All right. Uh, good afternoon. My name is Mark Mason. I'm a retired justice of the Superior Court. I'll introduce myself more formally once we open the hearing uh, in this matter. Uh, first I'll simply note that uh, today is
Friday, June 13. Uh, we are here at the senior center in East Long Meadow. 4:10 p.m. Uh, Chair Johnston, thank you very much. Um, so good afternoon everyone. Uh, my name is Christine Johnston, chair of the board of health. Um, and we are here today for
our, uh, hearing on the application for site suitability for a new site assignment on behalf of Deer Park Recycling LLC for a proposed facility to be located at 100 Deer Park Drive in East Long Meadow. Uh, all right. All
right, I'm gonna turn it back over to you. Yep. Great. Thank you. Okay. Uh before we formally open the hearing on the permit application for site assignment on behalf of Deer Park Recycling LLC for proposed facility to
be located at 100 Deer Park Drive in East Long Meadow, which I'm going to refer throughout the course of this hearing as the application. Uh then first I'm going to ask the most important question that I might ask and is uh that is can you hear me? So if you
can hear me just raise your hand nice and high. Beautiful. So far so good. Also please ensure that all of your cell phones are turned off during the course of um this hearing. Uh first there are some preliminary matters uh for my
consideration. I'm going to identify those who seek to participate in this hearing as either intervenors as they're referred to in the regulation um or participants as they are referred to. And I have received applications for
intervention and registration from the town of East Long Meadow from a citizens group and from FNG Recycling LLC. I've been given uh copies of those uh particular uh
documents and I'm going to Enfield I think it's Enfield Enfield Enfield Connecticut uh and I'm going to mark the main evidence. One moment please disappear. All right. Order field is on the bottom.
Thank you, Attorney Pill. Okay. The intervenor registration statement of the town of Enfield is exhibit number one. The interview registration statement of
citizens group is number two. The supplemental registration statement of the citizens group is number three. The intervenor registration statement of FNG recycling
four. The memorandum support of standing for all interveners but not limited to citizens group FNG and the town of Enfield uh is going to be number five. And the introvenous critique of project
on the merits is number six. All right. So the regulation which is at issue which is 310 CMR 16.20 provides inert in part first relative to intervention that any
person who with good cause wishes to intervene in a public hearing hearing shall file a written petition for leave to intervene. Persons whom the hearing officer determines are specifically and substantively affected by the hearing shall be allowed to intervene for the
purpose of the public hearing. Uh the following person shall be considered to be specifically and substantively affected by the hearing and shall be eligible to register as a party to the hearing. Number one of Butters and number two 10 citizens groups as defined
under our general laws chapter 214 section 7A. The registration of an abutter group of abutters or 10 citizen groups as a party with the petition of a person to be an intervenor to the public hearing shall be valid only if submitted
prior to the commencement of the hearing. Pursuant to 310 CMR 16.20 paragraph 9, any person permitted to intervene shall have all rights of and be subject to all limitations imposed upon a party. However, the hearing
officer shall exclude repetitive or irrelevant material. Every petition to intervene shall be treated as a petition in the alternative to participate. First, the town of Enfield's petition has demonstrated that it is specifically
and substantively affected by the hearing. The town of Enfield's petition to intervene is allowed. Second, the Citizens Group petition as supplemented, which includes FNG Recycling LLC fall squarely within 310
CMR 1620 uh paragraphs 9 A2 and the 10 Citizens Group petition to intervene is allowed. FNG Recycling LLC uh position does not demonstrate that it is quote
specifically and substantively affected as required. FNG's brief conclusion that the application will have a significant impact on FNG's employees their daily commutes uh which is contained within one sentence lacks the requisite detail.
Um, pursuant to the statute, uh, the regulation falls short of the requirement that it be quote specifically and substantively affected. FNG's individual petition to intervene is denied. Importantly, nonetheless,
FNG has joined in under the citizens group petition, which has been allowed, and as such, FNG may intervene in its role as a member of the citizens group petition. uh and is entitled to all the
um rights of an intervenor. Right? Uh those are the petitions to intervene that I have received in advance of today's hearing. As I uh mentioned, any petition to intervene has to be registered before the hearing
starts, which in just about uh 2 3 minutes or so. Um are there any other entities or individuals who wish to intervene? remind you that I'll be discussing uh participation which is a
different level of um involvement in just a brief moment. All right. Hearing none. Uh I'm sorry if you could stand up that would be helpful when you're butter and I just realized you had to
register to speak up. Okay. Uh you can participate. Um um you're in the butter. What is your when do those um who are called upon to speak stamp? Please first state your full name and your address. Okay. Your first name, please.
Okay. And you're in a butter. Okay. I'll permit you. Are you seeking to intervene? Okay. I'll permit you to do so. Thank you very much. Okay. Uh so that's
Ann Marie the last name again please. Are there any other individuals for example a butters who wish to intervene? Okay let's let's talk about uh participants. Uh and now I'm going to
comment on the rights of participants pursuant to 310 semar 16.20 paragraph 9. Any person specifically affected by a proceeding shall be permitted to participate. So that's the standard. Specifically affected. Permission to
participate shall be limited to the right to present testimony, to argue orally at the close of the public hearing and to file a brief. Permission to participate unless otherwise stated shall not be deemed to constitute an expression that the person allowed to
participate is a party in interest who may be agrieved by any final decision. Participants shall not be required to submit to any cross-examination except upon the determination of the hearing officer that cross-examination is necessary in the interest of a full and
fair hearing and an adequate record. Such cross- examination of participants shall be conducted through the hearing officer unless I determine otherwise. Failure of a participant to submit to cross-examination that I have allowed shall be grounds to strike the
participants statements. Right. Will all those who seek to participate in the hearing as I have just described please uh stand, state your full name and your address. And this is not your opportunity to be heard
on the merits, which you'll have plenty of time to do, but rather simply to tell me in a sentence or two uh why you maintain you were a party in interest who may be agreed by any final decision. I'm simply trying to determine whether or not you have what we call standing to
participate um as a participant in this case. And if I determine that you have met the regulatory requirement, I'm going to put you on the list of participants and you'll be uh called in the order in which you're coming up. So uh all those who wish to be engaged in
this hearing as participants uh please step right up here. Uh you're an intervenor. You're good. You're covered. Going once. Okay. I understand. Sure. If you want to speak, okay, uh during the
course of this hearing, then now is your opportunity to let me know that you wish to speak. Uh so that as I'll be describing in a brief moment, this hearing is unlike um other board of health or municipal hearings. It's much
more formal. So that if you wish to speak, you need to be identified right now. Okay. Uh and you know if you you can air on the side of caution so that um if you think
that you might want to speak then I would suggest that you stand and identify yourself. You don't need to speak later on but I think I think sorry to interrupt you. I think the question was they don't understand if it's only for against or if it's for both for and
against. Either way. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Is there anyone who seeks to be recognized as a participant? Okay. Uh, can you please state your full name and your address? Yeah. Dennis, 53 High Pine Circle. Can
you spell your last name? O L I S A Y. Okay. And please tell me in a sense or two why you maintain uh that you're a party in interest who may be agrieved by any final decision of the board of health. Sure.
How does this hearing affect you? Um, it affects the the community, the personnel that are here, um, you know, that contributions they bringing up u making their business will
affect our community. Okay, I'll allow you to participate. Um, as a participant, uh, you can have a seat. Are there any other individuals? Uh, yes. What is your name, please? Charles Arment Jr. Okay.
And uh what is your address? Seven Angel Street. All right. Very well. And in a word or two, uh please let me know why you believe that you may be agreed by any final decision of the board of health. Okay. Uh and were you planning on
calling upon Mr. Armen as part of your case? No. No. Okay. Uh All right. All right. And you live here in town, is that correct? Yes, sir. Okay. I'll participate. You may want to talk to your team, which is up here, to coordinate that, but um certainly I'll
permit you to participate. Uh is there anyone else? Great. Okay. I'm now going to turn to the uh to the chair, Chair Johnson, for a motion to open the hearing. Sure. Thank you. Um I think it's fine. I
motion to open the hearing. um on the application for site suitability for the new site assignment on behalf of Deer Park Recycling LLC for the proposed facility to be located at 100 Deer Park Drive in East Long Meadow. Okay. Is there a second? Second.
Um all those in favor, please say I. I. I. I. I. Right. Great. Um that opens uh uh the hearing. Thank you for being patient as we work through those preliminary matters. Uh so thank
you chair Johnson and thank you to the other board of health members um Dr. Jobins and Miss Torchaw. As I commented earlier my name is Mark Mason. I'm a retired justice of the superior court here in Massachusetts and I'm now a
full-time independent mediator and arbitrator working statewide through my practice which is called Mason Mediation LLC. and I've been retained by the town of East Long Meadow Board of Health to serve as the hearing officer on the
permit application for site assignment on behalf of Deer Park Recycling LLC for the proposed facility to be located at 1200 Deer Park Drive in East Long Meadow. Once again, I'll refer to that um for simplicity simplicity sake as the application. I understand the
application was prepared by O'Reilly, Talabet, and Oaken Engineering Associates of Springfield. And certain of the documents that have been submitted as part of the application were prepared by um VHB, Associates of Springfield, Mass, and perhaps others
that you'll be hearing from. I want to welcome you all here today to witness and participate in this hearing on the application. Uh once again I'm going to ask everyone to make sure that your cell phones are uh silenced. Uh these uh uh
this proceeding is being recorded both um by video means as well as stenographically. Um and this public hearing is being conducted pursuant to our general laws chapter 111 section 158 and 15A and a half along with the mass D regs found at
310 CMR 16. And the purpose of uh this afternoon's hearing is for the board of health to evaluate and determine if the site ated issue is suitable for a site assignment or specifically whether the
facility as proposed will cause danger to the public health, safety or environment. Now, uh, the Mass D has already issued a May 20th, 2025 letter to the board of health setting forth Mass D's site
suitability report evaluating the proposed facility against 19 regulatory prescribed criteria and Mass D has made a positive determination as to each criterion, determining that the site is suitable, a suitable place for the
proposed facility. The board of health is to make its own determination as to whether the proposed facility is acceptable and it can only turn down the proposal if it makes an independent determination supported by
the record that the facility will um pose a threat to um the public health safety or the environment. The board of health has the authority to include conditions in its determination and details of the proposal will be introduced as you'll be hearing into
evidence uh this afternoon and the board of health is constrained to issue its decision within 45 days of the date of initial hearing which is today and by my calculation that takes us to July 28th although I'm going to instruct the board of health to run its own calculation
testimony that's going to be taken at this hearing along with the exhibits that I'll be introducing producing will constitute the record in this matter and anyone seeking to appeal the board of health's decision if they are allowed to do so under law will be limited to the
records of the record uh in making their argument on appeal. Hence, it is very important that we work to protect the record and ensure it is complete and accurate. It is very important that everyone observes the rules of decorum
and courtesy. Please allow others to finish speaking before um you wish to speak. It's my job as a neutral officer to preside over this public hearing on the application. I have no interest
whatsoever in the outcome of this matter and I am not affiliated in any way with the applicant or any of the interveners or any of the participants. Deer Park Recycling LLC um in this
particular instance um is represented by uh council and uh uh council who'll be introducing himself in a brief moment is Josh Lavine um and deer park as I'll be referring to it is also represented by the verma of O'Reilly Talet and Oaken um
Associates FNG Recycling and the citizens group is represented by attorney Michael Hill who is present and the town of Enfield is represented by the town's interim town attorney uh Tom uh Tyler all of whom are
present and will be speaking at uh today's uh hearing. Now uh as you now understand there are two ways um for individuals to be involved in the public hearing either as an intervenor or as a
participant. and I have established the list of interveners and participants who will be presenting. Uh as I stated earlier, permission to participate is limited to the right to present testimony to argue orally uh and if you wish at the close of the hearing to file
a brief if I allow that. Please understand um that although I am a retired superior court judge, I am not like a sitting superior court judge who can um dismiss an action or make other rulings on the the law. My
responsibility is to make sure that at this public hearing, the board of health can hear all relevant and material evidence on the application and whether the cited issue is suitable for the use intended with or without conditions. I rule on the admissibility of evidence
and procedural issues. My job is to ensure that there's an orderly presentation of evidence and argument. If I wish, I may question witnesses to produce a clear and comprehensible record. As I mentioned, this hearing is being conducted under our general laws
chapter 111 sections 150A and 150A and a half, which govern solid um which govern site assignments for solid waste facilities and the D regulations found at 310 CMR 16 which established the procedures and the criteria for
submission and review of site assignment applications. As I mentioned, this is a formal process which is different from typical meetings and hearings before local boards and commissions such as the board of health. By way of example, I'll be conducting the hearing rather than
the chair can now focus wholly on the evidence and asking questions if the chair and the other members of the board wish. Witnesses including interveners and participants are about to be sworn under oath to testify and may be subject
to cross-examination if I permit. General participation of the audience is not allowed other than as an intervenor participant or applicant um or members of the board. The board can only consider testimony from the applicant interveners and participants who I've
identified thus far. So any questions? Um, before we start on Deer Park's presentation of the evidence, great. I'm going to ask all those um who are going to be testifying as
interveners or participants to please stand, raise your right hand, and I'm going to swear you in. Great. Okay. Uh, do you affirm under the penalties of perjury that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? And your answer should be I do.
