[0:07] It being 6:31 p.m. on September 2nd, 2026, I call this meeting of the

[0:15] Brockton Conservation Commission to order. The meeting is being conducted

[0:18] remotely in accordance with Governor Healey's open meeting provisions

[0:22] extension signed on March 28th, 2025, which extends access to certain remote

[0:29] and hybrid meetings until June 30th of 2027.

[0:33] Real-time public participation and comment can be addressed to the

[0:36] Conservation Commission utilizing the Zoom virtual meeting software for remote

[0:41] access. If you wish to comment during a public input portion of a hearing,

[0:46] please use the raise your hand function to be addressed at the appropriate time.

[0:50] For those of you joining by phone only, please press star nine to raise your

[0:55] hand. Please note all comments made a public record and should be made in a

[1:00] way that is respectful to others. Should personal or inflammatory remarks

[1:04] be made, the host reserves the right to mute the speaker.

[1:08] Copy of this recording will be posted on the city of Brockton's webpage.

[1:12] All votes will be done via roll call to ensure count accuracy. Uh

[1:17] roll call vote, please.

[1:22] » Play I. >> Green I.

[1:26] » Math I. >> Morris I.

[1:29] » And Talbot I. >> We have quorum.

[1:32] » Uh on this special meeting today for

[1:35] Wednesday, September 2nd. Uh first agenda item is new filings. It's a

[1:39] request of a certificate of compliance for Zero Seneca Street Snow Park.

[1:44] Uh Kyle? >> Uh yeah, so um this filing I I guess

[1:49] Scott's got his hand raised. Uh uh and I'll promote you here in a

[1:52] moment, Scott. Uh in general, we're looking at two filings today. They're

[1:55] about the same property. We have an old order of conditions that was never

[1:59] properly closed out from 2009, um which is what this agenda item is is

[2:04] to address, and then we have the the current uh notice of intent filing for

[2:08] the proposed turf field installation at the same property, which is a new notice

[2:12] of intent and requires a new order of conditions. I think Scott has done some

[2:16] uh some work on uh the certificate of compliance today, so I guess we'll give

[2:20] him a chance to update us on where this is, but ultimately

[2:25] we're not ready at this point. Uh the commission has not been provided enough

[2:27] information to issue that certificate of compliance, so I'll let Scott uh

[2:32] you know, begin here, um and we also have on the call today

[2:36] um representatives from Weston & Sampson, which are uh acting as the

[2:41] commission's consultant on on this project. They're reviewing both the

[2:43] certificate of compliance and the new notice of intent. So, I'm going to go

[2:46] ahead and promote uh Scott Feria uh to panelist.

[2:50] Um and I'm just going to go ahead and also and promote James Pearson with um

[2:54] Weston & Sampson and Ariana Summers with Weston & Sampson, um in case they, you

[2:58] know, want to begin um you know, kind of discussing this.

[3:01] Um Also, uh

[3:04] I did invite um the uh City of Brockton's uh

[3:09] Commissioner of the Commissioner of the Department of Health

[3:11] and Human Services, uh Wandeza McCauley. Uh she is on the line

[3:15] um to kind of discuss the health impacts of turf field, so uh we can do that

[3:19] maybe after we transition from the certificate of compliance to the the

[3:22] turf field notice of intent uh discussion.

[3:26] » All right. Uh Thank you, Kyle. Can you guys hear me?

[3:31] » Yes. >> For some reason, I don't have a video

[3:34] option, Kyle, so maybe that's intentional and maybe

[3:37] that's a good thing. >> Well, if you want me to share something,

[3:41] I think I've got all the revised docs. I can throw it up if you if you would

[3:44] like. >> Yeah, I can get the mute button, but for

[3:46] some reason, I don't have a video, uh

[3:50] I assume my video's working, maybe it's not, but in any event, uh

[3:54] apparently don't want to hold things up on that. So, uh just to speak quickly

[3:58] about the certificate of compliance, as Kyle said it, it goes back to the order

[4:02] of conditions issued back in 2009. Uh

[4:07] we did some research and in the order of

[4:11] conditions was never recorded. Uh you know, they need to be recorded at the

[4:15] registry of deeds to go along with it. We need to fill out that information

[4:18] when we request the certificate of compliance.

[4:21] Uh the way we do things now, we have to

[4:23] actually show Kyle and the commission that we've actually recorded the order

[4:27] of conditions before we start construction as part of our

[4:30] pre-construction meeting. That didn't happen in this case back, you know, 17

[4:34] years ago. So, I do have a copy of the order of conditions. It's not the

[4:38] original. I went to the registry of deeds today and unfortunately they were

[4:41] on lunch. Uh and I didn't get back there in time. So, I'll try again tomorrow

[4:46] morning. You know, I'm assuming they're not going

[4:49] to have a problem with it being a photocopy.

[4:51] Uh if they do, we'll have to, you know,

[4:54] I'll reach out to Kyle and we'll have to figure out exactly what we need to do to

[4:58] get uh to get that recorded. But I I don't think it'll be an issue. But long

[5:01] story short, I need to get that recorded and uh and get that information to Kyle

[5:07] and to the commission so we can proceed with that certificate certificate of

[5:10] compliance. So, uh I think really that's that's all I have

[5:14] to uh to talk about on that one, I think,

[5:17] Kyle.

[5:19] » Okay, great. I know that the DEP just issued technical comments on the new

[5:23] notice of intent. Um I think yesterday is when they issued that number. Um but

[5:28] I think in those technical comments, they they do discuss

[5:32] um the cut fill calculations and and and and everything

[5:36] from the the old certificate just to make sure that

[5:40] you know, so it it's the review, as mentioned before, is kind of tied

[5:42] together between the new notice of intent and and that old order. So, we

[5:45] will take that into account as we move forward with the

[5:48] uh the review. >> Sure.

[5:51] All right.

[5:56] So, I would assume we just want to jump into the

[5:59] notice of intent filing for the turf field.

[6:02] » Uh yeah, we should probably continue this item to the September 16th meeting.

[6:06] The request for the certificate of compliance.

[6:10] » So, we're looking for a motion to continue uh request certificate of

[6:14] compliance from 2009 to the September 16th meeting, please.

[6:19] » I'll make a motion to continue the request for the certificate of

[6:22] compliance for the 2009 uh

[6:25] order of conditions for 0 Cedar Street to uh September to the September 16th

[6:30] meeting.

[6:35] » Motion seconded. >> We have a motion made and seconded. Can

[6:38] I have a roll call vote, please? >> Clay, I.

[6:41] » Green, I. >> Matt, I.

[6:48] » Joyce, I. Joyce, you're muted.

[6:53] » Morse, I. >> And Talbot, I. Motion passes. Uh

[6:57] » May I ask just a quick question, sir? >> Absolutely.

[7:01] » Okay, I just Do we have an updated like

[7:05] an as-built? That was in the file, correct? For the

[7:08] for the field as a grassy field after that that would be considered the the

[7:13] plan of record for the order of conditions

[7:16] and for the compliance thing. >> There is an as-built plan that was

[7:20] submitted. So, there was

[7:24] I'm sorry. >> Do we have one that actually has like um

[7:27] values for the uh topography? >> It It has the topography shown on it,

[7:32] yes. It It It Yeah. Yep. >> I think maybe it was just very faint. I

[7:36] don't think I could see the um the actual markings on it.

[7:41] Is it possible to get one just so we could in the file so that way you'd be

[7:45] able to take a look at that? >> Uh yeah, I think um I've I've got Scott,

[7:51] just correct me if I'm wrong. The as-built that I have that I think you

[7:53] submitted for the request is the as-built that was dated 2009. Is that

[7:58] right? There's not like a new 2026 as-built for the certificate of

[8:02] compliance, right? >> No, that's correct, Kyle. It's a 2009

[8:05] as-built. >> Okay.

[8:08] Yeah, I I've uh

[8:10] Uh Joyce, would you like me to share my screen? I've got it pulled up.

[8:13] » quickly. If you could do it very quickly, I maybe I just was trying to

[8:16] get it I I just I couldn't get the clarity to

[8:19] be able to read what the >> Yeah, so the uh the contours are the uh

[8:27] the light gray kind of color here. >> Yeah, I don't I just didn't see any

[8:30] numerical values for those contours. >> Uh they're probably really I mean,

[8:33] they're there. They're just small. And they're fuzzy.

[8:38] » this >> Yeah, I I was just trying to make sense

[8:40] out of it relative I just was curious to see how high was the field relative

[8:43] parking lot. How high is the parking lot relative to the the bank that goes down

[8:47] to the bar? >> Yeah, so you got like 87 here, 86, 86,

[8:51] 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93. >> Yeah. Yeah, the field the field is

[8:57] roughly at elevation 87. Uh you know, it's relatively flat until you hit that

[9:01] slope and it gets up to a little bit right around elevation 93 at the at the

[9:06] parking lot. And then it slopes back down on the backside again to the to the

[9:10] river. >> Down to what what um can you read that

[9:13] left side formula? >> 92 here all the way down to 97 and it

[9:17] may go lower than that.

[9:19] » Yeah, it's like elevation I believe >> 86, 85 maybe here.

[9:24] » Yeah, 80 86 close to the river. So that there's a little bit of a berm there. So

[9:28] it you know, another you know, another method of protection

[9:32] from all of this work. It it is a a you know, an actual high berm there.

