001Welcome everyone to the December 1st National Conservation Commission meeting. Before we get started with our agenda items, this this is a hybrid meeting, so I'm required to read some protocols for both in person and remote. This meeting is being recorded and broadcast live by Wacka TV and livereamed on Facebook. Remote participation is available using the Zoom video conference 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. My name is Greg Wanss and I am the chair and I will read now the hybrid part um the online portion. This is the October 1st, 2025 Ashlin Conservation Commission meeting which I am calling to order at 7:03. Is that about right? 7:03 and uh we have a quorum of the commission
002and the meeting is being recorded. Under Governor Baker's March 12th, 2020 executive order, public boards are allowed to meet remotely. This order was most recently extended until March 30 um till June of 2027 by Governor Healey as part of the supplemental budget bill signed in March of 2027, excuse me, of March 2023. Please follow these procedures for attending and participating. The meeting of this conservation commission will be held using Zoom. As I identify the item on the agenda, the applicant for that agenda item will be given an opportunity to provide a presentation and will be allowed to share the screen to show plans, pictures, etc. At the end of the presentation, the chair will entertain questions and comments from the commission. When the commission's discussion has concluded, the chair will open up discussion from the
003public. 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 microphones muted unless speaking. Applicants and representatives, please keep video off and microphone muted until your agenda item is discussed. Public, please keep your microphone microphone muted until recognized. If you are calling in by 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 using the raised hand feature on Zoom. If you are calling
004in 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 Protection Act, Ashlin Wetlands Protection bylaw, or Ashlin Storm Water Management bylaw. Questions and comments not related to the commission's juris jurisdiction will not be accepted. During the meeting, our host, Becca Solomon, the Ashlin Conservation Commission agent, will monitor the participants for raised hands and will be recording the names and addresses of commenters. Signing of documents will occur during the week after the conclusion of the meeting. We now open up our one and only scheduled hearing. This is an offcycle meeting. So we have notice of intent 61 Waverly street
005map 15 parcel 12 the Gutierz company D file number not issued and this hearing was continued uh from November 17th which was the first meeting where we had a high level discussion of the project and we also had a site visit on November 23rd which two commission members were present. So to start this off um we can um have a a synopsis of the uh the site visit from the commission and topics that we discussed especially um focusing on the wetlands uh flagging. >> Just for the record, uh Greg, the commission is joined by Mike Carter. Yeah, we have at the table Mark Mike Carter from GCG civil engineering and land surveying to the commission uh for the overview requested uh at the last hearing on November 17th. The commission heard an overview of the
006proposed project and the uh and continued the hearing pending estimates for the peer review of storm water and drainage infrastructure as well as review under the wetlands protection act and regul and related regulations. A site visit was held on November 23rd with Bill and Carl both present. Um for the record, Bill is online tonight. Um uh they were both present along with myself and the applicant um and the applicant's team. The west side of the wetland line was reviewed and two locations were identified to have sampling points. The catch basins and associated culvert and Waverly Street um that are being proposed for tying into for storm water were also looked at. Um the commission will discuss those observations from that site visit tonight. Um there was not a review of the east side of the
007wetlands which is the opposite of where the work is being done. Additionally, the estimate for storm water and drainage peer review was received from GCG which Mike Carter uh who was mentioned is here to answer any questions on that. That is also for discussion tonight um and for a vote to accept. A peerreview estimate for the wetlands review from Beiel and Thomas was received rather late this afternoon evening. Um the commission can consider voting on this though given it was a short time for you all to review. You could also consider tableabling that review to a later meeting um so that you can look over the estimate if you feel you need more time. Uh discussion from the public would be anticipated to be generally limited to those items unless the commission opens for additional
008um questions beyond that. Okay. I I'd just like to add to that that I believe and and correct me if I'm wrong uh that we agreed that this evening's meeting would be to review the scope of the peer review uh and that we would leave any substantive discussion uh until after that had been after the peer reviews had been done and and received which would probably be after the first of the year. Is that correct? >> Uh yes. Although we would like to talk about timing of the we put you up at the mic. Thank you. >> Okay. >> I apologize for that. Israel Lopez for the applicant. Um I agree with uh what the vice chair outlined. Um I would just ask that maybe we can spend a few minutes talking about um timing
009for receipt of the peer reviews. >> Sure. >> Um but I'll let the agenda continue as it was planned and we can um circle back to that. Well, let's let's just clarify first of all because I uh misspoke a little bit on the on our sitewalk because I told you that there would be a peer review by GCG, but we hadn't decided who was going to do the wetland part at that time. We decided um a day or two later. And so that's that's why that's late getting here. And uh we understand if you need more time to review that. Uh we've we've actually reviewed um both uh peerreview scopes that we received. The one that we just received um you know an hour or so before the hearing >> and the one that we
