Conservation Commission (January 20th, 2026)

001Welcome everyone to the January 20th, 2026 Ashlin Conservation Commission meeting which I'm calling to order at 7 o'clock. There is a quorum of the commission and this meeting is being recorded. Since this is a hybrid meeting, I have to read two statements before uh we get to our agenda. This meeting is being recorded and broadcast live by Wacka TV and livereamed on Facebook. Remote participation is available using the Zoom video conferencing platform. Any disruption with our video conferencing platform will result in the platform being shut down. Meetings will continue to be broadcast on Wacka TV. Under Governor Baker's March 12th, 2020 executive order, public boards are allowed to meet remotely. This order was most recently extended until March um excuse me July 2027 by Governor Healey as part of the supplemental budget bill signed in

002March of 2023. Please follow these procedures for attending and participating. The meetings of the conservation commission will be held using Zoom. As I identify the item on the agenda, the applicant for that agenda item will be given an opportunity to provide a presentation and will be allowed to share the screen to show plans, pictures, etc. At the end of the presentation, the chair will 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,

003please keep video off and microphone muted until your agenda item is discussed. Public, please keep your microphone muted until recognized. If you're calling in by phone number, you can use the star nine 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 nine feature to raise and lower your hand. When acknowledged to speak, please state your name and address prior to speaking. Public comment is limited to three minutes per speaker. Comments must be limited to the Wetlands Protection Act,

004Ashlin Wetlands Protection bylaw, or Ashlin Storm Water Management bylaw. Question and comments not related to the commission's jurisdiction will not be accepted. During the meeting, the host, Becca Solomon, the Ashlin Conservation Commission agent, will monitor the participants for raised hands and we'll be recording the names and addresses of commenters. Signing of the documents will occur during the week after the conclusion of the meeting. And also at the table, we have Michael Carter from GCG Associates and It's now 7:04. When the clock strikes 7:05, I will open up our one and only scheduled hearing. Here [snorts] we go. It's now 7:05 and I will open up scheduled hearing. We have notice of intent 61 Waverly Street, map 15, parcel 12, the Gutierrez Company, DP file number 95-1016. This was continued from January 5th and we were

005or we are in the process of uh undergoing a storm water review by GCG Associates, a peer review and the review is limited to the state of Massachusetts general laws, codes and regulations only as directed by the conservation commission. And so the uh GCG has submitted 44 comments to the notice of intent and this meeting is specific to addressing uh these 44 comments. And we have in our possession first round of um uh replies to these comments and and we um will kind of focus on some parts of this. Uh this is going to be a long process, but we have I would say not all of the comments um to the um responses to the comments, but we have it looks like partial responses and um so um I'm going to open it up

006to the commission. Actually, we'll one would give uh the applicant an opportunity to um speak to the um responses to GCG's comments um and where we're at right now. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh good evening. For the record, my name is Israel Lopez with the Gutteras Company on behalf of the applicant. I'm also joined this evening by our full team, which includes Luke Norton from uh Sanborn Head and Associates. He's our geotechnical and hydro geo engineer. Mark Arnold, who's also here in person with Guard Consultant. He's our wetland uh consultant. And joining us by Zoom tonight is Will Park, our civil engineer with SMMA. Will's got that bug that's been going around and affecting everyone. So, he's uh joining by Zoom tonight and will be driving our presentation. Um, we've received a number

007of comments, uh, peerreview comments, uh, including the comment letter from GCG, Beiels, and Thomas. We have the, uh, comment letter from the agent, um, and comments that we've also gathered from the commission during our conversations. And, uh, I think we've got a lot of material that we'd like to present tonight. The vice chair was kind enough to provide an outline of the topics that he'd like us to talk about tonight. and we plan to do just that. Um and and so we've grouped the presentation and the topics in line with uh kind of the outline that we received from the vice chair which include uh talking about bedrock and ledge on site uh talking about hydrarology at the site and talking about uh the condition and the capacity of the culvert and the 12-in RCP

008pipe uh that run along the street. Uh and then lastly, we also wanted to provide an update on the wetland delineation and some comments that we've already been able to incorporate from Beiels and Thomas' uh peer review. So, um we're pretty excited about, you know, being able to present all of that information. There's a lot there and um certainly um you know, the commission can stop us at any point in time and and ask questions. Uh but we had planned to kind of take each of those topics in turn and um I'll let each of our peer uh each of our consultants kind of talk to each one of those if uh if that's okay with the commission >> question. >> Yeah, go ahead. I was just curious as to why um you didn't supply

009the commission with a formal response to the GCG as as is usually the case and as you did with the Hancock um peer review for the zoning board and >> we fully intend to do that. What we and we've had a working session with uh GCG to talk through some of the higher level issues. What we wanted to do is sort of make sure that we're on, you know, that we cover kind of the high level. There's some major kind of hydraology and and ledge questions that we think are important to kind of talk through. We're already in the process of putting together a full, you know, point by point 44. It's actually, it's 44 questions, but then when you break them down into the subcategories within these questions, within those questions, it's probably more

010like 60 or 70. So, we're in the process of putting that memo together and it's our intention to provide that in time uh for the next hearing. But, we felt like there was enough a lot of material to kind of get through tonight and then have tonight's conversation inform some of those details that are coming or that are going to be included in the updated plan set. Uh, so we'll be providing an updated plan set and an up and a full memo that has uh pointby-point responses to everything. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Um, so with that, I'm going to turn it over to Luke Norton with uh Sanborn Hat and Associates. >> Good evening, Mr. Chair and Commission. Um, as uh Mr. Lopez has just indicated, my name is Luke Norton. I'm with uh

011Sanborn Head and Associates. I'm a geotechnical engineer and um hydro geologist. And um uh I understand there's a fair number of comments and u conversations surrounding uh bedrock. So, I wanted to uh talk about uh bedrock at the site starting at kind of a large regional scale and then bringing us down into uh the site proper with some of the the particulars uh for the site um up on the screens. M >> Mr. Norton, before you get too far into the weeds, >> um there are people online watching and it's on TV. So I realize that there's a certain level that you have to speak to, but if you can also speak in in lay terms so that people understand what you're talking about. >> I I'll do my best and and if you have

012questions and and I can re uh phrase or explain things as I go, I'm more than happy. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Um so we're going to start, like I said, kind of at a a large scale um regional scale. Uh there's been some questions uh related to faults or fault lines and uh those are indicators of previous geologic activity. And so what I've got um shown up on the screen is a uh a mass mapper uh export. Um it's the state's uh GIS database and we're looking at the bedrock um lithology groups. So, the bedrock types um kind of in in large categories across the state. Uh there's uh two colors shown kind of overlaying the map. Um there's a a pink which is kind of showing up red on the left um and

013then a green uh showing up uh on the the right. Um the site is entirely within the the pink um Avalon granite um rock type and there's a discontinuity um to the the east of the site um where the the pink runs into the green. Um and that is one of the fault lines in proximity uh to the site. Uh the other uh I'll have to kind of zoom in uh I think a little bit. uh you'll see it running um right underneath uh Waverly Street. So it actually doesn't run uh on the site proper but is uh immediately adjacent to it. Um and that's just a localized minor fault line within the the Avalon granite um geological unit itself. And as I u mentioned um fault lines are kind of evidence of uh previous

014geological activity um movement uh in the earth uh that at one point ch changed or shifted uh the structure of the rock. And so um Massachusetts and New England in general is not known for its seismic or or you know ongoing movement. Um but we do still see evidence historical evidence of this. Um these two particular uh faults uh looking at uh some of the the research uh done by others geologists u would indicate that you know this type of movement may have been anywhere from 200 million to 500 million years ago and it is not considered uh an active fault. So what we would expect today with um with this type of structure and discontinuity maybe a zone of um fracturing, maybe a zone uh of rock type change could be displayed simply as

015you know color changes and rock type changes. Um or it could be uh like I said a a zone where uh the rock uh appears more fractured than uh areas you know within uh between the fault lines. So, as we zoom um closer and closer uh to the site proper, you can see on this same map um it's represented with that red star. Uh we actually see some localized features in the rock uh that we've been calling a ridge. So, um there are portions on the site where the rock is higher and other portions where it's lower. And um I like to think of it as a forearm. And so I'm I'm demonstrating this for those in the here in the in the room. Um uh this ridge runs uh northwest to southeast. And um

016if you imagine the soil as it's deposited over this ridge, um it it falls away uh to the north and it falls away to the south. Uh and we've done a series of test borings and test pits at the site to to map that rock surface and to understand um that ridge line that's you know buried uh below the ground surface. And there's also a little bit of evidence of that along Waverly Street where in the past um the the front edge of that ridge, you know, the um the fingertips if you will have been cut um and exposed and you can see that um from the street level. [snorts] Um in addition to the underlying rock um there is a a soil layer across the site uh that contains uh a number of uh

017glacial boulders. Um and these range anywhere from uh like a one foot size diameter size of my shoe um up to like six feet. And so there are some significant boulders observed at the site. Uh and we've done a little bit of work uh looking at some of these larger boulders to understand if it's truly a bedrock outcrop or a surface uh a boulder feature. Um and uh as Will has brought up on the screen, um there is a a large surface boulder on a portion of the site um that I think is discussed and and mentioned in the the comment letter uh being near test pit uh TP 106. So, we're going to zoom in. And so, Will again is doing a a good job navigating um for those paying attention to the screens.

018Um and um uh this surface feature again uh was evaluated in the field and determined to be a surface boulder, a large one u but not bedrock. So what we have is a a site uh concept that takes advantage of this um ridge feature, this bedrock ridge feature that has kind of a high uh promontory in the center of the site um but falls away again to the north and falls away again to the south. And um uh while we do anticipate encountering uh some bedrock uh during construction and and uh needing to remove that, it's for uh limited um utility uh pipes um and limited uh building structures. Uh it does uh not uh in our estimation interact with the the storm water systems. Those are located uh where the rock is dipping away.

019Um, and Will is now showing um two cross-sections, a sheet with two cross-sections. One where you can see the the section is cut through that center line of the ridge. Um uh and uh >> Luke, let me just go back up to the key plan here. >> Sure. So there's a a section line BB that's cut kind of through the high high point of the center line of the ridge and then a section AA that's cut through uh an area where the rock has dipped away uh and some of those subsurface systems um are installed where the rock is at lower elevation. And um when we talk about rock removal for that center line, um we're really uh thinking is taking the the knuckles off of that ridge line, right? I was just demonstrating with

020my forearm. Um we're not looking at exposing a large uh bedrock cut surface. It's really just intentional trenching into the rock um for uh proposed uh foundations uh and uh utilities. So the the bedrock removal be limited in scope um and done in accordance with a controlled blasting plan. Um and uh uh I believe that um you've seen kind of the the scope of uh that minimal blasting uh in the documents provided. Um uh for those who aren't familiar with kind of uh blasting methodologies, uh they're highly regulated. Uh there's a lot of planning and thought uh put into those blasting plans including surveys um completed before the blasting occurs. Um uh monitoring of the the blast sequence uh as the work goes on um and uh you know compliance with a whole host of

021uh uh state regulations. So I'll pause here. Like I said we've started kind of at a very big regional perspective. We've kind of zoomed in on some site specifics and um opportunity I guess to ask any questions before I hand off to other topics. >> I have a a comment. What what and and you're probably aware of this, but just so everyone's having the same conversation, what we're aware what we want to be aware of here is um an issue that we ran into with the public safety building. When they started to remove the bed, which is right down the street, remove that bedrock, it was full of water and it went all over the place. And that's one of the concerns that uh that not only the commission has but the town's folks as

022well. >> Sure. So if we can in your explanation of that shed some light on whether this will happen or whether it won't happen and why. >> Sure. >> Thanks. >> Um so as part of our explorations on site uh we have the opportunity to observe um groundwater levels if they're present. Um for the vast majority of the site uh and specifically this central uh ridge uh that we've been talking about uh we did not encounter groundwater. Um we would anticipate uh on a a seasonal basis or after uh rainfall events water that does successfully infiltrate into the ground would eventually trickle down, find its way to the bedrock surface. And usually that's a confining layer where uh the rock uh would more would preferably follow the top of rock down to a lower elevation

023as opponos to penetrate directly into the rock. Um we also don't see um evidence of significant um water bearing fractures along um Waverly Street. uh we have uh the benefit of seeing that exposed uh rock surface. Um and um and so uh the the the concept that you know we've seen from the data on site is that you know we don't have uh a water- fil uh rock. Um what we would kind of expect is in a in a local s scenario uh during construction is having to deal with these low spots in the rock right as we uh physically remove uh material install um storm water um foundation elements and things of that nature. So much more on kind of a a construction dewatering effort um than a a groundwater uh type of concern.

