ft below grade and then filling it with crushed stone and then then the actual system starts above that. >> Okay. Um Mike, are you good with this explanation of >> infiltration? Yeah, it's it's the the lower one

059area one is above the existing grade. So it's it's there. I don't think we have any concern there. It's number two one in the bottom right as well showing it's just the actual bottom is the bottom left corner of that if you can just right in that area there's a test hole that they did that shows it might be a conflict and by extrapolating it may or may not be a may be fine usually what you do is they dig out the bottom the agent or somebody on the town's behalf goes out and looked at the bottom of the infiltration field and in ledge it doesn't go in these nice straight lines that we show on the plan it goes up and down and meanders and they might have a knob in the middle and

060if they have a knob in the middle um I mean if it's a small percentage of the whole thing you would just have that removed and then make sure you get your two feet and you'd be fine. I think the most important thing is to look at it before they build it once they get it the bottom exposed. That's that's the most important thing because if that's >> you know that's the time you can make that decision. I mean, we can make all these projections and there's no sense in them going out and start digging 400 tests, >> okay, >> because you don't really know. >> And we've mentioned this before that this is an important consideration for this development. >> Yes, sir. >> Uh which is why we're trying to flesh this out as

061as best we can. Um but if if Mike's the expert on this stuff, if if he's good with it, um um maybe we can move on to the next subject. And you are? Yeah, I'm comfortable with this. It's just the hydraulics getting the flow leaving the site is probably the the biggest thing that I'm >> It could be it'll be worked out, but it's the they may have to make a few modifications. >> This issue has been raised. It's been raised to us outside of meetings. It was raised at the ZBA. It's a concern for everyone and so it's important that we get this right. >> Understood. >> Okay. We all set with this topic. So, >> yeah, I'm good. What's >> Who's Bills and Thomas? >> Oh, >> yeah. Go ahead. >> Why don't

062you take down that? Uh, >> yeah. >> So, I I >> Who's speaking Preston? >> I think it's Preston. >> Oh, this is Preston. >> Yeah, Preston. Go ahead, President. >> Vibrating. >> Can you get a little closer to your microphone? Yeah. >> I'm sorry. I just wanted to say uh that you had asked if we had comments on commissioners online had comments and I I'm all set. >> Okay. All right. Thank you, Preston, for letting us know. >> Okay. So, are we all set with the ledge? And so, u that's one out of the three topics that Mr. Carter brought up. And so did we want to move on to peak discharge rates? >> One could could I just go it maybe this a little out of out of order but I would just

063point out that these infiltration systems have to be protected from compaction during construction. They're very close to your building. I'm not quite sure how you're going to operate equipment and construct these buildings and and not be driving over these infiltration systems. Um that that's a requirement under D that you've got to sort of mark them off and keep equipment off it so you don't pack it down because then it won't infiltrate. Um, so the I believe the D requirements you're referring to are the native soils below the system. Um, as to not uh Mr. Carter mentioned when the system is when the site is excavated to install the system. >> That's when the contractor engineer and town observed the bottom to say we thought this would be a sandy soil. It looks like a sandy

064soil and there's not pockets of organics, for example. And that natural subgrade is what DP says you can't track over and compact it and change the infiltration characteristics once the system is installed. These 45, you know, 48 in um arches. >> Sorry, I just saw myself in the reflection. I got distracted. Um once once these arch systems or the CMP pipes are installed and the stone is put around them um those things are hard as a rock. Uh there's um the contact in their literature brags about how the minimum cover of these systems you can drive construction equipment over them with like 18 inches of cover especially if there's pavement put down. >> So these are the yellow ones. Uh the the yellow ones were proposed in that small pocket system near um Waverly Street.

065The two big systems, systems one and two are, I believe, 48 in CMP pipes. >> Oh, okay. >> Very very strong. Um so, uh these will be covered up um and likely paved over very quickly. Um, and I'm very sure that the minimum um, cover over the system will be met within a day of uh, them being installed and the contractor will know it's there. Um, and I don't think the team would have any concerns with construction equipment. >> I don't I don't think the compaction issue is related to once they're constructed. I think it's before they're constructed so that the soils aren't being compacted which you're planning to rely on for infiltration later. >> Yeah, I think that's I think we're aligned. That's what I >> Okay. Yeah. The key thing is I get

066what Jean what he's saying is let's not let's protect that area before you go in there and you start >> right >> you start driving all over and and you know once you get it cleared and grub but maybe there's >> you you got to just fence it off until you build the systems you know stake it off. That's what he's saying, right? >> Yeah. >> And I'm willing to guess the contractor is going to want to have this be one of the first things that happens on site. >> I mean that's fine then. >> Yeah. get it installed. Um, so they can use the the area on top for staging or vehicle circulation, whatever they need to do. And these systems go in very quickly. >> Um, >> I'm always shocked at how quickly

067they go in. You know, this is a two, three day between the first dig of the shovel to it being like covered. If everything goes smoothly, it's it's less than a week. >> Okay. All right. I mean, if that's the case, then I don't really have a problem with it. But, um, it's just, you know, the the concern is if you pack it down, it's not going to work. So, you spend all the money on it. >> Yeah. The contractor is aware that they're not allowed to drive equipment in there. You peel it off, come out of the hole, and invite everyone out there to inspect it, and then no heavy equipment goes back in. >> Right. Okay. All right. I'm good. Okay, before we switch topics, is there anyone in the public who would

068like to comment on what we had just spoken about regarding ledge and infiltration? I see >> Jean Walker, >> you can come off mute. I think you're still muted. Okay, it should be okay now. >> Yeah, we can hear you. >> Okay. I just I'm here and I'm just a lay person. I don't know I'm in the technical parts of any of this, but who is going to monitor all of these conditions as they're taking place? Is it that there's someone that would be looking out for the interests of the town? Well, building inspector. >> That's a simple question, I think. >> Yeah, we're hearing the the building inspector and I'm sure our conservation agent will be Yeah. monitoring what's going on. >> So, that sounds like it's going to be, you know, like a