That is the case. I do. I do. Great. Okay. Um, so far so good. Uh, we have, as I uh perhaps mentioned, up until um 7:00. I think that should be uh sufficient time. I'm now going to turn to Deer Park's representative as I've um
advised council. Uh although I have a number of documents that you've given me and I do appreciate that uh you'll need to formally to have them introduced into evidence. I'll rule on your motion so that we have a clear record. Uh great.
All right. So attorney Lavine then do you wish to proceed? Thank you very much. I'm going to give everyone who's speaking the microphone. Uh because it's a large re room. Please make sure that you speak directly into the microphone in a clear voice.
Thank you very much. My name is Josh Lavine of Lavine Law here at 56ers Road in East Long Meadow. Uh I'd like to start by entering into the record the May 20 25th Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection site suitability report and exhibits.
All right. Any objection? Your honor, that would be the large boulder, right? That's Yeah, I got that. Get that right. All right. So, the D report will be entered into evidence as exhibit 7.
And I would also ask the board to enter into the record uh the June 13, 2025 slide deck, which will be presented shortly. Okay. And is that this document with the green? Yes. Thank you. Okay. Is there any objection?
That'll be marked as a eight. And uh your honor, I'd like to ask the board to take uh notice of the site plan, the June 20th, 23 site plan on record on file with the planning board,
as well as the uh May 5th, 2025 corrected site plan, which uh I don't have a paper copy, although I believe first one would be in our filing since it's already a public record and
on file with the planning board. I would ask the board of health to take notice of that. Right. Do you have a copy of it? I can get a copy of it. I don't have a copy of it with me. I can uh Miss Spencer. Yeah. As I commented earlier,
we are creating um a record uh um for purposes of this hearing as well as for appellet purposes. uh uh unless the board happens to have a copy or someone else has a copy uh then
I cannot introduce it. Is it contained within any of the other exhibits? For example, the D filing. And if you want to um have someone from um your team
look for that, you proceed um perhaps that might be the best way to go. But if it is contained within the DP filing, because indeed I presume it might be. I believe so. Okay. Uh then you can refer to the Bear with me a brief moment.
Uh yes, if you could stand and identify yourself for the record. Thank you, Governor. Michael Kell. Um the 2023 Gong Meadow Planning Board site plan review is appendix six to the intervenor
critique of project on the merits that the court head has. Okay. All right. Very well. Charlie Bean, do you happen to have that document in front of you? I'm looking through now. It's not that
uh it's attorney's reference to a May 25th, 2025. um apparently an amended site plan. Um I've been contacting the planning board regularly and my understanding from the
planning board is that no application for an amended site plan review should be filed and no public hearing have been held. I would very much like to see that the document right well otherwise I respectfully submitted shouldn't be
submitted and well I I haven't seen the document let's just do it. The first one is contained within the intervenous critique. Do you now have that? That's correct. Okay. So, this is what page is that again, please. Uh, well, they're not marked. It's page 104. Uh, but that's not the document within the
right. You can refer to that as part of the critique. As far as the uh other document, what is that, please? It is not an amended site plan. It was a corrected site plan. the site plan, I'm sorry, site plan approval, uh, site plan approval decision had a mistake in it
that was corrected and is has been filed with the Hampton County Registry of Deeds. Uh, and you don't have a copy and you don't believe that it exists. Is that correct? It exists. No, it was apparently issued so far as I know with
no public hearing and no opportunity. And what I would respectfully submit is that was not an error. That was a crucial condition. And the planning board needed to have the opportunity to consider the traffic reports that we
have submitted and and the traffic argument that we have submitted as part of our critique on the merits. And I would respectfully submit that if the planning board um amended their site plan approval, which certainly they did under East Palm Meadow Zoning, site plan
approval follows special permit procedures and it is axiomatic as a matter of law that one cannot do such an amendment even if you're going to call it a correctional. Your honor, this is just about the scope. Just a brief moment. The only question before me is does anyone have a copy of this
document? I I will get one before we're done. Okay, let's move on. Thank you. I'm going to hand over the microphone to John Ferman from Great. And once again, if you can identify yourself, stating your full name and your address. Good evening. Uh John Ferman with HB. Uh
corporate address is 1 Federal Street, Springfield, NAS 11105. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Uh, your honor, would you like to identify the other presenter or just um uh if you want to take care of that,
that's fine. Who else do you have? I will also be presenting Dustin Humphrey with Talanoken 76 Bridge Street, Springfield, Massachusetts. All right, great. Thank you very much, Mr. Humphrey. Go ahead, Mr. Ferman. Good evening. Um, we have a
a presentation for the uh uh application tonight. Um, and we are here for uh the board of health meeting for the solid waste facility at 100 Deer Park Drive. Uh, I have an agenda uh
that uh for the presentation. Sorry, it took me a bit to figure out how to slap it. Um, we'll be going into team introductions, uh, an overview of the project, uh, summary of the permitting history, uh, general des, uh, descriptions of the site plan overview, site design, building operations, and
some site specifics. And then, uh, I'll turn it over to Dustin, who will go over through the solid waste permitting portions of the, uh, the application. The next slide that you're seeing here is just a list of the development team. The applicant is Deer Park Recycling
attorney Lavine Law. Architect is Architecture Eel. Civil engineer John Ferman, BHB, that's myself, environmental engineer, O'Reilly Talbet Oaken, that's Dustin Hoff, uh Dustin Hoffman, uh Dustin Humphrey, uh and
landscape architect, uh William Cannon. Uh one thing to note is that the entire development team are from all from local firms. Um your honor I had gone through these standards here but I had put them in our our um presentation to begin with. Uh
and it's basically why we are here. um from 310 CMR16 uh basically says that when the department the department defined as department of environmental protection issues a finding that a site uh does meet the site suitability criteria, the
board of health shall proceed to hold a public hearing pursuant to this regulation for the purpose of deciding whether to grant or refuse to grant a site assignment uh for that parcel. The next paragraph we have here is the standards for decision which basically says that the board shall determine that
a site is suitable for an assignment unless it makes a finding as supported through evidence of this hearing that doing so would constit constitute a danger to public health safety of environment based on the sighting criteria set forth later on in the in regulation. Dustin will be going through
uh those sighting criteria uh during his part of the presentation. It should be noted that during the DP uh site assessment and suitability review uh they evaluated the same criteria that process which had two public hearing uh
comment periods uh received two comment letters um which were provided to the applicant. Uh the team development team reviewed the comments and provided responses to all of those comments that were prepared by professionals and they were based on fact and additional
analysis. The D reviewed those uh uh responses and determined that the site estimated plus the responses met the criteria uh for having a a positive suitability uh assessment for the site. Um from the documents that are were
handed out uh it's our understanding that these same uh uh concerns and objections will be raised tonight by interveners. Um we stand that the responses that we gave from to the D through that process would remain consistent with what we would give
tonight. Uh for the project overview, uh we're looking at the construction of a new solid waste processing facility. The site itself is approximately 6 acres. Uh we are proposing a new building uh for processing debris which is about 38,511
gross square feet. There's a second smaller building on the site of about 900 gross square feet which is for the scale operations and the actual operations of the facility. The facility is to be located on an existing lot off of Deer Park Drive which and has a
single curb cut at the end of a culde-sac. Um it is intended to benefit from the construction of a new railroad spur uh coming from the south. uh and the intent of that would be to use to transport sorted waste off the site
instead of using uh tractor trailers. We've applied for the maximum amount of processing allowed under regulations which is 2,000 tons per day. The the facility itself will receive only construction debris and bulky waste. There is no hazardous waste or is best
accepted at this location and we will not receive municipal curbside waste. The next couple of slides basically run through the zoning history um I'm sorry the permitting history uh for the site. It started off with a submitt of a zoning determination to the East Long
Meadow Building Department. We received that determination on July 20th, 2022. From there, we prepared site plans and submitted them to the planning board for approval. We received approval of the the project on June 20th, 2023.
Following that, we submitted a request for determination of applicability to the East Long Meadow Conservation Commission. We received a negative determination on June 15, 2023. And for the record, a negative determination in that process means that the project has
no impact on environmental uh areas of concern. Following local permitting, we entered the state permitting process through the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act. We submitted an environmental notification form ENF and we received a sec certificate from the
secretary of environmental affairs on December 2nd, 2023. The result of that certificate said that an EIR was required and they were suggested we submit that in two phases as a draft and a final.
Following that, uh, we prepared a draft environmental impact report, uh, following the scope items that the NEPA office had, uh, directed us to that was submitted, reviewed, and a certificate from the Secretary of Environmental
Affairs was issued on the draft EIR on August 16th, 2024. That certificate said that uh a final EIR was required and it asked for an additional information on a few items. The final EIR report was completed and
submitted. It was again reviewed by the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act office and a final certificate was issued on November 29th, 2024 which said we had met all the requirements for their procedures and that we were free to continue with permitting. The next
two items occurred sim almost simultaneously through the course of filing for the site suitability determination with the DP. We discovered that one of the conditions of the traffic uh on the site plan decision was worded incorrectly. So a uh site plan
approval correction was requested of the planning board. That correction was issued May 6th, 2025. And then following that, the site suitability determination from the mass D was issued on May 20th, 2025, which leads us to this meeting tonight.
The next uh slide is an overview of the actual site. Um it is the boundaries of the site are currently outlined in yellow. It is currently has an approved permit from the D to operate as an RCC uh operation which stands for recycling,
composting and conversion. Um there is processing of material uh occurring on site. Material is brought in, it is processed, stored and or moved out. Currently the site has no storm water uh management features at all in uh storm
water is allowed to basically fall on the ground and sheet flow majority of the sheet flow right now reach uh flows to Jawbrook Brook Reservoir. Um there is a small portion that heads into the culde-sac of um Deer Park Drive uh where
it enters the municipal system and goes into a a detention basin that is located at the end of the culde-sac. This is a slide from the approved site plan which is the layout materials plan. On this slide, the uh uh boundary of the site is actually outlined in red. Uh you
can see the positioning of the proposed building, the 38,511t building is located generally in the center. The small building is located uh just to the northwest of that right here where I'm moving my cursor. Um the curb
cut off of Deer uh Park Drive. It basically has three lanes. The first lane comes in uh the one furthest west is the truck routing that has a scale and it measures uh trucks coming in and exiting determine what the tonnage is that was deposited here. Uh as they
enter the site, there are pavement markings on the road. Um they're allowed to maneuver in this area here. And these four doors which I'm going across the front here are the doors which are uh open for tipping. What? Bottom left pen icon.
Yes. Then your cursor. It just uh was told that you can't see me moving my cursor for some reason. Um and laser pointer top option. There we go. All right, we got it. Thank you. Um, so what I was saying, this is
the lane here for the uh the truck scale. Uh, trucks come in and the maneuver in this area here and then these doors are the four doors that allow for tipping. All uh removal and dumping of material occurs within the building. Uh these doors are for
servicing the equipment and then these doors here are for removing processed material. This is the rail spur that is being proposed. This line here represents the Connecticut uh Massachusetts line. U this is the ride ofway for the rail. The spur will come
in and will lower in elevation and there's two uh lanes. One goes into the building for actually loading of cars directly into the building. The other is to basically stack cars outside that have been uh full or empty waiting to be
waiting to be filled. uh the applicant has an on-site mover, so uh they are able to move these cars in and around as they need to on their own. Uh exiting traffic, if it's just normal traffic, uh there are two lanes aside the uh scale lane, which basically one lane dedicated
in and one lane dedicated out. And then this is Deer Park uh drive right here. The uh the next slide is a utilities plan um which shows the storm water management system. As I had mentioned before, uh the storm water currently uh
sheet flows out towards the reservoir. Under the proposed conditions, we are filling this site and we are constructing a curb along uh what will be the westerly property line. All storm water that leaves the site now in this direction uh cannot do so after development. uh it is directed into
on-site collection units where it is treated for removal of sediment and contaminants and then directed to a underground um infiltration system uh for extra protection. You can see the shaded line of this infiltration system.
