[Music] Good evening. This public hearing is now called to order at 6:00 p.m. The hearing is being held as required by the provisions of chapter 131, section 40 of
the general laws of the Commonwealth, an act relative to the protection of the wetlands as most recently amended. Notice of this time and place of this hearing was published in the the Haven neighborhood news on October 30th, 2025. It was also published in the town
clerk's office. This meeting is being audioed and videotaped. Persons wishing to be heard will be called in the following order. Um we also uh when you approach the podium, there is a signup sheet. Please sign and print the name.
Please speak loudly. Um, and it's all because it's used for the uh minutes. Makes it so much easier for the minutes. With that being said, I'd like to make a motion to open the public hearing. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I.
>> Okay. Minutes for approval. Uh, September 24th, 2025. Did you guys get to look at that? >> First, I didn't know. I got to switch classes. Sorry about this, folks.
some of these >> fresh. >> Yeah. >> So, I did glance over them. I didn't think there was an issue. Um Heidi, did you >> not? >> Okay. So, I think they're fine. Um I think we should let them go. Um with
that being said, I'd entertain a motion to accept this September 24th. >> So, move second. >> All those in favor? >> I I October 22nd, 2025. Uh I know I reviewed them. I felt very comfortable with them. Um, was there a
couple little things that we changed on that one or no? Maybe it wasn't. You did. Maybe not. >> No, I think that one was good, too. >> That was the one with uh 12's way.
>> No, that one's all set. >> Was continue. >> Yep. No, that one's fine. >> I think it was. >> So, I know I got to look at it. Um, I thought I did actually make a change on it, but I I'm very satisfied with it. Um, I'll entertain a motion to accept it. >> I'll make a motion.
>> I have a second. >> Second. >> All those in uh favor? >> I I >> I. So then we have old business continue public hearing requested for an amended order of conditions applicants in Copper Park Drive LLC owner Whites Farm
Incorporated Park Drive SE00001-0553. A request for an amended order to an existing order of conditions was filed by S Copper Park Drive LLC for property located off Park Drive, map 17, lot 22B.13.
The applicant proposes to install a solar photovolic uh array consisting of 4,999 KW and battery storage project within the 100 foot buffer zone to a bordering vegetated wetland. Revisions include wetland crossing areas and wetland
flagging. The applicant is represented by Wesson and Samson engineers. The plan name is Park Drive solar PV development dated December 10th, 2020. Revised plans September 16th, 2025. review of matters presented. Votes may be taken. I'd like
to entertain a motion that we open the continued public hearing. >> Motion to open public hearing. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I I With that being said, guys, we're waiting for their engineer. Uh I guess Matt is a little bit um late. Uh I think we should give him a shot. With that
being said, I'd like to enterain motion that we put this out of order probably till the end of the meeting because I'm sure he's quite late. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All those in favor? I >> I Okay. Continue public hearing. NOI Clemway
Solar LLC co Rewild Renewables LLC 1094 Main Street, Map 7, Lot 15, SC000010607. Okay. A notice of intent was filed by Zachary Fox for property located at 1094 Main Street, map 7, lot 15. The
applicant proposes to construct ground mounted solar arrays and open field and forested land. The work proposed is within the bordering vegetated wetland bank land underwater bodies and waterways and bordering land subject to flooding as well as the 100 foot buff to
bordering vegetative wetland and bank. The applicant is represented by Sarah Sterns of Bill and uh Thomas Incorporated. Plan name is Clem's Way Solar Project 1094 Main Street EU Mass dated June 11, 2025. Revised September
11th, 2025. Review of matters presented. Vote may be taken. I take entertain a motion to open the continue public hearing. >> But second, >> second. >> All those in favor? I. >> Um, so this is the one they sent us an email to continue, Joanne.
>> Yes. >> Do we have a date certain? >> Yes. December 10th. I want to write that down. Okay. With that being said, I'd like to entertain a motion that we continue this to the December 10th meeting. >> Motion to continue for December 10th meeting.
>> I'll second. >> All those in favor? >> I I Okay. Continue public hearing. NOI Deep Brook Estate LLC lot 15 Park Drive SC00001-0614. A notice of intent was filed by Joseph
Castello for property located at Park Drive map 18 lot 12R. The applicant proposes to construct a single family dwelling with associated drainage grading uh grading tree removal and utilities within the 100 foot buffer
zone to a bordering vegetated wetland. The applicant is represented by Jamie Bassinet of Zenith Consulting and Engineering LLC. Plan name is Subsurface Sewage Disposal System. New construction dated July 1st, 2025. Review of matters
presented. Votes may be taken. Jamie >> Jamie just report stuck in traffic on 140. It was an accident. He said to be in about 5 to 10 minutes. I can answer some of your questions if you want me to and if you need a hand then we have to wait for him. >> Um I I I really would like to have him
come show the plan to uh >> so with that being said >> apologizes but apparently something happened at the second time. >> Okay. With that being said I going to entertain a motion to take it out of order. >> So moved. >> Thank you. >> I second. >> All those in favor? I
>> I All right. Continue public hearing. NOI Deep Brook Estates LLC lot 13 Park Drive SC00001-0615. A notice of intent was filed by Joseph Castello for property located at Park Drive, map 18, law 18G. The applicant
proposes to construct a single family dwelling within associated drainage grading tree removal and utilities within the 100 foot buffer zone to a bordering vegetated wetland. The applicant is represented by Jamie Bassinette of Zenith Consulting Engineering LLC. Plan name is subsurface
sewage disposal system new construction dated September 19th 2025 review of matters presented. Votes may be taken. I'd like to entertain a motion to uh open the continued public hearing. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Second. >> All those in favor? I >> I uh with that I'd like to entertain a
motion that we put this out of order. Do that the engineer is not here. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I. >> All right. Should we just go home? Yeah, >> it's a come back. >> Yeah, it's a wrap. Same highway.
>> Yeah. No, back roads for me. >> Yeah, that's right. Going on the highway. >> We're not that far. >> There's no easy way. >> We'll learn. Yeah. >> Yeah. All right. So, we are going to go right into the new business. Um, we got a public hearing ini Darren and Samantha. Uh, Rise. Is that proper ree?
Okay. Thank you. >> For property located at 40 Quaker Lane. The applicant proposes to add on a one-bedroom addition to an upgrade and enlarge the subsurface sewage disposal system. The entire addition septic tank pump chamber piping in a portion of the
leeching field and associated grading are located within the 100t buffer zone to a bordering vegetative weapon. The applica applica is represented by Gregory Drake of Outback Engineering Incorporated. Planning sub surface
sewage disposal system design date October uh dated October 2nd 2025. Review of matter presented. Votes may be taken. I would like to enterain a motion to open the public hearing. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All those in favor? I
>> I. So this one was a continued one also. Julian. >> No, this is a new >> I know Darren's here. >> What's that? >> This is a new public hearing, >> right? that they would have to provide green cards >> and do a presentation on. >> All right. So, is Gregory Drake here?
>> I think what happened was we when he reached out to you, we informed him that he could continue, but I I think moving forward, we better change that. >> All right. So I think to make it right in all
fairness, we need to continue it because he was given that information. >> Yeah. I actually told him to email you. >> Correct. I mean, that was the way we've been doing it, >> right? >> Um, with that being said, is there anyone from the public that is here for that besides the owners? >> So, were they saying to continue? We
were told to be here >> at the meeting today. Your engineer, I believe, wants to make changes to the plan. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> He said he would make the changes by today and be here for today. >> I have an email saying we will.
>> You told different. >> I didn't receive any emails. I don't know. >> So, even if they did draw the plan up this week and had it today with him, we weren't going to do anything with it because you can't expect the board to get it on a night and do something with it, right? Um, so if he does have a
plan, the next meeting is December 10th. So he's going to have to make sure he gets those plans to us and um upcoming time, you know, before the meeting. And also, we'll probably have to do another site visit because uh I do want to see what his plans are and what exactly is
going on. >> Let me inter interject for a minute. I believe I told him the 24th. >> December 24th. I'm not sure. >> Well, >> well, I mean, >> well, it's already been an open meeting,
so it's going to be on the agenda for the 10th, so I can always read it off on the 10th. >> No, I think we told him November 20. I think I told him November 24th. >> Oh, you were Monday. >> Did we Did we tell go? >> Yeah, I'm thinking that's I don't have
in front of me, but >> next Monday. >> Yeah, we're doing a Monday. Okay, with that then I am going to entertain a motion then. Let's do it that way because >> we're going to entertain a motion to continue this for 11:24. >> Motion to continue for 11:24.
>> I'll second that. >> All those in favor? >> I I sorry guys again. >> Yeah. >> Coming here the other day. >> Sorry. Sorry. We tried to um postpone and he
said continue today. So that's why we're here. So, thank you. >> Very good. >> Jamie, step right up. >> Should we have a we have a tripod for you?
>> We're going to get the tripod for you. >> Do this. >> Well, >> you could do this at COC for >> Are they here? >> I don't think you need to be here, >> right? >> Yeah, but that's what I'm saying. So, it doesn't matter. >> Okay. Right. >> Yeah, it doesn't matter. If they were here waiting, I would do it. >> Yes.
Thank you. >> This I'll leave the COC as a buffer for the other one for Sakappa. >> Thank you. >> You know, Jamie, I was joking when I said I hope you make it here. >> Can you please make sure you print your
name, sign in, but >> I absolutely will. >> Thank you. So, we're going to make a open this before we >> So, Joanne, since we continued it, do I got to reread the whole thing again? >> No, I think you can go back to
>> Okay, >> just reference the top part of it again. >> All right. So, we're just going back to Deep Brook Estates LLC, lot 15, Park Drive, SC 0010614. And it's uh now it's yours, Jamie. >> All right.
>> Well, let's reopen it. Let's get a vote to reopen that. >> Right. That's what I was saying. >> That's why I >> This will be lot R. Yeah. 12 I >> Yep. >> So, just a motion. >> Okay. This will be lot 12R. Um I'd like to entertain a motion that we open the
continued public hearing. >> Motion to open a continued public hearing. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I. >> There's no microphone, so I can stand here tonight. >> No, you're good. >> All right. Good evening, Jamie Bnet, Zenith Consulting Engineers. For the record, um I apologize for my tardiness.
Uh tonight we have a single family house in front of you um with associated septic and drainage. Um during the sitewalk on Saturday, I think we could all see that we've tried to push this as close to the road as possible, minimizing uh impact to buffer zones. Um
it's going to have municipal water, very little uh buffer zone impact. You'll see there's a little bit of buffer zone impact here. And then over in here, the house is completely out of the buffer. Septics's out. It's just the roof recharge that's going to be in with some grading. So, we're hoping that you'll issue an order conditions for this one
and um and let us get going with construction next year. I am like way out of it tonight. Sorry. Um but that being said, I mean, we went to the site visit Saturday. We could clearly see that you are trying to keep
it outside the um buffer zone as much as you could. you went forward as far as you could. Um, so with that being said, anyone else have anything? >> Yeah, if I could go right ahead, young man. Did you determine the uh total area
of disturbance on that? >> No, I did not. >> You didn't? >> I didn't. I'm sorry. I took care of >> No, we did. >> We had two other items and I made sure I got and I forgot about the square footage. So, sorry about that. >> Oh, yeah. This ain't happening. Um, no. Everything looked good, Jamie.
Um, no, I didn't. >> I'm trying to find our special conditions. I got it written down on a special piece of paper, please. >> You can read it from there. >> I had it on the way here today, too. Today was a tough day for me, guys.
>> Oh, yeah. Now you're going to be going to the paperwork. >> All right. So, um I think everyone's fine with it. Um, the only thing we're going to add is our special conditions to the um to the order of conditions. I'm going to read
them off so everyone knows exactly what we got going on. >> In roads and control inspection, on-site meeting with contractor within 5 days prior to construction. No stockpiling of materials, no equipment stored, no f refueling, no portable toilets or wash off from concrete trucks in the buffer
zone. A certificate of compliance request shall be filed no later than 18 months after the issu is issuance of an occupies permit. If the applicant fails to comply or contact the agent, a $250 fine for non-compliance will be issued.
