2026-09-14 - Conservation Commission

0:02Good evening. This September 14th, 2026

0:05meeting, the Wister Conservation

0:07Commission is now called to order. My

0:09name is Diane Freroni and I'll be

0:10chairing this meeting. As part of this

0:13meeting, we will be holding hearings

0:14under the Massachusetts Wetlands

0:16Protection Act and Regulations and the

0:17City of Worcester Wetlands Protection

0:19Ordinance and Regulations. The

0:21commissioners are volunteers who serve

0:23to enforce these laws and regulations to

0:25protect specific values identified as

0:27being important to Massachusetts and the

0:28city of Worcester. Commission decisions

0:31are based on these laws and regulations

0:32and are not arbitrary or based on

0:34personal likes or dislikes. It is

0:37important to the commission that these

0:38hearings are held in a fair and

0:39equitable way for all parties involved.

0:42This requires that discussion take place

0:44in a civil manner and that every

0:46individual in this meeting is treated

0:47respectfully. To facilitate this, the

0:50hearings take place in the order they

0:51are listed on the agenda, which is

0:53available by the door and online.

0:56First, the applicant will present an

0:57overview of the project to the

0:58commission. Next, staff will provide

1:01comments on the proposed work. Then, the

1:03commission will direct any questions it

1:05has to the applicant or staff. After the

1:08commission is done questioning the

1:09applicant, the floor will be open to the

1:11public. Comments and questions must be

1:13directed to the chairperson, not to the

1:15applicant or their representative, and

1:17they must pertain to the regulations

1:19that the commission oversees. For

1:21example, although you might have

1:23concerns over the traffic resulting from

1:25a particular project, the conservation

1:27commission does not regulate traffic, so

1:29traffic concerns will not be discussed

1:30during the meeting. Please note that

1:33while new points will be given ample

1:34time to present, repetitive comments

1:36will be cut short in the interest of

1:38having all parties be given an

1:39opportunity to speak. We ask that all

1:42applicants and members of the public,

1:43please state their name and city or town

1:45of residents for the record. To manage

1:48remote participation during our hybrid

1:50meetings and prevent disruptions, all

1:52participants are automatically blocked

1:53from unmuting themselves, turning on

1:55video, or sending chat messages. For

1:58remote participants who would like to

2:00comment on an item on our agenda, we ask

2:02that you use the raise hand feature in

2:04Zoom during the discussion on that item.

2:06If you are joined by phone, you can

2:08raise your hand by pressing star9. Staff

2:10will then call in members of the public

2:12one at a time and give them permission

2:14to unmute themselves. If you are joined

2:16by phone, you will then be able to

2:17unmute yourself by pressing star six.

2:25Um, first, are there any requests for

2:27continuances, postponements, or

2:29withdrawals?

2:30>> Uh, yes. We have item number one,

2:32Providence and Worcester Railroad right

2:34away. Uh, it's a request to postpone the

2:36public hearing to October 5th and extend

2:38the constructive grant deadline to

2:40October 27th. Item number four, 497

2:43Granite Street. That's a request to

2:45postpone the public hearing to a date

2:47unknown and extend the constructive

2:49grant deadline to uh 21 days following

2:53uh the eventual hearing date. So

2:55essentially in this case, there would be

2:56a readvertising of the public hearing.

2:58So, renotice to a butters and

2:59re-advertisement in the newspaper. Uh,

3:02once the applicant's ready to move

3:03forward, we have item number five, 99

3:06Sears Island Drive. That's a request to

3:08postpone the public hearing to October

3:095th and extend the constructive grant

3:11deadline to October 27th. Item number

3:14eight, 278 Grove Street for Brookfield

3:16Street 4 and 4A Powers Court. That's a

3:18request to postpone the public hearing

3:20to October 5th and extend the

3:21constructive grant deadline to October

3:2327th. Item number nine, 42 1st Street

3:26and 35 Second Street, request to

3:29postpone the public hearing to August

3:305th or October 5th and extend the

3:33constructive grant deadline to October

3:3427th. [clears throat] And then lastly,

3:37item number 116 Wurn Street, a request

3:39to postpone the public hearing to

3:40October 5th and extend the constructive

3:43grant deadline to October 27th.

3:45>> Make a motion to postpone or continue

3:48items 1, four, 5, 8, 9, and 11 as

3:51described.

3:53Second.

3:54>> All in favor?

3:55>> I

3:55>> I

3:56>> I

3:58>> uh first item, new business, uh request

4:01for determination of applicability, 104

4:03Lambertine Street.

4:10>> Hi, good evening. John Goff, live in

4:13Conquered, Massachusetts. Thank you for

4:15your time. Um, we're looking to repair

4:18the existing paved apron area off of

4:21Sergeant Street. It's the entrance way

4:23into the property, which we acquired

4:25last year and um uh is in in need of

4:29repair. We're not looking to add any

4:30impervious surface area to um to widen

4:35or anything except to repair that

4:36existing area and make it nice and flush

4:40and safe for the tenant we're trying to

4:42bring in there and people walking down

4:44that sidewalk. Thank you for your

4:46consideration.

4:46>> Okay.

4:47>> Thank you. Uh staff, any comments or

4:49concerns about the work?

4:51>> Yep. So, just note this property is

4:54within borderland subject to flooding.

4:55Um this is the reason they had to file

4:57with us. Uh so, no concerns with this

5:00project. Uh they are repairing uh what's

5:04existing. Um they will be maintaining

5:06same grades, so no concerns with fill in

5:08the flood plane. Um yeah, that's all

5:10from staff.

5:11>> All right. Thank you. Um, uh,

5:13commissioners, any comments or concerns

5:15about the project?

5:21>> No.

5:21>> Uh, anybody from the public here on this

5:24item?

5:29>> I'll make a motion for a negative

5:30determination.

5:32>> Second.

5:33>> All in favor?

5:34>> I

5:34>> I

5:34>> I

5:35>> You're all set.

5:36>> Thank you.

5:36>> Thank you. Have a good night.

5:39Uh, next item, old business, notice of

5:41intent, 35 State Road.

5:53>> All right.

5:54Hello, I'm Veto Colono with Connorstone

5:56Engineering. Uh, here on behalf of the

5:58applicant, sitting right behind me. Um,

6:02let's see. I don't know where we left

6:04off last time. Um, the continued. uh

6:07there were concerns mostly about the

6:09storm water management in relation to

6:12the outstanding resource water. Um and

6:15so basically what we've done is updated

6:17the plans to provide treatment uh and

6:21recharge to all of the impervious

6:23surfaces especially the um the paved

6:26surfaces. That was the main concern. uh

6:28previously we were treating those

6:30through a structural uh storm scepter um

6:33but there wasn't any infiltration

6:35component and that alone didn't meet the

6:38OW uh standards um that higher level of

6:42treatment uh so what we did was we

6:44collected that we went it through a

6:45swamp separator just as pre-treatment

6:47then did filtration then to discharge uh

6:50so it now it has that extra level of

6:52treatment um and complies with those

6:55standards

6:57Um, I think that was the major revision

7:00uh made to the plans uh during that last

7:03um round. Uh, we also did have the

7:06welling consultant go and ref flag or

7:08rehang the flags just to refresh them um

7:12and just because I think a lot of the

7:13numbers wore off uh just because they

7:15had been up for about a year.

7:16[clears throat] And I think in our

7:18package, we also asked for a waiver um

7:22to where that discharge outlet is um

7:24just to place a rip wrap uh within that

7:27inner uh 30 foot to 15 foot uh zone. Um

7:32because technically I think it's

7:33classified as a structure uh to have the

7:35rip wrap there. Um and it's kind of one

7:38of those ones we wouldn't put it there

7:40if we didn't have to. It's just where

7:41that's where the grade change is and

7:43that's where we can get elevation to be

7:44able to discharge. uh that storm water

7:47uh through there. And one thing with

7:49that also is that we are infiltrating.

7:51So during most storms there should be

7:53zero discharge out that um your everyday

7:56storms uh once it gets over like a two

7:58three inch storm then it finally starts

8:00uh flowing. But your everyday storms

8:02which are most inch or less uh there'd

8:04be zero flow uh to that point. Um I

8:08think that those were the only revisions

8:10really kind of substantial um since the

8:13last time we were here. So I guess hand

8:15it back over and

8:16>> thank you. Um staff comments on the

8:20change in the work.

8:20>> Yeah. The only other thing I would add

8:22is just uh at the last hearing we had a

8:24discussion about the zone A um and we

8:26had some back and forth with D about

8:29>> we can't hear anything you're saying.

8:31>> Okay. So

8:37at the last hearing we were discussing

8:39the presence of this property in the

8:40zone A and the uh storm water standards

8:43essentially state that you can't provide

8:45infiltration BMPPS in in zone A's. Um

8:48and so we had a a little bit of a back

8:50and forth with D about how that standard

8:53could be applied in a project like this

8:54where there is an increase in impervious

8:56area. Uh but it is a mix of new and

8:58redevelopment. Um and ultimately the

9:00feedback they gave us was that since it

9:02is a mix of redevelopment um there was

9:05some flexibility on that standard. So

9:08going back and forth with the applicant

9:09um just ensured that the rest of the um

9:12storm water standard components for

9:14standard six for discharge to a critical

9:16area were met and those were the um

9:19things that veto just described in terms

9:20of the extra treatment layer before

9:22infiltration for the storm water coming

9:24off the parking lot.

9:26>> Okay. uh commissioners uh comments or

9:29questions about the project

9:37>> through Madam Chair. Just a question. I

9:40I notice here that the snow snow storage

9:43is uh closest to the wetlands. And are

9:46there any uh thoughts or concerns of you

9:51know potential contaminated snow just

9:54being placed closest to the wetland

9:58area?

10:00>> Sure. We I can kind of go over that.

10:05>> Yeah. Use your mic close to your mouth

10:06or something. Like nothing back here.

10:09>> Okay. I think it the question mine's

10:10pretty loud so the question he asked was

10:12related to snow storage uh just where

10:14that may be if there are any concerns if

10:16it was off the end of the parking area

10:17closest towards the wetlands. Um and on

10:20this one

10:23>> um we do have other available area kind

10:25of to the left behind the sidewalk area.

10:28Um it would just generally get pushed to

10:30the sides so it wouldn't be one giant

10:32stockpile. Um so it kind of be dispersed

10:35throughout. I don't think there'd be

10:36really a point source discharge that

10:38would really, you know, consolidate all

10:40those contaminants in one spot. Um, and

10:43then I think you could also condition

10:44the type of salt used. I think it might

10:47be one of your standard conditions

10:49anyway. Um,

10:50>> yeah.

10:51>> Okay.

10:52>> Y

10:54>> um I do have a question about the picnic

10:57table that's depicted. Is that just a

10:59piece of furniture or is it a platform?

11:02>> Yeah, it's just a piece of furniture.

11:03Right. Did you have any concern um plans

11:06for like a concrete slab, right? Or

11:08anything like that? No, just a piece of

11:09furniture. So,

11:10>> okay. All right. So, really not

11:11necessary for the plan.

11:12>> Yep.

11:13>> All right. Um in general, you know, we

11:15don't like to see anything in the

11:1630-foot. Um we do have a precedent for

11:19allowing rip wrap and you know, a storm

11:21water discharge uh there. Um you sure

11:23you looked at every avenue to pull that

11:25back in?

11:26>> Yeah. So if just because of the site's

11:29fairly flat right now and then right

11:31near the wetland that's where the drop

11:32off is. Uh so to get our elevation for

11:36that discharge we have to get close uh

11:38to that. Um otherwise we'd be have to

11:41kind of gouge it back uh and do all that

11:43disturbance anyway. Um you know to make

11:46like a basically a channel from that

11:48same point back uh to it. So it didn't

11:52seem to make too much sense to do that.

11:55>> Got it.

11:56Um, anything else? Does anyone hear from

11:59the public on the project?

12:03Anyone online?

12:07>> I'll make a motion to close.

12:09>> Second.

12:10>> All in favor?

12:11>> I

12:11>> I

12:12>> I

12:12>> Is there a proposed order of conditions?

12:16>> Yes. Just bear with me one second.

12:20All right. So, first we have a couple

12:23findings. one only wetland flags uh A5

12:27through A23 are confirmed by this order

12:30of conditions. Um and then we have a

12:33finding for a discretionary allowance

12:35issued under section 4.2.4 of the

12:37Worcester wetlands protection or

12:39regulations for the rip wrap outfall in

12:40the 30-foot buffer zone. We have

12:42condition number 24 for wetland

12:45flagging.

12:46Um we have condition number 34 for

12:50demarcation of limit of work, 37 for

12:52storm water management system

12:54maintenance, 38 for infiltration unit

12:56inspection, 39 for PE certification of

12:59the storm water in infrastructure.

13:02Uh condition number 44 for permanent

13:04markers. Um just that those be placed uh

13:07along the 15t buffer spaced out every 25

13:10ft. Um, and we'd also just want to see

13:12revised plans uh depicting the location

13:14of those markers uh prior to

13:16construction. Um,

13:19let's see. We have 46 for wood removal,

13:2248 for dust control, 49 for dewatering,

13:2550 for cement truck washing, 51 for

13:27equipment placement, 56 for spill

13:30prevention,

13:32uh an asbuilt site plan as part of the

13:33certificate of compliance process, a

13:36condition for sand and salt that that be

13:38minimized to the extent possible, a

13:40condition for snow storage,

13:43uh for wetland permitting, and that

13:45would be ongoing conditions 3765

13:48through 68.

13:50Sorry. 66 through 68.

13:54>> Do you have any questions about the

13:55conditions?

13:56>> Nope. That sounds good.

13:58>> Any further discussion on them?

14:02>> I'll make a motion to issue the orders

14:04of conditions as described.

14:07>> Second.

14:08>> All in favor?

14:08>> I

14:09>> I

14:09>> I.

14:10>> All right. Thank you.

14:15Uh, next item number six, uh, new

14:19business notice of intent, three man

14:21street.

14:27>> Good evening. Uh, Mike Andre, Graves

14:29Engineering. Um, I'll keep my comments

14:32brief. I see you have a room full of

14:33interested parties for for another

14:35matter, it seems. Um, we're before you

14:37tonight for project at three main

14:39street. It's an existing lot with a

14:41four-unit multifamily building. Uh we're

14:44creating a second lot for a new duplex

14:48and uh creating off- streetet parking to

14:50support um the existing multif family in

14:52the back. Uh we're here because about

14:55threequarters of the property um to the

14:57right side of the page as you're looking

14:58at it here is within u boarding land

15:00subject to flooding associated with the

15:02flood plane of Viva Brook which is

15:04immediately behind the property. Um, so

15:08we had to be very careful with the

15:09design to u make sure we're not altering

15:12grades too much in that area. Um, there

15:16were some comments from D and from staff

15:18uh about um compensatory storage and how

15:21we were providing that as it relates to

15:23the stormwater basis. So we provided

15:24some more information on that. Um we're

15:27also um seeking consideration for

15:31allowing um a test pit at the second uh

15:34stormwater facility. There's one

15:36[clears throat]

15:37um near the proposed house to collect

15:40and recharge roof runoff. Uh initially

15:42soil testing was not done there because

15:43that was not considered at the time we

15:45did the soil testing. So we added it as

15:47an additional feature. Um we would ask

15:49that that confirmatory soil testing be

15:51done prior to construction as opposed to

15:54having to go back and dig another test

15:55pit. And I I'll point out that we don't

15:57even really need that system for the

15:59storm water to work. We could allow that

16:01roof to run off to the rain garden and

16:03everything would still would still work.

16:04storm water wise. Um

16:07um but we're okay with a condition of um

16:10doing a confirmatory test pit at that

16:11location if the commission so desires

16:13it. We feel the groundwater elevation

16:15will not change from what we've already

16:16done for testing in the back. Um so I

16:20don't think there'll be any changes on

16:21that system regardless. Um that's all my

16:24comments. I'll take any questions anyone

16:25might have.

16:26>> Okay. Thank you staff.

16:28>> Yeah, I think that was a good summary of

16:30the the comments we had. Uh the

16:32[clears throat] only other thing I would

16:33note is just that the infiltration basin

16:35itself or bio retention basin rather

16:37just has um just under a foot of

16:40separation to groundwater. Um you know

16:42the standard being uh two two feet of

16:45separation typically. Um again you know

16:49there's a little bit of flexibility in

16:51this project as well given that it's

16:53only subject to the standards to the

16:54maximum extent practicable. Um, in

16:56general in the past, uh, as far as test

16:59pits as a condition of approval, um, you

17:02know, we've we've allowed it in cases

17:04where there is redevelopment on a site.

17:06Typically, we wouldn't do it for, um,

17:08new development or projects where there

17:10are, uh, increase in impervious area,

17:12but as Mike mentioned, there was that

17:13other test pit. It was probably about

17:15100 feet away from the location of that

17:17infiltration BMP. Um, I think that

17:19showed about 3.6 feet of separation to

17:21that other uh, subsurface unit. Um so we

17:26could leave it up to the commission as

17:27far as the um condition of approval for

17:31additional test pit data. Um but uh yeah

17:34the other minor comments that we had in

17:36our in our letter have been addressed at

17:38this point.

17:39>> Thank you. [clears throat] Uh

17:40commissioners questions or comments

17:42about the project

17:50>> through you madam chair. Uh just a

17:52question on the uh the planting that you

17:54have. I see that you've called out um

17:57specifically some of the larger trees,

17:59but uh the shrubs and ornamentals are to

18:02be determined. Is there any uh line of

18:06thinking of what types of shrubs uh that

18:10you're planning for?

18:11>> So are you referring to within the bio

18:13retention area?

18:14>> No, no, just at the

18:15>> Oh, in general around the site.

18:16>> In general on the site.

18:17>> Yeah. Um let me refresh my memory what

18:20we had there. We generally like to give

18:23um for shrubs and perennials a few

18:25options that the um developer and owner

18:28can choose from. Um so I think in this

18:31case uh it's should be in the notes on

18:34what we're proposing. Usually we leave

18:36um yeah the landscape notes. There's

18:39three options for perennial grasses and

18:41perennial shrubs and flowers that they

18:44can choose from.

18:46All native.

18:48>> Okay.

18:48>> All native.

18:50Um, I have a question about the test pit

18:52that you will be doing. I mean, should

18:54the results show that you can put the

18:57infiltration there? Is your plan to just

18:59simply abandon the infiltration

19:01structure?

19:02>> Yeah, as I explained, we don't really

19:04need that one for the storm water to

19:05work. So, we I I don't expect that. We

19:07won't be able to do But I don't think

19:08the soils are going to change and the

19:10groundwater elevation, but should they

19:12for some reason, we will probably just

19:14delete that, omit it from the plan. And

19:16we'll obviously submit any revisions to

19:17the to the commission as necessary.

