Recording in progress. >> Okay, we are resuming the meeting. >> Do I have to have the school committee open up there? >> Uh, school committee, you want to open your meeting? I'll call the meeting of the Deerfield Elementary School Committee to order at 7 o'clock.
>> Great. Okay. Uh thank you. So old business uh talking about tonight is the NOI for 22 Pleasant Street uh pursuant to the Wetlands Protection Act. Um,
considering a notice of intent filed by Darius Modesto for installation of new playground surface and equipment at dees on property at 21 uh Pleasant Street, identified in the assessor's record as map 159, lot 27.
Um, the hearing is being reopened this evening to allow the commission to consider newly available information submitted to the commission after the close of the hearing on November 20, 2025. The reopen hearing has been duly
noticed pursuant to uh MGL chapter 131 section 40. So we have reopened the hearing and able to um open discussions again on the NOI.
>> So we did receive information from the Birkshire Design Group uh via memorandum by email December 2nd, 2025. um that described uh uh rubber reason was
rubber surface clarification. Um and there was additional emails in here uh and I I believe uh we can hear from the applicant here in a moment. But the biggest change was after uh our vote
last month on an option that was presented to us uh to utilize 100% EDPM as a material. Um, we were alerted that 100% EDP EPDM
is not available and that a a new item called bulky rubber or chunk rubber um which contains um some uh contains EPDM
also uh styrene butadene rubber ethylene vinyl acetate polyurethane rubber and nitro rubber as well as >> SVR >> potentially other materials because we
don't know the makeup and it's listed in here as a chuck rubber uh are example and examples of their common uh constituents not limited to so I think that's the background for the commissioners and everybody has all this
information in their packet uh thank you for forwarding us along Um over time we've had some time to study um these additional compounds uh research and we shared that research uh with uh
Berkshire Design Group and the applicant um because this is a a lot more chemical compositions that we had to take a look at. Yeah. >> Um, so I appreciate the, uh, you know, being able to, uh, reopen the, uh, the
hearing. And if you want to present, uh, your findings and, um, and tell us where you're at, then I think I want to go through um, kind of where we sit with the options for tonight so we can decide just how we want to proceed. But, Carlos, if you want to >> Yeah.
>> Good evening, Carlos Netto from the Burkshaw Design Group. Yeah. I I mean the memo basically came about because um yes we were offered an EPDM rubber uh from the man well not the manufacturer but the distributor and um their
specifications say EPDM but it I I was a little dubious because I kept asking questions to for them to give us a you know a final kind of report or something that said that it was fully PDM so that we could comply with the condition that we were going be
looking at for the NOI. And eventually they came back and say, well, yes, it includes CPDM, but it might include other uh recycled rubbers, which at that point I I felt like I needed to be transparent with the board that, you
know, this is the product that they kind of told me before, but now this is what they're telling me now. Um, that's the information they gave me. And what the difference between this product and the other products that they sell is that instead of being a postconsumer tire
product, complete tire, you know, recycled tire is that this chunky rubber does include preconsumer uh recycled rubbers that include CPDM but might include all these other types of rubber. um they purchase um from a
manufacturer that it's called American Recycling as a uh something inc they produce this chunky rubber and these rubber products but they can't um guarantee that it just has EPDM rubber because they use all these
other rubbers in their mix. Um yeah and and at that point first of all I was very disappointed with that news because I thought we had the product that that the board would agree upon and and um immediately just started looking actually for other uh distributors in
the US that's not even in the in the northeast and ended up basically calling people from south in Alabama people in the Midwest and basically they all said that there's they couldn't find a full EPDM rubber that this is kind the only
other product that exists that's not just the recycled rubber um for the base material for the rubber surface. Um the surf the top surface is still a PDM rubber. Um so I think I received the
documents both the document in regards to the uh uh reports about the other types of rubber and also uh I was sent the uh storm water manual uh handbook um which is something that we we're very aware of
and we use all the time in in our office especially our civil engineers. So I just wanted to bring up that even though we have this issue that the rubber is not the fully PDM rubber. I just wanted to uh state again that we did uh change the way that the drainage
worked under uh the playground. Um it still is 3 in higher than being at the bottom which provides enough area. Um as our engineer uh we submitted a letter last time which has all the calculations
that shows how by bringing that pipe higher and allowing and also looking at the soil uh composition which um turned out to be uh very good for infiltration. Um that that would allow for the infiltration of what's called a two-year
storm. Uh which I know the board is very familiar with uh these terms. Um and within that letter uh that we put together also it explains that um it that satisfies or satis goes over uh the
requirements from D for removal of 80% TSS removal um and other uh uh requirements that are in the storm water manual. Uh the way that we calculated that was because this was a question last time um it was that it's um looking
at the infiltration trench as the BMP um which is part of the stormwater handbook and page 94 and um that if we went also with the newer regulations uh that some towns have adopted which is
the EPA uh reg uh US EPA based standards um Those show that in this same uh condition of infiltration uh for the uh we would be removing 99% to 100% of TSS and in addition to that
also phosphorus and zinc um uh which is uh one of the uh components of some of these rubbers that were in question before. So we we thought that this improvement that did definitely did help on how to manage some of the
any leeching elements that could come out of the rubber because we would be able to infiltrate it and that u the rate of infiltration. We would be infiltrating 96% of all storms uh uh by doing the two-year storm. and that that
would uh be uh good and that that would be an improvement and that that should be um uh good BMP so that we can then be able to get approved and install the uh the rubber surface. Um so we still have
that same everything else is the same. It's just that the fact that the uh rubber um turned out to not just be fully PDM. It just it definitely has other types of rubber included there. And I want to be completely transparent with the board and not just uh um you
know just we wanted to make sure that you knew that that was not it it's not what we thought it was. Do you have um you list five different types of rubbers? Although they the manufacturer
says it's typically found. >> Um and these are examples of >> do you have any information from them on the product that you' use here of what the actual product composition will be and the percentages of each of these?
