Hello and welcome to the July 22nd, 2025 meeting of the Air Planning Board. This meeting hearing of the Air Planning Board will be held in person at the location provided on this notice. Members of the public are welcome to attend this inerson meeting. Please note that while an option for remote attendance and or participation via Zoom
is being provided as a courtesy to the public, the meeting hearing will not be suspended or terminated if technological problems interrupt the virtual broadcast unless otherwise required by law. Members of the public with a particular interest in a specific item on this agenda should make plans for in-person versus virtual attendance accordingly.
This meeting will be live on Zoom. The public may access the proceedings by joining Zoom meeting ID 978-772-8220 or by calling 929-2056099. For additional information about remote participation, please contact Danny
Ruiz, Town Planner at D Ruisair. us or 978-7728220 extension 144 prior to the meeting. First item is to approve the agenda. Do I have a motion for approval? >> So moved.
>> Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Any discussion and do we any changes? Anything amendments? Okay. Hearing none. Ken >> I. >> Kathleen >> I. >> Nathan >> I. >> Julie >> I. >> Chair votes I. It's unanimous. It's approved. So, the first matter uh were is the continued public hearing for Zero
BL Street. Are there any representatives of Zero BL? Yes. Hi. Hello. >> Hi, >> Liz. >> Yes, Liz Clark. I'm with GPR. I am the engineer for the project. >> Danny, if you would uh
lead the way with this. >> All right. So, uh, we continued the last meeting, um, due to, uh, having a question out to town council as well as waiting to hear back from D on the, uh, soil management plan.
>> Um, we did receive an email back um, from Elizabeth. Got a email back from D, uh, stating that they do not, >> okay, that they do not review the management plan. Um but that uh DP uh
relies on the uh soil management plan the LSP because they are certified through the hazard material hazardous materials um board through the state. So they rely on that um engineers uh uh
stamp for that to uh to account for that to be uh correct. So, uh, in our in terms for us, um, town council also opined that, uh, if the board did choose to do a third party peer review, whatever came out of that would only be,
um, advisory and not, uh, anything that the board would be able to enforce. Um so the way uh what we did was we added a special condition at the end of the um decisions that states uh during the
construction that the um the applicant shall strictly follow the soil management plan created by Capital Environmental LLC dated December 26, 2024. If the applicant has to do something differently than how it is stated soil management plan, the
applicant shall have to inform the DPW town planner and conservation agent >> just so that we're all um at least on the same page as to what the change is and what's going to be occurring. >> Okay.
>> Um so what we can do now is go through the uh decisions. >> Let's do that. Um, we can start with the, uh, let's start with the site plan decision. >> Oh, the site plan. Okay. >> Yeah. >> So, um,
>> mine is incomplete here. >> Oh, really? >> I see it. >> Did I pass them? >> No, I got this. But five, six, seven, eight, and then missing the last page of the thing. Is yours too?
>> Is yours complete? >> Yeah, >> I borrow it. >> Thanks. >> All right. So, I'm sorry. You were saying about the conditions? >> Yes. Uh, so >> decisions. I'm sorry. >> Yes, the decision. So, uh, the first
So, section one is just the, uh, site plan approval section. Um, which we will when we make the motion to on the vote, that's where I will fill it in. Uh section two is the materials which is everything that's been submitted to us. Uh section three is the findings. Uh
these so one additional finding for this property was property is located within a 100red-year flood plane overlay district. The applicant submitted the calculations required under the flood plane overlay district to prove that this project will not cause more flooding. The town engineer and the building commissioner reviewed the
information determined the project is allowed. Great. Uh so this next section is the waivers. These are the the sections uh that we had discussed previously that the applicant had requested these waivers but that uh we stipulated that these would only be for
phase one of the project. So the first waiver that the applicant is requesting is from section 4 to uh A through E which is the vehicular traffic circulation and parking. The request is request to wave the traffic
impact statement since any increased traffic will be limited to minimal v uh passenger vehicle traffic. >> Shall we do these now? >> Yes. >> Yeah. I'd like to make a motion that we approve the waiver request uh as articulated by the town planner for
section 4 E2A A through E vehicular track circulation and parking. >> Second. >> Any further discussion? >> Yes. >> Yes sir. So, please go back and just let the public know that these waiverss are in accordance with the air sight plan
regulations. >> Yeah. So, we'll get to that because there's more than just the >> site. We're talking about site currently bylaws >> for this section. We will be getting to the bylaws and two other So, um and up here on the decision, it says we have request for town of air site plan
regulations. So, these first couple are going to be just specifically the site plan regulations. Did I get a second? >> I second it. >> Oh, okay. Uh, how do you vote? >> I. >> Kathleen, >> yes. >> Nathan, >> I. >> Julie, >> yes.
>> Chair votes I. Second waiver request is for uh the location and characteristics any bicycle facilities and requesting to not have to request to wave the bicycle parking require for the proposed development. Phase one will not red result in any new building addition or enlargement of an existing building or for any change in
occupancy of any new building that results in the need for additional vehicular parking facilities. The proposed industrial business not currently have employees that bike to work and it will not have customers on site. Therefore, bicycle parking accommodation is not necessary. Um do I have a uh a motion?
>> I'll move that we wave air sight plan regulation section 4F3 to 4. I'll second. Any discussion? Hearing none. Ken >> hi. >> Kathleen. >> Nathan. >> Hi,
>> Julie. >> Yes. >> Chair puts eye. >> Uh. Okay. So, the next uh I'll make a motion for uh the waiver request for outdoor lighting section 4G.
And that's the the request is to wave the photometric and lighting design requirements because phase one of the project does not include new lighting or improvements to the existing site lighting. >> Seconded. >> Oh, okay. Any discussion? >> Hearing none. Ken >> I. >> Kathleen. >> Yes.
>> Nathan, >> I. >> Julie, >> yes. >> Chair votes I. Now, the following are Arizona zzoning bylaw uh waivers. >> Yes. >> Anything more complicated about these? >> No. So, these are um these are going to take more into account once we get into
phase two uh when the applicant comes forth. But um >> we'll have to revisit these. >> Yes. >> But these would apply to phase one. >> Uh yes, as well. >> Anyone want to take a stab at making the motion for this? >> I move that we approve the waiver
request for uh zoning bylaw 916B1 and two, interior landscaping. I have a second. >> Seconded. >> Any further discussion? I >> think we should read the request. That's >> Oh, let me read the request out loud. So, the request is to wave the requirement for interior landscaping
since the gravel pad proposed as part of this filing will act as a storage area and not a formal parking area. Elimination of the interior landscaping will allow for maximum flexibility in storage. The project will mean 73% open space. also comment that the drawing set does
have some landscaping. So, it's not an entire loss of landscaping and there still is the screening along the road. >> Um, >> so it's >> Yeah, and we'll revisit this when we get >> move the mic closer to you if you would. Thanks, Nathan.
>> Great. Um, any any further discussion? Ken. >> Hi, >> Kathleen. >> Yes, >> Nathan. I >> Julie >> yes >> chair votes I. The next waiver request is uh 919 bicycle accommodation. The
request is uh to wave the bicycle parking requirement for the proposed development phase one will not result in any new building addition or enlargement of an existing building or for any change in occupancy of any new building that results in the need for additional vehicular parking facilities. Proposed industrial business does not currently have employees at bike to work or will
not have customers on site. Therefore, bicycle parking accommodation is not necessary. A motion. >> Make a motion that we wave the U zoning by requirement 91.9 bicycle accommodation for the proposed project zero BL street.
>> I got a second. >> Seconded. >> Any further discussion? >> Yes. >> Yes, sir. Uh just want to bookmark that as we consider parking townwide, we should think a little more carefully about waving waving this even if the
immediate applicant doesn't have a need. It something I think the board should consider for future uh uses of properties. >> Agreed. I just would point out that the location of this particular site in the, you know, really an industrial area
makes it unlikely that future applications would want bicycle facilities, but your point is well noted. Thank you. Um, any further discussion? Julie, >> yes. >> Nathan, >> I. >> Kathleen, >> yes. >> Ken, >> I.
>> Chair votes I. Next request, uh, 9.2.8.2 two, at least 50% of the minimum required open space under section 62 will be located in the front or sideyards of the lot, visible from the street, unless the planning board
approves a different configuration in order to accommodate unique site constraints such as but not limited to the location of existing buildings or wetlands, lot shape or access. The request is uh to wave this requirement because the project will provide approximately 73% open space. Due to the
existing layout of the site in the surrounding wetland resource area, the project will not provide the required 15% of the open space in the front or sideyards visible from the street. Do I have a motion? >> I'll make a motion that we wave the
zoning by requirement 9282. That at least I think is a typo. Yeah, that's why I want to correct it first. >> 50, not S0. >> There's 50. But then in the request it says required 15% of the open space in front and side. Yes.
>> So some there's a difference between them. >> You were right Danny though. Yeah. >> One second. [Music] >> I got it. Oh, we lost
[Applause] >> 50%. >> Yes, 50%. You're right. So Danny, where does it need to be? In the in the last sentence where it says should be 50. >> It should be 50. All right. >> And just so you know, I am doing the change. >> You're making the change. So that for the signature. Okay, great.
>> Um, you made the motion, Ken. And and just to clarify on this, the >> to address any uh laughing that was going on in the crowd >> after >> um >> a lot of it
>> really. >> Yep. >> Yep. >> Let me just pull up the uh plan. This is an existing site and with existing conditions um the site is already
in this state because it's a building is already existing over here. Uh the front of the site is considered over here. This is the back of the site. So the applicant the way the the because the front of the building faces sideways
doesn't meet the open space requirement because of the existing conditions. Um, so they wouldn't meet the 50% and that's why they're requesting the waiver to address the concern there. >> Can you show the the buildout the next
the slide that shows? >> So this is the added um gravel pad that will be um installed. >> So we're basically saying that the front of the building faces to the east, right? Is that the way you're reading it?
>> Yes. Yes. >> Isn't that more than 50%? >> Well, this and also the sideyard. >> Oh, there's virtually no side. >> Correct. >> Okay. I mean, >> all right. Did we get a second? I don't remember. No.
>> Okay. So, let's I think we should reread the request with the right. >> Yeah. So now that it's it's updated in there, >> uh the project will provide approximately 73% open space due the existing layout of the site and surrounding wetland resource area. The project will not pro provide the
required 50% of the open space in the front or sideyards visible from the street. >> I'll start the motion again, I guess. Yeah. >> All right. So I'll make a motion that um we wave for zero BL street the zoning by requirement 9.282
that at least 50% of the required open space be in the front yards and sideyards visible from the street. >> Seconded >> any further discussion hearing none. Ken >> I. >> Kathleen. >> Nathan >> I. >> Julie
>> yes. >> Chair votes I. And then we also have a waiver request from the storm water regulations. And this is um this one is a less wave by the authority. Storm water management easement shall be granted to the town of air and be sufficient location extent to
allow the town to access the property in all areas used for off-site storm water control in order to facilitate inspections and allow the town the right to perform required maintenance. a request uh for the project to ground the town of air stormwater. The request to wave the requirement uh for the project
to grant the town of air stormwater management easement for the on-site stormwater management systems is because the proposed on-site storm water management system shall be the responsibility of the owner of the property in perpetuity and will not require an access easement to perform inspections or maintenance. Just a note,
I've checked with the the uh the town planner to be sure that DPW is okay with this and and my understanding is that DPW has >> Yes, Miss Nearing. >> Yes. >> Well, maybe a motion do it.
>> Well, I haven't made the motion yet, so she can >> I'm not quite sure the procedure. Lori nearing. Um, I strongly oppose any waiver of storm water permits and oversight regulations based on the proximity of >> It's not. >> It's not. >> Yeah. Let me clarify. This is not a
waiver on storm water regulations. It's a waiver of the applicant having to give the town an easement um to take care of the um storm water basin. Because it's going to be private, they will maintain it. >> I'm not clear on what the waiver is.
So the waiver is they're requesting so under our regulations if the if the property is not like typically what we see this is in subdivisions or in properties that are going to be eventually turned over to the town. They require an easement to take care of that
in the meantime until the town takes it over. Here this is not going ever ever going to be turned over to the town. It's going to be owned by the private by the owner. And so they the town does not need an easement for it because they will not be taking care of it. >> It's a waiver of the easement. >> Yes.
>> I see. >> So they're still going to be required to follow the storm water requirements. >> Yep. That that's set forth in the storm water permit um that I have that we'll go through next. >> Thank you for clarification. >> Thank you, Lori. >> Mr. to use >> regarding applicants. Uh oh, Patrick
Hughes 27 Groten Harvard Road. Uh actually >> uh regarding um >> Patrick >> Patrick >> Patrick oh Patrick Hughes 27 Groten Harvard Road. Thank you. Um, two previous projects were impacted by
the ACEC overlay were required to create turtle habitat which was to be maintained by the homeowners. This was the uh subdivision near the Baptist church and Pawn View Estates. Neither of
these uh turtle habitats as required because these areas are uh endangered species habitats for Blandings turtles have ever been properly maintained. So, why is it we think that the we're
waving the town's ability to inspect these things when the uh the general thing is that homeowners associations are not exactly doing what they're supposed to do as required when these subdivisions were approved.
>> Uh just to clarify, this is not going to be a homeowners association. This is an industrial site. >> Uh this >> this is an industrial site. Zero BL Street, sir. >> Yeah, >> we're not in Lincoln Hills. runs zero blind street. >> We're on zero blind street. >> Yes. >> Yep. >> We're not Okay.
>> Okay. >> Different project. >> Different project. >> Totally different. >> I just use that as an example to explain why the town requires that in our regulations. >> Okay. Well, let's keep this in mind when we're waving all this stuff. >> What am I? >> I don't think that what you're talking
about applies to this project, but thank you for the for your point. >> Welcome. Comes from decades of experience. I have I have decades of experience, too. >> Really? How old are you? >> Whoa, that's rude, sir. >> Oh my god.
>> Okay, let's let's let's back up. We're talking about an industrial project on Zero BL Street. That's the That's where the That's what we're on at this moment in the hearing, right? Zero BL Street, >> correct? Zero BL Street. >> Mr. Chair. >> Yes, sir. Nathan. >> Um,
my understanding is that the owner of the property will still do inspections and those inspections will still be filed with the town and all we're saying is that the town will not be doing the inspections. >> That's correct. >> Yeah. So, every in the storm water
management permit, they'll be required to submit yearly inspections in October uh documenting the the conditions of the storm water basin. I forget where we are with motions. Do we have a motion on the table for this? >> Not make a motion. >> We didn't get a motion yet. Anyone want
to make a motion on this? >> I'll make the motion. I I make the motion we accept the waiver request from stormwater regulation section 2110 B1 of regarding the easement as discussed. >> Seconded. >> Any further discussion?