>> Um the rest of it is all standard conditions. Y >> um with that being said, I'd like to entertain a motion that we accept the order of condition. You want to ask public uh anyone from the public? No, I didn't think that's fine. >> I'll make a motion.
>> Do I have a second? >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> And one more. >> Oh, no. We're going to put you out of order. >> I need you to close that, please. >> Excuse me.
>> Oh, yeah. I'd like to entertain a motion that we close the public hearing. >> I'll motion to close the public hearing. >> So moved. >> All those in favor? I >> I >> All right. Continue public hearing. NOI Deep Brook Estates LLC lot 13 Park Drive
SE 0010615. Um I'd like to entertain a motion to open the continued public hearing for map 18 law 18g. Motion to open continue public hearing. >> Second. All those in favor? >> I. >> All right. Good evening. Jamie Bnet,
Zenith Consulting Engineers for the record. Um, this was the most complicated lot out of the bunch in the subdivision. I believe this had the long driveway down along the side of the the drainage ditch, which is a BVW, and had a BVW on the other side of the access
driveway. Um, I submitted the um, erosion control detail that I talked to you guys about. Um, basically what it is, what I'm what I'm thinking would be best is along the sides of the driveway. It's it's a rigid fence with a silt fence that goes right up against it. That way it can't blow over. It's very
2 and 12 in pipes that are driven down a couple of feet, you know, so it'll it's going to stay in place. I think that makes sense where we're within at least 25 ft all the way down to the edge here, you know, down to the street. Um, beyond that, I think regular erosion control would be suitable up in the the main
part of the uh site. Besides that, um, we did the best we could here. Tried to center the house um, in between resource areas and minimize. We kept the backyard small, front yards, everything's tight. Uh we've kept the minimums here. 21 ft where we have 20 ft minimum to the
septic off the front, 10 ft for the tank. So there's there's nothing really here left to give away. Um so again, we'd ask that you would issue an order of conditions for this one as well and uh hopefully add in the note regarding the uh enhanced order control.
>> So this one here has got me a little concerned, James. >> Understood. >> Um one of my biggest concerns is that that Volvo was bleeding. from the pistons. >> Yep. >> Um something left a puddle in the driveway. I do not want that Volvo anywhere close to that.
>> Um that there we got to make sure whatever equipment goes in there has to be 100% >> um dry, not leaking, not seeping. You're real close to both sides of the wetlands. >> Very close. >> Right. So um there is no error here. There is no no room for error. Agreed.
Um, so I I really expect that machine to come out every night or go way inside, >> right? Not to stay in that driveway at all. Um, >> spill kits. >> We mentioned spill kits on Saturday. That whole site should have three of them anyways, especially after what we
saw. Yes. >> Um, >> and I believe that Joe Junior said he had no issues. And yep, >> you guys have been very well uh complying whatever we ask and that goes a long way. Um, so is there anyone from the public?
You can't talk, Joe. No. Anyone up here? Can anything say? >> Yeah, if I may. Did we get a a response on the monitoring well? >> That was the number two. The spill was one and the monitoring well too. So, the monitoring well, it appears was put in sometime around 2003.
>> U, there was a on the D website, there's actually a case where they registered the well. It's supposedly about 20 ft deep. um they don't have a state of reason for it on the actual monitoring well paperwork that's filed with the D. So Joe went over spoke with the board of
health. Board of health has no record of it and also stated and correct me if I'm wrong they had no concerns with it. So, we're thinking that it was probably a monitoring well for a water table on site done during um at some point when somebody was, you know, testing or
evaluating the site. >> Right. In the engineering, >> it's not very deep. 20 ft's not that deep. >> So, >> Mr. Chairman, if I may go, >> Jamie, did we uh determine the total um calculations on the land clearing over there on that particular
>> lot? Yeah. So, yeah, we have open just under 25,000 ft, >> right? >> Yeah. For some reason, I left it off of that one plan before. I apologize, but it's Yeah, that one's on here. >> Um, so yeah, that's all we could come up
with for the Well, we checked with D, we checked with the board of health. >> Yeah, this one here I really want to be kind of involved, especially with that driveway going in. >> Sure. >> Um, so I want the fiveday. I want to know when you guys are going to start clearing. I would like to pump out. Um I
know you met our new agent Julia on Saturday. Um I think this is one that I'm really concerned about because it is really tough in there. You're really >> So either myself, Julia, or maybe even the two of us. We'd like to really stay in contact at least once you get past
the driveway. >> Sure. >> Um once you're up into the top there, well then things are a little bit different. That's more of a normal job site. It is. >> But I know that driveway isn't. >> No, it's it's not. I completely agree. It's going to take a little more oversight. >> Yep. Yep. So, I I want to just babysit
that one a little bit if I could. >> Uh you anticipate the super silk fence being constructed immediately as you >> Yeah. So, they So, first thing we would do is stake out limits of clearing, >> right? >> They'd install the erosion control at the limits. >> Um you guys would come off your
inspection prior to any clearing and then if there's any any questions or any issues, we we >> see Yeah. No, I want to see that for Absolutely. >> And we can't >> what that's >> Yeah. >> Well, >> we won't be able to find out.
>> We won't be able to do clearing until after April 15th. >> Yeah. >> So, >> yeah. So, you ain't putting no so fence up for a while and not doing nothing. >> No. The turtles have to be able to come back out of the ground and start doing their thing. Yeah. >> April 15th is when we get the biology back. >> Yep.
>> Yeah. >> Nice or low? >> So, With that being said, Jamie, I'm going to read off the special conditions. Um, there's going to be a couple added to this one compared to the other one. I know Joanne had it all nice marked out
for me and now I can't find it. I usually have my own sheet and I don't tonight, but here we go. Erosion control inspection on-site meeting with contractor within 5 days prior to construction. No stockpiling of materials, no equipment stored, no refueling, no portable toilets. all wash
out from concrete in the buffer zone. A certificate of compliance requested shall be filed no later than 18 months after the insurance of a piece permit. If the applicant fails to comply or contact the agent, a $250 fine for non-compliance will be issued. The other
one I got is nothing is to be stored on that driveway even after the construction. Uh while you're constructing, I don't want no equipment left in there. Um, we are putting the super silk fence as another part of the conditions
>> and um, make sure spill kits are with that machine the whole time while you guys are working in there. >> Any machine. >> You're going to have tree clearers in there. You're going to have the mulchers in there. You're going to have everyone. No matter who's in there, they need to have a spill kit. Nothing stored at all
in that driveway. Everything comes out at the night. Um, that one is, like I said, it's really it's really a tight one. >> All right. So, with that being said, I'd like to entertain a motion that we approve the order of conditions.
>> Motion to approve. >> All those in favor? >> I I I'd like to entertain a motion that we close the public hearing. >> Motion to close the public hearing. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Have a good night. >> Good night. Thank you. >> Take it easy, Joe.
Can you pass? >> All right. So, them two are done. >> Is Sarfa the only one left? Cuz it's >> No, I got I got a certificate of compliance and then two discussions. >> All right. >> All right. So, let's do the certificate of compliance. Emanuel Cabraw, 23
Wooddock Road, SE000010315. A request for certificate of compliance was filed for the property located at 23 Woodduck Road. The project consists of construction of a single family dwelling with driveway, well, and septic system within the 100 buffer zone to a
bordering vegetative wetland. Review of matters presented. Votes may be taken. So once again guys, this one here is 23 years old, I believe. Is that what this one was, Joanne? 24. I'm not even sure now, but it was another old one. >> That's the one you looked at.
>> Yep. Um, I did go for a ride. It's like beautiful lawn. The backyard's beautiful. Everything's all done. Everything's all set up. You don't even know where the work took place, right? Truthfully. Right. >> So, of course, it's once again, right? They got a refinance or they're looking to do something or something, right? And
now they're coming after us. So, it's really disturbing to me that this stuff is still going on, but that's why we come up with a new rule in our little thing. But it's hard to hit these older guys or these older certificates, right? So, with that being said, I'd like to
accept a certificate uh put entertain a motion to >> approve >> approve this certificate of compliance. >> Motion to accept. >> I'll second. >> All those in favor? >> I. >> Okay. >> I'm talking slow for you guys. >> Yeah. Three minutes away.
>> Really? >> That's what he said. >> Discussion. A cushion solar LLC 1059 peer review and revisions to plan review of matters presented. Votes may be taken. >> So guys, this one here went out to uh
Dev Keller. Deb, would you mind coming up, please? >> Sure. I made it. >> I didn't even see you sneak in. You >> want me to sit over here or >> Oh, no. Go right to the podium just in case we have any questions. And if you don't mind, just uh sign in the sheet,
state your name. might not even get a question, Deb. >> All right. >> But at least you're there, right? >> That's right. >> So, this one here, Deb and I have been um really communicating very well on um the couple issues we had with uh like shooting of the pond. Deb had them shoot
elevations of that. So, Deb and I have been really good communication about it. She did come up with a solution that to better the construction to make it work. Am I correct by saying that, Deb? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Yeah.
>> So then um as I was talking to Evan Connley who's the engineer for the project um he said well Deb says you can do a plan revised. So my biggest concern was on a plan revised it don't get recorded.
So I was actually shooting toward the amended order. Right. But then after today I had a bunch of phone calls come to me. I made a bunch of phone calls. Um, and we can have them record it even if it's a plan revised.
>> So, Deb, if you want to tell them a little bit about what your thoughts are on how to fix the basin so they kind of can jump in and see where you and I have been for the past few months. >> Sure. Absolutely. Um, so when when again
Deb Keller with Merryill Engineers and Land Surveyors. So, it's nice to meet you all tonight. Um, as Jim mentioned, we've been going back and forth. I reviewed the um, original approval plan set, the modification request, and we we
also went out and did a sort of a impromptu soil test pit in the middle of the basin, just trying to see if we could determine why. Um, it wasn't draining properly. uh knowing that the soil should have albeit slow should have
drained. So, you know, we we saw what we thought we were going to see very uh dense uh material underneath the basin. So, we need to make sure that that basin drains. Um the intent from Bees and Thomas was to regrade the bottom of the
basin to pitch it towards the outlet. um which makes sense um to make sure that we drain the basin, but I was concerned a little bit about the volume and making sure that we maintain the proper volume
within the basin so that the conditions that were approved by you were still met. So going through their study and looking at the original design, it looked like we were losing some of the volume. So, we worked with Bills and
Thomas to modify the outlet so that we could make sure the peak rates um matched with uh existing conditions and that we didn't have any flow out of the basin and coming in. I
believe it's a I'm I'm going to go plan south. Um discharging in an opposite direction. So that would be discharging to a different um flow off the property. Um with with that they did raise a
little bit of the grade around the basin, modified the outlet control structure. Um as Jim mentioned, they they looked at the adjacent pond to make sure that there were no interceptions between the surface water and that pond and this
detention basin. And um with all of those revisions, I believe that um they've met the storm water management uh regulations um with respect to peak rate discharges out of the basin as well as the required treatment that was
intended. >> So we have one other um uh concern was with the storm water, right? That did they have their permit? Do they got to So where are we with that? So, um, Evan over at Fields and Thomas W was kind
enough to forward and I found, uh, read through it. It looks like the planning board issued a storm water permit back in I believe I want to say this here says 2020. I thought it was 2022, but I might be getting my dates
wrong. Um, >> that's when Pat came and we got the storm water, right? Yeah. >> Yeah. So, let's see. Let's just kind of date on it. Um, the document here, which is the solar special permit that was issued through
the planning board, they at the same time they issued a storm water permit. >> All right. So, so they do have that on record. >> All right, guys. So, what I think we should do then is um I'm going to entertain a motion that we allow this to
go for a plan revised that it gets recorded by them. They have to show proof of recording to Joanne within I don't know 15 days. Have we even received their new plan? >> We did.