19:20>> Significant enough to consider it a

19:21change in the in the work or

19:25>> uh we could evaluate it once the

19:28revision any necessary revisions came

19:30in. I guess I mean the commission would

19:32have the option as it normally does to

19:33either handle something through a

19:34project change request or an amendment

19:36depending on the scope of the changes.

19:38Um so that could be a call that we make

19:40if and when there were a need for any

19:41changes.

19:42>> Got it. Got it. And when do you propose

19:43to do the work?

19:46>> Um I don't have a definitive time frame.

19:48I know the owner is uh would like to get

19:51started on the parking for the existing

19:53multif family and that rain garden. I

19:55don't have a timeline on the house and

19:57that work that may be sold to someone

19:59else for development. So, um I can't

20:01speak as to the timeline for that part.

20:04>> See, good.

20:06Um I don't have any other questions. Uh

20:09anyone here from the public on the

20:10project?

20:12>> Anyone online?

20:18>> I'll make a motion to close.

20:21>> Second.

20:22>> All in favor? Hi

20:24>> I

20:24>> I

20:25>> um proposed order conditions for the

20:27project.

20:31>> All right. So in addition to the

20:32standard conditions, we have condition

20:33number 27 for test pit data. Um and that

20:37also specifies that any plan revisions

20:39uh resulting from inadequate or

20:41inadequate separation to groundwater. Uh

20:43that those be provided to the commission

20:45for review. We have condition 37 for

20:47storm water management system

20:49maintenance, 38 for infiltration unit

20:51inspection, 39 for PE certification of

20:54storm water infrastructure,

20:56uh 48 for dust control, 49 for

20:58dewatering, 50 for cement truck washing,

21:02uh 40 for uh retention basin vegetation,

21:06[snorts]

21:08uh 56 for spill prevention,

21:13and then as part of the certificate of

21:14compliance process, an asbuilt plan

21:16showing uh final grades with one foot

21:20contour lines and spot grades as needed.

21:22Uh all constructed improvements and then

21:24certification from a PE that confirms

21:28compensatory storage was provided as

21:30proposed on the plan. And then we'd have

21:32condition number 66 for sand and salt,

21:3567 for snow storage, 68 for wetland

21:38permitting. Ongoing conditions 37 and 66

21:42through 68.

21:44Any questions?

21:46>> No, I I haven't seen those specifically,

21:49but they sound pretty familiar with the

21:51usual ones, so I think they're fine.

21:55>> Further discussion on the conditions.

21:59>> Make a motion to issue the orders of

22:02conditions as described.

22:04>> Second.

22:05>> All in favor?

22:06>> I

22:06>> I

22:07>> I

22:08>> Thank you.

22:09>> Thank you. [clears throat]

22:12Uh, next item, uh, new business notice

22:15of intent number seven, 3031 Barber

22:18Avenue.

22:39Doug, you should be able to talk.

22:41>> Hey there, guys. Can you hear me?

22:43>> Yep.

22:44>> Yes.

22:44>> Perfect. This is Douglas Dylan, wetland

22:47scientist with Garter Consulting,

22:48representing the applicant for 301

22:51Barber Avenue. So, this is a notice of

22:53intent we filed for an after the fact

22:57repair um which we'll be performing for

23:00a collapsed uh retaining wall in

23:02addition to some drainage upgrades

23:05around the property. So around March or

23:08April uh about a 100 linear foot section

23:11of this uh large retaining wall which is

23:14supporting the parking lot surrounding

23:15this commercial building collapsed when

23:17we were getting some pretty substantial

23:18rain. And I have a few of these pictures

23:20here showing that the one on your right

23:22hand side showing just totally just

23:24slipped away. So immediately the owner

23:26applicant property manager you know put

23:28some cones up did the right thing

23:30section that off and with this filing

23:32we're looking to repair that. So, the

23:35proposed repair is going to be a

23:37concrete block uh and here's here's some

23:40additional photos. You can just see the

23:42kind of damage a concrete block stacked

23:45um uh retaining wall of similar and same

23:51height as the existing and in addition

23:55drainage will be rectified. A um a

23:58gravel drainage column will be installed

24:00behind the proposed and existing

24:04um wall along the edge of the parking

24:07lot and we will be having some drainage

24:11wise installed building and of course in

24:14addition we will be proposing the

24:15cleanup of the debris and sort of spill

24:18out. So luckily none of that went into

24:20the wetland itself. it did get close

24:22about 8 to 10 ft approximately. And so

24:24in order to perform that work properly,

24:26we'll be asking for a waiver for the 15

24:29and 30 foot uh work buffers in order to

24:32perform that properly. And that is also

24:35the reason why that we have um jointly

24:38filed this with 300 barber because if

24:41you look very closely, you can see the

24:43property line

24:45really falls almost exactly in line with

24:48the edge of the retaining wall. So

24:51nothing is proposed on that adjacent

24:54property. It's just for the cleanup work

24:57and we have our uh limits of work and

25:00everything will be cased within a very

25:02sophisticated regimen erosion controls

25:05all the drains on site. We'll be having

25:07um silt sacks installed during

25:10construction to catch anything that may

25:12run run off into the parking lot. Um, we

25:14did also receive some feedback from D

25:17and city staff which we have addressed

25:19with a newer revision of the plan which

25:21is what you have in front of yourself

25:23right here on the screen. Um, and that

25:28is more or less a summary of the

25:30project. Uh, I will also just tail

25:32things off. So there is a drainage

25:35basin.

25:37You can see it sort of depicted in

25:41diamonds number two and four on the

25:44currently displayed site plan. So as

25:47part of this application

25:49right that is not depicted as a

25:50jurisdictional resource area as during

25:52the um due diligence phase and research

25:55phase of this application a prior filing

25:58was discovered wherein it was shown that

25:59that had not been constructed in an area

26:02subject to jurisdiction

26:04um being a wetland of course and has

26:07continued to serve as a base and and has

26:10been made maintained as such. uh on that

26:13as well in the listed descriptions of

26:16work for this project. There was a

26:18little bit of confusion which I'll just

26:19clear up for you guys now. So it was a

26:21task number one which was provided by

26:23the contractor. It's it stated that you

26:26know basin shall be so and so and

26:29reconnected to um the the swale. So I

26:34just want to very very uh clearly say

26:37that that reconnection is just um going

26:41to be done by the hand cleaning of trash

26:44and debris and styrofoam cups and Dunkin

26:47Donuts cups which are currently located

26:49within that basin. Um

26:52you can see in the bottom right picture

26:56that's kind of a pretty good depiction

26:59of what is in there. there's, you know,

27:00styrofoam coolers and, you know, in the

27:03basin, the picture directly above it,

27:06uh, what I have labeled as picture 10 is

27:08just, you know, there's styrofoam and

27:10paper and and junk in there. And so, the

27:12intention is just to clean that out

27:14entirely by hand, like one or two

27:17individuals with trash bags and, you

27:19know, that's about it. There's no work

27:20to sort of uh, hydraulically

27:22hydraologically alter these areas with

27:25actual construction. So, I just wanted

27:27to clarify that. But that's the project

27:29here in a nutshell and I'll happily turn

27:31it back to the board and answer any

27:33questions and open it up for discussion.

27:36>> Okay. Thank you. Uh staff comments.

27:40>> Yeah, sure. So, um we received staff uh

27:43responses to comments uh later last week

27:46and we haven't had a chance to to go

27:47back and forth with uh the applicants

27:50representatives on it yet other than a

27:52quick email exchange today. Um but our

27:56comments largely related to uh plan

27:59revisions that were requested and

28:00addressed on the most recently revised

28:02set of plans. Uh the comment we received

28:05from D um the primary comment related to

28:09the jurisdictional status of that basin

28:11and the documentation needed um

28:15to basically prove that that's that's a

28:17non-jurisdictional area. Um, so I guess

28:20through through our research, we weren't

28:22clear on the timing of the construction

28:24of that basin. Um, because it's really

28:27basins after 1996 that are exempt that

28:29are not considered resource areas. Um,

28:32and it wasn't also clear to us that the

28:34basin was constructed as part of an

28:35order of conditions because the plans

28:37that were provided uh that were dated

28:391991 didn't appear to show that basin.

28:42Um, so we were uh just hoping Doug, I

28:45don't know if you could provide any any

28:46feedback on those points. um just

28:48related to this the jurisdictional

28:50status of the basin. I think the work

28:51itself is not a concern. Just picking up

28:53trash is obviously

28:54>> Yes, absolutely. So, it it was

28:57constructed prior to 1996 and I'm just

29:00going to pull up that D comment right

29:03now just so I can uh refer to it

29:05verbatim if necessary. Um so essentially

29:08the distinction is that

29:13basins constructed prior to 1996 right

29:16the regulations at the time allowed the

29:19storm water standards allowed basins and

29:21storm water features to be constructed

29:23within wetlands or using wetlands for

29:26their basis. That's no longer the case.

29:28So essentially it's if you're able to

29:31show that a wet a basement was not

29:34constructed it's sort of you know you're

29:36showing that is not an area subject to

29:37jurisdiction right so um it's

29:39essentially bring back wetland which may

29:43have been lost or converted to storm

29:45water basins are now made jurisdictional

29:47and this one per its uh delineation or

29:51the delineation of the property for one

29:53of these older orders of conditions

29:54rather I believe it was delineated by um

29:57Glen Kbas key. Um

30:02six, the the commission applicant should

30:04evaluate if the the swale and or basin

30:07contain characteristics of wetland. So

30:10if sort of if it has not been maintained

30:12and has also been allowed to grow out

30:14into a wetland sort of naturalized, it's

30:18been shown that the applicant has not

30:20operated and maintained and and use this

30:23feature as a basin. then you know it

30:26would also be liable to be considered a

30:29wetland resource area at this point

30:31which in this case is not um the case.

30:35It still is very much it's free of

30:36vegetation and really the intent is to

30:39just continue to utilize it as a storm

30:42water feature, remove some of the trash

30:45from it and you know continue on as uh

30:49as has been.

30:52>> Okay. I think I mean from from staff's

30:55perspective, I think we would need more

30:56time to review and confirm the

30:59applicability of the regulations if we

31:00were going to make a determination on

31:02the jurisdictional status of that basin

31:04tonight. Um, you know, if the commission

31:07and applicant are comfortable with a

31:08finding that an order of conditions for

31:10this work doesn't confirm the

31:12jurisdictional status one way or

31:14another, I think staff would be okay

31:15with that. Um but again I don't I think

31:18we would want a little more time to

31:19review u the applicability of the

31:22regulations to that area. Um aside from

31:25again and this is really just a a

31:27question of

31:29determining the jurisdictional status.

31:31It's not a comment on the work that's

31:32proposed within it because obviously the

31:34removal of debris and trash is a

31:36positive for the area regardless of what

31:39it is from a jurisdictional standpoint.

31:41Um the the only other uh comment and

31:44response that I just wanted to follow up

31:46on uh related to the plan to uh

31:50exclusively access this area using

31:52machinery from the parking lot. I saw

31:54that the the response noted that any

31:57access is included within the limit of

31:59work. Did that does that imply that

32:01there there will need to be machinery

32:02down in that area off off of the wall or

32:05will all the work be able to be

32:06performed from the upgradient side?

32:10All the work will be able to be

32:12performed from the upgrading. So that's

32:13sort of like access in the in the

32:15general sense as you know work will be

32:18occurring there and you know material

32:21will need to be moved there. But um my

32:24understanding is that the machinery will

32:27not need to be traveling down the um

32:32slope areas. It's it's really difficult

32:33to even get down there anyway.

32:37>> That's all from staff for now.

32:40Okay. Thank you. Um commissioners

32:43comments or questions about the project?

32:45>> Yes. Uh through you madam chair. So um

32:48couple of questions. So the uh the dead

32:52man anchors that are shown. Can you talk

32:54a little bit about uh the installation

32:57process of those because you just

32:59mentioned that all work is going to be

33:01done on the uh upland side or all

33:02machinery is going to be on that side.

33:05So, can you just sort of walk me through

33:07how those are installed?

33:09>> Yep. So, that'll just be the from from

33:11the top, right? So, if you can imagine

33:13the top of the wall being, you know,

33:16approximately flush with the surface or

33:19parking lot up there. So nearest to the

33:21wall on the up upper parking lot side,

33:25it'll be scraped back and then there

33:27will be some um you know like cables or

33:31brackets essentially installed into the

33:34existing face of the wall

33:38uh laid back into the soil or fill and

33:42then rolled back over such that they're

33:45just anchored by the soil. um like

33:49inwardly, right? Like pulled it's sort

33:51of pulling itself together structurally

33:53so that the overall structural integrity

33:56and strength of the structure is uh

33:59increased and maintained.

34:00>> Right. Right. Is there uh concrete or

34:03some sort of other material that is uh

34:05around the anchors?

34:09>> Uh

34:10>> or is it just compacted

34:12>> be encased in concrete?

34:17Sorry, say that again. Are

34:19>> are you asking if they're going to be um

34:20encased in concrete?

34:22>> Yes.

34:24>> No.

34:25>> Okay. So, it's just uh compacted soil

34:27around them.

34:28>> Yes. Correct. I mean appropriate fill,

34:31you know, sand like you know, but yes.

34:33>> Yep. Okay. And then my second question

34:37uh relates to the uh the gravity blocks

34:40that are going to be placed. Is there

34:42any uh preparatory excavation that's

34:45going to happen before those are put in

34:47place?

34:49>> Yeah, they will be you know the area

34:51will need to be made level and

34:53accommodating to the install process and

34:57you know all of that will be done you

34:59utilizing to the maximum kind of

35:01practical um fill on site um within the

35:06sort of limited work. So no material is

35:08going to be brought in but everything is

35:10going to be um reused maximally and

35:14within the confines of the erosion

35:16controls and all that.

35:17>> Yep. Yep. And then uh again just

35:19confirming

35:21whatever compaction is required before

35:24you place the gravity blocks will be

35:28done by Can you just describe that a

35:32little?

35:33>> Yep.

35:39That will likely be done by

35:43uh likely an excavator of a suitable

35:46size with a an attachment and just to

35:49compact that material down is um has

35:52been described to me most recently.

35:54>> So So not a walkbehind compactor. Those

35:56this will be something that uh there's

35:59an arm that reaches over the wall and

36:01then does this work?

36:05uh requesting some clarification. You're

36:07referring to the area that will the the

36:09collapsed area that will have the the

36:13blocks,

36:14>> correct? Yeah. Yeah. So, I'm presuming

36:16that you're going to like you said,

36:17you're going to prep the area first and

36:19you're going to ensure that the area to

36:22receive the blocks are properly

36:24compacted so those don't settle, right?

36:27>> Absolutely. Yeah. Yeah. either like

36:30>> um sticking with the working from the

36:33upper side, you know, an excavator will

36:37be able to compact that material

36:39suitably. So, if found not to be the

36:42case, something like, you know, you've

36:43suggested a sort of the mini kind of

36:45like the oneman um walkbehind compactor

36:48can be brought down to that area and

36:52used and then pulled up, you know, via

36:54by the chains. I've seen that done

36:55before.

36:56>> Okay. So there is potential for some

36:57machinery to get down into that area. So

37:00I think if we're doing um any uh uh

37:04conditions we might want to just address

37:07that.

37:09>> Sure. That can be noted like I I want to

37:12also just um stipulate like the axis of

37:16that you know wouldn't be through any of

37:19the um adjacent undisturbed buffer. It

37:21would just be sort of up and down

37:23vertically of course. But yes, we can

37:26absolutely know it's definitely.

37:27>> Yep. Okay. Thank you.

37:31>> Uh Commissioner, any other questions? Um

37:36I just want to clarify the if we move

37:38forward tonight, the the stipulation is

37:40that we're not making a determination

37:42about whether that basin is

37:43jurisdictional or not. The work could

37:46proceed without that decision. Uh or is

37:51your preference to to postpone? Uh I

37:54mean staff could go either way on that

37:55one. I think just given that the you

37:57know the work that's proposed in that

37:58area is really not disturbing or

38:00altering. It's just removal of trash. I

38:02think it's a little bit of a moot point

38:04for this application. Um is the

38:06applicant amendable to a finding that

38:08there's no determination on the status

38:10of that basin in this order.

38:11>> Yeah, that that won't be a problem.

38:13>> We just haven't had enough time to

38:14review the responses since last late

38:16last week. So um yeah, I mean if

38:19everyone's on board with that, I don't

38:20see an issue with that as a finding.

38:22Yeah, I mean my preference would be get

38:24this work done before there's further

38:26problems with this site.

38:28>> I would agree.

38:30>> Uh is there anyone here from the public

38:32on the

38:34item? Anyone online?

38:41>> We'll make a motion to close.

38:43>> Second.

38:44>> All in favor? I

38:45>> I

38:46>> I

38:46>> so proposed order of conditions.

38:53>> All right. So, we'd have a

38:56discretionary allowance issued under

38:58section 4.2.4

39:00for activity within the 15t buffer and

39:03the reconstruction of the retaining wall

39:05within its existing footprint in the

39:0630-oot buffer. a finding that this order

39:09of conditions does not confirm the

39:10jurisdictional status of the basin or

39:13swale where trash and debris is proposed

39:14to be removed. In addition to the

39:17standard conditions, we'd have condition

39:18number 24 for wetland flagging.

39:21Condition 25 for revised plans. Uh just

39:24a small revision adding a note to the

39:25plans regarding the removal of trash

39:28from the storm water swale and basin.

39:30Condition number 50 for cement truck

39:33washing, 49 for dewatering, 51 for

39:36equipment placement, 56 for spill

39:39prevention,

39:41and that's it. In addition to anything

39:44the commission might want to see.

39:46>> Okay. Does the applicant have any

39:47questions?

39:48>> Nope. That all sounds perfectly good.

39:50>> Uh quick question. So, does spill

39:53prevention cover uh non making sure

39:56you're not refueling any machinery on

39:59that opposite side of the wall or should

40:01that be a separate line item?

40:02>> Uh so, I believe, let me pull up the

40:04exact language, full language from that

40:06condition. Um I believe it expressly

40:09says that anything

40:12uh bear with me one second.

40:20Uh so the full condition for spill

40:22prevention reads, "No fuel, oil, or

40:24other pollutant shall be stored in any

40:25resource area or the 100 foot buffer

40:27zone. Refueling shall take place outside

40:29of the 100 foot buffer zone. Applicants

40:31shall take all necessary precautions to

40:32prevent discharge or spillage of fuel,

40:34oil, or other pollutants onto any part

40:36of the site, and a spill kit shall be

40:38present on site at all times."