069full-time job for um the officials to to keep on top of that because there's an awful lot of stuff going on, it seems. Is there a clerk of the works that was approved by the ZBA for this project? >> No. >> Uh yes. So the ZBA has the uh as one of the conditions um that the town can hire a peer reviewer to review the first of all confirm that the plans and specs that were submitted and approved by the ZBA are consistent with whatever you know with the final plans and then coordination is required with the building inspector and DPW director and other town staff as necessary which would include certainly you know the fire department Um, so there typically what happens is there's initially an on-site meeting with all of the town staff

070consultants, uh, town consultants where, you know, you review the construction sequencing and address any any concerns and site related concerns. Uh, and then there's ongoing reporting uh, that the project the contractor will provide uh, you know, to the town periodically uh, during the process. if if um if you would if you could suggest if are those finalized those conditions? >> They are. Well, uh, if the conservation commission could be looped in, if they're going to hire a peerreview person to peerreview conservation related items, it would be good if they reached out to the conservation commission because that didn't happen at the ZBA uh level, which is why we now have peer reviewers here at the table with us. So maybe we can avoid issues if that conversation t takes place in absolutely real time. >>

071Absolutely. And it and it is a requirement that we um provide uh those final plans uh to the conservation commission uh and that they meet all of the applicable standards for mass D. So >> okay, thank you. And then one other my last question I would have for the moment and I don't think I introduced myself in the beginning Jean Walker weight one Waverly 123 Wala Street is the question would be what if after this project is done and it's all finished and so what if not if some of these things that that seem to work on paper don't work in reality because we certainly have tons of of ledge in Ashland and there's been problems with that before that many construction sites have had these wonderful plans and then there's water in people's cellars

072and and everything else after because what was on paper wasn't really reality. >> That's a good question and uh it's a good point. Uh which is why um we're going through the detail that we're going through here. We can't guarantee outcomes. We can only do the best we can to get um our input and our experts input as to what they're saying will actually happen. Uh with regard to what happens if it doesn't um it depends on what it is that's failing. you know, if if it impacts uh storm water and wetlands, it would come back to us for consideration. I'm sure that the D would DPW would have uh some involvement as would probably the select board. Um but we're kind of hoping that we can alleviate those problems by properly vetting this project.

073Does that make sense? >> That sort of answers my question. Could I add? >> Yeah, I don't have a direct answer. Who who is to speak? Go ahead. >> Yeah, go ahead. >> If I could add to that. Um, first I agree with what you said and also the answer to the last question um with um the peer reviewer hired, you know, uh to review the construction documents and pop possibly make some site observations. There'll be eyes and ears on the construction site. Regarding post construction, um the the project has submitted a operation and maintenance plan which is a recorded document at the registry of deeds and requires the owner to perform routine um scheduled observation of the storm water system. Some things need to be observed uh four times a year. sometimes every two

074years depending what it is and they have to follow that plan um and keep logs of their observations on site and those can be made available to the conservation agent when um upon request. Uh so things like you know catch basins get obser observed four times a year the subsurface system I forget off the top of my head but uh a little less frequently and even the roof drains uh we've added to this plan at the request of I I forget which one of the peer reviewers requested that but we've added that to the to the on and m plan as well. So there's some self-reporting as well. >> Okay. Did you hear that Jean? >> Yeah I did. Okay. >> And and that's one of the 10 D treatment standards, just which might be

075a nice segue. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And you're also putting forth a uh robust deatering plan as well in case you do encounter more water than you're expecting. Uh yes, what we've the the topic of dewatering plan has come up a few times. Um we actually don't really have definitive direction on that. Um we've we've maintained that the site contractor will be submitting that as part of their uh standard um pre-construction documents. Um they are the experts, you know, in on the ground work with dewatering. So we think that would be best coming from them. Um we've we've outlined what a deatering plan on a project like this would include. We've included that in I believe two of the peer review two of the responses to the town. Um but that's kind of where

076it stands right now. To summarize it standard we've offered what a typical deatering plan would include and stated the contractor will submit one. And we haven't been that topic hasn't really come up outside of that. Okay, >> we can provide one if you'd like. We just >> I think sorry uh I I think just to provide a little context so the commission doesn't get the sense that it's not that we don't want to provide a dewatering plan. So the the value in the deatering plan is really to present the measures that are going to be implemented during construction in order to manage any water that is expected to, you know, flow off the site. To date, based on the test pits that we've done and the boards that we've done, we really haven't observed water

077um to any meaningful degree. So um a deatering plan at this point would be less valuable. What'll end up happening is is that prior to construction, uh we'll complete another geotechnical report that will include additional, you know, test scores and those can further inform whether there's any water, where it's observed at during the site. And then at that point in time, you really have a much fuller picture that'll allow you to say, "Okay, here's where we anticipate water or by the way, we did more test beds. We didn't see any water anywhere." And so that'll allow you to put together the appropriate deatering plan at that point. At this point, it would kind of be a kitchen sink approach where we don't know what's going to be encountered. So what we're going what we're doing

078or would do is just kind of list provide the laundry list of measures that can be taken to address water at the site. So it's really not um it's really just a function of timing and providing the deatering plan at the point in time where it's actually going to be valuable to the commission. Sorry. >> Okay. Yeah. Thank you for that clear explanation. >> Okay. Uh so it looks like we have a question uh in the select board room. So why don't you come to the mic and give your name and address. >> Uh hi Johnson for Roberts Road. I just had two questions. Um one was will they be um drilling any wells or is just town water to supply the uh residents of this place? And the second question is, I understand the

079building is kind of a in a U shape and it's going to be sitting on top of the bedrock and they're going to be drilling or blasting certain areas of the ledge or bedrock. Do you know how how long those places where you're going to be cutting into the rock, how long those are, you know, lengthwise, how they're going to how long they're going to be, or you haven't run into that yet. >> You mean how long is it going to take? >> No, not how long it's going to take, but how the length of the >> Oh, >> okay. >> base or whatever they're going to anchor the building down. Yes. >> First questions a shorter one. >> Yes. Uh we will we will be using town water and not drilling a well for

080water supply. Um the second question um sorry do you mind if I share the screen? >> Sure. Go ahead. Um so the the more detailed um >> you're not sharing >> your teams. Anyone want to see Spotify? Okay, now you can see the more detailed bedrock contour plan um that Sandborn had uh created. This is a more detailed version of that key plan from the bedrock profile plan that was requested at the last meeting. So Sandborn Head prepared this. Um in addition to the more detailed bedrock contours you see here in brown, they've also um based on the actual depth of utilities and foundations from the design. They've highlighted in blue here where they anticipate ledge removal um from either uh a drain line um a water line. You know the here's the catch basin