That is an what's called an infiltrator row. And that a purpose of that is to actually allow for removal of additional sediment that may happen to get through the uh water quality units. During the course of the review for um the uh the
MEEPA uh review, the D requested that we upgrade these collection units from standard catch basins to a storm septer water quality unit. Uh the reason for that is that the storm step septer water quality unit has an improved uh removal rate for sediment and contaminants over
a standard catch basin. So we are employing the standard uh a higher standard uh for sediment removal and suspended solids removal than you would get out of a normal catch basin. This line here represents the paving line. So the site will be paved up to this area
in the back here. Um it is just going to be uh a gravel pack gravel. Um this infiltration unit here is intended to grab storm water directly from the roof. The EP uh considers that water to be clean uh free of contaminants. So we're allowed to infiltrate that directly
without treatment and the area back here that is uh left will be the area that the RCC operations will be reduced to. Uh from a utility perspective, uh when the site was built back in 2005, all utility stubs were available at the
property line. We are connecting to electrical, we're connecting to water and we're connecting to sewer. There is a gas stub available here, but through the MEPA process, the applicant has agreed that this building would be a completely electric building. There is
no gas service to this. The intent of that is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from both stationary and mobile sources. I included this plan the landscaping plan um just to show that u even though this is an industrial site there's a
certain aesthetics that we are uh trying to improve uh the front area uh will be lawned and there will be landscaping installed in it there'll be a decorative gate across the front for security we have uh trees that were required by the planning board as well as other incidental landscaping uh the site
itself is surrounded by a perimeter fence for security. I'm looking at the uh floor plan of the proposed building right now. Uh this is oriented the same direction as it's oriented on our site plan. Uh I mentioned the four tipping doors which
are right here. So trucks are able to come in back into here and then uh deposit their load uh on the floor area inside the enclosed building. This is an access door in the front that is just normally closed. These doors here on the
front are uh doors to access the machinery in the event that is needed. Those are normally closed. And then these doors here are for removal of the sorted waste. Um we keeping the doors normally closed. If you open all the doors, it basically creates like a wind
tunnel through the building. Um and we're trying to avoid having that situation. So by having only the tipping doors open, um it it limits the amount of air that that can rush through the building. The flow of material from this building once it's dumped here is loaded
into the the the machinery. It basically runs through the machinery and is sorted and then uh is sorted and deposited into piles on this area here. From here we have machinery that picks it up uh removes recycled material, stores it in
a bin. If it uh can be removed and and and uh uh sent off to a a a final disposition facility, it is located uh loaded into trucks which exit out through these two doors. In the future when the rail is operating, uh this
material will be just uh loaded right into the rail cars also within the building. The next slide is just a review of the uh exterior elevations uh for the building. Uh this building here is the
elevation facing west. These are all the loading doors that we mentioned before. This view here is the elevation to the south. Uh so these uh the this is the rail door. You can see how the rail is is uh sunken uh compared to the finished
floor of the building. Uh this is the side of the building to the north or facing Deer Park Drive. Again, uh the rail door and then a door for access. And then this is the uh the east view of the building which is basically facing
the rail. One of the items that we included as part of the local permitting and the MEPA was a projected traffic. Uh this was submitted to the uh East Long Meadow uh planning board and it was reviewed and scrutinized by MEPA. For the
existing uh RCC operations, uh we estimate that there are approximately 60 trucks per day on a ma maximum day. And that varies depending on the amount of material that is brought in. It's not consistent. For the proposed solid waste facility uh without rail service, we are
estimating 136 trips per day. Uh the IT or Institute of Transportation Engineers does not have a land use code for this type of facility. So they're based on empirical data. Um the estimated rail service date uh in service is 2027 and
this was specifically uh questioned uh at the planning board level on on what the impact of the rail service will do to the trips. Um it is estimated that when the rail service is in place it will reduce the daily trips by uh 16 uh
eight in and eight out. from a routing perspective. Uh this is directly from the um uh the traffic study. Just going to flip a page here for a minute. And um the uh traffic study is based on
no traffic heading south into Connecticut. The the site facility is here. The majority of the trucks using this facility will be owned by the applicant and operator. So they can actually direct the routes of which to use. So the trucks will be heading uh up
through Denow and then from there they have one of two routes. They can go continue to go north which is uh from Benton to Congress uh Converse to Route 5 or they can continue to go west which is to Wolf Swamp and then Maple. As part
of the the MEEPA process uh for both the draft ER and the final ER uh the MEPA uh reviewer required us to meet with the town of Long Meadow to review our traffic operations to ensure that they had no issues or concerns. We met with
the uh we put a request into the uh to the town and we were directed to sit with their current engineer. Uh we did so we presented all of our our our facts, our traffic study. He reviewed those. His only concern was was that when traffic hits Maple Street, they
have a reconstruction project that's occurring. At the same time, they were concerned that the additional trucks may have a conflict that may cause delays. Other than that, they had no concerns with the routing that we had proposed. And our MEPA document uh in uh includes the conversations and documents the
meeting from a utility perspective. Uh for the sewage coming from this building, we are anticipating that we're going to have normal type domestic waste basically from the from the restrooms. Uh for to
quantify this 310 CMR15 which is title 5 of the D regulations says that for an industrial type facility without a cafeteria, you can expect 15 gallons per day of sewage generation um uh per
employee. So with 10 employees estimated full-time, the the anticipated domestic waste uh is about 150 gallons. From a water consumption point of view, um we are expecting 2,700 gallons per day for
misting. We had an error in the calculation when we submitted the uh the site suitability uh report. This number was reported as 200 and it was questioned by one of the uh comments that we received. We went back and looked at how that was calculated and we
determined that it was not correct. We based this on the misting unit being used about 4 and a half hours uh per day and then uh using the uh the the the flow rate that the u the equipment has which is again uh included in our D
response for natural gas. As I had mentioned, we have no usage planned. The stub is there, but we're not even connecting to it. From the electric, this is an all electric building. Uh, as well as all the processing equipment. The equipment itself, uh, when we
started, uh, looking at this process, uh, the applicant was looking at buying pieces of equipment and then basically assembling it. So, some of it was used, some of it was new. He came to the realization that uh from a maintenance perspective, buying equipment that was already used might not be the best plan.
So this equipment that we're purchasing is state-of-the-art. It is new. It has never been used and it has uh the highest efficiency removal rate available. From a storm water perspective, I've touched on this uh a little bit. Uh the design that we have incorporates pre-treatment prior to
infiltration uh on two two forms. uh first is the storm scepter and then second in the uh uh isolator row. Um we are eliminating the discharge of untreated surface drainage from the site particularly towards the area upland of
the job buck brook reservoir and we are incorporating D best management practices uh in the entire design. Um with this slide that is the end of the site presentation so I'm going to turn the microphone over to Dustin. Okay. Uh
before you do so, uh are there any questions? Press examination for Mr. Ferman. Tony K. No. Attorney Tyler. No. Anyone else? Okay. Okay. All right. Very well.
So, now Mr. Humphrey, I take it. Yes, ma'am. It keeps kicking up. You have a piece of tape by any chance. Just to be there's anyone here who can provide some. There you go. It Yeah, it keeps falling down. It needs to Mr.
Humphrey, when you begin, please hold the microphone close to your mouth, speaking loudly in a clear voice. State your full name once again once you start. Okay. Uh, all right. Um, if you have a question, is this a question? I take Mr. Ferman. Yes. Okay. Please stand. If you
have question, please stand. Step up because it's a large room. Uh, step up, please. And state your name, please. Okay. This is a question for Mr. Perman. Is that correct? 27
gallons. Mr. of people and is that per day, per hour, per week, per month, per year? Answer, please. Thank you. Per day. Okay. And did you get our water
department's approval for that or how does that affect our water? Our water. So, you can please. Yeah. Yeah. Information in my water report like how much we use per day any metal or water. Okay. So, this is a question
for Mr. Perman, right? Uh uh as far as the usage for 2,700 gallons per day, it has no impact on the water supply. This uh industrial park was constructed in 2005
uh with the intent of having industrial type uses uh in this facility. Uh the estimates that were used for the design of the water line at that time far exceeded what this uses. Does anybody know how much he saw that
news today? As as I indicated, I appreciate your question. Uh, these are questions for Mr. Ferman. You all set? Great. Thank you, Mr. Art. Are there any other questions for Mr. Ferman?
Okay, I guess we're going to turn now um to your uh Mr. Humphrey. All right. Good afternoon. Good afternoon again. My name is Dustin Humphrey. I'm with O'Reilly Talbet and Oaken or Otto in Springfield, Massachusetts. And everyone here, Mr.
Humphrey. Yes. Okay. If you could speak up a little bit. My firm has been uh handling the solid waste permitting aspect of this application. Um these next slide I want to focus on Mass D's role in the determination to help uh
give information on that process. So the site assignment application is prepared and it is reviewed by MASD and approved by the local board of health and that is intended to alleviate um burden on the town to review a pretty technical aspect
of permitting um that would doesn't happen very often. So mass DP does a preliminary review provides their findings to the town to make an educated decision without um undue um
burden on on the town. Sorry. Although the uh application is headed by the solid waste division of mass D. uh it incorporates all the other boards that have a pertinent say into the application process and those include the drinking water group, the MEPA air
and waste group, wastewater and wetlands groups within mass D. Following the review, Mass D issues two reports. The first one is an administrative completeness report and that is issued to the town and the um applicant to say that that application
is complete and D requires no further information to perform their review. D subsequently uh performs their review and issues a positive or negative determination of site suitability. Um we are at this meeting because NASDAQ noted no issues within that report and issued
a positive determination to the town. Next slide please. As was mentioned earlier, um the purpose of the site assignment process is to identify any danger to the public health, safety, or environment. During Mass T's review, they take a look at items such as drinking water. They
assess uh nearby supply wells, aquifers, and potential drinking water sources that have yet to be tapped. They review what we've presented on public health and safety, which includes nearby residences, schools, and daycare facilities. They also review nearby natural resources, including riverfront
areas, wetlands, and open space areas. Uh parts of Massie review endangered and threatened species that may be nearby the site, air quality concerns, including anticipated emissions, and as John had mentioned earlier, this will be a natural gas or natural gas free
facility. Everything will be operated electric. So those emissions are relatively low for similar sub facilities. Mass DP also considers nuisance conditions in their review. So ambient noise increases around the site, litter, vermin, and odors that may result as
operations from the site. Uh D again has issued a positive determination for site assignment uh as they haven't noted any negative impacts for any of those issues. John and I are going to uh address some
of the uh comments that were have already been brought up just to bring them to light and have them on record here. Uh the first one is the site is situated on prime farmland. Um D had asked for extra backup from NRCS um to
take a determination stance on the site and the NRCS letter has indicated that the site contains urban and builtup areas not considered prime farmland. Um the site is also an located in an industrial garden zone.
Uh for the truck traffic, the site is anticipating 136, I believe that's typo, trips per day without rail use. The traffic study was vetted through the MEPA process and no transportations were identified during that process.
There was also a concern in increase in sound levels above the existing site. The processing and sorting will be conducted indoors the of the building. So we anticipate minimal change to the ambient outdoor noise. Again, I've noted this is this will be a fully electric
sorting unit. Um, there are other similar units in this part of the state. If you stand on them, you can have a conversation without having to yell in normal speaking voice is how quietly they operate. Compared to the existing brushing operation on the site, which
does process larger material, you cannot do that. So, we do not believe the new machinery will provide any change in the noise levels there. Um, in addition, there are no nose receptors within 500 ft of the facility.
Um, that includes nearby residences and recreational areas outdoors. The final concern I will address was proximity to a DE, which is the Connecticut Department of Enviral Action. Sorry, I got the acronym wrong.
Uh the closest area is approximately 100 ft from the site and it's to the south. Um the area between the site and the uh natural diversity area will remain vegetated. That is not part of the project at all. Uh the natural diversity
areas are actually shown on the red in this inlay on the slide right here. Um we chose the 500 foot buffer from the site boundary and the half mile radius from the site boundary. Uh sorry for the record the half mile
radius is the outside circle. 500 foot buffer is the next one in and the property boundary is the inside. We don't believe that this project will have any impact to the natural diversity because there are no substantive changes from the existing site use such as no
further trees will be removed from the property boundary. Um it's really just on-site changes from existing conditions. Uh from here I'll have John address the last two concerns. Do you want questions or good? Well, so
we're winding up our presentation and uh there's just a few uh items left to remain. This is a a more in-depth discussion on the storm water and the question was concern of sediment and contaminants draining into Job Buckbrook Reservoir. As I had previously
mentioned, right now uh the site is highly disturbed uh and there's no storm water management features on site. It surface drain drains uh towards a reservoir goes into an upland area basically flows through vegetation and then ultimately makes its way. When we
are through with this site, we will stop that flow. There will be zero flow going in that direction and our storm water management report reflects that. uh the drainage itself will be improved in quality and reduced in quantity. Uh and that is the actual peak flow leaving the
site. It's being reduced in quantity through the introduction of infiltration systems which basically take the water and infiltrate it into the soil. Uh I mentioned before we incorporate water quality treatment devices that have a higher uh total suspended solids removal
rate than a normal catch basin. That are those at the request of the D through the MEEPA review. Uh storm water will be disposed of on site uh through infiltration after treatment. Uh that infiltration is under pavement infiltration basins. Um waste processing
will be conducted indoors. So there is no uh anticipated uh sediment uh and release of of material outside because it's on a pavement surface and it's occurring within the building. and the discharge to Jawbuck Brook Reservoir is
eliminated. Uh there were questions about the reestablishment of the the railway. The biggest concern during Meepa was that you could not under we could not determine who owned the rail on the east side of of the site. Um we
employed our surveyors and um other uh entities to help us confirm that CSX is the current owner uh of that railway uh and it had been confirmed as such. Um the uh D record includes a letter from
CSX which says that as an abuter it does not object to the establishment of this uh facility uh next to their uh rightway and work is currently underway within the Connecticut area on a design basis
to reestablish the the rail and bring it up to the Massachusetts border with service estimated to be in place by 2027. The last slide is really what to expect. Um the hours of operation are are tended
to be 24 hours per day for processing. Um actually receiving of debris and dumping within the building is approved only from the hours of 7 a.m. 400 p.m. The operations will be heavily monitored by both the D and the board of health
throughout the life of the facility. We have applied for 2,000 tons per day, but we are not granted that limit upfront. We basically need to prove our way and as we uh operate the facility and we pass inspections, the tonnage amount is
allowed to increase until we reach a maximum. Uh the applicant is also required to provide financial certainty supervising the facility for the use in uh using as they see fit if there is an issue that needs to be corrected and the
applicant does not do so. Um the DP uh after this process is to review and approve uh two permanent applications. One is uh to construct uh and operate or one is to construct uh the solid waste facility and the other is to operate the
solid waste facility. Those are two separate permits. And with that, our presentation is concluded. All right. Uh yes, Attorney Livian. Your honor, I'd like to move to enter into the record an affidavit of corrected decision, a corrected site
plan approval decision, and I will present copies to council for the citizens group and for Enfield as well as yourself. All right. Why don't you share that with council, please? We'll get to that in a brief moment. Thank you.