40:40>> Great. Thank you.

40:43>> I'll make a motion to issue the orders

40:45of conditions as described.

40:48>> Second.

40:48>> All in favor? Hi.

40:50>> Hi.

40:50>> Hi.

40:51>> Thank you. You're all set.

40:54>> Thank you for your time.

40:57>> Okay. Um, so before we go to item number

41:0010, could I get a show of hands of who

41:02plans to speak so we can manage the time

41:05tonight? So, one, two, three, seven. Do

41:09we have people online?

41:14Yep. So, if you're interested in

41:16speaking, can you just raise your hand

41:17online?

41:24Okay. So, seven. All right. Um, so I

41:27don't think we we need to put a time

41:29limit on the speakers. Um, I just I just

41:32ask one that you stick to the

41:33regulations that we're responsible for

41:35administering here. Uh, and then if you

41:38are uh are going to say the exact same

41:40thing as the person that just came

41:42before you, um, just say say ditto. Um,

41:45but if you have something new to add,

41:46please by all means come up and and and

41:48speak. So, if you um would like to kind

41:51of get prepared for this by either

41:53lining up at the back or in some way um

41:56organizing yourselves, that'd be great.

41:58Um, in the meantime, let's uh let's get

42:00started. Uh, item number 10, one and

42:02three Suburban Road.

42:14I can get us going.

42:32>> Good evening. Derek Massionus, project

42:34manager with VHB here on behalf of the

42:37applicant. Here with me tonight are

42:40representatives from Wood Partners, Jim

42:42Lambert and Kellen Arjo, as well as my

42:45colleague Scott Morrison, a professional

42:47wetland scientists with BHB. Um, as you

42:50mentioned, we've filed the notice of

42:51intent under the local wetlands

42:53protection ordinance. As you'll see

42:55throughout the presentation, we are not

42:58proposing any work within the 100 foot

43:01buffer zone of the delineated wetland on

43:03site. This is related to the 100 foot

43:06locally regulated storm water protection

43:08zone that you can see in blue in the

43:11southwest corner of the property.

43:14Um we've received initial comments uh

43:17from staff. Uh we're working on

43:19providing formal responses as well as

43:22updated site plans and a updated storm

43:24water management report based on those

43:26comments. Um our goal for the meeting

43:29tonight is really to introduce the

43:32project. um and receive initial comments

43:35from the commission as well as uh listen

43:38to the abutters that have come out for

43:40the meeting tonight and really gather

43:42their feedback as well. Um and with that

43:44I'll I'll turn it over to Jim Lambert

43:46with Wood Partners.

43:49Good evening. Uh my name is Jim Lambert.

43:51I'm the managing director for Wood

43:52Partners New England office. U thank you

43:54for the time tonight to review our

43:56application. For those of you who might

43:58not be familiar with us here at Wood

44:00Partners, uh we're a multif family

44:01developer with a strong presence

44:03throughout New England. Um during uh

44:06throughout that course of work, we have

44:08developed a strong appreciation for the

44:10importance of working collaboratively

44:11with local boards, municipal staff, and

44:14community stakeholders. Uh we're not new

44:16to Worcester. Several years ago, we

44:18developed a project called Alta on the

44:20Row in the downtown. And although that

44:22project did not involve wetlands

44:23permitting, we work closely with the

44:25city's planning staff and board and

44:27planning board um and to come up with a

44:30project that we think everybody was

44:32proud of and has been a huge success.

44:35Turning to the project before you this

44:36evening, our team has spent many months

44:38studying the site and evaluating its

44:40opportunities and constraints. Our goal

44:42is straightforward to create a

44:44thoughtfully designed residential

44:45community that provides much neededed

44:47housing while respecting the wetlands

44:49and natural resources around the around

44:51and on the property. We recognize the

44:54commission's important role here in

44:55protecting those resources and we have

44:58worked extensively with our team to

44:59minimize impacts and develop a plan that

45:01is responsible responsive to the site's

45:04unique characteristics. Uh we know there

45:06are many folks here tonight that are uh

45:08going to speak about the project and

45:09hear what we have to say. Many of those

45:11folks have seen this project before in a

45:13slightly different form as we were

45:15proposing a reszoning several months

45:17back and they'll likely see it again on

45:19Wednesday at the planning board. Um so

45:21we're looking forward to hearing the

45:22feedback from this commission and from

45:24from folks in the neighborhood and

45:26taking that back um after tonight. Um

45:29with that, I'll turn it back over to

45:31Derek to go through the project in

45:32greater detail, but I'm here to answer

45:34any questions if needed. Thank you.

45:37I think Scott Morrison's gonna walk

45:39through existing conditions.

45:40>> Sure. If you could go back, I think one

45:42slide.

45:44>> Yes, perfect. Um, just for the record,

45:47my name is Scott Morrison, professional

45:48wetland scientist for BHB. Um, I was the

45:52one that went out, um, evaluated the

45:54site, walked the site, evaluated the

45:57wetlands, um, delineated those wetlands.

46:00Um, prior to me um, getting out to the

46:03site, the wetlands were actually

46:05delinated at least twice before um, my

46:08arrival. Um, I reviewed those wetland

46:11boundaries located, we located those

46:14shown on the the site plan. Um, all

46:16those wetland boundaries from the other

46:18two consultants and myself are all

46:20consistent. So, all the locations are

46:23pretty much identical. Um, and then

46:26subsequent to that, I kind of walked the

46:28site, make sure that there were no

46:30additional wetlands. Um, importantly

46:32too, I kind of went back um, before this

46:34meeting went back to some of the

46:37historical areas. I know there's some

46:38questions about potentially, you know,

46:40filled wetlands and such. Um, back in

46:431938, the historical areas show some uh,

46:46deposits of materials being placed on

46:49the site. By 1960, that that work had

46:51been completed and com and done. So um

46:54the wetlands protection act was enacted

46:57in 1972. So any fill that's occurring

47:00out on the site was was done well before

47:03the wetlands protection act as well as

47:05the uh city of Worcester wetlands

47:07protection ordinance which was approved

47:09in September of 1990.

47:12So, as far as existing conditions, I

47:14think it's important. I'll walk up and

47:16kind of point it out in a second, but um

47:19there's a tree line that you can see,

47:20which I'll point out to everybody.

47:24>> Could you bring the mic up with you?

47:26>> Could you just bring the mic? So,

47:28>> I'm just going to point to it.

47:29>> Okay.

47:31>> Right in here.

47:42So as I just identified that's the

47:44existing tree line. So that's the limit

47:46of areas on the site that are routinely

47:48mowed and you know maintained lawn.

47:50There are a number of trees within that

47:52area but that's you know an area that's

47:55existing maintained and the vast

47:56majority of the project is located over

47:58those that portion of the site.

48:02areas on the page north page northeast

48:06are areas that uh historically have just

48:08grown up uh completely forested areas.

48:11Um the projects intended to to kind of

48:14cluster everything on the south side of

48:16that page south of that to uh cluster

48:19the work there.

48:21So again, I just want to reiterate to uh

48:23that's the existing conditions. We're

48:25here tonight not because we're doing any

48:28work within the 100 foot buffer zone. Um

48:30we've kept all work completely outside

48:32that buffer zone. But under the wetlands

48:34protection uh city of Worcester wetlands

48:37protection ordinance, anything uh

48:40disturbance of greater than 5,000 square

48:43feet within um storm water protection

48:46zone. So it's existing or proposed catch

48:48basins is a trigger for this notice of

48:50intent filing in order of conditions.

48:54So the main focus of what we're here

48:56tonight is to demonst, you know, show

48:58erosion control and storm water

48:59management to to meet those performance

49:01standards. So at this point, I can turn

49:03it back over to Derek who can walk us

49:06through the uh the storm water and

49:07erosion control.

49:09>> Thanks, Scott.

49:10>> And sorry, can I just post pause for a

49:12sec? Hey, cable services, can you turn

49:14up the mic just a little bit? Uh people

49:16in the audience are having a hard time

49:17hearing.

49:22Good.

49:24If you can just go to the next slide,

49:25Maddie.

49:28So before getting into the proposed

49:30grading and and storm water and erosion

49:32controls for the site, I would just like

49:34to give an overview of the proposed site

49:37plan. Uh so what you have in front of

49:40you here is a total of 300 multif family

49:44residential units. Each building is

49:47roughly 105,000 gross square feet, five

49:51stories, and contains 100 units each.

49:53Those are those three bar buildings that

49:55you see kind of working back up and

49:58through the site.

50:00Parking is is based on the required uh

50:03zoning ordinance. So, in this uh based

50:06on this use, it's two parking spaces per

50:09unit. Uh so, we're providing a total of

50:12600 parking spaces on the site. that's

50:15combined surface and there's also three

50:18detached garages kind of dedicated for

50:21each residential building throughout the

50:23site.

50:24Access is entirely off of Suburban Road

50:28uh for this development. However, we are

50:31in the process of working with the

50:33Worcester Fire Department on a secondary

50:35means of egress off of Havlin Street

50:38that would be gated on either end and

50:40and not open uh for public use. Like I

50:43said, primary access to the site would

50:46be off of Suburban Road. Uh, as far as

50:49landscape goes, we are conforming with

50:52the interior landscape requirements. So,

50:54one tree for 10 interior parking spaces.

50:58Um, we're providing a landscape setback

51:01all along the the development and the

51:03the property. Um, and we have various

51:06trees and shrubs throughout uh kind of

51:09behind the curb of the parking areas as

51:10well as interior uh islands as well.

51:17Um,

51:22is that my mic or maybe that one?

51:25>> Just wonder if that helps.

51:28Um, the other thing I wanted to point

51:30out on this plan is there are a couple

51:33accessory buildings as well that support

51:35this use. So, there's a 5,000 ft²

51:38clubhouse that you can see kind of in

51:40the the middle as you enter the site as

51:43well as a mail room uh for delivery

51:45service and then outdoor amenities like

51:47a pool and and fire pit uh with an

51:50associated pool house as well. Um, so I

51:55won't get too much into the the zoning

51:57aspect of this project, but this

51:58proposed development is all located

52:00within the RG5 zoning district. However,

52:04you will see um kind of on the northern

52:06portion of the site plan. Uh there's a

52:09hatched area in green and then a

52:11cross-hatch area that extends further

52:13north uh to the northernmost uh bound of

52:16the property. So our proposed plan is

52:20for all uh material on site to remain

52:24um so any material that's generated

52:26during construction is planned to remain

52:28on site. Uh what you can see in the the

52:31diagonally hatched area is what was

52:34originally submitted as as part of the

52:36site plan package. Um we've been working

52:39with the applicant on a detailed cut

52:41fill analysis. Um and originally we

52:44designed that area to be um a detention

52:46basin because of the limit of clearing.

52:49We've been able to reduce that now just

52:51based on a detailed cut fill analysis by

52:53roughly 50%. Um and as we flip over to

52:56the grading, I can start to talk about

52:58the the overall intent with the the site

53:00grading. If you want to go to the next

53:02slide.

53:09So, as Scott kind of mentioned, the

53:11existing topography throughout the site

53:13is generally flat and most of these

53:17residential buildings have multiple

53:19entrances on either side. So, just based

53:22on the existing topography being

53:24generally flat through the development

53:26area and the multiple entrances for each

53:29of the residential buildings, um, we're

53:32really not changing grade a lot through

53:34the site. It's it's going to be

53:35generally flat with a series of high and

53:38low points um that are obviously lower

53:41than the finished floor of the building.

53:45All surface runoff from the site is

53:47going to be pitched and directed um to

53:49the proposed closed drainage system.

53:53What you can see on this site plan here

53:54in orange is the 34 test pit locations

53:58that Haley and Aldrich, the the record

54:00geotechnical engineer on the project,

54:02has performed out here. Um, as you can

54:06see, they're they're blanketed

54:07throughout the site and have really

54:09guided both the grading and the storm

54:11water design to date. Um, as I

54:14mentioned, runoff from the site and the

54:17buildings is all going to be directed

54:18towards the proposed closed drainage

54:21system.

54:22Um, as far as inlets, we either have

54:24dump deep sump hooded catch basins or uh

54:27the proposed subsurface infiltration

54:29systems that we're proposing are

54:32concrete retained structures uh by LID

54:35tech. Uh based on the existing soil

54:38conditions that are out there, they are

54:40primarily shallow systems. Most of the

54:42systems are are 2 feet 6 in in height.

54:46um but they extend um you know generally

54:50along the footprints of the buildings

54:52themselves.

54:54So all the runoff from the site and the

54:58roof areas is going to be uh directed

55:00towards the the closed drainage system

55:02and enters uh the subsurface systems

55:05themselves. We've designed these systems

55:08to completely infiltrate the 2-year

55:10storm. So your general storm events, you

55:14know, everything's going to be

55:15infiltrating into the ground. However,

55:18we do have each system has an outlet

55:20control structure and an overflow pipe

55:23that eventually works its way back to

55:25the the northwest corner of this

55:27development. Um, and we have a a

55:30engineered uh outlet control structure

55:32in that corner that based on, you know,

55:35the volume and the the height of each

55:37storm, that'll eventually act as our

55:40overflow back to the wetland, which is

55:42our ultimate design point.

55:45Um, as far as compliance with the mass D

55:48storm water standards, we are reducing

55:50peak rates in the 2, 10, 25, and 100year

55:54storms. Um, we're providing more than

55:56double the required amount of recharge

55:58for the site. Um, and I know staff had a

56:01comment as to whether this project was

56:03going to be defined as a lup. Uh, we

56:05would agree with your determination. Um,

56:07I can say that we can treat the 1-in

56:09water quality volume as well as provide

56:1244% uh pre-treatment and 80% TSS removal

56:17uh based on the storm water design.

56:19Um, as I mentioned, the burm area uh in

56:23the northern portion of the site, that's

56:24where you can kind of see how we've

56:26reduced the limit and now that has a

56:2810-ft shelf uh at the top of that.

56:32you know, water that's landing in that

56:34area is either going to be directed to

56:36the north down the slope uh to a swale

56:38that eventually works its way to the

56:40wetland or there's a there's also an

56:42additional swale that takes the grading

56:44for the uh emergency access road and

56:47directs that back to the wetland as

56:49well.

56:51If you could go to the next slide, I'd

56:52like to just touch on erosion controls

56:54and and construction sequencing.

56:58So, as you can see in orange, this is

57:00pretty much our our general limit of

57:02work for the project. Um, there will be

57:05an enclosed construction fence with

57:07scrim along the uh residential abuing

57:10properties. Um, but the there will be a

57:14continuous construction fence along the

57:16entire limit of work. Havlin Street is

57:19generally high and our site sits fairly

57:21lower. So, we won't have any erosion

57:24controls proposed along that side of the

57:26property. But everywhere else as the

57:28grade starts to fall off a little bit,

57:30we will have straw bales with a silt

57:33fence. Um

57:35there will be uh silt sack sediment

57:38traps in all existing and proposed

57:41structures once those come online. Um

57:44and just talking with the applicant,

57:45we've started to and we'll provide a

57:47formal response with more detailed

57:49construction sequencing. Um but first

57:52step is obviously to get the site

57:54secure, establish erosion controls and

57:56then we are generally going to clear the

57:59entire limit of the site. As Scott

58:01mentioned, there is a good portion of

58:04where this development is that is

58:05continuously mowed. There's obviously

58:07some trees in that area which we are

58:09proposing to remove. Um but general site

58:13clearing uh within this limit of work is

58:15f kind of the first step. Uh then the

58:18site's going to be bulg graded based on

58:21the proposed grades uh that we are

58:24providing. Um and that's where the burm

58:27in the back area is going to start to be

58:29established. Um once we kind of have the

58:31site entirely bulk graded, that's when

58:34underground utility and foundation work

58:36is going to start to commence and you'll

58:38start to see the burm in the back area

58:40take shape um with some of that

58:42material. I think that'll typically be

58:45around 3 or 4 months worth of work just

58:47with the amount of utility

58:49infrastructure and foundation work that

58:50that needs to happen here. Um but once

58:53that is complete uh site layout will

58:57commence and then binder will be set

59:00immediately uh after that before they

59:03actually go up with any of the

59:05residential buildings. So binder uh for

59:07the surface treatment will be

59:08established before construction of any

59:11of the the residential buildings

59:14themselves. Um at that point the the

59:17storm water system will become online.

59:20So we'll keep uh silt sacks sediment

59:22traps and all of the the structures

59:24themselves and um we'll make sure that

59:26the burm area at that point should be uh

59:30you know that volume of material should

59:32be consistent. So that'll be stabilized

59:34as well as any areas behind the curb and

59:36and landscape areas uh as construction

59:39for the residential buildings takes

59:41place.

59:44Scott, I'm not sure if you wanted to add

59:45anything else, but

59:46>> yeah, I think just one one thing on this

59:48plan that I'm not sure that Derek

59:51highlighted on is the area hatched is an

59:53area.

59:54>> Sorry, I think you just got to turn on

59:55your mic, Scott.

59:56>> Sorry about that. Um, just to remind

1:00:00people, uh, the area that's hatched on

1:00:02this is, um, we're pulling that back.

1:00:05So, we don't need to do tree clearing in

1:00:07that area, uh, based upon kind of

1:00:09revisiting some of the the work and kind

1:00:11of shrinking that as much as possible.

1:00:13So, there's a a large area that we can

1:00:14remain trees. So, just to kind of

1:00:17summarize as well, you know, we filed

1:00:19this under the requirements under the

1:00:22storm water protection zone. So, you

1:00:24know, the really the permit revolves

1:00:25around work within existing and proposed

1:00:28catch basins as well as, you know,

1:00:30erosion control and storm water

1:00:32management. So, I think at this point

1:00:34we'd be happy to answer questions. I

1:00:35think there's individuals from the

1:00:37public who'd like to speak as well,

1:00:38which we can let them speak and then

1:00:41answer questions after if whatever is

1:00:43amendable to the commission.

1:00:47>> Uh, staff comments.

1:00:50>> Yeah. So I can I can just kind of give a

1:00:52broad summary of the uh comment letter

1:00:55that we issued that was referenced a

1:00:56couple times throughout the

1:00:57presentation. Um so you know a lot of

1:01:00our comments related to erosion and

1:01:03sedimentation control which has been

1:01:04described here. One of the main things

1:01:06we are looking for is a little more

1:01:07detail on the phasing and sequencing

1:01:09like Derek was mentioning. Um you know

1:01:11typically for projects of this size we'd

1:01:12like to have you know a few plan sheets

1:01:14showing different phases of construction

1:01:15and how erosion and sediment will be

1:01:17controlled during those phases. Um,

1:01:22sorry, just getting a lot of feed.