081that Mr. Carter mentioned. Um, you know, th this probably wanted to have a blue line over it. Um, the utilities in the rear of the site. And, uh, to answer your question about where bedrock removal is anticipated for the building, it's limited to these these two corners here. >> Mr. Park, can you show us where the uh the lines on the left side there are in relation to where the um ledge is along Waverly Street? >> Yes, sir. Um so here's the ledge observable from Waverly Street and here is the utility. So just trenches, not full >> Mhm. um null removal for example. Um that's where it is and I could get a dimension if you if that's where you were going with that 40 scale. Well, I if these parking trays are 60 feet

082wide, that's 30 feet. >> Okay. >> Probably another 60 ft. So about 90 ft away from that. How deep are the trenches? >> Um about 5 ft deep >> for adequate cover and a sand bedding. And again, this is where that right in the center of this line is where we proposed um one of those bedrock water migration mitigation measures. Okay. Here and then on, you know, either side of it. >> Okay. >> What this is a good time I think what Mr. crouch indicated where that catch basin is will if you do a gutter inlet. So that's only like a couple feet deep and then >> put a sump over closer to that drain anho right there. And >> yeah, >> that would eliminate that's truly my biggest concern with that catch basin is

083because as you know a catch basin has a 4ft sump in it. Pipes down four feet, then we're down eight feet, then you're down another foot and a half to get to below the the base of the thing. So if a guy that is only a total of about max three feet, you can even get them to two feet. That would eliminate putting a big bl, you know, they're going to have to blast that. They're not going to be able to ho ram down circle. So if we could put a gutter on there, that would reduce a lot of some of my concern with that where the ledge could break out on that surface there because of rock cracking in the rock when they blast. >> Okay. or more likely we can, you know, combine

084these two catch basins to one in the corner or something just get it further away from this ledge null. >> What I might suggest is um I know you mentioned using a a plastic liner that slides over the pipe if you would really truly consider a clay bentonite because then you can put it in the trench and it just forms to whatever the stone is whereas the the plastic will just go >> Yeah. If it'll have se you know seams on the edges. Yeah. So, if you could if you could consider that as the way to do it, I would appreciate. >> I think you could probably use concrete, too. I mean, you just pour concrete and put a slug of concrete in it and seal the trench up if that's easier. >> Uh, agreed.

085You might um from that catch basin, wherever it is, if you used a different material in the pipe, you might be able to have less cover over it, like use ductal iron pipe coming out of it or something like that if you save yourself trenching down into rock. >> Yeah. Well, we've discussed, you know, three methods here tonight. Um so, I'm confident we'll find something that everyone's more comfortable with. >> All right. Very good. Um, shall we move on to the next topic? >> I before we move too far, I I have another question on the storm water stuff. The the rain garden has been changed to an underground infiltration uh, excuse me, underground detention system. A lot of Mike, your comments initially were referring to it as the rain garden and the issues associated

086with that. And then your response was, well, that's been changed, so these comments don't mean anything anymore. I I have you had a chance to look at this new design and whether or not this has any other >> problems for you? >> Yeah. So, our our letter that we issued today >> today >> was I didn't get a chance to it it it looks at this new design and you know the new design has they've complied with they redesigned some of the things because of our comments previously. So, they chose different different methods. I think they went from, correct me well, you went from deta infiltration to detention and and re and changed a bunch of things to try to address our comments. So, it was a fairly big change. Um, all in all in

087a positive way to try to meet okay, the storm water. Really the the bigger thing now is just can they control the rate of runoff um and I believe Tony in my office has been talking with Will and we found a couple things that will help them in their design. Let's put it that way. Right. >> And that's the next point, isn't it? >> Yeah. >> So the purpose here then is instead of a treatment system and detention system, it's strictly a detention system now. >> Correct. >> It holds water temporarily, releases it slowly so the rate of runoff doesn't go up from storm water leaving the site from from that location. >> Correct. We changed we we abandoned the bio retention system >> um in favor of a smaller subsurface detention system um detention

088only not infiltration right >> because the water table here is is relatively high too. So this is just straight detention to knock down the peak discharge rate as much as possible with the footprint we have. >> Okay. I just wanted to make sure that we touched on that before we moved off of storm water because that is kind of a big change that I hadn't seen proper response to comments on or comments for that matter. >> Should I discuss peak discharge rates quickly? >> Yeah, that's the the next topic. Great. >> So, um peak discharge rates as uh Mr. Carter has mentioned um they have provided comments um and we believe there's a path forward. Um we're going to continue to review the model uh and we think that um further adjustments can be made

089um to get us over the finish line on this one. Um this is the peak discharge table as of um you know when we submitted the comments back to GCG. Um so we're confident that uh the pre the existing and proposed discharge rates for the two and 10year storms will be met. Um you know these very dimminimous in our opinion uh increases uh where we remain confident that we'll find a way to have those meet or be decrease from existing. Uh, regarding the 100red-year storm, um, same thing. We're going to continue to refine the model and are confident that we'll get these to match pre-existing flows. Um, I just want to remind everyone that the D standard 2 requires that um proposed meets or is less than existing in the two and 10ear storms. Um,

090the 100red-year storm, you just need to prove that no downstream flooding will occur as a result of the discharge from the 100red-year storm. it does not have that same post-development pre-development comparison requirement. So, we're we're going to continue to tweak the model uh and try to find ways to make this work. Um there remains a chance that um one or two of these design points will still have a very very small dimminimous increase. So, I just want to address that now while I have your attention. Um the comment letter we submitted um last week to Becca in uh sorry to the conservation agent in in response to her second review comment was describing the downstream conditions that will receive these uh dimminimous increases. Um those are at deep design point one which is the 12-in

091RCP in Waverly Street. Uh we submitted calculations um with conservative estimates that that pipe has a full flow capacity of 2.52 cfs cubic feet per second. What we're showing here is uh that the postdevelopment conditions not only from our project but all contributing areas to that 12-in RCP pipe is only 1.8 CFS. So the 100red-year storm when it's rained 8.22 22 in outside. This pipe according to our calculations will remain at about 60% full flow capacity in our opinion not causing flooding or making the situation worse. Uh similarly, design point 2, which is the northern portion of the uh BVW that we're some of our basins are discharging to uh this 1.36 CFS in the 100redyear storm. We've calculated that when you convert that to a volume coming out of the pipes and entering the

