10.21.26 Conservation Commission Public Hearing

0:00 Good morning.

0:02 And everybody should be in now.

0:03 Great, thank you. Okay, I'm calling this

0:05 public hearing to order at 6:00 p.m. in

0:08 accordance with the Massachusetts

0:09 Wetlands Protection Act, MGLC 131

0:12 Section 40 in the Boston Wetlands

0:13 Ordinance, Boston City Code Ordinances

0:16 Chapter 7-1.4.

0:18 The Boston Conservation Commission will

0:19 hold a virtual public hearing this

0:21 evening on October 21st, 2026 to review

0:24 the following projects to determine what

0:26 conditions, if any, the Commission will

0:27 impose in order to protect the interest

0:30 of the public and private water supply,

0:31 groundwater, prevention of pollution,

0:33 flood control, prevention of storm

0:35 damage, protection of fisheries and land

0:37 containing shellfish, and protection of

0:39 wildlife habitat. This evening's

0:41 hearings will be followed by our regular

0:42 meeting in accordance with Chapter 107

0:44 of the Acts of 2022, we're conducting

0:46 this meeting online to ensure public

0:48 access to the deliberations of the

0:50 Conservation Commission. The public may

0:51 access this call through telephone and

0:53 video conferencing. And additionally,

0:56 uh the meeting is being recorded. If you

0:58 do not wish to be recorded, please turn

0:59 off your video. Members of the public

1:01 may have an opportunity to ask questions

1:02 and provide public comment on

1:04 applications and discussions. To do so,

1:06 please raise your hand or type in the

1:08 chat in the application via the Zoom

1:09 meeting platform. If you're calling in

1:11 and cannot use the platform, you can

1:12 raise your hand by pressing *9 and *6 to

1:15 unmute yourself or send your questions

1:17 to staff via email at CC@boston.gov.

1:20 Uh for the record, I'm Michael Parker,

1:21 chair of the Commission. Could staff

1:23 please identify themselves?

1:25 Elena Idemarie with the Environment

1:26 Department.

1:28 Didi Hernandez with the Environment

1:29 Department.

1:31 Susana Decebal with the Environment

1:33 Department.

1:34 Great, thank you. I'll call the roll of

1:36 Commissioners present. Commissioner

1:37 Sullivan.

1:38 John Sullivan.

1:39 Commissioner Laney.

1:41 Amy Laney.

1:42 Commissioner Wilson.

1:43 Mike Wilson.

1:44 Commissioner Estevez Marziasi.

1:46 Dave Estevez Marziasi.

1:48 Great, thank you. Okay, first item on

1:49 the agenda tonight has been continued to

1:52 the November 4th, 2026 hearing. That's

1:55 notice of intent for DEP file number

1:57 006-2135

1:58 in Boston file number 2026-032

2:02 from AECOM on behalf of the

2:03 Massachusetts Department of Conservation

2:05 and Recreation for the proposed in-kind

2:07 replacement of a waterline and placement

2:10 of concrete mattresses from Hull to

2:12 Georges Island in Boston Harbor.

2:15 And again, that's been continued to the

2:17 November 4th, 2026 hearing. Second item

2:20 on the agenda, notice of intent for DEP

2:22 file number 006-2149

2:24 in Boston file number 2026-043

2:28 from GM2 on behalf of the United States

2:30 Postal Service for the proposed pavement

2:32 resurfacing and stormwater improvements

2:35 at the Boston Vehicle Maintenance

2:37 Facility located at 135 A Street, South

2:40 Boston Waterfront. The resource area is

2:43 land subject to coastal storm flowage.

2:45 Who's here on behalf of the applicant?

2:48 Good evening. My name is Brett Neilan at

2:50 GM2 Associates. We also have Christie

2:52 Filippo from MMT and Miguel from USPS.

2:56 Great. Floor is yours.

2:59 I appreciate it. Good evening. I I like

3:01 to try and keep this somewhat short.

3:04 This is the 135 A Street facility VMF as

3:08 a shorthand.

3:10 The project in total is a payment

3:12 restoration project. It has been before

3:14 and received order of conditions twice

3:16 before. The latest approval was

3:18 September 2020, which has since lapsed,

3:21 so we are seeking a renewal,

3:23 actually a new application and approval

3:25 technically.

3:27 If we can go to the next slide, I'll

3:28 continue.

3:32 So, these are the vicinity maps and

3:36 a general idea of where the project is

3:37 bounded by.

3:39 It is bounded by Hall Road, Richard

3:41 Street, Medallion Avenue to the west,

3:43 and West Service Road Extension to the

3:45 north. It is

3:48 and actually just the next slide will

3:49 probably be the best one.