024Um and then the last thing is um I mentioned that this rock removal is really kind of like scraping off high points as opposed to exposing a full um vertical face of rock. And those are completely different types of rock removal settings. Um and you know one is uh much more susceptible to rock fracture, water bearing fractures, things of that nature. mention the top. >> Oh, sure. Yeah. Um, Israel's u remind me a good point. Um, part of the the overall site uh that we're working on um it it the grade changes radially, meaning um there's a high point at the center and it uh it gets lower uh kind of uh across the entire perimeter. uh along Waverly Street and then you know wrapping around to to the north part of the site. Um

025so again uh from a surface water perspective going back to the idea that water will you know hit that either surface or penetrate down into the rock surface. It's going to shed radially um to the to the you know generally to the north northwest northeast. >> I have a couple of questions. [clears throat] the cross-sections of bedrock that you show, how do you It says it says approximate bedrock level. How did you determine that? >> That's um that's based on the explorations completed at the site. Um so, uh we'll dig down uh where we encounter rock u either with an excavator or with a a drill rig. Uh we'll make uh a notation of that depth. Um and then we can uh make an elevation knowing what the ground surface is. And then the termination

026depth of uh of the exploration. >> So you let me see if I understand it. You took test pits all around. You took the depth to bedrock and or not just depth of bedrock but the um the actual depth of bedrock, whatever that elevation is. >> The top of bedrock. That's correct. >> Top of bedrock. And then you projected that over the site to come up with this approximate elevation. >> That's correct. Um, and you're pretty confident of that. I mean, it's um, you didn't do any like probing other than test pitting. >> Um, that's the common practice is to do the test pits as the probing that you're talking about. Um, we have the benefit again of the exposed um, rock face along Waverly Street to help um, uh, tie in um, elevations that

027we're also seeing in the explorations. Um but yeah, generally speaking, um we've included enough, uh data points, um exploration locations to make a a generalized statement about that line, um and uh and the rock surface. >> So the bedrock or the the existing ground level more or less follows the bedrock >> in this case? Yes. >> It's not always it's not always true, but it's a good place to start. >> Okay. And you're sure that your encounters through the test pitting isn't a boulder, but a actual bedrock? >> We have some indications that we use to kind of help determine that in the field. Um, sometimes when the boulder's at the surface, like we showed in that photo, you can dig around the edge, right? You can see there's an underside to that boulder and

028it doesn't have a, you know, a connection to bedrock. >> I was wondering how you were able to tell it was a boulder or not. And in other cases, if it's a, you know, a pit into the ground, um, there are some indications we look at with, you know, moving the the excavator bucket. Does the boulder also move? You know, things of that nature. So, >> did um in your test pitting, did you characterize the condition of the bedrock? >> Um, >> is it competent rock? Is it weathered? Is it fractured? Is it >> Yeah, that's a really good question. There's only a limited amount of characterization we can do with the test pit. Yeah. >> Um and that's entirely dependent on kind of depth and you know visuals that we can get as we

029stand at the surface. >> Sure. >> Um so you can get a sense of what we call the ripability of the rock. So is it easily pulled out you know in chunks which might indicate it's you know more highly weathered or more highly fractured. Uh in this case you know from our observations the the rock was reasonably competent. So, it's pretty solid, [clears throat] >> which which is not too inconsistent with, you know, a granite type of rock. Yeah. We we we discussed at the very beginning about, you know, the site being predominantly Avalon granite. >> Um and um >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> I I have a question, Mr. Martin. If that vein of granite runs where the public safety building is up through your site and all the way back halfway across town

030and there used to be an old granite quarry out there at one time. >> Uh and where the high school was built uh had water in it. Where the public safety building was built has water in it. Where the old granite quarry is has water in it. What makes you think that this rock is not full of water? And and >> I believe that's what you said that you came to that determination. >> So I don't think I can speak directly to the fire station or the high school, but again the elevation of, you know, the fact that we're at a high point on that ridge line would certainly uh play into that determination. again the absence of um rock and you know obvious fracturing at the surface of the rock in their test pits

031um and then the evidence or you know absence of water bearing fractures coming out at uh Waverly Street are all um lines of evidence uh for for our determination. >> Okay, thank you. Yeah, just to echo what Carl was saying that the when they were building the public safety building, the contractors were incredulous about how much water they were dealing with. It was just coming out of the ground everywhere. >> And uh it was going across the road with all the mud and everything they were kicking up and into the river. And it was a huge problem for us for months because of that. And they were having a hell of a time with it. Um and there was something totally unexpected. >> Sure. >> So >> luckily on that site there were no houses

032down gradient, >> right? >> In this site there is, >> right? So I mean that's obviously part of the reason since this is all the same rock in the same formation. I think if we were looking at again a more vertical cut, right, and a final exposed face of rock, right, [clears throat] you might see on like a a highway um uh trench or something like that. Um we our confidence rate might be a little bit different space, but where we're doing selective um trenching for utilities and for foundations again at the high point uh of this ridge, um it to me it speaks to a different condition. I sure hope you don't run into it. [clears throat] >> Greg, I have a question. This is Bill. >> Yeah, go ahead, Bill. >> Um, when

033you did the expiration for the the bedrock, did you do all test pits using an excavator or did you do borings, too? >> I believe we did both. Let me double check on my site plan here. I know you saw a reference to test pits >> two different two different times. >> Two different times. That's correct. >> Yeah. >> Uh so test pits on this site. >> Just test pits. >> That's correct. >> Is there a reason you didn't do borings? >> Yeah, that was a question. If you had done borings, I would have been interested if you had penetrated the bedrock to get a sense of um its composition. >> Um it's just a function of the site and some of the information we we knew um kind of going into it looking at

034um the site mapping. Um so in this case uh we elected to to to use the test pits. Um when we core or I'm sorry when we drill uh often times uh the we focus on the overburden we focus on the soils above the rock uh and we encounter the same you know type of refusal uh uh with a drilling machine as we would with an excavating machine. Um there are some specialized rock cing um tools and and techniques but um again they weren't used on this particular site. And when you talk about taking the, you know, like the top of the bedrock off, is that that's for the the building itself, correct? You'll be cutting down. >> Um, so we'll be cutting and removing some of the soil above the rock. Um and only

035in very isolated areas uh are we expecting you know at the very bottom of footing excavations uh for you know a handful of footings are expecting to encounter the rock. I mean one of the considerations here with the um proposed structure is uh is to you know have the the structure at such an elevation where you don't have to do a massive amount of rock removal. So there you know that's part of the consideration. So you think most of the bedrock excavation will be occurring when you're um constructing the utility lines? >> That's correct. You can see that on the um section being currently being shown. >> Okay. >> Yeah, if I could chime in. Um [clears throat] as as you can see, sorry there's a lot of lines here uh on this plan. The

036estimated bedrock is uh the blue line here. We we cited the building and um you know designed the site in a manner intentionally to avoid [clears throat] bedrock and try to get the building up as high as possible so that large significant areas of blasting wouldn't be required for the principal structure for example. So, we feel fairly confident that we're we're going to be above the bedrock and just removing the soil above it as as Luke just mentioned. And to answer your question, uh Mr. Molton. Um, most of the bedrock removal, which is this cross-hatch pattern here, does occur on in the parking lot um on the East Union Street side where there'll be um minor uh ledge removal for utilities, storm water, sewer, and water. And then um the one exception is uh we

037do anticipate that one or two of the garages uh along East Union Street um may need may be the foundations may be within bedrock, but um there also may be opportunities to take advantage of that bedrock um to use as a competent uh foundation material and you know poor slab on grade for example. Um, but I just wanted to emphasize that, you know, a reason why a a large boring program wasn't proposed from the beginning because we felt confident that we had a site design that avoided it um as much as possible. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Could I could I ask who was speaking? >> Yes, sir. >> Uh, I'll introduce myself. Will Park civil >> Oh, you're Will. Okay. I Your voice sounded different. I didn't think that was you. >> And for

038your information, Bill Molton is one of our commissioners that's >> remote be because we can't see you speaking in the room. That's >> right. >> Oh, that my video is taking up the whole screen. Apologies. >> Yep. >> Someone had a a question for me. >> Let me see. Um yeah, I just had a just a question. So is the principal structure actually going to be in a bedrock depression? Is it going to be solid rock? >> Um so going back to the um center ridge analogy, um a portion of the principal structure will be at the high point. Um and then you know wings off of that will then be over uh portions where uh the rock starts to drop away and so over kind of that ridge line that's where we have uh

039the potential for a minor amount of rock removal for the foundations. >> Okay. >> But it'll just be sitting on on rock the foundation. >> Um so for for geotechnical design we do not typically recommend a combination of rock and soil. Um, so they'll remove enough rock to put a soil cushion in so that all of the foundations are are on soil. >> Okay. >> They'll replace some of the the rock with a soil cushion. >> Okay. So, does the building have to be anchored in any way or is it just gravity keeps it in? >> That's correct. Yeah. >> Okay. All right. Thank you, >> Rick. Mike has a couple of questions. >> Oh, yeah. Mike, go ahead. Yeah. [clears throat] >> Uh, Mike Carter, GCG Associates. Um, couple things. Do you know how

040many test holes you did out there? Will >> Luke Orwell? Yeah, 20. >> Sure. >> 20. Okay. I I think, you know, the commission has brought up a really good point. You know, we're assuming the the bedrock is parallel with the ground surface. Um, and that's a good general assumption, but there's there's a lot of a lot of times the rock bedrock goes up and then it dips and then, as you know, goes down. And I think it's really kind of important that we really have an understanding of where you based your bedrock elevation on. And I would probably suggest that what we do is we just have a a surface. You created a surface of where the bedrock is based upon assumptions is that we have a plan that shows the elevation like a

041topo plan showing the elevation of the bedrock and with the test total on it. So we can have a good understanding if there's adequate what we feel is adequate testing on the site to make sure that's safe because as as Carl and Jean have indicated that the the fire station police station um they had a lot of problems. I wasn't even aware of that. But I've been involved in a project that was in the n late 90s early 2000s when it was a liquor store at one point there and a developer came in and what they did are you familiar with where the site is that we're talking about the the DP the I'm familiar with it. >> Yeah. So, >> yeah. And they came in, a developer came in and they were going to

042build a strip plaza there. It was permitted and improved and we ran into all kinds of storm water issues and it's literally right next to this parcel. Um, and they they if you saw what they had to do to control the water and then the town eventually found out what they did. Um, this is on the same slope. Um, very much very similar. And then you have you have um exposed bedrock down on the street um which is which today is dry. I don't believe there's any issue with any any surface water or ground water breaking out onto the street. Um and we want to just make sure that when we're done here that we've done the right due diligence to make sure that there's not going to be anything drain on the street. And

043maybe Luke or Will could speak to you have a you know your parking runs parallel with Waverly um for for basically the entire length of the project and you have a drain line running parallel with Waverly just up you know up the hill about maybe I don't have a scale with me but we'll say like 50 to 70 feet and it's not clear to me whether you're going to have to blast to put that drain line in. So you'd be blasting a trench parallel with Waverly Street. And when you blast a trench, you know, it causes fractures not just in the trench, it could cause fractures in the bedrock closer to Waverly, which could open up a potential way for water to flow down on the Waverly. I'm trying to do is make sure the

044best I can that we're not going to have surface water, groundwater, any kind of water just flowing down to Waver Waverly Street and then creating a um you know a a problem in the winter where it can be icing it for like that. And I've run into this similar situation up off of Oak Street on Oregon, what's known as used to be known as Oregon Estates. If you go in that entrance, it's a big cut and the developers spent a lot of money trying to fix it. Never really truly got fixed. And I think the intent here is just to make sure that we don't have that same problem. Um, so we might be, you know, I'm asking maybe you create a surface and we can take a look at it. also the the drain

045[clears throat] lines, especially the one parallel with Waverly because it's just uphill of it sits on top of that uh that edge. Um we take a look at what the profile of the ledge is there and also maybe do some crosssections of the site through Waverly up the site because you're they're clearing right down to the to Waverly Street and where the bedrock is and we want to just kind of get a sense of so everybody knows what it's going to look like. You know, are you going to cut that rock back? I don't think you are. >> So, so I think Will has brought up that section that you're referring to. We we've we've done two sections. Um, this one is uh I believe the the section BB. Yeah. >> Yeah. Let's zoom into

046the key plan again. Yeah. >> Mike, are you in receipt of these sections? >> Um I is that this part of the package you sent last Wednesday? >> No, I believe these were submitted on December. >> Okay. part of the original. But what I'm saying is you you know I want I'd like to see for example bring the section back up that you have right now and so where you had the storm water trench right there >> correct >> right and you know is just so everybody understands this is a I don't know what the scales are well it's a horizontal of something and a vertical different so it's it's squashed a lot so that >> no uh I I prefer No vertical exaggerations. It's one point. >> No exaggeration. Okay. So, where is that

047storm drain water trench in ledge right there? >> Uh, yes. There will be minor ledge removal. >> And same thing with the water right next to it. >> Correct. >> Yeah. This is over 100 ft from Waverly Street. Here's the existing bedrock face right here. >> Yeah. So, does that Are you saying that when you blast you won't have any impact 100 feet away on the ledge? >> We would not anticipate that. Typically when we do bla um mass uh blast removal um you're doing you know shots that are six feet 8 feet on center >> um with the understanding that you know the energy is going into that radius um you're not looking to propagate you know 100 foot cracks with your blast and certainly not for a utility trench like this. This would

048not consider like a mass um mass blasting. It would be a very localized and focused blast pattern. >> How deep below your your trege do you typically drill the blast? >> Um it's going to vary on the rock type and and the driller will submit a blast plan that shows that. But um typically you're you're going down a foot or two below the invert. Um and then they might drill, you know, further than that and then stem it and only load the uh the blasting product um you know to the actual desired invert. And so what if you know for example you have the ledge right at that you have assumed ledge right at that spot you know the ledge goes up and down um we could go 50 ft up along that water man