010received prior to that >> and I think we are generally comfortable with the peerreview scopes as they were presented. Uh we have a couple of questions just to clarify uh some of the scope items. Uh, but we were hoping that we could maybe talk through that, get some clarification on the scope this evening and and allow the commission to move forward with engaging both peer reviewers >> with that. >> Okay. Yeah, I think that sounds like a good plan. Should we open up to discussion for you >> talking about the scope? >> Yeah. Do you want to start with your question? >> Sure. Um, and I'll and I'll just have Will Park, our civil engineer, um, come and just talk about that. >> Uh, good evening everyone. Um, Will Park, civil engineer at SMMA out
011of Cambridge. Um, hope everyone had a nice Thanksgiving. And thank you, uh, to the folks who joined us out in the site visit. Um, uh, I guess that was last weekend. Um, so, as Israel said, we are in receipt of the two, um, peerreview, uh, estimates and, uh, scopes of work. Um we, as Israel stated, we we understand the commission's um desire to have independent peer reviews from the peer reviews that have been um performed to date. Uh we did in reviewing the scope of the two um see a little bit of overlap um and just wanted to avoid duplication of effort. For example, there were several references to reviewing for consistency through the the NOI documents, consistency between the narrative and the drawings, consistency with checklists. Um, we just would prefer that that um
012be handled by one of the peer reviewers. Uh I get I think in our preference it would be the storm water peer reviewer who has a larger uh scope of work and that's typically falls within their within their scope and leave the kind of just resource area items to the wetland peer reviewer. Um, you know, uh, we did submit the D stormwater checklist with our submission. Um, although we didn't include the, um, Ashland stormwater checklist, we absolutely used it as a reference in our submittal. So, we are confident it is, um, the the submission is complete. Um so again just to reiterate we we see some a little bit of overlap in the overview of the completeness of the documents. Um and we also just want to state that in addition to the peer reviews
013that were performed through the ZBA, um we have also received uh very thorough uh comments from the conservation agent which we are reviewing and I just want to make clear we we intend to address those but just want to make clear we will incorporate those with the comments from the peer reviewers. and just want to make sure that no one's expecting like a supplemental in between submission. Um, we just want to want to address everything at once so it's not a moving target. Um, and again, this might be kind of the next agenda item that was introduced where the commission would uh discuss the the the site visit and the scopes of these, but we would appreciate to hear from the commission what specific comments or concerns you have with either the storm water design
014or the wetland delineation or impacts to the or lack thereof impacts to the resource areas. um we feel that you know this project is well designed and was pre-reviewed already. So if there are specific questions um we would just like to hear those you know sooner than later uh so we can uh take take those into account um as we make inevitable revisions to the drawings. We just want to want to would appreciate to hear those soon so we can address them. Do do you want us to speak to that now or continue? >> Sure. Yeah. My last comment was just uh again before we adjourn would just uh like to um understand expectations for timing of the peer reviews and the effort to incorporate comments. That was all I had. Sir >> Becca, do
015you want to weigh in on on Mr. Park's comments? Uh, I will try to weigh in on all the ones I remembered because I did not manage to write them all down. Um, as far as the supplementary thing to the comments that I had provided, the expectation would be that you would provide that response in conjunction with any response to peer review as one large package. >> Perfect. >> Um, so yes, that is the case there. Um the overlap I think the only line item is with the NOI reviews and Thomas has consistency between the plans narratives and wetlands border reports and GCG has um the the plans the narrative and the storm water report. Um I I think the intent of both of those is for GCGs looking at it just from the storm
016water side of the consistency and for Beiel and Thomas from the wetlands report side of things. Um we could probably ask for that to be clarified if needed. I can certainly Mike can probably speak better to the intention of theirs. >> Yeah, our scope is only the storm water, not the resource areas, not the delineated wetlands. um we will we won't be looking at that. >> From my perspective, uh Mr. Park, one of the things that we talked about in the field was the whole issue of the bedrock and and the potential blasting and that impact. And it's not real clear in these peer reviews that that is going to be reviewed except we kind of expect that to be reviewed. And if that is the case, um GCG and Bills and Thomas would be
017reviewing that from different perspectives. One would be the impact on the storm water and one would be the impact on the on the wetland itself or the potential impact on the wetland itself. So they would be they would be looking at the same issue from different perspective. >> Yeah. Un understood. Just reviewing for consistency just through different lenses. >> Uh and sorry I I mentioned the as an example I mentioned the consistency through the documents. Um another specific one was review of erosion controls in consistency with the Massachusetts erosion and sediment control guidelines. That's another one where we feel that, you know, a civil engineer stormwater peer reviewer is is has more of the expertise to review um than a wetland scientist. I I think if I recall correctly, it came in late as we've