3:54 And this is generally why we are

3:56 presenting today. This is the land

3:58 subject to coastal storm flow. This is

4:00 an excerpt from the FEMA

4:02 flood map, which indicates zone AE at

4:06 10. With the conversion, that's roughly

4:08 the city of Boston elevation 16.5.

4:11 In relation to the outside topography,

4:14 which varies between 12.5 to 16.

4:18 Also identified on the project plans

4:20 provided.

4:21 We could jump to the next.

4:27 This is the aerial imagery of the

4:29 facility indicating it is 100%

4:32 impervious with some slight vegetation

4:35 on the perimeters and the boundaries

4:38 between the property lines.

4:40 The site reconnaissance was completed

4:43 with the commission on the 15th of this

4:47 month, October 15th, I believe. A couple

4:50 items to bring up that were identified

4:53 and commented on were tree protection

4:55 really I believe along Medallion Avenue

4:58 is the only trees really in the vicinity

5:00 of the project itself. Um

5:03 Those trees may be protected. The work

5:05 limits are generally bounded by the

5:07 existing asphalt, which is just a

5:09 resurfacing and restoration itself. But

5:13 we will provide notations as recommended

5:16 to ensure those are protected fully.

5:19 Another comment was the green space

5:22 as indicated is 100% impervious area

5:24 today

5:26 and due to the facility itself, which

5:29 I'll indicate on the next slide and the

5:31 operations, we are proposing to maintain

5:34 the 100%.

5:36 And thank you for that.

5:37 So this is again just a snapshot in time

5:40 from Google Maps from 2026, but it shows

5:42 that there are vehicles double parked

5:45 Um,

5:46 on the white those white vans,

5:48 uh, personal vehicles are double parked

5:50 in the image to the left. Um, the

5:53 vehicles in themselves are not

5:55 technically in a spot on the USPS side,

5:58 as well as some personal vehicles

6:00 getting creative. So, the request to

6:03 seek green space is something that the

6:05 USPS cannot accommodate due to facility

6:09 operations.

6:11 We can jump to the next.

6:15 Watch the money you make every

6:16 These are a couple photographs provided,

6:19 um, to support the application itself.

6:21 These are excerpts from the stormwater

6:23 report showing the poor pavement

6:25 conditions,

6:27 um, and the intentions and the need,

6:30 truly, to restore the, uh, the pavement

6:33 throughout the facility.

6:36 And the last slide, I believe.

6:41 Uh, in addition to the pavement

6:44 resurfacing and restructuring that is

6:46 proposed, um, there are also 10

6:48 proprietary stormwater devices proposed,

6:51 uh, both in line in addition to the

6:54 existing system. As shown on the left

6:57 side of the screen is an excerpt from a

7:01 the plans themselves showing that

7:02 there's an in-line, uh, proprietary

7:06 in, uh,

7:07 designed. Uh, the intention here is that

7:10 an LSP has reviewed the project itself

7:13 and that stormwater infiltration would

7:15 be in violation of the regulatory

7:17 standards. So, we have sought the

7:19 stormceptors, uh, throughout the site to

7:22 provide the TSS removal, as well as a

7:25 form of stormwater treatment. Um, the

7:28 contaminated soil and groundwater, uh,

7:31 as noted, exceeds the reportable, uh,

7:34 two standards, so RCW,

7:37 RCGW2

7:39 and RCS2.

7:41 Um, I believe that's

7:43 the conclusion of the presentation and

7:45 I'd like to open it to any Q&A's.

7:48 Okay, good. Thank you. Okay, um, so I

7:51 know we're going to have a lot of

7:52 questions about storm water.

7:54 Um, as far as the um

7:58 uh, why don't you just do set the table

8:00 maybe focus on the um

8:04 uh, ground water uh, improvements you're

8:06 making. I know you're talking about a

8:08 oil water separator, a grit separator.

8:11 Um, just if for like 2 minutes if you

8:13 could go into more detail about what

8:15 improvements you're making to the uh,

8:17 water quality.

8:19 Uh, well, that's generally what we're

8:21 doing. We're providing 10 systems 10 of

8:23 those grit storm water storm separator

8:25 systems themselves uh, throughout the

8:27 facility

8:29 to provide that TSS and uh, sediment

8:32 removal as a form of storm water and

8:34 water quality improvement.

8:36 Okay, so those are in addition to what's

8:38 there now?

8:40 That's correct.

8:41 Okay, is are there any systems there now

8:43 that uh, need to be upgraded or going to

8:45 be upgraded as part of this?