>> Did we get a Joanne? >> I believe it came in October 17th. Have you seen anything from 10:50? >> It could be there. It's between >> Evan Conley. >> Come on up, Ev. >> Between the office
>> moving all around. I couldn't tell you. >> It might be there. >> Um, so we did send two physical copies and we did email that to you on October 17. >> They did. Yeah. >> And I have copies if you want them right now, too.
I'll set the coffee for tonight. I could throw them in my wood stove, I guess, but >> So, I will take by Julia, you and I are going to have to look at those plans, everything else. Um, >> Deb, we hired you for a reason, right? Um, we're not engineers. We're just
normal folk volunteering our time, right? So, we do rely on what you said. I know that um you said that you feel this could be a plan revise. The only issue you and I were talking about was the recording. Um they we can make a special condition for them record a plan revised. Um, with that being said, I'd
like to entertain a motion with a condition uh to accept the plan revised with condition that it gets recorded that they give proof of recording to Joanne within 10 days of today's approval.
>> I I'll make that motion that we allow the the revision of the plan with 10 days to uh record the uh said plan. >> Second. You got a second? >> I'll second. >> All those in favor? I >> I
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> You need more or >> Oh, no. You're out. >> Have a good evening. Thank you. >> Don't get caught in traffic. >> Take care. >> Deb, real quick. Yes. >> Um, this is Julia, our new agent. Nice
to meet you. That's Debella. Uh, we will be giving you a call. Okay. >> All right. All right. Thanks, De. [Music] Okay. Do you want to do the next one and I'll go sit down? I have to recuse myself from the next one. >> That mas
>> Well, yeah. You want to get them out of the way first? >> Yeah, we'll do that. I'm back. >> Yeah, >> they they've been paid for that. >> You're up. >> Hey, he made us wait. However you want to proceed. Yeah.
Wherever you feel like. All right. Thought I lost that. All right. Let's go back to the beginning. Back back. >> Back to the beginning. Okay. So, I'm just going to read off the Matt. I know you weren't here. We already read it all off. So, all we're going to we're
not going to read the whole thing. We're just going to do a little bit of an uptake. Okay. Continue public hearing request for an amended order of condition. Applicants Capa Park Drive LLC owner Whites Farm Incorporated Park Drive SE 0010553.
This is map 17 lot 22B13. Um and now um it's all yours. >> Motion to continue. >> I entertain a motion to continue it. >> Motion. >> All those in favor? Second. I
>> This is throwing me off. >> Yeah, I'm getting all messed up. >> Yeah, it's not looking good. >> Well, fire me. >> Cut my pay if you want to. >> Yeah, we're going to dock you.
>> I'll do it tonight for free. Okay. >> It is. It gets confusing back and forth. You're not in the rhythm. a lot of water today. >> It's working. >> Well, Lizak's trying to set up. Um, thank you for uh seeing us again. Um,
we've been >> Did you sign in, Matt? >> I don't think I did. >> If you don't mind signing the show, I got it. I lost my paper. I didn't
>> Mr. Today was tough. Today was tough and I had a bad day. Real bad day. Um, yeah. >> All right. Thank you for your patience. Apologies on the delay here. Just want to just do a quick recap of everything. So, Zach Roing, senior director developments at
Carpet Capital. We have Jeff Rooff officer council. Siren who's our associate developer and Matt Connor from Weston Samson Engineers. Um, just were back before you for the uh minor modification of the bridge um to discuss
that. Um, and we just received the um, uh, comment letter from from Bill uh, yesterday. So, we had two things we'd like to accomplish tonight with you. One, we actually have um, the bridge company on standby to talk about construction methods and we can go over
that. But also, we'd like to just go through the the comment list with Bill here and just have a bit of a dialogue on path forward and make sure we're all on the same page so ultimately we can bring everything to a close and and finalize this for you, sir. >> Okay. Okay.
>> Do you want to do the letter first or you want to have him? >> I'm going to bring him in. And do you want to get teed up here? >> Yep. Uh so we received a comment letter uh yesterday. Um, and in the comment letter, he u goes over
uh about nine items. Um, and I just wanted to basically go through those nine items and make sure that we're all on the same page so that we can make whatever changes are needed. Come back in next time when we're we're done. So, it's most of those items are pretty straightforward. Um, do you guys have a
comment letter? >> Yeah. Okay. All right. Cool. Uh so item one was uh basically he's talking about wetland uh alteration. Um and so we have a bunch of numbers in here where he's talking about 6,900 ft
or actually we were um which is 365 ft long multiplied by 20 ft wide. So this is the number that we identified for if we needed to put any type of equipment into the wetland, we were going to put it on um basically planking. The
we had identified on the plan the limit of work in a general way um where we're giving ourselves a lot of room here. If you remember reading the um construction phasing plan, we're looking to do
everything from the deck here. I had put that 20 foot wide set of planking in there as a band-aid just in case so that if we couldn't do it from the top, we could do it from the sub. I'm more than happy to tighten up the limited work here. Um cuz it is temporary and it's
just for cutting trees down. I just want to make sure that that's what everybody wants. If you want to tighten it up or if you want to leave it. >> So right now then you're you're 40 foot wide. Is that what you're saying? 20 for the bridge, 10 on each side. >> Right now it's it's as I said, our
entire intent is to do stuff from the deck. I will tighten this up. So it's basically what we had talked about in the in the field where it's 20 foot wide and we're just following the bridge deck down. We'll put matting down as we go and we can pull the trees out. It's pretty it's this is not
>> where you put the mat on the bridge. No, we put them we put the mats in the basically the footprint of the bridge. >> Yeah. >> And again, it's a band-aid just in case as we get out there. I didn't want to have to turn around and come back in and say, you know, we found something. I
wanted to be able This is our initial plan. We're going from the bridge deck, removing the trees as we go. We're putting the bridge down as we go. So, >> you're going to keep hop scratching the mats as you go build the bridge. >> That's basically what we would do if if that's the way it would work. continue.
>> Okay. So, essentially it's you know is there is there general preference of the board? Do you want me to tighten up the limit of work? >> So, otherwise you're going to count it in your square footage. >> I understand that. So, >> is it in your square footage now? >> The total limit of work is not in the
square footage now. >> It needs to be. >> Okay. So, do you >> Well, that's right. >> So, here's the question. Do you want me to tighten it up so that we are just looking at the bridge footprint? Well, or you add that to the square footage. >> Just step in for a minute here. I think I have Brian here.
>> Brian, can you hear me? >> We can't you hear you, Brian? >> I think he's muted. >> So, Brian, we hear you, Brian. >> So, Brian is with York Bridge who would be doing the bridge um uh not only manufacturing it, but handling with the
construction of it as well. I think before we get into limited work and tightening up or not, I think the conversation we need to have here with Brian is in in past we've discussed the installation of the bridge and we're coming on we're working off the decking of the bridge. If that is the case and we can do everything in the event we hit
a refusal or there's a boulder, there's ledge that we have to handle, can all that be done off of the decking or do we need to have to your point a limit of work around where we have to consider Matt and and calculate that into the temporary disturbance. So, I guess if we could just with that said, just step
back for a minute and Brian, do you mind just running through the sequence of construction for this bridge here with Chairman Souza and the rest of the group and just talk through the process? >> Sorry. >> Yeah, sure. No problem. And everybody, I appreciate your time and the opportunity
to chat with you guys. Mr. Susa, good to chat with you again. Um, I'm also joined by Mr. Zayn. He is our consulting engineer. He's been working with York Bridge for about 25 years. Um, so he's going to help address any questions, concerns that you guys have. Uh, but
what York specializes in, we are now in our 40th year in business, is deck level construction. And that is perfectly suited for a project like this that uh, a bridge is needed over a sensitive area such as a wetland. And basically what that means is that all of the equipment
utilized to build the deck, whether it's the forklift moving material or the excavator that's used to drive piling, all of that equipment will be situated on the deck of the bridge. So essentially, we go out build one span. I'm going to kind of talk high level here without super detail, but we're
going to build a span and an abupment. And then we're going to drive the equipment right on the bridge and one pile bit and one span at a time about 15 ft at a time. We build out using our excavator driving the pilot. So the only impacts to the wetland would be the
brown stock timber piling that are being installed in the wetland. >> Brian, what size machine? >> Go ahead. >> Go ahead. No, continue. >> All I was going to say is that the head walls of the bridge where I I mentioned building a head wall that would be outside of the footprint of the wetland.
So if you had back fill and compaction behind that and of course a roadway system that would be out of the wetland. So the technically the only item permanently in the wetland would be those round stock timber pile. >> Okay. What size excavator you got on the bridge? >> We'll have 210 plus or minus on the
series. You know, sometimes it's a 220, but it's typically a 45 to 47,000lb machine. And we'll use a uh NPK C8 vibratory hammer. Weighs about 3,000 lb.
>> All right. So, have you seen the rocks and boulders that are on this site? >> I have not personally seen the rock and boulders that are on site. We do work in many sites. Heck, we're on one right now where pile are reaching refusal at about
3 ft in the ground because there's surface rock. Um, so in that case, what we always try to do is drive the pile. So, that's always the first thing we try to do. Um, and if those reach premature refusal, we will pull off the vibratory hammer and attach a hydraulic power
head. And then we have custom 12-in drill bits. So the drill bit would be the exact same size of the piling going in. And then the drill would drill out the rock as needed to get down to the appropriate depth. We would work handinand with Mr. Zayman here um while
we are on site to determine the depth. Uh, >> is that a wet drill or a dry drill? I'm sorry. >> Wet drill or a dry drill? >> It's a dry drill. >> What are you doing with the spoils coming out? >> We typically have the uh civil we can
either as you guys would like them. We could leave them there or they could be removed off site. Happy to do either. >> So, I know that Matt was saying that you guys usually slide rock. Are you having a hard time hearing us? >> No. Matt says, "Usually you'll slide the
rock out of the way. Slide the rock back under if a boulder's in your way." >> Um, just so you know, right after the abupment, there's one boulder that's sticking out of the ground. 2 foot. It's flat. It's probably about 12 by 15. Um,
so with that being said, I don't think that's something you're going to slide out and slide back under. >> Okay. Zayn, your thoughts on uh like a larger boulder that would be in the way? >> Well, I mean, the first thing we do is
try to drill through it. And otherwise, uh what we've done in the past also then if it's just one location, we try to move it or try to move the pile. But if it's that large, then we may have to go into uh if it's that large, we may be
able to just put a spread footing at that one location. We've done that in locations, too. And then put the pile on the key into the rock. But normally, we're able to drill uh into the rock, unless you're talking
granite, and then we have to do something different. >> And yeah, and I've been um I've been at York. I'm starting my 15th year here in a month. And um we have only had to do a concrete footing once in my career. We put in about 550 bridges. So it is a
very rare occasion that that happens. Typically our drilling equipment is able to maneuver and we're able to work it out utilizing our standard methodology and we would have somebody um visit the site prior to construction. We always have our project manager on site prior
to any equipment or any material arriving or anything like that. >> Is there any way anyone can come visit this site prior to even doing the job >> so we know what's going on? I mean, I'd like for someone to look at it. >> Before the crew mobilized, someone would visit the site. >> So, that's already a little late and all
the contracts are signed and everything's done. Correct. >> I'm not under contract. No, >> no, no. I'm saying for the visit. >> One second, guys. >> Yeah. I guess I'm not sure what you're saying. We would um we would visit we
could visit the site really whenever. Um, but if it's, you know, I think photos would work too. If there's surface rock, we've dealt with it before. Um, either moving or like you said to your point, Mr. Souza, that maybe the rock is too big. We have ways of uh of figuring it out then as well.