you know, if the percentages is, you know, 99% EPDM and 2% all the rest of them, it's different than if it's uh 1% EDPM and a whole mixture of something that we're not telling you what's in there. >> Yeah. And to be honest, no, they they they can't provide me that. Basically,
they're they're telling me that it could be any of these or it might be all the PDM or it might be part of it. It depends on what products they're recycling at the moment >> or it could be something outside of these five. >> They said that it would be from those
five because those are the products that >> they said they included examples of the rubber types and that these are typically found in the work. >> Okay, >> that's what they said. >> The manufacturers is not going to give you >> I I I wish they could give me more much
more information, but they did not give me any more than that. Um the only other things that they gave us was basically the SBR and EPDM um um information which we already had uh before. So, it's and as you probably saw in the emails, I
don't know if the tone uh read through, but I was not pleased by the fact that they had not told us that from the beginning. And I was very adamant to let them know that I wanted to know exactly what it was and if it was from tires because that's
exactly what we were trying to avoid and that we had promised that it wouldn't have. >> Yeah. Um, and that's when they came back and said, "Well, here's the information that the manufacturer gave us," which is that that email. >> I picked up your tone of your email. Yeah. Yeah.
>> Um, you also supplied some other email trails that you had with a manufacturer um in midepptember. Yeah, that was at the beginning when we when uh the first comments came around and the board uh suggested that if there was some other
alternative that had EPDM and that's when we asked them um if they had other alternatives that had that were full EPDM. Um that's when they suggested this chunky rubber which is the same product that you're looking at and they send us those specs which is also included in there
>> and the spec said contain CPDM um and that you're paying a higher price for for this product. Um, so that's what we were basing ourselves in, you know, from September. >> Um, but and that's basically when we we got approved, I wanted to make sure that
they gave me some more information about the product so that I wasn't just, you know, going off of what they told me in September. >> But but we weren't the first time we heard bulky rubber was on your December 2nd uh note emailed to us. That's their
>> um but it wasn't presented as an option >> in in September or October when November when we had we could have >> research it earlier. So what we were and that that might be my mistake. They call it chunky rubber that's the product name
as as this but when I was saying the full EPDM that was EPDM at the top and also EPDM at the bottom that's what I thought they were uh providing which is this chunky rubber. >> So >> okay and no we just hadn't heard of that term
>> until December two. >> It's kind of the manufacturer's name for it. previous it was a port in place the PIP I think. >> So let me just to back up here. So um PIP port in place rubber is a generic term
for any product that's rubber that's poured in place for playground equipment that includes two layers. Uh a layer that's the top uh wearing course which is 99% of the time is EPDM. Uh there's another product that sometimes is used
which is a but it's it's not used in this area or it's not used uh and then on the bottom section which is the uh where the uh fall height and the fall resistance of of this product is the bouncy part of it. Um that is the part
that's normally made out of recycled tire rubber. Um so that's normally our PIP systems boarding place. >> Yeah. >> They gave us an alternative um because the board we one of the questions of the
boards on the first or the second meeting was is there a product that is does not include recycled tire rubbers. Um, and is there a product that's full EPDM, the same rubber that has in the surface? And you were asking if there was some product that had it throughout,
not just the the wearing course. That's when we went to the manufacturer and asked them, hey, do you have a product that's not recycled rubber? Um, and they came back with the product that they provided, the what they call the chunky rubber. Um, >> but we didn't we didn't know chunky
rubber until the second because we had were approving the 100% EDPM >> and or poured in place which we thought was port in place rubber recycled tires. >> Okay. >> And that was another option option one
and going around and we decided on option two. Um, we didn't know that there was an option three of chunky rubber that's made up of. >> So, I didn't know there was an option three. I thought that the option two that I presented to you guys, I thought
it was fully PDM, but what came back was that it was they called it chunky rubber. I thought that chunky rubber was fully PDM. Um, okay. The specifications that I included there, >> they call it chunky rubber because that's the name that they give it, you