8:48 No, it is purely the conveyance system

8:50 itself and then we are adding in the 10

8:52 proprietary as in line treatment.

8:55 Okay. And um, is there an AUL on the

8:58 property?

8:59 Yes, there is.

9:01 Okay. What what are the contaminants in

9:03 the soil?

9:04 Uh, I don't have that in front of me,

9:06 but I do believe it was provided in the

9:07 storm water report.

9:09 Okay.

9:10 Okay. Elena, what do you have on this?

9:15 Thank you. Uh, we had uh, some of the

9:17 questions that we had were addressed in

9:19 the presentation. Um, so the the

9:21 question of any alternative layouts um,

9:24 to reduce impervious area on site was

9:26 something that we were curious about.

9:28 Um, and we also had question about

9:30 questions about additional opportunities

9:31 for storm water infiltration. Um, but I

9:34 will uh, I to the commission on any

9:36 further information that's needed on

9:38 those two topics.

9:39 Okay.

9:41 Uh and on Q, I think we'll go to

9:43 Commissioner Sullivan. I think he'll

9:44 delve into the stormwater issues here.

9:46 Yeah, my only comments were I I didn't

9:49 see anything documenting the AUL.

9:52 Um I didn't see the LSP letter. I did

9:55 see the you gave the license number of

9:57 the LSP.

9:59 Uh you know, which I confirmed it's it's

10:00 all active and all that, but I didn't

10:02 see his stamped sign letter

10:05 telling us that you cannot take very

10:07 virtually clean rainwater

10:10 and put it on the site and what that

10:12 might do with migration of uh whatever

10:14 contaminated water that was there. And

10:17 it did mention that it exceeded um

10:21 regulatory numbers,

10:23 but I didn't see what the numbers were.

10:25 Um so

10:27 I'm sure he has that. And so the letter

10:29 stamped by that uh LSP

10:32 um would would go forward. Other than

10:35 that, I can't tell what's going on.

10:37 The second thing is I can't tell with

10:38 your catch basins. You look like it

10:40 looks like your catch basins are in-line

10:43 catch basins. In other words, there's

10:45 upstream water that comes into a catch

10:47 basin. I can't tell if your catch basins

10:49 have hoods to slow the water down and

10:52 keep grit in each of the catch basins.

10:55 Besides the fact you've got the storm

10:57 septors. Rather than having the storm

10:59 septors

11:01 work as the uh primary grit separator.

11:04 Uh so your civil engineer

11:07 gives a phone call over the water and

11:08 sewer commission. We can do it over the

11:09 phone really quick. Just show me that in

11:12 fact those catch basins, they look like

11:14 drop inlets basically, manholes that

11:16 have

11:17 uh the ability for the water to drop

11:19 into them, but I don't see that the

11:21 catch basins are doing much catching.

11:23 Now, the storm septors may do some, but

11:26 I'm not sure they're properly placed

11:27 then if they're if it's built that way.

11:29 Do Do

11:31 all that concern?

11:33 Uh uh a bit, yes. We do have hoods

11:36 proposed at the structures. Um

11:39 the concern about the catchment in a a

11:42 form of drop-in that I'll have to look

11:45 at the drawings a little closer to see

11:46 where that can common is coming from.

11:48 Yeah.

11:49 Um but I these proprietary devices are

11:52 right from the manufacturer and really

11:54 the intention is

11:56 the storm flow

11:57 kind of goes linear through, so we can't

12:00 provide it on an angle. So, that's why

12:02 some of them are in line and some of

12:03 them are in addition to

12:05 Right.

12:05 looking at the drawings. Um so, I don't

12:07 know if that's maybe part of the the

12:09 comment itself.

12:11 Yeah, yeah, I can't tell that, you know,

12:13 if you've got deep sump catch basins.

12:14 It's just you've got it looks to me like

12:17 they're basically manholes that that you

12:19 put a grade on top of it, so water can

12:20 get into it rather than a device

12:23 designed, you know, I don't know what

12:25 the invert is of the pipe coming in and

12:27 out of that structure.

12:28 Um somebody may know that, your civil

12:31 may know that, they maybe checked it

12:33 out. You'll know where the hoods are

12:34 going. I couldn't tell where you were

12:35 putting hoods on them, which ones have

12:37 them, which ones don't. I couldn't tell

12:39 where the roof leader from the um

12:41 building is and where that enters it.