049it could drop down so that now you have a low point in your ledge which could create a path for water to flow and it's just that's why I'm asking for the surface I think it's really important that we don't have that any kind of runoff going and I I know you don't want it guarantee because it'll be a neverending problem and time is to do the due diligence now and make sure that we don't have that. Um, can you hoam that? That that would eliminate >> there's the possibility. Yeah. >> Eliminate reduced it. Let's put it that reduce it substantially. >> So, what you're talking about is is piping along the pipe. Water piping around the outside of the pipe in the trench. >> it's going to follow the trench and then break out

050somewhere else. >> It could. Yeah. And that's what I want to make sure is that I you know you run in parallel couple hundred feet it's not going to be the same flat pancake the top. >> If they were to put in um breakers in the trench >> clay barriers would work. >> Clay barriers would that >> that would help. Yep. >> That would help. >> That would definitely help. We had a situation elsewhere in town where >> a developer put in a sewer line down a slope and just put padding around the pipe and the water piping down that slope along the outside of that sewer line was amazing. And you get down to the bottom of it and it was just bubbling out of the ground because it was just following the pipe

051downhill and it they had no breakers in the trench so there was nothing to stop the flow. and until it finally silted in, it was a mess. So, I I I hear what you're saying that that would be a problem and putting in some met clay breakers in there would help stop stop that problem. >> We we would definitely agree to install those at an at a reasonable increment. >> Y >> um in areas where there was ledge removal for utilities to make sure that any groundwater migration stays localized. And what you know right now this that section shows where the ledge is. If you go back westerly towards the um towards the town they will be filling in on that slope and there'll be some rip wrap. I think it's important you know it's

052to take a look at different sections along that. You know I believe you like you indicated Will you gave two. I think we want to just so everybody sees because this shows that there's no disturbance to the rightway, but that's that's not the case for the most part of the entire thing. If I'm looking at the plan correctly, I that that was the subject of a lot of discussion in with the ZBA about whether to take that rock out and put a sidewalk in and so forth. I know there was a lot of discussion about that. That's not our issue. But my understanding during that discussion it came out that there was a lot of water coming out of that slope and that there is icing issues in the street. >> Okay. >> And um

053it you know I don't know if I think Doug Small is on the phone on the call here and he might be able to address that as you know DPW director but I was under the impression in the winter there was a lot of icing issues along that stretch. So, we did take a look at the uh exposed slope um because we know it's a a concern and a question. Um I described how when the water um infiltrates down through the soil and hits the top of rock, it then falls along the top of that rock. Right? >> So, that's what we were seeing is either through a combination of melting at the surface or that um water perched on the rock. It's it's it's a function of the season. And it's not a function

054of the water bearing within the rock itself. There aren't like weathered fractures and signs that uh you know mineralization is being uh carried through by water within the rock itself. >> I I observed that area last week during that significant snow melt. Um and the area along the bedrock, the exposed bedrock along Waverly Street, um was bone dry on on the road and um maybe 5% of the rock face you could see um snow melt coming down off of it. I know that's a that's one data point, but it was during a substantial uh snow thaw um last week where there was, you know, there was puddling in other places. >> We are in a drought. Just bear that in mind, too. >> Yeah. And significant snow is um I mean, we haven't had any

055for three years, right? So, there was snow melt, but I wouldn't exactly say it was significant. >> Mike, did you have a second question? >> Um, no, I will later on when we move forward. >> I just I just wanted to ask uh Will Park if he could also comment um on this particular subject about water um kind of sheet flowing over the rock onto Waverly and how our design actually helps to reduce that um effect. So, we'll I'll I'll let you go through that, please. >> Um, sure. Uh, you know, we I'm jumping ahead a few topics here, but um for those familiar with um our hydraology maps, you know, we are collecting um every drop of water that hits the developed area, the parking lots, um the lawn areas, etc., and sending them

056to very large infiltration basins. Um uh that will significantly reduce the run the groundwater runoff that occurs down down um that exposed ledge onto Waverly Sea because we'll be collecting it at the surface um infiltrating it where we want to infiltrate it. Um, so it will no longer be going into the soil, perhaps running along the top of the bedrock and and coming out there. So we expect that after the site is constructed and stabilized, um, that the just the sheer volume of water that goes into the site and in infiltrates and runs out there will be significantly decreased. And uh get another getting ahead. Um one of GCG's comments that we'll address in our larger um our more thorough review is that we will be installing a Imperog liner curtain if you will on

057the downhill side of this. Um we don't just because of the how the elevations work out. We don't expect um there to be breakout um along this retaining wall or along Waverly Street, but we're adding that as a precaution >> again to to make sure the water in the proposed conditions the water goes where where we want it to. >> Can you can you go through that a little bit? I don't I don't remember seeing anything about a curtain wall. Uh that that will be um that will be included in the the full response to GCP comments that commitment. >> Um but we actually might I might be able to just sketch it here quickly. >> Um you know here's those infiltration basins that are knocking the development runoff um down to 0.0 based on

058these elevations. We are very confident that the water infiltrating from the system will not travel horizontally 100 ft and break out at Waverly Street. Nor do we think that it will jeopardize [clears throat] this relatively short retaining wall. However, we propose on the downhill sides to install an impermeable um liner or like a curtain um to further prevent that horizontal migration. >> So, it's just there at the infiltration chamber. >> Yes. >> Does that go down to bed? >> No. You can see here there's um six or seven feet of separation. >> So it just goes to what is existing grade. >> It'll it'll travel through like 7 ft of native soil. >> Okay. >> Well infiltrating native soils. >> Yep. >> To the commission. uh to the earlier comments, Doug Small, our DPW director,

059is online and I believe did have something to add to the conversation. >> Hey, yeah. Hi, Doug. Go ahead, >> Doug. I accidentally muted you while trying to unmute you. [laughter] >> Nice. >> How about now? >> You're good. >> Y Okay. Thank you. Um, I don't think [clears throat] it would be uh as far as the the on Waverly Street. Um, there are two people that I know of that could speak a lot better to it than than I can. And um, as far as I would say Kevin Langmire from the department has more hands-on experience or whatever dealing with the the salt and and the ice and condition icing conditions. Um, and the other person is Jean Walker, who's a resident down the street. She's spoken about it a couple of times during

060these hearings. Um, but I could come back with more information to talk uh more in detail about the on uh Waverly Street, but I'm not prepared right now. But maybe Jean could could jump in. >> Hi, Jean. Do you want to speak to the uh speak to this issue? >> Is she on the call? >> She is. Uh Jean, you're muted. >> I'm unmuted now, I think. >> There you go. >> Okay. Go ahead, Jean. >> Okay. And uh what I'd like to add to this discussion is I've lived here for 60 years. I've lived with that ledge. I've lived with the water coming out when there were times when it was most dangerous out there. And something to note is the water that comes out of that for over the past year, not this

061year because we have not had much of any melt any melt at all. What we've had is nothing. And if water comes out of that lead at all different levels, sometimes it comes out of the bottom, sometimes it comes out and you can see where it's coming out, sometimes by the ice that forms after it. So it that is multi- multi- avenues that it takes to come out. So I think that's something to keep it keep in mind. >> See the commission >> and it certainly does it certainly does create hazardous conditions and and the public works have been very good taking care of it. But sometimes that happens almost instantaneous depending on how much how much rain rain rain and you got big rains and ice melt when and the snow melt and sometimes

062the snow is is is feet tall. That's a lot of water that's coming out coming out of there. And where is it all coming from? All different directions >> to >> or levels. Okay. to the commission. Just to add for the record, while Gan I believe is speaking as a resident in this case, Gan is also on our storm water advisory council um and is speaking from the experience of that as well. >> From the experience of that as well. >> All right. Thank you, Jean. Do you have anything else to add? >> Thank you, Jean. Do you have anything else to add? >> Okay. Yeah, that's all for now. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> All for now. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> Um now, could I uh follow up on

063that, please? Sure. Go ahead. >> Um I didn't mean to say my I just want to reiterate my one observation last week was a limited observation. I don't think the project team is denying that water does flow off that whether it's from the surface or from groundwater. I am very confident that we we will be improving that situation by capturing all the water on that hill and sending it where we want to. And you know, I I think GCG would agree with that that there will be less water hitting the woods there, traveling along the surface or along the bedrock and coming out. We are collecting it and we're putting it in a very two very large infiltration systems uh cited in an area um away from this discussion uh problem area. >> Okay, Mr.

064Park uh you said that this would be um in your followup uh presentation. So I think we can wait for that plan um and move on from from this right now. >> Okay. >> And have Mr. Norton continue his presentation. >> Does anyone else from the commission like to speak to the bedrock? >> Well, was I correct in that assertion? Mr. park. You did say it was going to be in the followup um responses to GCG comments. >> Yeah, I mean we we've touched on this topic and the uh material submitted to date and this uh you know we've once again heard the town's concerns and we will uh incorporate that into future responses. Yes. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Go ahead. >> Just one quick thing. Uh I don't know that uh necessarily jurisdictional

065here, but um a as to blasting, I know a lot of residents I've heard from over the years have had very negative experiences with other developments. So anything you can do to use other techniques besides blasting uh would u certainly make a lot of residents a lot more comfortable with the project. Yeah, that's it. Anyone else? >> Set with bedrock then. >> Thank you. >> Okay. You're welcome. >> Okay, we can. >> Great. >> Are we going to take public comment for each or what? >> Yeah. Why don't we do that? We already took some online. We'll take it. Yeah. through the commission. Just to the public, a reminder to please state your name and address before you speak. >> Johnson for Roberts Road. Um when they were building the Shri Lakshmi uh Hindu temple

066at 117 Wavely Street. Um, the construction company sent a family, I just found a letter recently saying that they would be blasting and they came into the house and videotaped the interior walls um to to do, you know, before and after shots. You know, there was some minor cracks. Fewer years after that, I remember um I was before I don't know which board, but Cameron was there. I mean Preston was there um about they blasted without giving getting permission for when they were expanding the parking lot. So there is a lot of you know bedrock or whatever up there. Um I just hope that they alert the neighbors before they start blasting because I'm sure there's going to be blasting. I did drive by that ledge a week or so ago when it was melting

067and there was water just coming out from all over the place up there. That's all. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Yeah. Should we uh move on? Go ahead, Mr. Lopez. Yeah, >> thank you. And and yes, uh I just want to make one last comment on the ledge and blasting topic um before we move on to hydrarology. And that is um we uh we have um and and Sanborn head in particular working with us has significant experience uh with sites that involve ledge and we've done projects uh with Sanborn Head that involve uh sheer exposing a sheerface wall of I don't know what was mar 40 feet or so for a span of you know five or six hundred feet. Um, so I I I think it's important to at least make the

068commission aware that we fully understand the ledge and the concerns around blasting and are very familiar with the pre-blast survey process and um what was described in terms of doing that survey, making sure that residents within I believe it's a 300 uh foot radius or maybe that's 250. Okay. Um anyway um that that is part of the process. Uh also the ZBA's comprehensive permit includes significant conditions around blasting that require the project to provide a a pre-blast survey plan to the fire department. Uh the ZBA has the ability to engage uh a blasting uh peerreview consultant at the time of construction if that's required. So there are lots of provisions within um the existing uh permit that we have to abide by regarding that. So I just wanted to make that quick point. But you

069do recognize and and acknowledge our skepticism given the history of that area with >> I I think the biggest distinction um and we're very familiar with that because the site that I was describing earlier that we worked on was precisely a site that involved cutting and then exposing a massive uh you know rock face wall. that is entirely different than our project here where we're building essentially on top of the bedrock and then carving out channels uh selectively throughout the site. So, it's a very very different um type of of excavation program. But we we fully understand the concern. >> Okay. Um if there are no other questions, I think um the next topic we wanted to cover was hydrarology and go through that >> to the commission. You have another uh hand raised from

070Doug Small online as well. >> Hi Doug. Go ahead. >> Hi. Thank you. Um while you talking about blasting, I I just thought it was important to to mention the covert in Waverly Street as far as the uh pre pre-blasting survey whether to make sure that's included. >> Good point. that Doug the uh >> we're planning on having a discussion of that in in uh subsequent um part of the presentation dealing with structural integrity but uh seeing it's relevant to what we're talking about now I think it's good to note that uh that timing time >> would anyone else from the general public like to comment on bedrock issues. Okay, seeing none. So anyway, it was encouraging that uh hamming is part of your rock moving repertoire when needed. Yeah. Okay. All right. Yeah, I

071think we can move on to hydrarology now. >> Okay. Uh this portion will be um presented by Will Park via Zoom. >> Okay. >> All right. >> Hello again everyone. Um again, sorry you can't uh see me with the screen share. Um so uh it was recommended that we talk high level um about hydrarology which we're in favor of. um there's kind of some alignment we're hoping to get um before we um submit that full response to GCG's comments. So, in within their comments, they made many about hydrarology, but two in particular that um we jumped right on. Um those being they they made a a recommendation that our hydraologic soil group um be revised slightly from woods/grass combination in good condition to just woods in uh good condition. So we've done that across the