1:01:23>> A little slower.

1:01:25>> Sure. Uh, and I'm sorry. I'm just

1:01:28getting some feedback on my mic, too.

1:01:29So, it's a little disorienting.

1:01:31>> Want to turn the mic down a little bit

1:01:32at this point.

1:01:34>> Okay. Well, we can't we can't turn it up

1:01:36and down. But maybe if you turned one of

1:01:38those off, that might help there.

1:01:42>> Okay. All right.

1:01:46Um, where was I? So, erosion and

1:01:49sedimentation control, talking about

1:01:50sequencing, trying to get a little more

1:01:52information about um just plan details

1:01:55for some of the stockpiles and temporary

1:01:57sediment basins. Um a couple locations

1:02:00where we wanted to see additional silt

1:02:02sacks added to protect inlets. Uh plans

1:02:04for dewatering. Um and just some

1:02:06suggestions for uh different additional

1:02:09controls in certain areas.

1:02:12Um, one of the one of the questions we

1:02:14had related to that northern portion of

1:02:16the site that's now kind of hatched and

1:02:18shown as out of the limit of work. Um,

1:02:20so we'll have to obviously review the

1:02:22new plans when they come in with the

1:02:23newly proposed BM um, and get a sense of

1:02:26how that grading might affect uh, storm

1:02:28water management or erosion control on

1:02:30the site. Um,

1:02:33related to storm water management, we

1:02:35had some comments.

1:02:37Sorry, this is a a lot of feedback here.

1:02:45Um, one of the one of the comments

1:02:47related to soil investigation uh to

1:02:49determine suitability for the location

1:02:51of those infiltration structures. Um, I

1:02:53think you know it was shown on the

1:02:54screen, one of those slides had the

1:02:56locations of all the different test

1:02:58pits. I think not all of those test pits

1:03:00had um like details on redux features

1:03:03and estimated seasonal high groundwater

1:03:06elevations. So, I think we're really

1:03:07just looking for more um kind of nailing

1:03:10down those elevations at the location of

1:03:12the BMPs, particularly given how long

1:03:14and uh and how close they are to

1:03:17groundwater. Um just making sure that

1:03:19they have that adequate separation to

1:03:20the bottom of stone. Um we had some

1:03:24questions about the depth of urban fill

1:03:27materials and trash reported across the

1:03:28site. Um there were some areas where

1:03:31there were 12 feet of basically fill and

1:03:35sand uh in some locations. Uh so we just

1:03:38wanted some clarity on whether the soils

1:03:39beneath the areas that are proposed for

1:03:41infiltration are suitable for

1:03:42infiltration or if additional excavation

1:03:44might be needed um to make that

1:03:46suitable.

1:03:48Um

1:03:49yeah, the lapable comment that was

1:03:51mentioned earlier that's a land land use

1:03:53with higher pollutant load just given

1:03:54the volume of uh trip generation that

1:03:57the parking lots are expected to create

1:03:58that adds some additional um standards

1:04:01at the state level uh related to the

1:04:03wetland resource area. Scott talked

1:04:05about that um a lot describing existing

1:04:09conditions. So we went out and reviewed

1:04:11the site. Uh we walked the line. It was

1:04:14uh it was fairly easy to confirm the

1:04:16delineation. It was along the toe of

1:04:18slope for um a good portion of the line.

1:04:21There was a pretty clear delineation

1:04:22between uh wetland and upland vegetation

1:04:25um along the line as well. Um

1:04:30and again this project was filed or this

1:04:32NOI rather was filed under the storm or

1:04:35under the wetlands protection ordinance

1:04:37only. Um so this is not

1:04:40something that we have been or not

1:04:42something that the commission reviews in

1:04:43respect to um obviously wetlands

1:04:45protection act regulations but also just

1:04:47um buffer zone performance standards

1:04:49would not be applicable given that the

1:04:50limit of work is outside of those. Um

1:04:55and you know again this is also not a an

1:04:58avenue to seek a formal determination on

1:05:00any sort of jurisdictional status under

1:05:02the wetlands protection act. simply work

1:05:04proposed outside of the buffer zone

1:05:06falling into the commission's

1:05:07jurisdiction due to the uh existing or

1:05:09proposed inlets that ultimately

1:05:11discharge to a wetland resource area. Um

1:05:15so that's a broad overview of of staff

1:05:18comments. Happy to answer any questions

1:05:19the the commission has.

1:05:23Okay.

1:05:24>> Uh commissioners uh questions on this.

1:05:27We just this is our first time seeing

1:05:29this revision. So I think we'll have

1:05:31some more questions but maybe not

1:05:33tonight. Uh any questions as to um the

1:05:36the current presentation of this

1:05:38project?

1:05:42>> Through you madam chair. Yes I

1:05:45through you madam chair. Yes I've got a

1:05:47couple of questions. Um, so just looking

1:05:49at the plan, um,

1:05:52so what was the thinking originally on

1:05:55the placement of the buildings? Are you

1:05:58just trying to stay away from the

1:05:59wetlands or I'm just trying to get a

1:06:02gauge as to um what drove the layout

1:06:06>> as far as the layout for the residential

1:06:08buildings?

1:06:09>> Yes. Um,

1:06:12so I think I mentioned this in my

1:06:14presentation, but where the development

1:06:16area is, that's all located within the

1:06:19RG5 zoning district. So we we don't have

1:06:22the flexibility to use the northern

1:06:25portion of the site as well. If we did,

1:06:29um, I'm sure the buildings would maybe

1:06:31be spread out a little bit more. Um, but

1:06:33we're kind of limited to the area that's

1:06:36within the the RG5 zoning district,

1:06:39which is what you see here. Y

1:06:41>> um, and as far as layout goes, we've

1:06:43we've tried to create this sort of um,

1:06:47you know, nice entry drive experience

1:06:49that brings you up and through the site

1:06:51while centrally locating um, the

1:06:54clubhouse area and the e exterior

1:06:56amenity spaces kind of right as you

1:06:58enter that building just adjacent to

1:07:00building A. Um, so that was kind of the

1:07:02the thought process with how the

1:07:04building's laid out.

1:07:06>> Okay. And then, uh, one of the things

1:07:08you mentioned was, uh, trying to get a

1:07:10good landscaped setback, uh, around the

1:07:13perimeter of the building. And I'm not

1:07:17seeing that might be a little outside of

1:07:19the jurisdiction, but bear with me

1:07:21because I think I'll bring it back to

1:07:22that point. I'm not seeing that on the

1:07:25east and south specifically. are pretty

1:07:27close to the um to the boundaries

1:07:31um and specifically along the south

1:07:34where you mentioned that all of the

1:07:36water is being collected and diverted

1:07:39elsewhere. When I look at the grading

1:07:42plan, the revised grading does show that

1:07:45there's a slope now to these southern

1:07:48properties. And correct me if I'm wrong,

1:07:50but that's just what I'm saying. So, uh,

1:07:53if you can address that portion of it

1:07:55because it looked like it was generally,

1:07:57uh, grading sloping towards,

1:08:01uh, suburban road and the portion behind

1:08:04that 10car garage is now sloping towards

1:08:07the properties. I

1:08:09>> I believe there is a small portion of

1:08:11landscape area that is sloping there. We

1:08:14can certainly take a look at that area

1:08:16to see. I I know we have a swale along

1:08:18the backside of that garage that's kind

1:08:21of in the midpoint of building A

1:08:24>> um with an area drain. So, we can see if

1:08:26we can kind of redirect that landscape

1:08:28area back to the area.

1:08:29>> Yeah. Yeah, I do see that there's a

1:08:31drain behind the 10car garage, but the

1:08:33way that I'm interpreting the grading

1:08:35looks like it it may be not all

1:08:38concentrating all of that water there.

1:08:41Um, and then the other thing was, um,

1:08:46maybe I missed it, a planting plan. Um,

1:08:50I I think what might be nice is to maybe

1:08:55try to reinforce what you were trying to

1:08:58achieve with getting a nice landscaped

1:09:00setback. Um I think that buffer would be

1:09:05desirable um and would have a lot of uh

1:09:08positive uh environmental effects as

1:09:11well.

1:09:13And then uh if you can talk a little bit

1:09:15about uh your plans for snow storage or

1:09:19snow removal.

1:09:23>> Um yeah, so I I think we did show them

1:09:26on the layout and materials plan. Um,

1:09:29but we we do have some flat areas kind

1:09:32of directly behind the curb that are not

1:09:35within plant beds or some of those tree

1:09:37locations that we're proposing for snow

1:09:40storage. Um, and then we're kind of

1:09:43assuming the the least desirable parking

1:09:45spaces on the site are probably going to

1:09:47be in the the western portion there. Um,

1:09:51not that snow storage would be piled

1:09:53there, but kind of we have some room

1:09:55back behind the curb in that location,

1:09:57which would be pretty easy to kind of

1:09:59direct all the snow back to that area

1:10:01and then set it behind the curb there.

1:10:03>> Yeah, there's just a lot of paved area

1:10:06and I'm just thinking, you know,

1:10:07significant storm

1:10:09trying to get all of that snow back to

1:10:11that isolated area. I'm sure it's going

1:10:13to be dispersed, but um, if I was hoping

1:10:16that you would walk us through just sort

1:10:18of your your plans for that. I Some may

1:10:20be shown on the plans, but if uh just a

1:10:23verbal description of

1:10:25>> Yeah.

1:10:25>> for the meeting,

1:10:26>> we we can chat with the applicant too to

1:10:29see what their procedures are typically

1:10:31with snow removal, whether it gets

1:10:33hauled off site or if it's stored on

1:10:36site. Um but we can certainly look at

1:10:38the the areas that we are providing on

1:10:40the layout materials plan and and check

1:10:43those calculations.

1:10:44>> Okay. And then lastly, I do see that uh

1:10:48by the clubhouse where the property line

1:10:52sort of overlaps

1:10:54uh some of the existing buildings and

1:10:56maybe I missed the uh that part of it.

1:10:59Can you walk me through what happened

1:11:01there? Is that those is that building

1:11:03just part on your site and you're just

1:11:06sort of reclaiming that land or what's

1:11:09>> That's correct.

1:11:10>> Yeah,

1:11:11>> that's correct.

1:11:12>> Okay. The are you referring to the

1:11:15existing walkway and gazebo that's on

1:11:18Yes. Yep. That's proposed to be removed.

1:11:20>> Yep. Okay. Okay.

1:11:23That's it for now.

1:11:24>> Okay. Anything else?

1:11:28>> I just have a question.

1:11:31I It's from what you were saying.

1:11:35These are slab on slab on grade the

1:11:39buildings.

1:11:40>> They'll be foundations.

1:11:42>> Okay. Fil foundation slabs. Okay.

1:11:46Cuz you said you're not changing not

1:11:49changing the ele elevation

1:11:53and u

1:11:56you would have to you would have to do

1:11:58that to keep everything on site with a

1:12:00foundation with the with all the corre

1:12:04correct. So that burm area is really

1:12:06going to formulate when we start the

1:12:08foundation work and a lot of the

1:12:10underground utility infrastructure

1:12:12um just because we're going to need to

1:12:14bring in material base materials and uh

1:12:17material for to support utilities. Um so

1:12:21some of that excess material that's

1:12:23generated on the site is that's going to

1:12:26be the majority of what's burned in the

1:12:28back there.

1:12:31>> Okay. Thank you.

1:12:34the um

1:12:37sorry that threw you, Madam Chair. Uh so

1:12:40I see the proposed buildings have sloped

1:12:43roofs. Um you're going to have external

1:12:47gutters, I presume, and those are all

1:12:49going to just be picked up and uh

1:12:52directed to the infiltration systems.

1:12:55>> There'll be down spouts with direct

1:12:56connections into these systems. Y

1:12:58>> Okay.

1:13:04Um, okay.

1:13:06So, this is a fairly complex site. Um,

1:13:10this won't be decided on tonight just so

1:13:12that everyone understands won't be a

1:13:15vote. Uh, I just wanted to raise a

1:13:17couple things that I think um, members

1:13:20of the public have done a tremendous job

1:13:22explaining. There are a couple of folks

1:13:24if they're here, Mr. Pap and Miss

1:13:26Silverstein. Uh, tremendous work. um

1:13:30really raised a lot of issues um some of

1:13:32which just aren't going to apply because

1:13:34frankly this site was filled uh prior to

1:13:37the passage of the wetland protection

1:13:39act. So some of the desire to see this

1:13:41site treated as a wetland um is not

1:13:44something we're going to be able to uh

1:13:46address here. Um, but I did want to I

1:13:50did want to make sure that they were

1:13:52acknowledged because obviously there's a

1:13:53lot of people here in support of of

1:13:55doing this project well or perhaps not

1:13:57doing this project at all.

1:13:59[clears throat] Uh, my concerns I think

1:14:01are are shared with some of the members

1:14:02of the public which are the um stability

1:14:05of this site, the ability of the site to

1:14:08absorb the storm water runoff that you

1:14:10are proposing these infiltration systems

1:14:12can handle. um based on the test pits

1:14:15that we do have and I think at this

1:14:17point we're in agreement that we need

1:14:18more in the areas where these

1:14:20infiltration units will go uh suggest

1:14:23that some of the material uh underground

1:14:25would not be suitable for infiltration

1:14:27uh and that possibly some of the

1:14:29material underground is in fact even

1:14:30contaminated. Um, so the statement that

1:14:33you made about keeping fill on site um

1:14:36by creating a burm with it is a bit

1:14:38bothersome for me because I don't

1:14:40understand the nature of some of the

1:14:41soil that'll be removed uh from this

1:14:44site to create a burm of

1:14:48what um so that that's a question in my

1:14:51mind. Um, and then what the the

1:14:54maintenance ongoing maintenance for the

1:14:56infiltration basement will be. Um, you

1:14:59know, one of the things I asked at all

1:15:01of these meetings is who's responsible

1:15:03for this property on an ongoing basis?

1:15:05[music] How long do we expect these

1:15:06infiltration structures to function? Um,

1:15:09and if they aren't functioning properly

1:15:11after construction is complete, you

1:15:13know, who's responsible for digging them

1:15:16up and starting all over again? Uh so in

1:15:18in my mind there there needs to be more

1:15:23um exploration of this site to be

1:15:25certain that these infiltration

1:15:28structures can work. Um you know we're

1:15:31not here to determine whether the

1:15:33buildings are engineered properly for

1:15:34the site. So that's uh you know that's

1:15:37for somebody else to handle. Um, but we

1:15:40do need to know that those structures

1:15:42will function as designed because I have

1:15:43never seen a site and I know I've only

1:15:45done this for a few years, but I have

1:15:46never seen a site with so much

1:15:48infiltration structure spread out on a

1:15:50property. Um,

1:15:53so those would be I guess my concerns uh

1:15:56initially. Uh and just from past

1:15:59personal experience constructing

1:16:02buildings on unstable wet land um on

1:16:05Gold Star Boulevard, uh these projects

1:16:08are twothirds of your expense

1:16:11underground just trying to support

1:16:13what's going on on the surface. If this

1:16:16project doesn't become economically

1:16:18feasible for the builder, I just want to

1:16:20make sure we don't have a a wiped out

1:16:22cleared site that somebody then abandons

1:16:26um because they've determined that, you

1:16:27know what, it's either contaminated and

1:16:29I can't afford the cleanup or I can't

1:16:31afford to build, you know, these

1:16:34buildings uh in a way that would allow

1:16:36them uh to, you know, to be safe.

1:16:40Um,

1:16:44so, uh, anyone here like to speak on the

1:16:49project? Okay. If you could kind of

1:16:51organize yourselves in a line and come

1:16:53up to the podium, uh, and just state

1:16:54your name. And

1:16:56>> I'm sorry to kind of burst to the first.

1:16:57I have some things fresh. I have some

1:16:59things kind of fresh in my mind that I

1:17:00wanted to say if it's all right.

1:17:01>> So, could you please get to a

1:17:02microphone?

1:17:03>> Okay. I was going to do this one. This

1:17:04one This one seems to be ringing over

1:17:06here.

1:17:07>> Introduce yourself.

1:17:08>> Yes. My name is D. Peterson. I'm a

1:17:09Worester resident. I live in the Elm

1:17:11Park area and my parents also have a

1:17:13house near Dherty High School. I first

1:17:16want to say much respect to everyone

1:17:18here for your roles and your patience

1:17:20and for this opportunity for the public

1:17:23for us the public uh ordinary citizens

1:17:26to speak. Um I prepared some statements

1:17:29just a few hours ago when I learned

1:17:31about this. Um I know we were asked to

1:17:34stay on point. Um, forgive me if I this

1:17:37is my first time coming to such a

1:17:38meeting, so I wasn't aware of just how

1:17:40formal and the regulations and

1:17:42everything. Um, forgive me if my writing

1:17:44is just a little more philosophical. Uh,

1:17:47it gets to the point though, and you

1:17:49you'll you'll get my meaning. Also, no

1:17:51disrespect intended to anyone. So, what

1:17:54I wrote was, "My understanding is that

1:17:56the Conservation Commission has already

1:17:58largely approved this project, though

1:18:00maybe that's not true, pending review

1:18:02completion, and that the reason for our

1:18:05being here tonight is more as an

1:18:07opportunity for people to vent rather

1:18:09than actually change something. If true

1:18:12that the conservation commission has

1:18:14already approved or is planning to

1:18:15approve this project, I ask you like our

1:18:18government's environmental protection

1:18:20agency which doesn't actually protect

1:18:22the environment. What is it actually

1:18:24conserving? You have a piece of land,

1:18:27one of the few remaining pieces of

1:18:29undeveloped land in the entire area and

1:18:31you are putting it up for development

1:18:33with three large highrises proposed

1:18:35here. I just want to take a time out and

1:18:37say that Mr. landers uh said that they

1:18:40want to be respectful of the resources

1:18:43and natural surroundings, but you're

1:18:45planning to cut out the entire forest,

1:18:48the woods, the trees. Mr. Derek said all

1:18:50trees are going and there's going to be

1:18:52something like 600 parking spots. So,

1:18:55what I wrote was highrises are eyes.

1:18:58This is particularly so with modern

1:19:00construction methods that don't even use

1:19:02bricks anymore, but fakel looking

1:19:04synthetic materials. I don't know, maybe

1:19:06they're planning to do brick. And the

1:19:08architecture is not 1970s, let's put it

1:19:10that way. In addition, a friend of mine

1:19:13who lives out near the proposed site of

1:19:14development said the traffic at Newton

1:19:17Square is always very congested. She

1:19:19rightly pointed out that building new

1:19:21developments there is going to make this

1:19:23problem significantly worse. In a number

1:19:25of ways, highrises would degrade the

1:19:28quality of life in these areas. In that

1:19:30regard, it doesn't seem like this

1:19:32proposal has been well thought out.