We've definitely never come to a site and been unable to build the bridge due to rocky conditions. That's not not something we've encountered before. >> Oh, I understand that. >> Not saying that this site isn't unusual with the amount of rock. I'm sure it's uh from what I've heard from, you know, whether my conversation with you or or
the client that there are, you know, that there's rock out there >> and a lot of them. A lot bigger ones. >> Yeah. >> You know, and I'm really concerned. I've been a pile driver for 42 years, right? So, I kind of know the business a little bit. And uh >> Yeah, you do. >> Yep. And uh you know, I look at the
prints and it's just uh and then I walk out, it was totally different than the photos. So, I got a lot of concerns. I really do. Right. And um I know I'm speaking on behalf because of my experience and maybe it's maybe I got too much knowledge, but this one really
I think is going to be a nightmare. I really do. And uh I said it that I think that the bridge company should come out there, take a look at it. I mean, if you're going to start drilling every pile hole, then there's an issue here, a big issue, right? Because now, how much are you going to really get rid of? Um
all that stone dust, everything else, we're not going to allow it to sit into the wetlands. So that's going to be captured. It's got to be removed off site. Um the plan shows four boulders when there's probably about 400. Um so it's like it's really it's really a
tough one. I think it's going to be a real tough one. I'm not saying it can't be done. Anything can be done, right? You can dig out a foundation with a teaspoon if you got the time. So anything can get done. But um I'm just looking at it and saying, does it really fall under temporary disturbance? you
know, is this going to be a temporary disturbance to the wetlands or is it going to be a permanent disturbance to the wetlands, right? And that's what I'm I'm concerned about that it's going to go in there and look like Vietnam when you guys are done. Yeah. Not with I mean with, you know, with all due respect, I I definitely
understand where you're coming from, but that deck level methodology, which I know you're aware of, um but we we do not leave sites in poorer conditions in which we found them, which is why that methodology works so well. >> Yeah. You know, but when we were out there with Matt and he's telling me you're going to slide the rock out,
drive the pile, slide the rock back in. You know, to me, that's I I was just like bounded because now you're disturbing the area as you slide it out. You're disturbing the area again. When you slide it back in, the pile's going to be there. So, you can't put the rock where it was, right? So, I'm just saying
it's not and maybe this ain't your part of it because I understand I think you guys can do the job truthfully, right? My biggest concern is how much disturbance is there going to be. >> Right. >> Right. So if you grab a hold of a rock and you slide it out of the way to drive the pile, you just slid that rock in the wetland. You're doing a permanent
disturbance. You're going to try to slide it back under. Then I know that you can move a pile either way. Uh make your bent up accordingly. Whatever you got to do. I've done that a thousand times myself. Right. >> Sure. >> But how much are we doubling it? Right.
Are we just doubling the square footage of that one pile going in? Or if you take that pile and you go, "Well, we hit something here. Well, then let's move it here. Well, let's go here. Let's go." Now you're four times the square footage. That's why I'm saying this ain't all about bridge. It's also about
the wetlands that we're looking after, right? >> The construction is the construction. I believe you guys can do it. Uh you're well known. Believe me, you're well known. I did my homework and you guys are well known. You're very reputable. Um I don't have an issue with the bridge company itself. I have an issue with the
site and um that's why I'm I'm so concerned about this site. >> Yeah. And just to your point about adding pile, that's not something we've ever really done. Maybe one sister pile. Zane, >> I meant moving, not adding. >> Every once in a while, Zach, you get a
you get a piling that um that's typically when the piling sinks too far and then I have to attach a sister piling to it. But when there's premature refusal due to due to hard rock or soils or such like that, uh we're not typically typically going to be adding pile. And hypothetically, if a pile was
added, I do think it's less than a square foot of impact per pile. And that's just not something I've come across a lot in my experience. And I don't know if you want to touch on that, but we just haven't really had issue of, you know, shipping out additional pile. >> No, I'm not saying adding a pile. What I'm saying is if you had obstruction
here, we have on the thing that it's going to double the pile with. So, you get to pull that pile out and try it in a different location. Right. That's what I'm saying. So, if you're going to move the pile a foot to try to see if you can get through the obstruction, are you going to move the pile or are you going
to stick to that original hole? >> Oh, I see what you're saying. I mean, obviously, every situation is different. Um, even moving piling, to your point, it's not something we have to do very often. Archering equipment is very heavy duty, and I do trust you, Joe, on the um
uh the rock out there. I'm not saying I can come out there and punch through every boulder. That's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying that we typically have not had to relocate many piling if at all on a build. And then, you know, cuz when you do that, you may be looking at increasing other member sizes cuz maybe my spand distance is a
little further or something like that. Uh and that's just not something we typically have to do. We're typically able to um get down to hard rock, hit our refusal. Um and if the rock's hard enough, you don't need that much depth as you know. you know, you'll get your uh you'll get your end bearing and as long as your lateral stability is there,
you're good to go. >> So, you're putting them in with a vibratory, right? So, how are you getting your load bearing from a vibratory? >> Zane, that's I know how to answer that, Zay, but I'd rather have you answer it because you're the engineer. >> Um, you I mean the vibratory we get the
load bearing based on skin friction and the point bearing at the end of the pile. As the vibratory hammer vibrates it, it displaces the soil and then it settles back in and grabs it. 90% of the piling we put in is with the skin
friction. They're skin friction piles. They're not really end bearing piles. >> Correct. In vibratory, that's what they usually are. They're usually all friction piles, right? When you put a vibratory on it, you're not finding bottom. You're using the earth to grab the pile. So if you don't if you don't
get to the 13 feet, what's the how far you guys going in? >> Well, the max. >> Well, we go into we go in until the piles don't move anymore. >> Okay. And then how do you know that's capacity? >> Because we I have formulas that been
using for 35 years based on uh testing that was done that depend it depending on the size of the vibratory hammer and here we're using C8. will probably get around a 22 23 ton capacity with factory
API 3 >> without a PDA or nothing. You already know you're going to get that. >> Yeah. >> Wow. I've never heard of laboratory giving you a tonnage loadage without friction. But hey, I don't know.
We we what we do is we put the load we put the pile in and based on the insertion rate uh it gives the capacity of the pile and like I said we drive these to we don't get any movement I mean normally
the formulas say when you get 6 in of movement in a minute the capacity is about 23 tons and we just drive them till they don't move anymore. So you guys will not if you hit an obstruction, you will not look for a different location. You are putting it
right there. Whether you hit some or not, you're not moving. You're going to drill it. You're going to do something different. You will not move that pile. I can't think of I can think maybe on in all the years that I've done a h maybe a handful of times where we've moved the
pile over like a foot. Because that was one of my concerns because what Matt was saying when we were out there on Saturday is that well no we can move it here then if they hit something they'll move it here. If they hit something they move it here. Well then now it don't become the 1t diameter of the pile that we're disturbing the
wetlands. It becomes three or 4 feet square ft of it. But if you guys are telling me that you're going to put it right on no matter what and nothing will ever be moved then that we're back down to the two square feet that Matt is allowing for. Yeah, we just have not had those
instances. I mean, Zayn, you would have more experience than me. But in those cases where, you know, we have to move the pile a considerable amount at all. I mean, you know, there's a tolerance in the field of a few inches just in general, but you know, not like move shifting something a foot or two, nothing like that.
>> No, like I said, I can think of cuz if you start moving them too much, now you've got a total redesign. >> Correct. So, and we try our best not to do that. And like and then like Brian says is normally if we hit something hard, they'll start they'll move they'll
switch out the vibratory hammer and go to a drilling apparatus and they'll drill. And I mean there's been times they've sat on that thing for hours to get it in as far as they need to get it in. Now, if we're hitting rock, we don't have to go down that far. normally
typically just go down about 3 to 5 ft because that'll give you the lateral support you need and the capacity and we're only 6 ft above the wetland here. So that's more than enough. Three in the ground and six up. Well,
you said five. >> Well, what I'm saying is is Yeah, cuz there's a difference when you're putting it into rock versus when you're putting it into ground. And if you can get three foot into that rock, that's going to give you the lateral stability that you
need >> because it's in a pocket, >> right? >> Pardon me, I didn't hear you. >> I said cuz it's in a pocket, >> right? It's in a pocket. It's not going to move. >> And that's the same procedures that I
used on highway bridges for 40 years. Also, normally when run into a rock or anything like that, we'll core down 5 ft and then drop in that situation. What we do is we just drop a uh steel pile in when cuz those are usually steel piles.
We just enase it in concrete and you're good to go. >> All right. >> All right. Continue. >> Do you want to ask him about tree removal? why why we have them here. >> Well, you guys are the ones removing the trees as you go along.
>> Typically, those are removed ahead of time, but we can work that out if it's an access issue with um being able to get equipment in there and maybe the access is needed from the deck of the new bridge. That's something we can talk about. We typically do not remove trees though, to your point.
>> Have you ever done borings before a job? >> Our company? No. But our clients routinely do geotech borings and we'll review them and look at blow counts and it'll give us a good idea of length of pile and what to expect. Uh but not all
of our clients provide geotech. Sometimes you can, sometimes you can't. Um and that's obviously when we're still we're going to use the same methodology regardless because we're going to drive those until they stop moving. It just gives us a little helping hand on a little more of what to expect. You know what I mean? >> No surprises.
>> Exactly. Yeah, but we're always ready. We bring our drilling equipment to every project in case that happens. We're always ready to go. >> Well, then that'd be up to you guys, right? >> Yep. I mean, the the biggest thing right now is like we can't do any actual site
work until we have the amended order conditions or building permit and actually get into the site, start clear, and build an access road and actually get to where we are. At that point, you know, I think Graham had mentioned in the past, then we can do something, but premature to actually getting any kind
of approvals, we're in a position where we can't. >> All right, let's continue. >> Okay. Do we need Brian or Zayn for anything else? >> Um, no. It was real nice talking to you, Brian, again, you know, and real nice meeting you, young man. And uh we'll see
what happens and hopefully we'll be talking again. >> Yeah. >> Anyone else got anything? >> Guys, >> I know I've been over here rapping with these guys, but um >> Oh, wait. I got someone from the public. >> Yeah. So, Andre Arsenal, 48 pot drive.
