2026-08-12 - Conservation Commission

00:05[music] Uh good evening. This is the uh

00:08August 12 26 open meeting of the AR

00:10conservation

00:12which is being operated as a hybrid

00:14format under chapter of the act of 2022.

00:18The public can join the meet remotely

00:20telephone by24-5-3412

00:26and then entering access code 65-782-37.

00:32They can join via computer at

00:36meetgo.com

00:41conference room one. All supporting have

00:45been provided to the commissioners and

00:47are also available on the town's

00:49website. The public is encouraged to

00:51follow along using the posted agenda. My

00:53name is Michael Garland. I'm chairman of

00:55the commission. And before we start, let

00:56me confirm who is here. When I call your

00:59name, please respond the affirmative.

01:00Megan Langley

01:01>> here.

01:02>> Clammo here.

01:03>> Ricky Aris, Mark Kit

01:05>> here,

01:05>> and Nat Bickford

01:06>> here.

01:07>> All right. Please also be advised this

01:09meeting is being recorded by Arban Cable

01:11Television. If anyone is going to um um

01:16participate in the meeting or for

01:19sign item sheet that Miss Bigfford has,

01:22uh please sign your name and also

01:23identify yourself by your name and also

01:25who you represent. So item on our agenda

01:29for this evening is a 7 p.m. public

01:31hearing. Um, Enman, a request for

01:34determination of applicability to remove

01:36a damaged tree and remove uh branches

01:39overhanging the single family home at 14

01:42my drive. Is there a motion open?

01:44>> Motion open.

01:45>> Is there a second?

01:46>> Second.

01:46>> Is there any discussion? All those in

01:48favor say I.

01:50>> I vote. Is that

01:53>> please join us?

01:57Yes.

01:59Sweet.

02:05So, Miss 14 Riverside Drive in Auburn.

02:08>> I do.

02:09>> And you submitted a request for

02:10determination of applicability because

02:12you want to take down

02:16It looks like you want to take down a

02:17tree and then remove some oak. Is that

02:20right?

02:20>> Correct.

02:21>> Okay. Um, can you just describe the

02:24maple tree? Is it Is it dying? Is it

02:26dead?

02:27>> It's been dying for like years. There

02:29was an explosion on that property uh 30

02:3335 40 years ago.

02:34>> Okay.

02:35>> Big explosion and how is remaining and

02:39it's slowly shedding

02:42large pieces.

02:44>> So if there's a strong um windstorm

02:48>> I'm I'm afraid.

02:50>> Yeah.

02:51>> Yep.

02:52>> Right. Uh and if I also read in your

02:54application that you are going to hire a

02:56professional tree cutter to do this for

02:58you. Maple tree.

03:00>> Okay. The maple tree is gonna be cut and

03:02that

03:03>> that's the name of the coloring company.

03:04Oh.

03:04>> Oh, sorry. Maple tree.

03:07>> Is maple tree cutting a maple tree is

03:09going to cut the maple tree

03:10>> and the branches and the oak.

03:12>> Okay. All right.

03:14>> Yeah, the squirrels use the oak tree

03:15like a highway.

03:17>> Squirrels will do that. Um,

03:19>> it's like right on my roof.

03:21>> Okay. All right.

03:22>> So,

03:22>> and when do you think you would want to

03:24have this work done?

03:25>> As soon as I can.

03:26>> Okay. [clears throat] And um any what's

03:31or know how will the tree dis um cutting

03:34company dispose of the maple tree

03:36they're going to cut down?

03:38>> I I never asked but I assume I guess I

03:41shouldn't assume.

03:42>> I assume they'll take it with them.

03:44>> Okay. Or maybe Okay.

03:46>> Yeah. No place really to dump it in my

03:49yard. So

03:50>> Well, they're [clears throat] not going

03:51to We don't want them to put it in the

03:53pond either.

03:53>> No, no, no, no, no. [cough]

03:55[clears throat]

03:55>> Okay. I know

03:58crap in that pond already.

04:00>> You're right.

04:03>> I did go up for a site visit. This was

04:04back in June. Um that maple tree, as you

04:06can see in one of the pictures, is like

04:088 ft off of that like where the water

04:10line is.

04:11>> Um it is Yeah. not in great shape. Um

04:14definitely poses a threat. And that oak

04:15tree, as you can kind of see from like

04:17that first page of pictures, like a lot

04:19of those branches kind of overhang that

04:21house and also pose a threat. I know um

04:24like vista pruning is considered like a

04:26minor activity um but like the full

04:28cutting of that maple tree is definitely

04:29something that you guys would need to

04:31consider.

04:31>> Sure.

04:33>> The oak branch is a dead

04:34>> but like given its proximity to the pond

04:38definitely want

04:40>> I understand.

04:42>> Okay. Um I appreciate that you follow

04:45the rules. Some people don't. I know.

04:46>> Um

04:48>> I have no more uh questions for Miss

04:50Enman. Does anyone else have any

04:51questions? No.

04:53>> Um, do you know know if they would be

04:55just like leaving the roots intact? Like

04:57just cutting it, leaving the roots

04:59intact? I was being perfectly honest. I

05:02that so I don't know,

05:05but um I've already estimate of what it

05:08will cost to have it taken down. So

05:10they've already looked at it.

05:11>> Okay, that's fine. Other than that.

05:15Okay.

05:18Um, if there is there any comment from

05:20the audience

05:24there being none, is there a motion?

05:27>> I make a motion to close.

05:28>> Is there a second?

05:29>> Second.

05:30>> Any discussion?

05:32>> All those in favor say I.

05:34>> I.

05:34>> Opposed. It's a vote. Okay.

05:38We will no likelihood render a decision

05:40uh tonight and you will be notified.

05:42>> Okay.

05:43>> So, thank you for coming in. We

05:44appreciate it.

05:45>> Thank you. how follow what the next

05:47steps are. Okay, next I

05:50>> basically came for like

05:51>> do I have to go or not? And

05:53>> okay, we appreciate everything.

06:04>> The next matter on our agenda is 705

06:06public hearing. Matthew Doyle with

06:08Brandon Realy Group 2 LLC. a notice of

06:11intent for a proposed new commercial

06:15uh to be 481 Washington Street. Is there

06:18a motion to open?

06:20>> A motion to open.

06:21>> Is there a second?

06:21>> Oh, second.

06:22>> Any discussion? All those in favor say

06:24I.

06:25>> I. I.

06:26>> Opposed? It's a vote. Is there anyone

06:28here on behalf of Brandy Realy? Yes.

06:32Yep.

06:50Good evening. Uh, good evening

06:51everybody. My name is Alex Wood. I am a

06:54civil engineer at EIT with Thompson Lon

06:56Associates and I'll be our applicant at

06:5941 Washington Street. Okay.

07:27Great to the chair if I may. We just

07:30have a three presentation to describe

07:32the project.

07:33>> Sure. Please proceed.

07:34>> Thank you. We have brought with us um

07:38the plan set here. Um so right now we're

07:39looking at the existing conditions of

07:41the site. Um so the address is 481

07:44Washington Street. It is bounded by

07:46Washington Street, Route 20 um and Elm

07:49Street. And the lot area is

07:51approximately 1 1/2 acre. On the

07:54existing lot, there are structures such

07:56as um concrete pads and bolards and

08:00gasoline pumps used to uh stand there

08:03anymore. Um there's also a convenience

08:06store building located on the site. Um a

08:09storage shed, some existing parking

08:11spaces, the existing impervious cover is

08:14approximately 19,000 square ft.

08:17Uh the applicant has filed a notice of

08:20intent um for work within the 100 ft

08:22buffer zone for wetland resource area

08:25located on the easterly portion of the

08:27site.

08:33And this is the um proposed conditions.

08:37Um the applicant using to construct a

08:406,400

08:41ft² multi-tenant commercial building. It

08:44would feature a Duncan restaurant with

08:46drive-thru as well as additional

08:49business or retail use. Uh the site will

08:52feature parking uh drive-thru as well as

08:56associated grading, storm water

08:58improvements to mitigate runoff and

09:00landscaping improvements.

09:02Um there is no proposed um impervious

09:05pavement within 50 ft of the resource

09:07area and there is no um proposed work at

09:10all um within 25 ft of the resource

09:13area.

09:14The proposed building roof will be

09:17routed to subsurface infiltration um for

09:19mitigation of runoff

09:22and paved parking areas will enter a

09:25system of great inlet water quality

09:28separators as well as uh catch basins

09:31with deep sump and um hoods which then

09:34go into water quality units prior to

09:36inflation effectively achieving uh the

09:40that's required.

09:42The site is located within a zone 2 to a

09:45public water supply um and the aquafer

09:47and watershed protection overlay

09:49district. Uh in terms of zoning, it is

09:52located within the general industry um

09:54district.

09:56Uh so given the zone two and the

09:58proximity to the wetland resource

10:01u and the proposed condition which will

10:03result in an impervious cover of

10:05approximately 35,000 square ft for

10:09measures will control the outflow

10:11leaving the site such that the post

10:13development has a lesser peak rate of

10:15flow than the pre-development conditions

10:17and the quality is um achieved per

10:21standard 4 of the Massachusetts D

10:23standards for um total suspended salt.