018stated. I think that was stated in both of them as well. Sorry, I'll stop interrupting. Okay. Does um any other commissioners uh like to weigh in? >> Well, I agree that that that we ought to try to coordinate things so that there's no overlap. That's not an unreasonable request. >> Thank you. >> Unless, for instance, it's from the same thing from two different perspectives to the commission. On that point, I think the intention with Beiel and Thomas one is again just looking at the impacts to the resource area. So they might be looking at it from the perspective of wildlife movement back and forth. Um as there are two potential vernal pools there and I believe on the uh May 2024 might have been 2023 uh site visit with Mass Housing for those of us
019that did go out into the wetlands. We did hear and see some vernal pool species. Um so that would be of particular interest. Um but certainly from the storm water side of things, um that's probably the the larger impact and would cover just about everything else. >> Yeah, we acknowledge the lateness of you're getting the Bills and Thomas thing. That was between the holidays and uh us trying to coordinate things. just we were lucky to get it today. But if you need more time, like I said before, >> uh thank you sir. AB absolutely no issue. We reviewed it as a team uh and we're comfortable and I think as Israel stated feel comfortable uh you know proceeding with that scope this evening. >> Okay. Becca, do we need to talk to Beiel and Thomas
020about uh refining this at all? Because I mean they've got I'm there's a review of the project compliance with the stormwater management standards and handbook. Um oh is not included. I'm sorry. Okay, good. So that I assume would fall to GCG. Okay, good. So that's already in here. Never mind. Um, I was thinking that's you would if if that were here, you'd want GCG to be doing that rather than Yeah. Okay. >> to the commission to answer that question. If you did want any changes to the Beals and Thomas report, that's more than minor clarifications. um it may affect the estimate cost in which case Beiels and Thomas would likely need to provide a new estimate. So you would not necessarily be able to vote to accept it because you don't know what the final
021cost would be. Um but uh if everybody's okay with the language as is and there there's minor clarification say just clarifying the consistency one for V and Thomas is just to review for impact to wetlands and you could say the same with the erosion controls is not from a storm water just a a wetlands review that likely wouldn't have a large impact on the estimate cost and you could accept it p with contingent on those changes. I don't know. See, I only read through it quickly uh because we got it this afternoon. So, um I think if the applicant I think it's important that the applicant is comfortable with it and if the applicant will give us the the latitude of of making minor changes before we accept it >> through through you, Mr. Chair,
022absolutely. you know, our our concern really is more so obviously we're concerned with the cost and trying to manage costs, but we also just want to try and um avoid duplication and and make sure that there aren't, you know, cross paths in terms of who's reviewing what. So, we're comfortable with the limits uh with the cost estimates that have been provided. We're okay with the with the commission uh releasing and engaging the peer reviews on that basis. And if there are modifications that need to happen on paper after the fact, we're fine with that. Okay. The the reason I say that is because we're getting into winter and if we don't meet again till after the first of the year, we don't know what's going to happen weatherwise between then and now. And if they
023can start earlier, it probably would be to everyone's advantage. Certainly to your advantage, I would think. >> Yes. And um so that that would be our uh we're fine with >> Okay. Okay. >> minor uh changes to it. Uh we did have I don't know if uh Uh we had a couple of questions also on the wetland peer review similar kinds of clarifications in terms of the scope um that was outlined there and I'll just let um Mark God Mark Arnold from Goddard uh consulting uh just address those. >> Okay. >> If that's okay. >> Yes. >> Should should be really quick. Um so Mark Brown got her consulting. Um the the point of clarification was in bills and Thomas they mentioned the wetland delineation review which the two of the members commission and and
024Becca did go out and witness. Um we discussed in the field um uh one of the flagging changes um which was connecting GC3 um 3 to 35 and eliminating GC G34. We also discussed updating um DP data sheets in two locations at G46 and G35G36. um because there was some Becca wanted additional documentation just to confirm the delineation was accurate there and there's the wetland border report will obviously be updated um and we were we thought with um Becca's thorough review of the wetland border report whether or not Beles and Thomas needed to be looking at the wetland border report and the delineation as well I mean they could there actually need to look at the site but the question of actually looking at the wetland delineation like looking at soils and vegetational densities uh
025is that actually is that applicable Again, it's not a question of the the cost of the scope. So, we're assuming that the scope is is is full. And if there's less items on there, Bill Thomas may charge us less than what that amount is. And if as long as it's doesn't exceed that amount, we're comfortable with that. And then hopefully the commission through Becca can clarify with Bills and Thomas that maybe the alienation does not need to be reviewed as thoroughly because the commission already went out and and looked at it and will provide decretation to Becca, which um I'm sure she'll want to review. Any comments on >> anyone from the commission have any comments? Bill, >> now I wasn't on the sidewalk. You said there were some changes between a couple of flags.