072site. Uh they also recommended um that we break out our design points around the site. Um, previous in the original submission, excuse me, the project had three design points. We've taken GCG's advice uh and broken some of those down further and now we have five design points. Um, those being uh sorry there the the numbering a little a little funky. Um, design point two is um the northern part of the wetland, the BVW that flows through the swale to the stone box covert. >> Will, could you bring up could you bring up the hydraology map maybe? >> Oh, Will, sorry we stopped your screen share during the public comment. You'll have to restart it. >> Oh, yeah. That'll help. Um, here we go. Thank you. All right. Can you you can see it now? >>

073Yep. >> Okay, great. Um, sorry about that. So, um, design point two, um, is the northern part of the BBW that flows, um, through the swale behind the neighboring properties into the stone box cover. Design point three is the southoutheastern portion of the site um that collects the southern part of the BVW um and flows down to um the culvert under I believe Nikki Terrace is the name of it. Um design point five labeled down here is everything to the west of the site. Um you'll see in later exhibits it's uh in the proposed conditions essentially just the native woods that will remain. The um the big change that uh GCG had recommended is um introduced in design point 4 which is what flows onto Waverly Street. Um, we've broken down that further to what

074reaches Waverly Street versus what enters the um, catch basin system and the 12in RCP pipe that goes from that catch basin to the stone box covert. Um, the stone box cover has been Oh, I'm jumping ahead. uh observed by DPDW and those photos have been um distributed. Uh Estima may observe that as well and um the 12-in inlet from the swale along with the 12in RCP from the street catch basin. Um we we have taken the commission's request uh and are now going going to be showing that on our existing conditions plan as just a side note. So we took GCG's um recommendations on the hydraology model and implemented them uh in both the existing and the proposed uh situations. As a result um the peak discharge rate summary which we have submitted um looks

075as follows. the DP1, the 12-in wave RCP uh catch basin and 12-in RCP in Waverly Street. Um these are very very small flows across the board here. I just want to emphasize that um between the existing hydraologic soil group a soils beneath the site and the robust infiltration system proposed um these are some of the smallest uh 10 discharge numbers I've seen in my in my career. We are not increasing the flow to the catch basin in the two-year storm or the 10-year storm and the northern part of the BBW design point 2 that flows through the swale to the stone box covert. We are not increasing the flow in the two or 10year storms which is um I just want to remind everyone the wetland protection act performance standards um point to the sto

076uh the D stormwater handbook standard 2 requires meeting um discharge rates in the pre or existing and proposed conditions for the two and 10year storm. the 100red-year storm um needs to uh ensure that no down downstream flooding will occur and if um and then they say if that's a concern then your BMP should account for it. um our BMPs have accounted for it and and we are very confident that um rounding you know one CFS in the 100redyear storm is not a concern for flooding. Um there's going to be a lot more things going on in a 100redyear storm um to worry about one one CFS leaving those large chambers. Uh rounding out the rest of the site, um Nikki Terrace, um in the southern part of the B BBW, very similar situation. No increase

077in flow in the two and 10ear storms. Uh the um remainder of Waverly Street um does have a very small increase in the 10-year storm, 0.05 05 CFS and then all the drainage area to the west of the site. That's essentially the native um wood line that we're maintaining or uh a stabilized slope that will naturalize over time. has a um no increase in the 2-year storm, but a 0.10 CFS increase in the um 10-year storm. And I know I'm I'm rambling here. Uh I'll I'll get to a good stopping point here in a moment. So, going back to the um proposed drainage map, I just want to emphasize that the the drainage area maps are collecting water from um the entire developed area, all parking lots, all lawns, all courtyards, everything. And generally going

078into one of these two systems in the 10-year storm. um you know you add these two together in the 10-year storm 20 CFS is going into them 0.00 0 0 is leaving. So that just emphasizes how robust these systems are and how much the flow is decreasing. Those minor increases of 0.05 05 and 010 CFS are um the result of these very small little strips around the perimeter like the backside of the surf of the surface detention basin. this this wooded area here that we are intentionally left preserved just a result of hydra hydraology modeling when an area gets smaller but um TR55 or T TR20 requires you to have a minimum six minute time of concentration the numbers just kind of blow up uh and in our opinion don't really represent what we'll really

079be happening out there. Um, we had a little pre-conference meeting with GCG and explained in our professional opinion, HydroCAD, the default modeling software, um, was not designed for, you know, drainage areas of a few hundred square feet. They're meant to model entire watersheds with discharge in these thousands of cfs, not uh you know down to the second decimal place. So we feel that we have um designed a very environmentally responsible design with a very robust um storm water management system. Um, I do want to just mention quickly, um, through GCG's comments and further reflection, we've revised the surface infiltration system to a surface detention system only. So, we're no longer dealing with um, separation to groundwater clearance requirements and everything. We've also um substituted out the small bio retention area here and are instead going

080to install a very small footprint um stormtech subsurface detention system. Those, you know, those yellow arches only about 18 in deep. Um that's what we're providing to catch the lowest catch basins that can physically be um collected and routed to a storm water BMP. Uh again the last 20 ft of the driveway, you know, with one or two cars queuing up, one car queuing up, that is the area that we physically cannot collect and route to a system. Um, and that's what's throwing those numbers off for those numbers that appeared in red on the peak discharge table. Um, this kind of came up earlier uh when we were talking about how we cited the building um to avoid um or absolutely minimize bedrock removal. Um, some some folks may have seen um a prior proposal

081on this site that had 360 degree retaining walls, finished floors that would have required massive blasting and property to property line tree clearing. This is an exhibit we had put together for the ZBA that we think uh has a good representation of the responsible design where we've left vegetated buffers and areas um that probably could have been utilized. Similarly here in the western portion, we feel that um this was uh the right thing to do to leave a naturalized buffer here for the residents of Ashland and the adjacent neighbor. Um, as a kind of worst case, what would be required in our opinion to reduce these two numbers here down to 0 or to to match these numbers right next door would have to be very irresponsible design that we don't want to volunteer um

082just for the sake of chasing hundreds of CFS. Um this is just a quick markup of that um disturbance exhibit where we would have to um install swailes or curtain drains along the perimeters of the site. This area down here is lower um just for folks who aren't familiar. uh all along Waverly Street and all along East Union Street and install two catch basins, you know, 20 feet down from where the last ones we proposed, you know, which are roughly here and here that go to the subsurface system. We'd have to collect two catch basins here, route it hundreds of feet, and install a BMP in this area, which is lower. There's, you know, 5 ft of grid change. So we could get water to flow here, install a hole in the ground with an

083outlet um outlet control structure tying into East Union Street drainage. All just to take all just to get these numbers to match these ones. >> Can I jump in for one second, Mr. Park? This is Carl. >> Yes, sir. >> Um thank you. Um, people watching are going to have absolutely no idea what you're talking about here. Um, so I'm I'm going to try to put it in a little bit of context and then have you further clarify that. But there are, as it was mentioned at the beginning of the hearing, uh, we're only applying state law here because, uh, we don't we no longer have the ability because of the comprehensive permit to enforce local law. So, there are state performance standards that govern storm water. Um, and that's what Mr. Park is talking

084about, trying to meet those standards. Um, trying to meet those standards means crunching a lot of numbers. Um, so that's what we're getting at here. The idea is to keep the water on site in lay terms instead of having the water go all over the place. And again, these are these are not arbitrary performance standards. They're state standards. Um, and I'm going to ask Mr. Park to uh elaborate on that a little bit if if what I said was confusing and ask uh Mr. Carter uh to weigh in on on on the crunching of these numbers because that's what he's here for to see if this all makes sense to him because it's very difficult where the conservation commissioners uh and it's sometimes difficult for us to understand this stuff. So people watching it are

085probably having no idea what we're talking about here and it's and it's probably a good idea if they did. So do you want to comment on that, Mr. Park? and then and then uh Mike, you jump in. >> Um I I have no uh Thank you for um taking a pause to make sure we're aligned on the topic. Um I have no no additional commentary to to your summary and and I would also like to hear from Mike Carter from GC. >> Okay. and and um uh correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying that you're meeting these performance standards uh and except in one slight exception and in order to meet it, it would make the um the project less attractive uh both physically and uh and otherwise to the um citizens of Ashland.

086Is that correct? >> Uh that's that's absolutely correct. I actually just thought of one thing. Um, there are 10 D treatment standards. The performance standards you refer to >> in the wetlands protection act refer to the D storm water management uh manual or handbook that outlines 10 um 10 standards that you must meet. Um I I believe in the information we've submitted to date um that we've demonstrated compliance with um all 10 of those um GCG's comments which were much appreciated. Uh I I'll let Mike comment on this but I don't think that they I think they'd agreed that the project is very much in compliance with all those. We're submitting a few just extra calcs to support our stance on that. So we are talking about you know a fraction of one of the

08710 treatment standards. The other ones being you know removal of sediment having erosion controls having a long-term operation and maintenance manual um providing groundwater recharge which this project meets in spades. Um I I think the project meets all all 10 of the treatment standards um very well. Uh we've just received feedback that um there's a hangup on chasing these hundreds of a CFS for this one treatment standard. And now I'll stop. >> Well, can you bring that um picture up you had where you had the red painted the red colored area that you wanted we would have to disturb? >> Yes, sir. >> So um first [clears throat] we haven't complete we haven't reviewed any revised plans. So that with that said, we're, you know, they're working towards complying with the with the um storm

088water and they will most likely get there. Um and if we get down to it that [clears throat] we have a 0.05 CFS increase in one area. Um and I think will maybe if if you can say that we don't have any increase in the total, that's one thing you could say. But to clear that whole red area on the screen for 0.05 CFS is is I would say not in the best interest of the project, not in the best interest of the town. Leaves leave some undisturbed land. There's tree growth there. Um you're not adversely impacting anybody. Um just to give you an idea. 0.0.5 CFS. 05 CFS is 0.5 is three gallons a second. So one10enth of that is.3 gallons a second. To to put it in perspective, that's what 0.05 005 CFSes.

089Um, so it's not a significant amount. Um, if we can get all the other things complied with, um, and we've addressed the drainage, the 12-in drain line and the culvert on Waverly Street, when we get to that point, I think it'll be fair to say that they've complied with the the regulation. I think that the sometimes, you know, to to Will makes a very good point, these these storm water populations are are not an exact science. The TR55 and TR20 are for large waterheds and to use them on you. We use them on small waterersheds and we use our best judgment and in my best judgment. It wouldn't be worth cutting that red area to put in a storm water system. >> So the only options there's there's no option in between either not meeting

090the standard or cutting down all the trees. that is there. >> We're not there yet. We're still I need to see the revised plans and maybe there's something that I see differently on the revi they've changed what they've done they proposed initially and I want to take a look at that. So we'll say that's why I said I haven't reviewed the one the revised plans yet but based upon if that's the answer >> it's probably not the best answer. >> Okay. >> Have we received the revised plans that changed the infiltration basin and the rain garden? >> I I can answer that. Um, in order to support this highlevel conversation to try to get some alignment, >> we submitted um the hydraology maps that showed the design points um that GCG recommended and we shared

091the peak discharge rate summary as a as a snapshot if you will where we are in the process. Um we're sub we are very actively submitting uh preparing a conformed set of drawings uh calculation storm water calculations hydraology model and a point bypoint response to GCG um the conservation agents comments bills and Tommen's comments uh we're expecting to submit all those in a few days um I completely agree that Mike uh has not received all calcs behind the scenes to support these and I fully uh understand that he would want to see those before um you know commenting with any more certainty. So, um, another just following up question, the the new the, uh, infiltration basin that is now a detention basin was changed because you're not meeting two feet of separation. Um there is

092a few >> that for the for those who >> one of the standards to be able to infiltrate under the storm water manual standards that we have to operate on there has to be two feet of separation between the bottom of an infiltration basin and seasonal high groundwater. If you don't have two feet of separation you can't claim infiltration. And that's what I think we're getting at here. >> Yeah. Um yeah, we the design that we had originally submitted, sir, had um I believe the regulations say minimum to or more likely if you want to avoid a very thorough analysing analysis, you need to provide 4T of separation. Um so the the design we that you saw last did provide the 4T but um because we didn't need the surface infiltration basin to meet our

093groundwater recharge requirement standard three or four in the D handbook because these two systems meet the that groundwater recharge standard in spades. Um what it came down to is um so it's not that we couldn't meet that separation. We needed the extra storage volume above grade um to help with our peak discharge rate um numbers. So we had to lower the system closer to the groundwater. >> Oh, I see. Okay. >> And to your point, then it no longer could count as an infiltration system. But again, we weren't relying on it to meet the recharge uh treatment standard. >> One of the other, >> in case you were wondering the reason this >> I'm sorry, go ahead. >> Well, one one of the other I >> aspects of the infiltration requirements >> are that any

094infiltration system has to be 50 feet away from a natural wetland to to be claimed. Are are your infiltration systems more than 50 ft from the wetland edge? >> Uh yes sir. >> They are okay. >> That one this one if it had remained a surface infiltration uh basin would have been very close. >> Okay. But the other ones are certainly that big one right the yellow one. But the one on the other side is that's within that's not within 50 ft. >> Uh that's correct. I mean these lines here um you know this is the 25 foot so that's probably 50 this is probably 80 feet away >> okay [clears throat] >> um I have another question on your calculations um for DP four and five the ones that exceed uh where the existing