Thank you. All have an opportunity. Um just right. Uh one moment please. So I have an affidavit of corrected uh decision as recorded uh and noted. They
did it. And I have a town of East Long Meadow notice of corrected decision that appears to have been recorded at the same time. And likewise a uh a third page um
starting with application summary that um appears to be the third page that was recorded a fourth page that was recorded and a fifth page. So these all appear to be a document a title on the first page
with the Ham County Registry of Deeds at book 25855 pages 508 to 512. Is that correct? That's right. Okay. Is there any objection? Yes. What is the objection? Um objection is that this document states it was recorded May 8th.
Um, I was informed by the East Long Meadow Board of Health that the filing deadline for documents was um, a week ago, Friday, June 6th at 4 PM. Uh, exhibits 1 through six that have been marked were filed in accordance with
that deadline. I know of no reason or even excuse why this was not timely filed. had it been filed a week ago, I would have been able to ask file, in other words, by today have a legal memorandum explaining the substance
which I started to get into before and if necessary, I can take a few minutes and do that uh verbally, but please no. And I would ask for leave to have
given my schedule 10 days from today to submit a memorandum explaining there are a myriad of problems both with the 2323 decision but especially with this affforment which is completely ultra and
another problem if we're getting into this is that the issue of appeal time this decision even the 2023 three decision is not final. Um that issue is now being litigated in the land court. In the case of East Long Meadow
Redevelopers versus the East Long Meadow Planning Board, where I represent a puditative intervenor, the fields at Chestnut Condominium whose attempt to intervene is now before the appeals court. That case is was before the
honorable Diane Rubin residing. And the issue um the appeal route for site plan approval is at the heart of that case. And basically in a nutshell, the appeal period has not passed. The appeal period
will begin when and if a building permit is applied for after which there will be 30 days to appeal it to the East Law Meadow Zoning Board and from there either to the land court or the Superior Court. And the board of health needs to
know that they cannot assume or accept any notion that the that somehow this site plan approval is final. Your honor, I have to object here. Talking about a different case. Well, I I'm just going to allow attorney pill one more moment to wrap up then I'll give you an
opportunity. So, please wrap up on this issue. Yes. The reference to a different case, your honor, is that case of which a court could take judicial notice. And what I would want to do is bring in the legal matters from the the legal
argument from that case that is directly applicable here that makes it clear that the site plan approval appeal period has not even been done much less expired lawyer's reason by analogy and distinction. So, of course, I'm citing a
different case and I that's why I would like to leave and also um as I said, you know, there is this is a an oldfashioned classic ambush. There is no reason or excuse why this May 6th or May 8th reporting could not and should not have
been filed a week ago with notice to all parties and I would have been fully prepared and I would respect it. you know, I haven't off the top of my head obviously been able to go back and review the legal authority and that's why I'm respectfully requesting 10 days
to submit memorandum responding with the site plan review issue. Thank you. Okay, I'll hear from you briefly. Thank you, your honor. Uh the site plan approval, the appeal period has passed. It has been recorded that to your mouse so we can appeal period has passed. It has
been recorded. Uh and my attorney pill's reference to telling the board of health what is going to happen is inaccurate that um this has been of record for years. Uh and the as
for the corrected decision uh the citizens group and Enfield may have a a quarrel with how it happened but that is not the issue before the board of health. Um this is a recorded
document. It has been it has been fully issued by a another town board. Um it has been recorded and it has been signed off by the board. Whether the citizens group wants to take up an issue with the planning board I think is a different
issue here. Uh this has been it's been of the record and the and recorded. It's a public record. the uh filing deadline uh was at least not communicated to me uh for the 10 days. Um and I understand
that it is being brought up today, but uh this is not a surprise. It has been on the record and was a public document as of May. Thank you. Um all right. Um the document will be entered into evidence as exhibit number nine. I'm granting leave to uh
both the applicant as well as attorney pill on behalf of interveners um um I guess it would be the citizens um group uh to submit a brief which is limited to the issue of exhibit 9. That's it. Um
and that must be um filed with the board of health director Miss Spencer no later than June 23. That's 10 days. Okay. and uh service will be accomplished if you email that dispenser. Please ensure that you ask for a um a confirmation of that
email. Okay. So brief limited to the issue that is raised relative to exhibit 9 due June 23. Okay. And before the applicant uh seeds his time, uh I would ask for a copy of the preliminary report that is issued after this hearing uh to
be provided to the applicant for review before final issuance under the regulations. Preliminary report of what? Of the decision, the written decision of this board. You're not getting anything before this
brief is submitted. You can make that request at uh before the close of the hearing. Okay, we'll discuss it then. Uh so um but your briefs are due um on June 23. You can reserve that till later when we discuss uh the filing of briefs. Uh
all right. So this is now um exhibit number uh nine. Before uh we turn back to the applicant, are there any questions um for the applicant for Mr. Ferman, Mr. Members of the board? Chair, members of the board. Okay. Uh any
questions uh from any of the interveners? So, okay. Uh I'm sorry, if you if you have something to say, please stand because we're recording and uh state your name and then uh you may
speak. Thank you, your honor. Michael, no questions. Thank you. Okay. Attorney Tyler. Yes. Tomlin, interim attorney for I'm going to give you the mic. Thank you. Thank you. Attorney from the town of Enfield. I
just have three to the applicant a couple of questions. One is with the tonnage per day of 2,000 and the representations made that you're not at 2,00 what are you proposing to
start at? Whatever the he can permit that. Yeah, that's um all right. If you can uh you can approach the applicant and share the mic just to make sure everyone is heard. Thank you.
Uh we have a proposed escalation schedule in our site assignment application. Uh D will review that and consider what is appropriate for the site. And as discussed, there will be final permits to construct and permits to operate. At that time that is when NASA DB will likely make a determination
on how much volume per day is acceptable to facility to run at and following escalation schedule which will based upon uh facility performance. Thank you. The next question is with the 2,000
um tons per day limit, is that a ceiling which will never be exceeded or is that just an estimate now that's flexible and may move depending u how your project goes. Uh that is an ceiling limit that we do
not foresee being exceeded at any point in the future. Um it is understandable that the facility will likely operate at a lower facil lower capacity most days. Similar facilities run into uh operating conditions where they do not receive
enough material one day and need to make up the next. So often the receiving amount that is permitted by mass D is slightly higher than the actual processing rate of the facility just to make up some of those shortcomings. But 2,000 will be the
maximum. So 2,000 is the ceiling, correct? Okay. Thank you. And then uh through your honor to them. Just uh one more question. Sure. With regard to uh some of the factors that uh Department of Environmental Protection Massachusetts
considers I remember it was wildlife uh noise and possibly water or something of that nature. But anyway, uh, with regard to those issues, was the DE in Connecticut, uh, consulted with regard
to consideration of any of those factors? We was not directly contacted or uh, we didn't request any information. However, as part of our site assignment package, we did review nearby um, environmental concerns. um on the list were also
receptors for uh schools, daycarees. Uh those were reviewed part of our process even though mass D does not require that because it is outside of the jurisdiction. Okay. Thank you. All right. Uh thank you, Mr. Harington. Please step forward
if you'd be so kind to uh please um speak into the microphone. Please state Okay. Thank you. Please state your name. and Marie Harrington and hold the mic up if you don't mind. Thank you. Appreciate a couple of questions to the gentleman from the D. I
have in my hands here. There's there's no one here from the DP. What was the gentleman that last spoke from the environmental? Mr. Humphrey, the gentleman on the end that said was Mr. Ferman.
Now, um you discussed about the water. Was that you? Yes. Okay. and the environmental concerns. I'm holding a report from the East Long Meadow Health Department or the DPW and our water quality here has been bad in town since
2018 in violation of the Massachusetts rules and regulations. Now, according to what you're putting forth, your processing plant, the hazardous waste they're going to be
processing there can cause liver kidney damage. And we already there's a warning in the water report in Eastaw Meadows. We drink the water for several years and this report has been ongoing since 2018
that we can get liver and kidney. So my concerns it's twofold. I live in that southeast quarter um and we drink the water. Oh actually we haven't been able to drink the water because of these concerns. And now you're going to be
putting more pollution into the uh air whatever. And um my concerns are also about the asbestous. The bulk of your recycling material is asphalt shingles. I'm sure there's side effects from that.
And um now to the town. Uh you said this facility was not within 500 feet. What about the LLC nursing facility that you just need approval to that's going in within 500 ft of this facility?
Uh if you be so kind as to shape that frame as a question for the applicant please. Was within 500 ft of this facility. Now the town of Eastong Meadow just granted to Mississippi a skilled nursing facility permit
that's on the corner of uh Dens Low Road um right near where you're talking the corner of Bayath and um that section. So is that within five? I can handle all true.
Right. Uh and question. Yeah. Um, if you could speak loudly so we don't have to pass the mic back or please stand. Um, I'll actually address these questions instead of Actually, why don't you pass the mic up because what am I?
I'm going to address these questions instead of John. Uh, just because I am also a town resident and I'm aware of uh the concerns with drinking water that you've brought up. Um, this facility will not be handling hazardous waste of any type. Um the drinking water concern that you brought up is halo acetic acid 5. It's a group of chemicals that are
related to the filtering and um chlorination of drinking water. What happens with that is if there are any particulates in the drinking water, the chlorination process, it breaks down into these and those are resulting in the drinking
water supply. uh because our site will not be discharging uncontrolled water to the ground and it's not near the intake for the drinking water supply. This facility cannot impact that result. Um so theic acid is another issue
altogether with the distribution. Oh, I agree. But it also cause I'm sorry if you could please pose a question. Um, but doesn't that also cause lung and kidney problems or kidney and liver problems? I can't speak to the actual
health, but just a brief moment. I'll have an opportunity to speak when I call upon you as an intervenor. So, if you have questions to pose now, now's your opportunity. Not a lawyer. So, I understand that. Okay. So um according
to these facilities um I did uh just an artificial intelligence survey of the side effects from these type of facilities. They included liver and kidney damage was number one from heavy metal chronic
exposure cancer risk from asbestosa. My father was a retired plumber. He died from I'm sorry please pose a question. I'm just going to ask them if all these are true side effects. Sure. Are these indeed are not true side effects? Uh
respiratory issues, increase in asthma, contamination of soil and water sips, hazardous materials, asbestosis, lead paint, mercury containing components which are highly toxic, heavy metals, cadmium,
chromium, copper and lead. organic chemicals, short chain, coordinated paraffins from adhesive, sealants, varnishes and paints, dust and air quality and treated wood. Um, I just think this is all right. Please pose a
question that is more than a compound question. It is and I feel like are you able to answer the question is I can break it into effects listed from your facility. Go ahead. Uh so again it
is about my question you bring up several points into view. First one is chronic effects. Chronics would be long-term exposure to these chemicals and metals and other carcinogens. This is an industrial facility. The public will not be welcome regularly on the
site. You know drop offs may be conducted but that is nowhere near chronic exposure. So those are not health concerns for people who are not working at the facility. Even the people working at the facility, D and Solid Waste Bureau have very strict waste handling procedures that must be adhered
to by the facility that minimize risk of exposure and contamination. Um, for the asbestous risk, D also has very high regulations regarding the control and management of asbestous. Uh, no solid waste facilities are allowed to
accept asbestous material of any sort for processing unless they are very specially licensed. This facility will not be licensed that way. However, it will be attended by people who have asbestous certifications through the mass uh department of public health that
these people can identify any potential asbestous sources and immediately reject them and not receive them at the site. Okay. Um let me just get my thoughts here together. Remember, sorry. Number one was regarding the nearby facility. Uh the
nearest embracing the creative child was that a facility or No, we um the nearest facility that we did identify in our site assignment was embracing the creative child which is located at 55 Deer Park Drive. That is the absolute nearest facility to uh the proposed uh
waste processing operation that is 875 ft from the facility. Are you aware that nursing facility that's located on Densow is well over that 875 ft. Now, you also stated that you're going to use new equipment, technology, new
equipment. Has this ever been tested? The new equipment like the the contamination that might occur. So, this is new technology and you're going to use it. You just ask a question. Okay. So, can you explain the new technology that and new you're going to be using at
this facility and has it been proven and what's the name of the new equipment so we can do due diligence and look it up? Two parts on that. Technology is not new. This is a new piece of equipment. So, it will operate as a new piece of equipment should
warranty should there be any breakdowns or malfunctions don't be handledly covered by the new uh purchase. Uh it's being purchased through breach machine. Um you can find their information available online. I can't give you the resources right now. Um so it is a new
piece of equipment not new technology but it is used industrywide and there are no big concerns with this. They actually have higher um diversion rates and what mass D considers diversion is taking recyclable material out of the waist stream and diverting it to
appropriate recyclable facilities. So these newer technologies that have been implemented in the past are now operating on this so we can increase how much it's being resented from the facility. Next question. I'm almost done. When were you when did you become
aware of the railroad uh gearing up again? When were they aware of when the railroad from Connecticut geared up again? It's under construction. It's all right. Please uh please answer that question. Yeah, the uh we started site
planning uh for this project in 2022 and our application to the site plan included uh correspondence from the uh Connecticut firm uh working on that railroad. Okay. And um I'm trying to
think what else I want to ask. You say you have a proposed date of the railroad going into 2027 of 2027 estimated And you are aware that they're laying the ground right now. The new railroad
tracks, they are within seven miles of this town as of the state. You're aware of that? It doesn't matter whether I'm aware of it or not. It it it's ongoing. Okay. Well, I just have to say it. You you'll have an opportunity to speak as
an intervenor. Now is your opportunity to pose any final questions of the applicant and then I'll give you a separate opportunity to let me just think there might be something else here. Now you said you talked to the town of Long Meadow as far as the traffic
studies. Correct. Okay. and they're completely aware of what there's what's going on and they're completely aware of the railroad that's coming into I can't speak for what the town of Long Meadow is aware and what it's not aware of. I can speak to what town of Long
East Long Meadow about the railroad coming in. I can speak to what we presented to the town of Long Meadow which was required of us by Meepa. And when did you tell East Long Meadow that the railroad was coming in? That was part of our uh site plan uh
application in 2022. And when did you notify the public of that? It was part of our site plan application in 2022. Um that's it, I guess. Thank you very much, Miss Harrington. You may have a seat. Are there
Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? All right, hearing none. We're going to take a 10-minute recess. I'll see you all back here at um 5:47 or so. We're going to get started then. Okay. Thank you.