092northern portion of that wetland, the water level in that wetland will temporarily raise about 2 in. Again, this is during a 100red-year storm that may not occur in our lifetimes when it's raining 8.22 22 in outside. Our project will contribute that much to that wetland. That's probably not even enough to discharge. Um, here it is to discharge out of the PVC pipe at the northern end of it. And this is a picture. I'm standing in the standing water and that's the 12-in PVC pipe. um that is more much more than two inches above the water level at the t at the time that that picture was taken. And then after that, if it makes it out of that pipe, it has to flow through about 380 linear feet of a very densely vegetated swale before

093going through another 12-in RCP and into the stone box culvert. So, in practical terms, we maintain that these are dimminimous impacts and not causing flooding issues to the R 12-in RCP, to the northern pocket of the wetland, to the swale that connects the wetland to the stone box covert or the stone box culvert itself. We're going to continue to work with the model to try to find ways to make all of those numbers match or be less than existing. But there's also a chance that um we might be back having the same conversation again about a few of these. >> So this is a work in progress still. >> Yeah. >> This this discussion I have a question that I guess it's related to this. It's not directly related to these numbers, but it's related

094to um to something that GCG commented on in their conclusion. And uh it said I'll read my question here. It says GCG commented that preconstruction uh during preconstruction most storm water drains southwesterly while post construction most storm storm water flows northeasterly. I guess my question is because because we had a question earlier about what happens when this is built and people's basement start flooding and things like that and I'm not saying that that's going to happen but it does happen sometimes. So my question is why is this important and why is that significant? And so I guess the question is is really to Mike and then if you want to comment on his answer. Um >> okay. So if I'm reading this, the majority of the storm water now flows southwesterly. The majority of the

095storm water post construction is going to be going northeasterly, which means that the water's flowing in a different direction. Is it am I reading that wrong or is that >> you want to bring up bring up your design? >> Uh my main takeaway from this is they just sent a letter this afternoon with thoughts on this. We're still reviewing um we're not ch significantly changing drainage patterns um out there. The you know it's one CFS in either direction. We're not taking 40 CFS and pointing it in another direction to someone's backyard or basement or anything >> that we're we're we're counting we're being counting here where where a drop of water go if it goes here or there. Well, then can you explain the comment, Mike, because that's not how I >> So, so the

096majority of if if you look at Waverly Street and where they >> Sorry, I'm going to bring up the >> Okay, >> we're trying to make sure they balance the site. >> And some of the water on Waverly Street heads towards the fire station. Majority of the water does leaving that >> heads towards the fire station. >> Yeah. Heads towards the fire station just to keep it simple. And then where their entrance is, the rest of it goes to the catch basin in the street that leads to the crossover. >> Mhm. >> And I believe that's design point one. And I don't Well, wait till you bring it up before I say which one it is. I'm pretty sure I know. >> Oh, sorry. Do you want me to share again? >> Yeah, if you

097don't mind, please. >> Didn't realize it got taken. Well, in in your table of rates, it says that DP4 is sheet flow onto Waverly Street North. Does that not also get to design point one? >> In our observations, it does not. >> Where does it go? >> Over the road. So it goes to the whatever direction it is um down the hill and into the woods sort of thing. >> Can you zoom in on that? That would be north >> um >> to the commission >> west >> if I understand it correctly from uh Mike Carter's responses to the applicant that resulted in the changes to the design points is because of a small peak between DP1 and DP4 that results in DP4 traveling down Waverly Street towards the public safety building >> in joining

098with the design points that are on uh Union Street. Those would then uh combine together and join the roadway drainage which goes into the Sudbury River um about 600 ft away from the site. >> Okay. >> The the real goal is we're trying to make sure that when we're done we're not dumping all the water one way or the other and they're close to balancing it. If you look at um like DP1 which is the catch basin, they have quite a bit of flow going there and that's probably my biggest concern that we we don't >> first they've agreed to move and replace it which is great because the thing is who knows how it's put in. >> Yeah, we're going to get to that >> and um so the the ultimate goal is in

099our review is we're down to it's like micromanaging storm water is what we're doing. making sure that when we're done that someone downstream won't have more water coming to them in the end. And that that's all that what that means is, you know, right now we're looking at you got more going this way than you had this way. And it's it's not a lot of, as Will said, it's not, >> you know, not a lot of water. Just to kind of put it in perspective, I think in his 100redyear storm, he said he had to that catch basin at the bottom of the hill has 1.8 CFS going to that. Um, a catchbasin great typically has a capacity of 2 CFS a general rule of thumb. So, in theory, a 100-year storm event, if there

100was 1.8 CFS going down to that catch basin, it wouldn't sir charge. It would just drop right in. And as you know, when you see these heavy rains, we have catch basins tend to be flooded in the street. You wouldn't even have that situation in theory during a hundredyear event at that spot. >> Okay. So it yes, right now it's increasing. We're trying to get them down. So there is no increase there. Um but it's to try to put I use that as an example because 8 inches of rain is a lot of rain and for that catch base not to even have be overflowing or anything. >> So you're okay with this explanation? >> Okay. Thanks. >> I have uh a follow-up question about maybe it's uh more relevant when we uh come back

101to this at the next meeting. Um, so >> could we hear the comments so we can incorporate it into our our next package? Well, it had to do with with the discussion that we had at and uh again, we may be getting too far out over our skis here, but at the last meeting, we talked about trying to uh meet the zero discharge rate uh that's required by the um performance standard. And there was a discussion that if we wanted to get there, we had to cut down the trees at the other end of the uh uh property. And my question then, and I guess my question now, but we don't have to discuss it tonight because we're still working on this, is is there anything between not meeting the uh performance standard and cutting

102all the trees down? I mean, are there other options? >> Uh thank you. uh based on the correspondence we received from GCG and our very quick review, we're confident that we can make the numbers work with the system as essentially as designed. >> Okay, >> just as I'm going to use a few of those anecdotes uh with a little bit more micromanaging, I think we can get there without some of those worst case scenarios that we've presented. >> Okay. Thank you. Getting back to this the regulations and the standards that we're trying to meet or that you're trying to meet if whatever you can do for the 100redyear storm, you've got to or however it comes out um you've got to I think give us a little more justification than we don't think this is

103going to happen because we have to whatever we do our decision is going to be overseen by DP and I don't think they're going to like us make rendering a decision based on you are not thinking it's going to happen so ba what I'm saying is you got to justify a little bit better >> understood um >> and that's why I mentioned the sorry I can't get these things out of my way um >> yeah I mean you you walk through it. And I think that's what you need to do is to sort of put that in writing a little bit more detail. >> Understood. Um, and we I don't know if the commission had a chance to review the our response to the conservation agent second, but >> get all the way through it.