>> Ken >> I. >> Kathleen >> I. >> Nathan >> I. >> Julie >> yes. chair of vot. And so in the next section is our general conditions. So there were no changes to this one. These are typical conditions
>> that right. >> Um the uh special condition on this one is the soil management condition. >> Yep. >> So uh the general conditions are the usual ones. We always have but we have one special condition section six I would like to read out loud. During construction, the applicant shall
strictly file the soil management plan created by Capital Environment LLC dated December 26, 2024. If the applicant has to do something differently than how it is stated than how it is stated in the soil management plan, the applicant shall have to inform the DPW town
planner and conservation agent. >> Mr. Ruiz, for clarification, can you go to the website what the solar management plan is shown? >> Yes. So they can >> follow these documents if they wish.
>> Yes. >> So on the website under our current applications and plans uh this is our website that we keep all of the documentation that comes in that's submitted. You can find that uh the soil management plan here under the first submission.
[Music] Go to that for me. >> So this is the document. This is one that's created by Capital Environmental LC. >> Right. So just for review, because this site has an activity and use limitation on it from a decision
>> back in 2009, I think it was, right? >> Yes. May of 2009 I believe >> that generates the requirement to have special oversight on the job. >> Yes. >> Part of that oversight is is to hire a soils. >> It's an LSP
>> licensed site professional. >> I believe yes. >> They generate a plan like this. The state has looked at this plan basically. We talked about that at the beginning of tonight. >> Yep. >> Good with that. We believe that now the responsibility of the engineering team
ownership and whatnot follow these guidelines. >> Correct. Thank you. >> All right. So now I think we for a vote for the site plan uh for site plan approval, right? >> Um yes. So I will get to your the section for you to read.
>> So it's section one. [Applause] >> Okay. Motion for approval of the site plan pursuant to subsection 320-3.5 site plan review of this air zoning bylaw subject to the standard conditions 1 through36 and special condition
numbered one that we just read in this decision and the following conditions presented at the meeting. There were no other following uh there none. Uh I make a motion so declared. >> Seconded so declared. >> Yes, Miss Nering.
I'm standing because I'm still struggling to hear you. Your voices carry a little better when it's going over your head. So, I apolog um we talked about land use controls that were going to be reviewed by this state. Is this the section where that is reviewed or is that coming up later?
>> So, we had talked about the soil management plan. That's what we were talking about. We were asking if DE this was sent over to D and the question was were they going to review it or not. Um and what I stated earlier was D stated
that they do not review the document. They rely on the LSP's stamp because they are certified through the hazard and um hazardous materials board through the state. So they rely on that. And then we reached out sorry and then we reached out to town council on an
opinion on a third on a third party peer review. They stated that if anything came out of that third party peer review it would only be advisory and not enforceable. >> So um I haven't had a chance to meet with you yet. Um we have talked about with this board before that I'm very
familiar with this site because of other things that I've been involved with over many years in the town. And this particular site is the site of the former tannery as you likely know. And it is chuck full of all kinds of hazardous chemicals from the tannery and
we're talking about very very high levels that have also contaminated Grove Pond. Now you're shaking your head sir. I have the documentation. >> I'm the owner and we've tested the site extensively borings wells everything we did so many samples and we've come up
with and we've hired the licensed site professional to come in. You see what the site was was a >> Come on up. coming up. And if would someone give him give the gentleman a chair, please >> and uh if you'll say your name and address. Thank you, sir.
>> Jane Duval, Brighter Horizon Environmental. I own property on West Main Street. We bought this property to clean it up, make it look great, make it excellent for the town. And uh it's been over a year now with nothing but push back. There was a
giant tannery there. We bought the property. Yeah. you and so you don't know what you're talking about. >> I am offended by that. >> Well, you just stated a whole bunch of things that aren't true. >> I'd like to see your plan. >> That's all the all the data is here. >> Can we just mitigate this for a minute?
I just want to back up and just discuss what an AUL is, an area use limitation. You cannot get that from the state. The state already has one unless you're compliant with the mass contingency plan. that is the regulation that um
oversees environmental cleanup. So the history you're familiar with there was a cleanup that under was under was performed the state has signed off on it and now as a condition of that AUL the area use limitation we have to produce a soil management plan which we've
presented to the board we presented to D and we've been coordinating on. >> Could you please elaborate on who did the remediation and when it was done? You know what? That's not relevant here. That that I'm going to I'm going to call an end to this because we're focused on
emotion that's in midway and you're drawing us on into irrelevant areas that either been either covered or they're irrelevant. So, I'm kind of putting an end >> and just it has been covered. At our last two meetings, we did discuss what was done. The AUL, it was all
remediated. There was a phase one and a phase two and it was remediated in 2009. So, we did cover all of that information. >> Is this available publicly? >> Yes. >> Yes, it's recorded on the >> Yeah. And it's also um you can go on to D's website and also find all the
documentation there as well. >> Sure. Can >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> What's that gentleman's name again? Sean. >> Shane. Shane Dumball. Shane, thank you.
>> So, I think we got a motion in a second. >> Yes, we have a second. >> Any further discussion? >> Do we have another hand? >> Am I allowed to ask questions about the remediation? >> That you >> um >> it's on the website.
>> No, I reviewed it. I just had questions. >> So, just I'm not the site. >> No one here is an expert on this. >> I am the civil engineer. So this isn't >> I'm not overseeing this portion of the work, so I can't provide technical respons. >> Excuse me. Excuse me. I'm sorry. We have
a meeting in progress, please. Thank you. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Then I would >> No, you go ahead. No, you you're fine. I'm just >> I mean, we can try. >> Okay. No, I just was reviewing it and um I think there was a part where you guys weren't going to test the fill before bringing it into I don't know who to
talk to. Um before bringing it in. So, I just didn't know if that was problematic due to the sensitive nature of the area that this project is. Um, additionally, >> oh, >> I'm confused. >> How could that be problematic? >> Bringing the soil in. >> They're going to test the field remotely
before they bring it to the job. That's the point. >> They can't bring anything to the job that might have a chance of being contaminated. Okay. >> So, they're going to test it remotely. >> The truck and bring it before they before they bring it to the site. >> Okay. I misread that then. I apologize. I was just >> I think that's the right interpretation.
>> Yeah. No, absolutely. We're not going to let um so under the mass contingency plan, you're never allowed to bring impacted or dirty fill to a site. You're never allowed to make it dirtier. Okay. >> So, all fill that will be imported will be clean and environmentally sound.
>> Okay. Wonderful. Um, and then, uh, there's a part about moving the soil, uh, across the, um, the property to just, I guess, make it level or whatever. Um, but won't that like when
you're digging up things like you might take core samples, you might take different, um, I don't know, uh, parts of the soil and different, uh, aspects of the property, but, um, isn't there a big chance of contamination? um
>> because of the the site. Um >> so again, we wouldn't have an AU >> if remediation hadn't already been achieved and approved by the state. >> Okay. All right. Thank you so much. >> You're welcome.
>> Mr. Use, is this related to zero BL street? And it's in defense of uh Miss Nearing. Miss Nearing was recognized as the EPA citizen of the year for the entire country for her incredible work with the
cleanup of Devons. Her knowledge of toxic areas in air is outstanding and deep. And if she has something to say, it is worth listening to. >> That's all I have to say. >> Thank you, Mr. use
any further discussion. >> Oh yes, Nathan. >> I just wanted to point out, not asking a question, just just to identify that I saw on the last page of the site plan drawing that uh GPR has marked the phase
2 portion for comment uh or it's it's it's not part of the permit request. >> Yeah. And I just wanted to underscore that that is not in the permit. It it's just there as information and GPR has noted as such.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anything else? >> Ken, how do you vote? >> One clarification. >> No. >> In the motion, did you did the motion include that this was for phase one only?
>> No, it didn't. I'm going to May I revise my motion? The motion I'd like to revise a motion for uh approval of the site plan for zero BL street map 33 parcel 25 phase one. Thank you. >> Second
>> discussion hearing. None. Ken >> I. >> Yes. >> Kathleen Nathan >> I. >> Julie. >> Yes. >> Chair votes. >> Stoneward permit management permit. Um so this uh
uh this is the write up in the initial portion of the document. Um number one section one is going to be the motion on the vote. Um section two is the materials which we already reviewed. Same and then the section three is our findings. Uh similar
findings here as we typically do in our storm water. Um, but we did add the same one about the hundredyear um, uh, flood plane overlay district on this one as well. >> Waiver requests. I'll transfer I'll transfer all the waiver requests that we just have to do them again. >> Nope, because they're all the same. Um,
I just had them both in both documents uh, just to document it in case one person's looking at one decision. >> Um, the general conditions are our general uh, storm water conditions that we have in here. Um
and then uh our special conditions here is the add one of them is the certificate of completion shall be recorded at the Middle Sex uh south registry of deeds by the owner and the copy of the reg record recorded decision shall be submitted electronically to the planning department and number two which
is the other condition that we've already um stated at the um in the previous decision. >> Okay, great. Wonderful. I'd like to make a comment on the special condition and the word electronics. >> Can't it just say the decision will be submitted to the planning board?
>> That's what we have in our regulations word for word. >> Storm water. >> Yeah. That just comes straight out of our regulations. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. So, we need a motion to approve the uh storm water management permit. >> Yes. So, section one for whoever wants
to >> I'll read it. I'll read it. Motion for approval of the site plan pursuant to subsection 245-5 and six storm water to match general bylaws subject to the standard conditions through 35 and special conditions number two number numbered
one through two that we just read in this decision and there were no uh additional conditions presented at the meeting >> specifically this is for phase one >> and this is for phase one I haven't made is that a motion did I just make the motion by reading it okay so motion there all right phase one major Stone
board approvement. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Nathan seconds. Any discussion? >> Yes. Just Danny for clarification. >> The motion has the word site plan in it. Is that because it's a section of the site plan >> where
>> first sentence motion for the approval of the site plan for >> Yes. It's the overall site >> some water management being a portion of the uh >> correct and that's written up here in the um in the description that gets
recorded. So at the top it says um so this is to certify a duly noticed public hearing of the air planning board regarding a site plan review and major storm water man. >> Okay. Any further discussion
>> because he Ken made the second, right? >> Uh Nathan did. >> Nathan did, right? >> Yeah. Did the DPW get involved with the review of this as well and >> some water regulations to get their oversight on the whole drawing? They
look at the >> Yes. Yes. Yes. So, so the decisions were sent out to uh >> all the boards all Yeah. >> sub department heads. >> Yep. So, that was sent out and it was reviewed and we didn't really have any comments. >> Okay,
that's it. >> Ken, >> hi. >> Kathleen, >> yes. >> Nathan, >> I >> Julie, >> yes. >> Thank you. >> Motion. >> Yes. I'd like to make a motion to close
the public hearing for Zero Bllye Street, map 33, parcel 25. >> Second. >> Any discussion? >> Who are we giving it to? >> Yeah, the hearing >> Nathan got it. >> Okay, >> give it to Julie. Okay, thank you.
>> So, okay, >> because it's a consolidated hearing. >> Yep. >> Site plant and storm water, we close them both with one motion. >> Yep. Believe so. >> Thank you. >> Hi. Thank you, >> Kathleen. Thank you. >> Oh, thank you, Sean. >> Nathan, >> I
>> Julie, >> yes. >> Chair votes eye. >> Next is Zero High Street. >> Okay, >> we're going to start with the stormwater peer review comments. >> Oh, before we get to that,
um just so I can update the board as to where we are, what we've done. >> Yeah. Right. Um so at the last hearing um on the 8th it was we had a a hearing on kind of the open space and some of the other uh town department head
comments. Uh this meeting was for storm water and to go through traffic as well. Uh prior to this meeting I had a meeting. It was myself, Matt, um the applicant, the applicants engineer, and the peer reviewer to go through the storm water um uh peer review comments.
Um so what we'll do is we will go through each of the comments. Um I believe uh Jim is on the um is on Zoom. Um we cannot see him right now because the screen is currently down. Um it'll
have to be fixed at another uh they said tomorrow because they'd have to reset the whole system which would um kind of uh not be good at this moment. So you won't be able to see the peer reviewer right now but he will be able to speak and you'll be able to hear him. Um so
we'll discuss storm water and traffic. Uh so I think the first step would be to have the applicant and his engineer and their engineer come up. Um that way we can kind of uh have the uh peer reviewer kind of go through the DP I mean go through their storm water comments.
>> Okay. And are we just doing the yellow open comments on the spreadsheet? >> Is it is that the open comments are concerned tonight this evening? >> Yes. So the uh first well I would say um we can go through all of the comments because most of them okay only the
yellow ones are going to be the u most important ones that are currently we'll be discussing but all the other ones were already addressed. >> Okay. Um, so we can kind of go through all of those comments all at once. They're the the ones that are not yellow are pretty quick because they've already been addressed.
Um, so I think I'll just turn it over to Jim on this one and just let him kind of go through uh the comments here. >> Okay, >> welcome Jim. >> Hi everyone. Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Okay, great.
Um, so yeah, you you guys just want to go quickly one by one. Um, sounds good. >> Can I interrupt just a sec? >> Yes. >> Yes. Go ahead, Kevin. >> Can we have Jim and Ian give us an over generalized overview of storm water
design and what what that design is based on. And we don't just go through this list one, two, three, but you give us an overview first of the whole layout of the the you know how you design the the storm water system and give us an explanation of that. Then we can go
through put the plan up I hope on the screen. >> That's what I'm going to do right now. That's what he's doing. >> Those pieces of the plan as we go through steps. >> Okay, >> make sense. >> Sure. >> So hold on Jim. I if I Ken if I understand you correctly I'm I'm what
I'm gonna I'm asking the engineer to do is put up the plan first right give us a general oversight of the design the concept how it works >> then go through the itemized breakdown of comments and whatnot >> right and what I wanted to clarify for everyone I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying is that in
the general sense we want to know what's the strategy here like oh we notice that the site is such and such a way we want to direct the water to this location blah blah blah because xyz it's that general overall like think like the strategic level first then we can dive into one by one on the comments. Is that what you're saying?
>> I think that makes makes the point clear. >> Would it be helpful to show the watershed plan? >> Yeah. You want the waterershed map? >> What page is that again? >> Uh that'll be the last two pages. >> So if you put it on that's existing.
Yeah. >> Existing you want existing. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Just give it a second to load. Here we go. Okay. Okay. So, if you can see there, there are three catchment areas, >> right?