And you're done. Okay, great. Okay, you're done. I'll get it. That's okay. That is I over I just want to make sure like
you were perfect. Oh, but I'm Selena. None of this was part. Yeah, he is. I think it structured with Riley and Oakley and then Yes. Okay. Mike is uh back on
his hours, but he is uh he's so young. Tyler remembers him from back when we used him in Connecticut. Okay. And it's probably 25 years or maybe 30 years, but he was wonderful. Right when they right when they formed. Well, I guess we could plus somebody
from Mass, Connecticut. But they they were wonderful. Yeah. Well, that's great. Nice meeting you, too. I'll leave you with the cards. Thank you. Thank you very much. Think it's public record. It was great to meet you. We'll pass along. Yeah, please do. Of course. Good guy. I
won't tell him that part. I know. birthday. That's what I want to call it. I'm wondering All right. Right. How are you? Anyways, just for work. Literally all
secondar. Oh, how you doing? Good to see you. Surprise. I was like on I did not see it. I'm on my way out. Okay. Yeah. Nice
presentation. Thanks for Of course. Thanks. And you know where to find me if you Yes, I do. Yeah, this is crazy. microphone. Oh, no. That's your mic. That's that mic.
What's that? So, that's when that comes up again, I will Where did that guy go? The one that just came up and told us how I think I remember the name. Yeah, he
just came up next to me, doesn't he? Watch yourself and have a question. So I'll sit there quiet. Right. No, it's okay. That's your only Oh, right.
Charlie. Yeah. Okay. You want Okay. I didn't help that baseball. Okay. She played It already see I look at had
almost when I had What do you find? I don't know. I don't want us to have That's what it is. So, you look at the We're gonna run. No way. These running. Yeah,
that's right. So that's generating more. Tell me what to ask. I think that's great. I'm just gonna ask. Oh, that's well that's fine. I asked for they don't share it as of
course. I was waiting to see. So you might want to see it. Okay. I just I don't know what to do about that's not that's not health. Yeah.
He's not gonna he's gonna convince them not to vote. That's probably Thank you. Thank you group. You got the uh contractor also
wasn't included in anything. I don't know if it wasn't. No, no, no, no, no. I think this is it. Isn't this the abandoned one or not? The I don't know. So, let's see if we can find it. See if
it is. That's Yeah. Uh, from us, right? But as part of the process, wasn't this included in like the town documents? It should be, right? This is
findings. It might not be in the nasty pe report, but it was definitely Okay. Uh, go see if we can find it. We can. I have to breathe a week which means technical question. Yeah, I also need to go outside because
whatever's happening is here's it wouldn't be that because that was amended May 5th May 6th their decision was May 20th two weeks later. Yeah. So, is that included in the package of um Oh, unless you put it in there. No.
Yeah. So, it would be in there. It would be or wouldn't be. Okay. Because we did not. Is there any cons flag said that it was with the town to get it corrected?
Six. This is May. Yes. So that was here. Oh that we were working with the town. She can say it wouldn't be in here. She can she wants to say right. Okay. I don't know. Yeah.
Uh. All right. Let's go back on the record. Right. Very well. Um. Is there any further evidence on behalf of the applicant? Uh yes, your honor, there is. Uh I'm waiting for it to be printed. Uh it's
the construction. Why don't you take this? I'm waiting for it to be printed, but is the building permit for the uh building. So that was issued roughly 10 months ago. So, we're seeking to enter that out of the record uh to address the issue of
the uh site plan appeal here. Okay. And when do you anticipate having that? Uh soon as uh Mr. Quimby walks back in. Okay. Uh is that momentarily? You can hold on to that. Momentarily. Okay. All right. Uh while we're waiting, uh and
after that, you can rest. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Uh then, Attorney Pill, you had some questions relative to some uh uh technical matters. Is that correct? Yes, your honor. Okay. What are those? While we're waiting for Mr. Pimp,
sorry, I just wanted to make a note of comment. I'll be great forget it. Um, okay. Thank you, Yes. Okay. What are the uh technical questions that you have, please?
Okay. Thank you. Okay. Uh, you can hold on to that. Uh, all right. Before you get to that attorney, we now have um document which um is entitled building permit. Attorney Levian, I'll hear from you on your motion to admit.
Mr. Honor, uh at today's hearing, uh there was a question of whether uh an appeal period had run uh for the site plan approval uh hinging on a question of uh another court case regarding the issuance of a building permit. this
building permit and I'm moving into the I'm I would like to move into evidence uh the building permit that was issued October 8th, 2024 to general contacting contracting solutions for 100 Deer Park Drive. Okay. Is there an objection to the admission into evidence of the
building permit? The same objection, your honor, as I raised to exhibit 9. And I would ask the court if I could include the building permit um within my memorandum. Um and certainly what I can see right now is a building permit dated
October 8th, 2024 would have expired early this year. Okay. Uh very well. The document is entering into evidence as exhibit number 10. I've amended my earlier order um such that the parties are granted leave to submit a brief limited to the issues pertaining to
exhibits nine and 10. Okay. Uh so there you have it. Anything further from the applicant Lavine? Uh no thank you. Applicant rest. The applicant rests. Okay. Uh why don't I turn then and uh you could leave the mic here. So uh we now have two
microphones I'm pleased to say. uh so that if you are speaking just um come right up to my desk and uh get the microphone. Please make sure you hold it nice and close to um your face. Okay. All right. So, first we're going to hear from the interveners. Uh I'm happy to
hear from them um uh in the order they wish. So that if for example um attorney wishes to uh speak on behalf of the citizens group, which I know includes FNG, um that's that's fine. Alternatively,
Tyler on behalf of the town of Enfield, you wish to proceed. I just assume that attorney Sure. Okay. Great. Thank you, your honor. There you go. Attorney Phil microphone. Yeah, I'll take your time. Although I've been told soft never been one of my issues.
Hopefully, everyone can hear me. Okay. Uh the first thing I would like um to make sure that um well all the documentation has been
included as exhibits. So we're not going to rehash everything that we put into our exhibits. I don't think there's any Well, as I've um advised council, please move to introduce any exhibits that you're seeking to introduce. Uh I have um exhibits one through 10. Right. We
have got something that's not uh including one through 10. I'm happy to entertain your motion to introduce it. Thank you your honor. I have two documents which I have provided to council for the applicant and I have provided to the board of health. One is the resume of engineer. So as I
the registered professional engineer and one is three slide sheets um that engineer Sullivan would like to use in a verbal presentation. Um, okay. She was and I'll I'll represent the like to have
her testify and we'd like to have these documents marked as exhibits because she was uh largely involved in writing the Bowman traffic uh analysis that is appendix two to our memo on the merits
and she can also comment on the MDM transportation consultants uh report that was appendix one if if she wishes engineer was not able to be here. Okay. Any objection to uh the resume of Emily
Sullivan? I believe that you previously provided them to me. I guess I have your honor. Let me back the microphone. You can just you can hold on to it. Okay. Thank you. Is there any objection to uh the resume being entered as exhibit 11? No objection. Okay. Exhibit 11. Any objection to this uh uh I believe
PowerPoint presentation three pages entered as exhibit 12. No objection. Exhibit 12. Okay, you may call your witness. Okay, Emily Sullivan and I'll turn the microphone over to her. Great. And I'm not We may have some technical
questions about how she's going to get the slides up. Okay. Sure. All right. Uh good evening, Miss Bowman. Thanks for your patience. Do you have some uh preliminary questions uh relating to how to get your slides up on the screen? I mean, I'm happy to share them on the screen. I know everyone has
conf well it is a public meeting and the public is in touch these matters so uh if you can work with um tech here you go to get them up on the screen that would be wonderful Sullivan thank you
what the over. Don't look at it. Okay. Uh, for the record, Emily Sullivan, um, a project manager at Bowman Consulting. Our business address is 350 miles Stand Standish Boulevard in Taton, Massachusetts. Um, I'm a project
manager at Bowman. Uh, and my responsibilities include overseeing and participating in traffic impact studies for various types of developments throughout Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Um that includes uh studies for solid waste facilities. Um so standard
practice for uh you know any any uh impact study to generate or estimate the number of trips um associated with a development is to use the institute of transportation engineers trip generation manual as pointed out by the applicant. Um, and
Bowman prepared a uh comment memo uh with some of our comments on the information that was presented. And I'm I'm just going to focus really on the comments that we had on the trip generation because those really are the ones that would most uh most uh largely have an impact on the conclusions and
results presented. Sorry. Um anyways, as was pointed out um by the applicant, there's no IT land use code for solid waste facilities. Uh so any instance where there is not a IT land use code that's applicable um it's standard practice to collect empirical
data that um uh to determine an appropriate trip generation rate for the site. Um so for a transfer station or a solid waste facility what that looks like is looking at ticketing ticketing data of trucks uh carrying inbound and outbound materials to the site and
determining the amount of tons per load for those. Thank you. uh for those trucks. Obviously, the tonnage per load depends on the materials being hauled. Um and uh using that data to come up with an average ton per load for both inbound and outbound
materials. And also that ticketing data would provide information on um the hourly distribution of trucks entering and exiting the facility on any given day. Next slide. So just to and again I don't want to rehash everything that um you know has covered in their presentation
but just to recap on the the trip generation methodology that was applied in the VHV traffic assessment. Um so they applied a 33 tons per trip. Uh in our uh one of our comments and questions to them was asking where that number came from and to provide the backup
empirical data that that's based on. Uh and their response was that that was just information provided by the site based on existing operations. Um as was mentioned that the existing operations and the the materials currently being hauled will be much more compacted than
materials that are being proposed as part of this expansion. Um so with the proposed 2,000 tons per day that resulted in and as they talked about an additional 60 trucks per day. Um and they use an hourly an even hourly distribution. So broke that up between the hours of operations. Um and they
also applied the use of back calls assuming that trucks bringing materials to the site would then load and and um bring the materials off site as well and those would kind of be shared truck trips. Um so Bowman has completed uh traffic impact studies for solid waste
facilities at various locations throughout Massachusetts and our methodology on the trip generation for all of them has been um the same. We collect ticketing if it's an expansion. We collect ticketing data at the existing site uh and look at the number of trucks being uh or the tons per truck
for material being hauled in usually in rolloffs or packer trucks. And then uh the average tonnage for trucks being hauled uh hauling material out as well usually tractor trailers with a little bit larger capacity. Um and we don't apply the use of back hauls because that
is kind of an um unknown factor on how consistent how consistently those will happen. And then we also don't assume any um use of rail in case you know rail isn't available to the site or wants to be found on any given day. And these are kind of the standard practices that we've applied through MIFA and mass C
applications. Um so here you can kind of see there's a list of um different sites that we've done studies for and the average inbound capacity uh of the trucks is about this averages out to about 10 and a half tons per load which um is pretty typical of a rolloff uh
truck. And then this next column here, the daily inbound truck trips is just applying that average tonnage to the 2,000 tons per day that's being proposed for this site. Um and then again the outbound truck capacity tons per load. You can see those numbers are a little higher. Again, usually tractor trailers
with a little bit larger capacity, but still nowhere close to that 33 tons per truck. Um, so then the daily outbound trips, uh, similar exercise, just applying that to the, um, to the tons, 2,000 tons per day for this facility. And then again, assuming no back haul,
so all of those independent inbound and outbound trips, that last column would be what the actual truck trips per day for this site would be when applying an appropriate tonnage per truckload. So you can see those are nearing, you know, the lowest number is five-fold of of that 60 trucks uh per day that was used
in the analysis. So um one of our largest comments was, you know, the impacts that this would have on the results presented in the capacity analysis and the traffic um study that was completed. Uh that would kind of roll into other safety and um potential
mitigation needs for the site. That's all I have. Okay. Uh, questions from the board for Miss Sullivan. Okay, I have a question. Who paid you to do this study?