095or proposed will exceed existing. When you get to the 100red-year storm, they considerably are reduced between existing and proposed. How does that happen? Usually, it goes the other way, doesn't it? Doesn't it keep increasing as you go for to a larger storm event? >> Yeah, that's a that's a good question. Um, I'd be happy to answer that correctly at the next uh hearing. My guess is >> Okay. It has something to do I believe you have a a storm water design background sir. Uh it probably has to do with the fact that um like the individual hydrographs of all the pieces going into these design points. they all kind of peak at the same time so that the cumulative is very high whereas these ones uh you know don't peak at the same time so

096the the cumulative effect doesn't hit all at the same time for the hundred-year storm. I'm not doing a good job of explaining that but I would enjoy looking into that further and provided you know better answer next next hearing. >> Okay. No, I think I understand what you're saying. It just it spreads out the the peak. >> Yes sir. >> Yeah. This is something that's different between the uh state regulations and the local regulations is the local regulations uh say not only are you not supposed to increase the peak but you're also not supposed to increase the total >> but uh volume >> but you're the total volume but I believe uh that's not applicable in this case >> for reference. That's correct. >> Okay. Sorry I interrupted you, Mr. Parker. If you want to

097continue. [laughter] >> No, no problem at all. Um >> I'm just trying to get some perspective for for the other people that are watching and listening to this. What I think also just to what we need what we will need because this issue has been raised by DP as I'm sure you're aware um is a a pretty detailed uh discussion as to why this is not an issue for exceeding the standard. >> Understood. >> And it's it's not us that has to make that argument. it's you. So, >> yeah. Um, yep, I agree with that. I think it's just important to we will do that. Um my last comment on hydrarology um is the design points that drain to a bordering vegetated wetland and the you know the jurisdiction of the wetlands protection act do

098not have an increase. Um, you know, these two go to the stone box cover culvert. Um, they meet standard two. Um, this is the design point that goes to the southern wetland. It meets standard two. So, the the ones that don't are not, you know, this is not the full ar the full uh explanation, but they do not go towards um a wetland resource area. um that the we are very confident is the intent of the uh wetlands protection act and the D storm water sta standards. Um you know uh they're they're not going to be impacting the BVW or the swale that connects the BVW to the stone box covert. So that that will be uh you know an underlying an underlying part of that uh explanation. Sir. >> Okay. >> To the commission,

099I'm just going to add that uh the Waverly Street and Union Street after they meet um does drain from a culvert into the Sudbury River directly as well. So, it does eventually make its way to the Sudbury. Um, sorry. Go ahead. >> No, you're up. >> Okay. I was uh I was done. That's kind of a nice segue. I was all set with hydrarology and was going to just um transition to the uh conditions and capacity of the 12-in RCP and the stone box cover. Is that acceptable? Do you want to take any questions >> for this uh particular topic? I'll open it up for for public comment. Is anyone in the public like to comment on the hydraology as uh explained >> to the commission? I don't have any hands raised online. >> All

100right. Uh Mr. Park, we can move on. >> Great. Um, >> just before you start, Mr. Park, we don't we don't have any comments from you regarding what you're about to delve into here >> um with regard to the comments from uh GCG. So, are we going someplace that uh we should wait for comments or how do you want to work that? Um, we are planning to include all of these in the submission in the next few days. Um, I I think it's I these topics have been come up in every commission um hearing. So, I think we're speaking at a high enough level that there's not there's nothing here that's a heavy lift that needed advanced review time. Okay. >> If you feel if you feel that's not the case, you know, just uh

101let me know. >> No, we've talked in general terms prior to this and uh I would I would be hesitant to talk in specifics uh without anything before either our peer reviewer or the commission to review because there's no commentary in uh in your narrative here with regard to this stuff. But if you know if we want to talk about it in general terms then um I'm comfortable with that. I don't know about you Greg or the other commissioners. >> Yeah. If we have any kind of um anything new to talk about >> to the commission before you go into that. A hand did just raise from Marty Ring online. >> Oh, all right. Uh hey uh Marty you're uh >> you hear me? >> Yeah. Floor is yours. >> Okay. Um, I was a

102different kind of engineer than Mr. Park, but I do have a question that he will be able to answer at some point. You mentioned that you're using models to do the predictions. Hooray. That's a great thing to do. Um, you mentioned that the models are used to generally model much larger systems. So, it might just be interesting to know what the resolution of the model itself is because if those extra digits don't mean anything to you, they probably don't mean anything to us either. Hey, I was an acoustical engineer and when people start talking about dB, how many dB is it? I just kind of laugh because there's no real understanding that it's a logarithmic thing. And I'm pretty sure your cubic feet per minute I is got some resolution issue too because if they're

103used to modeling hundreds of thousands of gallons and we're talking about 0.01 and 0.02 it's like absurd. So it would be best if you're you could specify this is the resolution or the accuracy or whatever you want to call it of the tool itself so that we could say ah that's just a bogus number. Uh permission to comment chair or would you prefer to >> Yeah. Uh if you'd like to comment Mr. Park that would be great. Um uh thank you uh thank you sir. We will we are reviewing um all of those things to support our our stance about the the precision that's implied by these which we are feel strongly should not apply. um including getting getting down to the the basics of HydroCAD software, all the various inputs um and you look

104at all the examples that they provide in their literature and it is the thousands of CFS, not this thousandth. So, um we're working on it. I appreciate your input. >> Might be best just not to even show those unless they're standards. If you said they're standards, then that's a problem. But if they're prior and post and things like that, what is zero anyway? Never mind. That's a philosophical question. Yeah, we're we're in favor of um and moving forward as a firm um we're probably going to re-examine uh h how many decimal places we report this to for situations just like this. >> Um and we we've tried to make uh this is the model that we presented to the ZBA and their stormwater peer reviewer Hancock Associates who's a very reputable reputable firm. they came

105to the same conclusion we did. Um there's other people as uh someone on the chair on the commission mentioned other other parties have chimed in and said um give us all the decimal places. So we're kind of in a in a tight spot here trying to and I'm not sharing my screen anymore, but I wanted to flash the disturbance figure with all the red on it. We're trying to avoid this um tree clearing and taking up someone's backyard to chase hundreds of CFS, right? Well, and the truth is that every estimate comes with an unknown quantity. Well, there's part of this I'm not really sure of, you know, and when you're talking about 0.01 CFM, that that's an absurd small number. It was a number that was actually brought to our attention by DP. Uh

106so we would be derelct to ignore the state agency that that uh is governing uh our deliberation on this project. >> Then for your for the so you know the standard is no increase. That's what we are trying to get to. Uh if it was a decrease that would have been okay but a no increase is the standard >> measured or estimated about the future. That's really the question. It's not so much what is estimated but what is the reality that happens? Well, >> what's going to matter if you made something that's too small to measure or too small to predict? Really, that's the question. I'm questioning the software tool and the answer and what kind of fidelity truthiness does that have? Um, to me it's got some, but I see the skepticism from the

107engineer who says, "Oh, well, yeah, but and and I hear your standard things. You've got to meet the standards." No doubt. And I stand back because I don't know anything about that. >> Well, we don't have to meet it. We have to enforce it. and we may come to the same conclusion that that you have uh Mr. Ring, but we still have to do the deliberation of the of the figures and this presentation. So, everyone uh all the cards are on the table when the final decision is is uh made with regard to this application. Are you all set, Marty? >> Okay. Thank you for your comments. [snorts] >> Anyone else from the general public like to weigh in? >> I do not see any more hands raised at the moment. >> Okay. and uh

108from the commission. Ready to move on? >> I'm good. We can we can move forward. >> Okay. All right. Why don't we move on to uh covert structural integrity? >> Great. Thank you. And I will reshare my screen ahead of time. Okay. Can everyone see existing conditions? >> Yep. >> Great. So um at the commission's request, we have expanded our existing conditions viewport to show um the northern um cell of the BBW that flows through a swale behind the neighboring properties into a head wall um and through a 12-in RCP pipe into what everyone is referring to as the stone box culvert. Um this is one of the design points that we are um analyzing. We are also proposing a piped connection to this existing catch basin in Waverly Street um that flows through a

10912-in RCP. And those those two 12-in RCP pipes um converge in um a structure here uh within the stone box coververt. So speaking um you know and just want to reiterate we are not increasing the flow to either of these or uh adversely impacting either of these routes offsite and we are not the only contribution of flow to these two um routes. you know, there's many off-site properties that flow to this swale and several that um are connected to this drainage system. So, in terms of the capacity, um the recommended agenda item was structural integrity. Um we we interpret that more as a condition assessment as well as the capacity. Um speaking to the capacity of the stone box coververt, um I and several others on this call had the privilege of um walking up

110in there and examining it. I don't think our team is dis disputing the age um of of the stone box coververt or the condition of some of the supporting elements. Um sorry I'm jumping around. I meant to stand capacity. When you're in there it is bone dry. Um there are absolutely no concerns. You you know it's four feet wide probably three feet tall. no signs of gut um gullying or erosion in the bottom. Um my my guess is that it stays dry most of the time and our project will not be uh changing that existing condition. regarding the capacity of the 12-in RCP. Um we we can support we can provide these calculations um even with very conservative estimates um that this pipe has a bare minimum slope of half a percent. Uh it we

111calculate this pipe has a capacity of about 2 and a half cfs. Um and you know we're reminded that uh in the proposed conditions we think all all um contributing flows will be 1.3 CFS in the 100redyear storm. So even in a 100redyear storm that um that pipe has available capacity. uh regarding the condition of these two um receiving structures. Uh so and this is what I was saying earlier. I don't think the project team is arguing that you know the the age of this stone box covert but it also is functioning as originally intended. All all of this is um and we don't feel that the project is going to change the condition of that pipe. Um similarly the 12-in RCP um I believe folks have observed photos collected by the DPW which took

112um pictures in uh each end. Um I also took photos and videos from each end and I was actually surprised that I actually think it's in better condition um than those p than those original DPW prepared pictures would lead you to believe. Um, you take a static picture in a pipe in the dark and even the slightest little change in surface will cast a two or three inch long shadow that looks like disjointed pi pipes have separated 3 in whereas I, you know, looked around it and everything and the pipes are actually connected a lot better than I was expecting both of them. Um, yes, there's a few tree roots coming in um or other uh buildup of um some debris, but that's what you can expect from a probably, you know, 50 70 year

113old pipe. So, um we're not arguing the age of this, but we do think that it is adequate to convey these um very minor flows that we're proposing. Again, these are the ones to the um 12-in RCP. Um so, that was just the highlevel um Israel. I don't know if there's any more comments you wanted to provide on these. We just wanted to share our initial thoughts on the um the condition and capacity of these two uh town structures. I think the only thing I would uh add that that's sort of critical to this whole conversation you know so the c the commission has asked us to look at the condition of the pipe uh the condition of the culvert the condition the capacity within each of those structures but I think the the gating

114question and and really the the threshold issue is whether the commission like is there a uh predictive um uh a reasonable uh assumption that any increase in flow from our project will have any impact on any downstream resource from either of those two structures. And I think uh our our strong view is that the answer to that question is no. uh our project is not contributing any flow either through the 12-in RCP or through the design point that routes through the swale uh which is itself hundreds of feet long and then you know through the culvert and then ultimately downstream uh to some undefined resource downstream. So, you know, the the comment that was also provided uh by D, I think, is a little bit misleading because it suggests that D standard and I've got

115my, you know, wetland scientists here. I've got my uh civil engineer uh on the on the line, so they can correct me if I'm wrong, but the WPA standard is not is there an absolute increase. The WPA standard is uh is there an impact uh material alteration to a downstream we uh resource area that hasn't you know so our project um demonstrates that we're meeting the standards uh set by D and and there is no downstream impact of that. So to get into an analysis of the capacity of the 12-in RCP and an analysis of the culvert is sort of putting the cart before the horse um to some degree. Um we we all you know understand the conditions of those elements but our project isn't overburdening those elements as we've demonstrated through uh the

116materials that we've submitted. Well, the um first of all, uh Mr. Park mentioned that the culvert was bone dry. There's severe scouring from that culvert down towards the railroad tracks, which then goes under the railroad tracks and into the Subbury River. >> So, to deny that there's water there is just not accurate. But in the peer review, and that's why I didn't want to go to this tonight because we could be here all night discussing this. The peer uh one of the notes in the peer review says closed circuit television inspection of the pipe at a minimum should be um should be asked. Would that be something that you would agree to so that we can actually have a conversation about instead of speculating what the condition of that pipe is that connects the the

117covert to the storm drain? I think we would I think we we would actually consider going further than uh installing [clears throat] than conducting a CCT of that pipe. I think we would um consider uh a condition within the within the order of conditions that uh uh gave us the ability to replace that pipe. Um I don't think we're not questioning we're not suggest and by doing that it would be doing it voluntarily as a as a good faith um measure and as a benefit to the town uh without you know at all conceding that it's necessary in order to uh support the flow from our project which we're demonstrating is zero essentially um but because I don't think it you know I think we can debate even with CCTV whether you know this crack