1:19:34The real issue is the land and what it

1:19:37means to once again be encroaching. I

1:19:40understand that there is a perpet I

1:19:41understand that there is a perpetual

1:19:43housing crisis and affordability crisis

1:19:46and appreciate people's efforts to

1:19:48problem solve. The actual issue however

1:19:51in my view and maybe I should have

1:19:53decorated this statement is not housing

1:19:55but overpopulation and what human

1:19:58overpopulation means in terms of the

1:20:00earth. When there are too many people,

1:20:02the need for new development will go on

1:20:04indefinitely into the sunset. Instead of

1:20:07three or five highrises, there will be

1:20:0913, then 30, and so on until one day the

1:20:12bottom of the bucket drops out. That day

1:20:14of consequence is upon us. Cities are

1:20:17becoming more inhospitable. Social

1:20:19problems have gotten worse, and our

1:20:21trees are dying from climate change and

1:20:22other human-caused factors. And I might

1:20:25add, all the more reason to save the

1:20:27trees we do have. Yet, city planners

1:20:29Worcester and elsewhere want to move

1:20:31ahead rather than just stop or find

1:20:34something new. A high-rise with people

1:20:37living on top of each other up high in

1:20:39the sky is not natural living. It is not

1:20:42a humble abode like Thoro's cabin in the

1:20:44woods. The real issue I feel is our

1:20:47disconnect from nature as a society and

1:20:50the consequences it is bringing. In this

1:20:52case, those consequences would be losing

1:20:54not only Pete Meadow, a wetlands, but a

1:20:57huge swath of surrounding woods. Tree

1:21:00clearing has also been linked to climate

1:21:02change. So, this is a worst case

1:21:04scenario for all of us. Lastly, Pete

1:21:07Meadow is a piece of nature that this

1:21:09community has long held an appreciation

1:21:11for. And may I add, I used to walk by

1:21:14there going to Dory High School. That

1:21:15was 35 years ago. And the fact that this

1:21:18is wetlands as well as the woods I

1:21:20described is even more concerning in

1:21:22terms of the proposed development. I

1:21:24commend the individuals who have rallied

1:21:26around this cause whether for aesthetic

1:21:28reasons, environmental reasons, or

1:21:31practical reasons like the traffic

1:21:33congestion I was talking about easier

1:21:35earlier. If you go to the neighborhoods

1:21:38surrounding Pete Meadow in its woods,

1:21:40just about everyone has signs saying

1:21:42save Pete Meadow. I like to think of

1:21:44these people as friends to the earth.

1:21:47I want to remind people that this was

1:21:49once and some believe still is Indian

1:21:51land, American Indians, Native

1:21:54Americans. And American Indians of

1:21:57course were our close to the earth. You

1:22:00can't take Indian land and tell me you

1:22:02want to build ugly unnatural highrises

1:22:04to suit what have always been human and

1:22:08not earth environmental interests. Thank

1:22:11you.

1:22:14>> Thank you very [applause] much.

1:22:17I also had a copy that I wanted to leave

1:22:19with the commission. Is that allowed?

1:22:20>> Yeah.

1:22:30>> Are we sitting? Are we sitting? This is

1:22:33the sitting. Okay. Um Katie Silverstein

1:22:35and Worcester. Um through the chair, I

1:22:38just have a couple questions. Um just so

1:22:40that I don't get something wrong. Has

1:22:43there been, and I checked last week, but

1:22:44maybe it happened since then, has there

1:22:46been any kind of environmental site

1:22:48assessment or a a phase one phase 2 LSP

1:22:51report provided to the commission or the

1:22:54staff?

1:22:55>> Uh, at this time, uh, we have not

1:22:57received an environmental report, uh,

1:22:59phase one or phase two on the site. No.

1:23:01>> Okay. All right. Just wanted to make

1:23:02sure that that was still the case. Um,

1:23:04and then my second question is has any I

1:23:06know that you don't consider the the

1:23:08building site within your jurisdiction,

1:23:09but I was curious if anybody had done a

1:23:12site visit and if you would classify

1:23:14that site as mostly flat.

1:23:22>> We did do a site visit. Um,

1:23:25the there are certainly some areas on

1:23:27the site that are not flat. I can't I

1:23:29think the area right if you're talking

1:23:32about mainly where the buildings are

1:23:33going is a flatter area where it kind of

1:23:36opens up to lawn there are once you get

1:23:38I think the further back you go on the

1:23:40site the more steep the topography

1:23:42becomes

1:23:43>> right but where where it is being

1:23:45considered flat is actually I mean there

1:23:47are several old women who live elderly

1:23:50lovely elderly women who live in the

1:23:52Highland West apartments that will not

1:23:54walk out there besides it being a

1:23:55trespassing violation they're worried

1:23:57about tripping

1:23:58because it goes like this. Um, and I

1:24:00think that's important to recognize if

1:24:02we're talking about the little vegetated

1:24:04wet wet the little vegetated wet meadow

1:24:08in the northwest and the storm water

1:24:10management plan is being designed to

1:24:12replicate or be similar to existing

1:24:15drainage patterns. If the site is doing

1:24:18this and the new site is going to funnel

1:24:21everything towards that wet meadow,

1:24:23that's very different. So, I'm going to

1:24:25I'm going to talk about the storm water

1:24:27management plan because that's what

1:24:28we're really here to do. And I know that

1:24:30I I expand I will expand on that a

1:24:32little bit, but um I do understand what

1:24:34is considered in the jurisdiction of

1:24:36this commission. Um now, the storm water

1:24:40management plan is over 400 pages long

1:24:42and this is a volunteer commission and

1:24:44there's two members of staff and this is

1:24:47one of many uh sites that you're

1:24:50reviewing. I cannot imagine that you

1:24:52have time to go through it in the way

1:24:54that it needs to be gone through, but

1:24:55there are problems with that report.

1:24:59Now, included in those 400 pages are

1:25:02pages and pages of outputs from Hydraad.

1:25:06That is just something that will make

1:25:08anybody's eyes glaze over. I even spoke

1:25:10to several engineers who said to me,

1:25:12"Don't bother looking at those. Those

1:25:14are fine. Boilerplate. Move on." Well,

1:25:17okay. So, those are the outputs. What

1:25:20about the inputs? What data went into

1:25:23those modeling the modeling software

1:25:27that provided the data that created the

1:25:30plan that's going to drain this site?

1:25:33Well, one of the important inputs is the

1:25:35soil types. So, soil types are

1:25:38classified based on how well they drain.

1:25:40So, you've got type A that drains really

1:25:42well, that would be like gravel, and

1:25:43you've got type D that drains very

1:25:45poorly. That's like clay that acts like

1:25:47a swimming pool liner. There's a big

1:25:49difference in those and that's how you

1:25:51model storm water runoff and recharge

1:25:54volume. Well, if you get the soil type

1:25:57wrong, then your model is wrong. Well,

1:26:01if you look at the geotechnical data

1:26:03provided hundreds of pages later in the

1:26:06back in the geotechnical report that's

1:26:08also included in the storm water report,

1:26:10just to make things really hard to find,

1:26:12>> [snorts]

1:26:12>> um you will find that if you go down

1:26:15deep enough, and you were supposed to

1:26:16use the most restrictive layer in these

1:26:19equations, if you go down deep enough,

1:26:22you find that you have wet clay, which

1:26:24was noted in several locations. You have

1:26:27wet pete, which was noted in several

1:26:29locations. And you have wet sand. Wet

1:26:32sand is different from dry sand because

1:26:34if sand is sitting in a puddle, water

1:26:36doesn't move through it. Dry sand

1:26:39obviously will infiltrate better. So the

1:26:41soils on this site largely would be

1:26:43classified as group D soils. Group D.

1:26:48But if you look at the inputs, 0% of

1:26:51this land was considered group D. And

1:26:53again, you're supposed to use the most

1:26:55restrictive layer. Well, what did they

1:26:58classify the soils as? group A and group

1:27:00C. What does that mean? They expect that

1:27:02these soils or the model will anticipate

1:27:05that those existing conditions will

1:27:07infiltrate better than they actually do.

1:27:10That means that the storm water

1:27:11management plan has underestimated storm

1:27:15water runoff and overestimated recharge

1:27:18volume. They said that they're they're

1:27:20providing I don't remember how many

1:27:21times big of a infiltration basin. We're

1:27:25expecting less to come off and more to

1:27:28actually sink into those soils than is

1:27:30actually possible because all of the

1:27:32groundwater that's in this site has been

1:27:35ignored.

1:27:36That's a recipe for flooding. And since

1:27:39all the water is being funneled now to

1:27:41the little wet meadow in the northwest,

1:27:43that wet meadow will be inundated with

1:27:45water and ultimately destroyed. If we

1:27:47care only about vegetation, no wa no

1:27:50vegetation's going to grow when it's

1:27:52subi subsumed by water. But

1:27:55unfortunately, this is the least of our

1:27:58problems. I would like to talk about the

1:28:00dump because it does also affect that

1:28:02little wet meadow. And this is a dump,

1:28:04by the way. I'm not making that up. It

1:28:07was referred to as a dump through the

1:28:101940s and 50s. If you look at newspaper

1:28:12articles, they refer to dump fire at

1:28:15Pete Meadow, which is what the site used

1:28:17to be called before it was the proposed

1:28:18building site. Or my favorite is the

1:28:21affectionate description of it as the

1:28:23ratinfested dump behind Havlin Street.

1:28:27This site was an open open unregulated

1:28:31unline dump that operated probably from

1:28:33the late 1920s into the 1950s.

1:28:37Now, this matters. You can see that on

1:28:39the aerial photograph that was mentioned

1:28:40earlier. You see that large clearings

1:28:42we're talking about the land was filled.

1:28:44It shows the large clearing of the dump

1:28:47site where the geotechnical data shows

1:28:49the deepest layers of fill right in the

1:28:51middle with three very well-used roads

1:28:54running to it. Why does that matter?

1:28:56Well, everybody keeps calling this urban

1:28:57fill. Urban fill this, urban fill that,

1:28:59fill fill. Where are you going to move

1:29:01the fill? This isn't fill. This is a

1:29:03landfill with garbage from the 1930s

1:29:06through 50s, which was not the best time

1:29:08for clean garbage. People threw out

1:29:11mercury. People threw out asbess and and

1:29:14the plastics that were used during that

1:29:16time are now banned. But it gets worse

1:29:18than that because if you look at the

1:29:20geotechnical data, it lists some

1:29:22interesting findings. And this is just

1:29:24what can be seen with the eyes and

1:29:25smelled. And we don't have any chemical

1:29:28data of what's actually the stuff that

1:29:30we can't see. But they listed large

1:29:33amounts of leather scrap, orange, red,

1:29:36and yellow ash, in some cases a foot

1:29:39thick, at least one rusted out metal

1:29:41drum. Now, I don't have a full sense of

1:29:43scale of that, but it looks to be about

1:29:46five or six Japanese knotweed leaves

1:29:48wide, which seems like a 55gallon metal

1:29:52drum. Soils that smell of petroleum or

1:29:55napsylene.

1:29:57Now, degrading benzene is not urban

1:30:01fill, although I don't know what urban

1:30:02fill is, so maybe it is. These findings

1:30:05point not only to the presence of

1:30:07industrial waste at this site, but to

1:30:10the specific use of this site by a

1:30:12tannery, which Worcester had at least

1:30:14one of that according to the Worcester

1:30:16History Museum was processing 300,000

1:30:19hides a year. What's in this site that

1:30:21we cannot see that that if it was used

1:30:24by a tannery that they would have left

1:30:26potentially tetrachloroethylene

1:30:28and other disgusting things that are now

1:30:31being proposed to just be excavated and

1:30:34moved to the north and left until it is

1:30:37feasible to remove them. Meanwhile, all

1:30:40of the water is going to run through

1:30:42that into the storm water basins into

1:30:45the little vegetated wet meadow and

1:30:47preventing it from functioning at its

1:30:49full capacity. And then since that's

1:30:51going to flood, it will end up in the

1:30:52Blackstone River once it makes it to Wer

1:30:54storm water drains.

1:30:59So, it matters now what is under the

1:31:02landfill because you'd say, well, this

1:31:04is really bad, so it's just going to be

1:31:07bad. except that right now that landfill

1:31:09sits on top of Pete. Pete was found,

1:31:12especially in that area where all of the

1:31:15contaminated stuff was found. So the

1:31:18worst part of this landfill, that

1:31:19clearing that was shown in that

1:31:21photograph is where the pete is. And in

1:31:24that in some cases, it's over 13 and 1/2

1:31:26ft of pete. They didn't get to the

1:31:28bottom of the pete. We don't know how

1:31:29deep it really goes. Pete has a fibrous

1:31:32structure that filters contaminants, not

1:31:34just solids, but liquids like

1:31:36tetrachloroethylene if it's in there.

1:31:40That is one of the functions that Pete

1:31:42serves and and it is sitting there

1:31:44providing pollution control. Now, if it

1:31:48is excavated, it will oxidize. Those

1:31:51fibers will break down and everything

1:31:52that is stored in that pete will be

1:31:54released up in the northern portion of

1:31:56the site while it waits for feasibleness

1:31:58of being removed.

1:32:00And while I'm talking about Pete, Pete

1:32:02performs another important function

1:32:04which is that of water retention. That

1:32:06same fibrous structure absorbs water. I

1:32:09think the going number is 20 times its

1:32:11weight in water. But in any case, it

1:32:13acts like a sponge. And if you have

1:32:15acres and acres of pete, you have over

1:32:18feet, several feet deep, you've got the

1:32:20biggest sponge ever that cannot be

1:32:22replicated with an infiltration basin.

1:32:25The pete regulates the groundwater. It

1:32:28absorbs water when the ground water is

1:32:30high and releases it back into the

1:32:32ground when it's sorry it absorbs water

1:32:35when it's wet and it releases it back

1:32:36into the ground when it's dry. And its

1:32:39ability to absorb water prevents

1:32:40flooding and its ability to release

1:32:42water keeps things hydrated. Now that is

1:32:45where it is that is important to note

1:32:47because the groundwater protection that

1:32:49it offers at this site is also afforded

1:32:53to that little wet meadow in the

1:32:54northwest because historically these two

1:32:58sites are or were they still are but

1:33:01they were the same wetland. There was no

1:33:04delineation. The toe of the slope is

1:33:06Phil. It's fake. These are the same

1:33:09wetland. They still think they're the

1:33:12same wetland. The only difference

1:33:13between them is that one has an an a

1:33:16dump on top and the other one has less

1:33:19of a dump so it can grow ve it can grow

1:33:21vegetation.

1:33:22So anything that is done to this

1:33:24building site in terms of groundwater

1:33:25and that's going to include dewatering

1:33:27which it looks like it's going to be ex

1:33:29much more extensive than is being

1:33:31reported because they didn't actually

1:33:33examine groundwater during higher

1:33:35groundwater levels. We've been in a

1:33:37drought kind of well the the all the

1:33:39data was collected during a drought that

1:33:41had started in September 2024. So that's

1:33:45a long time of depleting groundwater. So

1:33:47groundwater could be feet below where it

1:33:49is. It's basically at the historic

1:33:51surface or above it. And we haven't

1:33:54taken any of it into account. Nor we

1:33:55take into account where that groundwater

1:33:57is coming from which is the adjacent

1:33:59hills which I described in my

1:34:01dissertation that I sent to you. Um so I

1:34:03won't go into it but it's coming off of

1:34:04there. And unless you remove the hills

1:34:06that surround this site, you're not

1:34:08going to get rid of it. So, will it be

1:34:10redirected? What will be the effect on

1:34:12the little wet meadow when this gigantic

1:34:15recharge area no longer can function?

1:34:19So, talking about the building site

1:34:21itself, I did mention that it performs

1:34:24pollution control and flood prevention

1:34:26and those are two very critical wetland

1:34:28functions that are happening at the

1:34:31proposed building site despite the

1:34:32landfill on top of it. So, I know you

1:34:35don't have jurisdiction over this site,

1:34:36but I think that there is a question of

1:34:39whether or not this site is a wetland

1:34:42because it was a wetland. That was the

1:34:44whole reason for filling it. In the 1924

1:34:47Worcester city plan, they said, "Let's

1:34:49fill the swamp uh to the east of Newton

1:34:52A. We need to fill that swamp. It's in

1:34:55the way of development." So, the whole

1:34:57excuse for filling it was that it was a

1:34:58wetland. It was a filled wetland, but it

1:35:01still seems to be functioning as a

1:35:02wetland. [snorts] So, is it still a

1:35:05wetland? Well, in Massachusetts,

1:35:07wetlands are defined by three

1:35:09distinguishing characteristics. The the

1:35:11class characteristic hydrophic plants,

1:35:13the presence of hydric soils, and

1:35:15wetland specific hydraology, which is

1:35:17soil saturation, high water table or

1:35:19surface water. Well, if we consider the

1:35:21historic surface, we do have those

1:35:23hydraologic signs. Obviously we don't

1:35:26have the vegetation but if we look at

1:35:28the soils you see the organic hydric

1:35:30soils you see pete over large stretches

1:35:32of this property and you see the

1:35:34inorganic hydrox soil signs of

1:35:36redoxorphic features gllaying all sorts

1:35:38of interesting stuff if you read all of

1:35:40the geotechnical data and analyze it and

1:35:43not just go and look at the toe of the

1:35:45slope.

1:35:47Now

1:35:48why doesn't the site have the vegetation

1:35:50though? Is it because it doesn't have

1:35:52what the vegetation needs to grow? Well,

1:35:55the one of the reasons that vegetation

1:35:57is used to delineate wetlands is because

1:36:00it indicates what's underground.