104>> We only submitted those um we received them on like Tuesday and submitted them Thursday of last week. Yeah. >> And and that outlines the 12-in RCP pipe capacity that I mentioned, the 2.5 and where where our model shows the everything going to that will be 1.8. >> Um we've also in that memo outlined the stone box culvert where a lot of these um converge. um conservative estimates of that stone box culvert um 3 ft wide 4t tall that full flow capacity is 72 cfs 71 and change and you know our site um is submitting a fraction of that. So, we're happy to re reiterate that and um make that more clear, try to think of other ways to to show um that we that we're confident that flood these numbers will not cause flooding.

105>> I'm just asking for you to give us support. >> Happy to. >> Maybe maybe I could just mention something. Um there's no question the covert has seven a large capacity but that covert is the inlet side of that covert is a 12inch pipe coming in that was put in there. So and that pipe collects water from the wetland and then that drainage soil that goes back meanders back down. So if we are going to try to prove that it's dimminimous then and there should be a hydraulic analysis as that as your design point to make sure that 12 inch that that increase in that wetland that 2 inch that's going to go down that drainage swill and eventually get to that covert, but it's going to go through a 12inch pipe that's kind of

106restricting all the flow going in there. Um, so I would pref I think the better solution would be just to hold it on site and then you don't have to do that because you might find there's issues with that swale when you start looking at you know all these design hydraulics. You know that swale probably isn't big enough then that pipe 12 in is definitely restricting the flow coming from that well one. Um so if we can figure out a solution that we don't even have to address that less no flow no increase in flow leaving the site then we don't have to really even be concerned about that. >> So are are two 12-in pipes coming together before the inlet to the large cross culvert. So the cross covert was built and then at

107some point they put the catch basin on Waverly Street and they went in and they knocked the hole in it. Put it in it put it in it and then on the upstream side of the culvert they blocked that off and they put a 12-in pipe going into there. So that little swale or intermittent stream or whatever we want to call it flows into that 12in pipe. It's kind of like an opening and then it goes into the big pipe. So, >> oh, so these two 12-in pipes are not >> really the control spots. >> They're going in they're separately going into the 4x 3x4 box. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Right. >> So, those those are the real control. The the the covert itself has more than enough capacity. It's more condition than capacity.

108So the question is what's we you don't have a design point that incorporates anything in that stream sort of downstream of your site. Is that correct? >> No. And we've talked about this. Um that's kind of a open-ended question. You know there's that storage facility uphill of it. Got it. We don't know if that has catch basins around the perimeter and it also goes into a swimming pool sized infiltration basin with a trickle coming out or if it all sheet flows out of there um with no detention at all. The the assumptions that we first of all I agree with what Mr. Carter said. Our goal is to get the numbers to match so we don't have to talk about this. But proving that the capacity of the other 12-in inlet pipe uh is challenging.

109There's so many assumptions um that we we've presented that uh 1.9 CFS going into that that standing water raising 2 in and probably not even getting into that swale. um is proof enough, but we hear the commission's uh remains concerned. We've heard we've heard that. >> So that's DP2, >> correct? >> And is that design point actually at the property line then of the wetland? >> It's uh at the 25 foot no disturb that we're respecting. from your outlet into that at that point. >> Correct. And the perimeter. >> So, you didn't even you did not go to like the property line where the the culvert or stream or whatever it is that's leaving the wetland. >> Uh, no. M. I'm sure Mr. Carter would agree. um setting design points and subcatchment boundaries is very

110project specific. We felt it most importantly you have to be consistent around the site. Uh and we felt that um in you know threearters of the site the property line was the right boundary. Um but going to the property line on the east side of the site across the wetland into undeveloped areas that wasn't an accurate representation. um which is why we drew it at the 25 foot no disturb because that essentially is our project boundary. We're not going beyond it. >> Okay. So you don't take any of the other the rest of the property that's being not being developed on the other side of the well and that's not included in your calculations. >> No remains unchanged pre and post development. Does that possibly mean that the flow from the site to the 12-in

111pipe downstream exceeds 2 and a half CFS because you're contributing 1.36 in the post construction. So the so the 2 point the 2 point C the 2 CFS that he's talking about is the drain line on Waverly Street where the wetland if you make the assumption that has the same that 12 in has the same capacity. You're absolutely right and that's >> well that's what yeah I'm I mean I know the slope and everything coming in play but >> but it's you're right and so I think probably if they had to do that it would show that that 12 in >> is being exceeded >> exceeded without even without this development. I got you. >> That's why I'm saying hopefully they can just resolve it when they're boundaries and then we don't have to go

112down that path. >> Okay, >> just to quickly tie this up. So Mark Arnold with Goddard Consulting, just to quickly tie this up in terms of the context of what we're talking about here, right? As well stated, it's a 100red-year storm, 8.22 in of rain, which means all the wetlands are flooded out like they normally do, as nature has designed to do, as they work for us to protect us from storm damage. So this wetland is is got a lot of water in it already, right? It's full. The flood plane is is full, right? There's a lot of things happening. Um and this wetland here, particularly if you think about this contest wetland, which the commission has seen, this is a a bold wetland. It's not like a sloped wetland that sheet flows off quickly.