>> Can you please step up and you got to sign your sign name? >> A question about the rock driller. >> I don't >> Oh, okay. He's she's got you. >> Yeah. Um, when you talk about drilling rock, are you talking about drilling into a ledge or you talking about drilling into
boulders? It seems to me like if you're drilling into a boulder, let's say it's um as big as a Volkswagen and you drill into it, you're going to shift that. It's not like you're drilling into a ledge where you've got a a foundation like you're drilling into a ledge. Sure, you're going to bore a hole into a
ledge, but if you're building drilling holes into a boulder field, that's a whole different thing, I would think. I just that's what I think. I mean, I'm just getting spooled up on this now. I've been living there for 40 years. Yeah. >> And you know, I you know, I'm concerned,
but I want to be informed, but that's just a question that keeps popping up in my mind. >> Well, I am going to Brian, I am going to talk to Matt and them. I want I would really like for someone from the bridge company to come up and walk the site. >> Um, like I said, it's it's not it's rock
after rock after boulder after boulder. And I'm not saying you guys can't do it, right? I'm sure you can. Right. You guys have, like I said, very reputable. I I did my homework. I talked with you on the phone. Um, it just really concerns me because of the wetlands, right? And
it's not just a little wetlands. I mean, it it could really >> be a huge impact. >> Huge impact, right? And um there's other issues on that bridge that I I have concerns with, not just the pile driving, but um you know, it's something that like I telling Matt when we were
out there, I says, you know, I says, uh I would love to have you guys come right out and walk what we walked on that Saturday. Maybe not through the briars and rough terrain like we did. Maybe a nice give us a nice two-ft clear path to get to it. But uh I I really think
someone should take a look at it and make us feel more comfortable, right? I mean, the pictures are terrible cuz when we went there Saturday and I said, "This don't look nothing like the pictures." The response I got was we don't know where they took the pictures, right? So, that really kind of nothing to do with
you, but that kind of went up me saying, "Okay, you didn't show any boulders in the pictures, but we're walking on boulders and it's boulder after boulder after boulder. I don't even know if you've seen the soils. the soils say extremely rocky, heavily rocky, um
extremely rocky, extremely stony. And I mean to make us feel better and give us I know, like I said, I have no doubt that you guys can do your job, but I'm just more concerned about the wetlands, right? That's our position. So, would
you be interested in coming down or coming up technically uh and walking the site on a Saturday with us and really take a look at what's there? And you might say, "Hey, Jim, you know, I think every one of these might have to be drilled in, right?" And then if it does, you're prepared for it. And not only
that, now we know we're going to have a lot of uh soils from the drilling, right? So, now we're going to want them off. I'm not going to allow them to stay there or I don't think the commission is going to allow the the spoils to stay. Right? So, if there is going to be a lot of drilling, we have to know how are you
going to capture the spoils? How are you trucking them out? How you getting rid of them? So, we need the whole the whole outlook of what you're going to do when you drill. And I feel that there's going to be a lot of drilling on this site. >> I agree. >> Right. And are you going to drill
through a boulder that's sticking out of the ground 2 feet, but it might only go in the ground underground a foot and a half, or are you going to try to move it? >> Yeah, overall big picture of happy to come up there, walk the site, not a problem. And I would expect there to be
a plan for spoils there. We always have a plan for spoils. So that would make sense that all of that would be required prior to approval. >> Okay. And like I said though, if you came across a boulder that's sticking out of the ground 2 and 1/2 ft, but it only goes to ground under the ground. One, will you drill through it? Are you
going to place the pile or you going to try to move that boulder before you drill? >> I don't want to speak to my foreman, but we'd probably move it. Zayn, what are your thoughts? I mean, I I am admittedly the the sales representative, you know, I'm not the guy doing it in the field, but Zay, you know, I mean, if it's a
pretty surface rock, you'd probably try to move it, but >> yeah, you try to move a surface rock. You're not going to try if it's sticking up out of the ground. I mean, again, it depends on how far down it goes. >> Right. And I understand that. But that's what I'm saying. So, that leads me to
the impact, right? So, that rock, just say it's it's got a little bubble out of the ground, but it only goes down 2 and 1/2 ft. And you grab a hold of that and you slide that out of the way. Now, not only did you leave a big disturbance in the hole, now you where you put it, you disturb the area. So, this is why I have big concerns about this. I Brian, I
would love to have you come up and walk the site with you. Um, >> is that is that Brian's forte? I mean, would that be you, uh, Mr. Kennedy, or would that be one of your employees or how would you handle that? >> We'd we'd figure that out. I'm not sure who it would be, but I can just tell you
it would be someone that would be very qualified, whether it's you. Okay. Yep. >> Um, like I said, I mean, when we walk that site, we have issues regarding that. We really do. And um I mean I I would love for you guys to
see it. Make us feel more comfortable. Um really let let it hear right from the horse's mouth, right? You hear it right from the horse's mouth. Sometimes you do a little better in life. So um with that being said, I think that um we should definitely plan on getting you guys up
here or somebody up here representing your company to walk the site. Um someone that might even be on the job would be even better, right? um because now they're doing the work that they're looking at and um you know maybe we can all walk out of there
saying, "Okay, this sounds a lot better than what it looks like." >> Okay. >> Yep. And that's something we can coordinate with you, Brian, and Zane. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I wouldn't think that would be a lift. I wouldn't think that would be a
heavy lift to have someone >> I mean, it would be, you know. >> Yeah. I think it would really give us a little bit ease. >> That's all we want to do, >> you know. >> I mean, that's >> I mean, be careful with a flight ticket right now, but
>> but I I I think that we should try to line this up soon. Um, let's get out there. Um, I'm not kidding about the path though. I am not going out there and going off-road through Briers into my legs. >> We had fun. >> That was fun. >> Hey, listen. >> We've been out there too many times.
>> Well, yeah. Yeah, there's definitely Yeah, >> too many thorns. >> Oh, yeah. >> You know, >> we're coming from the other direction. It's easy to get to. >> All right. >> All right. >> And Mr. Chairman, I just I'd like to add the the imp the impact of this bridge. I
I just I think this is a large large gamble, not knowing the the length, the span um any of this. This is all unknown. Could you clarify what you're saying? We do
know the length and the span or known. So what >> specific I think you're saying that where whether we're in the the limit of the bridge or the correct temporary disturbance area that's >> I'd make a suggestion just here and Jeff and Matt and Bill if you have any input
appreciate it as well but like since it's clear that I think and I agree with you we need to go out to site with the folks from the bridge company and talk about this. how we talk about this and then do the math on the calculations is entirely contingent based on what the
site visit results. So is that maybe something that we should leave as a contingency based on how we answer this issue that's been opened here. >> So another thing I'd like to hear from Bill I mean Bill and I have been talking. We have a bunch of uh I think
there's more issues than just the bridge on this one. Um, and Bill and I have talked a little bit. I've read the letter. Um, there's more than just the bridge, right? >> Sure. >> So, while Bill's here, I think maybe we should punch a few of those items. Um, I don't want to hold those guys up. Does
anyone have anything more to talk to Brian or Zen? >> So, we're all set um with you guys, let you get back to your thing. I want to thank you very much for uh attending the meeting and giving us some information. Um, some of it actually did make me feel
a little bit better, but I still have more concerns. Yeah. >> Sure. Well, hey, appreciate the opportunity to chat with you guys. Always a pleasure. >> Guys, thank you. >> Thank you. >> You guys have a good night. >> You, too. Thank you. >> I'm going to table number one because I
think talking about it in the field is a good idea. when they're up here, we can get a better handle of like what width we actually need from those guys and they can get some input on that. So, it's unreasonable. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, number two, uh proposed construction
profile plan is not stand by professional engineer. It appears to be more schematic than a site plan and is considered informationational. The the profile plan for the bridge is schematic. Um we have not paid for a design to come in. It's based upon their
standard profile and their standard criteria. >> Yeah. And what I'd ask of that is that we just make that a condition where before the construction happens, we have to satisfy stamped plan for that. >> Yeah. But then it has to be identical to what you're given. Then it can't vary at
all. Understood. >> You know, it's kind of like crazy, right? It's like I can't understand why you can't get a a certified plan to make sure everything is right because that plan right there is just a drawing to
me, right? >> You know, two guys sat down and drew a plan. >> Doesn't have no binding to it. Doesn't have nothing to it. So, what you're saying is let's approve the napkin drawing. And I call that a napkin drawing. Let's approve the napkin drawing and then we're going to give you an engineered plan later on in life.
>> Yeah. Well, I'm more or less speaking like after we go and issue a bridge PO. We can ask them to do complete engineering on it and everything else. The issue is we can't issue a bridge PO until we get through this amended order of conditions. >> But it's so hard to say, hey, build the
bridge and then we're going to get the certified plan later or an engineered stamp plans later. >> Sure. That that's why I'm asking if we conditioned it. >> So they can can I just interject on this for the record? uh Jeff Rowoffs and I'll
I'll get my name in here. >> Okay. >> So, I'm their attorney. On the condition though, I think a fair way to do it would be to impose the requirement that the construction level plans be submitted to the commission prior to the site visit. It's going to happen before
construction. if there are any details in that that deviate from the dimensions or what's or the approval in any aspect because there's some detail that you didn't anticipate that's now on this plan then the work can't proceed until that plan's reviewed and approved by the
commission administratively. So, if we don't come up with a plan that's consistent with the NAP drawing and that all the perimeter, you know, the erosion controls and the the details that have been presented to you, then we're going to have to discuss it with you and review it, make sure you're okay with
it. The goal is to have to result in a project that has no more impacts than what you've approved, but we have a plan that's more detailed at that point and it's for your review before we start work. >> Right? That can be >> so that means the bridge would be have a stamp planned and everything before anything is touched over there. Anything
is cleared, anything is done. >> Yeah. If that if that's the condition that if that's what you want the condition to read. Yes. >> In my opinion, it needs to be submitted and approved prior. That's that's the condition. >> You can do that too.
>> I'm just saying I mean that needs to be submitted and approved. >> Yep. I agree. >> Not just reviewed. >> Yeah. And reviewed and approved. administr just as long as it's clear that it's administrative. We don't want to open up a public hearing. But >> I'm not comfortable with with, you know,
giving an approval on something sight unseen that I can't even review to to determine if I'm in favor of. So, >> well, again, the details we're giving you are going to put the basic parameters in place that's going to allow you and your consultants to determine what the impacts are going to
be. Before we start any field work, we submit the the construction level drawings which I'm assuming you you can then request after we get approval for >> review and drawing period. >> I'm sorry. >> An engineer drawing. >> Yeah. Right. >> That's got to be approved.
>> And then the impact you guys have to give us the impacts. You're telling us >> we're going to give you those as part of before our next meeting. Yes. And they're going to be dependent on the sidewalk that you just discussed. So yes, we have no problem providing those
numbers. We can give you more numbers. U Bill was pretty clear in his memo the various categories of numbers that he was looking for. You know, how much of this is going to be impacts to the buffer zone, impacts to the BBW, what's temporary, what's permanent. We can we
can clarify those numbers and and we will as part of this process in response to those memo. Yeah. So are you are you okay with >> yeah no that sounds you know >> okay applicable
um item three grant proposed temporary altercation of BBW provide restoration plans and provide restoration methodology um similar to restoration the wetland replication plans need to be updated reflect the present design wetland
replication restoration are Paul Master Eye. So temporary restoration the area that we're working in for the bridge is what we're what we're going to propose is an Ernst seed mix which we've used many times in this type of circular. >> Can you say that again? I'm sorry.
>> Ernst seeds. >> Okay. >> They're they're well-known manufacturer of seeds. >> Uh so this is an example. You can get custom seed mixes. >> That's uh one that we used in a in a
similar location. Sort of wetland style location and we can work through with uh we can work through seat selection with Bill. >> Anyone else want to see this? >> Continue. >> Right. Um
the permanent disturbance, as we talked about before, we're going to include it in the uh disturbance area, the replication area over by the uh park drive where you're coming in on the left. The replication for that is almost 21. It's not quite, but it's
>> it's Lambert Street, right? Lambert Street. Lambert Street. Yeah. So rather than having multiple locations uh on the site where we're having replication, we can concentrate on one area, we can make sure we can keep control over very easily and it's um you know as I said
it's almost 2 to one from what we've already proposed and you guys have already proposed it. So we thought it would be easier than having to go through and do a new permanent replication area. So you are following all the DPS correct.
So the the the permanent replication area was already approved in in uh order conditions if you remember. >> Right. >> Right. So by utilizing that we wouldn't have to open up any any of this criteria and then for the temporary disturbance
underneath the bridge where where we're looking we would be using the earth seeds uh which is we follow the mass DP criteria any discussion comment concern I have a question about the temporary disturbance under the bridge
>> okay Does the bridge have any gaps for sunlight and rain? Because I didn't see that on the plans. >> So like it we did not consider that because the gapping that is there is only about a half to 3/4 of an inch. So and we accounted for that in our shade study that we provided that we were
basically negated any of that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Um I'm going to skip down next page to question four. All the answer we can access
[Music] presumption any of the issue authorities shall presume that such areas sufficiently interest specifically the presumption is may be overcome upon a clear showing that the very original does not play a
role in the interest Yeah, Bill, can I ask you a question? >> Sure. >> That presumption that everyone just skipped right over. What is that presumption? Can you go into detail with that, Bonnie? >> Which one are we speaking of? >> Um, it's before question four on the
same page as question four. You got a presumption up top. >> Our concern the proposed bridge crossing will prevent some that that comment there. >> No. Um, no. You got on
two page three >> proposed activity. >> Uh you got a presumption up there where a proposed activity uh involves the moving filling dredging. >> Um that's the presumption of significance that comes right out of the weapons regulations that's associated
with the um replacement or the restoration of the BBW. So that's how it's supposed to be um entertained. Now with that being the way to entertain do you feel that the standards are being
followed >> there's not adequate plan there's not adequate information on the plan for me to answer that question so I say that's lacking >> y at this point now >> right >> can I speak to the regulatory issues
>> um so I just wanted to distinguish some of the different regulatory topics that come up in Bill's memo um and I understand that uh he's requested more information before he con makes any conclusions with respect to the
performance standards. But I want to talk about some of the terms that come up and that are mentioned here because it's important to understand what terms come into play for what reason. So the presumption language that you just were referring to is a part of the
regulations that says areas that are wetlands are presumed to be significant. um if if they provide certain functions. If an applicant wants to argue that a an area doesn't provide these, there's a presumption that a wetland area provides
these values. In some wetland areas, they just don't. And the applicants come into you and they say, "Yeah, we're doing work in a wetlands, but this wetlands is impaired. It's like not serving any purpose. It's got all these problems with it." So even though there's a presumption of importance or
significance in this particular case, the wetlands isn't serving those values. So um there's nothing to protect. All right? We're not making that argument. We are assuming we're not debating the significance
of these wetlands. So we've decided not to argue that point. So the presumption that's in place, it's still intact. We're not saying that these wetlands have no significance. All right, so that's one category. Um the other
category is the language of um temporary. There's a reference to section 10.02 B2B or something. It's it's a it's the discussion of um minor activities that
result in temporary impacts and whether or not we fall into that category. Um, and similarly there that that's a that is some language from the regs that defines certain activities that don't require an order of conditions. So if we're just coming in and we want to do
some soil monitoring, we're going to come to you if at all and we're just going to say we want to go out to the field, we want to do some soil borings, but it's temporary impacts. We fall within that little exemption, so we don't need to get an order of conditions from you. We're not arguing that.