[9:37] There's probably about a about a 4-ft high berm.

[9:41] Uh you know, once you drop off from the

[9:43] parking lot, so. >> Okay, thank you.

[9:48] And you said there was drainage that was provided for that grassy field, correct?

[9:52] » Yep, again, it was it was designed, reviewed by

[9:56] uh by Novera Armstrong back in the day, approved, and uh constructed according

[10:01] to plan. >> Okay.

[10:07] » Good, Joyce. >> It's okay.

[10:09] » Commissioners, any other questions on filing uh

[10:12] agenda number one? >> No questions here.

[10:18] » Uh we'll move to current filings. Agenda number two is an NOI notice of intent

[10:21] for zero Center Street snow park. >> All right.

[10:25] » Kyle? >> Um yeah, thank you. Uh

[10:28] given that we've asked a special guest to be here tonight, uh it might be uh

[10:32] courteous to allow uh Commissioner uh McCollough to to speak now, um so

[10:38] she can then leave after after that section is done, um

[10:42] through the chair, of course. >> Absolutely.

[10:46] » All right, I will go ahead and promote uh

[10:49] Wadeza. And uh Wadeza mentioned that she also invited um

[10:54] someone from her advisory council on health,

[10:57] uh who is a director at at MassDEP. Um so, if this other individual uh would

[11:02] like to raise their hand, I I'd be happy to promote them as well.

[11:10] » Hi, how are you? How's everybody doing tonight?

[11:13] » Hi. >> Hi.

[11:14] » Um I'm just looking through the participant list. I'm sorry.

[11:19] Um I think

[11:21] » Simpson has her hand up. Oh, she did. >> Yeah.

[11:26] Denise Simpson, I think she's um I can't see her, so I don't know if she's here,

[11:30] but >> Yeah, and she she is, and I've I've

[11:31] promoted her a panelist, so she might be in the other other section now.

[11:35] » Okay, got it. Yeah. >> Thank you.

[11:37] » the other person. Um So, again, thank you for inviting me. I'm Myisha

[11:42] McCollum, the Commissioner of uh Health and Human Service Department of Health

[11:45] and Human Services for the City of Brockton. Um

[11:49] Thank you, Kyle, for sending over the comments that um were included for uh

[11:55] Snow Park. I looked specifically at um the comments from WSC. I'm assuming

[12:02] that's Weston and Sampson. >> Yes, that's correct. Yep.

[12:06] » Okay, perfect. Um and I honestly, I don't have anything else. I'm not an

[12:11] expert in this field, so I'm not going to act like I am, which is why I invited

[12:15] Deneen Simpson. Um she is currently um a director uh with DEP, MassDEP. Um so,

[12:24] she would have extensively more knowledge in this area than I do. But,

[12:28] from what I see that they proposed um for, you know, anybody that we may be

[12:34] interested in uh providing this turf, um what they provided, I think, is um

[12:39] thorough, including the research that um they've done and have been able to

[12:44] review, um I think provides uh you know,

[12:48] the good things for us to consider um when we are uh looking to um bring on

[12:54] some company um or entity to provide um a turf field, whether it is synthetic,

[13:01] natural, or hybrid. Um Deneen, uh I'm going to invite you to, you know,

[13:07] say a few words um if you have any, you know, comments or anything like that,

[13:11] any questions you want to raise, feel free. And there's one other comment I

[13:14] would like to provide after she's done. Thank you.

[13:18] » Uh thank you, Myisha, and thank you, Concom. I'm not here in my capacity as

[13:23] the Director of Environmental Justice at DEP, so please um yes, I I do work

[13:28] there, but I'm not here uh under that capacity. I'm here to just to talk about

[13:32] this project as a member of the advisory council and

[13:36] as a Brockton resident. Um

[13:40] I've heard a lot about turf fields, obviously in my work, but I've also

[13:44] talked to a lot of community members about concerns about turf fields and

[13:49] I've gone out to a lot of them. Um

[13:52] and a lot of comments that that I receive is

[13:56] the amount of trees that have to be cut down for these for this um

[14:00] turf field to be placed. Um how hot they get.

[14:05] How um

[14:07] you know, the misting that I I've also asked about in in my capacity um just

[14:12] seeing seeing these turf fields. Um are you putting any mist misting systems in

[14:18] in place? I've also learned just through going to

[14:23] community meetings not in my role as the director of ESE just because I'm

[14:27] interested in artificial turf myself about why they're always being proposed

[14:32] in black and brown communities. There's a

[14:35] lot of communities across the Commonwealth that have

[14:38] either a moratorium or they ban them and I don't know where this is in the

[14:43] process for Brockton. Um

[14:46] but there's a reason why they're not being placed there and I just want to

[14:50] make sure that we are doing our due diligence to make

[14:54] sure that there is not uh

[14:58] for lack of a better word, pressure to to have this, whether it's funding,

[15:02] whether it's, you know, we can't maintain natural grass

[15:06] because of the cost and that's kind of a selling point. And I also just to make

[15:10] note, we can't dispose of this turf field

[15:13] after the 10 to 12 years that we are done with it. There's no place to put

[15:18] it. Um it can't go in the landfill. So, so

[15:21] end up getting being stockpiled, and where they're going to be stockpiled? I

[15:24] I don't know those questions or those answers to those questions,

[15:28] um, but I also feel like there's a reason why some of some other

[15:32] communities are not having these in their community, and I want to make sure

[15:35] that we are being smart when we approve a project like this or

[15:40] when a project like this is is approved and installed,

[15:43] um, as to why other communities are saying no, and we are sitting here

[15:47] saying yes. I know Brockton High has a turf field. My kids went to Brockton

[15:51] High. I I recognize that, um, but we have to ask ourselves why other

[15:56] communities are saying no and why we are now undertaking another space

[16:02] in in Brockton to have an artificial turf.

[16:06] There's really no connections to, you know, the cancer and things of that

[16:10] nature, um,

[16:12] and so you people are using that as there's no correlation, but we all know

[16:16] cancers take a long time to to come to come to life, and and by that time it's

[16:21] too late. The turf field's here, so I just want to make sure that we are being

[16:25] very careful and intentional and deliberate when we're doing this and not

[16:30] just put it there because, you know, there's a chance we're going to lose

[16:33] some federal funding. Um, that's not a reason to put children at risk, um, just

[16:38] because we can play 100 more hours on a field versus a natural grass that, you

[16:43] know, after a rainstorm can get, you know, wrecked and you can't play.

[16:47] To me, it's not worth it, and I want to make sure that the city of Brockton is

[16:50] doing the best for the the residents of Brockton and and the student athletes

[16:53] that are playing on this field and not just say, well, "If we don't get it,

[16:58] we're going to lose funding."

[17:02] That's not a reason to do it. So, I just wanted to say that, and again, this is

[17:05] not in my role as the director of EJ DEP. Please do not misconstrue my role

[17:10] here tonight. It's as a resident of Brockton and a member of the, um,

[17:14] advisory council. Thank you.

[17:18] Hi. Sorry, I want to make one additional comment and then um I'll get to you,

[17:23] Scott. I'm sorry. Um so, I My apologies for not stating this in

[17:28] the beginning. Deneen Simpson is a member or council member of the advisory

[17:33] council on health, which is a nine-member council that advises me on

[17:38] my role as a commissioner. So, she is uh uh

[17:42] an inaugural member of that of that council. Um so, you know,

[17:48] she is has great insight in this area, which is why again, I invited her to

[17:53] this meeting. Um and lastly, so my last comment is if we

[17:58] do go forward with

[18:01] a a field, a turf field, or whatever we decide, um I think it would be

[18:08] a great opportunity for us to engage in a research partnership with institutions

[18:14] who are looking to um address uh water filtration and understanding PFA

[18:21] concentrations um in our water systems. One of those institutions is UMass

[18:26] Amherst. They have a center dedicated to understanding and building technology to

[18:33] filter out PFAs, to uh measure PFAs in our water. So, if we do

[18:40] decide to go forward with this, again, I have no say in this matter right now as

[18:44] of right now. Um I think this would be a great opportunity for us to develop that

[18:49] research partnership with UMass Amherst. We could be on the front lines of

[18:55] developing technologies when it comes to uh PFA filtration systems, as well as

[19:01] measuring PFAs. Um I think that'll be a great opportunity for Brockton um if we

[19:07] were to do something like this. Um so, that is my suggestion um in the end. And

[19:12] and going forward I think, you know, when we do have, you know, projects like

[19:16] this that are coming to the forefront, please involve myself and the advisory

[19:21] council on health. We have a dearth of expertise on that council that I think

[19:27] could provide great insight into a number of different things including the

[19:31] projects that um you guys are engaging in or want to engage in. Um so yes, I

[19:37] offer that to you as well. Thank you.

[19:42] » Um Wadesha and Nene, thank you both for your comments. Um Scott, is your hand up

[19:48] or is that a new >> Yes, please.

[19:50] » Oh, go ahead Scott. I'm sorry. >> Thank Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, uh

[19:54] well, I I certainly appreciate all those comments and they

[19:58] they kind of echo the commission's comments from a couple of weeks ago and

[20:02] we've done a real you know, a a lot of research and

[20:06] have come up with uh with alternatives with designs that

[20:10] address all of those issues. Uh

[20:14] If could you just allow me to share my screen, Kyle?