1:36:02[snorts] So, that vegetation is the only

1:36:04vegetation that will tend to grow in

1:36:06some of these extreme environments. They

1:36:09are the only plants that will grow in

1:36:11areas with reduced forms of those

1:36:13minerals. So the minerals aren't being

1:36:15oxidized and that is for the most part

1:36:18toxic to plants except the few that will

1:36:20grow there. Most plants need oxygen for

1:36:22their roots. There's no oxygen for roots

1:36:24in a saturated environment. You only get

1:36:26specific plants under these conditions,

1:36:28especially with Pete. Now you've added

1:36:29in an acidic environment. All of those

1:36:32things exist here. So where are the

1:36:34plants? Well, those plants also need

1:36:36sunlight. There's no sunlight because

1:36:39there's 16 1/2 ft of fill on top of the

1:36:42site. If that fill were removed, this

1:36:44site could support vegetation. So, is it

1:36:48then not a wetlands? Well, Massachusetts

1:36:50has said that the fill doesn't affect

1:36:53the wetlands if there is all that other

1:36:56stuff under there. And we're in an

1:36:57unusual situation that we've seen what's

1:37:00underground thanks to the very generous

1:37:02contribution of of geotechnical test pit

1:37:05data. Um, we know that underground it it

1:37:08has the features that would support this

1:37:10vegetation and if the landfill were

1:37:13removed, it could grow. So, this

1:37:16landfill, all that separates it from

1:37:19what it is now and something that would

1:37:21no doubt be protected by the

1:37:23Massachusetts Wetland Protection Act and

1:37:25fall under the Conservation's

1:37:26jurisdiction is the presence of this

1:37:29unauthorized landfill, which has been

1:37:31maintained. And I realize that it was

1:37:32put there before the wetland protection

1:37:33act and before the solid waste disposal

1:37:35act, but it has been maintained by the

1:37:37current owner. He had ample time to

1:37:39remove it. So which [snorts] the

1:37:41landfill is now being used as an

1:37:44opportunity for the applicant to evade

1:37:47this commission's jurisdiction and

1:37:48proceed with destruction of those

1:37:50remaining defining characteristics and

1:37:52functions that remain at the site. It's

1:37:54no different than if someone were to put

1:37:55a tarp over their wetland on their

1:37:59property and come here and say, "No

1:38:01vegetation, no wetlands, not your

1:38:04jurisdiction." The purpose of wetland

1:38:07protection isn't aesthetic like nice

1:38:10plants, but it's functional. That's what

1:38:12gives this commission legitimacy. That's

1:38:15what gives you jurisdictional oversight.

1:38:17Wetlands serve a public good. This site

1:38:19performs a public good in the form of

1:38:21flood control, storm damage prevention,

1:38:24groundwater protection, and pollution

1:38:26prevention. All critical functions of a

1:38:28wetland. The proposed building site at

1:38:30three suburban road is a historic

1:38:32wetland. It continues to function as a

1:38:34wetland. It maintains all the

1:38:36topographic, geologic, and hydraologic

1:38:38characteristics of a wetland underneath

1:38:40the fill. And barring that fill, it

1:38:42would have the vegetation of a wetland.

1:38:44Nearly the entire site proposed for

1:38:46development is a wetland resource area

1:38:49and development here would excavate,

1:38:51fill, and dewater it, eliminating all of

1:38:53the functions it serves. It would leave

1:38:55that tiny still vegetated wet meadow in

1:38:58the Northwest alone to compensate for

1:39:00those lost functions. And that assumes

1:39:02that that little wet meadow can maintain

1:39:04its functionality at all once it is cut

1:39:06off from 13.9

1:39:09acres of its former self.

1:39:12So returning to the storm water

1:39:14management plan, the main reason why it

1:39:16is so woefully inadequate, you see, is

1:39:19not that it just needs an input

1:39:20correction of the right soils, but that

1:39:22the site is in fact fact a functioning

1:39:25wetland. And generally you're not

1:39:27supposed to build on those without a

1:39:29onetoone replication of lost

1:39:31functionality. This has the

1:39:33functionality, but we don't want to call

1:39:35it a wetland. There's no way to

1:39:37adequately account for that lost

1:39:39functionality of the site without

1:39:41admitting that this requirement must be

1:39:44met. There's undoubtedly wet land here.

1:39:48We just don't know where its boundaries

1:39:50are. But unfortunately, because of all

1:39:53this contaminated fill, you can't do a

1:39:55delineation safely. I saw that there was

1:39:57some requests for more test pit data.

1:40:00Every time a test pit is dug here, it's

1:40:02driving this contaminated these

1:40:05contaminated soils that we don't know

1:40:06enough about into the groundwater

1:40:09because it's breaking up that pete

1:40:11filtration layer that is there. So, we

1:40:13really ought to stop doing anything to

1:40:16this site until it can be analyzed,

1:40:18until that fill layer is removed, the

1:40:20site can be properly delineated and we

1:40:22can figure out the permit applicability

1:40:24of this site. And I think that that is

1:40:26what needs to proceed here. This this

1:40:29commission needs to require the removal

1:40:33of this landfill in the proper way

1:40:35according to hazard waste procedures and

1:40:38have the applicant remove this landfill.

1:40:41They'll have to do it anyway and then we

1:40:43can look at where those delineation

1:40:45boundaries really are and then you can

1:40:47reassess your jurisdiction. So, thank

1:40:49you so much for your time. I do hope you

1:40:51will consider at least the effect of the

1:40:53building site on little vegetated wet

1:40:55meadow. Thank you.

1:40:58>> [applause]

1:41:05[applause]

1:41:11>> Thank you, commission. My name is Harlem

1:41:13Montero, pro bono subject matter expert,

1:41:17professional wetland scientist.

1:41:19I find it highly ironic with all these

1:41:22conversations about fancy storm water

1:41:25retention basins when the ecosystem that

1:41:28exists here has already provided one

1:41:30greater than we could ever dream of

1:41:32building in the form of this old growth

1:41:35pete bog ecosystem single-handedly as

1:41:39Katie stated holding 20 times their

1:41:41weight in retention

1:41:44protecting this community from horrific

1:41:47flooding events and also simultaneously

1:41:50still supporting the ecosystem that we

1:41:52also need to survive.

1:41:56And I think in a nod to this being the

1:41:58250th anniversary of this country, I

1:42:02think we need to pay close attention to

1:42:04the legacy we're leaving for the next

1:42:06250 years and beyond. And I firmly

1:42:09believe the answer to that is not to

1:42:13pile an additional layer of abuse on

1:42:17this precious ecosystem that has already

1:42:19suffered numerous layers of incalculable

1:42:23abuse over the years despite our best

1:42:26efforts still existing and still with

1:42:30opportunity to thrive into the future.

1:42:37Thank you very much for your time.

1:42:39>> Thank you.

1:42:41[applause]

1:42:49>> I'm Dr. Beverly Rotor. I'm a

1:42:51veterinarian. I'm also a Worcester

1:42:53resident. Um having had the excellent

1:42:56presentations by the previous speakers

1:42:59um the things that really are of concern

1:43:02disturbing any of this Pete bog wetland

1:43:05region is of great concern particularly

1:43:08with the groundwater contamination both

1:43:11for public health for human health and

1:43:14animal health. And there are also

1:43:17sensitive animal species within a

1:43:19wetland ecosystem that will certainly be

1:43:22disturbed if not destroyed for what

1:43:25habitat they need. So these are quite

1:43:28concerning. The other concerns here

1:43:30related to this building project saying

1:43:33300 units, two parking spaces, all of

1:43:36those would be highly coveted and having

1:43:38this 5,000 um square footage clubhouse

1:43:42is going to be party city. And where on

1:43:45earth is the parking going to go? I

1:43:47mean, Dardy High School is landlocked

1:43:49enough and parking is a premium many

1:43:53hours of the day as well as when they're

1:43:55going to have football games and track

1:43:57meets and whatever else is going to go

1:43:59on that is important for high school

1:44:01students and the surrounding community.

1:44:04This Pete Bog wetlands has been a

1:44:08marvelous way of controlling and

1:44:10preventing flooding. And so that is a

1:44:13huge huge benefit and not to disturb and

1:44:16destroy this is really critical. So I

1:44:19appreciate your thoughtfulness on this.

1:44:21The other concern I have there was an

1:44:24excellent uh expose type of article

1:44:26written by Adam Bass with masslive.com

1:44:30when the previous uh consideration prior

1:44:33to when there was supposed to be a

1:44:34public meeting at Dy High School. The

1:44:36applicant had withdrawn and then had now

1:44:39we're back to this proposal. Um, having

1:44:42read that, my understanding is this

1:44:44developer has previously built uh

1:44:47apartments and buildings in Florida and

1:44:49there were considerable problems with

1:44:51those projects after they had been built

1:44:54and were sold by this developer. So, I

1:44:57think it's really imperative that the

1:44:59city of Worcester really understand

1:45:01what's going on here and if we have a

1:45:03history of problems with a developer,

1:45:06that should certainly been taken into

1:45:08consideration. I appreciate this. Thank

1:45:10you. Thank you. [applause]

1:45:19Kim Sabrowski and I grew up up the

1:45:22street from Pete Meadow and um there is

1:45:27a tremendous amount of wildlife in this

1:45:29area as well as being a Pete bog and a

1:45:33one of the last remaining stands of

1:45:36green area in the city that is so far

1:45:39untouched. Um, in addition to knowing

1:45:42now all this about the contamination and

1:45:45waste that has been dumped there over

1:45:47the decades, um, I had a situation many

1:45:51years ago with an oil tank remediation

1:45:54and um, I had it completely uh, cleared

1:45:58up. But when they were excavating to

1:46:01remove the contaminated soil, they came

1:46:03across, and this is up the hill, a

1:46:06tremendous amount of clay in the soil,

1:46:09which was allowing the water from an

1:46:12underground groundwater up on the hill

1:46:15to remain in that hole that had to be

1:46:18pumped out in order for them to continue

1:46:21the remediation.

1:46:23That soil was so dense that the water

1:46:26could not drain anywhere. And this

1:46:28Groundwater comes down from Bankrooft

1:46:31Tower coming through that area of my

1:46:35backyard in the front yard continuing

1:46:37down Howardson Way and down into Pete

1:46:40Meadow. I urge the conservation

1:46:42committee to seriously consider not

1:46:44approving this development. It's a total

1:46:46detriment to the neighborhood, the

1:46:48surrounding people that live in those

1:46:50homes who have already already

1:46:53uh been affected by wetland and um

1:46:57issues with their homes and foundations

1:46:59because of the the water situation there

1:47:03and that there's also been some settling

1:47:05of the existing building I believe by

1:47:08about 6 in that it was built on and um I

1:47:12just urge that they give a serious

1:47:15consideration to not approving this

1:47:17development. Thank you.

1:47:20[applause]

1:47:28Hello, my name is Paula Rosen Blum and I

1:47:31am a home own homeowner on Havlin Street

1:47:34and a director of butter to the property

1:47:36at number three Suburban Road where

1:47:38there is consideration this evening for

1:47:40a development plan being proposed by

1:47:43Wood Partners. I would like to thank the

1:47:46members of the conservation commission

1:47:47for the opportunity to express my

1:47:49concerns about this project and to share

1:47:52the reasons I believe it should not be

1:47:54approved. I've lived in my home for the

1:47:56past 44 years. We recently built an ADU

1:48:01on our property for our adult daughter

1:48:03who has a disability to live in. During

1:48:06that process, our initial attempt to dig

1:48:08a foundation for the structure revealed

1:48:10there was 10 to 12 feet of coal ash just

1:48:15below a layer of surface soil. This

1:48:18discovery was alarming and had us

1:48:20scrambling to figure out another plan

1:48:23for building the ADU.

1:48:25Finding so much coal ash buried on our

1:48:28property led us to a deeper

1:48:29understanding about what we are really

1:48:32living next to. We learned that coal ash

1:48:35had been dumped throughout the property

1:48:37and that trash was dumped there as well.

1:48:40Another alarming discovery. But an even

1:48:43greater concern for us was discovering

1:48:46that the development plans do not

1:48:48include any form of containment or

1:48:50remediation.

1:48:52We also now understand that wet pete

1:48:55which is prevalent on this property acts

1:48:58as a giant filtration system protecting

1:49:01adjacent properties from toxic m leate.

1:49:05The coal aash we found on our property

1:49:07will remain safely buried but the

1:49:10numerous additional findings of

1:49:12potential industrial waste are not

1:49:14something that I wish to worry about.

1:49:17Yet the developer's plan to excavate the

1:49:19landfill and pete layer on the property

1:49:22to prepare it for building would

1:49:23eliminate this f function putting all

1:49:26the butters in the general area at risk

1:49:29of exposure to these toxic toxic wastes.

1:49:33The natural pollution controls this area

1:49:36performs is the function of a wetland.

1:49:39As already covered, there is evidence to

1:49:42support that the entire building site

1:49:44continues to maintain characteristics of

1:49:46a wetland. If the wetlands are valued

1:49:50valued for their function, then

1:49:52certainly this function makes this one

1:49:55an invaluable and a free resource to the

1:49:58city which has an obligation to protect

1:50:01its residents. This commission also has

1:50:04an obligation to protect wetland values

1:50:07including pollution control and it

1:50:10therefore has an obligation to protect

1:50:12the wetland at three suburban road. As

1:50:15members of the conservation commission,

1:50:18you also have a responsibility to make

1:50:20recommendations on the planning,

1:50:23acquisition, and management of property

1:50:25for conservation and passive recreation.

1:50:29This property is located next to Duffy

1:50:32Field, a city park and land owned by the

1:50:35Greater Worester Land Trust and is, I

1:50:38believe, an I ideal candidate for

1:50:41conservation, as was done recently with

1:50:44a parcel near near Nelson Place School.

1:50:47I thank you for your consideration.

1:50:51[applause]

1:50:57Hi, my name is Sarah Samserion. Our

1:51:00family has owned our property on Havlin

1:51:02Street for over 68 years.

1:51:05Um,

1:51:08I just want to touch base about the

1:51:13risk that we are facing if you go ahead

1:51:18with approving this plan. Because

1:51:23I should also add that a number of homes

1:51:25on our street have drains built into

1:51:28them because of the water that flows

1:51:31through both down from Bankraftoft and

1:51:34through the underground area from the

1:51:36meadow.

1:51:38when you excavate

1:51:41and uh

1:51:44uh dig up toxic waste. I want to know

1:51:47who's going to pay my medical bills if I

1:51:49have respiratory illness or cancer. I

1:51:53want to know who's going to take care of

1:51:56our neighborhood that will be destroyed

1:51:59if the entire neighborhood becomes

1:52:01flooded and contaminated.

1:52:04We are here because you are here as our

1:52:08representatives to try to decide on

1:52:11what's best for the community balance

1:52:14against individual needs. And I look at

1:52:17the community which is a pretty large

1:52:20one and don't see a good balance here.

1:52:24We absolutely need more housing,

1:52:27ownership of housing, which partners is

1:52:30not providing from the last meeting I

1:52:32was here. We need affordable housing,

1:52:35which this is not.

1:52:38We need traffic management, which we are

1:52:41still waiting for with the Dory, where

1:52:45we're still not having our needs met.

1:52:48And

1:52:50you're gambling with us. And as Ms.

1:52:52Fratoni mentioned, Wood Partners um has

1:52:57built stuff before, but they've also

1:52:59usually flipped their properties within

1:53:01two years and they're gone. So that

1:53:04property in Orlando that uh collapsed

1:53:07and everyone lost all of their

1:53:09possessions and they're busy suing

1:53:12whomever. Um Wood Partners already sold

1:53:15that. So, I don't know who's responsible

1:53:17for the building that Wood Partners

1:53:20designed,

1:53:22determined was structurally sound, and

1:53:24then fell apart. Um,

1:53:29I would ask you to put yourself in our

1:53:32shoes to imagine you living in our

1:53:35neighborhood and ask you to think if

1:53:38this is the best balance of public need

1:53:43and and personal ownership. Thank you

1:53:46very much.

1:53:48[applause]

1:53:56My name is Katherine Perkins. I live on

1:53:58the other side of Duffy Field. Um, and

1:54:03I've learned in the last few years more

1:54:06intensively about trees. My

1:54:08understanding is that trees hold and

1:54:12process huge amounts of water. What's

1:54:15planted there was an intentional

1:54:17arboritum with a variety of trees.

1:54:20They're very tall. They're quite old.

1:54:24They're very lovely. They provide a huge

1:54:26amount of shade.

1:54:29I wonder if any of the engineers

1:54:32have assessed how much water would be

1:54:35added to the site if the trees aren't

1:54:39processing it, and would that be a

1:54:42factor in whether that um that site can

1:54:46handle any more water?

1:54:50Thank you for your consideration.

1:54:53[applause]

1:55:06>> Turn on.

1:55:09>> Hello. Okay. Uh, friend Nathan Worester,

1:55:13I I wasn't going to speak on this. I've

1:55:15spoken before on this.

1:55:18um you know about the whole thing.

1:55:21Obviously

1:55:22development is needed, but it's

1:55:28um with a development ruin uh the

1:55:32neighborhood because you obviously have

1:55:34the issues of the Pete wetlands and just

1:55:38in general

1:55:40um you know the wetlands that are there.

1:55:44But let's also be clear.

1:55:48There are things that have been built

1:55:51probably shouldn't have been built that

1:55:52you can argue those points. Like for

1:55:55example, the McDonald's at Tatnik Square

1:55:58on Mil Street. They took I don't know

1:56:00how much area they took, but they

1:56:02definitely took a sizable area to put

1:56:04that McDonald's in there. Was it good?

1:56:07Was it bad? Who knows? But now, let's be

1:56:10clear.

1:56:12something will get built there. The only

1:56:14magnitude is how much of it will be

1:56:16used. Uh uh should they choose

1:56:21something else? Yeah, probably. But

1:56:24also, let's face it, if and when they do

1:56:27build this, if it does get the okay,

1:56:31somebody paying rent over there and a

1:56:34two decker or a three decker or say

1:56:372600, you're going to be talking north

1:56:39of probably 3500.

1:56:41It's inevitable cuz all the development

1:56:46uh forces rents up cuz you have that

1:56:49much property. Even though there's

1:56:51competition, let's face it, we we have a

1:56:54lot of people uh living in Worcester who

1:56:58previously lived in Boston came here

1:56:59because it was cheaper.

1:57:01They will flood this area. Not in terms

1:57:04of just all the water damage, but there

1:57:07will be people coming in from Boston

1:57:09that will be living there. It's

1:57:11inevitable. So, uh, this committee will

1:57:14do what they want and hopefully, uh,

1:57:16they will do the smart thing. I mean,

1:57:19let's face it, you're not going to stop

1:57:20them entirely. The only question is if

1:57:23you can limit the scope of the damage to

1:57:26this uh, neighborhood. I hope uh, that

1:57:30people make the right decisions and that

1:57:32the developers aren't just in it uh,

1:57:34just to make a quick buck and then after

1:57:37they do it, they just look up. Oh,

1:57:38sorry. My hands are dying. I I can't do

1:57:41anything. I'm done with it. I hope you

1:57:45make the right decision

1:57:48cuz otherwise there will be people here

1:57:50every single meeting.

1:58:00Either one.