10:25college removal as well as the local

10:28Auburn um bylaws

10:30and discharge is only expected for the

10:32subsurface chamber system for the

10:34100-year storm and it will be controlled

10:37um and we don't anticipate in our

10:41calculations any discharge from the

10:42system in the two 10 or 25 year storms

10:45that were tested.

10:48Construction period erosion and

10:50sedimentation controls will be utilized

10:53such as sill fences

10:55a sight entrance mat. Um and then

10:58permanent uh features are cited for the

11:01slopes in the proposed condition. So the

11:04slope on the easterly side towards the

11:06wetland resource area um in the area

11:09we're creating. I'll flip over to the

11:12grading plan. A conservation seed mix is

11:17stabilizing that side.

11:20So that that is this slope here and

11:23other site slopes uh are designed at 3:1

11:28horizontal to one vertical and will be

11:30uh stabilized accordingly um per the

11:32details provided in the set.

11:36Um existing trees will be protected to

11:38the maximum extent predictable

11:40uh and additional new tree plantings are

11:42proposed per the landscape plan. The

11:45applicant has also applied to the

11:46planning board and the zoning board of

11:48appeals. And uh with that, I'd be happy

11:51to answer any questions. Thank you.

11:54>> Are there any underground um tanks still

11:58on site at the property?

12:00>> So, from what we are aware of um from

12:01the owner on site now, what we've been

12:03told is that there are um tanks in the

12:06vicinity of this region of the site

12:08alongside Route 20 on the Westley

12:10portion.

12:11>> Mhm. and we are not in um the cleanup of

12:14those activities, but we are aware that

12:16the applicant is um consistently

12:18pursuing that um with owner um of the

12:22>> I'm not I'm not sure I understand. Are

12:24they going to remove them or are they in

12:26negotiations to remove them?

12:27>> Um I'm not sure what the final

12:29mitigation strategy is for the tanks. um

12:32we're not in that phase of work, but

12:34obviously we would that to be handled

12:36prior to going in and doing any earth

12:38work or installing, you know,

12:39infiltration infrastructure. We of

12:41course would want to validate the uh

12:43conditions in the field there proposing

12:45mitigation like that.

12:46>> So that's something that's being lean

12:49petroleum.

12:50>> Correct.

12:52>> Um have they and they haven't given you

12:55any idea what the timeline would be for

12:57the removal of those tanks? Uh we aren't

13:00privy to what the timeline is for the

13:02removal of it. Um at this point we're

13:04just seeking the local approvals for the

13:06itself.

13:06>> I understand that. But you can't get

13:08started until the tanks removed.

13:10Correct.

13:10>> Certainly. Um prior to excavating the

13:14and installing anything. We certainly

13:16understand that. Yes, that would be a

13:17requirement.

13:18>> Okay. And then as a result of um this uh

13:22proposal, are you going to be increasing

13:24the amount of impervious area at the

13:25site? Um yes the impervious um overall

13:29coverage will be increased but in terms

13:31of the net impervious runoff um there

13:33will be a substantial decrease from the

13:35existing condition as the existing

13:37pavement um follows a natural

13:39hydrarology path into the street

13:42infrastructure um and there are existing

13:45um drainage structures including one in

13:47the mass uh DOT u state highway layout

13:51here but we are proposing to rather and

13:56any flow towards the street. We're

13:57proposing on-site mitigation to direct

14:00that flow back into the site to be

14:02treated and then infiltrated. So, we

14:04believe that the proposed condition will

14:06offer reduction in the peak rate of flow

14:09and we'll have

14:11water quality treatment by use of the

14:13hydrodnamic separators.

14:16>> Okay. And what would the schedule be to

14:18clean those

14:20>> in terms of the existing site to get

14:22that out? Well, I'm saying as part of

14:24your proposal, um there would be some

14:26sort of maintenance schedule. Correct.

14:28>> M maintenance for the um drainage

14:30infrastructure. Yes. If I understand

14:31correctly,

14:31>> yes. Um yes. So water report, we have

14:34outlined u a construction period as well

14:36as a long-term operation and

14:38maintenance. We have provided um a

14:40cleanup schedule for routine and

14:42detailed what the responsibilities of

14:44the site owner will be to maintain a

14:46functioning and healthy system. Okay.

14:52I don't have any other questions at this

14:54time. Uh would open this up to other

14:57members of the board.

15:00>> Um

15:02yeah, mine is about the tanks as well.

15:07This

15:09resurface [clears throat]

15:10subsurface storage tanks to be filled

15:12with

15:14I'm not sure um what the DP directive is

15:18on that. Um, I thought in

15:20[clears throat] most cases the preferred

15:22method was to just remove them, you

15:25know. Um, but that's something we see if

15:28they have a specific protocol on those.

15:31Um, you wouldn't happen to know how how

15:34long ago those um the the gas pumps were

15:38discontinued, would you?

15:40>> Um, I I don't that I know that since

15:42we've um seen the site, which is within

15:44the past year they they've been gone.

15:46Um, I don't know the exact date when

15:47they were

15:48>> Okay.

15:49It's were removed like 5 years ago. It's

15:52more recent than that as far as you

15:54know, right?

15:54>> Um but it's hard for me to say. I'm I'm

15:56not

15:58>> Okay.

16:01>> Any other questions from the board?

16:03>> What's the total amount of So like the

16:06[clears throat] vegetated area that's

16:07going to be cleared?

16:09>> Sure. What's the dominant is that mostly

16:11like woods or just kind of scrub or

16:15>> so um that primarily that region would

16:18be um on the plan here we can see

16:22actually let's let's we go to the

16:24erosion control plan

16:27which is sheet um C12.

16:35So off of the existing site, off of the

16:38uh curb and and paved area here, the

16:42existing tree line is is being

16:44effectively pushed back um as you saw on

16:46the other sheet to you know about to to

16:49the work line here as shown by where the

16:52sil fences will be. Um in terms of the

16:54dominant vegetation, I mean it's you

16:57know pretty standard. It's it's wooded

16:59for sure. Um

17:01we're proposing plantings on and slope

17:04stabilizing features but yeah

17:06effectively that will be maintained uh

17:08we won't we aren't proposing to make any

17:11alterations um as

17:14that vegetation toward the resources

17:25you're going to build to the um the

17:27buffer zone.

17:29to the buffer zone itself or to the

17:31resource area if I just want to picture.

17:33>> How about each each? Sure. So, uh in

17:36terms of buffer zone, uh there's impact

17:39within the 100 ft zone in terms of the

17:42proposed impervious surf.

17:48So, flipping on over to the grading plan

17:51here.

17:52>> What sheet is that?

17:53>> This is sheet U C3.

17:58So within the 100 foot buffer zone um

18:00the impacts included pavement um to a

18:03nearest point of disturbance

18:06approximately 62 ft. It's actually it's

18:08not shown with dimension um and the

18:11infiltration measures are sit u 50 ft or

18:15greater outside uh from the resource

18:18area and then grading itself is situated

18:21greater than 25 ft away. So alterations

18:24within the 25 ft buffer there is u

18:28minimal grading um and a storm water

18:31discharge within the 50t and then there

18:33is pavement within the 100t

18:39>> and is that replacing existing pavement

18:41or pavement? Uh the new pavement is uh

18:47it yes if I understand your question it

18:49it is an expansion like the the existing

18:51pavement on site is not in uh the 100

18:53foot buffer zone. This is all part of

18:55the expansion for the parking use.

18:57>> Okay.

19:03>> Any other questions from the board?

19:06Any questions from New?

19:08>> Yeah. Where where was the corner of Elm

19:12and Tony?

19:13>> What's there now?

19:15>> So, uh the ex the existing site there's

19:17a convenience store located about here

19:20and there's a car

19:22>> and there's a stop sign and it's fourway

19:24crossover.

19:25>> Yeah.

19:26>> Yeah. Yeah. That's this intersection.

19:28>> Good luck. They they are lined up now

19:31past the railroad tracks to get out of

19:34that street. And I live off of that. I

19:36live on Riverside which is going towards

19:39Milbury. Good luck. They use it as a

19:41shortcut.

19:42>> Really?

19:42>> The tracks trailers coming through. Yes.

19:44Yeah. It's a pig study. Let me tell you

19:48it's good luck.

19:49>> I appreciate

19:52I I appreciate you hearing it too. It's

19:54like whoa. Yeah. It's over the years.

19:58Let me tell you.

20:00>> Uh, so when are you going back to the

20:02planning board?

20:03>> Uh, the continuous date. I I believe

20:04it's in the early September. I believe

20:06it's September off the top of my head.

20:08>> Okay. I I'm familiar with the driven

20:11past it from too many years, but um I I

20:14think I would like to take a look and I

20:16didn't have a chance to get out there

20:17before tonight's meeting. So um would

20:21you asend to continue the public hearing

20:23this matter to our next meeting which is

20:24on August 26th?

20:26>> August 26th. Uh

20:28>> that's a two weeks

20:30>> as long as um you know unless the

20:33commission would be amendable to

20:34incorporating a site as a condition of

20:36you know as a part of order of the order

20:38of conditions. Um if you don't see a way

20:40other than to come back then we would be

20:42amendable.

20:42>> Yeah. We've never done that.

