10.21.26 Conservation Commission Public Hearing
2026-10-21

[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.