know, they they they give it to it. I I can't speak for the committee. I I >> yeah, >> I'm pretty up on like chemical names and such and I didn't put PIP in place with uh just straightforward EPDM and then saw chunky rubber as another one. So,
no, I completely understand >> that's very confusing. And then when I noticed like, hey, they were talking about this back in September and now it's the first time we heard about it. Um which required us to do a lot of scrambling research last week um to be ready for tonight. Um, if we knew about
it earlier, we might have been able to >> Well, I I wish I would have known earlier, too, because then I wouldn't have presented it as fully PDM. >> Okay. Um, great. Um, so you did talk about you're looking at
that area to be an infiltration trench per uh the BPMP on 94. Um there's a lot of engineering criteria um that goes along with an infiltration trench. Um
but be that as of may um and if you know what the concerns of some of the commission were in the past. So with an infiltration trench that's going to a detention pond and then or a detention
basin uh and then the discharge to the um bloody brook. >> It would be an infiltration trench um and any overflow. So, after any uh storm beyond the two-year storm, that would overflow that um 3 in that we're leaving
on the bottom, which should take care of every storm that's two-year storm. Any overflow would go to the neighbor that um detention pond that's right next to right >> the playground and eventually would make it into the bloody >> which is you noted very very early on
that they would be considered as a wetland. Um so, you can't put a BMP in a wetland. So, um, >> we're not putting it in the >> So, it's already here. Um, >> and we're going after that, after the BMP, we're putting it on a level of the spreader, which is one of the other uh
uh items in the storm water handbook that goes after >> right after the point of discharge. Y >> um but within infiltration trench um from my understanding of the manual it does require things like soil studies, hydraological studies, observation uh
well to be put in so you can monitor it, a maintenance program so you can remove the material is that all in the design all of those things of what you're proposing with this change >> the science was done uh you know the the the engineering that you're talking
about that was the memo that I we presented last time. It shows all the calculations for uh the storms >> and then the observation wells we did not had it not include it but we could include observation wells on on it. >> Yeah. Um yeah. So that there's just various
criterias and then there's the the the maintenance of the material because um as you know when if that infiltration trench does its job if that material then it's going to get to a saturation point of of absorbing the metals and the
materials down there can't absorb it anymore if it was metals. Um, and then it flows out to the detention pond and there'd be some uh areas of of of bio retention there. Although bio retention isn't great for mess but for
other things. So what would be the maintenance then of the material underneath that so >> because they do require quite a ongoing maintenance program >> in in general in this case I we're not going to have a lot of TSS because we're looking at uh an area that's not paved.
you know, we we're not driving cars and it's not getting sanded or anything like that. It's the playground. So, a lot of that maintenance deals with that uh because it clogs also some of those uh um you know, the stone. You want to be able to make sure that it it moves through. So, we don't um expect it to
need uh maintenance in the way that you would do for one that was used for a parking lot for for example. Yeah. >> Um again, um obviously we cannot just be digging this stuff out >> in a very short amount of time because
we'll be destroying the rubber that's on top. >> Destroy the the absolute purpose. >> You got it. >> It's just part of the requirement of the BMP of the of the storm water management. So we'd have to bypass overlook that requirement if you would um being able to do that. Um >> well and part of the purpose of that
requirement in general is because it's dealing with a lot of TSS generally uh which does clog those types of uh >> but if you're if we're trying to define this as an infiltration trench which it did then it comes into the requirements. Um the other aspect of that would there
be room uh in your study to do and we've put uh a couple of rain gardens in the front of the of the school building and I think they've been pretty successful there. Um, but a rain garden type of buyer retention area in line there,
would there be room to do that or a settling pond or anything of that nature, another detention basin before it gets to the detention basin? Because we can't do anything further with the basin. From what I understand, you can't put any BMPs into an existing wetlands. Got it.
>> Nor would there be room for even a rain garden uh for discharge to alleviate some of the concerns that some may have here of discharge. So we we have very limited room between the sidewalk. If we let me bring up the plan.