1:58:02>> Um, my name is Phyllis Spatrick. I live

1:58:05on Vassor Street, so I'm not in the

1:58:07immediate neighborhood, but I wanted to

1:58:09say a couple of things. One is I know

1:58:11that so I am a bit of a distance from

1:58:14there, but even where I live, the people

1:58:16who live on the across the street from

1:58:18me, so somewhat to the east, they all

1:58:20have water issues now. And so I'm sure

1:58:24that that this situation with removal of

1:58:28the trees with the remov the problem

1:58:31with the peak bog is going to make the

1:58:34situation worse. And another thing to

1:58:36think about and it was an article that I

1:58:38read just today in the New York Times

1:58:40about culverts and how important they

1:58:43are that almost according to this

1:58:46article which was in the New York Times

1:58:48almost 2thirds of the nation's six

1:58:50million culverts were built to standards

1:58:53insufficient for today's storms.

1:58:56Um

1:58:58and so

1:59:02that's another thing to think about. I

1:59:03know there's a huge culvert at Duffy

1:59:06Field that carries water away towards

1:59:09the direction of where I live. So that's

1:59:11another thing to think about is how much

1:59:13you know will these culverts and I don't

1:59:16know how many more there are but will

1:59:18these function as they will need to as

1:59:20we get more severe storms in the coming

1:59:24time because now we have storms that

1:59:26dump way more often way more rain

1:59:31per hour than we used to have. So it's

1:59:34something definitely consider. Thank

1:59:36you.

1:59:38>> [applause]

1:59:42>> Do we have anyone online?

1:59:46>> Just a reminder that it's star9 to raise

1:59:48your hand.

1:59:51>> If you're dialed in by phone, that is.

1:59:55>> Yep, we do have somebody.

2:00:00>> Richie, you should be able to speak.

2:00:02>> Awesome. Thank you. Um, hi, my name is

2:00:05Richie Scoffield. Um, I live on Highland

2:00:09Street abuing the proposed development

2:00:11and uh, I'm new to the neighborhood. Uh,

2:00:14my wife and I, um, our house was built

2:00:16in 1910

2:00:18and our first home improvement project

2:00:21had to be supporting our basement. And

2:00:25uh you know, we got the the company into

2:00:29our into our house and they started

2:00:31setting up temporary supports

2:00:33for the construction. And uh the

2:00:37houselifting company found massive

2:00:40vacuous holes between the concrete slab

2:00:44and the soil beneath it. Uh in some

2:00:47places it was up to se

2:01:00Oh, sorry about that, Richie. You should

2:01:02be able to speak.

2:01:02>> That's good.

2:01:03>> That's okay. Sorry about that. Um, yeah.

2:01:06So, they found these massive holes uh

2:01:08between the concrete slab and the soil

2:01:10beneath it. Up to 7 in of just bare air

2:01:15underneath

2:01:17um underneath our concrete slab. Um, and

2:01:20so the holes were so big that the

2:01:23engineers in the Worcester building

2:01:24department actually required us to

2:01:27install uh 20 foot helical coils uh

2:01:30helical piles into the soil underneath

2:01:34each of the lolly columns that we

2:01:36replaced.

2:01:37Um, it ballooned our cost way out of our

2:01:40original budget. Um, but the

2:01:43houselifting company decided it was too

2:01:45much of a liability to continue without

2:01:48the helical piles. Um, and I I don't

2:01:51really have a a you know, a big

2:01:55statement to to make here or specific

2:01:58things to consider, but I I just wanted

2:02:00to be known that this I mean very

2:02:02practically within the last 6 months

2:02:05underneath this soil or underneath our

2:02:08uh concrete slab there are massive

2:02:10massive holes and this building is you

2:02:12know maybe 115 years old. So um I just

2:02:16think it's really really important uh to

2:02:19understand

2:02:20uh and to build appropriately because if

2:02:23you don't I mean you will end up with

2:02:26these massive holes and this massive

2:02:28sinking in our house at some places uh

2:02:31is up to 5 in between you know from the

2:02:34wall to the center of the house. Um

2:02:37that's it.

2:02:40>> Yep. Thank you. Anyone else?

2:02:43>> [applause]

2:02:47>> Alexander, you should be able to unmute.

2:02:49>> Thank you. Uh the first thing I'd like

2:02:52to do is uh just thank and and give a

2:02:56huge shout out to all of our neighbors.

2:02:58I think um we clearly are all on the

2:03:01same page. So, I really hope that the

2:03:05commission is listening to to what

2:03:08everyone has to say. Um, and I would say

2:03:12ditto to all the comments and then I

2:03:15guess I would just like to make the

2:03:18comment and

2:03:21um, you know, have the commission

2:03:22understand that I think all of us do

2:03:25understand and appreciate that housing

2:03:28is needed. However, housing is not

2:03:31needed at all costs and given the

2:03:37information that has been shared,

2:03:40the housing um that is being proposed

2:03:44would be at the cost of all of us

2:03:47existing neighbors right now. So, I

2:03:50guess I would just like the commission

2:03:51to think about that as well. Thank you.

2:03:56[applause]

2:04:00And just for the record, can you just

2:04:01state your name?

2:04:02>> Sure. It's Alexandra and I'm on Havlin

2:04:05Street. Okay.

2:04:06>> Thank you.

2:04:07>> Thank you.

2:04:10>> Anyone else?

2:04:14>> So, I said a comment. I Kevin Crowley. I

2:04:18grew up on Weston Street, which is two

2:04:20streets over from Havland. Um,

2:04:24I haven't been up there in 50 years.

2:04:25Eric, you said you walked it. Um, when

2:04:28we were kids, we used to go up there to

2:04:30hunt for salamanders and we called it

2:04:32the swamp. So, that's all.

2:04:38[applause]

2:04:42>> Hi. Um, my name is Blaine

2:04:43[clears throat] Grandstaff. I live on

2:04:44Avalon Street. Um, initially had no

2:04:47plans on making any comments today. um

2:04:50was really hoping that someone else

2:04:52would have mentioned, but I think Sally

2:04:54in in some regard mentioned about the

2:04:57potential toxicity of the the

2:04:59groundwater. Um I have two sump pumps in

2:05:02my basement. Uh last year when it rains,

2:05:05those pumps run continuously and they

2:05:08discharge into my backyard, literally

2:05:10into my backyard. And that water does

2:05:12not go away. It just there's a permanent

2:05:14little puddle that is going to be there

2:05:18for 2 or 3 days after it rains. And now

2:05:21after listening to all of the discussion

2:05:23so far, hearing about the quality of the

2:05:27fill, the the the potential toxicity of

2:05:30the coal ash, the pete, the the tannery

2:05:33chemicals, I'm I'm now more concerned

2:05:36than before I went into this meeting

2:05:38about the impact of the groundwater

2:05:41literally flooding my backyard with

2:05:44toxic chemicals and the the pumps in my

2:05:47basement that have you can take the lid

2:05:50it off and you can see the water in your

2:05:51in the basement sitting there. It that's

2:05:54where my home office is now. I'm going

2:05:55to have the the the the chemical air

2:05:59leeching into my basement and I don't

2:06:03think based on the plans that they've

2:06:04submitted so far. I'm not convinced that

2:06:08their discharge or their ability to

2:06:10absorb all that water is sufficient. And

2:06:12I'm um also interested in what you had

2:06:16said earlier about how are they going to

2:06:18be maintaining this in an ongoing

2:06:20fashion? Who's going to be responsible

2:06:22for that? Not today, not next year, but

2:06:2610 years from now. So that when I go

2:06:28into my backyard, I I'm not encountering

2:06:31all of this toxic material. That's it.

2:06:36[applause]

2:06:43Hello, my name is Marica Davio. Um, I'm

2:06:45speaking on behalf of myself and and my

2:06:47husband, uh, David. We're on Havlin

2:06:49Street, number three. Um, mainly I just

2:06:53want to say ditto, but I think it's

2:06:55important that you see our faces and

2:06:57hear our voices. Um, more I'm more

2:07:00concerned, too. Um, and that's it. And I

2:07:03want to thank all my neighbors for

2:07:04coming. And I want to thank Katie

2:07:07Silverstein for her amazing research and

2:07:10presentation. [applause]

2:07:22Greg Dorsler. I'm a Worcester resident.

2:07:25I live uh off of Highland Street right

2:07:26on the other side of Elm Park. um in an

2:07:29area that frequently floods during

2:07:31torrential rainstorms and during the Dhy

2:07:34High School construction project um the

2:07:36flooding would include mud washed down

2:07:39from the site as far as the Fruit Street

2:07:41area. So I know that some of the water

2:07:43that we receive is coming from Upper

2:07:45Highland Street. Um how much of a

2:07:48difference this project would make um in

2:07:50terms of intensifying that I I don't

2:07:52know. But I think any additional storm

2:07:55water that we get is not a good thing.

2:07:59Um I also was drawn um when I read when

2:08:02I was looking this afternoon at this

2:08:04site plan to that large footprint on the

2:08:06northern side that looked like it was

2:08:08all clearcut and leveled and groomed and

2:08:11was very curious about why that was what

2:08:13that was and why that was needed. I

2:08:15understand from the changes tonight that

2:08:17that's been reduced and changed to a

2:08:19burm, which on the surface sounds like a

2:08:21good thing, but when I heard all of the

2:08:24stories about what is beneath the

2:08:26surface and the contaminants that may

2:08:29lie there and and realizing that that

2:08:31material was what the burm was going to

2:08:33be constructed out of, bringing that

2:08:35material to the surface along with

2:08:37whatever chemicals might be used to

2:08:38groom that bur that burm and maintain it

2:08:40as a lawn or how however it's going to

2:08:42be maintained. um and how that material

2:08:45could leech into the existing official

2:08:48wetland. Um that that's something that

2:08:50this commission should consider as well.

2:08:52Thank you.

2:08:55[applause]

2:09:00Okay. Um the applicant want to address

2:09:02any specific questions at this point? I

2:09:04mean, we are not we're not voting

2:09:06tonight. Um, there's a lot of

2:09:08information we still need, but if

2:09:11there's something you wanted to address,

2:09:13>> I don't necessarily think there's

2:09:14anything to to address. We just

2:09:16appreciate that the commission's time.

2:09:17We appreciate the the public and

2:09:19neighborhood concerns as well. Um, we

2:09:22do, as Eric indicated early on, we do

2:09:25have a number of comments that we need

2:09:26to address. Um, so we're working

2:09:29obviously we're going to ask for

2:09:31continuation to allow that to to play

2:09:33out and provide those additional

2:09:35comments to the satisfaction of the

2:09:37commission and the agent. Okay.

2:09:41>> Do you have a uh a [clears throat]

2:09:43meeting date you think you could

2:09:44realistically be prepared for? I think

2:09:46we'd want to avoid just like continuing

2:09:48one meeting out and then having to have

2:09:50a Butters followup for continued

2:09:52postponements. So, our next meetings are

2:09:54on October 5th, October 26th, November

2:09:5716th.

2:09:59>> Yeah, the next meeting should be fine.

2:10:01>> Okay.

2:10:05>> So, October 5th would have a um deadline

2:10:09of one week prior for revised materials.

2:10:23through you, Madame Chair. Sorry. So,

2:10:25there are a lot of points that were

2:10:27brought up today and just a lot of

2:10:29questions that were raised. I'm

2:10:32presuming that when you come back,

2:10:33you'll be able you're planning on

2:10:35addressing a lot of those concerns. Is

2:10:38that

2:10:38>> Yeah, we did take I did take a number of

2:10:40notes and between I think planning board

2:10:42comments, conservation comments and

2:10:44comments that we've written down

2:10:46tonight, I think we'll provide a package

2:10:47that we can address

2:10:49>> and we'll be available to answer

2:10:50questions.

2:10:51>> Okay. And they have access to all the

2:10:52public uh submissions that we received.

2:10:55>> Correct. Yeah. And we'll keep you guys

2:10:56posted if we get any new written

2:10:58comments as well.

2:10:59>> Perfect. Thank you. I think we've got

2:11:01two so far, but if you just want to pass

2:11:03along any additional ones, that'd be

2:11:04appreciated.

2:11:06So, one of the more striking questions

2:11:08that came up was uh whether or not this

2:11:11land was or should be uh wetland. Um and

2:11:16it maybe at one point is that something

2:11:19that we are assisting them in finding

2:11:22out some of this information or are do

2:11:24you have a good handle on?

2:11:25>> Well, I think I addressed that early on.

2:11:27you know, going back into the the early,

2:11:30you know, photo aerial photos back in,

2:11:32you know, 1938, the area was clearly an

2:11:35area that dumping was occurring based

2:11:37upon the aerial photos, based upon that

2:11:39the photos from 1960 that ceased to to

2:11:42occur. So, what you see today out there

2:11:46um was in place well before the Wetlands

2:11:49Protection Act or the City of Worcester

2:11:50wetlands ordinance. And if the

2:11:52commission has any would like to go and

2:11:54and walk the site with us, we'd be happy

2:11:56to take you out to show you

2:11:58>> um you know the existing conditions and

2:12:00>> trees on the site and whatnot.

2:12:03>> Okay. And um as the chair had mentioned

2:12:06before we opened to public comments was

2:12:08the fear of uh you know getting into it

2:12:12and realizing that maybe the soils are

2:12:15contaminated and you have to remediate

2:12:17more and uh the potential of abandoning

2:12:20the project because it's not just not

2:12:23you know profitable at that point. Um,

2:12:26so we want to make sure that we have all

2:12:27of that information up front to avoid

2:12:30something like that because, uh, you

2:12:32know, it is a nice area of green space

2:12:36that's not there and we wouldn't want it

2:12:39to just be, you know, leveled and and

2:12:42have someone abandon.

2:12:43>> Agreed.

2:12:47[applause]

2:12:51>> So, are you good with a postponement?

2:12:53Yeah, we'd ask for extension to the

2:12:55October 5th meeting, please.

2:12:57>> So moved. All

2:12:59>> in favor?

2:13:00>> I I

2:13:02>> sorry

2:13:03>> with the second.

2:13:05>> Thank you very much. We appreciate your

2:13:06time.

2:13:06>> See you in a few weeks.

2:13:09[clears throat]

2:13:10>> Uh next item number 12. Does anyone need

2:13:13a break before [laughter] we have one

2:13:15more? What am I? Um 26 and 28 Milton

2:13:18Street.

2:13:28Good job. No disrespect.

2:13:33>> Thank you.

2:13:50Is the applicant online?

2:13:53>> Yes. Sorry, I was trying to get off.

2:13:54>> Joe, you should be able to unmute

2:13:55yourself.

2:13:57>> Can you hear me now?

2:13:59>> Um, you might need to speak up.

2:14:08>> Can you hear me now?

2:14:26better

2:14:32customer service most of my life.

2:14:43Okay.

2:14:44>> So, is the applicant online?

2:14:50>> We're still we're still in the middle of

2:14:51a public hearing.

2:14:56>> Um I'm sorry. Was the applicant online?

2:15:01>> Somebody started to talk but we couldn't

2:15:02hear him.

2:15:03>> Yeah. So, Joe, Yep. you should be able

2:15:04to speak again. And Don just walked out,

2:15:07but

2:15:23>> Can you hear me now? Is that better?

2:15:25>> Um, yep. Yeah, we can hear you now.

2:15:27>> Okay. Apologies for that.

2:15:30Um,

2:15:32lower my hand.

2:15:35Good evening. I am the uh engineer uh of

2:15:38record on this uh Milton Street

2:15:39properties. Um this is a development of

2:15:45two

2:15:47buildings uh three unit buildings each.

2:15:50Um we've made it through conser uh

2:15:53planning board and zoning board and

2:15:56we're in front of conservation

2:15:57commission. Um

2:16:00a little bit of history on this project.

2:16:02this project. Um many of the zoning and

2:16:07planning board conditions we obtained

2:16:10after the fact. Both myself and Don were

2:16:12brought in at the tail end of um

2:16:15construction which is not as typical and

2:16:20um and have been working towards a path

2:16:23of making sure that this project is in

2:16:25compliance and pulling it back into the

2:16:27compliance and city regulations. So, we

2:16:30view this as our last step in in that

2:16:33process as we um work through the

2:16:37conservation um commission and the

2:16:42[clears throat] and um working with Eric

2:16:44and Maddie on the the conservation

2:16:48commission

2:16:49agents. um proposed here today is

2:16:55the remaining construction of these

2:17:00two buildings. Both buildings will

2:17:03utilize

2:17:05capture roof runoff route to underground

2:17:09infiltration units uh positioned in the

2:17:13front driveway areas. Um and there was

2:17:17uh several comments that we work through

2:17:20with city staff on

2:17:24um

2:17:27ensuring that the rainfall calculations

2:17:29and you you know just went through a

2:17:30whole understanding of um hydroad and in

2:17:34the development of that. So um we also

2:17:37had to update our hydrocad model for for

2:17:39this development in order to be in

2:17:41compliance. And um

2:17:45that was one of the the remaining

2:17:48comments

2:17:50that that um we actually uh were able to

2:17:54provide um

2:17:57uh earlier today. Um so we understand

2:17:59that you know it might not have been um

2:18:04as timely but you know rushing in order

2:18:07to get um comments completed. Um another

2:18:10aspect of the project for this is Milton

2:18:13Street is a private roadway and we are

2:18:19paving um and installing two catch

2:18:22basins here both on the plan right side.

2:18:26If you see those um those catch basins

2:18:29are are after discussions with with the

2:18:33city staff on providing treatment and

2:18:38providing

2:18:40um stormwater capture in in the um in

2:18:45this newly paved section.

2:18:48as as I stated um these buildings are

2:18:51actually already had been completed and

2:18:55you know once we noted that you know we

2:18:57need to once we told the construction

2:19:00team that you know we obviously need

2:19:02these permits and we need to

2:19:07be constructing this in accordance with

2:19:08city regulations.

2:19:10Um, we installed erosion controls on the

2:19:14site and there was a stop work order

2:19:16until um until

2:19:20um we we made it through planning board

2:19:23and and presenting here um in front of

2:19:26conservation.

2:19:30So, a little

2:19:33different of um a little strange way to

2:19:37to present here tonight. um where where

2:19:40some of what the structure is has been

2:19:42completed, but um I'm happy to take

2:19:45comments or questions on on that.

2:19:51>> Okay. Staff [clears throat] uh comments

2:19:53on the project.

2:19:54>> Sure. So, we just had a few uh comments

2:19:57related to the storm water report uh

2:19:59that Joe mentioned. Um those have

2:20:01largely been addressed at this point.

2:20:03Although given the separation of um the

2:20:05bottom of the unit to groundwater, I

2:20:07think we would want to see a mounting

2:20:08analysis uh as a condition of approval.