026I didn't hear where they were and you just said them and I >> Sorry, I >> I can't read the plan anyway. So, >> okay. It it was it was a there was a there was a a location where the wetland line um went towards went towards the wetland then it came back away from the wetland and so we were going to connect the two lines to to basically pull the wetland line back in one location between two flags. >> So it was basically straightening out a wetland line that had a finger that pointed into the wetland and came back. It was again GC uh GCG to G35. That was the connection point. So it it doesn't really it doesn't really impact the buffer zone at all. It just clarifies that there's that area that
027was kind of it's kind of a questionable area. It's kind of it's kind of high topography. It's got wetland vegetation. It's kind of an awkward situation. And so just for for more clarity and just more consensus, we just wanted to connect G33 to G35. >> So in other words, you're agreeing with with the change. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yes, we're agreeing with the change and we're going to provide the documentation that was requested in the field to document that the other two locations are accurate. Um and we'll update the report which uh Becca gave us quite a few comments on the wetland border report. Um so we just wanted to know where that review stood with Bills and Thomas. I mean, if they want to look at it, they they certainly could, but we're
028hoping that it would be more focused towards Becca than Beals and Thomas because it's it's still more focused on delineation than the actual performance standards. >> Well, we would certainly let them know of that change. >> Absolutely. >> Before they go out there. >> Yeah. The reason that we we uh brought Bills and Thomas into that particular part is is um Mr. Lopez had suggested that we have a peer reviewer at our sitewalk and we said we didn't think we needed one but any any discrepancies we would settle through the peer review. I don't I don't think these are major discrepancies, but that's why we left uh Beals and Thomas in the peerreview of the delineation just in case there were discrepancies that they could be settled by a third party instead of the applicant
029or us. >> At this point, besides us not providing the DA sheets to Becca on those two locations, are there any other discrepancies that I I don't believe there are any discrepancies that they're in debate right now. So, >> not that I remember. >> Well, I this is Bill. Well, I thought there were a couple of sites that um Beck had concerned about wetland vegetation being outside of the um the wetland line and that that was an area I think she wanted to get sort of confirmation whether it was just a transitional area or um there was the wetland line was actually a little further up to the commission uh as clarification for that. I think that was in the two sampling points uh that we had requested. Um those areas did have an abundance
030of royal fern which is an obligate wetland species um that was um a couple feet or more um outside the wetlands delineated line in a couple areas. um soils we couldn't quite come to an agreement on in the for in the field. Um so hopefully the delineation forms would provide some answer on that, but those might be ones that the commission prefers Beiel and Thomas to look back over to give another review on is at least those sampling areas. Um, and then there was on the abuing site, which I think is 63 Waverly Street, where there's a stream that comes out of the wetlands and curves around that property and towards Waverly Street uh to actually Waverly Street. Um, there was a bordering area that the commission was uncertain if it was wetlands or not.