118is significant or not significant and again I think all of those things are sort of really kind of putting the cart before the horse in terms of is there we're not proposing any work currently you know within uh at the box stone box culvert 100 ft within that so there's no work that our project is proposing within 100 feet of either uh well within the you know within 100t of the stone box culvert We've already proposed with our ZBA and comp permit um application that we would install a new catch basin and drainage manhole structure at that near the site entrance which we think again is an improvement to that location and this would be a further improvement of that location. And I think um again we think that would be a good benefit for

119the town to improve the the resiliency uh of that system, you know, at at at that location. >> So I have a question and a comment uh followup. the the um what you're calling a swale and what may be an intermittent stream that leads your wetland and goes down to that stone cover. Um that was taken into account in your calculations the water leaving your the wetland through that area. >> Yes. Yes. >> Okay. Because that is going into the culvert. >> Yes. >> That's that very obviously is going into the culvert. That's that's the problem. >> That that's what we're saying that there is no flow 0.00 flow from the project going into that uh swale and ultimately routing its way through to the stone culvert. And I should just to clarify 0.00 increase

120>> increase increase. >> Okay. I was going to say that's >> which is the standard. I apologize. >> Okay. And and just so that that This is clear. You're suggesting that instead of scoping that pipe, including a condition that you would replace the pipe. >> Yes. >> Okay. I think that's um something that we we need to talk about at at [clears throat] the next meeting, but um it's certainly something I think that we'll take into consideration. >> I have a question. I I think it's for uh Mr. Parks. Um you're showing on your map or your plan for the existing and actually in proposed that DP1 is the catch basin. Am I not correct? >> That's correct. >> Um so that goes into this pipe down the road and then intersects uh and empties

121into that cross cover under Waverly Street. Um and then DP2 is the wetland in the back. Um and that also is receiving flow from the site. Correct. From the uh infiltration chambers. >> Correct. >> And that then goes into the intermittent stream that goes off site um off property around the neighboring property and then down and that joins into that culvert again. So basically once we get to that culvert I'm I guess my question is what subwaterersheds are contributing to that culvert? One and two what about three and four. >> Uh >> three goes towards Union Street I think but it also goes into the wetland in the back. But I think you're saying the wetland in the back goes drains to Union Street, correct? >> Or under under Terrace. >> We um I'm still

122sharing, right? Uh yeah, our drainage areas um like most like every project, you know, terminates at the property line or when we're not disturbing to the property line, you know, it we chose to use the 25 foot no disturb buffer along the wetlands as our down >> downhill boundary of the of the catch basin areas. >> Okay. You know, I don't I don't if I follow your questions, we don't disagree that these do coingle, >> you know. I mean eventually they come together >> downstream and you're if you want to call it a a super design point would be the culvert >> because several wersheds are ultimately con joining in that location and as well as say the Nikki Terrace culvert because several things are going in that direction once they leave your site. I

123guess what I'm getting at is what kind of flow are we getting through that culvert? >> In other words, what subwaterersheds are >> contributing to that culvert? >> Yeah. And if you were suggesting that we might want to consider combining these design points to see where they combine, you know, at their final receiving water or watershed of, you know, Massachusetts. That's kind of going in the opposite direction what our peer reviewer suggested it is which is looking at it at a more micro level and breaking them down. >> Well, I think for the purposes of your drainage system, you want you need to break it down because you're they're going into different aspects, different infiltration systems and so forth. And obviously that's got to be treated separately. But in this case, they're all coming back

124together once they are released from your site and uh joining at the upstream end of that culvert. I'm just trying to get an idea what kind of flow is being contributed to that culvert. >> Yeah, we we didn't analyze that, sir. Um, you know, it's a large catchment area >> that includes, you know, the storage um >> Yep. >> the storage facility, includes these private residences. It includes this um auto >> Oh, I I Yeah, I I'm not asking you to reanalyze the whole neighborhood. I just want to know what your contribution is to the upstream end of that culvert that you have already analyzed. Yeah, it is these two numbers put together or these two numbers put together. >> Which ones? Now >> DP1 this is what's flowing to the stone box covert these

125numbers DP1 plus DPU from >> actually it might not be the the straight edition assumes that they're happening at the same time but the way they get there is different. So there may be delays. >> So it may not be just a straight addition. >> Yeah. Um >> Right. >> Which would reduce those numbers. >> Right. >> Probably. Right. >> Potentially. Right. But I'm I'm because [clears throat] in your hydraology, you get DP4 in a box on the other side of Waverly Street. And I think that's supposed to represent Waverly Street as the design point. >> Yes sir. >> Okay. So, that's getting down to that culvert, too, is it not? >> No. >> Uh, there's a lot of low points on Waverly Street that may sheet flow over the road um or just pond

126on Waverly Street until they infiltrate. Um, we were asked to break these down as as we did. Um, we don't typically analyze them. I mean, for such a small site, I don't understand where the line of question is going to be perfectly honest. Sir, >> I just want to know how much water is going through the culvert from your site. >> And it's my it is our proposal that it is the addition of these two rows, >> one and two. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. And you originally said that the capacity of that culbert was 2 and a half cfs. >> Okay. Two different things. >> No, no, no, no, no, no. It isn't because when we put DP1 and DP2 together, we get over two two and a half cfs. >> No. The capacity

127of this pipe here is 2 and a half cfs. the capacity of the stone box culvert where the two design points eventually meet. The capacity of a 4x3 stone box cover is uh >> more than that. >> Dozens and dozens and dozens of CFS. >> Okay. Okay. Well, that's what I thought, but I wrote down two and a half because you said the stone box culvert was 2 and a half cfs capacity. >> No, I'm sorry. I was kind of I might have been rambling there. Th this 12in RCP is the >> is 2 and a half. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. So, theoretically, everything should fit in that pipe. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Greg, >> well, just to that um my understanding is that you know I two and a half CFS sounds

128like reasonable for the 12 in but on the box cover didn't they put a um 12-in pipe into the end of the box coververt and that extends up to the drain the drainage swell or intermittent stream so that restricts the flow going in the box coververt or am I wrong and based on some of the photographs that the DPW took. >> You are correct. It enters a head wall here and a similar 12 in and you know probably assume that has a similar >> Yeah. So the cover has a huge capacity but the two pipes >> but you can get >> they're going to restrict what you only get about 5 CFS in full capacity. >> Yeah. If we use the two and a half. Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean, you're also getting into looking

129at the hydraulics of this very, very, very long swale and [clears throat] how much a 300 foot long swale with overgrown weeds and everything. that takes the whack out of discharge rates very quickly. Whether it's coming from the BVW onr property or the off-site storage um unit or the automobile place, they all enter flow at a different point and it takes the it infiltrates while it slowly trickles through all those reads. Um, it's, you know, back back to an earlier conversation, there's so many variables here and it's our professional opinion that this project is not adversely affecting the BVW on site and definitely not a stone box cover that's been there for 100 years and we're not increasing flow So, >> Greg, >> any more questions? Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Um, sorry to keep coming

130back to this, uh, Mr. Lopez and and, um, but do you understand the perception of this to lay people? You're you're taking a a hill that's totally pvious and creating a whole lot of imperous area. Most most logical people would say, "Where's all of this water going to go?" And they probably feel like it's going to come down into the street. And so you're doing this analysis um and we appreciate that. We're just trying to make sure that that doesn't happen here. and that the people that are watching this understand what it is that you're proposing and what it is that we are reviewing. Um because we're we're talking in a lot of technical terms here that most people don't understand. Um and I think that skeptics might say you it's not possible to take

131all of that pvious surface, make it impervious and not have that water run someplace else. And the reason that they they probably feel that way is because oftentimes it has particularly in this town when they were told that it wouldn't and it has. And so that's why I think that this is all important and it's all important that people understand what we're talking about here. And it's all un it's important that that uh Mr. Carter is on the same page as you and we're depending on his expertise to to guide us through a lot of this process. But um getting back to um the peer review page three and we we talked in our um in our um email exchange about page three. Page three wasn't covered at all in uh in your um memorandum.

132Um, a lot of what's in page three would be addressed by your proposal and so I'm assuming that that will be in your updated answers that that uh proposal that you suggested about replacing the pipe. >> Yes. Yes. We >> something that we would then consider whether that works. >> We would have to, you know, we would have to get DPW involved in that discussion as well, you know, because it's not It's not our pipe. >> Yeah. >> No, understood. >> Uh so that's something that would have a have to have a broader conversation than just here and particularly tonight. So >> Sure. Understood. And and again in the comp permit um uh conditions, uh there's a requirement to provide DPW with plans with with our proposed construction plans prior to construction for their review

133and approval. and this could easily be part of that process. So I I would fully expect that um we could work uh something out where D would provide input and feedback on on uh the scope of work. >> DPW >> I'm sorry I said D and DPW. >> Yeah. >> All right. Thank Yeah, that that I mean replacing that pipe would require a road opening permit. You'd probably need that anyway just to put your correct >> driveways into the street, but um that would just be another facet of that permit. >> Correct. >> To the commission. I just want to confirm for the record. I've put page three of the GCG report on the screen here. Carl, is this the section that you are referring to? >> It it's almost the entire page. It's uh

13404.5 and 7 all all deal with this issue that we're talking about to a certain degree. >> Uh for the members of the public, if this is not already on the Ashlin Conservation web page under current projects, it will be on uh by tomorrow, but I believe it's already on there if anybody wants to review that in more detail. >> I have one more question for you, Mr. Lopez. Um, if we're going to continue this hearing, which I assume that we are, um, we're going to have to bring back uh, Mr. Carter, and our current contract is for two hearings, which he's already been to. Would you be amendable to uh, changing the u the peer review to include uh, one more uh, visit the hearing? >> I was going to make a joke, but

135I I won't. I'll just say yes, that would be fine. Is it a good joke or is it >> uh Well, it probably would not have been a good joke. So, I [clears throat] >> Yeah, there was one other um topic that we wanted to touch on tonight um and that has to do with the wetland uh delineation. Uh we didn't submit anything formally uh because we received the Bills and Thomas memo after we had already submitted our uh response to comments, but we have had a chance to review uh both their storm water related comments and their wetland delineation comments. And I wanted to just have uh Mark Arnold from Goddard come and just speak to uh our proposed responses at least to the on the delineation part of that. Well, I'm not Do

136we have that? >> Do we have the Beals and Thomas peer review? >> So, to the commission, the Beals and Thomas peerreview was forwarded to you when we received it, but it was not part of your formal meeting packet because the meeting packet was sent out before then. Um, so it may have gotten lost in the mix there. Um, it did have some recommended changes to some of the wetlands flags in it, which I myself have not reviewed either. Um, so it's up to the commission if you want to go over it now or wait until you have time to review. >> Are we going to have a Bills and Thomas representative uh at the hearing? >> Yes, you have one uh I believe only one hearing uh scheduled under their scope of services and

137I believe they were intending to wait until the commission was ready for them. Uh right now the report I believe only reviews the delineation. They have a second report coming that will review the um the respon the meeting of the wetlands protection act regulations themselves which I believe they were waiting for the uh revised plans in response to GCG um that they were anticipating. Would it be better to wait for them? >> So, so to the chair, we we have information that we'd like to present to you tonight and we expect you to review that information along with information that we will be submitting as Mr. Lopez has stated multiple times that we will be submitting full information that basically details and covers in more detail what we've presented tonight. So, we're not expecting the

138commission to make a decision tonight. We're not expecting full discussion per se. We just want to present information because we think it's important that you hear this information as you re and then as you get the information and you read it, you'll recall what we presented. You'll see that continuity and you'll understand more fully the information and then helps you understand the information better which gives the next meeting more continuity in terms of your review. So that's what our hope is and and this should be pretty quick because it's actually a lot of just basically saying those comments are acknowledged and we're going to make those changes to the plans and we're not disputing or questioning what they're asking for. So um if we can proceed with that that would be fantastic. >> Yeah why

139don't we go ahead and proceed. >> Thank you. So again Mark Garno with GD consulting senior soil scientist. So just a walk through. So the the commission reviewed this delineation um as part of a sitewalk and there was one flagging change that was requested during that sitewalk. In addition there were two locations that the commission requested Data sheets be provided to document whether or not that wetland line was accurate per mass D's delination guideline from 2022. We submitted those information uh along with a supplemental WVR in December of last year. So the commission has that information documenting that and to date we've not heard any comments from Beiel and Thomas or this commission about that data being inaccurate to document the wetland line being accurate. in in in supplemental uh uh consequence, Beiel and Thomas

140was actually went out and actually reviewed these locations um and they um actually made two flagging changes along with an additional flagging change. Um one flagging change was between um S4 and S5. It basically just kind of red it better defines the bank based on the topo. That flagging change is fine. You'll see that updated on the plan. We're not we're not suggesting any changes besides complying with what Bills of Thomas is suggesting at that location. The next question was at uh A46. Um Bills and Thomas recommended a change there as well. Um we looked at it. We dispute the fact that that is accurate. However, we're willing to concede and let it be the wetland line for the project. We're updating the plans to show that point being part of the wetland line connecting

141appropriately and the plans will be reflecting that we're still staying outside the 25 foot buffer zone from that. again our Data sheets that we did submit document that that area is upland. However, um rather than you know doing a lot more field data and you know going out in 10° this weekend um we decided just to like just let the wetland line be where Bill and Thomas says they think it might be. So that's what we're going to do. So we're going to concede that point. So again basically we're going to use that flag point for our wetland delineation and tie it into our other flags which were not um questioned. uh at GCA35. There was also a question there of of hydrarology. Um again, our D sheets demonstrate that that area is not uh