12:44 So, that that's you know, you I know you

12:48 it says in the thing you're promising

12:49 you'll do the right thing. Well, we we'd

12:51 like to see the documentation of that

12:53 promise of what's going on. So, an LSP

12:55 letter uh

12:57 uh the

12:58 uh information showing us that there is

13:00 an AUL on the property

13:02 and um

13:03 you know, the storm step the stuff is

13:05 all fine. I looked at that. That's all

13:07 okay. But it's just the existing

13:09 structural um drainage system you have

13:12 proving that those basins have deep

13:14 sumps, or else they're not basins.

13:16 They're simply drop inlets.

13:18 Oh, I apologize, Mr. Sullivan. So,

13:19 you're actually questioning the existing

13:22 structures themselves, not the proposed.

13:24 Okay.

13:24 That's right. No, you you proposed are

13:26 all fine.

13:27 Okay.

13:27 That's all that's all good.

13:28 We we did open those. uh I can provide

13:30 additional photographs

13:32 as supplemental, but I believe they were

13:34 catch basins, not just drop inlets.

13:36 Yeah, I mean sure you have that

13:38 information somewhere. I'm looking

13:40 forward to the right.

13:41 I could add all the inverts and the sump

13:43 elevations are shown on the existing

13:45 catch basins on the grading and drainage

13:48 plan.

13:50 So the inverts are showing their pipe

13:52 inverts or their

13:53 the invert of the sump, bottom of the

13:55 sump.

13:55 No, it is the pipe inverts.

13:58 In and out orientation.

14:01 And sump elevation of the structure.

14:04 Okay, but you know the the plans I have

14:06 on my iPad, you you've got to be

14:09 Superman with x-ray vision to see what

14:11 what those numbers are. Because when I

14:13 blow it up, I can't read it. It's all

14:14 muddy.

14:15 Yeah, thanks for jumping in there,

14:17 Chris. Looking at the existing

14:18 conditions, that is something that

14:20 survey did catch. So they do have catch

14:22 basin rims.

14:23 It then it documents the invert for say

14:26 the 15-in RCP that I'm looking at, and

14:28 then it documents the sump. So the sump

14:31 here is at least 3 ft, 3 and 1/2 ft

14:34 below the invert on the one example I'm

14:36 looking at.

14:37 So maybe I can get some cleaner

14:40 plans.

14:42 Can you get those over to Elena and she

14:44 can forward them over to me?

14:45 Yeah, I think we could maybe just give

14:47 you like blow ups and

14:49 of those areas.

14:51 Yeah, no, that'd be fine. And then if we

14:52 could show where the the roof

14:54 is is coming in from the building.

14:58 We can document that.

14:59 Yeah.

15:00 And then the LSP letter and the AUL.

15:03 I just need all that.

15:04 Okay.

15:06 Okay, good. Thank you. So Brett, you've

15:09 got some homework there.

15:11 Um

15:12 and I'm especially interested in the LSP

15:14 letter.

15:16 Um Commissioner Linette?

15:19 Yeah, can you just uh a little bit about

15:21 the snow management um of the site. I'm

15:24 assuming that

15:25 um Elena, correct me if I'm wrong,

15:27 there'll be a requirement for a a snow

15:29 management plan submission.

15:31 Uh yes, that would be one of the prior

15:33 to construction items. And then that

15:34 snow management plan would also be a

15:35 perpetual maintenance condition.

15:40 Uh thank you. Um

15:42 Kristen, Miguel, would you like to take

15:44 this on for what the facility currently

15:46 does for snow management?

15:48 This is a

15:50 full site. They do not stockpile site uh

15:52 stockpile snow on this site. They do not

15:54 have the room to stockpile snow, so they

15:57 um have a

16:00 national contractor annually on this

16:02 site that's responsible for this

16:04 property as well as um

16:06 the uh

16:07 property just to the north of it, which

16:09 is their employee parking lot.

16:11 And um

16:13 this particular site um

16:16 all snow is uh

16:18 uh collected and hauled away.

16:23 Great. And then do they use a a deicer

16:26 or

16:28 They do not use a deicer at this site,

16:29 no.

16:31 Okay. Great. Thank you.

16:33 Thank you. Commissioner Wilson.

16:37 Uh yeah, no further questions.

16:38 Appreciate my fellow commissioners

16:40 asking this. Okay.

16:41 Sure. Commissioner Assis Marjazi.

16:43 What I was having some difficulty

16:46 understanding, given the large amounts

16:48 of circulation space, why it wasn't

16:51 possible to rearrange the parking and

16:56 remove some of the impervious

16:58 surface. If if you wanted to go back to

17:01 a couple of those sketches where you

17:03 were showing it,

17:05 um and maybe talk a little bit about why

17:07 there's so much circulation space.