113It actually is kind of a natural detention area as well. So as we crunch the numbers and reduce those numbers, you have to have to put on put in context where the water's going and how it's going to travel around and stuff like that. So in in in a wetland system there there's wetland plants. They're designed they're naturally used to having water. The hund storm is a very shortterm event. It's not a multi-day standing water in in the place. It's a very short-term event that occurs. The water comes up, goes down naturally. So the the as well as working on the discussion of question of you know are we going to be causing adverse impacts to those pipes um that's useful but you also have to remember what's happening in that thin sense of the

114wetland floods if there's a little more water in that wetland is it going to adversely impact that wetland it's already flooded out and everything else we're not talking about feet of water we're talking about inches and that's currently before he even reduces those numbers and then the context of where it actually is going and what's already happening downstream which is that storage facility which may not have the this 100-year storm design that we do because it's probably using 6 in of rain for a 100-year storm versus an 8 in storm. So all that is context to being flooding downstream versus our site which is actually holding back a larger storm than downstream systems because those were designed under lower standards. So just in terms of context there the adverse impact to the wetlands is is

115is pretty dimminimous in that respect. Um, in terms of that, we've worked with DP on these kind of questions in terms of like, you know, what really how much flooding really is like in a wetland is is an inch really actually adverse impact or not. And usually it's it's it's it's pretty low in terms of that. You only once you start over six inches of foot, that's when you start really seriously looking at is that's going to adversely impact erosion, vegetation, soils, etc. But in terms of that small amount and then on top of that, this context, this is not a sloped wetland. it was a sloped wetland, flooding would be a lot more of a problem than a a bold shape with a kind of control outlet which it has on site and then

116further downstream to some more stuff. So, and again, Will will reduce those numbers again. And I think that's just tying that that kind of context which as you see Will's numbers come in will help you kind of think about this holistically. >> Okay. Thank you. So, u yeah, we're getting kind of into a timesensitive spot here. So let's move on to our last topic uh that Mr. Carter had brought up. We have um >> is that the cover or that >> replace structural integrity? >> Yeah, I think what I said is um do you want they've asked I believe they're they've agreed that they would replace the 12 in but do you want that to be designed now or do you want to make it a condition? That's really the the the question I think

117that we need to discuss. >> Okay. It's you want >> because it is in your resource area. Okay. Yeah. Hi, Mr. Lopez. Yeah, go ahead. >> Oh, hi. So, thank you. >> Um, so I I think um we first of all, we we understand the comment. We understand where the concern is coming from in terms of wanting to uh have that connection uh the RCP pipe that we're proposing to install be done properly. Um we respectfully feel that it's a it's premature at this point to fully design um that pipe connection. What we'd like to do is uh expand the uh limit of work to incorporate uh the replacement of that RCP which is entirely within the right of way as the town knows uh or as the commission knows. Um and then have the

118opportunity to coordinate with the DPW. Um there's no disagreement that there's going to need to be significant amount of coordination with DPW. They're going to have um not only comments around traffic, but also uh the construction of the pipe itself. Um we saw the comment that uh ductal iron should be used. Uh the DPW may agree with that. They may um want um 12-in, you know, RCP uh instead. Um, so those are the kinds of details that we think ought to be designed and uh prior to construction. There's a process that's already established through the ZBA comp permit process and I'm happy to share at the next hearing in more detail how that process will work. But essentially, we have to provide a set of plans. They need to be reviewed by the town. uh

119the town can hire uh uh an inspector and they also have to be reviewed and approved by the DPW um which is ultimately at the end of the day the the town department that needs to be comfortable with it. So we're simply proposing that that work that detailed design be done as a condition to the uh uh getting a building permit. Is that a condition of the ZBA's approval replacing that pipe? >> It is not. So the >> Thank you. So what we proposed um and committed to do under the comp permit was simply to replace as Mr. Carter has mentioned a couple of times the uh catch basin and then the offline manhole structure that's going to replace that existing structure in the roadway. We've heard the commission's concerns um about the RCP and

120we've volunteer we've volunteered to replace the RCP as part of this order of conditions. um we don't think that it's uh necessary in order to mitigate any downstream impacts um because we've demonstrated the amount of flow that's going through that RCP and and how um relative to or that it relative to the capacity within the existing pipe from a capacity standpoint the pipe has sufficient capacity in terms of size but we also have seen the condition that it's disjointed and we've offered to replace the pipe. So, we think it's it's fair uh and reasonable and would be premature because it doesn't necessarily have any the the replacement of the pipe doesn't have any bearing uh in terms of downstream impacts from a capacity standpoint. It's not going to cause uh flooding in our view uh

121given its current capacity. So it's really just a function of trying to provide a benefit to improve the resiliency of that pipe that exists today. >> Sorry, >> can I follow up? >> And please, >> would you be willing to extend the offer to replace the pipe to include reinforcing um the stone cover? Not replacing the stone cover, but reinforcing uh area. it may need to be reinforced anyway if you're going to replace the pipe that's coming through the wall. >> I I at this point I just couldn't say I I don't know what that would mean um whether it where it would need reinforcement, what type of reinforcement and what that would entail. And I I think that's um a a level of of uh additional infrastructure work that I think is beyond uh

122what we would be comfortable. um in terms of offering uh to connect to the DPW may um uh decide that it wants to make other improvements at that time and certainly we would coordinate that with them but there are many other contributors uh to the the flow that goes through that culvert today uh and I think as we've shown our contribution to that is is pretty small >> the um DPW director is online. Doug, do you want to weigh in on this part of the conversation? >> Go. Thank you. Um I think uh just part of this is uh we could tie the uh design into the uh the road opening permit. Um, and does I think uh Israel I think they're also going to need a road opening permit anyways for for the for

123some of the work that's already been approved through the CBA uh permit. >> Correct. >> So what you're saying, Doug, is that you would um you would agree with Mr. Lopez's uh suggestion that these designs wait um >> well and not be part of uh our approval of this. >> I I I don't know. I'm not a lawyer, but I I I think it could tie into the occupancy permit if if you know if if they agree to certain things that are not uh completed um as part of the whole whether it's the ZBA or concom >> and that's a very typical I'm sorry I didn't mean to interrupt. I was just going to say that that's a very typical way um uh to proceed. Uh it it's really no different than our commitment. It's

124really essentially extending our commitment to replace that catch basin that's at the entrance to our site and the offline uh manhole structure. So prior to us being able to pull an occupancy permit, we would have to demonstrate that that improvement was constructed and that it was constructed according to uh the DPW standards. So, they would have to sign off on it uh prior to us getting a building occupancy permit. >> Okay. The only reason I'm raising the issue is because it was raised by our peer reviewer >> and so I don't want to go against what their suggestions might be and maybe the other commissioners could weigh in. >> I think we could handle it as a as a condition. I mean, assuming we're going to issue a permit, it it could be handled as