[20:18] » Um sure, let's see what what we can do, Scott.

[20:25] Give me a moment here. Let me try to >> Sure.

[20:27] » work this out. >> So, I mean just just a couple of quick

[20:29] things as far as cutting down all the trees for a soccer field, that's not a a

[20:34] uh an issue that we have in this case since it's already a soccer field. So,

[20:37] we're not removing any trees to to build the field.

[20:41] Uh I mean the other one as far as turf

[20:43] fields being denied in in communities, every high school you see built

[20:47] nowadays, every single one has a turf field.

[20:50] Uh you know, I think for rec leagues, maybe

[20:53] it's different, but every high school uh has a turf field. The only ones that

[20:56] don't have turf fields uh

[20:59] I when they have a budget crunch and they need to save a couple million

[21:02] dollars, they get rid of the uh

[21:09] Am I you, Kyle.

[21:12] Uh They get rid of the

[21:15] the turf field just to as I said to save a couple million dollars, but every

[21:19] other high school you see being built nowadays has a turf field, not just

[21:22] Brockton High. The smaller schools, West Bridgewater has a beautiful turf field

[21:26] right up on 106. Southeastern Regional Tech in Easton

[21:30] where that accepts students from Brockton, they have a turf field.

[21:34] There's Blue Hills and Can- Everybody's got a turf field.

[21:38] So, I'm not sure what communities are saying no to it, but

[21:42] » There's there's um there's a lot, Mr. Faria. I I can

[21:45] tell you. The city of Boston

[21:48] themselves no more public spaces can have artificial turf. Mayor Wu did that.

[21:53] Nantucket, I believe, just banned any artificial turf down there. There's

[21:58] there's a few. I mean, >> I'm sure that Yeah, I'm I'm sure it

[22:00] isn't a >> And

[22:03] » there's none. >> Yeah, the selling point is

[22:06] how many hours, hundreds of hours can we play in a turf field versus a natural

[22:10] grass field? And the money that you're going to save

[22:14] with not having to mow and how many times you can practice. I understand all

[22:18] those things, but that is not a reason to have an artificial turf in a space

[22:22] where it's

[22:24] much, much harder than natural grass. Um yes, it costs, you know, money to put

[22:30] down, but then you don't have to worry about 10 to 12 years, but then you do

[22:32] have to worry about it when you have to get rid of it. Where are you going to

[22:35] put it? >> I've got an answer to that, ma'am. So,

[22:39] uh If I could go back to sharing, Kyle, I I

[22:42] » Uh yes, Scott. Are you able to share a screen? If not, I can pull up the

[22:46] whatever you have. >> disabled share, host disabled attendee

[22:49] screen sharing. >> All right. I'm just going to What would

[22:52] you like me to pull up? I I'll I'll get it ready for you.

[22:54] » to Yeah, I was hoping to call up what I submitted I think just yesterday this

[22:59] synthetic turf product an environment uh uh

[23:06] an environmental summary uh

[23:11] So, I submitted that, I believe, to you guys yesterday, Kyle. Uh to you and

[23:15] Weston and Samson. But, uh while Kyle digs for it, the the the turf material

[23:20] uh that we came up with after doing some research, it's 100% recyclable. So,

[23:26] after that uh that 10-year period that There you go. So, after that 10-year

[23:31] period, this is a a recyclable uh turf. So, it it it's uh so, we don't have that

[23:37] issue. Uh the the second thing is And this is more an issue that the

[23:42] commission members brought up at the last meeting. Uh right there at the top

[23:45] of the screen, it says Brockfill organic infill.

[23:48] The concern was about those little black rubber pellets that you see bouncing up

[23:52] from the field when the players uh

[23:55] you know, drag across the field. So, this is an organic uh infill material uh

[24:00] that's made from from trees. So, it it's uh so, we don't have that that rubber

[24:05] going into uh going into the ground and and eventually out into the Trout Brook

[24:10] as uh as you folks were concerned about at the last meeting. Uh

[24:14] as far as the temperature goes, also with this type of a field, I believe on

[24:19] sheet nine of that uh document that you have, Kyle. It has the

[24:25] uh the field temperatures and and

[24:28] it Again, the the commission members brought it up at the last meeting, the

[24:32] the uh the difference between the the ambient

[24:35] temperature and the turf fields. Yeah, a couple more, Kyle.

[24:40] Uh There we go. Right at the bottom, it

[24:44] says the cooling. So, in that case, the the ambient temperature is 90°, the turf

[24:50] with this Brock uh fill uh this type of construction is 110°. The the typical

[24:56] artificial turf is up to 160. So, this is is much cooler than that.

[25:01] Uh So, you know, we we've

[25:03] we've tried to uh

[25:06] to do as much research and come up with as many proposals as we can to to

[25:10] satisfy uh all of the concerns of that the commission had. As far as

[25:15] the PFAS goes, and again, that was discussed last week

[25:18] as well as tonight. Uh Weston and Sampson was was uh good

[25:23] enough to share a a document and a memo that they have from all of their work

[25:27] that they've done on uh artificial turf fields. And I think the uh the

[25:32] conclusion uh from their research is that there is

[25:36] no uh

[25:37] there are no studies that that that show there's there's any uh

[25:42] increase in in in the in the chemicals that that we're worried about and that

[25:46] we discussed. So, uh

[25:48] I mean, you know, besides the

[25:51] I mean, besides the scary things that we talk about, I I I don't know if there's

[25:56] uh if there's really anything here

[25:59] that we uh you know, that we can address that we haven't addressed. I I I think

[26:03] we've addressed all of your concerns. I'm not sure if there's

[26:06] uh anything else out there

[26:09] that would uh that would satisfy those. I I I think we've taken care of all

[26:13] those concerns. I think the the studies that we've submitted and uh that have

[26:17] been shared uh prove that this is safe and safe to play on and safe for the

[26:22] kids to play on and and safe for the environment both before, during, and

[26:26] after uh after its use. So.

[26:33] » Got another question. Do you know of any locations where the proposed material

[26:38] and product that you're proposing here have been installed?

[26:45] » I believe and and you can't hold me to it. I'll I'll certainly check it. I

[26:50] believe it was Milton High School. >> Okay.

[26:53] Thank you. >> And I'm probably 100% wrong and but I'm

[26:57] I'm you know, we was we were searching

[27:01] uh Massachusetts high schools and in trying to find one that had uh that had

[27:05] something like this and and I'm almost positive uh Mr. Talbot that's where we

[27:09] came up with this one. >> Thank you. Um

[27:14] Kyle? >> Um yeah, so in addition to uh looking at

[27:18] the the material type that that's proposed for the turf field, um you

[27:23] know, through uh discussions with myself and uh Weston and Sampson, uh Scott's

[27:28] also proposing some different water management BMPs

[27:33] uh to to deal with this. Scott, do you want me to bring up the uh

[27:37] the the most recent site plan that you submitted so you can kind of talk

[27:40] through what the >> Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Kyle. Yeah.

[27:43] So, again >> If I may, um just uh one um I just

[27:46] wanted to provide a few examples uh of the Brock Fill that's used in uh

[27:54] different communities in Massachusetts. Um there's uh one at Tufts University in

[28:00] Somerville, uh the Park School in Brookline,

[28:05] uh the Minuteman Regional Vocational Technical High School in Lexington,

[28:11] the Hamilton uh

[28:14] Regional High School in South Hamilton, uh Foss Park uh from Massachusetts DCR

[28:21] in Somerville, as well as Everett's uh Veterans Memorial Stadium in Everett.

[28:28] » Thank you.

[28:30] » So, is that actually we're going to be contracting for Brock

[28:34] Fill? Is that part of this um is that definite that that's going to

[28:39] be negotiated for Brock Fill? >> That would be part of the part of the uh

[28:43] the specs that go out for bid, yes. >> Because the unit cost was quite a bit

[28:47] higher than the other alternatives. >> Mhm.

[28:52] Uh the Elijah those uh uh uh schools that you just mentioned, are

[28:57] those uh around any type of wetlands at all?

[29:02] » Uh that I'm not sure of. >> Okay.

[29:07] » The PFAS with wetlands is huge.

[29:17] » Yeah, so you know, to to that point, I I I guess

[29:22] uh again it was discussed last week. Mainly

[29:25] it was discussed about those uh you know, the PFAS but also the the

[29:29] rubber components of of the turf and the the little rubber balls they get

[29:33] leaching down and and ultimately discharging to the uh

[29:37] to the Trout Brook. Uh

[29:40] So again after after meeting with with Kyle and Weston and Sampson, we we came

[29:45] up with a a couple of uh best management practices, a a couple of structures that

[29:50] would uh that would remove uh any of those particles and

[29:55] uh so yeah, that's that's the right plan,

[29:58] Kyle. If you can zoom up to the I guess the bottom goalie area.