031We did find um no disturb zone monuments in there. We did find um a notice of intent an RDA um for that property with the septic system replacement that did show bordering wetlands there. Um it did show that wetlands line um extending onto 61 Waverly Street off of the stream. Um it looked like potentially into the the lawn area. I'm not sure if GCG evaluated the lawn to see if the soils would be considered wetlands because that can happen and they can be accepted as wetlands. Um, but that would have to be looked at as well because your storm water basin does come very close to that. Um, we would want to make sure the wetland's not extending through the lawn area too close to the storm water. So we did we did say we
032provide the data sheets at those two locations that um Becca noted and and we do believe there's upland soils there. So we don't have hydric soils there which we is required for it to be classified as a wetland even if there's wetland vegetation you have to have hydraology as well for it to be a functional wetland. So uh we'll provide the data teach and we we did offer to grab a soils color book at this in the field visit that was declined. So, we'll we'll provide full documentation with the field notes and all the colors for the the DP delineation manual um in the field to document all that. So, and um if there is a plan floating around for a neighboring property, we'd love to see that. Um just to see if that's an
033an issue. Um but at this point, not seeing the plan. We don't believe there's wetlands in that lawn area. Um and if it was an RDA, the delination may not have been reviewed as thoroughly as in a Y. So it may have been a conservative wetland line that was flagged for the septic versus um a line that was filed flagged for an Edison notice of intent. So um I guess at this point I guess we can leave I guess we can leave that item in in the Bills Thomas scope for now. Um, but I think if if if it's possible just to save a few bucks, maybe we can have bills and Thomas just know that they're they need to look at these two delineation points, maybe. And then also this area near the neighboring
034property just to make sure that everything is good there since there was a lot of overlap and not full data collection by the commission in those locations. That may be appropriate just just to help just I mean I hate to waste their time looking at something that the commission already looked at as well. So just a thought Okay with that. >> So I I've got a a question. Um Mark um my understanding from the sidewalk is that we we requested that two new two additional data points for the wetland boundary be provided. >> Correct. >> When do you think you're going to be doing that? >> Probably doing that um this week. >> This week? >> Yeah. if we don't get any snow. >> Yeah. Well, we yeah, we we we I mean we're used
035to doing winter delineations even down to like identifying ferns that are dead died date back. So, we're pretty familiar with that. And on top of that, in this situation here, soils are is what going to is what's going to matter most. So, um and that doesn't get impacted by snow. It's it's the ground's not going to be the ground's not going to be frozen. You can augur in the woods even. >> No, I understand that. It's just that if the the ground is covered with snow, it's really hard to get a sense of the lay of the land, so to speak. Um, you know, that if the even the plants that are dead, you can still ID them. If they're covered with snow, you can't see a a wide area of those plants because they're
036all covered in snow. So you don't know where they start and stop and you know it makes it in my opinion much much diff more difficult even just a little bit of snow covering the ground. >> We can provide some photographs of the areas when we do the data sheet just to show the if there is snow cover because again there's a potential the snow the snow has been moving north the last week in terms of the forecast. So, um, if that's a concern, Gene, we can definitely photograph the areas, um, to show that. Um, the scientist who did do the delineation was on site during the sitewalk, so he's seen the area more than once. >> Um, so he's very familiar with those locations already. Um, so I think u we're very comfortable with
037documenting it, but again we'll we'll document if there were any um restrictions or or inhibitations that might affect the data, but um we'll we'll do our best to make sure that um we collect data when we can do it where there won't be that obstruction. I I don't know if it's a benefit or if it's even possible, but if when you're out doing your data plot, data collecting, um if someone from Beiel and Thomas were out there to observe, you know, your soil pits and all that sort of thing, it might help. Um I'm not sure that we could get somebody on board that quickly. That's all I was thinking about. I if if Bills and Thomas wants to come out and look at the stuff, we can definitely come out again. I don't know
038whether even we our goal will be to get the data to to Becca as soon as possible. And if Bills and Thomas wants to go out and look at that data >> with us, we can go out again with them when they're available. So, I don't um if we'll work with Bill Satav's schedule in terms of being out there whenever they can be out there, but we may get out there earlier just to document the data beforehand um and to give Becca the information as soon as possible. So, it's in writing, but again um if office wants to look at that, >> we can definitely go out with them. Glad to do that. Um they they definitely have a good on staff there. >> All right. Well, we we can sort of I don't know