125a condition to replace the pipe. Um, and it would tie into our COC. We obviously wouldn't be issuing a COC until that got done. The question is whether or not an occupancy certificate would be issued before the COC was issued because that would certainly hold that up. >> Well, there is a requirement within the comp permit that says that we have to complete all improvements, you know, on-site and off-site improvements. So, that would be captured within that. >> Okay. to the commission just to make Carter's earlier point as well not from a storm water perspective but from a wetlands perspective at least the end of the pipe I estimating on mass mapper which could be wrong at least 50 feet of it is within a 100 ft of a wetland um so if you do

126condition it to be designed um and is not part of the approved plans that condition should include at minimum an RDA a filing separately for the replacement of that pipe because it is within your buffer zone. >> Well, what we would be doing is we would be including that work. So, all of that work is currently within uh disturbed area within the right of way. Uh we would be including the plans would show where the limit of work would be associated with the installation of that pipe. though it would be captured under the current application >> and I don't know if you wanted to add anything. >> Sure. >> That that that's why I'm brought this up. Not so much I think that you can they can permit it through the DPW with Doug but

127you're approving work inside a buffer zone and if you're making a condition that's fine but you know it's you might want to put in your condition that it's subject to you guys reviewing the plan >> before we could do that >> you know just or Becca and then Becca you know because you're >> that is a resource area that the stream and then you go 100 feet back that's all that's 100 feet of that pipe is in that resource and you're in your jurisdiction and I just don't want you to make sure you have your protection and you know maybe the condition is that that needs that work needs to be done before I know Becca probably has to sign off on things before any occupancy that that's that's probably the most critical thing here

128to be honest with you. >> Any response to that? >> No, I think that makes sense. I think um it could be certainly we'd be a condition to an occupancy permit be a condition to um getting a certificate of compliance. I think those >> is the connection to the culvert the 3x4 culvert under the roadway. >> It's it's on the it's in the gutter line >> in the gutter >> as best as I can tell. >> Under the under the pavement or >> no off the edge of >> just off the edge of the p >> as best as we could tell. It's just based upon the information we have. >> Okay. >> You agree? >> Um I agree with that. I had the pleasure of going up there um and looking at it from

129the ground and the surface and and the great is uh in the shoulder and uh just to I I agree with everything as Real said uh just to be clear um we will show that connection that pipe replacement we'll expand our viewport to show the full length of it. Show it at a schematic essentially what's on the screen right now. Show at a conceptual level. Outline some basics, the sequencing of work approvals that need to be obtained. Um, show it show the buffer zones that have been referred to um by by other uh applications in front of the commission. Show it at a conceptual level. But the detailed design and coordination with DPW um occur prior uh prior to occupancy and the construction of it prior to occupancy. >> I mean typically for a culvert

130I mean for a pipe like this like a drain pipe it's a line on a plan and a cross-section of a trench that shows you what the trench detail is. I mean that's pretty much all you do for a plan isn't it? >> Yeah. that that's if he if he presented this as part of your your plans and your documents as a schematic >> and then he then he needs to go get his permit from DPW and they'll have to do >> and a trench detail. I mean, what more do you need? >> He already has a trench. >> The other utilities, I'm sorry to interrupt it, >> well, yeah. Yeah. I mean, you want to make sure you're not cutting through gas lines and water lines and such, but >> Right. >> But but

131that's not necessarily what we need to worry about. Uh, we're in agreement >> and I I think if they then they come with a full plan to Doug for the DPW, then you already you've approved this work under your this order and then no one has to come back and do an RDA or anything like that. If he gives us a plan that, you know, shows the buffer >> and there's already flagged on that site. It's pretty much just go 100 ft parallel with the >> I was thinking uh I believe your letter mentioned that the conservation agent provided you with those 90 Waverly street drawings. We could digitize them and show them on our plan. >> So we're all in a in agreement here moving forward. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Yes.

132>> Okay. Thanks. >> Thanks. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay. Well, that kind of covered the three points we have and u is anyone from the public or Bill and Preston first. Do you have anything to check the weigh-in? >> No from Preston. No from Bill. Anyone from the audience in house? >> Can we get the full view here of who's online? >> I'm not controlling the TV view right now. Okay. There you go. >> All right. >> Doesn't look like it. >> No, I'm not seeing any any questions. >> So, what's next? We want to schedule another >> continue this. Yes. I I know uh Mr. Lopez wanted to discuss that. Um before we just Sorry, one last thing on the technical uh comments. I stumbled through an explanation of the dewatering Mr.

133Lopez did a much better explanation of a more appropriate time to submit that. Um I would I don't believe we left that with clarity if that if the commission is requesting that now or uh prior to construction. two of our submissions responses to comments have outlined, you know, more of the the kitchen sink approach. Um, so it is on the record what what is typical for a project like this and what will be submitted, but we just we I don't believe we've received direction yet. I thought the explanation you gave of not being able to give a anything more than a general uh these are the things we might do. Uh so it was a good argument for waiting. >> This is uh obviously uh these this stretch of 40bs is unusual for us. Uh

134so uh we have a certain protocol that we usually ask for uh with smaller projects. Um I I tend to agree with Preston that that this is a different circumstance. Um as long as we get one and it's approved. Uh I'm okay with that. I don't know the rest of the commission feels. >> Yeah. And it's also a requirement for a SWIP permit too, right? Yeah. >> Yes. That was one of the things we've listed. >> Yeah. >> To the commission. If you are to go that route, I would recommend adding conditions that the dewatering plan be reviewed by the commission as a whole prior to construction beginning rather than just myself given the size of the project. as well as adding conditions of what you don't want to see on the dewatering plan just

135to make it very clear like no dewatering should be occurring in the 25- ft vegetative buffer that the ZBA required off the wetlands things like that. >> I agree. >> Okay. All right. Any other comments? All right. I guess want to move on to continuing the hearing, picking a date. Okay. >> Can I ask one favor? Anytime you write a letter, put page numbers on it. There are no page numbers on any of these comment letters. And I I can't tell going from one page to the next to go back to where I was because there's no page numbers. >> Yeah. Okay. Yeah, Mr. Lopez. Yeah. So, my understanding from what Beck had mentioned that we're kind of short on days this month for the this particular room. Yeah. It's just not happening. >> Yep.