Oh, thank you. They haven't sent us an invoice. I'm paying Bman. Who paid? Who asked you? I'm paying on behalf of FNG Recycling and the rest of the city. Okay. Any other questions from the
board? Right. Uh questions from the applicant. Yes, thank you. Uh the trucks I'll I'll yell. The the trucks at issue here, the tractor trailer trucks have a max capacity of 35
tons. Correct. Depending on the material that's being hauled and do you know the material that's being hauled? Uh construction waste material and bulk waste material. You know construction material that's being hauled in every one of these instances. So these are usually a mix of construction waste material. There's some solid based
material and um uh recyclables in there as well, but none of this collective of you know compact aggregate or earth material that is used that is being processed at this the site in discussion today. You have no reason to disagree that most trucks will be operated by a
related entity Charlie Arman Trucking here. Correct. Uh no, not to my knowledge. And so Charlie Arman Trucking can direct how much tonnage to put in each of these trucks. Right. Again, it depends on the material that's being hauled.
Charlie Arman Trucking says for this material fill it to max put in 33 tons. They can do that, right? Depending on the material there's not space in the truck. If you can answer my question. Depending on the material. Sure. Sure. But for if it's the type of
material that could be fill up 35 tons and they're directed to put in 33 tons, that can be done. Correct. I don't know if that can be done for consistency based on the truck size.
Uh you're a registered professional engineer, right? Correct. In the state of Rhode Island. Correct. And the concerns that you're bringing up, the traffic concerns that were presented by Bowman and the other company that uh did a peer review, those
traffic concerns, those have all been addressed by the Department of Envir Environmental Protection and the Mass EPA. Correct. Uh in the review, correct? and FNG recycling just disagrees with what Deer Park put into its traffic VHB put into
the Deer Park traffic study. Right. Based on it not being based on, you know, typical practices for these types of facilities. That's correct. But okay, FNG disagrees and FNG disagrees with how the mass D uh decided in its uh site
suitability report. Correct. Thank you. Nothing to All right. Triny P, do you have questions? Yes. When um deputy council interrupted you to try to get you good, you answer yes or no, could you please explain what were the limitations and
the oversightes and questions? Right. The business side interruptions struck from the record. Um do you understand the question? So about the capacity. Yeah. Um so the capacity of the truck um you know is being by weight depends on the material being hauled. So if you
have a a material that can't be as compacted as you know earth material if you have something like bulk um waste material where it takes up more space the the weight being hauled will vary. So that is why typically you do not use the maximum capacity use the actual um
tonnage that is being hauled into the site or out of the site based on actual ticketing data collected at the facility in operation. Any other questions for your witness? Thank you. All right. Uh Lavine, any further questions for Miss Sullivan?
Okay. Nothing further. Thank you. Anything further from the board? I have one more question. So, you have mentioned that obviously they're going to have scales that the trucks will go on and they're going to load it in, but you're saying that there's some material that cannot be broken down to fit underneath that tonnage. So the
um so the the tonnage that is used is based on the existing operations but with the new operations being different materials that tonnage would change. It wouldn't be as compact in the trucks. So using the tonnage from the existing site maybe overstating the amount of tonnage
that maximum available for every truck. to assume that every truck would have that maximum tonnage when the material is changing um could be understating and is like likely understating the number of trucks that would actually haul material in to process that max 2,000 tons per day. My question so like for
instance when I pull up a medication I am the person to adjust the amount of medication I'm going to get. So they have the ability to adjust and like they mentioned in their presentation they would be able to say today's a lower day so we're going to put more in from yesterday into this truck. So then we get to our 2,000 whereas tomorrow we
have 3,000. So, we can't put it all in. Do they not have the ability to make those differentiations? I think the differentiation would be the number of trucks needed to process that 2,000 tons per day, whether it's coming from, you know, the day later. If they have a max
day, the amount of trucks needed to process that tonnage. But don't they control as again I'm just trying to understand because I this is outside the scope of what I understand but don't they have the ability to control the number of trucks per day as the owner of those companies?
Yes. Um but to process the 2,000 tons per day would be more than the stated trucks if the tonnage were to be less than that 33 tons per truck. But ultimately they have the ability to control that volume over the course of a week or
a month. And then they can adjust based off of the volumes once they are up and fully running. Yes. All right. Thank you, Dr. Jobins. Yes. One more question. Um, are you aware that under the site plan approval decision, the applicant limited
to how many truck trips it can take per day? I believe so. Yes. So, what your concerns about how much they're filled up? They're irrelevant because they can only do x number of trips per day, right?
Um I'm not entirely sure but I don't know you have well well you can answer the question. Okay I'm not sure to myself. Thank you. All right think further for this witness. Nothing further. Okay. Uh Miss Svin you could step down. Thank you
very much. You can um disconnect if you like. Right. Are there any other questions I should ask from uh the intervenors or participants or members of the public or Miss Sullivan? All right, hearing none, uh you may call your next witness.
Stand on the testimony of you can grab the mic. That'd be great. Attorney Pill, can you please Sorry. Take the microphone. Okay. Thank you, your honor. We we um we
stand on the uh the standard testimony of engineer Sullivan. And there is one thing I would like I would like to passionately response from the planning board. there
was a um an email from the planner stating that a public hearing in other words something more than the affidavit that's been done would be required and so in my memorandum I may be submitting an exhibit a proposed
exhibit and asking for leave and I just don't want anyone to be surprised I can't be sure but I'd rather you know put it on the record that I may need to do that I have to go back and see what documents doumentation I have from the
planning board and public records and I I just want to bring that up. What what exactly does this email entail? What I believe your honor is that and I'm going from recollection is that um there was
exchanges between um either Mr. Lavine or his clients, the East Long metal planning department and I believe they were informed that an amendment to the site plan approval would be required which would of course require notice in
a public hearing. It could not have been done by the affidavit by which they actually did it. Okay. Uh and to be clear, the affidavit of corrected decision which has been entered into evidence as exhibit number nine, was that included in any of the materials anywhere that have been uh entered into
evidence? Not before today. And what's your understanding in that regard, including the D um exhibit? That's correct. It it was issued after the D Okay. decision. Uh I'll hear from you. Uh I'm loathed to keep this hearing
open uh uh beyond today, which is what you're asking me to do. Uh so uh what's your um uh what would you like to say if anything uh trainine relative to the request that um uh I grant leave to um
introduce further exhibits? Uh I'm sorry your honor, could you restate your question? for attorney pills requested leave to um include within the brief that's due on June 23. Um for example, an email um that has yet
to be um entered into evidence um that relates to, as I understand, exhibits 9 and 10. You able to pull that up and have it printed this evening? Do it over the weekend. No, meaning right now. Okay. I no I don't I didn't
bring my computer with me. I'm sorry your honor. Okay. I obviously I didn't expect And by the way um opposing council did make one mistake. The recording date of this affidavit is May 8th, 2025 and the D site suitability
report is dated May 20. So I would respectfully submit this could have and should have been included at least in the site suitability report and that's why we're in the situation we're not. Also, what I think there was was an
exchange of emails. So, it may actually be an email thread that I'm going to try to to present. And, you know, I I had no reason to think I would need my computer here uh today. That's why I I I said I could
do it over the weekend. Um they do work weekends. Hey, your honor, the affidavit speaks for itself. Uh the reason a public hearing was not reopened uh I spoke with the planning director. I met with him and the building inspector. We watched the we watched the recording of
the planning board hearing and reviewed the minutes which on their face showed that there was a mistake in the originally issued site plan. In the recording, on the vote and on the minutes, both of those said prior to the
rail line going in, 68 trips in and out were allowed and permitted uh by an oversight. It was a previous planning director. Uh he wrote 60. He missed that uh that little it was an amendment to
the condition and I believe that's why. Um, but it is clear and it so that email that attorney pill is discussing is irrelevant and the affidavit speaks for itself. It states that there was a mistake made. It was a clerical mistake and that is being corrected. All right. Very well. I'm going to I'll give you
one or two sentences. I'm going to rule on this so we can move forward. I I may have an alternative, your honor. I'm listening. is to suggest and request that the limit of 68 trips imposed in the planning board affidavit be
incorporated into the site assignment. In other words, that the applicant is required to stand by what they're now saying they can they can do and they can quit they could I think um I'd be willing to forego any
additional evidence and any um additional random but I'm again just off the top of my head I I can't regulation so there there's a request that the applicant stipulate to a condition I take it I'm delimiting the number of
trips to 68 uh per day. Okay. 68 trips in and 68 trips out. Okay. As stated in the affidavit that has been marked as part of exhibit 9. Yes. Would the applicant stipulate to that being a condition of sight? Yeah. And by no means is anyone twisting the applicant's
arm on this? Um so, uh is the applicant willing to um agree to that stipulation? Uh I need to talk to my client on that. I'm having some discussions with the our environmental engineer. Right. Okay. I'm going to give you some time to do that. But first, as to the request to
supplement the record um through this email chain, I'm not satisfied that proper offer proof has been made to satisfy that the material is relevant. I'm not satisfied that the um intervenor has been unduly um prejudice. uh and it
seems that that material um um could have been um available to the innovator today. So that request um to supplement with um the brief due on June 23 with a request to introduce evidence that would
require me to keep this uh hearing open at least until then and reconvene it. These are public hearings. That's denied. Okay. you'll have an opportunity to consider the request for a stipulation um and you can get back to me on that um before um the close of
this hearing. Okay, we're going to move forward. I just me no disrespect. If I find something I I will append it to my memorandum understanding that the court has already denied it, but it would simply be me trying to make a record. Well, for you
know, um to be clear, the court has done nothing. There should be an after my name on the pocket of um uh certainly uh but um you know any um extrinsic material that you
seek to append um is not evidence um uh before the board of health and the board of health is free to disregard it if it wishes. Okay. Um, so your honor, I guess it would just be by by analogy then to a court proceeding. It's whether when an
exhibit is offered and court excludes it, um, one would have it marked for identification. So perhaps that's the closest analogy. In other words, I'm not I'm not going to with marking anything for identification because we don't have it in front of us. Understood. So uh you
know uh you you can move forward. Okay. I've denied the request to supplement um uh your brief with um this proposed exhibit. Okay. Thank you, your honor, and I appreciate that. Sure. I I just didn't want anybody to be surprised. I'd rather put cards on the table. Thank
you. I understand that. Thank you very much, Attorney Pill. All right. So then, uh on behalf of the citizens group, my request, your honor, I had some uh cross-examination questions if I may be permitted.
for uh attorney pill based on the citizens group uh based on the filings. So let me ask a question because um uh Mr. Arment who um indicated he's a part owner I think were the words he used of um FNG. Um oh sorry your honor. I'm
Charlie Arman Trucking. Oh he's you got Oh you guys. I apologize. All right. Very well. Um all right. Um do you have any further witnesses then? None your honor. And I I do just want to be clear. So if if if the applicants by
the end of the hearing agree to a stipulation of 68 trucks in and 68 trucks we're going to come back to that but I'm going to give them time to talk about it. Oh okay. Thank you. Yeah I'm not going to put them on the spot. Um they can confer before the hearing closes and indicate whether or not they wish to stipulate um um to those
parameters. Okay. Okay. Just wanted to note for their benefit and and for the court for for your honor and help that if they do so stipulate then um I would not be I understand. I understand. Yeah. I'm just going to give them some
time to uh to confer as I stated right very well. You have questions and for Triny P. Uh yes. Thank you. Um, PNG recycling is in its own words seeking I would like to ensure that the highest
environmental standards are adhered by all operators in the industry. Correct. That's correct. stated that in our petition and FNG is a direct competitor of Deer Park recycling of the applicant. This highly regulated
state and as many sight business it's like a sports event. If one team doesn't play by the rules, the other team has every right to ask the referee. So Tony P your answer yes or no? But yes, they are a direct competitor
and and Yes. And uh FNG tried to take ownership of the railroad spur coming in into East Long Meadow. Correct. Um yes, because no one really knows who owns it. That hasn't been resolved. CSX
has leased it to Deer Park. Correct. They do not have title in my opinion. and FNG tried to take ownership of the railroad spur coming to East Hong Meadow with the direct goal of blocking Deer Park recycling from using the railroad spur. Correct.