Obviously, we're not arguing that any of our work falls within that uh temporary u minor temporary investigative activities that's referenced in Bill's memo. And I'm assuming Bill's been working with Brad on this. Um but so
that whole discussion about that one section 10.02 that doesn't apply here. We're not arguing that any part of our work is exempt. All right. Now we're getting to the we're getting to the performance standards. Um actually there's one other sort of jurisdictional
standard up front and that's alterations. Alterations of wetlands triggers your jurisdiction. >> If we were doing something in the wetlands that didn't result in any alteration at all, we wouldn't even have to come to you. So like that's why if
you go walking through a wetlands, you're not really altering it. You don't even know you actually are altering it. you're not altering it to a point that triggers your jurisdiction. So the the phrase alteration is defined in the rags really broadly. And the reason they do that is because
they want projects that result in any types of alterations to come to you for review for an order of conditions. So is our work going to alter the wetlands? Definitely. Right? We're not debating that either. Like that's why we're here
in front of you. That's why we had to get an order of conditions before and remember that what was approved before was a road built on stones dropped in the wetlands, you know, rode on top of it. Like, is that an alteration? Yes. So, we needed an order of conditions from you to do that. You reviewed it and
you approved it. All right. >> We did it. >> That you being the commission. >> All right. Fair enough. >> Um All right. The performance standards though don't speak to the square footage of alterations.
>> It doesn't even speak to the square footage of impacts which kind of I would equate with alterations. Right? The question and it's in Bill's memo. The standard, the performance standard is how much of the wetlands are going to be lost
as a result of your work. So where we're driving piles because there's going to be a pile in a location where there was wetland soils and vegetation. Now there's going to be a pile like that part of the wetlands that's lost. So we got to count that.
That's a permanent impact. And this kind of gets into the question of temporary disturbances or temporary loss. >> Should I have my attorney here? >> You should. I really wanted Alex to be here. But I'm but you know we're going to have this discussion with him between
now and the next meeting too. But I wanted to give you this precursor and we can write this up as well. In fact, I'd love to talk to Alex and Bill and Brad about it as they're preparing they're reviewing our next package of materials. So that the performance standard
question to you though is how many how much of this BVW is going to be lost? Not how much is going to be altered. The alterations are going to include temporary impacts that we're going to restore and they're going to continue to
function as wetlands as BBW and there's going to be permanent impacts that are going to be lost wetlands. So, Bill's asked us to quantify those different things and we should and we've done parts of that, but we can provide more detailed uh quantification as to those
different impacts. And then there's then there's going to be the question of does he agree? Like we're saying a certain area is going to be yeah it's going to be altered. It's also going to be impacted but we view it as a temporary impact but the performance standard is
how much of the wetland is lost. So that if you look at Bill's memo he actually puts it right in there under that presumption language you were talking about. The general standard is no BVW shall be destroyed or otherwise impaired. And
then below that, it goes on to say, "But the commission can approve work that results in the loss of up to 5,000 square ft of BBW." So that language is significant because they were really careful to define alteration
broadly to cover anything. The words temporary impact and permanent impact aren't defined in the regulations. Today, I was poking around. I came across a decision uh from D administrative hearing issued in March
of this year um and one of D's um consultants staff member scientists in that case testified that uh the debate there was a buffer zone project but he said it's the same buffer zone resource area temporary disturbances or areas that are impacted and then they're
restored doesn't have to be the same vegetation. So in that case they were clear cutting some of the buffer zone but they were coming back in they were clear cutting grading and then reveating with different vegetation and DP's view was that's a temporary impact. Yes it's different but it's still going to
provide wetland values. We view that as a temporary impact. It's not a loss. He also went on to say this isn't really applicable here but it's kind of relevant I think. Even if they even where they're proposing to replace the natural vegetation with rip wrap, we
also view that as a temporary uh disturbance because it's still providing in that context the way they were doing it with the functions that they wanted to preserve there. So it's not crystal clear, you know, what what does it mean when it says loss
or impaired, but those are the per that's what we're we're we're going to quantify what we view as the permanent impacts, which is different from the temporary impacts. So where we have the limit of work beyond the bridge, you know, those areas are going to be restored. They
might not even be used. I like the idea of having a little extra space just in case rather than confining yourself so much that you can't do your work easily. Either way, we're going to avoid impacting those areas because any areas we impact, we're going to have to restore them, right? And Bill's asked
for, well, what's your restoration methodology? And I I thought that we had provided that, but if it's not in there, we'll either point to it in responding to this memo or we'll provide it. We're going to be restoring those areas. So, they're going to continue to act like wetlands. So, if you pull a stump out
from under the bridge that a pine tree, you're probably going to end up with a 10-ft disturbance of the roots and everything cuz I know you have some that are just cut and some that are stumped and pulled. >> Yeah. So, you're telling me that ain't a 10ft disturbance
>> or a 10. It's not a 10ft loss. So, that's the difference. Is it is should that go in under should we quantify that when we're quantifying temporary disturbances? Yes, because it is a disturbance. It is clearly right. So we need to distinguish between disturbances
that are then restored so that things are continuing to function versus lost wetlands. What areas that are going to be lost, right? That's the language, lost or destroyed. So the trees though, we want to minimize the disturbances along the way also because it makes
restoration easier. So as I understand it, and I didn't see it in in my review, but we'll clarify this. We're not pulling trees out of the ground here. We're going to cut them so that the kind of disturbance you're talking about even temporarily is not going to happen.
We're minimizing being pulled. >> There's a couple. >> There's a couple more than a couple. Okay. >> But the goal is to >> There's more than cut as many in place though. >> Leave the sumps where we can to minimize the disturbance. >> But to your point, even if a sump is
removed, that's going to make restoration more difficult. So, we're going to have to we're going to have to restore that area. It's a temporary >> pull stump under the bridge. >> Yep. >> And you get a 10 foot area. You're going to restore that whole 10 foot area. >> Correct. >> How? >> Well, that's the that's the res
restoration methodology that Bill asked. >> That's what we're getting. He's asked the question. We're going to give you We're going to go response point by paint point by point to Bill's memo here. Go ahead. >> So, you'll have that answer. Yeah. >> I just want to bring bring up one thing. One of the things I looked at him,
you're going to have to you're going to be looking at issuing an amended order of conditions with for the project. And with your amended order conditions, doesn't talk about a temporary or permanent alteration at all. It just strictly talks about alteration and it talks
about mitigation. There's two categories. So, you're going to you're going to have some alteration that's in in the the form of your amended order. And um when you issue well when you issue that order of conditions, you're going to have the same two boxes where
how many square feet of alteration are permitted in what the mitigation for that alteration consists of. So the forms that you're filling out make no distinction between a temporary or a permanent alteration.
Basically any alteration to wetland vegetation is is an alteration. And that's how and that's how that's how I looked at it in the context of what paperwork the commission's going to need to fill out. >> Yeah, I agree. And and I actually normally what the commissions do in this
context, at least where I'm involved, is if the form's asking for total amount of alteration. All right, you provide that number, but then you also add the breakdown in there. So when you're issuing your amended order of conditions, it's going to put a cap on
the amount of BBW to be lost by this project. That's going to be the permanent impacts. The permanent which areas are going to be permanently destroyed, right? We're going to put a value on that. That's what we'll call the permanent impacts or permanent loss. Then there's going to be alterations
that that are um impact areas that are impacted but they're restored. Those are temporary impacts. There's still alterations. Totally agree. They're going to go in that alteration, that larger number that includes all alterations, but we'll provide the
breakdown. Most importantly is to get the permanent loss documented in your decision, right? Because that's that's what people care about. I mean, that's what the performance standards tie into.
I'm happy to have this discussion with Alex. I'm not trying to get you to like even respond to this right now. I'm I'm giving you a precursor on these different regulatory things and >> well no you're trying to go right through the back and go to the fine print and right and you're going to be a Philadelphia lawyer to try to keep up with you and I'm not comfortable with
what you're doing to us right now truthfully. Um >> I I think Alec should have been here especially if you're going to start talking all these numbers and you're trying to trying to loop at us and you're throwing stuff in our face that we really don't know right. uh and you know for you to start henpecking at well
you can use this number and that number but you guys can't use this number and it's the wrong way to be hitting this I feel right now. >> Well I apologize it came across that way. I really was just me I meant this to be >> and that's why I asked should I turn to be here cuz he should >> I we thought he was going to be here. I
expected he was here at the last meeting that got continued because we didn't we didn't you were wanted input from peer review. I was surprised when Alex emailed me today and said he was moving. wasn't going to be at the meeting tonight. I thought he was going to be here. I'm not trying to make you feel.
This really was just intended to be a precursor to these terms because it matters. And I'm not trying to lecture you or anything. I'm happy to talk to Alex offline, Bill and Brad all together. Whatever is the easiest thing. I'm not trying to like grandstand or
anything. I just trying to It's a complicated regulatory structure. I mean, I appreciate >> and you're looking for the best way that it works for you, right? Anyone can read a a statement and say, "Okay, this is how I read it." The next person reads it says, "This is how I read it." Right?
So, you're telling all your inter interpretation of it, right? And you're going to make it work for the best for you. >> That's basically what you're going to try to do. That's that's common practice, right? So, you can't you're reading it on how does it work for me. Exactly. Right. No matter how you look
at it, that's what it is, whether it's that way in the book or not. Right. But for to come across with that to us who are just volunteers, ordinary people, and start throwing around the lingo of how the book really reads to me is really tough to take in the past.
>> I'm sorry. I was just responding to the fact that the standards were laid out in Bill's memo. We'll work with Alex. You shouldn't rely on my feedback. Obviously, you got an attorney involved here. Alex knows his stuff. Rely on him. Brad works with these things. Brad and Bill work with
it. Again, you know, That's why, you know, Bill is our pay reviewer, right? >> And um I mean, the total square footage and everything, Bill is going to review. He's going to review it all. He's going to let us know what it looks like, you know, and uh I don't know. I I just felt
like really um you tried to show your knowledge on this. That's correct. >> And I understand and that's why I said it. >> Can Can I just bring up one thing? Um, you know, it's it's really Sincer's project and they're the people that need
to frame it in a manner that's understandable to the to the commission and you're not responsible to determine the means, techniques, methods, sequence of events of anything that goes on out there in the field to build this thing
out. That's their obligation to provide you, the commission members, with information that you can digest, understand, and prepare an amended order conditions based on the information that's provided. But it is their project and it
is their obligation to explain all the things that you mentioned about drilling through the rocks, borings, the fragmented rock that's underneath the underneath the bridge, the you cutting of the vegetation, things of that
nature. But I think that by them doing a a little bit more detail on their construction protocol puts all those things in order for the commission to better understand and to
properly weigh in on with conditions and we agree with that >> and that's why it's helpful now to have Bill's memo. We got we know what we've been asked to provide and we're going to provide it. So I'll stop talking. Thank you.
