The Conservation Commission on Tuesday engaged in an informal discussion about a proposal to repurpose 75 South Street from a commercial/industrial building to a warehouse.

The building currently is used for offices and manufacturing. The property was purchased in September 2024 by Magunco Realty LLC. The 32,000-square-foot building was constructed in 1973 and houses multiple tenants, including RSC Industries and CTS Valpey Corporation.

Consultant Joe Marquedant represented the applicant, Lance LaFave. He reminded the commission that the applicant had appeared there in November and was granted approval to test the soil between the property and Interstate 495 for hazardous waste.

“That was part of a two-pronged attack on our side,” said Marquedant. “What we wanted to do was start the borings for the injections to deal with the [hazardous materials] and then take up site changes.”

But the weather “has not cooperated at all” with the soil boring plans, he explained. To perform the testing, water needs to be injected into the soil, which has been frozen.

The weather also impacted the project’s scheduled site plan review by the Planning Board the previous night, which he said was “snowed out.”

Marquedant sought the commission’s advice on how the project should be filed. He wanted to know if it could be “folded into” the existing file from November or refiled under a separate notice of intent. Marquedant also asked if the borings needed to be installed before the site plan could be reviewed.

The new plan added two new locations for shipping and receiving. Regrading, repaving and restriping of the parking lot will be done, Marquedant said, but the work is “not especially complicated.” The lot will remain the same size, with a slight reduction in parking spaces due to replanting in the southeast corner.

“I’m sure the Planning Board would like to see some conclusion to their review as well,” he said. It is scheduled for March 2.

Chair Melissa Recos asked how long the boring installation would take. Marquedant estimated that it could be performed in a couple of weeks.

Conservation administrator Judy Day said she reviewed state guidance on filing an amended order versus a new order. An amended order can be used “when the changes are relatively minor” and will have an unchanged or lesser impact on land protected under the Wetlands Protection Act. The project expiration date would remain the same under an amended order.

She added that an amended order was granted for the Charleswood School proposal because it added new resource area where there was land disturbance.

If the work is “significantly or inherently different than what’s currently in place,” Day said a new order should be filed, per state guidelines.

In either case, abutters must be notified. The new project order would need to be refiled with the state’s Department of Environmental Protection, she added. The applicant would also need to pay an additional consultant fee.

After hearing Day’s comments, co-vice chair Ted Barker-Hook said he would be comfortable with amending the first plan open with the updated information. Others agreed.

12 North Mill Street hearings continued

Before the meeting, Barker-Hook announced that the hearings for a proposed home at 12 North Mill Street and associated soil testing were continued at applicant Lou Petrozzi’s request. No date was immediately set. This proposal has been under review for several meetings.