[30:02] Uh so we have a uh a water quality tank

[30:07] shown uh which would allow all of that to

[30:10] settle out just like we would have in a uh

[30:13] in a in a parking lot to allow uh oil and and antifreeze and anything else to

[30:18] settle out. And then in front of that So that's what we proposed and and we

[30:22] thought that would that would settle it. When we met with Weston and Sampson

[30:25] yesterday, uh they brought up something that that we

[30:29] hadn't uh really worked with, which is a a jellyfish,

[30:32] uh which is what they call it. And really if you it's a it's kind of a

[30:36] structure in front of that water quality uh structure that we have. So we would

[30:41] have this jellyfish, we'll keep calling it, structure, and then the water would

[30:45] go from the jellyfish and into the water quality tank. Basically, the jellyfish,

[30:49] when you look at it, it's kind of it's almost like a pool filter that has a

[30:53] bunch of fingers sticking down in the you know, the water filters through the

[30:56] fingers that stick down and and any kind of sediments get trapped on the fingers.

[31:02] It allows theoretically clean water then to go in this case to the water quality

[31:07] structure. There everything settles out and again uh

[31:10] you know, the treated water would then discharge to the to the flared end

[31:14] section and through the riprap. So, those two

[31:17] uh those two measures, two separate and distinct uh structures

[31:21] uh should uh you know, should guarantee that

[31:24] that's giving it any particles that that get that leach through the ground

[31:29] uh that get settled out and do not get discharged

[31:32] uh over the property and eventually out to the Trout Brook. So,

[31:36] uh those are the two things that we've added since the last meeting.

[31:40] » And could you just point it out, Kyle, whoever has control of the mouse?

[31:44] Where's I see the jellyfish thing, but >> Yeah, so so

[31:48] just I'm going to take a big overview here, right? So, we've got the whole

[31:51] field here. You've got these diagonal uh these are pipes that are leading to uh a

[31:56] kind of a main pipe on either side, the west side

[32:00] and the east side flowing southward. >> They're under the turf?

[32:03] » Under the turf, yep. Uh and then there's a connecting pipe from the corner of the

[32:07] field that brings the water from both of those pipes on the west and the east

[32:10] side down to uh this feature, which is that jellyfish

[32:15] structure um that Scott was referring to. The

[32:18] water flows from that jellyfish structure, which is that first D with a

[32:21] circle down into this uh rectangle, uh which is the water quality structure. Uh

[32:26] and then the outflow from that uh goes down into this area that's discharged

[32:30] into the riprap. >> Mhm.

[32:32] » Okay, then >> So, it's really it Yeah, it's the it's

[32:35] It's the same construction that we would do for a parking lot construction into a

[32:39] uh into a drainage basin except adding this jellyfish just as a as a second

[32:44] means of protection or a first means of protection before the the water quality

[32:48] structure. So it it's uh it's really the the typical thing that

[32:52] we do for a parking area. >> Mhm.

[32:55] Mhm. >> Okay.

[32:59] » Um uh Mr. Chair, just I wanted to also

[33:05] provide a little more information. I did uh try to well um the discussion was

[33:09] happening look some stuff up. Um the there are a few examples of

[33:16] the um

[33:18] uh proposed Brockton Phil uh next to wetlands. Um in those cases

[33:25] they were at the um Minuteman Regional Vocational School in

[33:31] Lexington, uh the Park School in Brookline, and the Foss Park in

[33:37] Somerville. Um I looked in apparently DCR specifically prioritizes that

[33:44] type of fill when they are using you know state managed land. Um so

[33:50] that is a few cases where that happens. Um

[33:54] and overall I just wanted to you know thank the commission

[33:58] uh and Kyle the conservation agent um Wood Asian Collar the commissioner as

[34:04] well as uh the

[34:07] uh new advisory um

[34:10] uh council member. Um in in this uh discussion I think this

[34:15] all helps um with the ultimate goal that Brockton have a new field soccer field

[34:22] to provide an amenity to the surrounding neighborhoods. Thank you.

[34:30] » Thanks, Elijah. Um

[34:33] Kyle, can we open this up for discussion again amongst the commission?

[34:37] » Of course, yeah. >> So, Western & Sampson is also

[34:41] » Yeah, Western yeah. It's an ass. >> Yeah, I was going to say or West can we

[34:44] go to them go to Western Sampson or whoever's here to speak on this, we'd

[34:46] love to hear from you. >> So, yeah, I promoted um James Pearson

[34:50] and uh Rihanna Summers from Western &

[34:53] Sampson, I think. Can you just confirm me? Yeah, they're in the

[34:56] back in the attendees. Let me try to promote James again. Again, so so we are

[35:00] actively going through this peer review process. Uh this the plan set that you

[35:05] uh see before you that that we just saw with those new features, that was just

[35:09] submitted yesterday. So, there's still some technical review that needs to be

[35:12] done before we uh get a a final letter of recommendation uh from Western &

[35:16] Sampson. Additionally, the uh the the wetland resource areas, so that the bank

[35:21] and there's a little BVW on the east side, uh those need to be redelineated

[35:26] cuz the delineation that you're seeing on this plan or that you saw on that

[35:30] plan uh were from the 2009 orders, so those need to be refreshed. Uh and then

[35:35] I'm going to go out and and confirm those flags. So, there's still

[35:38] additional work that needs to be done, so this is not an approval plan set at

[35:41] the moment. Um but, you know, I will go ahead and promote um

[35:46] James and I'm going to look for Rihanna in case they have any anything

[35:52] else to to add. Um but, you know, we are actively kind of going through this

[35:56] review process. >> Hi, Kyle. Sorry, I don't want to um

[36:01] interrupt. Are we Denia and I still needed um for

[36:06] the continued discussion?

[36:12] » Justin? >> Um well, I I would ask the commission is

[36:15] that do would you guys like them to hang around or are they okay to leave?

[36:19] » Well, why why don't we offer the commission an opportunity to ask any

[36:22] questions to to those two individuals specifically before we we move on so

[36:26] they can leave if if if there are no other questions.

[36:30] » Sure.

[36:33] So, I have a couple of questions. Um

[36:36] I in preparing for this meeting did some research and looked at the town of

[36:41] Arlington's artificial turf study committee that they did back in April of

[36:44] 2024, and they had quite a few concerns on the

[36:48] the alternative infill materials. Um

[36:52] They had, you know, suggested replacements that even though they're

[36:56] less toxic and may be cooler to the surface, it

[37:01] still wouldn't be comparable to the

[37:04] the temperature of natural grass. So, I guess to me that says a lot about the

[37:10] quality and the surface concerns that we would have because we're I think our

[37:16] approach to this is that we're thinking it's just going to be children playing

[37:19] on this field, but isn't this going to be a community soccer park? So, it's

[37:23] going to be for everyone, right? Not just children. It'd be for

[37:27] other people. So, I want to make sure that we're top of

[37:32] mind that we're thinking about everyone in the community as we and, you know,

[37:35] doing this work. Um they also talked about wanting um

[37:40] about damage to the turf field, um having additional signage, you know,

[37:45] alternating existing signage, um used for health risks associated. So, I

[37:50] guess some of these things on those very hot days where we're getting 90° weather

[37:55] or or more, what how would this secure safety in

[38:01] those instances, I guess? I mean, do we really need In my mind, I just don't

[38:06] think we need this many turfed fields in the community when there's a high school

[38:11] that people can go and use if it's already there, or we can use what's

[38:15] already been approved across the city. Do we really need an additional grassy

[38:19] area to be turned into turf instead of retaining the grass that naturally could

[38:25] work in the community.

[38:37] » Willie, I don't know if um that question was posed to Deanne and I or is that

[38:42] just a general question you have for >> Just

[38:47] just a general question. I mean if if Deanne has some insight, again, I know

[38:51] you know in your capacity as advisory, you might have a little bit more

[38:55] knowledgeable research on these varying things. Um I just wanted to you just

[39:00] understand cuz again, it is top of mind and it is a a huge discussion amongst

[39:04] other places in the state. I could see if we were saying that there were 100,

[39:08] you know, we have a lot of communities in Massachusetts and we're only talking

[39:11] about a handful of places that have this turf and we're saying, you know, I don't

[39:17] think we're making I don't think to me it makes

[39:20] sense that it would quantify us to make these changes if they're absolutely

[39:24] unnecessary.

[39:31] » So, Ms. Clay, the only thing I would say about that in my personal experience,

[39:36] nothing to do with my work, is the natural grass obviously is the safer

[39:42] road to go. But with that comes a budget. And so, when there is no

[39:48] budget to maintain natural grass, that's when people are talking about

[39:53] artificial turf because it's less maintenance needed, more hours of

[39:58] play, and that's the selling feature.

[40:02] Um the artificial turf fields that I'm aware of that I've

[40:08] been to are probably not made of the material

[40:12] that Mr. Farina has been has been speaking about or Mr. Romulus has been

[40:15] speaking about um but the concerns

[40:19] are the temperature the

[40:23] lack of um

[40:25] you know you know misting that comes up from the from the turf to

[40:28] cool off the the the people on the on the fields

[40:32] um and the turf fields

[40:36] not being recyclable not no place to put them which Mr. Farry has has has made a

[40:41] statement that you know it's all recyclable so that's that's great. But

[40:45] the reality is artificial turfs while they may be at a

[40:50] lot of high schools they may be at Tufts there are people taking positions

[40:55] against having artificial turf versus natural grass.