>> No, I think we've all been out there. We understand. I just throw out a question to have you consider it. And u >> we we thought about but the reality is that there's very limited room to have and also it's the area where you're going to have basically you know kids going back and forth next to the playground. So I think practical and the
maintenance of it. It's not going to be the >> So it's it's more down to what is being put in there. Yeah. It's going to be treated as a infiltration trench. Um we put that in quotes because
it doesn't meet all the requirements and there's nothing further that could be >> u implemented in between to to attenuate anything that might happen just in case it does. The again what we do have is just the level lip spreader
to make sure that we don't have a point source discharge that's concentrated so we can spread it. >> Um the other thing is that that detention basin was designed um we don't have the records of how it was designed so we really don't want to change the hydraology or change that that in there
>> and it's being maintained in a in a you know it it it gets maintained >> it's maintained it as mode and for you had said earlier on for the purposes of wetland so you can't do it in the wetlands anyways. Um so um >> those are some my quick questions and um
if you have some more but there may be other questions but >> you can share your screen if you want. Yeah. >> I mean, yeah. And it's my uh You wanted to Here's looking for other thoughts.
>> Uh yeah, I got while Carlos is looking other commission. >> Yeah, I mean and and what I can show you is basically plans that you've seen before and and we submitted um which include that, you know, level li spreader.
>> Yeah. Um, you know, this is the area that will become the infiltration trench, which is a it's a large area. It's, you know, uh, because it would be the whole entirety of the playground that would function as it >> um where in some other um,
and you know, we're talking about we have a basically a sidewalk here. >> Yeah. >> And then we have very limited area really between that and that's still in the already the the actual pond. You can see the contour lines just going down. Yeah. No, I just wanted to see if you had considered it. Yeah.
>> You looked at all the BMPs. Yeah. >> Um, >> and uh, the only last part that I I mean, and and I showed you this last time, but we we made sure that we updated the plans and had it in the details was that this is the newer cross-section where we show that the um,
subsurf the uh, pipe. We're erasing that so that we have uh, room underneath for the infiltration before it overflows and goes into the pipe. And again like the report that my engineer put together, it would take care of the two-year storm uh
which is again 90 95 uh 96% of the number of storms that happen this in this area. So, it would take most of the rainfall like that happens in here and not just the rainfall, but the water that comes from the roof um because all that basically comes through and and
ends up in the playground. >> Any comments u from the commissioners? I just I just had those few questions. Anything else? So I think kind of just to outline it and then Ben are you okay? Ben Burn is
on on Zoom another commissioner. Any questions? Ben and I know you haven't been present for a lot of these so you may not >> not working. Uh no I don't have any questions for that. >> Yeah. Okay. Um,
so I guess where where we're at then, we had a lot of the new information was brought. We had to reopen up the uh the hearing. Um, so we can look at an amended NOI as an option. um
these proposed changes make it acceptable. If the the prop proposals are acceptable u to us and deemed minor and won't significantly u cause increase impacts the applicant can send a request with a new plans narrative to amend the
NOI. Um and then we what we would have to do we'd have to con um you'd have to continue the hearing until we uh with the consent of the applicant to wait for the new plans and vote on the amended narrative parts. So that's one thing if
we decide that the changes just require amended NOI. >> Okay. Um other thing that the commission can do and that would be an approval but just a continuation with with approval in the way um but a continuation with amended NOI. Um the other one would be a
denial. If we can't agree on the changes that would satisfy the commission uh we're going to have to resend the previous approval then vote again. Um and the the commission can deny uh based on not meeting performance standards
andor um the information submitted is not sufficient to describe the site the work or the effect of the work on the interest identified in the WPA um or or or buffer zone impacts which I don't think are applicable. So I think
that's kind of where we're at at this point. um because we don't seem to be able to add any additional uh BMP um type of thing. Um
and so we would have basically what you submitted um what we approved and submitted last week with the change from 100% EDPM to whatever the mixture is um of the
materials now bulky bulky rubber I get the term wrong. Um >> I I have a >> um >> just a question just a question. >> I mean again they are the manufacturer is telling me that that or the distributor is telling me that this is an alternative that it's better quote
unquote because it's not >> Yeah. >> postconsumer tire rubber. We could do postconumer tire rubber if that is better for you because you have more details on what that means rather than what they provided because they're
they I couldn't get more details than saying all these types of different rubber. So, I would love to do the chunky rubber because it seems like it's better than the recycled tire rubber, but I I wouldn't do any either. >> Don't think there any disagreement that, you know, recycled tires carry with it a
lot of additional metals, additional PH issues, uh 6PD quinoone, uh a number of issues that come from retire. So, looking at the preconsumable is probably better, but it'll be up to the commission to vote to say if you want to go back to that option or not.