039how quickly Beals and Thomas should get on board and whether they'd even be available uh in the time frame we're talking about, but I'm just thinking it might be a little bit more efficient if if if they were able to be out there at the same time you were out there, you know. >> Yeah. Glad to accommodate whatever Bills and Thomas needs. Again, if if if we have to go out twice, that's fine. >> Okay. >> We're not worried about that. We want to we want to we want to make sure that bills can do the data collection that they need to do to provide the commission the information that they're looking for. >> Okay. All right. Do you have any other issues that you want to uh clarify or >> uh we do not
040I think we just wanted to talk about timing whenever the uh whenever that's appropriate in terms of um next hearing receipt of the information and so forth. >> Okay. I just want to make sure that we're all having the same conversation that we had in the field on record here. Um so that we're all heading in the same direction before we talk about timing. So um we're clear that there are two different um peer reviews, one for wetland, one for storm water. Um, we also talked about the structural integrity of of the connection between the the two um storm drains and the culvert. Uh, did did we talk to you subsequently about how we were going to address that? >> No, not to my knowledge. No. Well, correct me if I'm wrong, both Mike and
041um Becca, but um GCG was going to look at um why don't you explain it, Mike, instead of >> okay, >> me saying it incorrectly. >> Um so you're you're as you know, you're tying into a catch base at the bottom to enter to your subdivision and you're making an improvement by adding a tray manual catch base configuration. The pipe The question is, you know, that flows to the the stone culvert or whatever it is at this point. Um, and the question is what is the condition of that existing pipe going to that covert and then what is the condition of the covert? Um, and then one thing that I just in looking at the plan, I can't tell if your resource area is connected to that covert. Does it flow there eventually? It isn't
042clear because you obviously you flag to your property line and then there the plan that covert is not on your plan. Let's put it that way. So before anyone connects to it, the town would want to make sure that it's first functional 100%. Um, I have seen some photographs that the DPW has done in there inside the covert looking up the pipe going back to the catch basin and that pipe if you look you can only see in about 10 feet but it does an S turn. It's it's full of stuff. So the importance of that is to figure out what the integrity is of that culvert. Um, sometimes the way to do it is to camera it. Um, that may be something that we need to do so that we all feel comfortable that
043that is an acceptable way to discharge your drainage direct because you're piping into a closed drainage system connecting to a culvert which is I'm not sure if it's a resource area or not if that's or connected to your upper resource area. Um, so that's something that we're going to take a look at. >> Does that explain it? >> It it does this there are limitations. Mike's not a structural engineer. Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> So, there are limitations to the inspection, but the first step is for him to observe it uh and then report back to us as to what his thoughts are, and then we'll have to have a discussion of if it needs to be improved or if we need to address it, how do we do that? >> Yeah. And
044and we understand that. I think that's what we talked about on the field in the field and we understand the commission's desire to look at that >> um the condition of the pipe, look at the condition of the culvert. You know, we're tying into it. Um I guess what what we will get into ultimately is, you know, what the extent of that uh you know what what that means. I think we all have a general sense that the pipe is old, that it's disjointed in in some areas, that the culvert's obviously been there a very long time and and you know um is probably in need of some level of repair. You know, I think the question then becomes uh kind of the nexus between what our project is contributing in terms of flow to
045that pipe and ultimately into the culvert and you know the impact of our project uh on the on that system. Um we think it's minimal. um you know we that's what our engineering analysis I'll let the engineer talk um when you know when when the time is appropriate but uh we've calculated you know the amount of of flow into that pipe to be you know essentially a pitcher full of water every minute or something to that effect so um we understand that it's something the commission wants to look at uh but I think clearly you know we want to have sort of a balance uh between what our impact is on that piece of infrastructure uh and its impact on the wetlands and and sort of you know what what the condition is of the
046pipe. Um so >> okay as as long as we're clear on that that that let's do the peer review first and then have that discussion. Yeah, >> that works for you. >> Understood. Um the uh I just want to make sure we had this conversation in field again about the uh the impact of the bedrock >> both um on the wetland and on the um uh the flow into the street into Waverly Street or the potential flow into Waverly Street or the exacerbating the flow that's already goes to to there. Um, so that was going to be reviewed if I if I remember correctly by both GCG uh and Beiel and Thomas from two different perspectives. So, and I know that we talked a little bit uh are you planning on blasting there? Um, because