17:11 Just seemed like the the given the

17:12 amount of spots, space on the the land,

17:16 that a good parking lot designer ought

17:18 to be able to

17:20 make some some edges that are available

17:23 for him for pervious. Go back one more.

17:28 So, on some of these I'm looking like

17:30 the the one on the left seems like

17:32 there's an enormous amount of

17:34 space down the middle that's not

17:37 needed for circuit really needed for

17:39 circulation.

17:41 So, correct me if I'm misunderstanding

17:43 how the the space is used.

17:47 Uh I'll take a shot at this and then

17:49 Miguel and Chris if you want to jump in,

17:50 but the large consideration is the

17:53 turning radius of these vehicles

17:55 and kind of the irregular uh orientation

17:58 of the parking lot where there is an

17:59 angle or towards the top of the screen.

18:01 So, a vehicle coming in from Medallion

18:03 Avenue and coming down and circling over

18:06 um

18:08 and you can see that everything is

18:09 backed in. Um so, with those vehicles

18:12 having to back into these stalls with a

18:14 lot of operation ongoing at the same

18:16 time, it gets very congested.

18:19 Um so, there's not necessarily an

18:21 opportunity to pinch in this parking lot

18:24 within without hindering some of the

18:26 operation.

18:30 [laughter]

18:31 I'm having a hard time with that. I'm

18:33 even just looking at the sort of

18:35 uh map north section which is much

18:37 smaller than the map south south

18:40 section.

18:41 Um

18:42 It doesn't feel like anybody was being

18:44 creative here.

18:45 I can tell you that the Postal Service

18:48 has investigated and has laid out the

18:51 parking in this site um

18:54 in probably 10 years ago they re-laid

18:57 out all of this.

18:59 Mhm.

18:59 And the parking that you see is the

19:02 maximized parking that they can get on

19:04 this property.

19:06 Any

19:07 pinching of the uh truck parking area to

19:11 on the left image

19:13 would result in a reduction in parking

19:15 and they maximize every bit of

19:17 impervious area here on the site

19:20 for uh

19:21 vehicle storage.

19:26 I I guess we'll have to take you at

19:28 their at the post office's word on that,

19:30 but it

19:31 There's There's two operations at this

19:33 site. The The south end of the site,

19:35 which is your left image, is uh postal

19:38 delivery vehicles and this is their

19:40 parking storage area for them.

19:43 Mhm.

19:43 Image on the right is the vehicle

19:46 maintenance facility on the north end of

19:48 the property and it is surrounded by

19:51 employee vehicles for the vehicle

19:54 maintenance facility and storage of

19:56 in-service vehicles that the vehicle

19:59 maintenance facility is servicing.

20:01 That's why you see the double-loaded

20:03 parking condition.

20:04 Yeah, I I I I got the the image on that

20:06 side looked like it was more efficiently

20:08 laid out. The one on the the left seemed

20:11 like it was there was opportunities

20:13 there, but

20:15 Yeah, no it

20:16 Well, you know, speaking to what Brett

20:18 said about the uh the turning radius the

20:21 of these vehicles, any

20:24 any uh narrowing of the circulation

20:28 space

20:29 would

20:30 uh result in a loss of uh

20:32 vehicle spaces and the postal service,

20:36 again, wanted to be able to get more

20:38 vehicles on this lot than they could and

20:40 and they did maximize this to the

20:42 greatest extent possible.

20:45 Okay. Why don't we do this? Um we're

20:48 we're going to uh likely be continuing

20:50 this because we need to see the um

20:52 MCP information regarding the AUL, the

20:55 um LSP. Commissioner Sullivan asked for

20:58 some other information. Um so, if you

21:02 could just put together a could be a

21:04 sketch plan showing the vehicle radius

21:07 uh turns

21:09 uh that we can verify that next hearing.

21:13 That'd be great.

21:14 Okay.

21:16 Great.

21:17 Is that it for you?

21:19 Yes. Thank you.

21:21 Thank you. Okay, Elena, did we get

21:23 anyone from the public raise their hand?

21:25 I'm not seeing any hands and we did not

21:29 receive anything in our inbox or the

21:32 Oh, apologies.

21:34 There is

21:35 a question in the chat and Emily, I

21:37 don't know if you want to come off of

21:40 mute to ask this question or if I can

21:42 read it into the record.

21:48 Great.

21:49 So, the question is

21:51 thank you for your presentation. I'm

21:52 hoping you can speak briefly on the

21:54 funding source permitting timeline and

21:56 community benefits.

21:57 Okay.

21:58 I hate to say this. This is not within

22:01 our jurisdiction. So,

22:04 it can it you know, up to the applicant

22:06 if they want to talk about this, but

22:09 we're focused on the wetlands resource

22:11 areas not necessarily the community

22:12 benefits and funding and um

22:15 the timeline

22:17 for construction is a fair question to

22:20 ask at this hearing.