142a wetland per the mass D guidelines. Um you may see soil colors in pictures, but unless you pull out your Mensel color book and you actually walk through the manual to document whether or not it actually conforms to the definitions of hydric soils, you can say it's hydric, but does it meet the definition of hydric soils? That's the question. And so again, this point was was hung. Um we are willing to concede that point and let it be uh part of the wetland line. So again, we're going to remove our previous flag, add in this new flag, tie it in, update the plans to show we're not working within 25 ft of these new flags, and and and go from there. So again, um just letting you know that's that's basically our conclusion. You'll see

143this information in the information we'll be submitting to you shortly. Um so the plans will be updated to reflect all these changes. Um and lastly just to to cover um this intermittent stream swale. So the team has never disputed there may that wetland connection. There's a wetland connection. It goes off site and and from our understanding of again the wetlands protection act and this performance standards is a question of are we adversely impacting the wetlands on site and or directly offsite where the water might be going. And so that's the purpose of your review of GCG, which is if we comply with the mass DP storm water standards, there's no adverse impacts to storm water um from the site, which would also contribute to any impacts to to downgrading areas. So therefore, anything that's hundreds

144of feet downstream would need to be delineated anything else. The question is if not adversely impacting the wetlands on site or directly off site. Um that's there and that's what Mr. Park was walking you through earlier, which was basically the fact that we're not increasing the peak rates to comply with the performance stands for the two and 10ear storms. Um, and also comparing the fact that we have a large area that's already contributed to that area. For example, the fact that you have a lot of scour happening because there's a street that was never there in 100 200 years ago and now we've se we're seeing scour from, you know, unregulated discharges from the town streets into the wetland system. And as Mr. Park showed, the the rates from our site are not going to

145be contributing to those peak rates in the two and 10 year storm to comply with the mass DP storm water standards, which again performance standards required to confirm no adverse impact to the wetlands. So um at at this point, we believe we've received all comments and questions about the wetland delineation from Bills and Thomas um from your agent and from the board. Um we do want to confirm that there are no more comments from that. We believe this delination has had a very thorough review now the at this point. Um and so we wanted to make sure that was the case because as we update plans um it impacts you know multiple efforts on our part. So we're hoping that at least tonight we can have at least clarity that the questions that were raised

146by the delination are those that are currently there and really there shouldn't be any more because there's nothing else to really look at in terms of we've looked at everything. Um, but if we could get confirmation of that tonight, we'd appreciate at least confirmation that there's no more comments on the wetland delineation besides what has been provided to us in the record. >> So, if I get you, you're basically accepting all the comments made by Beiel and Thomas in >> in terms of the wetland delineation. Um, yes, the other comments are also being addressed. I can't say that because I'm not the one doing that. That's Mr. Park. But I believe we are basically addressing all those comments. Um I don't think there were actually any really issues with what they've written so far in

147terms of just making updates to the plans. I have a question on the Bills and Thomas peerreview that's not related to the wetland delineation and and correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't didn't we ask them to weigh in getting back to our original topic of of blasting is whether uh this rock removal would uh either increase or decrease uh the amount of water in the wetland. Are they going to speak to that? uh to the commission. My understanding is that they do plan to speak to that. um from what was explained to me with Beiel and Thomas and how they understood um the order of operations for lack of a better term to go is they would do the review of the delineation first as that may um alter some of the effects on

148compliance with other regulations. And then once that was shown on a plan with the corrected delineation, then they would uh actually look at the compliance with the wetlands protection act regulations and with the blasting effect on the wetlands. >> Okay. Mr. Norton um may want to be present for that discussion as well if if we're going to talk about that again. the whole impact of blasting with regard to uh the volume in the um in case there are questions. I mean, I'm not suggesting that you represent, but if Beals and Thomas has an issue, uh someone that's versed in that may be want to be present to respond to >> acknowledged >> or it could be online. Doesn't have to be in person. >> Well, just present one way or another. >> Yeah. Just as

149>> Okay. So, so you want us to uh We'd like we'd like confirmation. I mean, the comm several members of this commission and the agent have walked the wetland line and and reviewed it and they made comments and asked for data. We provided that data um to those locations where we provided data. Bees and Thomas updated the flags and we've we're letting those flags stand and let and use those flags for aation. The other flagging location that Bill and Thomas asked for is just a minor change. Again, we're conceding that point. So at this point, we don't believe there's locations where there's questions about delineation flags being accurate. And so we're hoping we can, you know, close at least the matter that we won't have to go back in two meetings and revise the wetland

150line again because a comment came up two months after a sitewalk or three months after a sitewalk about the delineation. So that's what we're we we'd request that respectfully that this matter be kind of closed up in terms of the delineation, not the review of the project and supporting standards, but just the delineation because that really impacts it. It it drives multiple things like even the calculations and our limited work plans. We want those to be accurately reflected consistently in the future and make it easy for this commission as they review the project's performance. Well, given that I I haven't seen what they've changed and and you didn't really show us what changed and I don't know that that would have mattered because it's lines on a plan. Um, you know, I'd want to see

151it in the field to see what the differences were between the different locations. But since you're conceding to it, I mean, Bills and Thomas, I mean, they're not going to change their mind after they're they said this is where it should be. You're saying okay. >> Yeah. [clears throat] >> What are we going to say? So, um I don't see a problem with that. I the only thing and I think what you're getting to is that this is going to change all the plans >> because the line is going to be different on this. >> It's it's it's almost inconsequential. >> It's it's it's it's you in terms in terms of that. So the the plan the plan the plans will be the plans are being have already been updated and you can see on

152this plan here we've actually already updated the grading plan and the limit of work plan to reflect these changes. >> Can I just clarify that by in con it is extremely consequential >> Mike >> sorry uh it's extremely consequential for the purposes of us being able to advance all of the design and I think that's the the main point >> well that's what I'm getting at is just want to make sure you understand that. Yeah. Okay. our our goal our goal to resolve this is is consequential to the project's whole design and that's what we're hoping to resolve and so again yeah so we've we've already we've already looked at all these things on the plans we're updating the map that way the new submitt is reflected that so and and and and to the

153members comment again I understand if you want to go out and look at the flag and talk about it that's totally fine I'm just making sure there's nothing else currently floating around because we we want to feel relatively confident that we have something that's relatively locked in place because again it does drive a lot of of of of everything else and I think it will be helpful to >> we clearly can't go out and do any investigations with the existing field conditions. So that's you know the fact that you're accepting it without contesting it then you know that's fine for me. I I would say this is a great example of why it's nice to have an ANRAD filing before the other filings and and then it's already taken care of and off the table

154and there's no reason that couldn't have been done before the beginning of the ZBA process. But that's uh lots of water under the bridge in the culvert. Does the commission agree to this? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. Sounds reasonable at this time. >> Yeah. Again, again, we're not going to hold you to the perfectly to this. But again, it's it's good to have consensus at at this time that we feel like we're basically there unless there's something crazy that again that you guys see about Beles and Thomas line. Maybe you think it's too high. I don't know. Um but uh at this point, we're just going to use those points. um which I think is just it just makes it easy for everybody just to move forward and also to ensure that Beals and Thomas'

155review can also can also proceed because at this point again besides some lines changing the the work isn't substantially changing anyway. We're not moving buildings significant grading. So in terms of performance standard review the project isn't changing a lot. Um although we'll be submitting some supplementation, we're hoping that the review is already in progress because the changes are are again I think from what we'll be showing is they're more just scrivener updates and and tweaks that just clarify what particularly what GCG is is driving at which again you're you're looking to them to make sure that there's no adverse impact to the wetlands and the storm water. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you Mr. Arnold. to the commission. I would just add not to do with the wetlands delineation line but in comments in

156general. Um while I have not reviewed the full ZBA's final decision and all the conditions on there, I know there are some conditions that relate to the erosion control and a 25 foot vegetated buffer strip around the wetlands that has to be kept vegetated. It may be in your best interest to make sure those are called out on the plans that you submit as well as they're not on the current plans as well as anything else from those conditions that may affect layout phasing of the construction anything like that. >> We are talking about the 25 foot which is part of the local bylaw. Is that something that was conceded by the applicant that they that they would follow in the ZBA hearing a >> as so at the ZBA hearing we were going to

157respect the 25 of buffer off the wetland line and our project will continue to do so even as shown here we've already pulled the limit of work back to be 25 ft off the Beals and Thomas' plant. So as I as I stated previously there is no that we're respecting the 25 foot buffer. We're not proposing work within the 25 buffer. We're not expecting any adverse impacts to the 25 foot buffer. So again, we're respecting that and the updated plans will reflect that. >> Okay. >> To the commission, just to clarify, the exact language from the ZBA decision, which I just pulled up, uh says, "A vegetated buffer of a minimum of 25 ft shall be maintained between the edge of the potential vernal pool extent in the project. The area shall remain in its

158undisturbed vegetated condition except that it shall be maintained free of invasive species." Um, I'm not sure if the ZBA had intended that to mean you should be submitting an invasive management plan or that you're just not adding new invasives to it, but if it is the former, I think the commission would need to have any management uh plan for the invasives that is that close to the wetlands be part of this filing. >> Okay. just to get back to another point and then I'll um Mike, do you agree to another hearing if if Okay. >> And and you're okay with that as well. Okay. So, we'll amend that scope to do a third hearing. >> Thank you both of you. >> Do we want to open it up for uh public comment or do you

159have >> any other questions from the commission? We uh Okay. With this uh All right. Yes. So, I will open it up to the public. >> Do you do you want to I >> I just wanted to um ask again, Becca, you may have mentioned this in terms of the timing of the receipt of Beiels and Thomas' remaining peerreview comments. It would be great to receive that soon so that we can incorporate that into the next response package um that we will be submitting next week. Okay. >> All right. Do we have any comments from the general public? >> I am not seeing any. Oh, there's at least one raised hand from Claudia Bennett. >> Oh, okay. Sure. Go ahead. Why don't you come off mute? >> I'm off mute. Uh Claudia Bennett, ninth handstone

160way. I just wanted to comment on um some comments that that Kyle made earlier in terms of lay people and um how they experience uh that property now. And I I was at a meeting earlier tonight, unrelated, well, distantly related maybe to uh uh this project. Um, and you know, someone out of the blue just started talking about when you think about the project going in at 61 Waverly Street, uh, it's it's hard not to imagine what, um, it's going to do to the flooding in the area, uh, based on even if you think about what it was like on Waverly Street last week. So, um, you know, that is sort of a lay person's perspective. Um, and yet there's a lot of common sense there. And I think anybody who drove down Waverly Street

161last week after the rains would have a similar thoughts about turning um this property adding so much imper imperous um uh landscape to it. So that's my comment. Thank you. >> Thanks, Claudia. >> Mr. bring >> the the last thing I would say is is relative to the models and you guys discussing how much water might be in the stone. The models are assuming the inputs. So if the models assume it's impervious, they're not changing that. And yet if the rock is got water flowing through it like many people think then the models are not going to predict that. Okay. Thank you for that comment. Anyone else from the general public to the commission? I do not see any more online hands and I do not see anyone in person standing up at the podium.