047we that was the last thing we talked about on the on the sitewalk. >> Uh, so again, we understand that's something the commission wants to review. We absolutely will be discussing that and talking about it during our presentation and and we'll have our uh geologist uh team come in and talk about that in in detail. So uh we don't believe that uh extensive blasting if any will be required. Uh there might be small areas where we can talk about whether uh a small blast in an area that's isolated and you know a certain distance from the wetland might be more preferable than mechanically trying to remove rock. We can have that conversation with the commission with with our uh geologist uh and and talk about it. But I think it's safe to say in conversations
048with them uh as recently as you know after our our uh sitewalk uh that it's going to be minimal. Um interestingly we have uh some conditions in our ZBA comprehensive permit that are being drafted that you know limit noise and so there's a balance between mechanical uh removal of rock and you know chiseling out uh some rock uh versus blasting. So, you know, they're we're trying to balance um what seem to be perhaps slightly different um desires, you know, in in terms of the different uh peer reviews that we've heard from. So, long-winded answer um to your question. I apologize for that. >> That's fine as long as you realize that we're going to have that conversation >> 100%. and um that your um it's a good idea that your that your um >> geotechnical
049consultant will be present when we have the discussion. >> Did did the geotech provide you with a report? >> Yes. >> Do we have a copy of that? >> Yes, >> we do. >> Okay. >> Yes. and they did uh something on the order of 20 different test pits across the site. Uh you know noting depth to bedrock and you can see that overlaid on a plan and we can we can sort of walk through that. >> All right. Yeah. Becca, could I get a copy of that? >> Uh I believe it is in the meeting packet from the November 17th meeting. It is the Sanborn head. um I believe was the one that did it. >> Yep. >> And I believe that was limited just to the soil and bedrock. It didn't look at
050groundwater within the bedrock if I'm correct. >> Yeah. So to the commission since that wasn't on the microphone, um it stopped that refusal. So, they did not evaluate any trapped water flows or groundwater that might be in the bedrock. >> Okay. I I didn't see it in here. I will look for it. >> Okay. I have just two other quick things. We We still need a dewatering plan. Is that accurate? >> Yes. I believe that's intended by the applicants to be part of the response to peer review as well. >> Okay. And uh is there any that we don't have a D number yet. >> Uh I have uh followed up several times. I've copied back on the correspondence with D. I've sent them a copy of the C of the check that has been
051cashed already by D. So it's completely on on their end, but uh we sent it in weeks ago at uh at this point. >> Hey, thank you. And that's all I have, Greg. Yeah, they're famous at losing checks or assigning them to the wrong project. >> Okay. Is there any other topics uh we'd like to cover? >> You want to talk about timing eventually? >> Yeah, >> I would. Um >> Okay. Whenever. >> Sure. Yeah, we could talk about timing. Um how long do you need? And if we have to, we can schedule an offcycle meeting if the commission's up for that. >> So, we were um and I was just looking at the calendar. um and and looking at at holidays and how much uh you know the review and the scope of the
052review that needs to be done. But we were hoping that we could have the peer reviews back uh before the end of the year so that we can have you know through maybe the end of the year and um into the first part of January um to have time to respond and maybe get um back in front of the commission. I think I saw I'm not sure if it was January 5th or the 12th as the next um potential hearing dates. Um so we're hoping, you know, maybe no later than the 12th to to be able to have peerreview uh comments back and and be back in front of the commission. >> Is that a regularly scheduled meeting or is that a >> to the commission? January 12th is your regularly scheduled meeting, your first
053one in January. Uh January 5th would be the first Monday. Um so if you scheduled to that, it would be off cycle if you wanted to keep it separate. I I think at this point it's it's good to keep it off cycle so that we're televised and it's just separate. We're not hurrying through something to get to something else. Um so that would be the fifth or the or the 12th, whatever that one, >> the 19th after that. >> Yep. January 5th and January 19th. >> We running into a holiday there in there someplace. >> President's Day. >> Yeah. MLK day. Is that the >> Martin Luther King Day? Um would be the 19th. So, your option would be uh if you wanted to keep a Monday, January 5th would be the only off cycle
054Monday that is not a holiday. Otherwise, you would have to look at other days of the week, which could put you in overlap with other boards. >> We could um >> we have to schedule it. >> I'm not doing a peer review. So, um and and we'll provide all of the prior, you know, peerreview information, you know, Q&A from the prior one, you know, which we've provided. So, I think it'll be a very comprehensive package of information that that we can put forth. >> Well, I'm just talking about whether GCG and and Bills and Toms have enough time to to do the peer review and to get it to us. I I suppose we could set it for the fifth and if and if we weren't ready, we could continue. if that works for you.