>> I was actually following you. I was like >> well. One question I have in regard to the discussion is the removal of the trees. Is is that part of the total loss of
resource area? Is that considered as part of the total total loss of resource area? How how do you respond to that? >> Do you want me to respond? >> I'll go right ahead. >> Okay. >> One of my commission members have a question. Hopefully, you can answer it.
>> So, the as I mentioned, there's a and it so it doesn't have to come from the answer is you can cut trees in a wetland without destroying the wetlands. >> That's not what I asked. So, that's not a loss. >> That's not what I asked you. I asked you
if it's considered as part of the total loss of resource area. There once was a tree in the resource area. Now it's gone. >> Right. >> Is that a loss to the resource area? In my opinion, it is. >> All right. So that then that's what we're going to have to get feedback from
your smart. Well, that's okay. I just >> I'll find some pressure. >> There's a lot of, you know, uh, issues that really need to be defined. >> Yep. >> In my opinion, fair enough. >> Thank you. Um
>> okay >> four. >> Number four. Um although the issue is the bridge, the other thing to consider is access needed to deliver materials to the work area and the staging areas needed for material and equipment storage and equipment fueling areas. The
site access road to uh 20 ft wide is somewhat narrow. So there needs to be some discussion on how the access rate is to be constructed, stay within the limits of the work line, and provide meaningful access to the construction activities. We gave you an entire memo on this. Um, did you did you get the
construction phasing memo? I did, but I'm like talking about a sweep path analysis to see that things can make that that a trailer that how whatever that the applicant is proposing to use to deliver the materials to the site. Can it traverse that 20 foot wide road?
Can it make those 90° turns? Can it park on top of that bridge and can they access that equipment as needed to put it in the ground? That's the focus of that comment on on number four. >> Okay. So, so you're
so we have a staging area in the western solar field and that's discussed in the phasing plan from that. That's where all the material is going to be brought across the bridge. There's only one way to get into the site and that's from that southern solar field Lambert Street access point. >> Right.
>> So stage there, work a way across. So you want to see you want to see swap paths analysis of the staging area. I am just saying that I don't believe that you're going to be able to make those 90° turns on a 20ft road with the equipment that's going to
be necessary to deliver the materials to that bridge deck to install them in the ground. That's based on my experience working in the field and that's the only reason I brought it up is because I just wanted to ensure that we don't build
that that a roadblock is built into the project unintentionally. Okay, that's all. >> The other thing about a roadblock, right, now they say it is safety issues, right? So, if you got this 24 road built and people are working out on the bridge
and they got the vehicles in the bridge and everything, how does the fire department get out there? How does ambulances get out there? And you can't say nothing goes wrong, right? I lost two good friends up in Everett, so I know things go wrong, right? So, what is your even proposed area on that, right?
So if you have that road blocked off with equipment, trucks, piles, whatever's in line to go to that bridge and someone get hurt at that bridge, how do they get to them? >> So you're talking during construction. >> Yeah.
>> So you want a construction safety plan now? >> No. All I'm saying is you're going to have access, right? >> Correct. We have to have access to get into this other site. So we're going to have to build Lambert Street first. This is we've already discussed this. Build build labor street then we're going to
stage in the southern area. We're going to clear the southern area out. So that's a base of operations. >> I mean >> where the solar arrays >> where >> Yeah. What was the what was the footprint on that approximately substantial right solar field?
>> 10 acres was it? >> So we're coming in off Hang on upside down. So we're coming in off Lambert Street. This is the southern solar, right? >> Mhm. >> So this is this is basically this whole site. We build this stockpile materials here so that we can come back and we can
we can do that replication area. >> This area becomes a base of operations. We're going to clear this out. Uh I believe they're installing the there's a there's a pond here and here. And then we start going across for sorry pointing around our start coming across here.
This is this is the bridge. This piece right here. >> So tractor trails are going to come in here. Don't leave. It'll go anywhere past that until that bridge is done. >> The bridge size was selected based upon what your fire department wanted to see.
We would have gone smaller if we could. It's less impact, but they wanted a 20ft travel path. So that's what we got. Once we get into this location, kind of come across, then we start setting up for this piece here, and then we start
setting up for this piece here. But this bridge will be built well before we even get into any of that. >> Yeah. I think what would be wise here, and I hear your concerns, is that we answer this question in our comment letter step by step on how we plan to
mitigate any of those concerns. it I mean the methodology that we're using to to build the site the process the the phasing is there any I mean concern about >> but I just want to make sure everything
is safe everything is right >> you know it's like I mean I I'm going to tell you the truth I have a big concern about you clearing that whole first solar field before even the bridge is attempted or now that if they're going to come walk it that'll make me feel a lot better because I didn't want that first one cleared and then the bridge
looks like you're going to blow up Vietnam like I said, but they made me feel a lot more comfortable. They're willing to walk it. I think that if they walk it and we walk with them, that'll give us a little more knowledge. And um especially if they look at the rocks and say, "Well, no, we're going to move all
these." Cuz if they're going to move them all, then that's a whole different story and we have to reook at that, right? because I know that he's got disturbance and temporary and author and all that, but if you grab a boulder and you pull that three-foot boulder out of the way and you throw it up in the
wetlands, you've done two disturbances, right? And they're not temporary. They're both permanent. >> So that's what we got to figure out, right? And that's why I think me and the bridge company there would really be a good idea. >> There's a couple things we need to meet at the bridge company on second to talk about what we just talked about. Y
>> we also need to address these comments. >> Jeff can speak with Alex. And then to this point, we can also just outline line item by line item specific to that question to explain in a concise manner how we would address it. We can do that for you. It's not a problem.
What's the next question? All right. Number five. Site contractors solely responsible for the means, methods, techniques, sequences, procedures required for the installation of the work. Also, the construction and phasing narrative dated 1021-25
does not reference a plan set or revision uh the plan set or plan revision date which corresponds to the narrative. The narrative does not make reference to the need for suspended support or otherwise place electric conduits under the bridge or rack racked
to the bridge. Penetrations through the abupment should be discussed in the narrative. the sizes of timbers should be uh to be used to construct the bridge are not specified. So, there's a bunch of stuff in here, >> right? >> Um and and
there's there's a bunch of easy answers. Number one is there is no uh conduit on the bridge. It's all overhead. It's shown on the plan as being overhead. >> I just saw the line with the knee in it. Whatever. That's fine if it's overhead. >> Yep. It's overhead. Yeah.
>> Um, >> but I mean there's going to be poles then installed some poles are placed in the uplands. So that was the that was the whole intent to try to minimize. >> Remember this. >> Okay. I I guess I just didn't
>> I can look at that. >> Y >> um let's see. Uh so the the first portion of it where you're just talking about means and methods and stuff is is there something you're specific you're looking for or is it it's just a statement of of fact >> other than I know how detailed the
construction needs to be to get done efficiently and there's nothing in particular but I know there's a number of steps that need to take place and I don't know what order those steps are going to going to take place. >> Yep. So that almost ties back to the
previous comment. So, so basically we need you want to see the construction phasing augmented >> with further detail of of the what you're looking for >> a little more elaboration I think is it could be >> fiber t
>> well for the this is for the for the design >> as built disaster you >> well yeah well you you submit the plans as built and then you go by those plans if you >> hold Hold on a second. Hold on a second. We just can't have Colin talking. If you want to talk, you got to come to the
podium. Um, we just can't have it going rogue on us yet. >> I I think we know we need to do that. Let's move on. >> All right. So, number six, total weather disturbance between east and west abutments contained within the limit of work should be added to sheet 104
uh of the plan set. So basically, we went through some of this in the in the memo, but you add that to the plan, provide a more detailed breakdown of the plan. >> All I'm saying is that C1 C10 04 has a table on it that talks about the wetland
alteration at Lambert Street, correct? And I'm suggesting that we do the same thing at the bridge crossing. >> No problem. Perfect. >> Um, okay. You had an you had a concern about the timber abupment on the north side of the west end looks to be very
close to the limit of work line. It depends on the construction methodology. So, uh I believe you're talking about the wing wall. >> Yeah, the wing wall was right up against the line that was just I'll pull that wing wall in so we get a bit more buffer between the two. Okay.
>> Uh okay. Uh number seven. And I know I'm talking to Bill, but feel free to No, no, no. We're paying attention. We don't mind, right? And I think even I said at the last minute, I really want Bill and everyone uh communicating with each other, right?
Because Yeah, >> that's the point of this. >> You know, the more um the more we can talk to each other and learn from each other and figure out what's going on here, the better I think everyone's going to be. Period. >> I just didn't want you guys to think. >> No, no, I know what's going on here. >> Let's go on to number seven. >> Number seven. The tree removal noted on
September 16th, 2025. memorizes large wield force skitters to reduce the surface impacts. Um the far less intrusive means. Okay, so this kind of goes back to our area disturbance in the beginning of this and how what we were looking at. So there are um a couple
ways we could do it. Again, I put the four scooters in as a band-aid. The what we're intending to do is do as much as possible from the deck. Um granted, we're going to have to have people walk down there and cut the trees out. Um,
I think this is going to be an item of discussion that we can review when we do the sidewalk when the guys come up so we can get a better understanding of what that footprint's going to be look like. >> Yep. >> Number eight. Uh the issue of temporary
impact requires that the activity is temporary in nature uh have negl negligible impacts and are necessary for planning design purposes such as the installation of monitoring laws. We kind of touched on this. Let me see if there's
uh the applicant should provide a statement confirming that the cutting of a church trees within a resource area is proposed is truly a temporary activity. A complete comprehensive reading of CMR 102 outlines the limits of temporary exempt activities. So >> goes back to what Jeff was mentioning,
>> right? So we're not we're not saying we're exempt. >> It's the definition of temporary versus permanent. >> So coordinating with Alex and Bill on that. It's not a problem. >> U and then number nine was a sweep path
analysis. So initially when I read this I was thinking you want to swap out the analysis of going across the bridge which is a truck driving in a straight line and I was like I don't understand. So but I will get you a swap out analysis for the staging area um and
then uh the turn at the end. So easy enough. >> Okay. And it was actually submitted into the planning board in like 2020. So, it's a while to refresh it. >> Yeah, we'll take it out.
>> Um, >> that concludes the comments. >> That's basically the comments. >> Is there anything that has come up as we've gone through this that you have concerns about, questions about, anything you want to touch on? >> Any other final input, questions, comments? >> No, we still got um I mean, we still
have a lot of concerns, right? >> Sure. >> Um and that's our job up here, right? Like I said, we're volunteers. We don't know everything. Um, we try to learn as we go. We try to read the book. Um, and we rely on engineers, right? So, we rely
on you guys to put proper numbers together. We rely on engineers that we have for peer review to double check you. Um, it just I have a like even so we have a new agent. It's Julia, by the way. Hi, Julia. >> Um, so I wanted her to kind of come up
to speed a little bit on this. So, I sat down in the office with her. I said, "Julia, let me pull out the planes. Let's start going over this. Right? So now I got the plans out and I'm showing her, oh yeah, look at all the trees. These are getting left. These are getting pulled. So then I said, but there's a lot of boulders there. Right?