22:21 What's the timeline for construction?

22:25 Next spring.

22:28 And how long?

22:30 We're expecting them to do this in

22:33 multiple phases due to the 24-hour

22:36 operation of this site. And so, this is

22:39 going to take somewhere in the range of

22:41 4 to 6 months to complete.

22:43 Okay.

22:44 And also,

22:47 I think we'd appreciate it if you could

22:50 contact Emily or

22:52 respond to her in the chat regarding her

22:54 questions, but

22:56 it's not part of our hearing.

22:58 Yeah, and I'll defer to Miguel

23:00 Castellano from the United States Postal

23:02 Service

23:03 regarding that question.

23:04 Okay, Miguel.

23:07 Can you hear me?

23:08 Yes.

23:09 Okay, as regarding the fundings, all all

23:12 fundings are being

23:14 federal fundings. So, right now the

23:18 project has no funding assigned it. So,

23:21 I'm

23:22 requesting the construction funds to our

23:26 internal committee. So,

23:29 I hope to get those funds approved by

23:31 the end of the year.

23:33 Okay, thank [clears throat] you.

23:35 That will be able to start this project

23:38 at the spring, next spring 2027.

23:42 Okay.

23:43 Okay, Elena, anyone else?

23:47 Yes, I did want to flag just in case, I

23:50 don't know that this comment is it

23:52 wasn't specifically directed to the

23:54 filing, but it was from a resident

23:57 asking about the lights and the glare

24:00 from the lights to adjacent properties.

24:02 Again, I think that this may fall

24:04 outside of ConCom jurisdiction, but what

24:07 I can do is connect the resident with

24:10 the project team.

24:11 Okay, thank you.

24:13 Okay, so with that, I would entertain a

24:15 motion to continue the hearing.

24:17 So moved.

24:19 Do we have a second?

24:21 Second.

24:22 Thank you, Commissioner Sullivan.

24:24 Aye.

24:24 Commissioner Lanney.

24:26 Aye.

24:27 Commissioner Wilson.

24:29 Aye.

24:29 Commissioner Assesmardziazi.

24:31 Aye.

24:32 And I vote aye. It carries five nothing.

24:34 Okay, thank you.

24:35 Appreciate it, thank you.

24:36 Sure. Okay, next item on the agenda,

24:38 request for a determination of

24:40 applicability from LEC Environmental

24:42 Consultants Inc. on behalf of the Boston

24:43 Gas Company for the removal of three

24:46 deteriorating marine mooring structures

24:48 and 40 timber piles. Actually, Elena, I

24:51 think we're up to 124 or something like

24:54 that.

24:55 This point?

24:56 I believe so, yeah. And that be a

24:57 clarifying question is whether the 80

24:59 was the total number. I believe it was

25:01 the um 80 plus in addition to the uh

25:03 ones related to the docks themselves.

25:05 Okay. We'll ask about that. Uh and this

25:07 is located at the Boston Gas Company

25:09 Commercial Point LNG facility located at

25:11 220 Victory Road in Dorchester. Um

25:14 okay, who's here on behalf of the

25:16 applicant? And before you get into the

25:18 presentation, I want to ask you a few

25:19 questions.

25:22 Uh good evening. My name is Matt

25:23 Wasniak. I'm an environmental engineer

25:25 with Boston Gas Company.

25:27 Okay. So, um this this feels like this

25:31 is much larger than any RDA uh that we

25:35 have approved as far as the scope of the

25:37 work here.

25:38 Uh and so, first question is uh 40

25:41 timber piles and three structures using

25:43 barge and a crane

25:45 uh

25:46 was enough of a flag. Um how many timber

25:49 piles are you proposing to remove?

25:52 So,

25:53 originally we started out there's three

25:56 dilapidated mooring structures that pose

25:59 a a public safety risk and we wanted to

26:03 have them removed. So, we had an

26:05 engineer come out and do an assessment

26:08 and they're in critical condition. While

26:10 we were out there at low tide, we saw

26:12 some additional historical wharf piers

26:16 in the 40 to 60 range. Um those are from

26:20 the 19

26:22 eight or sorry, 1800s

26:24 and we thought it would make sense while

26:26 we were mobilized to the site to just

26:29 clean up all those historic uh timbers

26:32 and get them out of the way.

26:33 Um but I if that poses

26:37 uh some concerns for the commission, you

26:40 know, we our our main objective was

26:43 these three mooring structures that are

26:45 dilapidated that we want to get removed

26:48 um from our property.