>> They're outlined in that green. See the green outlines? >> Yes. >> Uh there's E1, E2, and E3. And uh the E1 is down to the left. And then down
there. Yeah. And then E2 is right there. And then E3 is the large one. >> Larger one. >> Those are three catchment areas that all go in different directions. The main one is E3 which goes down to Groten Harvard.
And um that's essentially the existing conditions. So why don't we go to the proposed conditions? Uh unfortunately this is awfully complicated but essentially what we have here you'll
see P1 down to the left and P2 meaning proposed P1 and and P and P2 is down to the right down right there. Yeah, there we go. >> P1 P2 >> yeah that's sort of what is left over
was E1 and E2 and they are reduced substantially in area. So the amount of runoff from those two areas is reduced substantially. All the rest of the runoff is collected by h roof house roofs and road drains.
And it's and all the water coming down from behind it up up above on the on the top on the northern area. It comes down and is collected as well and goes through the
infiltration basin and that slows down the runoff substantially. It is also cleaned before it gets there. The overflow of that then goes down to the culttech chambers which cleans it
further to have 95% suspended solids removed and then it drains to the same place it currently drains and in every way the amount of runoff is reduced both in
volume and velocity. So um and that goes in in all directions. Uh so that's an overall view of of what we're doing. Um and I can go into more detail about I mean the street drains
collect collect the water on the streets. the the the roofs and as stated on the cover sheet will be all runoff from the roofs is collected and tied into the street drains and that goes down to the infiltration basin.
>> I I have a question. >> Yeah. >> What's the threshold because over here before water actually would begin to flow to the cult? How much do you have to get here in this infiltration basin before it even kicks in and flows over here?
>> How much? Uh um any amount of at well the the infiltration basin will collect a certain amount of runoff that will infiltrate. >> Okay. >> And that'll be for very small storms.
Um it's not one inch or anything and uh but it'll be a small storm nor normal small rainfall will be no runoff that's of of the collected runoff but there's also water coming from VA water coming
from on the northern side that is also some of that is also collected and goes through it just so happens that's the topographical layer >> but >> so so there's quite a lot of water that does go through that infiltration basin. >> Mr. Chair.
>> Yes, sir. >> Um question on uh Ian, you mentioned the volume is reduced. >> Yes. >> And just to clarify, that's because in existing conditions there is no catch
basin and therefore any infiltration. Well, explain to me why the volume is reduced. >> Okay. Um because the water that's collected there are two places that it's infiltrated. Both the infiltration basin and the cult chambers and the cult
chamber where the cult chambers is is a much sier soil and can absorb more water. Um it's much more rapid flow into the ground. So while there is runoff
that water can be absorbed by the ground and the intentions here are to both reduce the peak flow and the volume. >> One more question sir. >> Um
E2 if you you don't have to jump back because it'll take wild load. E2 is right about where P12 is. E2 >> P2. Okay. Yeah. >> Yeah. E, what was it? E, what was the >> main E3 was the major? >> Yeah.
>> Um, that one presumably leads to um water running into adjacent properties. >> Yeah. There's water going over adjacent properties. Correct. >> That's where the lines Yes. are drawn. >> That's current That's current runoff.
>> Yeah. Correct. So some portion of E3 in the in this proposal will be gone >> will be will be captured prior to flowing down the hill. So >> yes
>> is not only the overall volume is lower but is would you say that the the volume shedding to the sides to these properties adjacent would be reduced? >> Yeah. Correct. The amount of runoff over that
um uh yeah. Um the the only the only difference is that where where it runs off is it has kind of swelles where it goes and
uh those swells are still there. Um, and the amount of water in those swells will be reduced. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Ian. >> Sure. >> Good. Let's uh so let's turn it over to Jim. >> Yes.
>> Okay. >> Um All right. We can start with fiveA uh which is the first yellow one. So, uh, this comment is in relation to
the infiltration basin. Um, so part of the the construction schedule was that they're going to use the infiltration basin as a sediment basin and then they're going to restore the basin. >> Read the comment. >> Um, >> Jim, can you just can you just read the
comment so that the um audience can hear um can hear it? >> Okay. Y >> fine. >> Okay. So um once the infiltration basin is restored uh by removing the sill will there be disturbance upgrading of the infiltration basin? If there is
disturbance upgrading to the infiltration basin consider adding straw waddles upstream of the basin to protect the basin from sediment and the applicant said that they would add that. Um so I think that comment will be
addressed once we get the updated plans. Um should I keep moving on? >> Yeah, keep moving Jim. >> Yep. >> Okay, great. Uh so 6A um the minimums for sewer and water separation are most
mostly not met. Who's revised? Detail also shows water main as 6 in sediment to iron pipe while plants show 8 in revised to match. Um so um the applicant is currently coordinating with the DPW
on this matter. So I and this is necessarily a storm water matter. So I think we can uh move on to the next comment from this one. Um so 7A um so this one's a little bit technical.
Uh based on how the or the weirifice is modeled, it appears that there is a >> Don't skip the A if you would. >> Uh Jim, can you just uh can you not skip the um to just the A's? Can you read both comments?
>> Okay. even I didn't read the initial one was because that was the initial comment and then they responded and then 7A is basically saying what's still open from seven. >> Yeah, it's just so that um the the um
people in the audience can can see it. >> I mean can hear it. >> Okay. >> Yeah, I think it provides I think it provides background to the steps that are being taken. >> You started with item seven. part of it's been done. What's left is 7A, but I think it's clearer if you go through
each item one at a time. Thank you. >> Okay, no problem. So, uh seven uh please provide more detail in OCS which means outlet control structure detail to show
the weir. It is unclear how the weir works. Also verify elevations. Is top of weir also rim elevation? If so, this is the same elevation as the emergency spillway elevation. OCS should be lower than the emergency spillway. Please
revis. And then their response was detail revised 100redyear storm peak elevation below top. Uh 7A said based on how the weir/orfifice is modeled, it
appears there is a trapezoidal hole in the side of the OCS from the bottom of the infiltration basin to the top of the structure. This is a very irregular structure. Will a pre-castaster make this structure or will this be field cut? Please confirm the structure is
constructible. Since the orifice is open at the bottom of the basin, it provides no water quality volume. Uh this is being used in calculations providing 80% TSS removal. Uh since it is providing no water
quality volume, it does not achieve the 80% TSS removal. Please revise. Um so I had to go back and forth to the plan in the note, you know, to see it. That's the problem.
You can continue. I can I can pull it up and let >> just put up these these drawings. What the U12 in the background so you can flip back to them if you have to. >> He's talking about that structure right
there, that detail. >> So yeah, so that that detail right there. Um, and you can see there's on that front view, uh, you can see that trapezoidal shape that's above the circle, and that's representing the the
opening in the side of the structure. Um, so the comment was, you know, is that constructible? I want to make sure that a pre-castaster can make that. Uh, typically it has a top section. Um so working with the applicant to make sure
that um it is the constructionable constructible um uh structure also. Um the other comment is that the orifice opening is right at the bottom of the basin. So
basically the water's going in the basin and coming right out through the orphice. uh that orifice should be should be raised so that it provides um some infiltration and water quality volume. >> Why was why' you draw it like that? Why
did you draw it like that? Um well, my original design did provide um some retained water
and um from the design I was trying to get it down to the uh cultic chambers as completely um but then it doesn't really
meet. I didn't really realize it didn't meet the 80%. I thought it did, but um Jim pointed out it didn't meet it. So I can raise it slightly and won't change anything. That's how my first design was was higher, but I brought it down. So
So the way this works, my experience is that you're showing to the right, you're showing the bottom of the basin and the side slope of the basin. that typically what I'm what I'm familiar with that it may not be this is the water in the base would rise up to that
inlet at the top and then it would leave there and go down to the but that's not what the design is. >> Why is the great at the top? >> Why why is the grate at the top? >> That's just >> that's if it overflows.
>> That's if it overflows. I mean you could leave it open. You don't want matter in there just to keep it clean. Okay. >> Um for search charge. >> So what's going to leave that basin is going to be based on the height of that. You're calling it a we are calling it
>> the we right. >> Right. >> Right. >> That's and so I think we when we met we said that uh the that the applicant would would revise the plan. >> Okay. All right. So Jim, you're good with that note for now? >> Yes. Yeah. So yeah, we're we're gonna
work together to make sure >> this is yet to be yet to be finalized is what we're >> That's correct. >> Okay. Thank you, ma'am. >> Just to clarify, >> can can I make one comment? I mean, >> the these comments that I made here were without making any changes to the plans. This is to try and make sure we're on
the same wavelength as to what we're reviewing and whether we agree with with with his comments and whether I understand everything he's asking for. So that was the purpose of this response. >> That's what I was going to clarify as well that we we had a meeting to review
the the comments and that a revision would be coming. >> Okay. Thanks that okay, Mr. China. Yeah. >> Yes, it is. >> All right. You can go a and 8A. >> Okay. Uh please show basin bottom
material along with seasonal high groundwater in relation to basin bottom in infiltration basin detail. That was eight. And then a says detail has not been updated to reflect these loosely original comment and revised. So yes,
it's this detail. Um, you know, I I'd like to see a, you know, a line on this detail kind of showing where the seasonal high uh water line is relative to the bottom of the basin or um where is ledge relative to the bottom of the
basin. Um, so that I can confirm that there's adequate separation between the bottom and um, ledge or seasonal high ground water. >> Okay, that's going to be pretty important. you okay with that? >> Oh yeah. Okay.
>> So his comment is elevation. I just think it's important to let the two of them >> Yeah. But I I can say this >> we we did this on on So he did have we did have a chance to go with the back and forth here. >> I do provide it for the cult chamber
showing precisely where the water is. I mean usually you can read it from the contours but you want the detail. I'll add it to the detail. >> Thank you. 14 and 14 A. >> Uh so 14 the discharge points are missing from the plan. There should be
discharge points for each watershed area. Please revise 14A discharge points are necessary. Um for the wershed plans and hydraulic calculations for the site. Please include discharge points for each area. If there is a reduction in grades then it should be shown in the report.
Please revise. So, um, so for this one, um, I know Ian went over the watershed plan earlier and we did discuss this offline, too. So, I just I have a better understanding of what's going on now. Uh, previously when I was looking at the
watershed plan, you typically I would see the exact location of where the discharge points are, not just the labels of the subcach. And that was kind of what I was looking for and for some clarification, but I I have a better understanding of how that works now. So I think I can close out
that comment. Okay. Um, next one is 18 and 18A. EPA's pollution removal method was not used. Please use the method to determine the pollution uh removal for the project. Um and the applicant requested a waiver
and then we defer to the board for the waiver approval. Um to give a little background information on what the EPA um removal method is. Um so there's there's different ways to uh calculate
that 90% TSS removal and 60% phosphorus removal. Uh one method is using the 1 in. So if you do one inch times the impervious area and provide that water quality volume then then you meet the
90% and 60% TSS uh 90% TSS and 60% phosphorus removal. Um the EPA method is um a little bit more detailed. So you know if you go above the 1 inch then it might say you know you're providing 92%
and 63%. So, um, you know, my recommendation is that it's okay if they don't use the EPA, uh, method as long as they're meeting the 1 in, uh, water quality requirement.
>> Thank you. >> This is under a section of storm water regulations that took this notice within >> Yeah. So, it's it's a it's under the stormwater regulation, but it's also it's a reference to the storm water um um Massachusetts stormwater handbook as well because that's where we get it
from. >> Union's response is that he's using the storm water policy, mass storm water policy. >> What he means is there's two different ways of calculating it. That's what he was talking about. So, there's the EPA one and the and the the way that um Ian
store Yes. And it's the same thing. It gives you the same number. It's just they're more the EPA has more detail in it, >> right? >> And yeah, >> um the peer reviewer stated that, you know, he's fine as long as they're
meeting the one in. That's the first one is for that's for something that we can um talk about at a later date because it's if he is going to request a waiver then he still needs to write the justification and all that stuff. >> Okay, good. Thank you.
>> Okay. 212 21A uh dry down calculation shall be provided to confirm storm water BMPs will fully drain within 72 hours. Please provide. Um the applicant said that it's shown in hydrocad and then our response was hydroad does not show the
time that it will take to take for the storm water BMPs to fully drain. A separate draw down calculation shall be provided. Um and the applicant so that they would provide that. Um so no issue there. >> So uh >> that's closed.
>> That's uh once they provide it I can close it out. Um 222A um the project appears to overflow onto Grten Harvard Road and enter a closed drainage system. Has this been
coordinated with the town? Um and uh the applicant said yes, they've been coordinating with the DPW. Uh so we recommend a condition of approval uh condition of DPW approval um to address this comment.
Um 23 23A please explain how the infiltration basin will be accessed for maintenance. Um the access shall be no less than 15 ft wide and access shall be around the entire perimeter of the basin. Please
revise to provide adequate access. Um, and I believe the applicant is going to provide the 15 ft access, right, Ian? >> Correct. >> 12. >> Yeah, it says 12, but during our discussion, we we the applicant did
agree to the 15 foot request, >> but but not uh shall not be provided around the entire perimeter of the basin. And because I I certainly see feel that that's unnecessary. I mean, access to
the basin is perfectly adequate. >> So, it's going to be along here along the front up on the >> Yeah, you can see the road where it is. >> It's going to be right there. >> And there's a turnaround and provides access to doing any removal of debris
within the infiltration basin as well as mowing, which is essentially what it's there for. I think I think that's reasonable. >> I I think I'd like the I'd like Jim, the engineer, is uh being paid by the hour to be here. So I'd like him to go
through first and then we'll take questions after he's >> chair. Can I just make one quick? >> Yes, Janet. >> The DPW was in this meeting too so they're familiar with the discussions. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. Can Danny, can you just have him
shift that over so you see people see the first column which is basically this whole second page is we're talking about the town of air stormwater regulations. >> Yes. >> We're not talking about like a state. Th these are things that are written up in our stormwater regulations. Some of which we talked about in the previous uh
discussion at zero blly streets. >> Yep. >> These are just questions about the details in our storm water regulations and how they comply and need to be adjusted accordingly. Thank you. >> Where are we now? 25 25A.
>> Yeah. 25 >> 25A. The pre and post construction peak rate analysis does not have the discharge points discharging to neighboring properties. Please provide uh to include impacts neighboring properties.
25A as noted in 14A. Although a reduction in errors uh reduction in errors likely means that impacts result in no increase of peak rate table with all discharge points is needed to show that there is a reduction for each discharge point who's revised. So, as I
said back in 14A, um when I talked to the applicant about this, um I got more clarification. So, um this this comment can be closed. Um >> and 25 A.