We found four boulders in the whole length of the bridge on the plane. You go out there, there's like 500. So I I'm just wondering why weren't if we can put every tree on there, we can put four boulders. How come everything
wasn't put on the plant? Right? And I'm being serious. Not even the huge one that's right in the beginning that is 2 foot thick that's out of the ground and it's probably 10 by 15 or 12 x 15 not on the plan. So as a chairman and showing
our new agent I said look at that. They're trying to hide stuff right and that's you got to that's kind of what it looks like right so why it there >> what >> I take offense of that. Well, I'm not saying take offense, but you look at it
and you say, "Why? Why is there only four boulders drawn on those plants?" >> I'll speak to I will speak to that math. The reason is is because Graham, who's our VP of construction, has worked extensively with Brian on just everything related to this in the York like York Bridge conceptual plan that we
talked about in the process of explained about the rock and refusals who was how it was related to us that this is not really going to be a problem. I'm not dismissing any concerns you raise. I hear everything you're saying and that's why I wanted these guys here and I want to coordinate. How we understood it at
that time was more of a concern of the tree cutting like what's going to be potentially removed. Is it temporary? Right? All those things. So I think it's at that point it wasn't captured in the sense that we didn't see it as an issue given the installation of the piles of the bridge and how that was explained to
us. >> But you you drew four. >> That's what like really threw me off. You drew four rocks, right? And not even the big huge boulder right after the abupment. >> Yeah. No, I hear you. And I >> So it was really And what does it make it do? Right. You're not showing
everything. I'm not saying you're not, Matt, and I don't want you to take offense to it, but as perspective of reading the print and I'm I'm trying to show Julia and update her and I'm saying, well, they didn't even show this. And that's kind of like the first time I noticed that there's only four boulders drawn on it. But you guys went
out there, you marked every single tree. You know which ones has to be pulled. You know which ones are you're leaving the stumps. You know which ones you're not. Right. So, you did all that, but you didn't show anything to do with rocks or you have all your pile beds. Perfect. Right. Missed every single rock
of your four boulders. Right. But they're not going to miss them out there. >> Yep. No, I hear you loud and clear. >> Right. So, it really was I don't know. It really doesn't show good faith. >> Yep. >> No, don't take this offensively, but it really doesn't. Right. >> I understand based on what you're saying
why. I'm not dismissing. I hear you. I really, >> you know, and no matter what you say, I really don't come up with a good answer, right? >> Y >> and I think when I was out there, I even said, why don't we have pile locations, right? You guys, someone could go with a little can of paint and just
next bend, right? And believe it or not, it's going to let you guys know, hey, maybe we should shift all these bents 4 feet and maybe we'll miss more. Right? I mean, to go out there and say, well, we don't know where the bends are. Yeah, there's a lot of boulders. The pictures
weren't taken from here. And I mean, that was another thing that was said to us was on Saturday, right? I said, "This looks nothing like the pictures." Oh, we don't know where they took the pictures. Well, how about taking them where they belong? >> Sure. >> Right. Those p" And then I came back to the office when I got back to the office
and I looked at the pictures and I'm saying, "Oh my god, the big boulder there, the other big rocks, it shows like three big rocks out of all the pictures." And then when I think it was you Sarah who said it, we don't know where the pictures were taken, right? So what is that showing us as a commission,
right? It's really not good faith. >> Sure. No, I hear you. >> You know, and it's like I don't know, maybe I'm just beating a dead rock, >> Mr. Chairman, if >> I think ultimately all we've tried to get to from the
beginning is a more detailed plan. >> Sure. of what's we owe that to the the people of this town. That's as commission members that's that's our main purpose. So, um if that was to occur, you could definitely put a lot of
our minds at ease and and as of yet, it's not we're not there yet. I got to say, I mean, I'm not. >> And neither am I. Neither am I. >> I mean, I know what I'm putting, but I I don't have a pile driving background. I have a construction background and I can
tell you I've been on I've built many high-rise and every little detail to you know the nails the screw the it's all there and it's apparent and you can see exactly what the finished product is
going to be and and I still can't wrap my head around what that fish that finished product is going to be yet. >> I I mean that's where I stand. >> Sure. And how many visits have we done out there? Right. And once again, we go out there and we're still blind.
>> And and I'm not trying to throw anyone under the bus or any kind of be contradictory or >> I mean, I just don't feel that I can view >> get a a sense of what is ultimately. We owe it to the town to the people of the
town to protect the resource. The resources are limited. That's that's the that's the the driving nature of it. That's it. >> Yep. >> And then the other thing is I mean right up front, right? We get um applications for NOIs, everything else, right?
Basically, it's all stuff we can handle. Walk out there, we go for a site visit, we take a look, read the plan, right? If you don't build it to the plan, then guess what? An enforcement order comes. So, it's kind of like cut and dry. This here has been going through litigation, back and forth to attorneys, um peer
reviewers, right? And it it's a real tough one. So, we want to see everything as easy as possible. But actually, we're fighting to see everything. We're fighting to see where the piles are going. We're fighting to see where the rocks are on the >> True, Matt. >> No, we kind reading it from a napkin.
>> You know, I'm not saying it's a napkin, but it's still a lot left in the blind. >> I mean, and I'm going to tell you the truth. If I looked at that print when I was showing her and I saw that big fierce rock on that print, I would have said, "Look at Julia. That's the one that I saw out in the field." But instead, I had to tell her, "Hey, when
we were out there, right away, right after the bumpment, there's a big huge one. 2 ft out of the ground, 10 by 12, easily flat rock. I don't even know if a bed goes there. I don't know where it goes." So, here I am trying to explain it to somebody. Awful blueprint, and I can't. Right. So, how do you expect us
to look at a blueprint and then go out in the field to see something totally different? >> Yep. No, I hear everything you're saying. Let me do this. Let me process everything. Let me talk to my team. Let me obviously coordinate with the bridge folks and then we'll
reach back shortly. We'll also work to obviously reply to these comments with Bill and Brad. Jeff can speak to Alex and we can circle back as well. >> And I think um you and Alex talking and Bill involved and I think that'll be really good, right? I mean that's what we got to do and we need the l the
language that we understand and Alex can probably come across with that. Uh, I'm not saying you didn't, but you you're saying it so fast you expect us to follow that and it's like, whoa, slow down. Right. And I had a tough day today. So, you're really making me work.
>> Yeah. If I could again, and in regard to the possible upcoming uh visit, site visit. It would be very helpful if we could have some maybe a few more markers to indicate the exact layout. Yep. >> Of that anticipated finished product.
>> Yep. just to help us, you know. >> Yeah. >> Especially with the growth visualiz just additional >> markers to to, you know, lay that out. >> And I hear you laughing. >> And that that I don't think that's too
much. I really don't. We're not trying to make this any harder than it has to be, but we need to we need to >> we need to simplify it. That's what we really need to do. Yeah, we need we need to simplify it. >> No, >> we'll work through that for you. Very good. >> All right,
>> I will just say one thing that you know I'm >> You could identify yourself. >> Yeah, Sarah from Yeah, please. Sorry. You know, we really aren't trying to hide anything from the commission. Like that said, I don't >> we understand your point of view as to
how that can be taken from your from your end, but >> we have uh continuously tried to supply you with every question answer to every question and memos for your questions, but maybe from Matt and Wesson and
Sansson's end, um when they went out to do the tree survey, you know, they were specifically looking at the trees and not the boulders. So like all of these questions have come up one after another. It's not intentionally hiding anything. So we've been trying to be trying to be transparent, but there have
been different things that have come up as we've moved along in the process. So >> I just want to say that, you know, from our end, >> and I'm going to tell you the truth, Sarah, if I looked at that print and it wasn't one boulder on it, I would have felt more comfortable not seeing any and said, "Oh, they didn't draw the boulders." Right? But when you see four,
you say to yourself, "Why?" I mean, anybody's going to look at that, right? >> No, no, I understand. But, you know, it's different levels of expertise, right? The bridge company can address the boulders, but Wesson and Samson's wetland scientists and the tree surveyors aren't maybe looking at that. So, I just think maybe that's where the
misunderstanding is coming from. And then, um, there are printouts for everybody. Thank you. Everything that we've submitted since September. Thank you. >> Yep. All righty. Anything else? I've got I've got four and a half.
>> What do you mean? You got you got your pockets. Is that what you're saying? >> What? >> Oh, yeah. >> Yeah. Big enough would be fine. I think it's okay. All right. So, now we're going to be looking to come back at what meeting. >> I think probably the 10th,
December 10th. >> Yeah, we're not putting anybody on the 20th. >> No, no, no, no, no, no, no. That was definitely We need a little time just given everything. >> Well, is that going to be enough time? Sure. >> Yeah. I mean, hopefully we can right do the uh review. >> Let's let's plan number 10. We'll
confirm shortly if that's okay. We'll talk to everybody. >> All right. I'm going to put um I'd like to enter today motion that this could continue till December 10th. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I. Thank you. Much appreciated. Yep. Thank you. Of
>> course. And don't be afraid to reach out during you know um >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And even if you like start peacemailing stuff, right? >> Because the only thing I don't want to do is receive it on December 8th. >> No. >> And say, "Okay, the meeting's a two day." But that's the only thing I don't
want. Right. >> Yes. I think there's one. [Music] >> No. Quick question. >> To the attorney. >> Oh, what? >> Yes. Can we maybe even try to set up a a
small meeting with maybe you, Bill, Alex, our agent, and myself even in the conference room. We can have more than I would love that. I think that I think more conversations if we can
always maybe after that site walk. So you see if you guys feel after the sitewalk it's it's a feasible time guys information sit down maybe hash some things out and then if you got things you can say and can back
it up you know what I mean so we're all right there you hear that Julia what I'm suggesting is that um we got the town council this young man you me and Bill Madden in our office have a little update
right after the site visit and this way here we're kind of more on page before the meeting and we're going to have more of the u the technical words and tech right before us I think would be a great idea I really do and so when he's saying
we want more things so we got the end the middle and the other end right so it should be end a quarter of the way a quarter of the way the middle you know what I mean because we would try to stay in it because of We can't see where the other ones were. And now we don't even know if we're in a straight line. It
really was. It was real, you know. I think all right. And then you get out there and you're like, it sounds like there's still no confusion. >> All right. So now >> all right agent updates
>> any updates young lady. >> Um no lucky you lucky you trying to get Heidi to join the commission. >> She's still not uh on board. We won't know which one we're talking.
>> Okay. So, we have no agent updates. Um, but we do want to say welcome. >> Very appreciated. Much >> appreciate. >> Oh, I forgot all about that one. I'm sorry. >> I can't talk about that one. >> Oh, you're right. Yes. Got to handle that.
>> Thank you, Bill. Thank you. >> Thank you, Bill. Yep. We'll be talking. >> Have a nice Thanksgiving. >> Oh, yeah. See you. >> I'm going to draw a video real quick outside. >> All right. Where you going to be? Biminy. >> Noah.
>> Next question. >> All right. >> Yes. Um, sorry I got uh Sorry. Yeah. Uh, the next item under discussion, correct? Um, is
>> enforcement. >> Yeah, I got it. Enforcement order update 185 map poison road review of matters presented. Votes may be taken. >> Um, have you been brought up to speed on that situation at all? >> Um, slightly. Yeah, I took a look at
some of the plans with Jim the other day and so I kind of saw >> how the plans were originally and then how they were actually done. >> Um, so I I have a a little bit of >> Okay, cool. Um I do know that they are
appealing. I did see that in the uh uh I got an email with the um documents from the court. Uh Alex uh Alex had sent them through. Um
>> as far as I haven't had a a discussion with Alex as of yet. I've tried to >> I emailed the summons to each >> everyone should have got it. Yep. Yeah. Correct. Okay. So, um I don't have much as of yet uh until I
speak with Alex and I have tried a couple times and we just haven't. But hopefully now that this uh is um >> ongoing. Yeah, I will be able to uh get an answer uh from him.
>> Yeah. before the next uh meeting and uh we'll discuss any further litigation I guess what what might be >> put it on the November 24th >> no yeah I would say yeah no I don't >> I don't see an issue it it'll be quick right
>> yeah just an update >> I mean hopefully I I'll try again tomorrow u to reach out I think I reached out Monday and I reached out to him last week and he did try to get back to me but um we didn't connect yet. So, >> okay,
>> I will be trying and uh >> we'll go from there. >> Okay. >> So, we'll >> we'll just continue that till uh the 24th. >> Want to make a motion to continue that? >> Yeah, I I'll entertain a motion. >> I will make >> motion.
>> Yes, I'll make a motion. >> All those in favor say I have it. >> Okay, >> very good. With that, I will entertain a motion to adjourn the meeting. >> Go for it. >> I'll second it.
>> All in favor? >> I >> I >> I [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music]
[Music]