136>> Okay. >> So, >> Yep. So, we're looking at March. >> March 2nd would be the next date that had been previously discussed. Okay. >> The issue with with March 2nd that we were made aware of earlier today is the second 40bs is scheduled to begin that evening. Um, what we did, I believe, with uh with your application is we had kind of a preliminary hearing to to set the the ground rules. I I assume that we'll probably do the same thing with that. So, um that probably would be uh the first thing on the agenda on the second uh um that we would be doing a preliminary hearing to set the ground rules for subsequent uh uh meetings. So, so it won't just be your application on March 2nd. >> You're okay with that?

137>> Yeah. No, that that's that's fine. I I my sense is that uh given the conversation and the progress I think we've made tonight and based on the comments um and the feedback that we've gotten, I'm I'm hopeful that that hearing um should really kind of get us pretty close to having addressed uh if not having addressed all of the comments that we've received to date. Um, so I I would think that we would be able to get through all of the items that are still open that we've uh outlined tonight. >> Okay. Yeah, I think we should strive for that given that we have a nice time frame here and we'll make the most of it on the second. >> Okay. And um does the commission uh can we talk about the subsequent hearing

138date? Um, I know the calendar gets challenging with the different applications. So, I think it'd be great if we can maybe look at the date for the following hearing. Hopefully, we don't hopefully we can schedule something uh within March. >> What was that be, Becca? Two weeks after the second. >> Uh, yes. The next one would be March 16th. I don't see any room reservations at that time currently. Okay, >> put us in. >> Yeah. All righty. >> All right. >> Great. >> I think that work that works. >> So, we Okay, great. So, we're going to continue to um March 2nd. >> Yeah. Do I hear a motion to continue? See, I just want to get the uh do I hear hear a motion to continue notice of intent 61 Waverly Street, map 15,

139parcel 12, the Gutierrez Company, D file number 95-106 to March 2nd at 7:05 p.m. So move >> second. >> Roll call vote. Acro I >> Croach I >> Atinson I >> Molton I >> W J W J W J W J W J W J W J W J W J W J's I motion passes so we'll we'll see you on the second at 7 o'clock. >> All right, thank you very much. >> Another productive meeting, >> Mr. Gorman and uh Mr. Carter, thank you for being here. Uh appreciate your input >> very much. Yeah. Okay. Next on the agenda, we have review of minutes from January 12th, 2026. >> Who sent this over >> to the commission? Just give me one second to get that up. >> Sure. Thank you. >> Good night. Thanks

140for coming. I think I have the I think I have Jean's comment version up. I had a couple of minor comments. I'm trying to find them here. At least I thought I did. I Okay. Um, again, I don't have numbers on my lines here, so I'm on page four. Um, on mine it's the um it's the last line before it says no motion was made or no vote was taken. Says Mr. Hackinson suggested containing Mr. Jordan. Not not sure what that meant. I don't think that's what I said but including maybe trying to find there it is. >> What was that? >> I I did say to include his wetland scientist. >> Is that what it should have been? >> Oh, yeah. No, in I think it was to uh include Mr. Jordan in the

141correspondence we were sending out. >> Yeah. Right. >> Yeah. >> But not containing him. Yeah. >> Okay. I had a couple more quick ones and um I didn't catch that. Next page, Becca. um in the discussion about Warren Woods uh on line five of that first paragraph. Is that where we are? >> I believe so. >> Okay. Mr. Hackinson added that the hunter had been allowed to go back into the woods to retrieve the deer in the next few days afterward. The hunter was still searching. Wasn't the next few days. It was just the day after. or the following day, but it wasn't multiple days. >> I just say next day, the hunter was still searching. >> The next paragraph down, um, again, this is minor. Third line, it says AI, except it's a believe

142it should be a capital I. >> Yeah, I was going to do that, but I didn't. Um, and going down about five lines after that, it says, "Mr. Crouch, no, it was before that. However, the hunter did not have a firearm when searching for the deer in the few days afterwards." Just put the day afterward because it was singular. And that's it. That's all I have. to the commission. I'll scroll back up because we uh passed over Jean's corrections, which I think this is page three. Um removing some language on on this line here and uh correcting it so that it uh reads uh Mr. Crouch stated that the channel that the commission observed on January 10th did did have water in it despite not getting any rain between then and now. >> Yeah, I

143think my main comment was that it had water in it, but I didn't we didn't have sea flow in it that day, but it did have water puddled in it in places. >> Should Skinner Katrone be hyphen? >> Uh, it's not. She does not hyphen Nate that name. >> Okay. So, first name Skinner. >> No, >> this yours is mine. It's yours. >> Yeah. >> I think that was all the comments. >> There was one other place I deleted some stuff. >> Was it further down? 247. Oh, there it is. Instead of very detailed discussions will be had, uh, change to there will be very detailed discussions. >> Yeah, I don't you don't typically end a sentence with the word had >> unless you said not past the voice. I've been had >> was never

144my >> eliminated passive voice. That's good. >> And that's the end of the minutes. >> That's where it's at. >> Oh, that's fine. >> That's the end of the minutes. Unless you want to go through the page of documents. >> No. >> Yeah. I don't I don't look through those. I'll make a motion to accept the minutes of January 12th, 2026 as amended. >> Second. >> Roll call vote. >> Acriman I. >> Crow I. >> Crouch I. >> At Hackinson I. >> Molton I. >> Wans I. Motion passes. meeting minutes are accepted from January uh January 12th, 2026. All right. So, we got uh member prerogatives. Any prerogatives from the commission? >> Just clarificate. Our next meeting is next Monday and it's regularly scheduled. Uh correct. >> That is correct. >> Okay. >> Right. And

145that's virtual. >> Yes. The next meeting is virtual. >> Yeah. Yeah. Anyone from the audience like to make a comment? >> I did not see any hands raised. >> All right. Do I hear >> to adjourn? >> Second. >> Roll call vote. >> Aman I. >> Crow I. >> Crouch. I >> Atinson I. >> Molton. I >> W's eye. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you everyone. >> Thanks everybody. >> All right. >> Thank you. Sorry I couldn't be there in person.