>> Yeah. 25 and 25 A. Uh 26 and 26A. It appears that not all impervious services will be captured and treated by SW BMPPS provide please provide a capture area adjustment to confirm the recharge standard is met. Uh
the applicant's response was all impervious services will be captured. And then um 26A P1 and P2 have items listed as CN of 98 ledge driveway buildings are CN values in P1 and P2
only ledge. Please confirm. And the applicant confirmed that uh P1 and P2 only have ledge and not driveways and buildings that would require um additional treatment. So that comment can be closed.
Um 27 27A uh the stormware systems shall be designed to retain 1 in times the post construction impervious surface. The required calculation has been included in the report but the provided water quality volume is not included in the report. Please provide the hydrocad
storage tables to confirm this has been met. Uh the applicant provided storage tables um 27A based on the narrative the required water quality volume is 25,955 cubic feet based on the hydrocad model.
uh orphice outlet elevations. The infiltration basin provides zero CFS as the orphice is at the elevation 9 uh 291 which is the bottom of the basin and the chamber system has a covert at elevation 237.65
which provides 894 cubic feet. The water quality requirement has not been met. Um so uh we discussed this with the applicant and um uh basically what needs to happen is
they need to raise that orifice in mirror for the um for the infiltration basin to get more volume and then they also need to revise the outlet control structure for the
uh subsurface chamber system to infiltrate more. Um, so this is a this is an open comment that um Ian is working on to update.
Die, can I just one quick thing here? The notes that we're reading pretty much always use the terms BMPs with an S, but we're only talking about one BMP, aren't we? >> BMPs. There's there's a there's a basin and there's an infiltration basin. So
those those are the two BMPs we're talking about. There's only two >> there are there's only two BMPs right on the job. >> Correct. >> There's there's an infiltration basin and >> chambers. >> Yeah, >> he keeps keep she just keeps plural
BMPs. It implies there could be more than two is what I'm hear. >> Okay. >> It's just the two. >> Just the two. >> Jim, right? >> Yes. Just the two. And then um they they do have a a storm scepter for pre-treatment as well,
>> right? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Um 28 and 28A, it is unclear the limits of clearing if there will be any uh street trees. Please clarify. Uh see landscaping
plans. Landscaping plans were not provided to us. Um, so, um, >> so we did just receive the updated landscape plan, so I'll get that sent over to you. >> Okay, great. Thanks.
Uh, 3434A, uh, the MA stomire checklist and elicit discharge statement are missing. Please provide. Uh, the applicants response was C and M and the uh, the MACE storm water
checklist has not been included. the on andm plan. So please provide. So um after speaking with the applicant uh they said that they would provide the stom checklist in their report on their next submission. So that should be okay.
Um 3636A. Um this section has a breakdown of hydraulic soil groups. It breaks down by percentages for each type. Uh this is very confusing and is hard to tell what hydraulic soil soil group is for each
ID. NRCS hydraulic soil group should be used instead of breaking it down by percentages. Please revise. Um and then 36A per the NRCS web soil survey each soil group is considered to have one hydraulic soil group rating.
For example, 104 D is D soil, but the provided table shows that it's a blend of several. Uh the soil group should be considered D, not anything else. Um so, you know, so when I met with the
applicant, they they went through um all the different soil types um and all the different breakdowns. um you know it wasn't something that I have seen uh typically um usually
you take um more of um a less detailed approach where they seemed a little bit more detailed. So um once I saw you know how it was done and how it was more detailed uh I felt that
um you know their approach was okay. >> Closed. So that's closed. >> So in essence, the applicant chose a route that was actually more complex that they actually drilled deeper into the the multiple soil types that were classified within that D. Is that correct?
>> Correct. Okay. They Yeah, they more they went more detailed than than you typically see, which is which is a generally a good thing. Yeah. So >> thank you. Um 3737A um standard 8 in the plan should note
that a SWIP will be provided due to the project resulting in over an acre of disturbance. Has a SWIP been prepared? Please revise. Um consent to be provided. Uh we recommend that the acceptance of the SWIP be made a condition of approval.
Um >> the section column is not filled in on these. Is that because these are just like general comments or is is that meant to be a continuation of
>> I believe these are just general comments. Correct. >> Okay. Is that >> relate to hydroad like to this? >> Right. Right. But there's like um >> the previous right it would be like a hydrocad and it would say in reference
to the air storm water regulations versus these are just kind of like general catchall. >> Yeah these are just talking about the output from hydroare and I simplify it as much as I can. He wants more or he wants it in a way that he can review it
>> how he he normally reviews it so I can change how I've submitted it add more information. Yeah. So, if you look at this, it says it on the left hand side. It's the HydroCat that they're talking about. >> Should have put HydroAd into the section
maybe instead of under the sheet number, a drawing number. >> Yeah, that's what made it confusing. Okay. All right. We got um 38 38A. Um the total pre-construction area is not
provided. Please provide uh to confirm the total pre and post areas are the same for modeling. Um the applicant said uh uh referred to the narrative of the report. Um,
and you know, our response was this needs to be printed out from HydroCAD to confirm the pre and post are are actually modeled correctly in HydroCAD. Um, so that's just an overall area that HydroCAD uh prints out so that you can
see, you know, the pre-construction has the same total area as the post construction. Um so the applicant will provide that uh 39 39A. Um
this is area considered B soils throughout the hydrocat model and RC and RCS does not consider any areas as B soils. Please clarify the areas considered as B soils in the drainage area plans as pre as as previous common
states the soils are associated with one R NRCS soil group and only one um that is B soils is 103C please revise. So this goes back to that previous comment about how they did a more detailed um
um breakdown of the soils. So this one can be closed. Um 404A the infiltration basin has two primary outlets discharging to DMH31. This should be separated to a primary
flow to DMH31 from the OCS and a secondary flow for this for the emergency spillway that discharges to the DP. Please revise. Uh and then 48. This is still modeled incorrectly. We see comment number 40 and revise. So
just um just the modeling output needs to be revised for that one. Um 42 42 a >> 40 and 48. >> I'm I'm fine with with where we are with
that. I mean um I think Jim agrees that I mean what are we talking about? 40 >> 48, right? >> 48. Yeah, I mean that that that there is no flow on the emergency spillway so it doesn't really matter but I mean I can
change it >> right. Yeah. So if if there is no flow um if there is no flow going the emergency spillway then um then yeah it's not going to make a difference in the hydrocad output. Um
so in the end it should be okay. Um either way >> um >> I just wrote being revised on my good. >> Okay. So 4242A
um there is invert inconsistency between the plan and D6 DMA 31 to DMA 37 please revise. Um and then the applicant said revise and then um our comment was uh D6 DMH31 to
DMH37 does not match the plan. Please revive. So this is um basically matching up the inverts that are shown on the plan to what is shown in hydrocad. So um I think they were pretty close. It it
was just um maybe a little off that need to be updated. Uh no, let me make a comment on that. The the the invert into the chamber is the same both on hydroad
and on the plan. The the problem is there are several manholes and at every manhole well not every manhole but most of the manholes it steps down because you're controlling the flow by keeping the slope not too steep on the pipes.
In HydroCAD, there's just one uh uh whatever you call it >> input. >> Yeah. >> I want to average the input. Is that what you're saying? >> One input. Okay. Uh for all of it. And so I'll make sure that the slope is the
same because in fact all those pipes have the same slope and that the length if you add up all the little small ones, it's the same length in both. And the end is the same invert. It just summarizes it all as opposed to putting
every single pipe as a separate entity within hydroare. I mean just simplifies it without making any any effects on the calculations. >> Jim, is that satisfactory?
>> Yeah, that's that should be fine. >> So >> that's closed. >> 45 and 45 is closed. No, that's 40. Uh, it's 42 and 42A. >> Oh, >> yeah. 42 42. >> Okay. I had written updated. So,
>> 45 45A uh for the infiltration basin. There's a custom weorifice is modeled as the primary outlet. It should be should be revised. So, it's routed to the pipe and the pipe is the primary outlet is revised. Um, this is still modeled
incorrectly. See, comment number 45 revised. >> So, uh, when we met with Ian, I I went through exactly, you know, >> yeah, >> in more detail of what what I was looking for. >> That's fine. >> Not not a problem.
>> Okay. Uh, 46 46A. Uh, there is a hydrocad model for impervious only. Uh this model is a subsurface chamber system differently than the proposed hydrocap model. These should be consistent. Also there is a 24 inch
orifice model but this is not shown in the plans. Please revise. The impervious only model is different is still different from the full model. Please revise so they're consistent. Uh the 24 inch pipe model for the chamber
system. the inverts do not match between the planes in the hydrocad. The pipe should be modeled. >> Yeah. >> As the pipe from the manhole to the flare end section. Um please revise. >> Yeah. I I actually misunderstood precisely what he was talking about
there. And um there there there is a slight problem with the slope of the ground and the flared end. And to correct that, a head wall can be provided as suggested by Jim. And I agree with that. So,
>> um I think that's what we're talking about, right? >> Uh I think you skipped one. I think uh Ian, you're looking at >> I'm at the last one. Yeah. 49. No, 48. >> 46. >> 46A. >> 46. >> Yeah, we're still on 46.
>> I'm still 46A. Okay. >> So, so 46 46A. Um uh Minnie and talked about this too and um uh we felt that the additional model for
the improvement service only wasn't necessary because you know uh he's modeling the full full buildout going to a system. and he's going to show the water quality volume based off of um the
stage uh um the stage volume tables that hydrocad gives you. So I think we can close this one out too uh because it just seemed um
like additional modeling that wasn't necessary. Um and then 48 was um please verify that the rim for DMH 38 is 241.8
>> when the um >> clear end section is 234 and is only 14 ft away to suggest that the slope is higher than 3 to one. Please verify if this area is steep. Please use a hub raw rather than flirt section for an outlet
pipe. And um so Ian, as Ian just said before, he's going to use the head wall. Um, so that should be closed. Um, 49, please consider reducing the slope for the pipe between DMH38 and
flan uh 38 uh to reduce veloc velocities and erosion. Um, >> yeah, I I was a little confused there. I think the the last one the slope is the
same as all the other 24in pipe slopes um at 0225 same slope so I don't think there's any necessity to reduce the slope there um when we're talking about ground slope this is where I got mixed up with ground
slope and um >> pipe slope >> there certainly isn't a problem with the pipe slope um from drain manhole 38 to flat end 38. The >> No, no, the the slope is 00225. Same as
every other 24 inch pipe. >> Yeah. Um uh yeah, it's probably it's probably fine. Um >> I mean, it can show it on the plan. I mean, it's it's it's labeled on the plan. I mean,
>> yeah. Yeah. Uh, no, I'm just saying um consider it was like it was a recommendation. >> You know, if you could make it flatter, you know, if you could make it 1% so that um it doesn't come out of the flare end section as quick and it goes through the rip wrap. I know it is kind of
directed at the road. So, you know, trying to slow it down as much as possible that flared end section. Uh that's that's all I was saying. Um >> but the subsurface chamber system itself should be you know retaining flow on its
own. Um so you know in the grand scheme of things it was just more of a recommendation than you know something that >> something to consider. Uh, and yeah, that's that's all the storm water um comments that are open.
>> First, I'd like to open it up for questions from the board first board comments on this any reflections or comments on the storm or to report this evening for the review. >> Talk about the plan.
>> Can it's you one and you two, right? So, Ian, was there I'll just do this from memory, but is there a reference on the plan to the size of the rip wrap where you use it three to four, four to six, whatever. Is there any detail on that? >> Uh, the only the only it's on the detail
sheet which is a standard detail. I'm not sure that It shows it on the plan, but I think we should have a little more information about what >> it's typically four to six inch. Um, >> uh, yeah, if you look at the I think the the next sheet has detail to the rip
wrap right there. >> So, this any outlet from a flared end or any other rip wrap on the site is going to match that detail right there. Right. What what does it say for the size? >> Uh, it does not have a size of the stone. So maybe we just add
>> some detail about what the stone is, >> right? Okay, >> please. >> Uh it it it does actually on the section view. Um it has uh stone for pipe ends. Uh D50 equals 6 in. So >> Yep. 6 in. Yeah.
>> Okay. Fine. >> Thank you. >> That's which seemed reasonable. system. >> Okay. The there was in the report I I only took some things out of the pages in the report, but having to do with the
test results and whatnot. There's a little confusion. It may be a typo in the actual report. There's a par it repeats. I don't know if we get the report up there, but >> the storm water report. >> Yeah, there's a couple of typos, I think. But quickly, one of the things in
the report is it refers to appendixes. It says there's an appendix B test pit logs and I didn't find any logs and then it says there's an appendex C test pit photos and there was no photos in the actual report. Um that was quickie.
>> Okay. >> The page on right at the very beginning I think Danny in the in the in the narratives. So under um the methods >> uh the the test bits there.
Can I see? >> I should have numbered the page. It led to number the page. >> Oh, let me see. This is one. Is this from the stormwater report? It's >> from the I thought it was the U. Yeah, this narrative of the report. But maybe I'm wrong.
>> The nar narrative is right in the beginning. >> Yeah, because that was that was what I was going through. >> Yeah. This is this is the updated report. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Just see
>> this had to do with the uh Oh, wait a minute. Just just up a little further. There you go. >> Sorry. Sorry about that. Maybe a little ahead of that. >> The standards. >> I goofed it up. So,
>> I don't know what that's from. Is that from >> Are you sure? It says introduction 1.0 and then it goes 1.02 predevelopment conditions two methods. >> Is that from the blasting though? >> No. >> Any results?
>> It's not in here. Let's see. I don't see anything that matches that. Oh, right here. >> Okay, here it is. Sorry. Yeah. >> Oh, that okay. That right. That that came from uh the engineer who did the soil testing.
>> Oh, it was his report. >> It's his report and he there was two there were two different engineers doing tests cuz there was this was the first test done. >> So I was looking at the tests because I was interested in the soil types and yes tests and what was going on under the ground and stuff.
>> Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. in in this under the paragraph where it says results. I think it's a typo here. So, >> it's going to be false. >> Says refusal was found at 65 in below grade at test pit two. The test pit's closest to the foot slope. Then it says
test pit two again. The other pit. >> I think that's supposed to be test pit three >> at that point. >> That's your brother. >> Yep. >> Typos in there. I noticed. >> Excuse me. Test pit two, the refusal
around 65 in whatever it was. Test pit three, I didn't even get down to the refusal. Um, >> right. But it said, I'm just correcting that. Should say three there, right? >> Okay. So, two and two and three on the drawings were close together, right?