>> Good. Um so that those would kind of what be looking at though either amended um what we have in and that process would be we would amend it um and would require an amended NOI u with a new
material um and so forth that would be going approving on that but it would take another month um to get that through or we'd have to deny the um the NOI as presented um because of uh the
findings and that would either be the performance standards or the lack of information and we've gone over lack of information a bit. Uh we can summarize a little bit but uh lack of groundwater soil studies u lack of specific
information on the uh materials um so forth and so on. Um so that's kind of where I think the commission is we're kind of stuck. >> Yeah. Um, we have to make that decision. And uh, >> yeah, I I don't I don't think we're I mean I would we've been basically going
back and forth with those guys uh, the distributors to see if they got more information and basically that you saw them number of emails that I've been sending back and forth and that's all I've gotten from them. >> Um, >> and I would just state that that you know that the the preconsumable rubbers
much better than recycled tires. Um, and we looked at these various families or specific compounds in families and there's a couple of them that may have a concern, some of them don't um that we could find and two or three haven't even been studied. Um,
>> yeah. >> So, it's, you know, you're using a product that >> um may be okay and not have any uh issues. Um, >> but we'd have to decide as the commission. So my only question would be
is because we haven't on the other items we haven't really changed anything since last time you know last time we met and we had raised already the 3 in up so we could be considered as an infiltration trench. >> Uh we gave you uh the information from the engineering what it showed that that
we could infiltrate. Um >> the only change right now is the type of rubber >> the materials. Yeah. >> Okay. I would like it is are you the question is are you thinking that you will be voting on that because we will be okay
with you voting on that with that information or the amendment is the part that I don't understand very well the amendment means that I would >> we'd have to submit I don't think we've seen your full new plans that would describe you know engineered plans stamp
plans that would um describe the u the bundled rubber and the material versus what was submitted in the the first NOI which was the poured in place recycled tires. >> Um >> yeah, >> so that would be on the >> that would be the amendment
>> the amendment to the NOI document which the document references back I think the one was submitted in June references back to >> PIP recycle tires. So that was the deal. >> That's why we couldn't >> had to reopen it because um we decided
on the EPM, but then we started to do look at the order conditions and then you send us a new information. We can't condition it off of that because it's all different. >> Keep changing. >> So I I mean I would I think if the board
could vote tonight that would be great. Then we could just move forward. Um so I I guess that's where my question is that what's the difference between voting um an amendment in voting conditions
because both require you to come back with a new thing. So my only concern is are you when you do a new NOI is that basically you were putting forward with the conditions discussed or are you having a new hearing and vote after that work is done? >> No it would be does that make sense? I
think it makes sense and Amy can correct me on the the parliamentary side of it, but if the proposals that you brought to us tonight, the proposed changes, if we feel they're minor and significant v vote based on what we approved last time, then we would say that approval holds. >> Okay?
>> And but we still need the uh uh NOI revised to reflect that. The approval would still hold with the with the new material. Got it. If the commission thinks that uh no can't still can't
approve it denied and then we'd have to go through nothing have to start over and that starting over would be new appeal it to D and all that kind of you know process. So I think hopefully that's cleared everybody that Go ahead
Amy. Can I I was just going to say so it it from what I was looking up the amendment would be you would send in a request to amend you would request of the concom to amend the NOI you would send a revised narrative.
>> Okay. >> And I and the plans and the revised plans. Okay. >> We would continue the hearing if that's what you would like to do. We would continue this hearing to next month and then they can vote on the amended
submission >> and that would be January. >> January 22nd. >> Oh, 22nd. Okay. Um yeah. >> And so um that's pretty much a continuation. We just you know it would take another month but it would have to
be the amended on the NOI with new initiative in description of that. Um okay. And then we'd have to uh keep the hearing going to then vote on it at that point. >> Okay. >> But we could um I think a vote to continue the hearing uh without an
additional another vote tonight. So we could continue the hearing uh based on that. That's what the commission wants to do. Otherwise any of the commissioners can um basically make a move to resend the vote that we did because of all the information changes.
>> Okay. And then if I hear a motion there and it passes, then it starts over. So it really depends on kind of the motions. Those are the kind of the the two tracks. >> Yep. >> That I see. >> And um like again, like I said, the the the materials, although we there's a lot
of unknowns, composition, um what might or may not be in there, what the percentages are, um >> it's still a lot better than recycled tires. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. No, it is. Um, yeah, I mean I I
for us it's no problem. The plans are done, so they're done. I mean, it would be signing and stamping them. I guess that's what you you were looking for so that we could submit them as an amendment to the original uh permit >> and then I would basically uh in change the
narrative from PIP. >> Yeah, I don't someplace here in the paperwork I have the original, but there's a narrative in the NOI. You would change it from >> we change it from from PIP to this uh new product >> chunky rubber and describe it >> and describe it as as best as we can from the information that they gave us.