[40:59] And to keep

[41:02] pushing the the message about more hours of play

[41:07] does not put some of the parents or the players

[41:13] at ease when you don't know what some of the risks could possibly be. And I'm not

[41:17] saying about this particular field cuz I don't know really know a lot about it

[41:20] but just the fields that I have visited the people that I've spoken to

[41:25] um there's concerns about what the tire crumb is made of what the the grass

[41:30] blades are made of you know in addition to the heat and and and health issues so

[41:35] um you know natural grass is always the

[41:37] best option but when you don't have a budget for it you opt for the turf

[41:43] and then you think about 10 or 12 years down the road when you have to replace

[41:46] it or remove it then you think about how am I going to replace it then as opposed

[41:49] to monthly budgets of who's going to mow

[41:53] who's going to clean who's going to do this where's that funding going to come

[41:56] from and it to me it's

[42:01] and I'm not speaking to about anybody here it's a little bit of

[42:05] manipulation on some of the communities that have been

[42:10] getting these artificial turfs because there was so many communities that

[42:15] are saying no to them. And I'm not talking about high schools

[42:18] here. I'm talking about just communities themselves.

[42:21] So, I don't know if that answers your question, but that's the space that I'm

[42:24] coming from as a resident of Brockton and a member member of the advisory

[42:28] council.

[42:31] » Thank you, Denine.

[42:34] Joyce? >> Um I do believe that's not

[42:37] maintenance-free anyway from what I've read about Brockton. There are daily

[42:41] maintenance, weekly maintenance, monthly maintenance, quarterly maintenance,

[42:45] annual maintenance that has to be done as well to be able to make sure that

[42:49] that field is replaced and make sure that it that the wear is is is even and

[42:54] there's there's uh there's a whole battery of um of maintenance. I don't

[42:58] think it's maintenance-free. Perhaps it's mow-free.

[43:02] Um I did have a question about the pipes. Those pipes Can I switch to that

[43:06] now or is that the pipes that are underneath the that

[43:10] you had on that um that plan set?

[43:15] » Um Mr. Chair, uh just uh I just wanted to check um

[43:19] do uh the uh invited guests still have to stay on or are they allowed to

[43:26] go about the evening? >> Great question. Uh commissioners, any

[43:31] anything for Wedadja or um Denine?

[43:36] » I did want to say thank you so much both of you for for coming and and for

[43:40] sharing. Um our hearts are with you, actually.

[43:42] » Yeah, I just wanted to thank you both. >> Thank you.

[43:45] » Um I have one question for Denine. Uh you mentioned the misting and I think

[43:50] just recently you mentioned that mist is there to kind of uh cool off the

[43:53] players. Is that also uh supposed to be a feature to kind of reduce the

[43:57] temperature of the field on hot days with like the evaporation or is that

[44:01] misting feature specifically like for players as they're using the field?

[44:06] » It's misting to cool down the field because of the rising temperature versus

[44:12] unnatural grass. >> Understood.

[44:13] » It isn't to I mean, maybe some of the players go

[44:16] underneath it, I don't know, you know, or stand near it, but it's it's

[44:20] specifically um for cooling down the field so that it

[44:24] is not as hot as as it can get. >> Okay. Thank you.

[44:27] » Thank you.

[44:31] » Anyone else?

[44:36] No? >> Thank you all for inviting us. Um

[44:39] again, if there are any projects or initiatives that you're considering and

[44:45] you would like our input, feel free to reach out to us. We'll be happy to

[44:50] attend a meeting. Thank you.

[44:52] » All right, thank you so much. >> your time.

[44:55] » Yes, thank you very much. Uh Kyle, do we want to go to uh Rihanna

[45:01] and James first before we go into looking at like Joyce

[45:05] requested for the field with the pipes and all that?

[45:08] » Yeah, sure. >> Can I just I'm sorry, can I pop in

[45:11] really quickly? There's I don't know if we're going to do a a public

[45:15] question question because there's some question in the chat.

[45:20] I just want to just keep that in anyone's

[45:23] um mind if we are going to entertain um

[45:28] that's chatting or in the public discussion.

[45:31] » it before the end of this specific discussion topic. You

[45:35] know, before we finish the meeting, this is a public hearing, so we should allow

[45:38] public comment. >> Okay.

[45:40] » But that doesn't have to be right now. We can do that at the end.

[45:43] » Okay. >> Um

[45:45] as a uh just a point of clarification, typically with uh public comments, uh

[45:51] they should be providing a name and uh street

[45:55] address just so that it's, you know, it can be

[45:57] included in the record. If that person is still around, just so that they can

[46:02] kind of have that opportunity. Thank you.

[46:16] » Um Kyle, who would you like to speak for us? Uh Rihanna, would you like to speak

[46:19] or >> Sure. Um yeah, I guess just to make sure

[46:24] I'm understanding um were you looking for us to kind of summarize like our

[46:28] synthetic turf specific comments or would it be helpful to just give kind of

[46:32] an overview of um what our back and forth with the applicant has been so far

[46:37] just on the NOI in general? Um I know we had several comments kind

[46:41] of just on various elements of the NOI, but I don't I don't know if we were

[46:45] sticking with synthetic turf for now or just kind of overall

[46:49] comments.

[46:56] » Oh, Justin, you're muted.

[47:00] » Sorry, I'm having difficulties here. Should we go over the overview first or

[47:03] what would you like to go over? >> Yeah, sure. Let's uh

[47:08] Rihanna, why don't you just do a quick overview of of the of the peer review

[47:12] to date and then maybe outline the like kind of the game plan moving forward. I

[47:17] think that's important so we can kind of understand what what to expect in 2

[47:22] weeks. Um and then that way that the commission can

[47:26] you know, if they're okay with that game plan and that path forward, wonderful.

[47:30] If if they want additional things to be addressed, you know, that would be

[47:34] helpful, I think to know going into the 16th.

[47:37] » Sure. Yeah, definitely. Um so, we've had a couple rounds of

[47:41] comments back and forth with the applicant's engineer over the last 2

[47:46] weeks or so. Um

[47:48] originally we received um a draft of the original draft of the NOI.

[47:53] Um we reviewed that kind of as a whole and then provided some initial comments.

[47:58] Um at that time we were still waiting for the COC request um to be submitted.

[48:04] So first we just reviewed the NOI. Um and I'm just pulling up those

[48:08] comments. Um but several of our comments were honestly pretty like minor more

[48:14] administrative things. Um like um just little like boxes like buffer zone only

[48:20] was checked off on the Wetlands Protection Act form um but of course

[48:24] there's work in flood plain so that was one of our comments. Um and there were a

[48:28] few others kind of along those lines like easy fixes. Um so several of those

[48:33] type administrative comments. Um but the bigger comments that we had in our

[48:38] initial review were um the depiction of the 100-year flood

[48:43] plain on the plans. Um I we noticed that the initial set of plans showed the FEMA

[48:49] um polygon boundary of the zone AE um zone X boundary on the plans.

[48:55] Um and we basically asked them like please remove like the polygon and just

[48:59] show it based off mapped on the appropriate base flood elevation. Um

[49:04] which is the 91-ft contour. Um so that was that was kind of like one

[49:09] of the bigger comments. Um and then there were a couple other plain comments

[49:13] like adding the local um 25- and 50-ft buffer zones um color coding to fit the

[49:18] commission's policy document. Um and then one of the other bigger

[49:22] comments was regarding the com- pensatory flood storage plan. Um I know

[49:27] that the applicant provided um flood storage calculations for the

[49:33] both the previously approved um existing soccer field. Um which was constructed

[49:39] in a way that there was access um compensatory flood storage provided for

[49:43] that original existing project. Um and we looked at those calculations compared

[49:49] to the proposed compensatory flood storage. Um and and overall, um, the

[49:54] applicant claims that there's a net, um, cut within the flood plain proposed for

[49:59] this project um, when the previous flood storage from the original project is

[50:04] taken into account. Um, but one of our comments was that at at a certain

[50:09] elevation between elevations 85 and 87 ft, um, there appeared to be a net fill

[50:16] within flood plain. Um, and under the regulations, of course, they require

[50:21] that you provide, um, compensatory flood storage, basically a net loss at each

[50:26] incremental elevation. So, even though they they were claiming, you know,

[50:30] there's a net loss, um, or a net cut within flood plain, our comment was, is

[50:35] there a net fill at any elevations? Um, cuz it looked like at those specific

[50:39] elevations, there was a fill. Um, and then we we asked about, um, just

[50:45] providing a general write-up of compliance with the, um, performance

[50:49] standards for bordering land subject to flooding,

[50:52] um, which the applicant, um, provided in our next round of review.

[50:58] And then we had a couple questions, kind of big picture questions about the

[51:01] synthetic turf, um, asking about, um, first we just asked for, um, additional

[51:07] information on the specific type of turf that was proposed, um, and then, um, we

[51:14] asked about the potential for the turf fibers and infill materials to migrate,

[51:19] um, through the storm water. Um,

[51:22] we then, um, so we submitted those comments, the applicant's engineer then

[51:27] submitted revised NOI materials a few days later. Um, they also submitted the

[51:32] COC request at that time, so we reviewed both of those things.

[51:36] Um, for the COC request, our main comments,

[51:40] I think Scott already kind of summarized, but it's the recording of

[51:44] the original order of conditions at the registry.