They were fairly close >> in the big retention basin. >> Yes. >> And they're kind of on the slope. >> Oh, the on that retention bas. Yeah. Right there. >> Yeah, they're right here. So my concern here is when you relocated the retention system and you moved it further from
residences but closer to the development will somebody verify that those two locations are still good enough because they're not in the basins bottom of the basin test. >> I'd say do more tests to represent that
the location falls in the middle of the basin where it's been relocated. Dean, any comment on that? >> Yeah, I mean I I mean I would think that that that's pretty consistent. We're in the same type of soil um in that area,
>> but you said refusal pretty high. Wasn't very deep at one of the refusal. So refusal is >> I don't have any problem getting them. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Two more tests. >> Two more test bits maybe, Mr. Chair. >> Well, that's a perk and a and aole. That's what those two tests are. One's a
perk, one's a test pit. >> I got it. But I'm referring to the test pits. The perks I saw were down by the house. >> Yeah. So, you want you want a test pit? >> I want test pits where the retention system has been relocated. >> Yeah.
>> That was that was so I'm in the right section on >> Yeah. Yeah. It was just not the nar it was the the second narrative. >> So, thank you for that. Um, okay. So, then refers to two precolation tests. which she calls uh PT.
Um and it says that they are one of it says is there one is on the other sloped portion of the lot. I don't know where that means. It says two regulation tests were provided. One between TP1 and
TP2 in the rear grass area of the dwelling or 38. >> Yeah. So here >> the next one it says >> this is P2 P. Um >> got to kind of blow. No, it's over here. I'm talking about >> that. I'm talking about the perk test. So over here >> that's Yeah, that's perk test one and perk test two is up here,
>> right? Then it says and the other it says the rear grass. Then it says the other on the slope portion of the lot. >> Yeah, right up here. Perk two. PT2. >> Okay, thank you. I couldn't find that on the print. So now it's >> Yeah, it's just it's >> it's just pretty blended in with TP.
>> Yeah, >> two and three, right? >> Yeah, TP2 TP3 is up here. That's >> if you look on the existing conditions, it's easier to see. Okay, they all they all >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. >> the second sheet. So, >> all right. I wanted that one anyway so I could point out that I I wanted it
further into the u the new location. >> Okay. Okay. So, I got that. Thank you. Um then it says it talks about it test pit three and right there is located approximately in the middle of the lot
separating two locust parcels. We already talked about a test pit. >> This is test pit three. >> Okay. So, two and three are close, but in the report he's got them kind of separated here.
And then the perk tests. I don't know if anyone brought this up. Did Did Green talk about the seasonal testing for the for the perk tests whether it was identified the estimated seasonal high groundwater or not? >> Matt was out there for that. So that's
that has been that's been redone. It wasn't in it before, but it was done after this is what I'm getting at. >> This seasonal high ground water is determined by the color of the soil. >> I know I've been in >> not this one, but other ones. >> Yeah. So it was
>> did the testing in it was a >> Yeah. So there was it was done twice. You they did the the seasonal high ground water was done. Right. >> So Matt went out there and verified the second version. The second test. >> So this report here is what I'm getting at was done
>> in the winter. >> You've done another one. Should we see something in a report form for the second report? >> Yes. The report is in there. >> This Okay. >> It's it follows that report. There's one uh >> All right. >> done by Richard Harrison. >> Okay. Got it. The second one by Harris.
>> Harrington >> at the very end. Harrington. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you on that. That was good. Um, what about the logs? I guess that's the only note that I saw that somewhere talked about the logs and there weren't any logs. >> Logs are right here. >> No, the uh
>> right there. >> Is there an appendix? That's Harrington's logs. Go back up to where that that language was if you would. >> This is appendix B. Appendix A is right here.
I found appendix A, but I didn't find B or C. >> Yeah, B is right here. We just looked at it. >> Sure. That wasn't just >> appendix B. >> Okay. What about the photos? >> See?
>> Oh, no photos were added there. >> You're not looking. Yeah. >> Yeah, just no photo. >> Okay, that's what I had on that. So, thank you. Any further questions from board members?
I'd like to open this to public comment restricted to just we're talking about the storm water report. Any questions or comments from the public? Yes, sir. >> What's that? >> No repeating of comments. >> And I'm also going to ask that um that
we don't repeat comments. If you if if someone has said something that you agree with, it's enough for you to say I just want to say I agree with that person and we don't want to cover the ground again. uh just so that we can move the meeting along but >> sure Jacob Kazera 30 Grten Harvard road
um so I tried to read this but obviously I'm not an expert so um I understand how the pvious um impacts like the roofs and the roads are fed into the storm water system but like along the north and eastern edge is
going to be crushed stone to build back up from the um blasting in the Um, and I know there's going to be, you know, grass and yards there. And if you report a glass of water on stone compared to soil, it goes a lot quicker.
I'm wondering is that is that water being filtered or pushed in some way towards the storm water system or is it just going to drop through that stone to the bedrock and come out the side creating erosion? I'm just wondering like what is the is there a plan for
that water or is that water been accounted for in any way in this in this report? >> Which area are you talking down here? >> So no the I think >> does north up here on this one? >> Yeah, you're talking >> so north and east. So if you look at like the >> the fill the fill report, right? The the
center kind of area and >> that area is blasted out and then the eastern and north is built back up with that crushed stone. So the water on the non-imperous areas that's going to flow right through crushed stone, is there any way that that is flowing into any of
these storm water areas? Because to me, if it's not, it feels like it's going to create an erosion effect. >> So I think the question are you asking like so that crush stone is going to be under the ground and then there's going to be top soil and then there's going to be grass.
>> I Yeah, but it's a difference of like grass and like a forest. So like but so once it makes it through that soil it goes right through to thing. I'm just wondering like >> is are the lawns pitched to get towards a drainage pipe or is that not accounted for in the
>> Okay. >> All all front yards slope towards the road. Okay. that that is how the design is
from the roads all the way to every house around there. So the front yards are flowing to the roads and the roofs are all being collected and obviously all impervious surfaces are collected.
Um there's also remember there's cut and fill here. So if you if you look at where it's coming down from the north and you look at where the where the houses you look at that the contours to the left there those exactly where where
Danny's marking it there that's all cut. So the and that and that's actually a swale and that's that's cut that water is going to remain mostly in that swale and get caught by a catch basin.
So the whole north area which is as is existing conditions because there's no changes up there. It's going to be collected by a double catch basin right there where Danny's showing >> and it'll go through the whole system where they're building on top of the
fill. Um as Danny said that's going to be lumen seated. So the amount of water that goes in is counted as uh grass on
existing soil. So that's there's not going to be much runoff going into the ground there. Most of it will be collected. That's how it's calculated. Okay. Thank you.
chair to Ian. Was there any discussion or did you look we haven't talked about whether there are any perimeter drains around foundations. Has that come up at all in the discussion? >> Yes, we haven't talked about it here though.
>> No. Uh Jim brought it up and uh I it I said it is shown on the front cover showing that >> there's a note. >> There's a note. Got it. >> Yeah. >> If I mean does that cover your question
or >> wanted to double check it. >> Yeah. Typic typically that's drawn at the construction. >> It comes out later in the in the field basically. >> Yeah. At the construction drawing level. Julianne Goang, 34 Grten, Harvard Road.
Couple of quick uh comments, questions, and one big question. Correct me at that time if I can't go there yet. Um first question is a comment Mr. Ian brought up that the the soil currently at 38 Graten Harvard Road is very porous and it
absorbs. Right now it is it is not absorbing and where it will be absorbing is where the cult is going to be and understand that. But if the cult is built up, does that mean that the water that is not going to be absorbed, that's going to be coming down, that's not going through the infiltration basin, is
that going to be pushed over to 34 Graten Harvard Road or further back? So, that's a question. >> So, you're talking about the if any water comes down this way because this is being built up now, is it going to be pushing this towards your property, >> which is exactly where it's not
absorbing? Yes, that is my question. There's currently a swale right there and it is lower. That whole area is lower than 34. It's 34 Gen Harbor. It's lower than 34 Gen Harbor. That is there's there's a there's a natural
swale there. >> See the Vshape? That's the swale. >> As you get closer to the street like a med flattens. >> It flattens and it's Lake Luches is what we nickname. >> You're you're going to have reduced runoff there. I mean, that's essentially what there's going to be because most of
the water is now being collected by this whole system that's being caught and put into the ground, >> but it it doesn't it doesn't make way for the existing condition is the problem. So, you're >> when you say it doesn't make way for the existing condition,
>> it doesn't accommodate the existing situation, which I understand is not your responsibility. But if the existing condition remains the same and shifting the hill and I mean I the fence is right there there's a drop off and whatever that whole thing the bottom of my driveway holds all that
water. >> Right. Well let let me let me let me say one thing. There's a problem right now at that one catch basin collecting all that water. The DPW is fully aware of that and part
of this project is to correct that problem and we are in the process of working with DPW to make sure that water it doesn't sit there anymore and there'll be an adequate uh collection of that water to get it
across the street. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Can you um just clarify that for for clarification for me. So when you make that statement working with DPW that I believe it's going to enter into a drawing that we'll see that'll show that
correction. >> Yes. >> It's not just going to be a discussion. You can Okay. >> Yeah. So part of the >> discussion >> part of the discussion as of right now which will be memorialized within the decision. Um Matt uh and I have have
talked with the applicant. The the plan would be that uh Matt and the town would design what we want. >> Okay. >> And then the applicant would then construct >> incorporated into their drawings >> and construct it. >> Uh I don't think the applicant is not
applicant won't be doing the construction across the road. >> Yeah, we No, we agreed to do that. >> Oh, you are? Okay. >> We agreed to do that. However, we did not agree to incorporate into the plans because we thought it would be cleaner for the town to cuz the engineer. So he'll design that. >> Matt would design the plan.
>> The DPW will simply write us a report within >> what they want with that drawing. >> Yeah. >> And we'll write out a condition that >> compliance with that. >> Yeah. I'll have Matt make, you know, give me something in writing of what exactly the step by step of what he
wants written out in that condition. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. I I think the important thing to notice is that the pipe going across the street is a 10-in pipe. We are putting in 24in pipe. It carries a lot more
water than that 10-in pipe can carry. But that's existing conditions that 10-in pipe. And the water going there, we are reducing the runoff down to that catch basin. Um and we are improving the existing
conditions. However, the existing conditions does not accommodate the amount of runoff coming off that hill. That hill is >> or the road >> or the road and then neighboring lots that I don't include because um they in
addition to what we we are we are adding there. So, but that will all be improved and it'll be improved for the sake of the town. >> Great for the town, but I'm only worried about my property. So your property. >> Thank you. Second question, the
infiltration basin on the hill. It was noted that runoff is all going to be going in there and then if there's any spillover, I heard the word spillover and I freaked. So if there's spillover, where does that spillover go if it's not going to go in the
infiltration to the col? >> It goes Yeah. What what goes through the colulttech and comes out after it's been through culttech chamber which it has to go has to have has to be able to overflow somewhere >> right >> it'll overflow into the new drains put
in >> gotten har infiltration basin on the hill >> oh the higher >> the cultic chambers >> that that is piped down to to the catch basin on Groten Harvard.
>> Okay. And >> all the water collected from there goes into that and then >> y >> there's two the weird >> as the weird goes up more volume goes in >> right. Yeah. Well it it gets it overflows basically it overflows through pipes
>> overflows into the col down to the cold system >> down to the flow down the hill >> down the hill >> over the side of the >> on the ground. No, >> but it's all piped. It's all collected. >> You're going to know that that is what happened. >> Let's just clarify. I think she's talking about the spillway on the
infiltration bas at what capacity would it spill over over the rip wrap on the spillway? >> That's over a 100red year. We don't even go beyond 100 year. So when there's a major flood, >> okay, >> beyond 100 year.
>> Yeah. See, I think look at the last couple of years, not the last 100, but the last couple, there's been a lot more water and a lot more storms as we know, >> right? So that's a really sensitive issue that there if there is a potential for it to overflow for any reason,
>> but the amount that it'll overflow will still be substantially less than what will happen if that nothing was done to that. >> It still reduces it no matter what it reduces. >> Swimming pool. >> That's again >> entirely selfish reasons why I'm asking
because everything comes down that hill and goes straight into my dining room and my backyard. I I'm aware of that and I can guarantee you that once this is fully constructed there'll be far less water sitting at Goten Harvard Road
in my dining room. Okay, last and final and please again correct me if I cannot bring this up right now on any of the drawings and I know this is a different proposal. I don't see the connection of where the water goes from the VA project
to the infiltration basin that how it will tie in there. Can I ask about that? >> No, because that's not part of this application. But I we this will be on before the board on August 12th. But I can clarify on this just just to answer the question because it's an easy one.
They have designed >> um they have designed the way to capture the storm water off of that um off of that parking lot up there to be held up there and the way it's going to >> flow to the same infiltration basin on the hill going down to the cult. >> No.
>> Okay, that's my question. the the existing conditions right now with VA where where what we've designed here it intercepts all the runoff from VA >> I I'm talking I think she's talking
about specifically the parking lot >> the park yeah the parking lot >> okay yeah that that'll also be part of what is being intercepted however it has to be treated and accounted for as additional runoff
Okay, >> we'll be able to really discuss >> and that will be in all the calculations that are being calculated and >> yes. >> Okay, thank you very much. >> Gentleman in the gray shirt, please. >> I carrier 57 Cambridge Street. >> Welcome.
>> Um I'm have two questions. Um the P1 P2 sites catch basins I think they are there. Um what is their capacity to to handle water? My house is right downhill from one of them. So it's
not an academic question to me uh you know exactly how much of a storm can one of those handle before it's you know >> which lot do you know which lot that is? >> I'm not sure on this map but I'm I think I'm downhill from Py. I'm I'm 57.
>> Oh, you're up this way. >> Yeah, >> you're further. >> I'm the dead end of I'm Cambridge shoot extension. >> Just an area. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> All right. Maybe I have the map wrong, but you know the it's >> the area of P1 is reduced substantially to what's currently there feeding
downhill from there. >> Okay. Okay. You're saying I'm further to the >> Yeah, on this. >> I'm just going to pull up the map quickly. you know, the topographical I'm good at reading a topographical map, but not tying it into the existing.
>> Yeah. No, I I I understand. That's why I'm I just want to pull up this so that we know exactly where >> does help to to have that. >> So, that's me right there. The last house on the street up one >> up this way. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. I'm not sure where exactly they did. >> Okay. Yeah. So, this is you're talking about right here. >> No. >> Oh, this is Yeah, this is Cambridge Street. This house. >> So, >> red line. >> Yeah, it's going to load. It takes a
second. The the mapper is not the quickest to load. >> Looking at where things are. >> That P1 seems to be to the right northeast of my my lot. Um, based on what I was seeing, maybe it's a little further away than I thought it was, but still.