055>> Or we could just schedule it uh >> Yeah. >> for later than that. >> What What What's up? >> Yeah. So later would be the 19th if we want to keep it >> 19th is a holiday. >> That's a Okay. >> So January 5th. Um, I would just for the record, um, in terms of timing, uh, Mike, I don't know, uh, how early you think you would be able to get the peer review so that the applicant can determine if that's enough time for them to respond to your peer review. >> So, um, excuse me. Um, Tony Mah, the reviewer for our office, he's on vacation from the 22nd to January 2nd. So I've been writing these numbers down before I started and that's so we could he could have the peer review completed
056for me to review the Friday before that which would be 20 December 19th. So I could get the peer review in day of the between Christmas and the week of Christmas roughly. >> How's that work for you? >> Uh I think that would be our preference to do that. we might not have responses to 100% of everything that comes out of the peer review, but um maybe we could tackle, you know, 50% of it, 75% of it. And I think um it'd be good to just kind of keep the ball rolling, so to speak. >> So, let's uh go for January 5th. And if we know ahead of time that we're not going to we're just going to um continue. Uh we should have a Zoom only meeting otherwise. >> Yeah, that way we can
057continue it with a Zoom meeting. Yeah, that works. >> All right. So, we're sort of in agreement before we u take a vote on that and schedule it. U is there anything else that the commission would like to add? >> Is that your only timing issue, Miss? >> Yes. Um correct me if I'm wrong. Yes. You know, I mean, if Beals and Thomas could meet that schedule as well, that'd be great. >> If Bees and Thomas is not ready, we can still start the GCG. >> Yeah. There's going to be a lot there to talk about anyway. So, >> agreed. So, it's really up to Mike's group. That's >> okay. So, looks like 5th and then before uh we continue this hearing um I will open it up to the public there's any comments from
058the public any hands >> the commission to the commission I do not see any hands raised on Zoom and for the record it does not appear there's any members of the public in the audience Um, if anybody on Zoom did have a question, please use your raise hand feature or forever hold your peace. >> Okay. I'll just just to clarify as well for people that may be watching TV that aren't present at the meeting. What we're what we're doing here is setting up uh two peer reviews for this project. Uh, one to review the wetlands, one to review the storm water. Two different peer reviews. Um, we're scheduling right now. We've agreed to the scope of those uh peer reviews this evening. Um, we're scheduling now reviewing the peer reviews once we receive them. Um,
059which looks like it's going to be the first week of January. Um, and it may only be one of the peer reviews at that time. And if that's the case, then we will continue the hearing at that time. I have a You know, sometimes people watch these hearings and they have no idea what we're talking about. >> No, that was good. >> Yeah, >> it's really good. Thank you. >> It's good for us, too. Yeah. >> Okay. Anything else? >> Anyone? Anything? Okay. I think we're good for Okay. Do I hear a motion to continue this hearing? Notice of intent 61 Waverly Street, map 15, parcel 12, the Gutierrez Company D file not yet issued to January 5th at We can do 7 o'clock. We'll do 7 o'clock. >> So moved Carl >> second Preston.
060>> Roll call vote. >> Crow I. >> Crouch I. >> Atinson I. >> Molton I. >> Wes I. And the motion passes. and uh we'll see you on the 5th. So, thank you very much for coming in and it's very productive. >> Thank you. >> Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Have any minutes? >> Yeah. >> Yes. To the commission. You should have meeting minutes to review. Uh you do have to actually review and approve them tonight because you're at your three uh three meeting limit. meetings have to be approved with meeting minutes need to be approved within three months or three meetings whichever comes first. So your October 20th meeting minutes are on review. >> Are those the minutes that say they came from Owens? >> Yes. >> Yeah. Owen comments. >> They were kind
061of messed up for me. I was going to print them out. I couldn't do it online >> or on my computer, but I was going to print it out, >> but it said it was 600 no 65,000 pages. So I didn't it. >> I don't know why it wasn't showing any break page breaks on that document that >> was these these minutes if there's 65,000 pages. >> Yeah, it was close to 600 lines. So, it was still lengthy >> to the commission. I can confirm it was not 65,000 pages. >> Well, that's what it said on my computer. I don't have word. I have word tag or something and it doesn't work the same way. >> Well, we have what you're saying is we have to approve the minutes. Correct. >> Yes. >> Which I
062will screen share uh the copy I have. I cannot seem to open Owen's uh comments uh which was the copy that he had shared to us. >> There were a couple things on there that were highlighted that I assume were his comments. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> And I have not been able to open that. Um, so I have an unedited version here. So if anybody has Owen's comments or your own comments, uh, call out. I'm going to scroll quickly because it is 13 pages, which is still long for you guys. >> 13 pages. >> Can we uh, accept Owen's comments without calling them out? Because in the printed copy, they look they all look good. >> Yeah, that's on your copy. You could >> other what Owen picked out I thought they were pretty
063clean minutes. >> All right. Does anyone else agree? Bill, did you uh have any corrections? >> No, I had reviewed it last time and I don't think I had any corrections on it. Unfortunately, I'm on a different computer so I don't have the old one in front of me. Um, but I don't remember having any corrections. >> Okay. Um, all right. Um, do I hear a motion to accept the October 20th, 2025 meeting minutes as amended by Owen. >> So move second. >> Roll call vote. >> Crow I. >> Crouch. I >> Molton I. >> W's eye. Motion passes. and meeting minutes are approved. Next on the agenda under member prerogative, we have commission commissioner education or various topics. Does anyone have any member prerogatives? Hearing none. That concludes our meeting. Uh, do I hear
064a motion to adjurnn? >> So move. >> Second. >> Roll call vote. >> Crow I. >> Crouch I. >> Hackinson I. >> Malt I. >> Juan's eye. Motion passes and the meeting is adjourned. Thank you everyone.