2:20:11Um one other question or comment we had

2:20:14rather was a request to incorporate more

2:20:16native species into the planting plan.

2:20:18Is that something that could be

2:20:19accomplished on a revised plan?

2:20:22>> U yes.

2:20:25Okay, that's it for staff comments at

2:20:28this point. Uh so I just have a question

2:20:29on um uh the timing. The the catch

2:20:32basins aren't currently installed. I can

2:20:34see the materials on site for the catch

2:20:38basins. What's the sequence of the

2:20:39remainder of the work?

2:20:41>> That is that is correct. Um the catch

2:20:43basins will have to be that is the the

2:20:46roadway is in base. Um and the the catch

2:20:50basins will have to be cut into that

2:20:51base and installed. Um and then

2:20:57final patched and then there will be a

2:20:59top of asphalt on placed on top of that.

2:21:02Um so there'll be two lifts of asphalt,

2:21:04right? Um,

2:21:06additionally for site work, uh, the only

2:21:08other remaining pieces of site work are

2:21:10landscaping, um, which, you know, will

2:21:13happen as, you know, in accordance with,

2:21:16um, the revised plans and the

2:21:20installation of that the storm water

2:21:22infiltration system within the driveways

2:21:24and the pavement of the driveways.

2:21:28>> So, um, just remind me on this site

2:21:30where the utilities are coming from.

2:21:32They are coming from Milton Street and

2:21:35they already connect. Yep.

2:21:36>> Okay. So, they're already connected. The

2:21:38infiltration structures are going in the

2:21:41front of the property. What's coming in

2:21:42underground from the front?

2:21:45>> Um the water and the sewer. We've worked

2:21:47with um maintaining

2:21:52a a a system that is a very shallow

2:21:54system, 2.5 ft total depth for this this

2:21:58underground infiltration system. and

2:22:00that um we're coordinating the utility

2:22:02installation to make sure that we are

2:22:05not in conflict.

2:22:07>> Got it. And and um I mean once you have

2:22:10approval, how long do you expect it to

2:22:11take before this site's finally buttoned

2:22:13up?

2:22:14>> Uh the the hope is right but um after

2:22:17approval this is buttoned up before the

2:22:18winter. um we want to be able to

2:22:22complete this and and finalize that work

2:22:25>> in order to make sure we can capture as

2:22:26much of the you know whatever remaining

2:22:29growing seasons left.

2:22:30>> Okay. I don't know how often you're

2:22:32going up to the site, but you might want

2:22:33to double check on the um the erosion

2:22:35[clears throat] controls. There's

2:22:36doesn't look like there's a lot coming

2:22:38off the site right now because the the

2:22:40brand new base coat is kind of creating

2:22:43a bit of a barrier. Um but there's

2:22:46they're inconsistently applied.

2:22:49>> Okay. No.

2:22:54>> Um

2:22:54>> we we will get with um the the

2:22:57contractor on this to ensure that that

2:22:59is no longer the case.

2:23:01>> Okay. Um thank you. Any other questions

2:23:05or comments?

2:23:09Anybody on the public online here?

2:23:14analysis as

2:23:16>> uh a mounding analysis was the request.

2:23:18A mounding analysis

2:23:19>> mounding like

2:23:22>> Thank you. Sorry.

2:23:24>> No worries.

2:23:27>> So, nobody.

2:23:28>> Yes.

2:23:30>> Okay.

2:23:34>> Make a motion to close.

2:23:36>> Make a motion to close.

2:23:38>> Second.

2:23:39>> All in favor? I

2:23:41>> I proposed order of conditions.

2:23:47>> All right. So, in addition to the

2:23:49standard conditions, we have a

2:23:51requirement for a mounting analysis,

2:23:54a requirement for revised plans with a

2:23:56revised planting plan incorporating at

2:23:58least 50% native species. Uh condition

2:24:0137 for storm water management system

2:24:03maintenance, 38 for infiltration unit

2:24:05inspection, 39 for certification of

2:24:07storm water infrastructure, 48 for dust

2:24:10control, 48 for de 49 for dewatering, uh

2:24:1350 for cement truck washing, and 56 for

2:24:16spill prevention

2:24:19as built plan for the certificate of

2:24:20compliance process. Uh condition 66 for

2:24:23sand and salt with ongoing conditions 37

2:24:26and 66.

2:24:28The

2:24:30>> applicant have any questions?

2:24:32>> We do not. Nope. We We appreciate this.

2:24:34Thank you.

2:24:37>> I'll make a motion to issue the orders

2:24:39of conditions as described.

2:24:42>> Second.

2:24:43>> All in favor?

2:24:44>> I

2:24:45>> I

2:24:46>> Right. Have a good night.

2:24:47>> Thank you.

2:24:50>> Uh next up, certificate of compliance.

2:24:54All right. So, first up, we have a

2:24:55partial certificate of compliance

2:24:56request for uh lots 1 through 7 Tory

2:25:00Fort Lane. Uh so, this focuses on the um

2:25:04lot that affects 148A Tory Fort Lane. Um

2:25:08so, this was from 2005, this filing for

2:25:10construction of multiple houses. um the

2:25:12lot that's in interest um doesn't exist

2:25:15on this plan but now exists um and was

2:25:19part of a single family home

2:25:20construction in 2023 which we'll discuss

2:25:22in a couple items down um but yeah

2:25:26they're looking for a partial

2:25:26certificate compliance essentially it

2:25:28came up during the real estate

2:25:29transaction that this old order was also

2:25:31still on the property so

2:25:35>> okay so there's nothing really to

2:25:38>> yeah yeah nothing no work was proposed

2:25:40on that section of the property for this

2:25:42but still was included.

2:25:47>> Is there a motion?

2:25:49>> So moved.

2:25:50>> Second.

2:25:51>> All in favor?

2:25:52>> I

2:25:52>> I

2:25:58>> All right. Up next we have 34

2:26:00Bittersweet Boulevard. This is also a

2:26:02partial certificate of uh certificate of

2:26:04compliance request um for lot 34. So one

2:26:08side of a duplex. This is part of the

2:26:09arboritum uh development. Uh the

2:26:12orderation is from 2009. So one of those

2:26:14old ones that just never get closed out

2:26:16properly. Came up during a real estate

2:26:18transaction. So looking for a partial.

2:26:20It's fully stabilized at this point. So

2:26:23no concerns.

2:26:24>> Is there a motion?

2:26:26>> So moved.

2:26:27>> Second.

2:26:28>> All in favor?

2:26:29>> I

2:26:29>> I.

2:26:33>> And then up next we have 115 northeast

2:26:36cutoff. I do see okay uh Patrick Healey

2:26:41is online. Um he might want to speak to

2:26:43this.

2:26:48>> Good evening, Madam Chair. Uh Patrick

2:26:50Healey from Thompson Liston Associates.

2:26:52So, we've requested a certificate of

2:26:54compliance for the completion of the

2:26:56work related to the uh electric school

2:26:59bus improvements that we had come before

2:27:01the commission last year to propose

2:27:04as a friendly amendment to our existing

2:27:07order of conditions. Um, in that case,

2:27:10we showed you that there was sufficient

2:27:13volume within the infiltration system to

2:27:15handle that additional area was properly

2:27:18mitigated. At this point, all of that

2:27:20work is complete. the land has been

2:27:21stabilized. You previously received

2:27:24documentation that the replication area

2:27:27was all constructed and functioning

2:27:29properly. And then I think the last

2:27:32outstanding item we were waiting for was

2:27:34the conservation restriction to be

2:27:36recorded signed by the city of Worcester

2:27:39the Commonwealth and that has been

2:27:41recorded now at the registry of deeds

2:27:43and the transfer was made. So thanks to

2:27:46all involved in getting that done.

2:27:49>> Thank you.

2:27:51Yep. So, no concerns from staff. Staff

2:27:53did confirm that the CR has been

2:27:55recorded at this point. Um, and staff

2:27:57inspected the site. It is fully

2:27:58stabilized. Um, and yeah.

2:28:03>> Okay.

2:28:03>> Motion to issue the certificate of

2:28:05compliance.

2:28:07>> All in favor?

2:28:08>> I

2:28:08>> I

2:28:09>> I

2:28:10>> thank you. Have a good evening.

2:28:12>> Have a good night.

2:28:16>> All right. And up next, we have 0 9 and

2:28:1919. Heman Street, 7 Heman's Court, and

2:28:2240 and 40R Milton Street. So, this was

2:28:24construction of a large, uh,

2:28:26residential, uh, lowrise building, uh,

2:28:29with multiple units. I had a fairly, uh,

2:28:32significant hill. Um, we did have an

2:28:34enforcement order that we since released

2:28:36um, I think probably last year. Um, but

2:28:40the site is fully stabilized at this

2:28:42point. uh a asbuilt plan has provi been

2:28:46pro provided and a certification from a

2:28:48professional engineer certifying that

2:28:50the storm water infrastructure is

2:28:52working properly. Um and they're just

2:28:54looking to complete a complete

2:28:56certification at this point or

2:28:58>> yeah so no concerns.

2:29:00>> No concerns.

2:29:01>> Motion to issue the certificate of

2:29:03compliance.

2:29:05>> Second.

2:29:05>> All in favor? I

2:29:07>> I

2:29:07>> I

2:29:15>> All right. And we're back to 148 uh Tory

2:29:18Fort Lane. So, this is for construction

2:29:19of a single family home. Uh so, as part

2:29:22of this, uh permanent markers were

2:29:24required and have been installed. Uh the

2:29:27site is fully stabilized. This one was

2:29:29also one that currently has an

2:29:30enforcement order on it. We're just

2:29:32waiting for the final monitoring report

2:29:33for that. Um staff did conduct it

2:29:36conduct a site visit. The restoration

2:29:38area has grown in nicely. Um all

2:29:40permanent markers haven't been

2:29:41installed. Um there was still some silt

2:29:44fence on the site when staff visited. Um

2:29:48but the applicant has confirmed that the

2:29:49site uh the silk fence was removed

2:29:51today. Um so they're looking for a

2:29:53complete certificate uh certificate of

2:29:55compliance.

2:29:57>> So we have a certificate of compliance

2:29:58but an outstanding enforcement order.

2:30:00>> Yep. Yep. So, we're still waiting on

2:30:01that last monitoring report to finally

2:30:03lift that. Okay.

2:30:07>> So, what's the motion here? You have a

2:30:09certificate of compliance already, but

2:30:11>> uh no. So, uh issuing the certificate of

2:30:14compliance. Yeah.

2:30:14>> Good. Motion to issue the certificate of

2:30:17compliance.

2:30:18>> Second.

2:30:19>> All in favor?

2:30:20>> I

2:30:20>> I

2:30:21>> I.

2:30:26>> All right. And so our final COC request

2:30:31is for 522 Gro Street. Uh so this

2:30:34project involved so this was also an

2:30:38enforcement order uh back in the day. So

2:30:39we required that they file a notice of

2:30:41intent with the conservation commission

2:30:42for existing structures. So this deck

2:30:44structure out on the peninsula and the

2:30:47dock and there was an old dock that was

2:30:50required to be removed under the order

2:30:51of conditions which has been removed. Um

2:30:54this is a photo of where it used to

2:30:56exist. Um so they're looking to close

2:30:58out their um order of conditions. Uh so

2:31:02there was a D file number for this. Um D

2:31:06issued a supersceding order of

2:31:07conditions. Um

2:31:10so they will be they have to close out

2:31:12on their end, but we're closing out from

2:31:13the uh wetlands protection ordinance

2:31:16standpoint.

2:31:18>> Motion to issue their certificate of

2:31:20compliance.

2:31:21>> Second.

2:31:22>> All in favor? Hi.

2:31:23>> Hi.

2:31:23>> Hi.

2:31:25>> Okay. We have an emergency certificate.

2:31:28>> Yes. So, this was an emergency

2:31:30certificate issued for 320 June Street.

2:31:33This is a large three- stemmed oak uh

2:31:37that's actually right on the property

2:31:39line with the with the conservation

2:31:40commission property. Um, so we had the

2:31:43um homeowner reach out to us after the

2:31:46stem on that left picture fell down back

2:31:50in back towards the conservation land

2:31:51with concerns about the um structural

2:31:54stability of those other two stems

2:31:56leaning towards their house and their

2:31:58neighbor. Um so we've we issued the

2:32:01emergency certification since this is in

2:32:03buffer zone to a BBW uh which is kind of

2:32:06just at the base of a hill um a pretty

2:32:08steep hill on the back side of that

2:32:10property. Um and the work is currently

2:32:12scheduled for tomorrow.

2:32:18>> So I just need to um valid

2:32:20>> uh just to ratify the emergency.

2:32:22>> Yep.

2:32:22>> So moved.

2:32:24>> Second.

2:32:25>> All in favor?

2:32:26>> I

2:32:26>> I

2:32:26>> I

2:32:28>> Okay. Any enforcement order updates?

2:32:31>> So a couple enforcement order updates.

2:32:33Um first up, so we have uh 570 Lincoln

2:32:37Street. So this was um behind a church a

2:32:42parking area. They essentially in 2023

2:32:45um

2:32:45>> dugal

2:32:47>> Yeah. So they uh drenched kind of

2:32:49dredged out this area to kind of create

2:32:52better flow in their parking lot. Um so

2:32:54an enforcement order was issued to

2:32:55restore the area. Um we have received uh

2:33:00two two of the follow-up monitoring

2:33:02reports. Um so receiving the la the

2:33:04final required one uh confirming that

2:33:06the plantings um in area have been

2:33:09restored um with native plants. Um so

2:33:13looking to lift the enforcement order at

2:33:15this point.

2:33:18>> Is there a motion?

2:33:19>> So moved.

2:33:21>> Second.

2:33:22>> All in favor?

2:33:22>> I

2:33:23>> I

2:33:29>> All right. And then just one more update

2:33:30for you. So 612 Grove Street. So this

2:33:33was construction of that uh that drive

2:33:36little parking area uh near Delaney

2:33:38Brook. Uh over the weekend that asphalt

2:33:41was removed at this point. Um I did

2:33:43request that they install straw waddles

2:33:45until the site is fully stabilized just

2:33:46to make sure we don't get any runoff

2:33:48into Delany Brook, but we're making

2:33:50progress. Um so hopefully once that's

2:33:52fully stabilized, we can lift this

2:33:53enforcement order.

2:33:54>> Okay.

2:34:00Uh anything on open space?

2:34:02>> Yep. So, one item on open space. So,

2:34:05Thrive Bridge. Um so, the volunteer

2:34:08group uh reached out to the uh staff to

2:34:11see if there was an area they could work

2:34:12on cleaning up. Um so, on September

2:34:1512th, they went to Perkins Farm and

2:34:17hauled out 11 bags of trash. Um so, we

2:34:21appreciate their um work to help keep

2:34:24our conservation property clean.

2:34:26So they are Worcester based uh

2:34:28>> Yep. So they are a Worcester based

2:34:29organization um and just trying to get

2:34:31involved and make the city greener. And

2:34:34>> we have a long list.

2:34:36>> We do. We do. Yep. So we appreciate them

2:34:39reaching out to us to partner with us.

2:34:40>> Great. Thank you. Uh active projects.

2:34:45>> Nothing this week. Okay.

2:34:48>> Communications.

2:34:50N uh approval of the minutes from August

2:34:5324th.

2:34:56Motion to approve the minutes.

2:34:59>> Second.

2:34:59>> All in favor?

2:35:01>> I

2:35:01>> I

2:35:02>> uh any ordinance update?

2:35:05>> Uh not too many updates. We've been a

2:35:07little bit swamped with case load

2:35:08recently, so we haven't had a chance to

2:35:10make too much progress. Um most

2:35:12recently, we've been kind of working on

2:35:14trying to adjust the uh fee schedule as

2:35:16part of the part of this update because

2:35:18that's also contained within the

2:35:19regulations. Uh still targeting getting

2:35:22this done this calendar year. Um, and

2:35:24hopefully we can put a little more

2:35:26energy towards it in the coming weeks or

2:35:28months if things slow down.

2:35:31>> Um,

2:35:33uh, any update on the CPA? No, haven't

2:35:36met.

2:35:37>> Reconvened yet.

2:35:38>> Okay. Thank Quinn Sigman.

2:35:40>> Uh, no. No updates from Lake.

2:35:42>> No, no decisions on the wake.

2:35:43>> Nope. No decision on the week. Hoping

2:35:46the state will make those decisions for

2:35:47us.

2:35:48>> It's nice when they take over sometimes.

2:35:50[laughter]

2:35:50>> Um, all right. and policies and

2:35:52procedures.

2:35:53>> I have a I have a question

2:35:57to

2:35:59touch base on whether suburban road is

2:36:03actually still a wetland or not a

2:36:06wetland. Is there any legal precedent

2:36:09for us to consider that?

2:36:11>> So, we shouldn't really shouldn't really

2:36:13discuss the matter outside of the of the

2:36:15hearing at the moment since it's not on

2:36:18the agenda. um

2:36:21more generally speaking in terms of

2:36:24wetland

2:36:26um delineations and and confirmation of

2:36:29jurisdictional areas just generally

2:36:31broadly applicable to any project um

2:36:34that that can be done through the RDA

2:36:36process that can be done through the

2:36:37NRAAD process. Those are processes under

2:36:40the um wetlands protection act that

2:36:43basically ask the commission a question

2:36:44as to whether you know a is the is the

2:36:48area jurisdictional or is the work

2:36:50require the filing of a notice of

2:36:51intent. Um and an NRA would be to more

2:36:53specifically define resource area

2:36:56boundaries. So that would be the the

2:36:58procedure for um you know any area land

2:37:02project in general to get a formal

2:37:04determination on on the jurisdictional

2:37:06status under either set of regulations.

2:37:08So would that request come from the

2:37:11public or internal?

2:37:15>> Um again I mean depends on the type of

2:37:18filing you're asking about. Um in

2:37:21general

2:37:22uh RDAs can be filed by anyone. Uh

2:37:26notices of intents can be filed also by

2:37:29anyone but you need to have the property

2:37:31owner's permission to file a notice of

2:37:33intent. Um ANRADS I believe are the same

2:37:36as the notice of intent. um just because

2:37:39those are like recordable decisions so

2:37:41that the property owner needs to sign

2:37:43off. I'm not positive about the property

2:37:44owner permission for the INRAD, but I

2:37:46know uh RDAs can be filed by anybody.

2:37:50But again, just broadly speaking, not

2:37:53wanting to get into specifics of any

2:37:55other project that came up, you know, so

2:38:02>> thank you.

2:38:03>> Great. Is there a motion

2:38:06>> motion to

2:38:10>> second? All second. All in favor? I

2:38:14>> thank you. Thank you for the long night.