20:44>> I understand. I figured I would ask for

20:46the on and that's fine. And again

20:49>> it's it's we understand we would be

20:51>> we want to you know put eyeballs on it

20:53and u I think a site visit would be

20:55helpful in this case. And you don't have

20:58to come if you don't want to. That's

20:59fine because we all have different

21:02responsibilities. We can we don't have

21:03to go out there as a that's always fun.

21:06But um I'm sure we can get out there

21:08before our next meeting.

21:10>> That that would be great. And I'm sure

21:11the applicant would be amendable to

21:13that. But uh in the meantime on on

21:16behalf of the applicant um if the

21:17commission has any u further questions

21:20or anything, you email us. Our email is

21:22on the application.

21:24>> Okay. Very good. Um, Matt, do we have

21:26anything currently scheduled for August

21:2826th?

21:29>> Uh, yes, we do have a couple events.

21:31>> Okay.

21:31>> So, what would be a good time for this

21:33um continue hearing? 7:10.

21:36>> I can do Yeah, I can do 710.

21:38>> All right. So, can I have a motion to

21:40continue the public hearing for uh

21:42Branded Realy Group 2 LLC

21:45um to August, 2026 10.

21:50>> So, moved.

21:50>> Is there a second?

21:51>> Second.

21:52>> Is there any discussion? All those in

21:54favor say I. I.

21:55>> I. Opposed. It's a vote.

21:58>> All right. We will um see you in two

22:00weeks and we will get out to the site

22:02before then.

22:04>> Right. We greatly appreciate it. Thank

22:05you. Have a great night.

22:06>> Thank you.

22:44Okay.

22:48So the next matter for discussion

22:51relates to

22:53work that is is being continues to be

22:57done on South Street and Church Street.

23:00I noticed that we have um remotely

23:03members

23:06Joanna Pinuin. Hello Joanna.

23:10[clears throat]

23:11Good evening.

23:14And I see

23:18sign in.

23:21>> And who? Okay. So, um, gentlemen, I

23:25presume you're here.

23:26>> Correct.

23:27>> And who do you represent?

23:28>> JH Lynch.

23:29>> Identify yourselves, please.

23:31>> I'm, uh, Greg Lynch Jr., vice president

23:32of JH Lynch.

23:33>> And you are, sir?

23:34>> Jonathan Cardos, your general counsel

23:36for JH Lynch.

23:37>> What [clears throat] firm are you with?

23:38>> Uh, Lynch.

23:40>> Okay.

23:41>> I work You look very familiar, though,

23:42sir. Did you uh practice in Rhode Island

23:44by any chance?

23:45>> I do practice in Rhode Island.

23:47>> Okay.

23:47>> Well, thank you. I guess that's good,

23:48right?

23:50And Mr. Lynch, you and I spoke three.

23:52>> Yes.

23:54>> So, um in the 3 weeks that have um gone

23:59by since our conversation and since I

24:01had a chance to observe the site

24:03conditions, uh I've been able to obtain

24:06more information uh from the town. Um, I

24:10had an opportunity to look at um the

24:13SWIP that was filed.

24:15Uh, and I have um I have many questions.

24:18Um, so Mr. Lynch, I I'll be honest with

24:22you. I was back when we had a

24:24conversation on July 22nd. I asked you

24:27about emergency control measures and you

24:29offered to install them when they should

24:32have been installed before

24:35being done on South Street and Shirt

24:36Street. And um again in doing my

24:40research and kind of wrapping my head

24:41around this um my understanding and and

24:45I would also invite the town to jump in

24:46if I get any of these facts wrong. My

24:49understanding was that um town of

24:51Barburn uh put out to bid uh

24:54infrastructure um improvement or

24:56replacement which out of necessity would

24:59require uh the roads to be uh redone if

25:03for lack of a better term

25:04>> on South Street and Church Street. Um

25:08Lynch was the low bidder started to do

25:10the um I believe in June and that that

25:14work continues. Um [clears throat] what

25:16I don't understand is that since

25:20since Lynch was the contractor

25:22uh why Lynch did not file with the board

25:26with our commission of intent. I know JH

25:29Lynch has been in business for many many

25:31years. I know this is the type of work

25:33that you routinely do for municipalities

25:37and again for the life of me I don't

25:38understand why no notice of intents.

25:43Now, it's been said to me, well, you

25:46know, have anticipated um the rainstorms

25:50that we had um in July and I believe

25:53over the weekend there was I think on

25:55Friday night there was a and my attitude

25:57or my response to that is I don't

25:59believe it. Um when it rains it pours

26:02and literally it does that. The storms

26:05that we had were not even from my

26:07vantage point significant storm events.

26:09There were periods of intense rain but

26:12in terms of actual uh quantities uh they

26:15were not significant but because of the

26:18volume of those or the um I guess the

26:21intensity of those storms it caused with

26:24um with was being in there in their um

26:29condition where um the infrastructure

26:31had been installed but had not been um

26:35were certainly not in a position where

26:37they there was aer

26:39uh any sort of uh finished condition. Um

26:44there there was erosion. I have to

26:47believe believe that uh silts got into

26:51um into wetlands. Um there's a wetland

26:54crossing on South Street. There's

26:55another one on Church Street. These are

26:58um I think very obvious. And um I mean

27:02aside from

27:04uh I believe causing delays for you uh

27:08and my understanding is that it has also

27:11uh caused uh the the town to uh incur

27:16additional expense because of of their

27:19their need to um remediate problems uh

27:22on both of those those roads. And so

27:27I guess what I would like to know is why

27:31and just having a SWIP, and I understand

27:34you got your permit from D, but just

27:35getting a SWIP does not to my mind um uh

27:40remove your responsibility to file a

27:42notice of intent with our town. And um

27:45and again,

27:47given the fact that Lynch, this is what

27:49Lynch does and has done for many years,

27:51I am just at a complete loss why he

27:53didn't do it. And so if you can provide

27:55me with an explanation, I am all ears

27:58right now.

28:00>> Well, uh, we haven't done work in this

28:02town for, uh, seven years now.

28:04>> And, uh, I believe the town would

28:07usually take care of that kind of a

28:08situation for us. We've been doing a lot

28:10of resurfacing work in this town before.

28:12Uh, this is a very decently large

28:14drainage project and, um, I I believe I

28:18figure the SWIP would take care of the

28:19notice of intent on that aspect of the

28:21project.

28:22>> How so, sir? when you say that that the

28:25SWIP share the notice of intent, did you

28:28file the SWIP with us? Because I didn't

28:30see it. Uh the other thing is is that I

28:33mean the the town although the town's

28:35the owner of the project, they delegated

28:37the means and methods to you. Correct.

28:40The means and methods of the work

28:42>> and telling us what to do. Yes. So your

28:45position is that it was the town's

28:46responsibility to file a notice of

28:49intent with with this commission

28:51regarding the work that you controlled

28:55and it's a simple answer. Yes or no?

28:57>> I I'm not aware.

28:58>> All right. Did you give any

29:01consideration now? All right. I'll back

29:04up a bit. You told me that you hadn't

29:06done any work in town for seven years.

29:08There certainly have been in other towns

29:11and I suspect you do most of your work

29:13in central Mass or Eastern Mass

29:15>> typically all over Massachusetts.

29:17>> Do you ever file notices of intent with

29:19other municipalities?

29:21>> To your knowledge?

29:22>> To my knowledge? I'm not sure.

29:24>> You don't know?

29:25>> No.

29:26>> Okay.

29:30Now when we spoke on July 22nd, you put

29:33in some I believe some silt socks, some

29:36erosion control measures uh which were

29:38ineffective. Would you agree with me

29:40that they were not effective

29:41>> at keeping everything at bay? I would

29:43say it was not 100% effective. Correct.

29:45>> Okay.

29:58What's the status of the project now?

30:00When do you think you're going to

30:02So the project is currently in binder.

30:04We are doing burm in a way typically

30:07don't to make sure we are keeping

30:09erosion at bay. We have burmed around

30:12the entire area of the south street

30:14culvert and we're going to continue

30:15tomorrow to continue bming

30:17>> and to making sure we're keeping all

30:18erosion at bay. And then we're going to

30:20come back in. We're going to do some ADA

30:22ramps. Then we're going to do the

30:25sidewalks, top the road. All the

30:27drainage structures are all going to be

30:29live and we [clears throat] should be

30:30able to stripe it and get out of there.

30:32I have no uh current date for you right

30:34now, but uh we're we're certainly making

30:37headway.

30:38>> So, this is August 12th. You think

30:40you'll be done by the middle of

30:41September? 30 days at the end of

30:43September?

30:45>> I think that would be a reasonable

30:48expectation.

30:50>> All right. So again, just so I'm clear

30:52in this, um, you you cannot offer me an

30:56explanation why

30:58your position is that Lynch didn't know

31:01it had to file a notice of intent with

31:02us.

31:03>> I was not aware.

31:04>> Okay. So I'm going to turn this over to

31:07our town members, Mr. Roto.

31:11>> Greg, can you hear me?

31:13>> Yes, I can. So um we had a meeting uh on

31:18Monday to discuss this. Uh what's your

31:21position on who was required know of

31:23intent for this project?

31:27>> So it was my understanding I'm not sure

31:30if Joanna you want to jump in here.