>> South Well, you know. >> Yeah. So, yours yours is right here. >> Yeah. I'm southeast of of Yes. But that southwest. >> Yeah. It's over down here where traffic scale is. That's where your house is. >> So, I am still concerned about that. The other question I have is,
so this is the plan for dealing with the water, the runoff, etc. Once the plan project is completed, my concern or one of my concerns is let's say we have a storm like the one
we had a couple of weeks ago on June 6th, uh, you know, mid construction. Well, this is all, uh, you know, gravel pit and pavement and not, you know, impervious services and you haven't yet done this. I realize you have no control over that, >> but I I hope what is the plan to
remediate or address those issues? >> If we we go to the um >> uh erosion control erosion control plan. >> Yeah. >> On the erosion control plan.
>> So there's this line. It's it's like a dotted line. You see that? That goes along this >> that is straw. Yeah, that's the straw water with sill fence and that's part of the requirement of the swip and nifty. >> Right. That's one thing. The other thing
is that the intentions here are to start at the top of the hill moving north east. >> Okay. >> That way pushing dirt that way not affecting the downside of it.
um and slowly working cutting away from the downside without causing erosion to the downside. >> Okay, >> that's explained clearly in the erosion control notes on how how that's to be done.
>> Okay, fair enough. I we just as a comment, we get a lot of water coming down that hill when it rains now and that's with all the trees and brush and everything that's there to absorb it. And I'm just concerned that I'm going to have just I'm going to have a lot more
water coming down if we have a badly timed storm. >> Yeah. >> Concern >> through the chair. Um one thing we mentioned at one of the previous meetings Ian and is that we have not done yet is we'll be going through every plan page by page. So when we get to
that page as a board, we'll be talking about erosion control and runoff prevention, phasing, sequence of construction, limit of work, you know, stuff like that. So we just haven't had that exercise yet. You certainly will,
>> Mr. Yep. >> relative to that. You want the existing conditions? >> Uh, it also, but it there was a little bit of an outline of the existing conditions and enough of the storm water that'll >> Yeah, that would take care of it. Uh,
could we reduce it so we could see the whole thing a little bit. That should do it right there. Okay. So, um I'm glad that this document uh what we all who live in the area uh knew that there's
high groundwater focused in onto this area quite a bit bit in two other little areas off to the side. And um I do wonder with this documentation how the first submission had a cult system that was buried in the groundwater, but that's a separate
discussion because we've come up with a different plan. Now um so what it is is that we have these existing conditions. We're have all this impervious surface here of roads, driveways,
uh perimeter drains, uh roofs, etc. Um that are going to gather up all this water that currently flowed over a larger area, put it into the upper infiltration basin. Key word here is
infiltration basin because it will infiltrate the water down into the slope, not over the larger area that used to in a focused way pointed right at the gangs, the residents down there. And
on top of which, in order to get the pipe through this rather challenging site, we're going to blast a very deep trench for sewer water and all of that, which will also gather incidental water. And focus all of this where the lower
infiltration basin is going to be supercharging it. And as someone who lost six trees in that little rain event on the 6th and was awake for it, uh we just seem to be having hundredyear
events pretty regularly. So um my question is why do we think this is going to work? Because my experience tells me it's not. And when it fails and people like the go bangs or others
uh receive damage, who who can they sue? >> Well, let me let me answer the first question. >> Why should we think that this is going to work? Well, the reason we are given
handbooks on storm water >> Mhm. >> and how to do this >> built subdivision. So very familiar. >> That's fine. We but we are we are given means to do the calculations. >> We are are also given means to test the
soils as to what the soils are likely going to absorb. Mhm. >> And all this is done through highly detailed calculations. I mean the other calculations are >> Mhm. >> Um and this is done in all projects
similar to this and engineers all over America use this kind of material. We are we work with Massachusetts handbook storm water handbook
and there are scientists who I think are perfectly qualified to provide the information and that's how we go and I I I don't see why >> you think something bad is going to
happen when we are doing it by by science >> but you have an answer to my question because I'm talking about a very specific site here, not general things which to give guidance on how to go about complaining this. I'm identifying a site that already has troubling high
water and you're going to build something that's now going to focus it to an area that already has documented high water. I mean, fortunately, a few weeks ago, the intermittent stream that was probably there going back to before 1655 when Groten Harvard Road was first
laid out and still exists on the other side to demonstrate that there's high water there. There's even high water across the street um with properties that have elevations similar to mine down the street that are higher than
that. even though we're all impacted by Flanigan's pond with that sandy soil down there and that's what I can't wrap my head around is that my experience which is rather extensive um is that um uh >> I think we've heard that before.
>> Yes. Well, I seem to keep repeating it because I keep being ignored. >> You have not been ignored. I don't know who's ignored here. >> Rude and constantly talking down to us. We are just following the law and doing our jobs.
>> We are giving you the time to speak, but you could speak with some kindness, sir. >> Well, I don't feel a lot of kindness to this this kindness toward this bylaw. We haven't even gotten into the because it's not relevant to do that you would ever >> That's it. >> I think we I think we've earned enough.
Let's keep this to what I came up here to talk about which >> which is why >> which is that they have created a drainage system that in my experience will fail and my question is when it fails who can the residents sue you. >> So why would they sue me?
>> So all I'm going to say to that is there are laws regulations that they have to follow. That's why we hired a peer review to peer review that. And if you don't feel that that is adequate, your right is at the end of the project if it gets approved, you can appeal it by, you
know, pay for your own engineer to prove that it's incorrect and that's the process. But the process for the planning board is to follow regulations and the laws and based on our peer review, they are following it. There's revisions that need to be made and that's that's that is how the planning
board functions. We are not a board that is here to deny projects just because someone feels that the engineering and the peerreview is not correct. >> Gee, I thought you were here to protect the town. >> We said, >> excuse my rudess, but
>> after 27 years of dealing with the destruction of open space in this town. I don't think this is open space to be. Isn't this privately owned land right now? >> I I just I I want to make a comment. Yeah. I I I I see you. I want to make a
comment first. So, the first question that Mr. Hughes asked was why should we believe? Well, I'm going to tell you why. Because one, I have an engineer whose license is on the line whose stamp will be on it and the state regards that as authoritative by law. Secondly, it's
reviewed by another engineer with a stamp whose license is on the line. Those two reasons are why I have confidence in this process. Yes, sir.
>> Ryan O'Neal. Um, 47 Highland. So, I wanted to make a comment on that exact point. Um the Jim no last name engineer did a very poor presentation very poor presentation. >> So to that exact point you should have probably waited for my comment. Uh he
should not be paid. >> I don't see how scrolling through Excel spreadsheets that we can't see is helpful. So have a presentation ready. Mr. Diskin is very well prepared. The the chair is very well prepared. But um there this isn't a claritymaking process
unfortunately. And I think that's why you get the frustration from people like Mr. Hughes. And my understanding is he also has this experience and it basically is being ignored from what I could tell. So I I just want to make a comment. I don't agree with your assessment of Mr.
Thorne's work. His job is not to be a communicator or presenter. His job primarily is to be an engineer. So 98% of his work was done before he even arrived. It's it's incorporated in the document itself. And I think that he went through all the relevant questions
and and addressed all the concerns as we asked him to do. >> Okay. So, this is my first, you know, I'm a resident of the town, first time attending one of these meetings. And I'm a little surprised how in the weeds about the engineering we have to get into. I think the whole point of this
being public is that we could debate higher level and like values related things. So, so I think I think the main point is at least one thing was identified that this engineer has to modify and that reduces my confidence in the overall project quite a lot. So, so
he Jim has done his job to that extent but we should move past this and get out of the details. >> Well, so >> we're hearing two different directions here. >> Yeah. So, I know this is your first meeting, but at many of these meetings,
we've all heard uh concerns about the details of the storm water. This is why we're specifically going through the storm water so that everyone in the >> talk about blasting there. So, we >> haven't got there yet. >> And I and so I understand your concerns
because this is your first time here. So, we've been breaking up each of these meetings into separate subjects so that we're not here until 12:00 each night because we could be. So, each meeting will has a specific topic we've been doing. And everyone who's been here at
these meetings understands that I lay them out in the agenda so that and then at the next meeting so that we know exactly what needs to be spoken about so that we're not here because these are also people who live in this town and are volunteering their time. Yes, I work
as I work for the town, but they're volunteering. So, we also need to uh accommodate their time as well. So, we want to make sure that each meeting is being productive on what specific topics are on for that night. And specifically with storm water, this has been the most
important topic that everyone here has been um asking about, which is why we're going very detailed about storm water to make sure that we can address all of their concerns. And we want them, that's why we're also opening it up to the um to the neighbors to come up, ask
questions when they do have concerns as well to get them addressed. >> Faith, come up. >> You know what? There were other people ahead. There was Lori and the gentleman in the black soy. Lori first and then gentlemen in the black and white in the
glasses and then open to >> Thank you. I'm going to try hard to not repeat anything other people have already said. Um, I have a few specific questions, but I'm going to make a couple general comments first. Um, and I want to say that a lot of the
understanding we have about the soils and um, the things you've designed are based oftentimes on both the number of samples that have been taken, the location of those samples, and also depending on the information that we put
into these AutoCAD programs. And so if there's been some misassumptions or the samples have not been taken in the ideal spot, which is very hard to know, obviously you can't take a million samples, um, we do the best we can to interpret those results and we have to
depend on that. And I have seen mistakes made over the years that I've been involved that our understanding of AutoCAD evolves and improves. And I've seen when I've done my work at Fort De Evans, pretty substantial changes in groundwater flow modeling and things like that, which means we want to be as
cautious as we can be and be conservative in the various important decisions we're making here. And I think that's maybe room for some gray in trying to interpret the results here. Um, a couple of specific questions I had for you was it looked like the last
version of the storm water modeling did include your purchase of the Nova um um >> VA >> the VA. >> Yeah, that the VA's property and included the storm water. Is is that correct? So that's included in the last
version. >> Just for clarification, Ian, that was done originally. I believe >> the runoff from VA's property was included in that original catch pin, wasn't it not? >> This what you're looking at here, it is included on when I first did it. I I I
was under the assumption that those drains that existed there tied into street drains elsewhere. I didn't know that it overflowed on to uh the land that they originally owned, but that is where it is. Oh, we we did
some more discovery and soft types that >> found out it was >> um because I think there's some problems with what VA has been doing with water management. They have a complete uh their system is treated prior to
>> right it yeah it was designed by an engineer um slightly older regulations than what is currently there but the water is pre-treated before it is discharged onto the soils that we are now dealing with.
>> Okay. I appreciate that it's discharged and it also causes changes in the way water is caught and moved and saying that because I live on the other side of the nursing home and I observe constantly large amounts of water
rushing down Highland Avenue is where I live and it really looks like a river that um January 6 storm that people are talking about. It looks like a river >> Highland Avenue on the opposite side. >> Where is Highland Avenue on this plan? >> Highland Avenue is
>> Is it up this way? >> Uh Highland Avenue is opposite High Street. >> Okay. and I live in the first house. >> So, how how does that tie into the VA? >> Because I'm talking about the amount of water that's generated on the VA side. Half of it flows to the front where I
live. The other half flows to the back. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> So, those are my observations. Um, also to mention that when we depend on people's licenses, um, at
risk, um, I know of people who have made wrong decisions, um, and inappropriate decisions. So, yes, we want to depend on professionals to make these decisions. Everybody is short staffed. D refused to didn't did not declined to review the
last applicant. I think they should have um people are short staffed and maybe take shortcuts. And so again, we just need to do as best as we can to review these things. You know, you're giving me the that look, but uh it's >> giving me that look because because
we're following all the all the detailed and extensive laws for what the review is and then you say then the constant feedback is well, >> how do we know that review is not good is good enough? How do we know that that's good? I mean, some point There has to be a line about what what
the criteria are are for the decisions that we're expected to make and the criteria are what's defined by the law. They can't be made up on the spot project by project. >> Respectfully, Mr. Chair, um I heard just
now Jim say things like, "Yes, I think that will work." Or, "Yeah, that sounds okay to me." >> Um so there are room there is room. So for I mean the the peer reviewer may not be as eloquent speaking wise but
>> he's re sorry about that Jim. I mean it it not everyone is the best presenter but >> if >> the detail >> he's very detailed when you review his information his information is very very detailed and it's not only Jim who's
reviewing this information they have a huge huge team over at Green International. This is not a small firm. This is a very very very large firm. >> Can I make one comment? >> When he says it it thinks it's going to work. He's referring to the fact that changes are going to have to be made and
then he's going to review it and he's then going to decide whether that's going to work or not >> because you had a meeting with him, >> right? And you guys >> the changes haven't been made yet. This is discussing changes that need to be made and yes, okay, he thinks yes, that will work. that once the changes are made, he can have a clear view as to
exactly what he's dealing with. >> Okay. >> Yeah. There's going to be a follow-up response after this. Once the plans get submitted, they will review them again and if they've addressed the concern that was raised in in the comments, then they will respond to that and say that it's been addressed.