That is correct. Yes. And blocking use of the railroad spur could increase the truck traffic going through East Long Meadow. Correct. That I do not know. Nothing further. Thank you. All right. Um, are there any other
questions from Interena's participants or members of the public for attorney pill? I I have a question. Yes. In this site assignment, it actually says 68 trucks already. It says here on December 4th, 2024, it already has 68
trucks per day listed in the site assignment. Why would we need to D condition of the site assignment? What page of the May 20th site assignment is it? It's from December 4, 2024. It's on page 17 from O'Reilly Tet and Oak and it's the application for the site
assignment. So it's already in the application for that to exist. That is their representation. Correct. But that was part of their application process. They disclose that. So that a big difference between them representing that and you as a board making that a
legally binding condition of sight assignment. That representation needs nothing legally. That's simply the the dignity or proposal. What I'm saying is they willing to be dealing at their word
stand behind and defeat by what they told planning board and what they told and I understand they may want to think about that. You want to apply? Okay. Thank you. All right. Uh any other questions?
We have an opportunity, your honor. I think you know there's been some aspersions cast on a competitor being involved here. Have not heard any espersions. You haven't heard any uh nuance associated um there's been um
comment perhaps testimony that FNG um is a direct competitor I think for the words um and it stands at that. Will council be allowed to make brief closing statement or arguments? Sure. Um it'll be very brief. We'll give both council that opportunity. Okay. I have I
have one page of notes that might wonder. That's fine. I appreciate that. Thank you very much. Very well. Uh now for the uh town of Anfield attorney Tyler, happy to hear from you. Thank you.
Uh there you Thank you very much. Great. Thank you. Oh, I just real I did not stand up to be sworn. So, you know, well, whose fault is that?
To apologize, right? Do you sly swear that the evidence said you have just given a mouth before this board is the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes. Under the pains and penalties of perjury. Yes. Both verbally and in the exhibits that I authored and submitted. Thank you. Thank you very
much. I appreciate that. Okay. Attorney Tyler, I believe yours. Yes. Actually, the Connecticut is when these things don't have I understand that. We're going to go with it. I'm not not
Yeah, we're going to go with it. First of all, your honor, if I may be seated while I'm reading. Absolutely. Make yourself comfortable. Like to make sure that I have all of our our documents in as an exhibit. And so I
want to make sure that we have our intervenor registration statement incorporated with amendments in that state memorandum and support which I believe you do have right the town of Anfield interview registration uh statements exhibit
number one standing for all interveners exhibit five interveners critique the merits exhibit six and in exhibit number one uh with regard to statement I want to make sure that the
of a book a 2025 from Mayor Nelson on Tom Gfield is also part of all right just a moment let me take a look yes uh appended there to April 8 2025 um letter of Mayor Ken Nelson Jr. Thank you. And attached to that also is the
natural diversity database areas. That that would be this one page document. You're good to go. Thank you. You're welcome. I'm just going to highlight a couple of things from Nelson's letter
and probably most important thing at this stage is page item for talking about the location in the town of Anfield for endangered and threatened
species natural habitat and the state Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection D has a natural diversity database area map. That's what I've attached to this.
And in that um there are locations specifically adjacent to Deer Park recycling facility location shown in the entire area that's known location of state and federal listed species and collateral habitats.
So the potential impact of this area we believe should be investigated by Connecticut D and it does not appear to have been done uh based upon the question I asked the answer received from the applicant. The other major concern to the town of
Anfield initially was that any um that the facility lies at the headquarters of the job buck reservoir that flows immediately south at the Enfield into Pence Lake.
There are approximately 110 dwelling units in Huntington. So if there is any contamination, chemicals or sedimentation or even noise, it could be detrimental to the wildlife quality quality and the lives of hundreds of natural residents. We
think that it should requires more study, especially with noise pollution. Secondly, the Shaker Lake drain southeasterly of the freshwater brook and then there's a discharge in the Connecticut River which puts what's
called the Donald Bus boat launch. Enfield has two boat launches and only two. With regard to these uh boat launches, it's a popular spot for me and it's for recreational activities such as fishing, boating, and swimming. And so
we have, as Mayor Nelson described, great concern of contaminants and sediment leaving the site, potentially contaminating these waterways and its surrounding environment. And um in so far as the potential
reestablishment of the Armory Line Railway in Connecticut, uh we understand it was abandoned in Massachusetts. Um, so we're not in a position right now to give an opinion as to who owns what,
but specifically if anything in mass, we couldn't give an opinion for that anyway. And in so far as Connecticut goes, I really don't have any knowledge as to who the owner is. But I know that they're relying on uh
trucking an estimated ceiling of 2,000 tons per day of recycled materials that could have a major impact on Enfield's roadways. This railroad isn't completed. Actually, even if it is
completed, like that's only going to reduce the uh trucking by about 16 loads per day. So, we're very concerned about um about the amount of uh truck
going through just guess in conclusion um and we too are concerned about and recognize the importance of businesses and economic growth in the region. So it's with
the town council me speak this evening and as good neighbors which we've been with the state of Matus and me for many many years we have these significant concerns
regarding the impact of facility health safety welfare of citizens well as wildlife in the environment and uh thank you very much. I don't have anything else to add unless you have serious questions. Great. Thank you very much.
Uh thank you very much, Tony Tyler. Any questions from members of the board? Okay. Any questions from the applicant? No. Thank you. Any questions from anyone else who is present? Yes, if you could stand and please state your full name
and your address. Steven Wazalowski, 229 College Highway South. I don't know if I'll need your phone. lesson for Wes L. This fine gentleman had brought up some uh some points about uh the noise
pollution. It's more for a question for these gentlemen. Can I ask still a question to anybody? Uh no, the question is uh for town council from the town of Enfield. Didn't they speak that this machine so quiet stand up and possibly
have a general conversation that there was almost no noise? I'm not trying to comment on Yeah. Uh these are questions for council. Let me rephrase the question. Her major concern was the noise. That's that you
had a bunch of bullets in place. I didn't say my major concern. You did. You did. Reread it. You said one of the major concern. All right, just a brief moment. Uh, just a brief moment, sir. You may pose a question. Okay. All right. Don't be
argumentative. Please pose a question. Okay. You may pose a question. These questions relate to what town council has just presented. Okay. I I get it. I get it. I I was listening. Right. But I just wanted So, when you read it, you didn't say that you emphasized that the
noise was the major concern. He said there was 110 dwellings on the lake. There was concerns there, but the major one wasn't even the environmental. It was the noise. Question. Did Did you say it was the noise? You did. Just a brief moment. Mr. Just a
brief moment. The answer um is I believe no. Is that correct? Okay. You can tell me what your next question is. I'll pose it. So, the next question would be, didn't they say in the the review that we all just heard that the traffic is
going to be detourred to try to keep almost all of it, if not all of it, out of Connecticut? Okay. That they controlled the traffic. You're asking questions that uh relate to the applicant's presentation of evidence. Is that correct? I'm just what we saw that that's all I'm asking is what was on
that board of us to see. Okay. The questions are to be posed relative to the presentation of evidence from the town of Enfield only. Okay. Uh and not council's interpretation of evidence that came in through the applicant. So
if you have any questions in that regard, you may pose them through me. I guess there's no questions. Okay, great. Thank you. You can put that down. Any further questions for town council? Okay. Uh and uh thank you very much. All
right. And does the town rest? The town rest and uh do the uh does the citizens group rest? Yes, your honor. As I said, based on our exhibits and my end of my testimony, I'll give you an opportunity to be heard very briefly in
closing. Um all right. So now I've got Miss Harrington. I actually Miss Harrington, if you could step forward so we can make sure we can hear you. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Please step. Don't step forward. Keep your mouth shut. Okay. Make sure that your record.
Do you wish to be heard? What does that mean? Do you want to say anything? Can I do I have to pose it as a question? No. No. Now's your opportunity, as I stated earlier, to speak. Can I get my notes? Absolutely. Please take the microphone and speak
directly into the microphone to ensure we create a clear record. Thank you very much, Miss Hton. Thank you to be heard. Um, as a concerned resident of the southeastern corridor of East Long Meadow, Mass, I have brave concerns about this project moving forward. I
felt like we've been bamboozled. Let's say railroaded as a The court reporter is indicating. Why don't you step back a little bit and uh speak directly into the microphone? There was a court reporter. Does she have to state her address again for the record, too? Uh
well, it's been established, but you can state your full name and address already. So, please state your full name and your address. Debshire terrace east, mass. Okay. I consider myself an abuter. All right. So
I consider why don't you establish um whether or not you're direct a butter. I don't know what that's considered. I live in the southeast border of Isl concerns, price concerns, um and also health concerns. So these
gentlemen want us to believe that this is going to pose no health issues for this period of time and going forward when um they can't even keep our water clean since 2018. They've been unable to
provide eon metal clean drinking water and it won't be resolved till 2028. Also I understand these people's concerns with Enfield. A lot of us go in that direction when we now the rail line which I feel like I'm
just completely blindsided and I feel like I'm the only citizen here or there's a couple of us in the room. Not citizen but neighborhood person here because we've been kept in the dark. I didn't even know there was a rail line coming in. So, uh it's just crazy. And
this project moving forward was all kept very secret. I feel like just the fact that we're here on the first Friday on 4:00 in the afternoon when it's uh the end of the school year, start vacations is kind of discerning to me. I'll
address that issue. Um there is absolutely no conclusion to be drawn by virtue of the fact that this hearing is occurring on a Friday um at 4:00. It was scheduled because there are very tight parameters during which this hearing can occur and the hearing was scheduled for
today simply as a matter of schedules. It was the only time um that all the relevant um individuals were available. Okay. Thank you for that. Sure. Addressing that. But I feel like the transparency has been lacking. So my
concerns are three-fold. uh the impact on the environment and the health of the people that reside in the area. My also my second effect is uh the the noise pollution not necessarily from
the facility of itself but the trucks going back and forth. And when we establish the train, oh my gosh, we get train noise from the Springfield rail line where we live. It echoes up there. So, um, and then my other concerns are,
let's see here. Um, I have three. Um, and where does that end? Like, does it end in East Lame or eventually, uh, will they move it even further? And this rail line goes all the way down to Scant Scant, Connecticut, which is part of
Windsor, and then it continues on into like New York City. So, where does this all end? And I feel like we've kind of uh like they're saying 2027 for the real time, but I went golfing at uh Grass the other day and they're already up to
Grassmir, which is seven miles from here. So, they're moving very quickly on that. The rail ties have already been laid. Anybody can watch and see what's going on. But I feel like the town has not been transparent to the town of East
Law Meadow. and then of the town of Enfield. And I find it hard to believe that the town of Long Meadow is allowing these trucks to leave that facility, go down road. What did we say here? So, you're saying that you told the people
of Long Meadow that these trucks were going to leave there. Um, go through, let me just find my notes. um downslow road and then go to Wolssw or
Converse Street. I find it very hard to believe that that citizens of Long Meadow agree to that. I just do. I just do. So, I think people need to be aware that this is going on. I feel like we're being railroaded into this situation. I have health concerns, noise concerns,
traffic concerns, and the fact that I'm the only one standing up here who lives in this area. It's really scary. I don't think the government has been transparent at all. So, I think we're being railroaded. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Uh before you uh have a seat,
I'm going to uh permit uh questions first. Are there any questions from the board? I have a question for you. In terms of um protocol, if she is if she is not a direct a butter, would this have to be in the record as you know whether or not
um you know you indicated you were in a butter um and so I permitted you to intervene regardless. I would have permitted you to speak as a participant um as an individual um who believes you will be adversely affected by the decision of this board. So it's really makes you don't understand the protocol.
That's early. Um I I I sir, you'll have a moment. Please uh uh bear with us. Um I will note for the record that there was uh this meeting was duly uh noticed um as a public hearing um by the board
of health. Um so uh are there other questions for uh Ms. Harrington? Any from the applicant? None at this time. Thanks. Attorney Pill. Thank you. Attorney Tyler. Right. Do you have a question for the um the speaker?
Question for question. Okay. Well, you know, the the time period for questions at the town attorney has passed, but have a seat and I'll get back to you in a brief moment. Okay. Any questions for Ms. Harrington?