[51:48] Um, the as-built plans that were provided weren't stamped, so that was

[51:52] one of our comments. They should be stamped by

[51:54] a PE. Um,

[51:57] and then the original COC request um stated that the soccer field was

[52:02] constructed substantially in compliance um with the

[52:07] original NOI, but it appeared that there were some differences in the grading um

[52:12] between the original NOI and the constructed field. Um, so we just asked

[52:16] for some more detail on um what the deviations were.

[52:21] Um, and then today the applicant provided

[52:25] some additional information about that um describing the grading changes

[52:30] um that we'll take a closer look at. Um, so that's basically the COC request.

[52:37] And then the NOI we received um a response to our original comments.

[52:43] And a few of the outstanding items um were we asked that a delineation report

[52:49] or and or data forms be provided. Um, they had some information about the

[52:54] delineation, but just would like to confirm like the date the delineation

[52:58] occurred. It sounds like the flags need to it needs to be reflagged. Um, and

[53:02] then data forms um supporting documentation for the

[53:06] delineation. Um, the depiction of the flood plain

[53:11] boundaries on the plans have been corrected and they're now shown at that

[53:14] correct 91-ft contour. Um,

[53:18] but I think we still have some questions regarding the proposed fill between

[53:24] elevations 86 and 87. Um, cuz I know that there's still a net cut, but one of

[53:30] our comments was basically if there's fill at any of the incremental

[53:33] elevations. Um, technically

[53:38] that's not allowable um unless it's de minimis and I saw that DEP um, just

[53:44] issued a similar comment um, today or yesterday.

[53:48] Um, and then um, we would recommend Well, we would defer to the commission

[53:52] on whether they would recommend this, but technically a project that have more

[53:56] than 5,000 square feet of impact to BLSF would trigger a wildlife habitat

[54:01] evaluation. Um, and I know that the applicant

[54:04] provided some information on that, but um, one of our comments was basically

[54:09] saying the commission may wish to request like a formal wildlife habitat

[54:13] evaluation be conducted. Um,

[54:17] and then And James, I don't know if you want to

[54:19] summarize kind of briefly the stormwater um, and PFAS comments.

[54:34] Not sure. Um,

[54:39] » Uh, yeah, he's he's been promoted uh, Rihanna.

[54:42] » Okay. Yeah, I can if he's not available, I can

[54:45] try to just summarize. I know that um, >> Sorry, I'm I'm here. Yeah, I I was

[54:50] trying to find my my my buttons.

[54:54] » Technology. >> Okay.

[54:56] Yeah, so um, Rihanna, you're asking me to summarize the the P the PFAS issue?

[55:01] » PFAS and then um, just the stormwater comments kind of to date from the

[55:05] initial review to now. >> Yeah, absolutely. So, in their initial

[55:10] review um, what we did is we first kind of examined

[55:13] what the applicant was doing with respect to potentially adding more

[55:16] impervious area to the site, and uh, we determined that they're not adding more

[55:20] impervious area. Um, they're they're really only making

[55:23] changes to the field itself. So, from our point of view, they're not really

[55:26] changing the hydrology from a standpoint that would require um, the provision of

[55:30] additional stormwater detention over and above what's already on the site. Um,

[55:35] likewise uh, not a need for infiltration BMPs

[55:39] or or uh stormwater quality BMPs at least from

[55:43] the standpoint of the stormwater handbook, which regulates total

[55:47] suspended solids off of impervious areas.

[55:49] Now, there was the separate issue of um

[55:54] the the turf itself because we we do know that uh

[55:58] that uh some concerns were were expressed about, you know, making sure

[56:03] that the environmental the uh artificial turf system would would

[56:08] not have any negative environmental impacts. And so, we tried to comment on

[56:12] that, and we've had a lot of experience with this issue because our our company

[56:15] has also been involved in uh artificial turf designs um

[56:20] throughout throughout New England and and throughout the East Coast, really.

[56:24] Um and one of the one of the issues that

[56:26] bubbles up to the top frequently um well, there's really a few issues. One

[56:30] of them being, you know, migration of some of the infill material leaving the

[56:34] site. Then, there's also the issue of

[56:38] um some people bring up concerns about microplastics.

[56:42] And then, one of the final issues has to do with um

[56:46] growing concern over over PFAS because we're finding that more and more like in

[56:49] drinking water supplies and things of that nature.

[56:52] And so, what we did in our in in our comment letter that we provided to the

[56:56] applicant was we uh made some some suggestions about some

[57:01] pathways they should explore with regards to protecting the stormwater

[57:05] um and providing some treatment in order to prevent the infill material

[57:09] from from escaping and, you know, and then, you know, to to some degree,

[57:13] it may also help with the the microplastic issue.

[57:17] And then, the third issue of uh PFAS contamination, we have a a comprehensive

[57:21] memo that we had assembled after doing quite a bit of research over the last

[57:24] several years on the PFAS issue.

[57:27] And uh this has been authored by um some of our

[57:30] staff internally who who studied the issue very carefully

[57:34] in response to growing concerns from different communities. And so, we have a

[57:38] whole testing protocol that was presented in in that attachments to our

[57:41] letter that talks about um, some best practices that that could be could be

[57:46] taken during construction just to ensure that the material that's brought inside

[57:50] doesn't have any any any contamination present. Um,

[57:54] so that that's really kind of a high-level synopsis of that. So,

[57:59] I'll uh turn it back to you, Rina.

[58:03] » Great. Yeah, thanks, James. Um, but yeah, I think that was basically

[58:08] our high-level summary of our comments. I'm sure I'm missing some of the smaller

[58:12] ones. Um, I The only other thing I can think of was one of the big things um,

[58:18] we had talked with the applicant was that DEP had an issue with their file

[58:21] number, but like we've discussed, I saw that they did issue some of their own

[58:25] comments um, just yesterday. So, I would encourage the applicant just to take a

[58:30] look at those. Um, just from a quick glance, a lot of them seem similar to

[58:35] the things we've already like discussed or had in our own comments. Um, but I

[58:41] did see one of their comments discusses um, I'm just looking at them

[58:45] now, but one of their comments was asking about incorporating the

[58:50] compensatory flood storage from the prior project into the flood zone on the

[58:57] current site. Um, so it seems like they may be asking for some updates to the

[59:01] calculations. Um, so from at least from DEP's comments

[59:05] perspective, it seems like that was one of the newer ones that we hadn't

[59:09] specifically called out yet.

[59:20] » Rina, thank you. James, thank you.

[59:23] And Kyle? >> Um, I don't really have any additional

[59:28] comments. I think that you know, maybe we can throw this back

[59:32] at Scott for a second and see um, given the DEP comments, um,

[59:38] you know, I know that the the the plan that was submitted yesterday

[59:42] or or the day before that we looked at with the new features, um, isn't the

[59:46] final plan set. We need to have the updated, you know, uh, delineation

[59:50] included there, but um, and we'll have to address the DEP

[59:54] comments, but um, is this at from Scott, your perspective, uh, close to the final

[1:00:00] plan as far as the, uh, mitigation features that that that

[1:00:06] are on the table for being proposed currently?

[1:00:10] Like there are no new, based upon comments with Weston & Sampson and

[1:00:14] everything, there's no like additional mitigation that you're proposing, uh,

[1:00:18] that's kind of on the table that just hasn't been implemented yet. Is that

[1:00:21] right?

[1:00:25] » Uh, Scott, sorry, you're on mute.

[1:00:29] » Thank you. Uh,

[1:00:31] you know, like Rihanna said, from from both Weston & Sampson's comment and

[1:00:34] DEP's comment, they were asking for some additional,

[1:00:39] uh, flood calculations and we do have that one elevation stage where there is

[1:00:43] an increase, uh, in fill on the site. So,

[1:00:47] uh, our argument was that it was de minimus

[1:00:50] and when you look at the whole overall area, it it wasn't amounting to, uh, to

[1:00:55] all that much when you look at the whole flood area. Uh,

[1:00:59] there there was already, uh, kind of a, uh, an increase in that

[1:01:03] elevation previously proposed, you know, back 15 years ago. There's been no

[1:01:08] flooding issues on the field, so we're hoping we wouldn't have to, uh, do a

[1:01:13] whole bunch of earthwork just to make that one contour match exactly, but if

[1:01:17] it's a sticking point, DEP brought it up, Weston & Sampson brought it up, we

[1:01:21] can just push around our grading and and it's a math exercise. We can make the

[1:01:25] numbers work. So, I I think the bottom line, Kyle, and I I

[1:01:29] think what you're kind of pointing to, I I think everything that Weston and

[1:01:32] Sampson has brought up in in their couple looks at it, most of

[1:01:36] those we've addressed. There's a few left to to take care of.

[1:01:41] Uh I think DEP's issue's the same. There's a few things to take care of. It

[1:01:45] It It doesn't change the fact that there's going to be a turf field

[1:01:49] proposed within the flood plain and within the

[1:01:52] 100-ft buffer zone, uh you know, in the Conservation Commission's jurisdiction.

[1:01:56] So, we're going to make all those changes tomorrow and Friday and get it

[1:02:00] back to Weston and Sampson, get it back to uh

[1:02:03] to Whitney at DEP and and and get it to you and and everybody's happy. We've

[1:02:07] addressed everything. It's still going to be a turf field with

[1:02:10] that underdrain system with the jellyfish and the water quality tank

[1:02:14] discharging to a a pipe and riprap uh in in that lower section of the field.