>> Okay. I'm glad to hear that. Um, I also wanted to ask, um, you you've described that the water from the roofs is going to be caught and go into the treatment system. If individual homes want to use that water to water gardens or their
lawn will be a way that they can do that. >> I'm on rain barrel. I'm doing rain barrel research at >> So there's so the downspouts can either have they can have a T at say 3 and 1/2 ft where it can have an elbow that goes in. Okay. And then when the rain barrel
fills up, then it goes then it goes back and then it fills it up and stops. There's a where it doesn't just always flow into the ground once the rain barrel is filled up. There's there's >> mechanisms, but we're researching it. So yes, we would hope that would be part of the sustainable practices that we can
>> Thank you. Okay. And then my my final question, just so you know that I did read your report pretty carefully. I I don't have the skills to understand all of it, but I did notice a couple of things that I wanted to just understand better. Um I was looking at the soil maps and the descriptions of I'm going
to give you one specific example. Um you label it as 103C, which is the property, the section that's right along Graten Harvard Road >> on Graten Harvard. Yeah. >> Yes. Um and you described it as being 2.5 acres, um 8 point, excuse me, 8 to
15% slope. uh and we already know that there's been flooding there because of current problems that you're planning to address. And yet it's described in other places as being well drained and that the depth to the water table is 80 in
and that there's no ponding or flooding that happens and that the bedrock is 16 to 26 in down. So, >> okay, let's clarify that. >> That's what >> Let me clarify that. Yeah,
>> in in the soils handbook, it gives the general idea of overall for these types of soils in many areas. That's what you're referring to 80 in to groundwater. That's what generally on
103C soils is about 5T to groundwater or whatever that is. Six six feet to groundwater. The in this case however we did tests out there and we two feet to groundwater. So we are designing it two feet to
groundwater. >> Does it say that somewhere? >> Yeah. >> That's why >> what you're reading is the classification of the soil. >> So but I'm I'm reading the classification of the soil. But if but it says depth to groundwater. That's
>> that's the general No, that's a general classification. >> General conditions. >> What's 103 C soils occur all over? >> So, it's a generalization of it. >> That's why you do test bits to determine exactly what
>> I can make one other clarification here. Overall on the whole site, we use soil classifications as you've just mentioned. However, when we're doing specific designs like the infiltration
basin and the cult chambers, soil tests are done right there and the conditions of those soils are what we base the calculations on, not the general classification of the soils. >> So, do you ignore those general classifications when you've done all
your designing? You then you don't pay any attention to those generalizations. The generalization is is to determine the runoff that you're going to get overall. However, where we putting ground, we're putting water back into the soils,
that is where we >> I can't hear you. >> Okay. Go ahead. >> But when when we're calculating how we treating those soils, we are we are doing actual soil tests on site. how we treat when we treat the the runoff, the
water that we collect. >> Okay. >> But to to to determine the runoff, we're using general information overall of that soil. >> So that just gets me back, I guess, to what was fed into the AutoCAD program. And
>> it's not AutoCAD, um, it's hydroatyad >> um, program. And how were those assumptions made? I'm going to stop at this point because we're belaboring the product, but it it still makes me question some of the the decisions that
have been made. >> Um, and it's probably not appropriate tonight because we're already running late, but I really would like for DPW to be able to have a chance to um say that they agree with all the things that were pointed out by the consultant if there
were time. So Matt was at the meeting with the with the with um the applicant and with the peer reviewer and he was present with that meeting. I mean if Matt wants to come up and speak about it, he's welcome to. >> Just let him just let him >> I'll keep it real brief. Um
>> thanks Matt. So just so everyone in the audience um yeah Matt Hearntown engineer um just so the audience is aware this process is the general process that's followed in every single project. It's very confusing. It's even confusing for me that looks at this stuff all the
time. Um I know the peer review went way into the weeds. That's unfortunately for the audience that's just a professional engineer talking to a professional engineer gets into the weeds. Um, I guess what that can tell the audience is that the big picture concepts are agreed on, which is the water is going to the
right places, um, the general practices are being followed for the project. Um, I still personally have a lot of questions with this. Um, and it sounds like they're being addressed. Um, so we're going to patiently wait for the next revision to actually make sure that
they're being addressed. Um, does that work? >> Yeah. >> Thank you, Matt. Yep. >> And and is it improving the water that are currently there? >> Um that is a great >> Can you repeat the question just into
the microphone? I'm sorry. >> Sorry. Uh the question was, is this project improving the groundwater issues? >> Did I get that right? >> Yes. That are at Brown Harbor. >> Um
>> I would say that's unlikely. I don't even know what that means. Okay. >> Storm water. >> Oh, did you say you said groundwater? >> Storm water. >> Okay, now we know. >> Okay. >> Ground water is the existing condition I commented on and that's what she's referring to.
>> Um, >> yes. Um, usually these reports don't get into that level of detail in terms of like groundwater raising or lowering as a result of the project. That's not necessarily a requirement. Um, it's it's hard to tell. It's probably going to be
a negligible difference in my opinion, but anytime you have a project where you're doing this much earth work, there's always potential for slight changes. That's just unfortunately the result of construction. Something that's very difficult to measure at this stage. Um,
it's not even a requirement at this stage. >> Thank you, Matt. Do >> we have anyone on Zoom? >> Is there a head? Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't see you. Come on up. >> You go, dude. Your house.
>> Hi, I'm Jacob. I live at 75. >> I'm sorry. I have to say it into the microphone. >> I'm Jacob Solan. I live at 75 Sandy Pond. Um, I just wanted to express um, and I don't obviously don't want to repeat things, but I think that the people I've talked to really feel that
this is a sacrifice that we're giving up this much, you know, kind of nice natury land. Obviously, we want to have new housing. So, it's a balance between, you know, those two things, those two priorities. And I I think we really feel that this is at the end of the spectrum
that is really trying to cut corners. We would really like it if it was the other end of the spectrum where it shows that it's really really intentionally addressing it. I mean exaggerated is really what I think was missing here. It's it's it's like it's look like we're trying to measure to like the smallest
detail of what what we can get away with and not looking at what can we do to really do the best storm water management system and then build a housing development on top of that as like the second priority here. I think does that make sense? >> No. So, so I understand where you're
coming from, but remember this is private property. The applicant is allowed to follow anything that falls within those guidelines and that's what they're doing here. >> Yeah, I know. I just wanted to say that's what we I think that's what we're expressing. That's what you're feeling tonight is that that issue. So, thank
you. >> The dudet is uh approaching the table. >> I I brought that on myself. >> You didn't. I had to faith. I had >> Faith Salter 10 Winthre. Um, so I'm going to try not to Sorry, I'm just carrying this around. My daughter made me a 3D print of my favorite piece
of air, which is the shows the topography of the project area, which I thought was kind of fun. Anyway, it's not, you know, legally admissible. Um, so I have a couple questions. One has to do with a follow up on Adam's question with respect to his property >> because on during that storm I genuinely
took video of water coming out of he's got rock like this and coming out of the rock and so that's not really like a surface water like storm water is of course a surface water question but I you know I'm friends with Adam and I was like thinking about his property and wondering to what extent planning on u
with storm water thinks about how um disrupting the geology um through blasting and things like that could uh maybe improve but also could make it worse for that water that flows out of the rock because it isn't surface water but it is a big impact for that neighborhood. So it's just is that in
any way something that can be thought about with when we have this much ledge and rock in the site. >> Um >> I tried I did see his letter. Can I talk? >> Sure. with his video and it I mean it
really is. It's very far away. Like I think I don't I don't think within our watershed systems we even get there you know with these P1 and >> his property is right >> it's off this way. >> Yeah. But see where like we're coming the hill goes down that way
>> but it's the same rock. So So the answer sounds like the answer is no. The answer is no. That there isn't an ability or >> Yeah. He's not even he's not even >> Okay. I just I just >> see I mean I just don't >> understand. >> Yeah, >> I think it's a valid concern of his so I just wanted to ask that.
>> I do. >> Um second was earlier and um I actually >> for me this was very detailed. So, um, and that's to whoever's on the phone because you can't see us, but I thought this was very detailed. But we, one of the conversations we had tonight
had to do with the emergency spillway, emergency overflow, and is that for that upper catchman basement? And if I understand it, because it I have to kind of figure this out, that's for when that thing gets so full so fast that it flows over the top. Is that right?
>> And our friend on the phone said, is it Jim? >> Jim. Jim said hello Jim said um that there should be a calculation for the flow over at the spillway and the response was no because there's no flow >> and is that correct?
>> No. All he was talking about was a technicality as to what the name we called it because it doesn't flow in precisely the same direction as what is piped as to what is overflowed. That's all he was really referring to because
if it ever overflowed, it would follow the swale that all the other runoff normally flows down to Groten Harvard Road, >> right? >> As opposed to going through the pipe. So, it's a slightly different route. So, it's a different it's it should be a different layout.
>> Flows down over the ground. >> Over the ground, >> right, into Juliet's home. And so, I think I wanted to ask that question in part because I um I'm interested in climate change. I'm interested in storm water. I don't know if I'm this interested in storm water. Um, but I was
I was reading about the resilient mass plan and their recommendations for infrastructure building where the infrastructure is supposed to last 50 years or more and they are I know this is not our bylaw and I totally I appreciate how hard you try to keep us on on in the guardrails. Just want you to know that. And Danny,
>> I'm going to ask you stay within >> I am I am staying within the guardrails. So >> yeah, I know I got you. I got you. And they recommended 200ear storms. So, that's one of the reasons folks are scared, right? So, just wanted to to put that out there. And that's what I was going to ask you. Doesn't it make sense to know what that spillway can handle,
but it sounds like my understanding of what that spillway is isn't what you're saying it is. I thought it was overflow like that basin gets full, vroom, the water flows over the edge, and you're saying we don't need to know what that spillway is going to do because it's not going to happen. Was what I heard you say, >> but two different comments. >> Okay. One was
>> They sounded the same to me. >> Yeah. One was what um Ian was talking about. The other one was what Julie Julianne was talking about um which is this spillway. >> There's there's different there two different comments. >> Yeah. Okay. So, I guess I would say um I
think Green's recommendation was that there be some kind of flow analysis on that given that uh what did they say? They said that precipitation has increased 55% since 1958. And so, we know it's going up. And I acknowledge that we're in a 100redyear storm
criteria here. I just think being conscious of emergency overflow is important. And then my last question I think is um this looks like a very complex infrastructure and I I'm sorry if this
isn't specific to this, but who who's taking care of this because it looks like things have to be cleaned out and mowed. Who takes care of this infrastructure after this is after the bulldozers leave? So what ends up happening is as part of our decision um the applicant will have to as one of the
conditions is the applicant will have to submit uh their condominium documents to us for me to review to make sure that the conditions that I set in here for like the storm water of yearly inspections all the reports being submitted to myself are are um also
included in that. And so what'll happen is once that document is recorded, the condominium association would handle that. That would then be submitted to me yearly for inspections like we so we typically do that on all projects now. >> Okay. >> And Okay. I'm sorry if it's out of
scope, but so then there's like that kind of document with there'd be accountability there. >> Yes. >> I need to just clarify one thing and I we probably should have done it sooner. We in this room cannot see Jim. We keep picking on you, but that's because
you're here. Um Jim or anyone else that's on Zoom. However, my understanding is they can all see us quite clearly. >> Um so, so we are having technical difficulties in this room, but Zoom is functioning the way we all know with the boxes and they're all there with their boxes and they can see each other. And
Apac is filming us. So, everyone will be able to watch this meeting. If you want to see Jim, Jim, if you turned your screen on, we could all go watch Jim on that screen on YouTube if we're bored later and want to see him. Um, but I as we go to YouTube as we go to this, I thought I heard you say we were going to
check on the Zoom people if they had comments. I just wanted they didn't understand maybe that we can't see them. So, I thought that was worth clarifying. >> Yes. >> Hello, Rachel Kera, 30 Graten Harvard. Um I was just uh looking at the
different comments and on number 14 it talks about discharge points and um it says it's not necessary as areas substantially reduced. Um I was just wondering if that might be important
with just water remediation um while the construction is in pro progress. Um I know they'll have waddle fences and preventive measures, but it just seems like it might be a good um assessment of the land just for the protection of the current residents. Um
I'm not sure if there was a conclusion drawn with regard to um that particular comment. >> You're talking about 14A >> the the district points. That's I think they're specifically just talking about the hydroat. >> Oh, okay. >> Right. Because that's what the comment is specifically about. >> 14A. Yeah.
>> Yeah, that's about the hydrocat. Right. >> Oh, okay. My apologies. Um, let's see. And I was just wondering for 25 and 25A. Um, I I was trying to comprehend what uh Jim was saying in the moment, but um it seems like those were
um they moved forward with those. Um but I was just wondering, could you pro provide uh the details of why those two were closed? I just didn't have the clarification um in that moment. Jim, >> I can speak to that. >> That's 25 to 25A.
>> Okay. >> Yep. 25 25A. So, um that has to do with the watershed plan um that was shown. So
they they showed P1 and P2 um and you know all the all the areas um that go to essentially discharge point three. So my comment was that the actual discharge point isn't shown on this
plan. It's just shown as a catchment area. So P1 has an area but it doesn't actually show where that where that actually discharges to exactly. So that was the comment. But after discussing with Ian on um where those uh different
subcachins did start to um I had a better understanding of how his system was working. So that's why we closed it. Um does that answer your question? >> Yes. Thank you so much. Um and then uh
with regard to gosh it's super tiny. uh for comment 49. Um you just mentioned it's probably fine and I just um it just seemed like I just needed further clarification just because that seemed
um like a you know I just would like further clarification please. >> So So this this also kind of ties into the fact that Ian has to update his design. He has to update his infiltration basin design. he has to
update his um his subsurface chamber design. And so that's why I said it's probably okay because once he does update the design, I'm going to re review it to make sure that the velocities are okay
uh based off the updated hydrocad model. And if they're not, then I'm going to push back on this comment for him to flatten the slope. >> Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Thank you. >> So Danny, do we got time to uh to go
through the peer review comments on what is this? The >> on traffic >> on traffic. >> So on the traffic one, there was really only two or three additional comments. >> Just three. So on this one
um so on these were just some uh changes that they needed to make on the plans and the applicant did agree to these changes on the plan. Okay. >> Um they also submitted an updated uh trip gen which showed a reduction in um
uh vehicle uh trips per day uh because of the reduction in units. So, um I mean at this point I think all of the comments have been addressed except for once the plan gets updated then um Green
can confirm those last two comments. But it's just there's only two comments that need to be updated on the plan. >> Oh, I see. Okay. >> Um I think is it worth getting into the record the difference in the traffic? >> Yeah. Yeah. you want to just bring that
up so people can see that. >> So, um the uh applicants engineer VI or Vanessa Associates uh they updated their uh tripgen uh for the project based on the new um 34 units. Uh and you can see
on here that there's a reduction in uh of 42 um >> vehicle trips per day >> uh for the overall project. >> Okay. >> So we were originally they were originally proposed at or uh tripged at
416. Now they're at 374 car >> because of the reduction of the number of units in the overall plan. >> Correct. Okay. >> Yeah, Mr. Chair. >> Yes, sir. And can we summarize what we did in the storm water and talk about the next steps?
>> Yes. So the next steps for this would be um the applicant's going to update their plans um and then and the storm water report. They'll resubmit that to us and then the peer reviewer can do their review at
that point. Um the re the peer reviewer will then provide us with another comment letter um saying whether or not that comment's been closed out or if there's a new comment that pops up. Um so we'll we'll go through that. I don't depending on timing that that won't be
the first meeting in August. Um I think at this point the first meeting in August what we've discussed was going through the plan set. Okay. >> For that uh so that we can discuss that at the Oh, >> it worked. It worked.