162>> All right. Okay. Is everyone good? >> Do we need a motion to continue the hearing? >> Yeah. So, let's Well, let's pick Should we uh talk about a date first? >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, two weeks is what we're doing every uh other week. Yes. What would you like? >> Correct. I thought we agreed at the last hearing that the next meeting would be on February 2nd. >> Second. >> That's off cycle, right? >> Correct. The next one after that, if it was agreeable to everyone, would be March 2nd as unless you did a Tuesday in February after the February 2nd. >> And so this is a back to a Monday. So this is in 13 days. >> Yeah. It's a Monday. And for the next meeting, we won't have the other project. We'll

163still adjust up to 61. >> Uh the 10 to 60 Main Street project was unable to meet the submission deadline for February 2nd. They are currently aiming for March 2nd, presuming that will be an offcycle meeting date. >> Okay. So, we'll have you alone again. >> Okay. >> To your benefit, >> Mike, does that does that work for you? When does when when do they need when did they submit the documents because February 2nd is like two weeks? So if they don't submit the documents till the end of next week or middle of next week we're down to like four days to review >> substantial project. Not >> sorry could I chime in? Um we were told a while back that materials are due two Fridays before which would be this Friday. >> Okay. Uh

164we're aiming to have uh everything submitted by this Friday. >> Perfect. >> Okay, >> that works. >> Make it happen. >> Should work. >> Is it too uh would it be possible to schedule the hearing subsequent to the uh the second? I know that this room books up and there could be scheduling issues um given the offcycle nature of the hearing. to the commission. If you were to keep Mondays, which are generally open, the next available offcycle meeting after February 2nd, would be March 2nd, as February 16th is a holiday. uh if you were to move to uh February 17th, which is another Tuesday, you would likely be uh intersecting um I believe with the ZBA um and they would be in this room. >> Okay. So, you're asking for the meeting after the meeting

165on the 2nd, >> correct? with the 24th work >> to the commission. You would have a regular meeting on the 23rd. So you would have a meeting two nights in a row. >> That's 24th is a Tuesday. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Can we What about the 19th Thursday? >> That's the planning board. >> I believe that would be planning board. >> Planning and Wednesday is is board of select. >> We can bump them >> through through the commission. The applicant suggested February 24th. That's only five business days before the March 2nd, which is the Monday. I I mean the applicant may disagree, but I don't think five business days will make that much of a of a difference in the process. >> Shockingly, we would disagree [laughter] with that. Um I mean I I

166our preference would be the prior week actually. I didn't the 19th would have worked. Any of those days actually would have worked, but um I was trying to keep to a Tuesday. You looking for a 19th as your second meeting after this? >> That would work for me. I haven't checked with the rest of our team members. >> No, but we don't have this room. >> Oh, >> we don't have this room. >> To the commission. I'm looking up the uh bookings now for the room. And this is the only room equipped for delivering. >> What about sooner than that? Like the week of the 9th. Um, it' only be a week from the February 2nd meeting. I mean, we're meeting on the 9th anyway, right? to the commission. Your regular meeting is on the

1679th that week. Uh the Tuesday is ZBA. The Thursday does not currently have anything listed. Uh though I believe the planning board is usually then they may have moved to the following week, the 24th, which was previously mentioned. ZBA has their meeting here. Um, and again, Thursday currently is shown as open, but I'm not entirely confident on that. >> Is that >> So, the next off cycle normal date would be March 2nd, >> correct? >> Yeah. >> Is it I know that you said that you disagree, but >> y >> would you take March 2nd? Uh [laughter] I would um yeah so I think this next hearing will have a substant substantive amount of material to share and I think there'll be you know pretty significant discussion >> February 2nd the following one after that

168I think would be useful for the purpose of maybe any follow-on comments that come out of the the hearing. And I our preference would have been to have something sooner than a month out because I I think um we could have gotten more done. If that's the only thing that's available, you know, at this juncture, maybe we just continue to the 19th and put a placeholder for the I'm sorry, for the second and then put a placeholder for the March 2nd date. Um as I've mentioned before, we're also open to um presenting at a regularly scheduled hearing. Yeah. See, the thing is we're not televised at regular hearings and and we're trying to keep this is, you know, maybe you're not sympathetic to this, but we are now meeting every week to try to accommodate

169the 40bs and to try to make them as transparent as possible. And so, we're balancing a lot of a lot of issues here. >> Um, and and we are sharing this room with with other boards. So, it is a balancing act. I I would I would suggest going to February 2nd, working through as much as we can that night and putting a placeholder for March 2nd. And if for some reason on February 2nd we find that there's a date open, we could try to accommodate you if that works. >> Thank you. Yeah, Becca, maybe you can figure out for Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday from there on what what's an open night that might be available for us. >> I will confirm with the boards. I think the biggest conflicts will be ZBA planning, select board, and

170I believe uh the schools uh alternate with the select board in here on Wednesdays. >> The school committee does committee, >> I believe. So, >> I thought they had another room. >> I may be wrong, but I believe they're in here at least some of the time. >> You're right, Becca. >> Okay. >> All right. So, thank you. So, a motion to continue this hearing to February 2nd at 7:05. >> Can we make it seven even so we don't have to wait an extra minute? We can make it seven if you show up at the next sitewalk. [laughter] >> That's a motion. >> Second. >> Roll call vote. >> We don't have to do that. >> Oh, we have someone online. We do. >> Oh, do we? Oh, we do. Okay. >> Aman, I >>

171Crow I. >> Crouch. I >> Hackinson I. >> Molton I. >> Wants I. Motion passes. So, we'll see you on the 2nd, 7:05. Okay. Thanks a lot. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I was hoping we could just raise our hands. >> Just like the old days. >> Yeah. All right. We're done with our scheduled hearing. So, now we're moving on to other business. Review of open space status zero cross street map 18, parcel 82. conservation and open space requirements. >> Thank you. >> Um Robera is here. Do you want to have Robera explain this to you? >> Yeah. Um I should probably recuse myself. Yeah. being on the open space and recreation committee. If unless we're >> how many people from the uh open space committee constitutes a quorum? >> We have quum. So I

172>> So somebody would probably need to leave or recuse. Do >> I have to like leave the room? Yeah. >> Wait, what's the problem? >> The two of you make a quorum? >> No. Online. Oh, >> sorry. Forgot about that. >> Oh, yeah. Okay. >> So, just through the commission and for the general public's understanding, this item is regarding a topic that also was before the open space committee recently. There's currently a quorum of the open space committee and so for it to be discussed and deliberated um then people from the open space committee would need to leave the room for it to no longer be a quorum since it is not a posted open space meeting. >> Yeah, correct. [laughter] >> I'm sorry. Yeah. >> I can't hear. >> All right. So, Carl, you

173can share the meeting now. >> Well, they've taken the time to be online, so that's fine. >> Uh, Jean Walker has her hand raised. >> You want me to leave? >> No. Why don't you stay? I'll leave. >> All right. >> That's okay. That's why we have [clears throat] >> all we're doing is accepting a motion. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, Carl's now the chair. >> Okay. >> For the record, uh, our chair is leaving temporarily leaving the meeting at the moment, recusing himself from the discussion. Carl Hackinson, our vice chair, is temporarily taking over as chair for the purposes of this discussion. >> Okay. Thank you, Becca. Um, what? >> Nothing. Go ahead. Uh we have an issue before us that that has come uh to the attention of the town with regard to

174a development in um for the most part is in Hopkin includes some land in Ashland uh that is being contested. And so I would uh ask Robera Sulman, chair of the open space committee, to come to the podium and explain the situation uh and explain the motion that the open space committee adopted and then we will see if if the conservation commission wants to adopt the motion as well. >> Thank you. And I apologize for the confusion about a quorum. I had no idea who from our committee was going to be online for your earlier part of your meeting. >> No need for apologies. >> That's why we didn't deal with that. Okay. So, um >> identify yourself. >> I'm Robera Sulman, the chair of the Open Space and Recreation Committee, 28 Woodri Lane in

175Ashlin. Um very briefly what the situation is is that there's a solar project on Franklin Road in Hopkington >> and they are successor owners. Agile um is the owner of that solar field now that is um under operation. And when they acquired it, they acquired it with some um orders that came from the town of Hopington Planning Board that included orders of condition for their operation of that property. It >> was a special permit application >> and it was done back in August 19th of um 2020. And what it said was that they have certain part of the parcel to use for the solar array and the other part of the parcel is designated open space that must remain so. And that parcel dribbles over into Ashland. It's about 1.8 acres in Ashland over in

176the corner of Cross Street. But all of that designated open space, the part in Hopington and the part in Ashlin is supposed to be permanently protected under two of the conditions under the special permit. It's supposed to be protected either by being transferred to a conservation entity that will hold it in perpetuity as conservation land or to have a conservation restriction placed on the property. Neither one of those things has happened. And what has has happened is that Agil Agilius is has a buyer lined up a developer lined up to buy the piece of open space that's on Cross Street in Ashland which is against the special permit blatantly against the special permit. So the town of Hopington is being asked to enforce the conditions of their special permit which would protect the open space

177in Hopington and protect the open space in Ashland. And we are also asking the town of Ashland to support Hopington in enforcing their order, doing whatever they can to help them enforce their order. and um to prevent that piece from being sold because it's supposed to be protected. And residents in that area um led by Susan Thorne um have done a lot of research and um have pulled up a lot of information that they have sent to the planning board in Hopington and they've been in touch with the officials in Hopington and they've done the same sent it to officials here in Ashland. Um the chair of the planning board suggested that the open space committee might be able to be of some help in Ashland. So, at our meeting last Tuesday, we um unanimously

178voted in favor of a motion that would support the effort to urge the town of Hopington to enforce the findings and decision of the office of the planning board for the town of Hopington dated August 19th, 2020 regarding zero cross street and 71 Franklin Road to protect the full parcel including open space in Hopington and Ashlin pursuant to special conditions number 28 and 29 and to urge the town of Hopington and the town of Ashland to work together to immediately enforce the findings and decision of the office of the planning board for the town of Hopington dated August 19th, 2020. Now, Ashlin obviously can't enforce a Hopkington special permit, but they can work to support Hopington and urge Hopington to protect the open space because it includes land in Ashland that is supposed to be

179protected under this special permit. So, we passed that motion um on Tuesday and um brought it to the conservation commission for them to also um discuss it and consider supporting it as well. >> And some of you are familiar with this piece of property. We went out to check the delineation on it month or so ago. >> Well, we all did except for Preston. Um, >> this the special permit was recorded >> was >> I believe it was >> it was list I because I looked it up >> and it says it it was supposed to be recorded. I looked up on the registry and there is something under the name that was listed in the special permit that is recorded. It would have cost me a dollar to look at it so I didn't

180bother looking at it. But um I'm assuming that it was the the recording of the special permit. Um it it's very clear. I mean the plans attached to that special permit show the land in Ashlin as you know protected open space or to be protected as open space. >> I don't know if that makes it any stronger that they they can't sell it and develop it, but I mean it's it's recorded now in the registry. So that seems to be pretty strong justification for not being able to develop that property. >> Well, what we are considering is just asking the town officials to ask the town of Hopington to enforce the conditions of special >> that hasn't happened yet. >> No. >> Uh so all we're doing is adopting a motion supporting that. >> That's

181fine. I wish there was more that we could do. >> Can Can Ashlin put a lean on it since it's supposed to be >> Well, let's not >> Let's Let's not go down that road. >> Has town council been um queried on this? >> Yes. >> Okay. What's their take on >> on the situation or on this motion? No. On the situation. >> Yes. >> What's their take? >> Well, if their take had been strong, we wouldn't be making this motion. >> Okay. So, you want you need a motion. You can't make it. Um, what what does the motion say? That >> sounds right there. I'll make a motion to support and er uh the effort to urge the town of Hington to enforce the findings and decision of the office of the planning board

182for the town of Hogington dated August 19th, 2020 regarding zero. >> It should say zero cross street. I'm sorry about that. >> Oh, it's zero cross street. >> Yeah, >> not Franklin Road. >> No, Zero Cross Street and 71 Franklin Road. >> Okay. zero cross street 71 Franklin Road to protect the full parcel including open space in Hopington and Ashlin pursuant to special conditions number 28 and 29 and to urge the town of Hopington and the town of Ashlin to work together to immediately enforce the findings and decisions decision of the office of the planning board for the town of Hopington dated August 19th 2020. say that twice but okay >> that's my motion >> second >> okay roll call vote I >> crow I >> crouch I >> Hackinson I the motion passes oh

183sorry Bill >> motion passes >> thank you thank you very much >> we will uh um Becca if you could let the um um the select board of the town manager know that we uh that we adopted motion. >> I will do so. >> Okay. Thanks. >> And >> thank you, Robera. >> Just it would be nice if there'd be something else that we could do. Since it's a recorded decision, it should be enforcable. >> For the purposes of the meeting record, our chair, Greg Wans, has returned to the meeting and I believe is taking back over as chair. >> Okay. Next on the agenda. >> Next on the agenda is review minutes from January 5th, 2026. >> It's going to be for this meeting. >> How long are the minutes going to be for

184this meeting? [laughter] >> How long are >> Sophia? When the minutes turn to hours that [laughter] >> I I have some comments here. So to the commission I have the version with uh Jean's comments on here which I think is just one typo. So I will >> seals and Thomas [laughter] >> I will go slowly uh for anyone else who has comments. >> Okay I have two and they're they're minor. Uh on page two I don't have numbers here. So it's the seventh line down says Mr. Hackinson responded that all future 40B that should be plural hearings. >> It's a fifth line down >> line 51. Did you find it? >> Yep. >> Okay. And on the next page, uh this may be the typo that you're talking about. It's at least on mine it's

185six lines down. Uh it says town forest and uh that should either uh forest should be caps or town should not be >> cap on line 96 near the end of the line. >> Uh >> sorry uh was it >> the F capitaliz forest? >> And that's all I have. And I will add that Jean's corrections uh had responded corrected to just respond. >> I think that might have been it for me. >> That was it for me. Yeah. >> Did I hear somebody say there was a typo in Beiels and Thomas' name somewhere in here? >> Yeah, it's down to the bottom. It's like >> seals and Thomas >> unless you already picked it up. >> I only got Beals and Thomas all the way through. >> Okay. Must have been fixed. >> Yeah.

186That's it. >> Do I hear a motion to accept the meeting minutes from January 5th, 2026 as amended and discussed? >> So move. >> Second. >> Roll call vote. >> Aman I. >> Crow I. >> Crouch I. >> At Hackinson I. >> Molton I. >> Guan's eye. Motion passes. Meeting minutes are accepted. >> Okay. Next on the agenda is member prerogative, commissioner, education, various topics. Does anyone have any member prerogatives? >> Yeah, Becca, can you send me the bills and Thomas? I didn't see it. >> Yes, I'm going to resend it. Um, I was fairly certain it went out, but I'm also having a hard time finding it. So, >> I'll send it to everyone because >> I will resend it to everybody. It's also on the website. >> And it's also on the website.

187>> Okay. Anyone else? >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> Roll call vote. >> I crow I. >> Crouch I. >> Hackinson I. >> Molton I. >> Juan's eye. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you everyone. Becca.