26:50 Yeah, I mean, even that uh you're going

26:52 to be using a barge uh and a crane,

26:54 correct?

26:56 That is correct, yeah. Uh 2 years ago we

26:58 had a structure

27:01 not unlike these, a little bit smaller,

27:03 but it fell into the water.

27:05 And we went through the emergency

27:07 certification process with Elena.

27:10 Yeah, different situation though. Yeah,

27:12 I get it.

27:12 Yes, understood. So, that's that's why

27:14 we filed the RDA this time.

27:16 Okay.

27:17 You know, we we did that safely and and

27:19 quickly and we're hoping to do the same

27:21 thing for this.

27:22 Yeah, understand. Uh and again, this is

27:24 this is just a lot of work for an RDA.

27:26 We don't typically see this.

27:28 Um

27:28 uh so, um

27:30 just to save you the time here, I'm

27:32 going to um just quickly go around to

27:34 the commissioners and ask them uh for a

27:36 quick um

27:37 their quick reaction. Uh my reaction to

27:40 this is to issue a negative determinate

27:42 I mean a positive determination of

27:44 applicability. Uh we've all reviewed the

27:46 files here uh just because there's so

27:48 much work

27:49 uh and again, you're using a barge. So,

27:51 um Commissioner Sullivan, quick thoughts

27:53 on this?

27:54 I think we can go positive if it's not

27:57 like an emergency that's going to be

27:58 done immediately. Uh we can move this

28:00 right along.

28:01 Yeah.

28:02 For the positive.

28:03 Yeah.

28:03 Okay.

28:04 Um Commissioner Lenay?

28:06 I had the same uh thought when I was

28:08 reviewing it as well.

28:10 Okay. Commis- Commissioner Wilson?

28:12 Same here. Thanks.

28:14 Yep. Commissioner Assesmardjazi?

28:16 I I could go either way, but I I I'd

28:19 lean towards saying positive

28:20 determination. Yes.

28:22 Okay.

28:23 Okay. Um

28:25 yeah, I think I think we have the answer

28:26 here. Uh and I understand that uh you

28:29 anticipated that an NOI might be uh in

28:31 the works here. So, um and I think it um

28:35 uh it would be efficient and to

28:37 everyone's benefit if you included in

28:39 the NOI uh the other work that you

28:41 wanted to do um as opposed to splitting

28:44 it up here.

28:46 Okay. Thank you very much for your time.

28:49 Sure. Okay, so I'm going to take a quick

28:51 vote here.

28:52 So I'd entertain a motion to issue a

28:54 positive determination of applicability.

28:58 So moved.

28:59 Do you have a second?

29:00 Second.

29:01 Okay, Commissioner Sullivan.

29:02 Hi.

29:03 Commissioner Laney.

29:04 Hi.

29:05 Commissioner Wilson.

29:06 Hi.

29:07 Commissioner Estes Marjiaz.

29:09 Hi.

29:10 And I vote I. That carries five nothing.

29:12 Okay, thank you.

29:16 Thank you. Have a good night.

29:17 Yep.

29:18 Okay, well now we'll begin our regular

29:20 meeting.

29:21 And so Elena, looks like we have

29:24 certificates of compliance.

29:27 What do we have that's active? It's just

29:29 Brandywine, right?

29:30 It is. It's just the last one on the

29:31 list.

29:32 Okay.

29:33 So I'll just quickly call out

29:37 these are all been continued. So request

29:39 for a certificate of compliance for

29:41 Boston file number 2024-008,

29:44 certificate of compliance for DEP file

29:46 number 0061762

29:48 and Boston file number 2021-003,

29:51 DEP file number 0061963

29:54 and Boston file number 2023-053,

29:57 DEP file number 006

30:00 11816

30:02 and Boston file number 2021-042,

30:06 and DEP file number 0061830

30:09 and Boston file number 2021-054

30:13 are not ready to be issued so they'll be

30:15 continued. What we have in for

30:17 consideration tonight is request for a

30:19 certificate of compliance for DEP file

30:21 number 006 2044 and Boston file number

30:24 2025-016

30:26 from Nitsch Engineering on behalf of

30:27 Brandywine Village Company Limited

30:29 Partnership for the construction of a

30:31 new trash and recycling area including

30:33 the installation of asphalt pavement,

30:34 concrete pads and bollards, an

30:36 underground conduit and hand hole, and a

30:39 storm water management system at 870

30:41 Saratoga Street in East Boston, resource

30:43 area land subject to coastal storm

30:45 flowage. Elena,

30:47 how's this looking?