31:35>> Sorry. Yes. Thank you. Uh so uh

31:38typically for a um for a roadway

31:41reconstruction project, a um a roadway

31:44resurfacing project, that's considered a

31:46minor project. So, it uh typically

31:50doesn't require a notice of intent and

31:53um it was our understanding that well it

31:57was our agreement with Lynch that um

32:00they were going to be filing a SWIP um

32:03in addition to any and all um

32:06appropriate permitting um any you know

32:10appropriate permits um that you know

32:12that they would deem um

32:17appropriate for uh for the work that

32:19they're doing. Um

32:22like like the board said, we um we don't

32:25have control over their um their their

32:30work or um you know, how they they

32:34perform the work. We we tell them what

32:36is required but how they're going to be

32:38doing it and um and what um

32:44what exposure that they you know they

32:46have for um for with respect to um soils

32:50and wetlands. Uh that would be you know

32:53that would be up to them.

32:56>> Was there any discussion about notifying

32:58our commission regarding uh the work?

33:01because again the first time I saw the

33:03SWIP was when I received it from Miss

33:05Vei last week and and again my position

33:09is and again a SWIP um is filed when

33:13more than one acre um in a project is

33:16going to is going to be disturbed and

33:17clearly that qualifies for both of these

33:20streets. So

33:22um

33:25was there any discussion about

33:27implementing erosion control measures

33:29for those two streets given the fact

33:31that there are well and resources

33:33located uh at each

33:37>> I don't know if you wanted

33:38>> yes so yes at the beginning of the

33:40project before we began um that was the

33:42directive u before we saw cut or work on

33:44any drainage we asked that they controls

33:48at the sensitive areas um They I know

33:51Lynch had installed uh sediment control

33:54at catch basins. Um but as we know that

33:58was that was inadequate at the time. Um

34:01at the beginning of the project they

34:02were focusing on drainage installation.

34:04Uh the road was not reclaimed at that

34:06point. So they it had the silt sacks

34:09placed and the road would the any

34:11disturbance was contained within the

34:13roadway curving. Um

34:17some maybe oversightes on on DPWZ.

34:20Absolutely. I I think we've spoke to

34:22during this meeting on uh our past

34:24meeting on Monday. We're going to

34:26bolster our communication with um the

34:29commission and we're going to uh kind of

34:31work towards setting up some guidelines

34:32that this doesn't happen again. Um now

34:35to the means and methods,

34:37there were some uh scheduling decisions

34:40made by Lynch that kind of left them

34:43exposed to this erosion issue. Um,

34:46removing the sidewalk and reclaiming

34:49both roads at the same time wouldn't

34:51have been my recommendation. I would

34:53have recommended that they stabilize

34:55their road one road at a time. Um, but

34:58again, I I I don't have control of means

34:59and methods. So, that's kind of what

35:01we're we're dealing with. And then in

35:03most uh responses

35:06with the rainstorms we've had,

35:07unfortunately, were not enough to stop

35:10the sediment and erosion uh issues.

35:14Do you think um

35:17>> through the chair?

35:18>> Please,

35:20>> Greg, can you just reference some of the

35:22contract language that alerts the

35:24contractor for the um local and state

35:27permits that might be required?

35:29>> Yes. Just a second.

35:31>> I don't think it has to be verbatim, but

35:32we do have a general clause in there.

35:34Correct.

35:34>> Yes. So, we have several different

35:36section contract at state that they have

35:38to familiarize themselves with all

35:39state, local, and federal permits. Um,

35:42and obviously local would be reaching

35:44out to conservation commission. Um, I'm

35:46just pulling up

35:47>> which section is that in the contract?

35:50>> Uh, let me just find that for you here.

35:57So, it's going to be

36:05at the section seven. At the end of

36:07section seven,

36:10there's mention of the permits. Um,

36:16let's get to the right spot here.

36:20>> Okay. So, your contract requires the

36:24contractor to be familiar with local

36:27bylaws, regulations.

36:28>> Correct.

36:29>> Correct.

36:29>> As well as following their SWIP. Um,

36:33and

36:35>> well,

36:35>> yeah. The contractor is required to

36:37inform himself of all applicable local,

36:39state, and federal rules and concerning

36:41the maintenance of environmental quality

36:44and to conduct his operations in

36:45conformance with the intent of such

36:46rules. Um, good.

36:48>> So, I I I go back to minimizing

36:50disturbance would have been the best way

36:53to have avoided this.

36:56>> Uh, you're familiar with the SWIP, Mr.

36:58Verto?

37:00>> I am. Do you believe that um Lynch has

37:03complied with this in the work they've

37:05done on South Street and Church Street?

37:08>> Uh I believe

37:10>> and if not tell which courts they

37:12haven't complied with.

37:14>> Um so I the no I don't believe that they

37:17followed their SWIP according to how it

37:19was written. Um I believe that there

37:22should have been stronger erosion

37:23controls around the resource areas such

37:25as double row silt fence. Um I don't

37:29believe that um I I did receive SWIP

37:33inspection reports from Lynch after

37:35those rain events. Um so they did follow

37:37that portion where they would uh

37:39identify the issue and come up with a

37:41remediation. Um unfortunately those

37:43remediations were were were not enough.

37:46So

37:47>> under the contract swip reports due

37:49before um I let me question this way.

37:54When are SWIP reports of that nature

37:56usually generated?

37:59>> Prior to the beginning of the work.

38:01>> Okay. You didn't receive any, correct?

38:04>> I did not receive it until after the

38:06work, but we had directed the contractor

38:08to do the uh minor disturbing activities

38:12prior to this. Um once we had received

38:14the SWIP, they had began on their road

38:17reclamation. So, they didn't begin their

38:18road reclamation until after we received

38:20the SWIP.

38:34Okay.

38:36Um,

38:38car for rebuttal.

38:40>> Um, not really a rebuttal. I think we're

38:42all trying to work together on this

38:43project, but

38:44>> uh swept reports are due after a quarter

38:47inch of rain or after seven calendar

38:50days in a dry period or less than a

38:52quarter inch of rain, I would say. And

38:55uh I fill them out and I keep them on me

38:58at all times. Believe that's in there,

39:00too. And then uh if any corrective

39:03actions are necessary, I will write up

39:05the corrective action form, show the

39:08work that was completed,

39:10and then uh I'll submit them. And

39:15and if and if I may too, um the rain

39:17event we had on I believe it was the

39:1930th, it was um it was almost 4 inches

39:23of rain. So that that was a substantial

39:25rain event that we we had received. Mhm.

39:27>> Um,

39:29>> so

39:31>> on July 21st, any idea how much room we

39:33got?

39:35>> And we could find out

39:36>> closer closer to an inch, I believe.

39:38Okay.

39:39>> All the other events we had were closer

39:40to an inch.

39:41>> Understood.

39:44>> So, um, m Mr. Lynch, you talked about

39:47preparing a corrective action form,

39:49>> correct?

39:49>> Did you prepare one after we spoke on

39:51July 22nd?

39:52>> Correct.

39:53>> Okay. And did you uh produce that to Mr.

39:56or anyone else for the town.

39:58>> Uh, it was not requested. Have it at any

40:00time.

40:01>> Okay.

40:04>> But I believe I did email it to me.

40:06>> You did. Thank you.

40:07>> All right. Um,

40:08>> may I ask you a question?

40:09>> Yeah, I was going to say I don't have

40:10any other questions, sir. Thank you.

40:12But, um, I'm going to, uh, turn this

40:14over to other members of the board if

40:15they have any questions.

40:17>> U, those corrective action forms,

40:20>> what's the normal procedure for who

40:21those would go to?

40:24Uh, I'm just told to keep all inspection

40:26forms on site. On like a larger mass

40:29project, they might have a thing called

40:31like an environmental monitor and then

40:33the environmental monitor will ask for

40:34collection of those at different rates

40:36of time.

40:43>> Any other questions from the board?

40:45>> Uh, my question is more of a

40:46hypothetical. Let's say let's say we

40:49rewinded time. What would have been the

40:52best erosion control at that time for

40:54that situation? Because clearly what

40:56happened didn't work. So what's the next

40:58method if it was to happen again? It may

41:00not happen at the same street obviously,

41:02but if it was to happen, what plans

41:07do you think would be in place? That's a

41:09very good question. I think uh it's kind

41:12of a tricky situation, at least at the

41:13South Street Culver. It's a curb

41:15retaining wall. So to actually like

41:17entrench any silt fence at that location

41:20would be a

41:22very very difficult task in order to

41:24keep the roadway open because you'd have

41:25to put the silt fence almost in the road

41:28in order for it to lock in the curb

41:30retaining wall. And then uh anything

41:33outside of that at the at the lower

41:36junction there is is still pretty

41:38difficult. So, you know,

41:42>> I'm not the best person in regards of

41:44road closure.

41:45>> Sure.

41:45>> But does that sound like that may have

41:48solved the situation like closing half

41:50the road?

41:51>> I don't know. I mean, the fact that

41:52matters is that that road I live off of

41:55South Street and

41:56>> uh that road has been closed off

41:58periodically since June while they were

42:00installing the um the new culverts and

42:02uh the other infrastructure. So, um, and

42:05they've been able to, they've been

42:07deterring people. Um, but again, I'm not

42:09an engineer, so I think that's probably,

42:12you know, best left to someone with more

42:13expertise than me. It's been suggested

42:16to me that the erosion that we saw after

42:18the storm event, I think on 7:30, um,

42:22might have been, um, reduced or maybe

42:24even alleviated, um, with the

42:26installation of check dams. But again,

42:28I'm not so

42:30>> uh, Mr. the rotor uh stated earlier that

42:33it probably would have been a better

42:34practice to do one road at a time. I I

42:37may have

42:37>> No, he did say that.