>> Yep. >> Yep. >> So that would be the the amendment part of it, but that would not that would not in uh entail a vote this evening. >> No, if you continue, you're not >> if we decide to >> you would be voting then on the next
meeting you would be voting on the amended NOI. Okay. But for the commissioners, if we until we get to that point, we can take a motion um to resend our private approval. If the private approv I need that private
approval to make the next step that we just talked about. >> Got it. >> But if they make a motion to resend it and that passes, then we we can't do it. >> Okay. I I mean if it's up to us, it feels like we would go with the amendment and we would put together the
documents for the next hearing and >> Oh, sure. >> That makes sense. >> Yeah, >> it's it's it's more time, but >> that's kind of why I brought the question. Okay. You you know, we didn't hear about you knew about it in September. Now >> we're doing this again in December. If
we had this earlier, we might have been able to >> Oh, yeah. No, I >> you know, get this done >> a while ago. >> Yeah, I know. And I again I uh I wish I also had it because I I the information that they had given me was exactly what I what I gave you the specs and everything else and it just it just said
EPDM. It didn't say anything else until I pushed them. >> Yeah. Um I want to go to commission discussion. There's a lot of information there. But first any in the public school committee want pop in again.
If not, um, commissioners just thoughts on, >> you know, and really it's like, you know, thoughts and then we'd have to either approve a continuation. So, we'd have to make a motion to approve the continuation, uh, the hearing or take a
motion to, um, deny it. Yeah, I get I I will make some comments. Um or we can move to close the hearing and decide whether this is an amendment that we were >> I don't think I can close the hearing
without resending the last approval. >> Okay. Well, sure. >> I wouldn't if if we are asking if they're going to be submitting an amended, that's new information. So, we wouldn't want to >> That's not That's not what I'm asking. I'm close a hearing without additional information. >> We can that would be just what we have.
>> We could vote on whether we're accepting this as a minor amendment. We can have the discuss essentially. Why can't we move next month's vote to tonight based on
knowing the revisions that will be coming in? >> The actual NOI document has to be the narrative has to be updated. >> We have to have it in hand. Sure. We are we approve things based on conditions routinely. That's why I'm wondering why
can't why if we decide that this amendment from uh Virgin EPDM to chunk rubber is not a significant change to the application and therefore doesn't
impact our approval from the prior meeting then then we don't then we can move forward. We can can't we vote that this could we possibly vote that this is a minor uh change to the application and
we do not feel it affects our approval. That's one option. I just want to make sure all our options are discussed. >> Yeah. Because I mean I think Yeah. I mean it's kind of in the we because I do think you you pretty much have the information. It hasn't been made
formally, but you have the information that Carlos would be giving you. You know what? >> So, >> but does a D require the >> NOI to be revised? >> Yeah,
>> I think that's really >> Can I ask a question? >> Up to you. So at the last meeting, my understanding is you voted approval on the condition that we updated the NOI and provided the other information, the other >> information, the plans and whatnot. So
wouldn't that wouldn't Sean be correct on that by saying you're just we're again if you if you agree with the changes in front of you that part of the conditions would be again to update the NOI which we have not yet provided to you because we're
before you again so >> that's that was my question I just asked Amy was like >> yeah does I think you know I I think it's up to you I think if you you can if somebody wants to make a motion that they think this is a minor revision. You
have the information you need. Someone can make a motion to approve if they so desire and that can be voted on. >> One thing I just try to I want to avoid is getting through all this and then getting it the docsman sent to D and
then they say nope you got to you didn't follow what what we needed. But I think we can do it. >> I mean almost in a way you have voted well. Yeah. >> Yeah. I I would >> we just voted on a different thing.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I would say yeah, you could take uh Yes, you could. Yeah. What we voted on last time were were the conditions that we talked about last time, not anything that was added after that. And so the change to chunk rubber was added after that and that's new
information. So it wasn't previously discussed or voted on. So it technically wouldn't be part of that that >> I wouldn't say it was part of it, but I was saying you could do a vote that that would be in both things would be included the NOI moving forward.