[1:02:20] So, I'm not sure that

[1:02:23] there's nothing we're going to do that's going to change what we have for a

[1:02:25] proposal. So, uh

[1:02:28] » Right. I mean, my my question, Scott, was was kind of just so uh

[1:02:32] you know, we're like 90% of the way there or more, right? Like,

[1:02:35] what we got isn't the final plan set, but like we're not you are not proposing

[1:02:40] or you don't think there's going to need to be any real major changes

[1:02:44] » No. >> outside of some just shifting some

[1:02:46] things around, some some math, as you say,

[1:02:48] » Correct. >> for this up The reason I I I asked for

[1:02:51] that clarification is that way the commission can take a look at the

[1:02:54] current plan set, recognizing that it's not the final plan set, but this is

[1:02:58] generally what we're working with. Um so, they can then take the next couple

[1:03:02] weeks to to kind of review what we've got here. Obviously, they'll have access

[1:03:06] to the to the revised plan set, but this is kind of what we're working with at

[1:03:09] this point, and this is more or less what we think is going to be mostly the

[1:03:14] the final plan set as as as will be presented to the commission

[1:03:17] on the 16th. >> I agree. Yes, that is the that's our

[1:03:22] feeling. Yes. Thank you.

[1:03:24] » Um I guess circling back to to one of the comments that Rihanna had mentioned

[1:03:27] was the the question of about the habitat assessment. Um I think that the

[1:03:31] commission should weigh in on that uh to give

[1:03:34] uh the applicant, you know, time to to do that if it's necessary here. Um

[1:03:39] » Yeah, if I just to save everybody the long discussion, um you know,

[1:03:45] I'm I'm not sure what habitat would be there.

[1:03:49] It it's it's not even uh just from everything that was in the

[1:03:53] news with the cleanup that was done in Snow Park and all of that. Um I I would

[1:03:57] think that issue had a lot more of a a threat

[1:04:01] to the habitat than this field would, but in any event, our botanist was was

[1:04:06] out there as you said reflagging it today, and he's doing that habitat

[1:04:09] assessment. So it's just more money to spend doing a habitat assessment on a

[1:04:15] on that area that um I'm sure there's nothing to to be

[1:04:18] concerned with, but knowing that I'm I'm sure the commission would want it, we

[1:04:22] just jumped the gun and had him do it. So we'll have that submitted at the next

[1:04:26] meeting as well. >> All right, thank you.

[1:04:31] » Thank you. Uh Joyce? >> Uh is it possible to see that plan again

[1:04:34] with the little pipey things? You said there were pipes

[1:04:37] under uh

[1:04:40] Thank you. >> Yeah, while while Kyle calls it up, I'll

[1:04:43] just explain it again if I if I may. >> Uh if you could explain like So is the

[1:04:47] just is is the turf that's there just scraped off and then you put the uh

[1:04:52] you put the layers down for the other turf?

[1:04:55] » Yes, essentially. So the the construction part of it is you remove

[1:04:58] the topsoil and the subsoil, remove the grass, and then there's uh

[1:05:03] there's material brought in to get to the right elevation, then the turf is

[1:05:06] put in. But as uh as the folks at Weston & Sampson said, it's completely a

[1:05:11] permeable uh surface. There's no runoff at all. It

[1:05:15] it It it It's permeable as permeable as grass is."

[1:05:20] The concern that the commission brought up at the last meeting was any of those

[1:05:24] particles that that are that are in the artificial turf that

[1:05:27] they would migrate through the through the surface into the groundwater and

[1:05:31] eventually find their way out to Trout Brook. So, this this drainage system it

[1:05:36] it's an underdrain system. It's like a foundation drain for your house to make

[1:05:40] sure your basement doesn't get wet. So, when the rainfall leaches through the

[1:05:44] artificial turf and and through the under

[1:05:47] the underlying material, it'll get caught in this drainage system. It gets

[1:05:51] piped around like Kyle said and and gets cleaned in the in the jellyfish in the

[1:05:56] water quality tank and that rainfall that clean rainfall at that point gets

[1:06:01] discharged into that riprap area. So, it's it's just

[1:06:05] uh it it it's really just a way to

[1:06:09] guarantee uh as you folks talked about at the last meeting that there's no

[1:06:12] particles that are getting into the groundwater.

[1:06:15] » What What's the base that's underneath everything that underlies everything? I

[1:06:20] think someone had mentioned at the last meeting

[1:06:23] that there was there was stone or some rocks or something or other on the one

[1:06:27] at the at the high school. It was some kind of What What What's the

[1:06:31] actual base matrix under I guess the pipes are laid on that? Is that where

[1:06:35] the pipes are laid? >> Yeah, no, there's there's crushed you

[1:06:39] know, there's there's different layers of material.

[1:06:43] » Right. >> So, there's crushed stone, then there's

[1:06:45] the infill material that we showed you folks earlier, the the one made of the

[1:06:48] tree fiber. So, there's there's different uh

[1:06:51] different levels of of material that are brought in to provide a a stable base.

[1:06:56] » Right. Okay. I was I was reading an interesting article that mentioned

[1:07:01] it a lot of it depends on the density of that under of those under layers whether

[1:07:05] it really truly is impervious or not. That some some people consider um

[1:07:12] um turf impervious because because of that. If

[1:07:16] it if it becomes highly packed underneath, then it it actually would be

[1:07:20] impervious. And the other thing was that it's built to allow a rapid flow through

[1:07:27] uh through the lay through the layers um and also to sheet flow things off the

[1:07:32] surface, so it doesn't puddle on the so it doesn't puddle on the actual top of

[1:07:37] the turf. So, the players are not working in puddles, but in the meantime

[1:07:40] they're sheet flowing, which kind of almost sounds like the effect of an

[1:07:44] impervious surface. So, when I was reading through everything

[1:07:47] that the Weston and Sampson had put together, everything is based on the

[1:07:51] fact that it's impervious. Um so, as long as we can be

[1:07:55] » Not impervious, pervious. >> Yes, it's Well, it says it's not

[1:07:59] impervious. >> Right. Not Thank Not impervious.

[1:08:02] » That's what I mean. That's what I mean, sorry. Um so, I mean, as long as we can

[1:08:06] be 100% assured that that those layers those base layers

[1:08:13] are going to be are going to be laid in a way that you don't get that

[1:08:15] compaction. And the other thing, too, was

[1:08:18] maintenance. That if if that was especially I think I read it with the

[1:08:22] the Brock fill. That with maintenance, if you didn't um constantly brush the

[1:08:27] field and keep the that Brock fill loose, that eventually can become

[1:08:32] somewhat compact. And then you end up again with that sheet flow action. So,

[1:08:37] uh my concern, again, it's solely about the fact that it's so close to Trout

[1:08:41] Brook and it Brook and it's in a sensitive area.

[1:08:45] PFAS rolling off that stuff, it comes from the blades, you know, it comes from

[1:08:49] That's where microplastics will come from.

[1:08:52] Um that's my biggest concern is whether or not we're going to get any flow that

[1:08:56] well, any any substantial flow that will contain

[1:09:00] something that could potentially be harmful to the environment. So, if if we

[1:09:04] can be assured that that won't happen, that construct of this,

[1:09:08] you know, would prevent that. Um, you know, I think that's something we

[1:09:12] need to take into account. And also, is there any way we might be able to I

[1:09:16] guess I could just walk over there tomorrow?

[1:09:19] Can we have a site visit? >> Trout Brook by the the site?

[1:09:23] » It's a public park. Uh, so you can go at any point, but yeah, we

[1:09:26] can certainly organize a visit to, um,

[1:09:29] if you would like. Absolutely. >> I'd like to see that area that, you

[1:09:33] know, that same question about the fill and stuff like that, if if that's

[1:09:37] possible.

[1:09:42] » Cool. Thanks, Joyce. Um, commissioners, any other questions?

[1:09:50] » Not really questions, just um, the documents that um, Scott submitted. Are

[1:09:53] these in the files for us to review? >> Yes. Yep. Uh, these are part of the the

[1:09:58] Oh, I I guess I didn't put a a meeting file together for you all here tonight,

[1:10:02] so I apologize for that, but these are all part of the the the planning

[1:10:05] department conservation commission public docs. So, all those are are

[1:10:09] publicly available to the commission and the public.

[1:10:12] » Thanks.

[1:10:17] » Thank you. Uh, Kyle, is there anybody from the public that would like to speak

[1:10:21] on this? I do see we have a Q&A. >> Yeah, so we'll I guess we'll start with

[1:10:26] that Q&A. Um, this is from uh, Elizabeth Perez, uh, Keen Street, Brockton, Mass.

[1:10:32] Why was the option to build the soccer field across the street not considered

[1:10:35] rather rather than utilizing the space near Trout Brook?

[1:10:41] » Well, um, this is probably reason I think uh,

[1:10:45] as the chair of the commission, I'll speak

[1:10:47] and then all the other chairs, that was the first question we asked when this

[1:10:51] was proposed to us to reuse or do something with that grass field

[1:10:56] across the street. Um, Kyle, do you have anything to say on

[1:11:00] that or Joyce or any commission? >> Well, I think that that question's

[1:11:03] really for the applicant. So, um I defer that to uh the representative Scott

[1:11:08] Feria or Elijah Romulus who who's here on the city's behalf. I'm as the agent,

[1:11:14] I am a city employee, but I'm trying to to kind of walk a fine line here um

[1:11:18] and and not you know, uh

[1:11:21] be the applicant and also uh you know, the representative of the

[1:11:25] review commission which is the conservation commission review agency.