42:39>> Um is that something maybe we can

42:41implement as maybe have oversight with

42:46what was it? Uh means and methods. Is

42:47that the term used in this case? The

42:50problem here is that the project was

42:52well underway and we had we were never

42:54given notice and so the the suggestions

42:57that we could have made uh or changes

43:01that we could have um uh suggested um

43:04>> never got the opportunity

43:05>> we did not get the opportunity to and I

43:08mean we're dealing with a professional

43:10contractor that that does um this type

43:13of work has it has done this work for

43:15years and we have you know a DPW staff

43:18that is professional and and I believe

43:21um uh knows what the processes are and

43:25um I mean as far as I'm concerned um

43:29that this this situation just should not

43:32have happened and it gives me pause

43:33because um I think people um should have

43:37known better and they didn't and I think

43:40because of that I think you know my my

43:42my concern strictly um from the vantage

43:45point of the of the commission is that

43:48we I don't know if um any saltation got

43:51into the the streams um on Sher Street

43:54and South Street. In order for us to to

43:57make that determination, we now have to

44:00hire a contractor, someone else, a

44:03consultant, and we have to spend our

44:05money to um to determine that. And

44:08that's something we should not have to

44:09do. So, um that's what I'm I'm happy

44:14about. Um,

44:18any other questions?

44:20>> Yeah, I do. So, I know there's other

44:23paving going on in town and stuff and

44:26there anything in the near future we

44:29need to look at before, you know, roads

44:32get

44:33>> we may have to,

44:34>> you know, I don't know what the plan is.

44:36I've seen it online and stuff, but

44:38>> Mhm.

44:38>> just, you know, cuz they're going to

44:40probably pop up in other areas if we're

44:42doing the same work in on other main

44:44roads or small roads, whatever, whatever

44:46it may be.

44:48>> I will tell you that in uh years past

44:50when Bill Coyle was here, he would

44:52actually give us a list of the streets

44:54where uh work was going to be done. Uh

44:57and that was under their blanket order

44:59conditions. Um,

45:02we, as you will recall, uh, at our last

45:04meeting, we revoked that blank order

45:06conditions. I can tell you that the

45:08town, uh, wants it to be to be

45:11reinstated and I believe that may be

45:12subject to a filing in our meeting on

45:15August 26th. I'm not sure. I think

45:17that's a separate issue in honesty, but

45:20I mean, this shouldn't have happened.

45:22It's very simple. this is, you know, um

45:26and and and and I I want to ensure that

45:28it doesn't happen again. And I don't

45:30care who the contractor is. I this

45:32should not have happened. And um and

45:36I'll just leave it at that. So, um any

45:39parting words from the town?

45:42>> Through the chair, if I may. Um, I just

45:45wanted to say that um, we haven't had a

45:49project that has overextended itself

45:52like this um, in a long time.

45:55>> Um, and every project that um, that we

45:58do um, we evaluate lessons learned. So,

46:03I can tell you that uh Greg has um

46:06already put in um additional clauses in

46:08the next construction project saying

46:11that anything that um gets pulverized,

46:15any road that gets pulverized is going

46:16to be paved within 3 days to prevent

46:19this because ultimately the fact that

46:22these sites have been open for so long

46:25um and have been subjected to all these

46:28storms is is why we're, you know, we've

46:31had so much struggle. Oh,

46:33>> okay.

46:37>> Got to ask one question.

46:38>> Sure.

46:39>> Why wouldn't you normally bind your

46:41flush this especially given the weather

46:44knowing right that two or three days out

46:48there's projected storms?

46:50So why wouldn't Lynch

46:53put down binder flush and have to pull

46:56it out later

46:58just to prevent this? Just curious if

47:00that I haven't seen the contracts, not

47:02sure, but got to ask.

47:06>> So, our hope would be that if the um if

47:10the road has already been pulver

47:11pulverized, then um then they can get

47:15that road ready to put down binder and

47:18um stabilize it. Um unfortunately, there

47:22were many roads that were open and um

47:25waited to it's it's lumped together. So,

47:29um, and I and I understand that there's,

47:32you know, coordination crews and

47:33everything, but, um, we've we've had

47:37conversations with, um, with lunch

47:39saying that we we do need to be a

47:43priority in, um, in their list of

47:45projects.

47:47>> Thank you,

47:51>> Peter. Any comments?

47:54>> I do believe Mark has his hand up.

47:57>> Okay.

47:59Mr. Arnold,

48:02>> we can't hear you, sir.

48:09>> Nope.

48:11>> No, he's here for the next um he's got

48:13something on for the OAT, so I don't

48:15think he's involved with this. Um

48:18okay, we can't hear him anyway. So,

48:23>> is that Can you hear me now?

48:24>> We can hear you now. Are you

48:27>> I'm speaking as a citizen of Auburn in

48:29this situation.

48:31>> Um 150 Bernett Street.

48:34>> Um uh so just two points of

48:37clarification as a citizen and also as a

48:39consultant. Um there are some road

48:41surfacing projects that can be exempt

48:43from filing notice of intent, but those

48:44are resurfacing that are done within 72.

48:48Um that's in um the exempt clause in um

48:51310 CMR 1005

48:54sorry 102. Um but drainage improvements

48:58are not exempt um from following notice

49:01of intent. Um so that's just a point of

49:03clarification debate gives the DPW some

49:06just of clarity in terms of where that

49:07is. And then the second question I had

49:09is was there any evaluation of impacts

49:12to the buffer zone and or the riverfront

49:15area because um that is a perennial

49:17river that flows um through Church

49:19Street. And so I was just curious if if

49:21Lynch had looked at that in any way to

49:24see if there were any impacts that do

49:26need to be remediated. Um because

49:28regardless of if they filed the notice

49:30or not, the question is has there been

49:31an impact beyond their approved limits

49:32of work that would require um any type

49:35of restoration? And I'm just curious if

49:37that was done.

49:39>> There's been no discharges to the Church

49:40Street cover there.

49:41>> You didn't answer his question though.

49:43>> Oh,

49:43>> his question was, did you do an

49:45evaluation of impacts?

49:46>> Absolutely. And the swift inspection

49:48reports.

49:50>> And if the town has those,

49:52>> they should. And if they want the rest

49:53of them, I can give them the rest of

49:54them.

49:56>> Okay. All right. Um,

49:59>> so they shouldn't have the most. I

50:00apologize. I want to clarify. I believe

50:02I sent Greg the first couple, but I have

50:04not sent him the most recent.

50:06>> Okay.

50:06>> Conspection reports.

50:07>> All right.

50:11All right. Um I again I have no other

50:14comments. I want to thank you for coming

50:15tonight. I want to thank members of the

50:17DPW for participating as well and um we

50:22will have a further discuss.

50:26So all right, thank you.

50:38Council, can you leave your card? Of

50:40course. Thank you.

50:52>> You can give it to Miss Great Pretty.

50:53>> I only got four, so that's fine.

50:56[laughter]

50:57>> Thank you.

50:59I know.

51:28How does he make this decision? Yes.

51:34[clears throat]

51:40[clears throat]

51:43So, um, Mr. Arnold, you've been very

51:46patient, um,

51:49waiting. Uh, I presume you're here for

51:50the Ora for Milbury Street,

51:53>> correct, sir?

51:54>> Okay. So um

51:57just give us a brief rundown on why

52:01>> yes um so this is an extens so let me

52:04just sorry let me restart that Mark

52:06Arnold with GDRD consulting uh soil

52:08scientists uh here on behalf of Auburn

52:10Industrial Development Corp for this

52:12request to extend the order of resource

52:14area delineation ORAD for 100 Milbury

52:17Street. Um so we are requesting an

52:20extension of the O-rad um that was

52:23issued on this property um to delineate

52:26um the bordering vegetated wetlands that

52:28were located in the southeast corner of

52:30the parcel. Uh the O-ra um is about to

52:34expire uh this fall and um we are still

52:38um um looking to see how the property

52:41might be developed. again may require

52:43not of intent in the future, but we'd

52:45like to have the wetland line um kept in

52:48place so that way um that doesn't have

52:49to be reviewed at a later date. Uh so

52:52that's the the purpose of our extension.

52:53I can show the the commission a plan if

52:56they'd like. Um and also Ariel just to

52:59kind of explain it. We did walk I have

53:01walked the line um uh in the past month.

53:04Um it's a very pretty distinct wetland

53:07line. Um open wet meadow um surrounded

53:10by um upland shrubs that are very thick.

53:14So uh wetland line hasn't changed at all

53:16since we delineated it and all the flags

53:19are present in the field.

53:22>> Okay.

53:24Um and um the applicant hasn't decided

53:28what it's going to do with the property.

53:33>> Correct. Okay. All right.

53:36>> All right. I don't have any questions.

53:37If there are any questions,

53:39>> I do not have any questions.

53:41>> Okay.

53:44>> All right, sir. Thank you very much

53:46again. I appreciate your patience uh

53:47while we were had the other discussion.