>> Giving the timeline though just from our perspective, we're not taking this thing out of the bid before the end of January. So either way, if it has to come back, I guess our concern is that it comes back and is declined based on the fact that you have the
information before you tonight. So, and so to take a vote to move it forward instead of taking a vote to deny it tonight, I would ask the commission to, you know, move move the first vote forward so that you know how people feel on the subject and that if you
understand so, >> yeah, I think >> along it because you're not getting any more information. I'd say the procedural side I think it's um >> we have approved the NOI um and then it was switched >> uh the information was switched
>> so we need a revised uh narrative for the NOI >> but can that be order conditioned as Sean and Daryus have outlined which
>> yeah I yeah I I Think I mean I think if if people are in agreement I think yes you could certainly do that >> and one of the standing order conditions would be the project can't proceed until
the commission accepts the you know amended uh um NOI as discussed. So you can't do any work until >> obviously >> we tell you anyways. Uh, so I'm not sure if it changes anything,
but that's a good thought. But Kate, you had a your thought on Sean's approach. I'll say this too. Um, if we decide that this is a major
amendment and we we need to revote on this, um, we're now voting with three members of the board. Uh, not the four we had last time and not the addition of Ben Burn because he's missed too many of these
pertinent meetings. >> Um, so I would No, I don't know where the board sits. Uh I will say where I sit personally um and that is is this is a very tricky
situation. Um being in jurisdiction having nowhere to move to. um virgin material EPDM uh EDPM um versus chunk rubber. I feel like
we're replacing um a broken rubber system with a new rubber system and that's an improvement. uh you know replacing the degraded rubber uh with something that will have a longer lifespan moving forward than what is
there currently as well as the benefit of providing an ADA compliant um playground. Um, so I would be considering the change from virgin
material to chunk rubber uh a minor amendment to the application and it would not change my vote >> and and we'll we'll get to vote. It's still back to the question. Does that mean
we can just do it on order conditions or do I have to continue the hearing waiting for the revised NOI? >> I don't think you I think we have the information. Yeah, that >> that's what I'm thinking now too. I
think we have the information that we need and I think you can >> and and we just discussed we can add conditions that nothing can be done until >> um the commission finds the uh uh the updated NOI to meet
>> I don't want to say accept but to meet the um discussions that we've had >> uh this evening. >> Yeah. Okay. Can I just add um so switching from virgin EDP HM to chunk rubber
potentially loads more toxins into the environment which would then go into a detention pond um or would leech out and then you know some would go over I understand the >> infiltration >> the infiltration of that
>> um so I think it is a bigger change um I don't agree agree with Sean on that. Um, and yeah, my my opinion hasn't changed. Then >> that's why I say we may
>> well I think we just have to take a motion and um one of us can make a motion on uh which way or the other then it can be voted on. Um otherwise I think we're we're just we
have the information. We know it's there. We're just getting to a stalemate. So >> I think we should move to continue while we get the changes in. Is that a motion that we need to >> No, I'm just saying my thoughts out loud. >> Yeah. Yeah.
>> And then Amy, just by the governor as to we need a motion to >> continue. >> If that's what you want to do, yes, you would need a motion to continue. >> And so to continue, >> the applicant would have to agree. If the applicant doesn't want to continue,
then you need to vote now on what you have. >> You always have the right to, you know, force us to vote. Um, >> that's what I'm >> So, that would be a continuation to getting the uh revised narrative in hand before we take the final vote. Okay.
>> It's up to you what you would prefer us. >> You want to talk for two minutes and decide or do you >> I don't know. Yeah, I don't Okay.
This is just really usually someone just makes a motion, you vote. But >> um obviously the missing member vote project. So >> um and you know and so the question is would the chair vote the same as they voted last time? >> So either I >> What's that?
>> I don't know until we vote and that's I can't vote until you get a motion. >> Right. Yeah, I I can tell you so the missing member tonight can because he's only missed one meeting of the hearing, he can watch the video, sign an affidavit
that he has he he knows what happened here and then he could vote if we continue he could vote in the next round. So if we continue to the next round, does that then null our last vote
or is this a does that approve vote still stand? And if it still stands, well then why are we going on? >> I you know we're we're starting getting into >> I feel like you'd have to ask the
lawyers right now. Um, do we >> do we need to take a vote on whether it's a we consider it a major >> and we have to keep it to the do we uh need to take a vote on whether it's a
major or minor >> or do we just entertain each motion one at a time? >> I think just entertain each motion one at a time. I I think if if you were going to continue
with the amended the time to vote whether it's minor or major is when it comes in that would be next meeting. >> Yeah. You'd be voting to accept it or not. You would accept it. You you wouldn't have to take a vote specifically. You would just discuss it
and if you would all agree that it's minor, you can then vote to accept it. That's >> what's the Was the member that you that was here before is he going to be in the next >> uh I reached out to him to find out and
he's taking on a new employment and uh >> Oh, >> so he's uh >> he's trying to figure out his work schedule. >> Okay. He's So he might not be here next week. Um, >> and um, >> I mean I I
have nothing to vote on. I'm not sure we want to make our opinions >> known before a vote of whether it's major or minor. >> Um, >> I think I think I've stated that it's >> certainly a much better material than
the the rubber and it's all pre-consumer. Um, >> I don't think there's any harm in making your opinion known before you vote. I mean, >> but either member could force it, right? But they're not they don't want to force it. Is that the kind of what I'm hearing? >> I'd like to make a motion to continue
the meet the hearing to the next meeting in January, January 22nd. >> We can force it. And so with that, could we just take a two-minute meeting with our the school committee who sat here so that get we
because with that motion we get to make a response on that. Correct. >> Uh yeah, because we haven't second it yet. So it's not on the table yet. >> It can be if you don't mind two minutes. >> Yeah, I think I will pause the recording
uh for five minutes. Well, we're meeting >> recording stopped. >> Okay. So, are we ready to resume? >> Yeah. So, um >> recording in progress. >> Okay. >> So, then I I would guess I would uh if
it's a continuation to request and or the denial of the consent of the applicant. >> I'm sorry, say that again. Uh we can continue with the consent of the applicant. >> Yes. >> So >> the So the applicant would like you to take action this evening.