We can see you now. >> Sorry, Jim. >> The screen just started working for some reason. >> Um I must have said the magic word. Um so after um so at the August 12th
meeting, I the applicant will then go through the plan set with the board because I know the board has some comments for each of the pages. Um that way we can kind of go through that and that will also get them uh whatever comments they will address for the final uh for their revision that will get
submitted to um uh the peer reviewer as well if there is going to be I don't think there would be any anything that would come out of that that would um uh affect the storm water but who knows um so I think at the August 12th meeting the best course of action
would be to have the applicant go through the plan set that should be one meeting because That's that's a it's a it's a quite an extensive um plan set and I'm sure the board >> needs to be done. >> Yeah. >> And then um at the next meeting in August hopefully at that point we will
have uh a the peer review finalized or their you know next letter. Um and then we can start getting into the other topics which is like the landscape plan. um uh the the nar the applicant did
update their project narrative and the development impact statement. So we can kind we can go through that and make sure that those are also shown correctly. Um and then we'll be starting to close up uh you know the loose ends to open space calculation uh um the uh
applicant will be renotifying [Music] um for the August 12th. Yep. on um on for August 12th, he's they're going to be renotifying all of the abutters uh because of the addition of the parcel that's been acquired from the VA. So
that's going to be renotified to all neighbors including the 300, you know, 300 ft from that new parcel. So that all neighbors, even if there's some that were did not receive them for this first um application, they'll receive them now. Um just so that everyone now knows.
And then um I think we're we're starting to get the bigger things and the TV died again. Um we're starting to get a lot of these bigger things off the table and we'll just get to the you know the minor minor things that we can start addressing.
>> I think we need a continuence. >> Yes. >> Motion for continuance. Want to do it. Nathan, you look charged tanned ready and rested. Go for it. check. Um I move that we continue the um
public hearing >> special permit public hearing uh public hearing for special permit at uh Lincoln Hills as well as site plan review to our next plan board meeting in August August 12th
>> 12th. Second. Any further discussion? Ken >> I. >> Kathleen. >> Yes. >> Nathan. >> Hi. >> Julie. Yes, >> chair boats eye. We'll continue it >> till August 12th. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> So that everyone knows on the next agenda when I post it, it'll have the
topic that we'll be discussing just but we did kind of go over what we would be discussing here now. >> All right. >> All right. >> Um we'll try to blow. >> Yeah, we we'll go through these pretty quickly. >> Um but we do need to get through
>> the reappoints. >> The reappoints. These are these are pretty important right now. Um, so the first thing is on Stratton Hill, they did provide us with a quarterly report. I did send that over to um, Matt for him to review to also, you know, let me know if he felt that that has enough
information for, you know, for his review. He did determine that it had enough information. I felt comfortable with it as well. Um, I believe >> say where they are with the statuses. >> Yeah. Oh, I I thought I may have sent it to you, but >> Oh, let me just pull it. >> I think we got
>> Oh, is he here? Jim, you still here? Jim, thank you for being here. Thank you, >> Jim. We can't see you. >> Yeah, we can't see you again. We lost you. >> Yeah. So, uh, you you're welcome to hop off now and thank you and I'll follow up with you on the next steps.
>> Okay, sounds good. Thanks. Have a nice night. >> Thank you, Jim. >> Good job, Julie. Good catch. Thank you. >> I'm taking it, Ken. >> So, Stratton held the quarterly report you said you posted. >> I'm going to pull it right now. >> Just for I mean, this like >> where are they? Are they still clearing? >> Are you going to send it to us?
>> I thought I sent it to you, but maybe I didn't. But it's right here. So, as of right now, they've u mobilized installation of the perimeter um erosion controls. They've done the construction stabilization for the entrance. >> Wow. >> Tree vegetation. They've removed um
they've uh initial blasting has already started, which >> um you know, notifications went out, pre-blast surveys were done. >> Um uh SWIP inspections are ongoing. We've been receiving them. So, that's also going on. Um, they did set up some
uh sediment basins uh to deal with con uh sw um storm water during construction temporary. Um and so what's going to happen is they'll continue doing these. Um as of right now, they're set for quarterly. Um if the board wants them more once we get to like construction, I
think may we might the board might be inclined to ask for uh more frequently, you know, when we get to that point. Um but we're still kind of a ways off from that. >> Thank you. >> Um >> there's one interesting >> Oh, about the National Grid. Yeah. So
National Grid is going is is going through their site to access their stuff. Um that was one of their one of the >> That's right. They used to do it >> on their own. >> Yes. >> Ah. >> So now they're they're going through the construction site to access their site.
And I know we did get some calls initially from uh some neighbors that um stuff was going on up there. Um there was some National Grid stuff going on. It's it was them who was dealing with that who was doing it. >> But uh that's their um their quarterly
report for their initial one. Thank you. >> That that national grid work is associated with >> stuff that conservation issues. >> You had two separate two separate projects. the work under the the big transmission lines through
>> which goes all the way from west all the way >> okay thank you >> the entire city >> yep so that's uh Stratton Hill uh 14 Washington Street so um they will be coming back before us um
>> for a modifications to their plans um once we receive those plans I'll update the board and that way you guys know when it's coming but we've had discussions as you guys have seen, you know, we got the the wing finally torn down and and taken care of. We've addressed that.
>> Um, and they seem willing to be working to work with us to get this moving forward now. Um, so when they come back for a modification, you know, the board it'll the board will uh have a chance to I'll give you guys an update when that gets there.
>> Sounds good. Um, all right. The next one is the finalization of the reorganization. Um, I I did speak with uh Kathleen about the uh clerk position. Um, and she said that she would be willing to to do this uh the clerk position for this year.
>> Okay. >> Um, so I think at this point, now that we have Nathan back, we can make a formal vote on that. >> All right. I I move to uh uh appoint Kathleen to the clerk position. >> Seconded. >> Any discussion? Hearing none. Ken?
>> Yes. >> Does Kathleen vote on this or abstain? Kathleen >> I >> Nathan >> I >> Julie >> yes >> let's >> chair votes I obviously thank you thank you >> uh reappoint
>> yes let me >> so this is going to be a little >> All right so actually it's it's not going to be too bad on this one because there's much less things that we are um >> obligated to do >> yes because there's not um >> oh I want more
>> as many boards >> um >> Oh come Come on, let's make new boards up. >> When the times boards meet, >> wouldn't that be nice? >> So, I can have you guys question. >> So, >> when do the times of the board's meeting? >> Yes. >> I know that.
>> All right. So, >> Janet, >> I'll I'll I'll kind of go through. Let me just quickly go through it. So, right now, the Devon's Resolution Group initially had Julie and Jeff on it. Jeff is no longer on there. Um, so we as of right now, Julie is still on there.
She's also CPC and she's there for three. >> How often does the Devon's group meet? >> When Robert remembers to send the emails. Um, every fourth month lately. >> All right, I'll take it. I'll do the I'll help with this. I'll be the second person. >> Okay,
>> I'm gonna make this fast. CPC is already covered, right? Are you willing to do it? >> Yes, if Janet's still there. Great. >> Uh, affordable housing working group. Nathan. >> Yes. >> Okay. Need someone for the affordable housing trust, right? >> So, we do need someone for the trust
>> with the affordable housing. I'm on the working >> but not only the planning board through affordable housing commission. >> Ken also. >> Oh, you're right. You're right. >> I've already we we did dealt this last year. >> So, you're right. >> So, here's I'm just going to lay my >> This is the biggest one is the affordable housing tax. >> I'm willing to do this if someone else
will do MRPC. >> When does MRPC meet? >> It's a Zoom It's a Zoom Zoom meeting once 9 to5. >> Yes. Yes, it is >> killing me here. >> I understand. >> You're killing me, Smalls. >> Killing me, Smalls. But I'm willing to take on this one meets more often. >> So, how often is MRPC?
>> Once a month. >> Once what day? >> It's on a Wednesday, I believe, at like 100 p.m. >> Pretty sure it's on Wednesday. >> Uh, like 100 p.m. >> I know. >> It's during the day. >> I mean, wait, wait. MRPC is not during the day. It's in the evening.
>> It can be either. >> It can be both. It can be either. Oh, >> wait. I wait. I don't think I know it's a planning board member. It can't I can't do it. >> In the past, we've had the planner representing the town to that MRPC. >> The requirement from what I know. I mean, I don't mind sitting on it. I'm
added to my million other ones, but like I don't really >> I don't know if he can. >> I don't know if he can cuz the the requirement >> they need an elected official. >> Yeah. The requirement is is an elected official from the planning board. >> Right. He's not a planning board member. He's a >> That's the problem. I mean, if it meets
at night, sure. >> But I can't jump on on 100 p.m. >> Yep. >> I I mean, we also have a second for it, which is um uh Mr. Copelan. >> I think it's Mr. Copelan.
>> Um from the select board. So, >> I mean, I think >> there is coverage. >> Skip it. Just skip it. >> Take my word for it. >> Okay. >> You don't want to be on that. >> Okay. So, >> Okay. So wait, but we need somebody on that. >> So then maybe would you want to take the
Devon's resolution group cuz that one meets at night. >> Me I'm I'm really >> That means at night. >> No, I'll do that. >> You just said he's >> at what time? >> Want me to do more? >> Sometimes closer to five, but that can be moved. >> Like what day of the week? >> I said yesterday.
>> So this is definitely not doing >> Okay. Put me on a M MRPC. the RPC um commission meetings >> at 7 p.m. >> Yeah, 7 p.m. and 1. Okay. All right. So, Kathleen. >> All right. And so, trust is Jonathan.
>> Do me a favor. >> Yes. Just let me know where and when they'll send me agenda. >> Yeah. So, I'll I'll cuz I have to send a notification to them and they'll send you all the information. >> When the meeting
I I'll let uh Janet and um Alicia know so they'll >> Yeah, just so Janet So you just let me know when and where the meetings are so I don't miss them and you know >> for the trust. >> Yeah. >> Oh, it's going to be you. >> It's going to be me. >> Okay. >> I hope you're not too disappointed. >> No, far from it. >> No, only for the beard
of the month. >> My wife is going to make me Eileen is upset. >> I think so. >> I don't think the lodge everyone was at lodge. I thought they >> Yeah, I don't think the planning board is is a senior center thing. The senior center is not a a requested from the planning board. >> More these are the only requested from
the planning board. One required >> required. Yeah, I think you you chose to jump on that one. >> I mean Ken is on a bunch of boards. So I mean on a bunch of different committees. I mean so so yeah, you you and Julie split most of them. So
>> those that group that you put up there, the ones that are u it's that's it. That's all we're for required because a lot there was a couple others but those have been knocked off >> because they're done. >> All right. >> Good. Okay.
>> Resolution >> someday. >> Someday. 2033, right? >> That's what it says. >> Okay. >> I think Donald Trump will know what to do with Devils. I I trust I I
>> Come on. Come on. Come on. >> All right. >> Getting punchy. All right. All right. All right. Um, we have Okay. So, this last one is Pawn Street and Isaac Lane project. So, this is the housing authority, the air housing authority. They're making a submission to the planning board. The Pond Street project
will be coming before you for a site plan and storm water management permit. The Isaac's Lane is a minor, so it will not it'll be Matt and I who will be reviewing that for that um for that project. >> Oh, there's wetlands there. Okay. So, we'll we'll have to discuss on that one. >> So, you need a
>> but it's a minor project. So, what uh they're asking for is a a waiver from the application fees. >> I'd like to make a motion that we wave the application fees for um >> the air housing authority >> housing authority for >> street andac.
>> As the as the town planner just said, seconded. Any further discussion? >> Yes. >> Yep. >> We have the application fee we're talking about here is for site plan approval. That's the application fee >> and for the storm water >> and storm water. So there's a fee for
each or it's two. >> Okay, that's what I'm questioning. >> Yeah. So the the site plan one is like I think it was,000 something and the storm water for each of them was like 300 and like 150 or something like that.
>> So there's actually four fee waves, one two for each project. Storm water on each project and site plan on each project. So I plan on only pawn street because >> lane is a minor. So it's just >> So it's three. >> It's not. >> Yeah, it's only three.
>> Do I need to modify my motion or at all or is it still >> I think it's three. >> Any any further comments? Ken? >> Yes. >> Kathleen? >> Yes. >> Nathan? >> I. >> Julie? >> Yes. >> Chair votes I. Okay, great. So that's waved. >> Now meeting minutes.
>> Uh I make a mot Oh, I before I make the motion amended, >> they were amended. You know the second and the other. Did you clarify that who that person Mr. Frank is? >> Yes. My apologies. I didn't mean to have to spell Mr. Franklin. >> I had it as a place. >> Oh, okay. Okay, that's fine.
>> Frank McFarland. >> All right. So, I'd like to make a motion to uh approve the meeting minutes as amended for July. >> There's a hand up >> from Pauline. >> It just went up. >> It just went up. What >> does it have to do with the meeting minutes? >> I don't I don't know.
Um >> if not, you all go forward and come back to me. Okay. >> Yeah. So, uh uh uh motion to approve the July 8th, 2025 airplane board meeting minutes as amended. >> Second. >> Any further discussion? Ken,
>> yes. >> Ethan, >> yes. >> Nathan, >> abstain. >> Oh, you have to abstain. I'm sorry you weren't here. Julie, >> yes. >> And chair votes I could sign that. Paul, what's on your mind? Two brief points, Mr. Chair. I don't know if you've
noticed, but a resident of Gruntton Harvard Road sent you a chat message during the meeting and I did not hear that it was addressed. So, I just wanted to make you all aware. And the other comment I want to make is, and I did not want to interrupt you during the meeting
because it was very, very busy and complicated. People need to speak into the mic. And >> Danny, I I was thrilled with your comment the last meeting because you were on remote and you couldn't hear people and you asked the people to speak
up, >> but please bring people to the table. I think Sam had a couple of comments from the audience. Couldn't understand a word she said. Um, but y'all answered whatever the question or comment she
said. It's very important that everybody speak through a microphone is all I want to say for Zoom. And that's all. Otherwise, y'all did a great job. >> You gotta get some sleep tonight. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Thank you, Pauline. >> And the comment about this is from Linda
McGillicuy. So, it's about Grinder Harbor Road in the trench, which I've responded to her email and I have spoken with her and I have gone out to the site, but we'll talk about that at the next meeting. Okay. That's when we can get into the detail of the we go through the drawing step by step. >> Yep. A little bit more about
>> Yeah, we'll address it at that point. >> I have a quick question. >> Yes. So, occasionally you email >> Well, always anytime an abut resident emails you, you then forward it to us. >> Yes. >> Sometimes I find myself wondering what
did Danny or Matt say? is the point of process that I should follow to reach out to you and be like, "Do you mind forwarding your response?" >> Yeah. Oh, yeah. No, I'm If you want to see my response, you're I can forward them over to you. I Yeah, I typically do respond to all of the
>> because I I always get the, you know, the question that came over and then I'm like, "Oh, this is a good question. What did that say?" >> Yes, I can I can I can get those over to I know. >> No, no, no. Don't worry. I can I have them already in
>> Please. I would really love that. >> I will do that. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Uh motion to adjurnn. So moved.