53:51>> No, no, no. It sounded like you were

53:53having a very good discussion. I think

53:54it was good for all parties.

53:56>> Thank you. All right. Have a good

53:58evening.

53:59>> Thank you. Have a good night.

54:09So,

54:12um

54:18I I have a copy of the contract. I I did

54:21not

54:23go through it with a fine tooth comb. Uh

54:25but based on um Mr. the wrote his

54:28representation

54:30uh and just I mean

54:33I again I'm just I guess dumbfounded is

54:37the right word uh why they in

54:39[clears throat] a file with us. Uh

54:41ignorance is is not an excuse in this

54:43case and it's certainly not an excuse

54:45when it's actually

54:47contract that the um the contractor has

54:50to be familiar with um with our bylaws

54:53and our regulations. anyone and I

54:56suspect and I would be very surprised if

54:59Lynch had any projects where they did

55:01not file a notice of 10. I believe they

55:04have and so um I I don't have an an

55:09adequate explanation for this. I really

55:10don't. And um and I think given the fact

55:15I mean if I approach this um not as a a

55:19member of uh the conservation commission

55:21but as um as an attorney evaluating

55:26um a potential breach of contract case,

55:29it would be my that they breached the

55:31contract. They did not do what they were

55:33supposed to do. They did not file with

55:35us. It doesn't appear based on what Mr.

55:38Roto represented that they provided um

55:40any swip reports prior to the start of

55:42work. Um

55:45so and and again when I spoke to Mr.

55:49Lynch on July 22nd and asked him about

55:52erosion control measures and his

55:53response was well yeah we can put them

55:55in. No I mean I'm sorry it doesn't work

55:58that way. We they should we shouldn't

56:01have to ask for them. they should have

56:02been they should have come before us

56:04with a plan [clears throat]

56:06with um showing what controls were going

56:09to be. So um

56:15I think in this opinion and I'm more

56:19than happy to have a discussion about it

56:21but I think they an enforcement order

56:23needs to be issued against Lech and I

56:26think they need to be fined.

56:29Um that's number one. Two is that we

56:32don't know what the well in impact has

56:33been. We don't know if there is a well

56:36in impact. It's possible that there

56:37isn't but we don't know.

56:40[clears throat] And I think in order to

56:43approach this fairly I think we need to

56:45find out and we need to hire someone to

56:49to evaluate it and hopefully we will

56:52find out that in fact there was not uh

56:55an environmental impact. But again, we

56:56don't know. And I think given storm,

56:59we've had some storm events. There's no

57:02question the storm event on July 30th

57:03was was the the most rain we got from a

57:07single uh storm, but um there have been

57:10several events. Um I um there was a

57:14situation that was described to me uh by

57:16Miss Puin um uh that occurred I guess

57:19over the weekend on I think there was a

57:21storm on Friday that

57:22>> Friday problems. you know, when I drive

57:25on Church Street, I see I can see

57:27sediment in the road and not South

57:31Street, but on on Church Street, I think

57:32it's quite evident. So, um I would love

57:37to have some conversation, discussion

57:38with you about what what you'd like to

57:41do about this because I frankly think

57:43this is unacceptable. I really do.

57:47>> I guess I'm not I mean, I am all for

57:49like if we want to hire somebody to do

57:51an evaluation of the been an impact, I

57:53mean, I'm all for that. Um I'm curious.

57:56I don't know how they determine that

57:59after, you know, they have to have a

58:01baseline for that.

58:02>> They'd have to go in there. I mean, if

58:03there's silt in there, they'll see it.

58:04>> Yeah.

58:05>> You know, you're right. I mean,

58:06determining a baseline may be difficult.

58:08>> I mean, I'm definitely all for that. I

58:10would think if we are going to hire

58:11somebody to do um an evaluation like

58:15that. One thing I would like to see come

58:17out of it would be also their

58:18recommendations for

58:21um like erosion control measures in

58:24future similar circumstances that we can

58:27use as information we can recommend on

58:30other projects.

58:31>> Mhm.

58:33>> Okay.

58:34>> I agree. I agree everything's

58:36>> and then maybe wait until we get that

58:38report be before

58:40>> we start flying them.

58:41>> Yes.

58:42>> I mean I think that's fair. We don't do

58:45>> PPW.

58:48>> Well, I I think

58:49>> I mean when you

58:50>> the situation is

58:52>> they were doing they were doing this

58:54they were doing this

58:55>> you know and I I honestly believe I

58:57think there was question of breakdown

58:59communication

59:00>> you know and I suspect there's still uh

59:03and that's fine. Um yeah I mean again I

59:06think there was um I think there was

59:08poor communication. And I think the DBW

59:10could have done a better job of

59:12supervising um the crews that are out

59:14there.

59:16You know, I'll I'll be honest with you.

59:18Until you mentioned that, I did not did

59:19didn't did did not hear the term binder

59:22flush and I don't know what that is. Can

59:24you elaborate?

59:24>> Yeah, they could have paved that prior

59:26to the

59:28>> They could have especially

59:30>> Well, that's right.

59:32>> Take it back up,

59:34right? It's a cost.

59:37But it would have prevent

59:39>> You're right.

59:39>> Well, you know,

59:41>> pay it cost for consultation to

59:43determine.

59:44>> So, just a very a very thin binder coat,

59:46right?

59:46>> Thin binder coat. Sure.

59:48>> Yeah. And they could have put it down in

59:50a couple hours.

59:51>> Sure.

59:51>> Yeah.

59:52>> Okay.

59:54There's no There's no way. Yeah. There's

59:56absolutely no way to normally that

59:59right. If you know you're getting

1:00:02rained.

1:00:02>> Yeah. of course

1:00:03>> you you get a projection of so you go

1:00:07okay we're going to stop at noon time

1:00:09we're expecting storms at 4 4 in the or

1:00:11whatever you need

1:00:12>> and the forecasting has done pretty good

1:00:13>> this is a company that as you mentioned

1:00:15that does this work all over central

1:00:17mass all over Massachusetts

1:00:20>> absolutely no reason right a good

1:00:22foreman a good super

1:00:26>> let's put some binder down

1:00:28>> okay yeah

1:00:30>> that was prevent that's even better than

1:00:32the silt fence.

1:00:33>> Yeah.

1:00:33>> And the fact that you know the excuse

1:00:35that retaining wall in a culvert and we

1:00:38can't put it down.

1:00:39>> Okay. Then you could have put behind it

1:00:41down

1:00:42>> an inch. Give me something.

1:00:46There was no thought in my opinion.

1:00:48There was no thought given to putting in

1:00:50a rose control measure.

1:00:52>> Yeah.

1:00:53>> Until we called them.

1:00:55>> Absolutely.

1:00:55>> And that you know that's pretty pretty

1:00:59craven. Uh my question, this binder

1:01:01coat, could that work for the scenario

1:01:05on 20 across the street from Shell? I

1:01:08don't know that location. Oh, the

1:01:10storage unit

1:01:11>> cuz I know we have a road.

1:01:13>> I don't know. I mean,

1:01:15>> can I be there?

1:01:16>> When I to your point, I'm going to cut

1:01:18you off, but I drive by there every day.

1:01:21I don't see any activity there.

1:01:22>> So, I have seen some It does look like

1:01:26>> changing. Uh-huh.

1:01:27>> I don't actually see them out there, but

1:01:28I see things changing. Like there's a

1:01:30retaining wall now and stuff. So, like I

1:01:33see things, so it's probably

1:01:37>> um

1:01:37>> Yeah, but you're right. It doesn't seem

1:01:38like they've alleviated the u the

1:01:40>> That's the site under the rightway.

1:01:42>> Yeah.

1:01:43>> Electric right away.

1:01:44>> Oh, no.

1:01:45>> No,

1:01:46>> it's on the corner of Old Con Washington

1:01:48Street.

1:01:50>> Okay.

1:01:51>> Yeah.

1:01:52>> So, I Yeah. Street work is primarily

1:01:58going with this, right? This is

1:02:01>> this is what

1:02:02>> Yep. I just don't know how the binder

1:02:04works,

1:02:04>> right? Onsite property work.

1:02:07>> Yeah. With runoff that's maybe your

1:02:09reinforced

1:02:12set fence.

1:02:13>> Yep.

1:02:14>> In that other case,

1:02:17>> these are street C. This is

1:02:19>> Yeah,

1:02:20>> this is water sewer and storm drainage.

1:02:22Yeah,

1:02:23>> find them.

1:02:25>> I'm watching one Hope app. They're doing

1:02:27gas lines again and you know and every

1:02:30night they repave it. Next morning they

1:02:32rip it up.

1:02:33>> Don't have a choice.

1:02:34>> Yeah, they didn't do that here.

1:02:37>> You don't have a choice to leave it like

1:02:38that.

1:02:40>> I have a question about what um Arnold

1:02:44was saying.

1:02:47He's This is just for my understanding.