30:48 [laughter]

30:49 So, unlike the rest of them, we we

30:51 believe that we have everything needed

30:53 to recommend that the commission issue a

30:56 complete certificate of compliance. We

30:58 conducted a site visit on October 15th,

31:01 and the site has also been inspected and

31:03 signed off on by Boston Water and Sewer

31:04 Commission.

31:06 There was also a collaboration with Tree

31:08 Eastie. Tree Eastie provided some trees

31:10 that have been planted and now the

31:13 the maintenance team at the community is

31:15 going to be

31:17 taking care of those and they've been

31:18 watering them since they've been

31:19 planted. Things are looking good. There

31:21 haven't been any flooding issues since

31:23 the construction of the parking lot, so

31:25 it seems to have addressed the issues

31:26 that were there before. And then

31:29 there were the one discrepancy is that

31:31 there were originally two bollards on

31:32 the plans and instead there were three

31:34 to protect the equipment from any

31:36 passing vehicles or you know, vehicles

31:38 coming by to either collect trash or

31:40 drop it off. That being said, it doesn't

31:42 change the permeability on the site, so

31:44 we don't see that as an issue. We're

31:47 happy to answer any questions, but we we

31:49 do recommend that the commission issue a

31:51 complete certificate of compliance with

31:53 perpetual maintenance conditions 59, 66,

31:57 76, and 83.

32:00 Okay, thank you. Any questions from any

32:03 commissioners?

32:06 Nope.

32:07 Sounds like none. So,

32:10 I entertain a motion to issue a

32:12 certificate of

32:14 compliance for DEP file number 0062044

32:17 and Boston file number 2025-

32:20 [snorts]

32:20 016 with retaining the perpetual

32:24 maintenance conditions 59, 66, 76, and

32:26 83.

32:28 So moved.

32:29 Do we have a second?

32:30 Second.

32:31 Thank you. Commissioner Sullivan?

32:33 Aye.

32:34 Commissioner Lenae?

32:35 Aye.

32:35 Commissioner Wilson?

32:37 Aye.

32:38 Commissioner Assesmargezi?

32:39 Aye.

32:40 Hi. Vote uh that carries five nothing.

32:42 Okay, next uh administrative updates.

32:45 Elena, do you have anything?

32:46 Uh yes. So, as we reach the end of the

32:48 calendar year, uh we have drafted our

32:50 2027 uh schedule of hearing dates.

32:54 Uh we have added it to the drive folder

32:56 for the commission's review. Of course,

32:58 these dates are subject to change. Um

33:00 but, if uh the commissioners have time

33:02 to take a look at them in the coming

33:04 week or so, let us know if anything

33:05 stands out as a glaring issue. Uh we've

33:08 taken into account uh

33:10 most holidays uh that are that are

33:12 recognized, and then uh we have also

33:15 adjusted slightly if there are some days

33:16 that we're expecting people to be out um

33:19 around those holidays. There are a few

33:21 months that have a strange uh or not a

33:24 straight Well, yeah, I guess a strange

33:25 distribution of hearings, but again,

33:27 that's uh on those months where we have

33:29 five Wednesdays. So, we're still keeping

33:31 to uh two hearings per month.

33:35 Okay. We'll take a look at it. Thank

33:36 you.

33:37 Thanks so much. And then, um assuming

33:39 that there aren't any major issues with

33:40 it, uh we're planning on sending it out

33:42 to the people in our newsletter uh in

33:45 about a week and a half, and then we'll

33:46 also be publishing it on our website.

33:49 Fantastic. Thank you.

33:51 Um okay, uh there are no meeting

33:53 minutes, uh I hear.

33:55 There are not.

33:56 I think we broke the system with the

33:58 last hearing.

33:59 Um okay. So, with that, I think we're

34:02 finished here tonight. Anybody object to

34:04 uh

34:04 Mr.

34:05 Mr. Chair, I would request that all

34:07 future meetings you sit inside a car

34:09 with a suit on.

34:11 [laughter]

34:11 Thank you. Appreciate that. I'm actually

34:14 I'm actually going to go to a ZBA

34:16 hearing in a neighboring municipality,

34:18 and I'm sure I'm going to get um

34:20 uh beat up, uh and you'd all You'll all

34:22 love to hear that.

34:23 Yeah, no, you don't You don't have to go

34:25 to any meetings. I just want you to be

34:26 sitting in a car with a suit. That's

34:28 all.

34:28 I just wanted to give you process. I

34:30 just wanted to give you some added

34:31 pleasure. Okay, thank you. Everybody

34:34 have a good day. Night.

34:36 Thanks so much.

34:38 I guess.