[1:11:31] » Uh yes. So, I can um Yes, so this was um a proposal that the

[1:11:38] mayor's office had uh considered in improving the

[1:11:43] the park. Um we as the planning department um we're

[1:11:49] trying to figure out a way to be able to use um

[1:11:53] some of the uh CDBG um

[1:11:58] federal funds in a way that could improve some amenities in the city. And

[1:12:03] so, um based on the mayor's uh suggestion um

[1:12:07] this uh snow park uh location was selected. So, I guess I would have to uh

[1:12:13] defer to the mayor on exactly um the reasoning for the choice of selection of

[1:12:19] that specific uh area, but um it was uh in consideration of being able

[1:12:26] to um use some of the um

[1:12:30] available funding that we have um to improve an area of the city.

[1:12:40] » Um and then just to kind of piggyback on on those comments, this comment uh you

[1:12:45] know, basically this is an alternatives analysis question. Like were other areas

[1:12:50] considered for implementation of the turf field. Um that is part of a series

[1:12:55] of questions that I submitted to the applicant and the applicant's

[1:12:59] representatives. Um that that I hope will be addressed and formally, you

[1:13:05] know, submitted to the commission before the the 16th the meeting on the 16th. Um

[1:13:11] you know, another question that that should and and it was part of that list

[1:13:16] was, you know, generally I know we're looking at the turf field now, but like

[1:13:20] why turf versus grass? Do we consider, you know, what could be done with I know

[1:13:25] this is a question that Commissioner Voris raised last a couple weeks ago.

[1:13:29] You know, with the amount of money that we're spending on this turf field, what

[1:13:31] could be done with a grass field, right? So, those are the kinds of like

[1:13:34] alternative analysis questions that that are part of this larger list of

[1:13:37] questions that I did submit to the, you know, to to the applicant and the

[1:13:41] applicant's representative uh to to be to be addressed.

[1:13:47] But what I've got now that I've got the the assessor's map pulled up, Snow Park

[1:13:50] is this soccer field down here where the project is proposed. The question in the

[1:13:54] comments was why not utilize this city park on the north side of Center Street,

[1:13:59] which is about 250 ft away from Snow Park.

[1:14:10] » Um yeah, so I can't speak on behalf of the mayor,

[1:14:14] but I will just mention in terms of proximity to the

[1:14:20] surrounding neighborhoods Snow Park is a little more

[1:14:26] secluded as opposed to being right on top of um

[1:14:30] right across the street from residences, and so that may uh

[1:14:36] be factored into um that decision to go forward with Snow

[1:14:40] Park.

[1:14:47] » Joyce? >> But between

[1:14:49] floodplain and riverfront, it's in an it's in a much, much, much

[1:14:54] more e- ecologically sensitive area.

[1:14:59] » That's a fair point. >> Which is what we're here for, I think.

[1:15:05] » Right. Um

[1:15:07] the question was why uh that over the other, and so I was providing some

[1:15:11] insight into that.

[1:15:20] » Um so uh through the chair, uh you know, we can entertain questions from the

[1:15:24] public unless there are other questions from the commission, um you know, for

[1:15:28] Scott or Weston and Sampson or Mr. Romulus.

[1:15:42] » I don't see anything, Kyle. >> Yeah, I mean, I don't I don't see any

[1:15:46] hands raised. If If anyone that's here from the public uh in the attendees list

[1:15:50] would like to speak to this project, ask questions, um please raise your hand and

[1:15:54] we can promote you.

[1:15:59] Uh I don't see any hands raised, uh Mr. Chair.

[1:16:04] » S- uh so, saying that, should uh if nobody has any questions, um should we

[1:16:12] make a motion to continue agenda item uh item number two

[1:16:16] to the September 16th meeting?

[1:16:22] » I'll move to uh continue uh agenda item two to the next meeting.

[1:16:28] » I second that. >> We have a motion made and seconded. Can

[1:16:32] I have a roll call vote, please, to uh

[1:16:36] move a- item agenda number two, NOI for Zero

[1:16:41] Center Street, to the September 16th meeting, please. Roll call vote.

[1:16:44] » Clay, I. >> Green, I.

[1:16:47] » Knapp, I. >> Morris, I.

[1:16:49] » And Talbot, I. Motion carries. Thank you, folks. See you in a couple

[1:16:55] weeks. Thank you.

[1:16:57] » Thank you and have a good evening.

[1:17:01] » Then, Kyle, can we go to the Can we go out to the site or would Would you

[1:17:05] prefer that we just take our own walk? >> No, I mean, I'll Let me know when you

[1:17:08] want to go. I'll I'll go there with you. But, we can

[1:17:11] Yeah, if you want to walk individually, you certainly can. Um but,

[1:17:15] » god. You want to go tomorrow? >> Yeah, sure.

[1:17:19] » Do we need a motion to close the meeting?

[1:17:21] » Oh, we probably ought to. >> I make a motion to close the What should

[1:17:25] I September 2nd meeting? >> Motion was made and we second. And we

[1:17:31] got a second. We don't need a roll call vote for this,

[1:17:34] do we? >> May as well for completeness. Let's do

[1:17:37] it. >> Roll call vote, please.

[1:17:39] » Clay, I. >> Green, I.

[1:17:41] » Knapp, I. >> Morris, I.

[1:17:43] » And Talbot, I. Uh Joyce, I'd like to go check that out,

[1:17:47] too. Um I don't know if I can make it tomorrow.

[1:17:50] » Yeah, I want to go. I used to go to the Ploss when I was in elementary middle

[1:17:54] school. >> Do you have any time in Brockton

[1:17:57] coming up available or Lily instead of going all the way to Plymouth?

[1:18:01] » Um next Thursday, I'm going to be at one of our elementary Oak Do It Builds. Uh

[1:18:08] Um well, Monday's a labor day. That's a holiday. I mean, I can always, I guess,

[1:18:11] just also drive by, but not this week and not till

[1:18:16] I mean, just don't think

[1:18:19] » Cuz the meeting's the 16th, so I'd really like to see it so if I have any

[1:18:22] questions, send them to Kyle ahead of time.

[1:18:25] » I mean, if we do super early in the morning, I could probably stop by on my

[1:18:27] way to work. >> How super.

[1:18:32] Um >> Like, are we talking 6:15 when Kyle

[1:18:36] calls? >> No, not not that early. I mean, after

[1:18:40] like 8:00. >> Cuz I'm going to be at work, so.

[1:18:43] » You're already at work at 8:00? You're already at work at 8:00, Justin?

[1:18:48] » 8:00. 6:00 5:55 this morning.

[1:18:52] » Oh.

[1:18:56] » I mean, I'm pretty open. I mean, I can go myself as well, so I mean, I don't

[1:18:59] you know. But, I'd like to check it out. I'd like

[1:19:02] to walk from the distance from where the proposed to the current.

[1:19:07] » And I'd like to see river versus there and see where the berms are. I just get

[1:19:11] a feel for the layout, actually. Um, but

[1:19:16] I'm Let me see. Today, tomorrow. What's Where are we?

[1:19:23] I'm going to go Friday morning.

[1:19:26] » When? We're still recording, right? Cuz

[1:19:28] » Yeah. I mean, we're Yeah, the meeting was

[1:19:30] closed, but scheduling is not considered a violation of the open

[1:19:36] meeting law, so if we're just discussing availability for a meeting, that's

[1:19:41] that's not an issue. >> I can go Friday morning.

[1:19:47] Tomorrow morning's a little too last notice for

[1:19:51] being late into work. >> You mean the 4th?

[1:19:53] » Yeah, I could the 4th.

[1:19:58] » I have a 9:15 office appointment.

[1:20:03] » So, does that mean before or now? >> If I had to be there at

[1:20:07] 8:00, I'm sure I could. If I had to.

[1:20:11] » I'm not going to push it.

[1:20:18] I can also do Tuesday the 8th.

[1:20:23] It would Oh, I've got to move that meeting.

[1:20:27] » How does 8:00 work for you guys? Kyle, do you drive in every day? Or are you

[1:20:32] » I'll I mean I'll Yeah, I'll I can I can be available.

[1:20:36] » I I cannot do Friday. >> Yeah, I can't commit. I'm not sure yet.

[1:20:42] I have a report. >> And then yeah, yeah, I'll know Friday of

[1:20:45] whether or not how many days the following week I'll be in the office. So

[1:20:56] » That's fine. I can go another day, too. So it's not a big deal.

[1:20:58] » I can do I can do Monday or No, I am sorry. Tuesday or Wednesday the

[1:21:01] following week.

[1:21:06] » I'll shoot an email to you guys on my availability after Friday.

[1:21:09] » Okay. Yeah, that sounds good. Perfect. >> Awesome.

[1:21:13] » Good night everybody. >> Good. Thank you.

[1:21:16] » Thanks. >> Good night.

[1:21:17] » Good night. >> Bye.

[1:21:18] » Bye.

Conservation Commission Meeting (09-02-26)

Transcript