1:02:49said re he said repaving

1:02:52projects are exempt exempt of what done

1:02:55within

1:02:56>> I think

1:02:58>> if they if they're done within 72 hours

1:03:00and if there's no drainage involved

1:03:02>> within 72 hours of like tearing it

1:03:06>> start you're not you're not dig you're

1:03:08not digging the dirt back so it's more

1:03:11>> the way I took what Mark was saying and

1:03:13I wrote it down too we're going to take

1:03:14a look at it but if if I've got a grind

1:03:17crew out that's just gonna

1:03:19mill the pavement an inch and a half or

1:03:21an inch

1:03:22>> and then

1:03:23>> right I want pave you know I want you

1:03:25paving back within 72 hours or you

1:03:29unless you material

1:03:30>> yeah right

1:03:31>> okay

1:03:32>> when you're digging when you're

1:03:33disturbing the earth

1:03:33>> but in no instance is there an exception

1:03:35if there's dash involved so

1:03:37>> yeah no I thought I was um I was glad he

1:03:40said that he jumped in and said that

1:03:42>> yeah 310

1:03:43>> could you fade drainage scenario

1:03:46>> 10 I didn't write it down 102 I believe

1:03:49>> 10:02

1:03:50102 and 105 I'll find it.

1:03:54You think it's 10.02?

1:03:57>> 10.02.

1:03:58>> That's that's it.

1:03:59>> Okay. I can't read my hands.

1:04:03>> Um All right. So,

1:04:07hold off. I think we need to evaluate

1:04:09how much damage has been done and then

1:04:12at that point once we have an evaluation

1:04:14we can take um potentially consider

1:04:16further action.

1:04:19I do have a question for you, Mr. Chair.

1:04:21Um because you were beginning to talk

1:04:23about doing an enforcement order. Now,

1:04:24LA last time we met, you all signed an

1:04:27enforce directed at DPW.

1:04:29>> That's right.

1:04:30>> Um are we keeping that one or what's

1:04:32this what what's the status?

1:04:34>> Well, we issued that before we had

1:04:37further information. I we had a

1:04:40discussion and I thought there was a

1:04:42consensus that we wanted to revoke the

1:04:44blank additions and um the town is u and

1:04:48I believe if they want to jump right in

1:04:51tell you that they're not happy I think

1:04:54u given the fact that we voted on it um

1:04:56I think they need to file um a request

1:04:59for reconsideration. Oh look they're

1:05:02back.

1:05:05>> So I read your mind, didn't I?

1:05:09Good evening.

1:05:09>> Or we read yours.

1:05:10>> Assad. I said or we read yours.

1:05:13>> Maybe you did. So, uh I think I told you

1:05:16on Monday that um we had voted to revoke

1:05:19the the blanket order. Um I think the

1:05:23procedurally the right way to do it is

1:05:24to um is to get on the agenda for our

1:05:29next meeting. Uh present, you know, all

1:05:31the arguments why us to reinstate it and

1:05:34then we can we can act on it, you know.

1:05:36And I know you got and I just so we're

1:05:39clear here. Um and what I asked was I

1:05:42don't know that there how many projects

1:05:44uh that you're working on uh have any

1:05:47sort of well and impact or you would

1:05:49normally need to file because it's

1:05:51within [clears throat] 100t of a buffer

1:05:53zone, that sort of thing. Um but anyway,

1:05:58so that that's that. Um, but I think

1:06:04I mean I would like to see

1:06:08any documents that Lynch has filed with

1:06:10you, the SWIP reports that they they say

1:06:13they have filed. Um, I mean, you know,

1:06:16he talked about a correction action

1:06:18form. Well, I presume there are

1:06:20correction action forms. Uh certainly I

1:06:24would I presented that there was a

1:06:26correction action form that he prepared

1:06:28after I had a conversation with him on

1:06:30July 22nd. I don't know if you received

1:06:33it. Um

1:06:36but I think we need to assess um uh has

1:06:40been um siltation that's gone into um

1:06:44the perennial stream um at Church Street

1:06:47and um and the stream that runs um under

1:06:51South Street even though

1:06:54I don't think I've ever seen that stream

1:06:56dry up. I mean I it doesn't have the the

1:06:58velocity of water um the stream under

1:07:01tertiary does but I don't recall ever

1:07:03seeing it dry up either. So I think it's

1:07:05perennial as well. I might be mistaken.

1:07:07I'm not sure but in any event um

1:07:12all right so in that case is there any

1:07:15any further discussion about this?

1:07:19Is there a motion?

1:07:24Would the motion be to close the public

1:07:27hearing for this?

1:07:27>> Well, it's not public hearing. It was

1:07:29just for discussion. it would be to

1:07:31whether or not uh weire a consultant to

1:07:34evaluate not not only to evaluate and I

1:07:37think to Megan's point which is a good

1:07:38one I would say evaluate any potential

1:07:42um um you know problems or uh or u uh

1:07:47consequences that have resulted from um

1:07:50not installing erosion control measures

1:07:52but also maybe even have um the

1:07:57consultant and this is where the DPPW

1:07:59would be helpful. Have the consultant

1:08:01evaluate um how Lynch uh did not comply

1:08:06with the requirements of the script.

1:08:09>> Can I take that motion repeating it?

1:08:11>> Yes.

1:08:12>> So,

1:08:13>> can can I

1:08:14>> Oh, he gets credit for it.

1:08:17>> Can I um make an amendment to that?

1:08:21>> Sure. Uh that that we also request for

1:08:23the consultants to make um

1:08:26recommendations

1:08:28for

1:08:30future for erosion control measures on

1:08:32future projects of similar

1:08:35>> school

1:08:36>> similar.

1:08:37>> Yeah. Okay. So

1:08:40>> I second that amendment to the first

1:08:43motion.

1:08:44>> All right. So we've got a motion. Well,

1:08:46wait. You can't. His It was your motion.

1:08:49She amended it. Um, I'm just going to

1:08:52restate it and then we'll go from there.

1:08:54Well, I can't. You have to make the

1:08:56motion. So, we have uh Ricky's motion uh

1:09:00revised by Megan. Is there a second?

1:09:02>> Second.

1:09:03>> Uh, is there any further discussion?

1:09:06All those in favor say I.

1:09:08>> I. I.

1:09:08>> I.

1:09:09>> It's a vote. Okay. All right. And now we

1:09:13have to figure out who we want to use.

1:09:15So, we have I mean there are a number of

1:09:16consultants that we could use. Um

1:09:21uh we lately we've been using Welsh

1:09:23engineering out of man. Um this might be

1:09:27a decent project though for Ecotech but

1:09:30we can find someone. We haven't approved

1:09:33we haven't approved contract of uh

1:09:35consultants.

1:09:36>> I wouldn't know off the top of my head.

1:09:37Let me take a look.

1:09:38>> Okay. In the past we've also used

1:09:40Margaret Washburn

1:09:42>> that name.

1:09:43>> So all right we'll come up with someone.

1:09:46Um,

1:09:47okay.

1:09:51But they're not going. Okay. Um, we have

1:09:53some other business to take care of. So,

1:09:56um,

1:09:58with respect to the, um, the request for

1:10:01determination filed by Miss Enman, is

1:10:04there a motion?

1:10:08>> Um,

1:10:11>> not needed. Okay. Um, I make Sorry. Uh,

1:10:16what was

1:10:18>> take down?

1:10:19>> Yes. I'm just trying to find the address

1:10:21or whatever. Oh, okay. 14% drive,

1:10:23>> right? Um,

1:10:24>> I have four special conditions

1:10:27>> in mind.

1:10:28>> Oh, you want to issue positive

1:10:30termination?

1:10:31>> Yeah.

1:10:32>> Okay.

1:10:33>> Um, posit.

1:10:37>> Yeah.

1:10:38So if if you if you special conditions

1:10:42that should be imposed, we're making uh

1:10:45Ms. Emman file a notice of intent. Now,

1:10:48this is removing a tree.

1:10:49>> Oh.

1:10:49>> And so what I'm going to suggest to you,

1:10:51and we've done this in other

1:10:52circumstances, and that's fine, is that

1:10:55if we we can issue a negative

1:10:57determination, but also impose

1:10:58conditions like,

1:10:59>> okay,

1:11:00>> sure the tree doesn't end up in the

1:11:02brook or the wherever it is. Um

1:11:05>> the pond, pond,

1:11:06>> the pond. Thank you. The pond. Um,

1:11:08>> so something

1:11:10to interrupt, but something affect

1:11:13her contract because she's not aware of

1:11:15it, right? She's kind of going with what

1:11:16they're

1:11:17>> That's right.

1:11:18>> what they're telling her. How about we

1:11:19say, "Right, the trees got to be removed

1:11:22from the property."

1:11:22>> Yep.

1:11:23>> Right. Any of the branches, any of the

1:11:27debris, any of the slash

1:11:29out to the street and chipped and taken

1:11:32away. Just my

1:11:35not gone through this before. So it's we

1:11:38essentially set your uh tree contractor

1:11:41must haul the tree you know cut the tree

1:11:44flush

1:11:45as flush as possible

1:11:48to the ground 3 4 in off I mean

1:11:50something to that effect

1:11:52>> you don't want to dig in the stump

1:11:54>> right now and then you know let that

1:11:56roted degrade

1:11:58>> naturally

1:11:59>> naturally yeah

1:12:00>> so no disturbance so you know and uh the

1:12:03tree gets hauled off and all slashing

1:12:05debris chips

1:12:08>> and I I just

1:12:09>> and we've done that before.

1:12:10>> Okay.