Can I make one other statement? consider myself in a butter because the only way to my property is either on Shaker Road to Peas or Prospect. So, I can only go down Shaker Road to Peas Road or the town center to Prospect. And we all know
the traffic how it is. So, I find it hard to believe that we did a good traffic study on Peas Road to get out to Shaver because it's increased exponentially. So, it's very difficult. Somebody's gonna get killed here. So that's it. All right. Thank you. If you
be so kind as to put the microphone on the table before I turn to the gentleman in the back. I had a Mr. Olski uh as a participant. Please step forward. We'll give you the microphone. He's good. And I'm going to ask you
please to state your full name and uh address. Um yes, my name is Dennis Olski. I live at 53 High Pine Circle here in East Long Meadow. Okay. And I just have some uh comments. So, uh the Armen family has
been a fixture in this town for the surrounding communities for the last 20 years that I've known. You know, I have worked with them professionally and personally on many uh with many members of the AR. Uh they have donated materials, equipment, donations to
clubs, events, businesses for the July parade, um the fair, sports, fields, repairs, sponsorships, teams, lots of hill crimes. Um also respond to many community emergencies, the tornado, the gas meeting, explode,
uh etc. Uh they help out other small companies within town and within the communities. uh they help them expand their operations as well as promote safe work environments for the employees. I strongly believe that they would never do anything that would have a negative
impact on the town, residents or its neighbors. Uh their 70 years of dedicated service to the community uh speaks of their dedication to the overall strength community bond they have created and continue to contribute to create and maintain the foreseeable
future. I see many audience members here today that would agree with me. They live here, work here, employ here, and they want to grow here just like the ART family and and I'm approval for this application. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. Are there any questions
for Mr. Oski for members of the board? Okay. Any questions? Any questions? All right. Are there any questions from the uh members of the public present for Mr. Olski? Okay. Thank you. I'm going to call upon
Mr. Armen if you wish to speak. Yeah. All right. Want to take the microphone and uh please take the microphone. All right. Mr. Army, you requested to be identified as a participant earlier. Do you wish to say anything? No, I do not. All right. Thank you very much. Okay. Um
the gentleman in the back, please step forward. Give you the microphone. Thank you. Morning. Good afternoon. My name is Good evening at this. I just briefly give you what is your name, please? My name is Tom O'Brien,
160 Maple Chile, East Saw, Mass. Um, I'm a current conservation member in this town. I've been a previous chair. I've been on the commission for approximately 20 years. I'm also a licensed forester in Connecticut
and I can speak to water, storm water, drinking water with a high degree of professionalism. So, couple questions for you, attorney. Does the town of Enfield have any jurisdiction in Esto? All right. So, you can pose the
questions of me since technically the time period to pose questions has elapsed. So, um, your question is whether or not the town of Enfield has any jurisdiction for what? The town of Iso to do what? Oversee any any things in this town that
are occurring in this town related to its business or Okay. Water runoff. Connecticut have any jurisdiction in this. Okay. Does D have any jurisdiction in Massachusetts? I don't believe they have direct but
they have some indirect things they can but that's a question for DEB. I'm going to ask you please if you can stand and maybe speak up a little bit. Somewhat difficult to hear you Tyler. Uh why don't you uh repeat your answer? Okay. I
I believe D has some uh collateral jurisdiction that they cooperate with me. I think in terms of issuing orders effective in messengers it's not they don't have any of that jurisdiction as far as I know
but I'm not D either. I had extensial extensive deals with the So what would be the governing body in Massachusetts that would be a pull on I I think it's fair to say it's the D. Yes. Um Okay. So please pose another question if you have
one. So the point is that the EO conservation commission has reviewed this storm water runoff mass D has reviewed this and I think that they are equal in their abilities as
conservation commission in Enfield and Connecticut. Please pose a question. I'll allow you to say that but you were asked for the opportunity to pose questions. So we pose it one more question. Okay. All right. Would you say that Massachusetts
on a local town level their conservation commission and on a state level their D would be equivalent jurisdictionally and abilitywise to infield conservation commission and committing the D? Okay. Uh okay that that question um is so
vague um um that I'm not going to permit it um because it it lacks specificity. Um, it's also a bit argumentative. So, you can have a seat, Attorney Tyler, and I'm happy to hear from you if you want to say something. Okay. You can make a statement. Yeah. My statement is that
I've been on the board a long time. I have a ton of experience in water runoff, environment, habitat, and we do our due diligence here in town as a conservation member. And I deal with D
and I've been dealing with them for 30 plus years. know them personally and they do their due diligence. So, I'm just trying to assu his concerns as to water quality and storm run water runoff when I know we've done our homework here
in this town and on state level. I appreciate that. Thank you very much. Are there any questions for Mr. O'Brien? Any questions uh for Mr. O'Brien from the app? No. Any questions on Pill Tyler? Okay, great. Put the microphone
uh back down. Right. Uh I don't have any other interveners or participants who have been identified. Are there any members of the public who wish to be heard? Hearing none. I'm going to afford councel two minutes uh to make a
summation. Uh I'm going to start off with attorney pill. Uh uh attorney Tyler, if you wish to say something, you don't have to, but if you wish, you can. And then last uh word I'll give to the applicant. Um and then we'll move forward. Okay.
Thank you, your honor. 310 CMR 16.01 sub8 sublet a sub 2 310 CMR 16.01 901 882 states as follows. Enforcement violations. It will be a violation of
310 CMR600 for any person to make any false, inaccurate, incomplete or misleading statements in any certification, log, notification, permit, application, or modification, plan report, or any other
document which that person is required to maintain and submit pursuant to 310 CMR 16.0 O or is specified in any approval order or permit issued by the department which is mass D.
That is why FMG districts they believe that they play by the rules and what they're concerned about is that any competitor must rely upon complete and accurate information. And I respectfully
submit that between the testimony of engineer Bach and I respectfully submit who paid for it doesn't affect the validity and the accuracy of what she has said today and what's in the Bowman and MDM transportation reports and what
is in our critique on the merits and in the comment that the town of Enfield and I submitted to uh Mass D and no matter matter how much Mr. Armond may be liked and respected in East Long
Meadow that doesn't justify a decision in his favor. Whereas here the site plan documents suffer from multiple inaccuracies and omissions that we have strived to point out. The Declaration of Rights in the Massachusetts Constitution
of 1780, which predates the Federal Bill of Rights, states in article 29 that, and I quote, "It is essential to the preservation of the rights of every individual, his life, liberty, property, and character that there be an impartial interpretation of the laws, an
administration of justice. It is the right of every citizen to be tried by judges as free, impartial, and independent as the lot of humanity will admit. And many of our cemeteries are filled with people literally put their
lives on the line for that. In making a site assignment decision, you all as members of the board of health have in what the law calls a quasi judicial capacity, which means you are legally bound by that constitutional mandate.
And in closing, all I can do is cite an even older mandate of impartiality in the Old Testament where judges are commanded to be impartial. In these words from Leviticus 19:1 15, you and I
quote, you shall not render an unfair decision. Do not favor the poor or show difference to the rich. Judge even your kids fairly. And that's all we're asking. We're not disputing any of the good things Mr. Arment either one of the
Arments has done for the community. What we are disputing is the accuracy and the completeness of the documentation upon which this assignment is based and whatever you decide I want to thank you all for your consideration for your
patience and your courtesy. I know you're here out of a spirit of public service and I think we all owe you a vote of thanks for that. Thank you. Thank you very much, Attorney Pills. So, not to lose the thread, there had been an earlier request uh you can hand that over to council if you'd be so kind.
Thank you. There you go. There had been earlier request attorney Lavine whether or not the applicant would consider a stipulation uh to a condition uh that if I recall correctly the number of trips in and out be uh limited to 68 in each
direction as um although I haven't checked yet but I understand from Dr. Jobins is set forth in the application. What is your answer to that? Uh I have not had time to convene with my client. if uh we could have a two-minute recess. Sure. Sure. I'll take uh take a
literally a fivem minute recess because we're just about wrapped up. Uh would you mind if I close uh following Mr. Pill before we Sure. Sure, you can do that. Yeah, I I'll be very brief. Um
aspirations against the applicant aside, the I urge you to to put that aside. The board of health has a decision to make tonight. It's whether the proposed recycling simp has brought forth is a danger to the
public health, safety or environment. That's straight from the regulation. And everything in front of me tonight shows that it is not. Uh D says it is not. Meepa says it is not. The experts
from DHP and OTO say it is not. The only nothing said here tonight has shown it's a public danger except a direct competitor that is asking you to shut down a business that may affect theirs.
No one else that is not being paid by FNG has said it is a danger to the public health. This is a clean recycling facility. It's a quiet recycling facility. It's a recycling facility that will take
debris that is will sort it to be better for the environment. So some things can be reused, some things can be put in landfill, some things can be recycled. It's a net good for us. The refu will be inside. It is sorted
inside. It will be sorted quietly by a brand new electric machine that you can stand on and you can talk on. The work there's work being done on this site now. There's work being that has been done on the site for years. It's
been done by heavy machinery and we're not hearing noise complaints. East Meadow is not hearing noise complaints. It's been done. And so putting a building on to contain this work will make it quiet. It will improve things.
It will improve runoff to Jawbrook reservoir and any other water. It will improve the sound. It will improve uh and any water that's coming out will be treated. It is engineers have thought
this through. It is a facility that is going to be clean, quiet, and a net good. anything you've heard tonight, anything that's before you, that is in the record, there's simply no reason to stray from the DP's sight suitability
determination that there is no danger to the public health and that this is a suitable site for this sort of facility. Thank you. Right, attorney, did you want to be heard at all? Not intended.
people thinking that town building is not going to be impacted is going to be impacted. My comments on behalf of the town council address their concerns. It did not mean that we are going to tell you what to do or that we
have the authority to tell you what to do. So, and we're also on the paper and we we do believe we raised significant issues of concern with health, safety, and welfare of the people of town and the state of Connecticut. So, we stand by the
statements and uh exhibits that we have put forth. Thank you for your time and your energy on this. Thank you, Attorney Tyler. Uh uh Attorney Lavine, you had earlier uh indicated that you were requesting uh a tenative decision from this board. I
told you that I would address that. Um as we near the close of the hearing, um are you making that request? Yes, I am your honor. Thank you. The request is denied pursuant to uh 310 CMR section 1620 uh paragraph 10 K3 that relates to
tenative decisions. Uh specifically uh the CMR states that if the majority of the board who must sign the final decision have personally heard or read the evidence, the board shall not be required to comply with the request to issue a tenative decision. And so the request is denied. Moreover, this board will benefit uh from the information
that is set forth in uh the briefs that council have until June 23 to submit. Going to take a 5m minute recess, no more than that um to give the applicant an opportunity to consider the request for um a stipulated condition. I'll see you in five minutes. Thank you.
We're back on uh the record. Uh Attorney Lavine, uh what would you like to report? Uh the applicant would be willing to stipulate to 68 trips per day in and out, 136 total. Uh if the parties are able to stipulate to the admission
of exhibits 9 and 10. All right. And I believe that that earlier on was uh uh attorney pill's suggestion. Correct, your honor. And I I do so stipulated in return for their so stipulated. All right. Uh let's thank
you very much. I appreciate uh um work. It's important to have uh the stipulation perhaps uh with a little more detail as opposed to in and out. If you can just rephrase that for the record um with more
precision, that would be quite helpful for the board. The applicant would stipulate to a total of 68 truck trips per day. 68 in, 68 out, meaning 136 total truck trips, which is the current number
that's in the site plan approval decision as well as uh contemplated in the D site suitability determination. Okay. Anything further in that regard, attorney pill? All right. Thank you, council. Once again, as such, um I am uh
Attorney Pill um is no longer requesting leave to submit a brief um relative to exhibits 9 and 10. Is that correct? It's correct, your honor. Thank you. And uh that's likewise true for um the applicant attorney Lavine. That's correct. Okay. So that's clear for the board then. Okay. That simplifies
matters. Thank you very much. Okay. Uh all right. Uh that terminates um the um my presentation of evidence. I just have a few comments before we close. The board of health within 45 days of today must issue a site assignment or a written finding that the proposed site
development would constitute a danger to the uh public health, safety or environment based on the relevant sighting criteria. Once again, that date by my calculation, the board needs to check it on their own um is July 28. The
board does have the power to condition a grant of sight assignment by imposing limitations on the nature and extent of the facility so they will not pose a threat to public health, safety, and the environment. There is on the record one stipulation uh in that regard. The board of health um decision shall be based on
the evidence of record, the documents and live testimony admitted to evidence. I note that I have exhibits 1 through um 12 um which I have turned over to the board of health and are in the possession of the uh board of health. Uh those documents uh comprise the um
written um record uh along with the live testimony which has been recorded both um by video means and stenographically. Side assignment um regulations allow the parties and participants to make arguments. you've already heard that to
follow briefs which I do not believe is um called for um in light of um council's representations. The administrative record as I said will consist of all the admitted evidence, the recording of the proceedings as well as the board of health's decision. Uh each member of the board should review
the record and a public meeting noticed under the P uh public meeting law. They should deliberate in open session and vote on the site assignment. The final decision shall be in writing and signed by the board of health members. Decision should contain the statement of reasons
and determination of facts pertaining to the site suitability criteria with the law necessary to the decision uh along with any special conditions that the board believes are necessary and appropriate. The applicant may provide a proposed decision for their consideration. Have Have you done that
today? I'm sorry. Do you have a proposed decision for the board's consideration? No. Okay. Very well. The record reflect there is no such proposed decision um that's been submitted. Uh notice of the decision board's decision must be published in the newspaper within 7 days
of its issuance irrespective of the grant or denial of the site assignment appeal is to the superior court pursuant to mass general laws chapter 38 section 14. The court review is on the administrative record. That is to say there is no trial with testifying um
witnesses. The proceeding is a motion for judgment on the record with briefs and oral arguments to the judge. Are there any questions? Okay. All right. Uh very well. Um I personally want to um thank the board of
health, its staff, to council, uh to all members of the public who have been uh present today for your participation in this most meaningful hearing. Thank you all. So, Chair Johnson, it's now for you to close the public hearing and for the board to vote on that decision. Uh, as
chair, I motion to close the public hearing. Do I have a I second. All right. Um, and we'll do a roll call vote. So, Christine Johnston, I Dr. Katie Jobins, hi. Rebecca Torsa, hi. Thank you so much. Right. Very well. The public meeting is closed. Thank you all. Have a great evening.