Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stormwater And Contamination topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors, experts press developer for stormwater analysis and testing at 621 Hammond dry‑cleaner site
Summary
Neighbors and technical reviewers told the Brookline ZBA they remain concerned about the developer's stormwater design and the absence of Phase 1/2 site testing for the dry‑cleaning parcel at 621 Hammond Street; attorneys and engineers asked for a mounding analysis and more environmental testing before final permits.
Neighbors and technical reviewers pressed CH Realty Ventures and its consultants on Wednesday over stormwater design near abutters’ basements and on the lack of environmental testing at 621 Hammond Street, a former dry‑cleaning site that sits within the proposed development parcel.
Attorney Jennifer DePazio Gilbert told the board the applicant would provide the board, the building commissioner and the director of engineering with copies of Phase I and Phase II reports for 621 Hammond and — should reportable conditions be identified — would follow the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection contingency plan (MCP) requirements. She also said the applicant would provide the town with $7,500 to hire a town‑retained licensed site professional (LSP) to peer‑review remediation work.
Abutting neighbors and their counsel disputed the sufficiency of the applicant’s environmental submissions. Land‑use lawyer Dan Hill, speaking for several abutters, said the applicant had not done adequate test pits and urged the board to require a groundwater mounding analysis before approving setbacks or waivers that locate infiltration chambers near adjacent basements. Hill said a mounding study is appropriate where deep ledge and impermeable barriers on both sides of a recharge chamber could cause groundwater to rise and “mount up” against nearby foundations.
Engineer Jim Develis, speaking for the applicant, said the proposed infiltration system leaves four feet between the bottom of the chambers and the seasonal high groundwater and includes an outlet control structure that routes excess flow to the municipal drainage system. He described the state stormwater handbook guidance as a best‑practice reference that is often applied with flexibility on redevelopment sites.
Public commenters and several board members echoed concerns about the risks of placing infiltration chambers adjacent to existing basements without a site‑specific mounding analysis. The board directed the applicant and town staff to refine conditions related to environmental documentation, public notification under the MCP, and use of a town‑retained LSP; the hearing was continued to June 11, 2025.