1:12:11>> You know, I mean that way that we what

1:12:13we do is that in in exchange for giving

1:12:15her a negative determination so she

1:12:17doesn't have to find her intent, she

1:12:19still has to do the other things that

1:12:21we've asked her to do.

1:12:22>> Right.

1:12:23>> So, um then is there a motion? Motion

1:12:28for a negative determination

1:12:31for

1:12:32the request to remove the tree at 14

1:12:36Riverside Drive with the con condition

1:12:40of removing the tree roughly 4 feet uh 4

1:12:43in down to the to the grade. Um hauling

1:12:47off all debris and chipping at the

1:12:49street, not near the pond. as well as if

1:12:52there is smaller machine being used at

1:12:56that location to get to the top of the

1:12:57tree all refill uh refueling that

1:13:00machinery should be done.

1:13:02>> Okay. And also ensuring that nothing

1:13:04ends up in the pond

1:13:05>> and ensuring nothing ends up

1:13:07>> Okay. All right. Uh is there a second to

1:13:10that motion?

1:13:12>> Is there any discussion? All those in

1:13:14favor say I. I.

1:13:16>> I. Opposed. It's a Okay.

1:13:22And then with respect to um the ORAD for

1:13:26Milbury Street, is there a motion?

1:13:34>> And this is a request to extend it.

1:13:37>> Um I make a motion to extend the order

1:13:40of conditions for 100 Malberry Street.

1:13:42>> The ORAD.

1:13:44>> The ORAD.

1:13:44>> Yes.

1:13:45>> Sorry.

1:13:46>> No, it's okay. It's for I thought it was

1:13:48>> order of resource area delineation.

1:13:50>> Order of area delineation for 100

1:13:54street.

1:13:54>> Second.

1:13:55>> Is there any discussion?

1:13:57>> All those in favor say I.

1:13:59>> I.

1:14:00>> Opposed to vote. Okay.

1:14:04>> And then finally

1:14:06um we have minutes from July 22nd.

1:14:10I believe you were going to discuss the

1:14:12silk language about silk fences to add

1:14:15for special um special condition. Um

1:14:23>> the chicken wire. Yeah,

1:14:24>> chicken wire. It's on there. We can

1:14:25discuss that if you'd like.

1:14:26>> Okay. Mostly I just wasn't sure if you

1:14:28was glass.

1:14:29>> We can do that, but I think that's going

1:14:31to require some actual writing.

1:14:33>> Okay. Okay.

1:14:33>> Okay. So, uh I don't know what our

1:14:35agenda is going to look like for the

1:14:3626th. Um I would just continue that item

1:14:42into to our next meeting.

1:14:43>> Yeah.

1:14:44>> Can we actually

1:14:46um move that item after the person

1:14:50reviews and gives us some

1:14:51recommendations for other erosion

1:14:53control?

1:14:53>> Yeah, we can do that.

1:14:54>> I mean if you want we can just um yeah

1:14:57we can continue that indefinitely.

1:15:00Okay. And then um

1:15:05All right. So, I guess then we can turn

1:15:07to the the minutes for July 22nd.

1:16:08I don't know.

1:16:32Um, I have no changes to make to the

1:16:34meeting minutes for July 22nd.

1:16:38>> I make a motion to accept the meeting

1:16:40minutes for July 22nd.

1:16:42>> Is there a second?

1:16:43>> I second.

1:16:44>> Any discussion?

1:16:45>> All those in favor say I.

1:16:46>> I. post the vote. And

1:16:51I want to go on record. Um I stated in

1:16:54at our last meeting that I said that I

1:16:58thought it was DPW's respons

1:17:02be installed. I mean I think that

1:17:07I think insure um is big.

1:17:12I think based on on the information that

1:17:14we have obtained since that meeting, I

1:17:17my opinion is that it was up to Lynch to

1:17:23um file notice of attempt with the

1:17:25commission and I believe ultimately

1:17:27their responsibility was to install the

1:17:30ro control measures. And I say that

1:17:32because as I indicated when I spoke to

1:17:34Greg Lynch on July 22nd and I asked him

1:17:37um to put them in, he he did or he put

1:17:40in something. So um

1:17:46I think um there's blame on both sides

1:17:49here, but I think um once it since they

1:17:52controlled the means and methods of

1:17:54construction, I think they had an

1:17:56obligation to uh file with us and they

1:17:58didn't do it.

1:18:00So that's all I'm going to say about

1:18:02that.

1:18:04And if there is no other

1:18:06>> I do

1:18:07>> you have something

1:18:08>> I just was going to So I emailed you and

1:18:11Nat that picture of Triton storage,

1:18:14>> right?

1:18:14>> So and this was taken yesterday. Um they

1:18:18had put some straw waddles socks to try

1:18:22to catch the sediment. I mean they're

1:18:24totally full of sediment now.

1:18:26>> Okay.

1:18:26>> But you can see that there's sediment on

1:18:28both sides of it. So, it's clearly

1:18:29getting washed down into there, I

1:18:32believe. Even though it's really hard to

1:18:34see what's actually going on down there

1:18:36because very heavily vegetated.

1:18:38>> Okay.

1:18:38>> There's a few inches of sediment. It's

1:18:40on the road. It's in that or it's kind

1:18:44of funneling down towards the wetland

1:18:46and that's all like it's broken up. The

1:18:48pavement's broken up there, too. So,

1:18:49it's just kind of generally a mess. I'm

1:18:51not saying the pavement's there problem.

1:18:53But,

1:18:53>> do you think we need to issue an

1:18:54enforcement order? So, what was the LA I

1:18:57What was the last thing that was a

1:18:59letter that we sent them? What did we

1:19:02>> I mean, I'm going to have to go back now

1:19:04and and search my memory. We did issue

1:19:07an enforcement order to them back in

1:19:11>> Oh, boy. That might have even been back

1:19:14in 24 or 25.

1:19:15>> I thought we sent them something very

1:19:17recently. You said you were going to

1:19:18send a letter recently,

1:19:19>> but did we?

1:19:21>> I'm going to say we didn't.

1:19:22>> Well, I mean, I didn't. I

1:19:24>> No, no, no.

1:19:25So, I'm thinking um

1:19:30>> I mean they were responsive when Tom was

1:19:33working with them, but like I was under

1:19:36the impression that they had had a

1:19:37letter sent to them recently, which is

1:19:39why I was like feeling pretty miffed

1:19:40that they're ignoring. Well, I mean, I'm

1:19:41still miffed that they're ignoring it,

1:19:42but

1:19:43>> Well, I understand. I think um now what

1:19:47I'd ask you to do is

1:19:49>> [clears throat]

1:19:49>> um

1:19:51we issue an enforcement order to them.

1:19:53I'm gonna say 24, maybe early 25. I'm

1:19:56not certain of that, but I know they

1:20:00came in here and um and I think what I

1:20:03would do instead of issuing my my

1:20:06suggestion is instead of issuing a new

1:20:09enforcement order, just um enclose a

1:20:12copy of the last enforcement order and

1:20:14saying we are seeing a repeat of the

1:20:16condition made us have to send you an

1:20:18enforcement order the last time. please,

1:20:20you know, you need to take steps to

1:20:22remediate this condition immediately.

1:20:25Something along those lines.

1:20:28Um hopefully you can find it.

1:20:32>> So, um it's

1:20:35>> I mean I can check I mean I I can check

1:20:38the emails at my office, but I I just

1:20:41don't memory of when that was.

1:20:43>> I can dig a dig dig to the files.

1:20:45>> All right. Okay. See, is that agreeable?

1:20:48>> Yeah. I just wanted to I understand. I

1:20:50think they should too.

1:20:51>> So that's

1:20:52>> and I'm you know I don't they have there

1:20:54has not been a there for a long time and

1:20:57I'm just wondering what the story is

1:20:59with with them. You know

1:21:00>> where do you where did you see them

1:21:01sweeping? Was it on Washington Street?

1:21:03>> Old common right there at that uh right

1:21:06there at that entrance.

1:21:08>> When was it? Oh at the entrance.

1:21:10>> At that entrance point on the street.

1:21:12They were sweeping the street.

1:21:13>> Okay. Cuz it's further. Yeah. It's where

1:21:14the actual inlet is at the bottom of the

1:21:17hill.

1:21:17>> Yeah. Where you need to sweep. That's

1:21:18where all the sediment is collect.

1:21:20>> Yeah, I've seen the sediment sitting

1:21:21there too.

1:21:22>> That was specific to this property like

1:21:24street supers on I think it's street.

1:21:26>> No, just a guy out there actually

1:21:28sleeping with a broom.

1:21:29>> Okay. [laughter]

1:21:29>> Yeah,

1:21:31>> from the from the site

1:21:32>> down the home a little bit.

1:21:34>> Okay. Um is there any other is there any

1:21:38new business?

1:21:40Uh there being none, is there a motion

1:21:42to adjurnn?

1:21:43>> Motion to adjurnn.

1:21:44>> Is there a second?

1:21:45>> I second.

1:21:47>> Any discussion? All those in favor say

1:21:49I. I.

1:21:50>> No one ever opposes.

1:21:53Uh, all right. It's a vote. Thank you

1:21:54everyone. Um, thanks for staying a

1:21:56little bit later.

1:21:57>> This conference is no longer being

1:21:59recorded.

1:22:05>> [music]