>> Okay. So then >> I would second it or >> um >> you're not you're you don't want you're not agreeing to continue. >> Correct. >> Okay. So that's off the table. >> So that's off the table. Um,
so >> you >> Well, yeah, you want to close the hearing and then you know your options are to leave the motion you made last month standing. You can resend that motion and then vote
again based on what you have in front of you. Um, and that's those are your options. Okay, then. So, we're going to have to uh from what I understand it, correct me
um if I get off here, but um I would have to take a hear a move that the commission resend his vote of of November 2020, 2025 to approve the uh notice of intent 142-0249 submitted by Frontier Regional School.
Yeah, I would say uh I would say close the hearing first if we're not getting any new information. >> Okay. >> Close the hearing and then >> Okay. I thought I had it in the right thing. Okay. Um so, close the hearing. That has to be a roll call vote to close the hearing or >> close the hearing. Have any
deliberations you want about your options and then >> Okay. Do we have to vote on closure though? >> Yep. >> Yep. Okay. So, make a motion to close the hearing um this evening at 7:55.
Take a roll call vote to or I need a second on that motion. >> I'll second the motion to close the hearing. >> Okay. Take a roll call vote to Ben can vote on this, right? >> Sure. >> Yeah. Because he's been listening. Yeah.
Uh Ben Burn. >> Ben Burn. I >> Sean Libby. >> Sean Libby. I >> K Develin >> Kate Develin I >> uh Pete Law I So that vote is uh rescended. Um and then we would need
a >> No, it's the hearing is closed. So then I would um move that the commission resend its vote of November 20th, 25 to approve the notice of intent 142 0249 submitted by
Frontier Regional School District. >> Sean Libby, I'll second >> and a motion on the table. Any other comments from the commissioners? Seeing none, hearing none. Uh roll call vote to approve the motion. Uh, Ben Burn,
>> I I don't think Ben can vote on this because he was not part of that decision >> or he could abstain, but >> Okay. >> Yeah, I'll abstain for absence. >> Yeah. Uh, Sean Libby. >> Sean Libby. I >> K Davlin.
>> Kate Develin I. >> Yeah. Pete Law. Um, >> but then we can move. We don't have to deny it. We can make it take a motion to >> you can take a motion to approve with with
>> what I with the new information. >> Yes. >> Okay. So we don't have to go through the rationale for uh denial. We just had to take it off. I had to resend that um because it didn't um
didn't want to continue. So I had to resend that vote so that we can move ahead with a new vote. Um so then I would take a whatever motion might be out there uh to follow through. Um, and
I think the considerations are um to approve the NOI um as submitted with uh the revisions noted on December 2nd, 202025
um memorandum from Berkshire Design Group in discussions this evening. Uh, another option would be um to to deny motion to deny it in completely. But uh I think those are the only two areas that we can look at. So
do I hear a motion? >> Sean Lee, I'll make a motion to approve the notice of intent. uh number 142-0249 submitted by Frontier Regional School uh
as submitted uh with the revisions of December the December 2nd memorandum uh to be added. Just wondering do there any dis discussions for tonight, but I think the memo of 1212 covers it. I'm just
thinking, um, okay, motion on the table. Um, I would second the motion. Um, so the motion, uh, there's a motion in place. Uh, any other comments, discussion from the commissioners? If not, we'll take a roll call vote on the
motion, which is to accept it. NOI with the revisions um noted in the 12 two >> Mhm. 122 2025 uh amendment submitted by Birkshire
Design Group and the conditions discussed tonight which would include the uh um updated uh narrative or the updated revised NOI and so forth of standard orders and conditions.
Uh the only thing uh observation wells should those be included as well? >> Yeah, we discussed those tonight. So I think we we're we're voting now on approving the NOI with that and that would be part of the conditions, you know, um as we're going to have to work
out. >> So u but we do have a motion on the table that was seconded. So, take a roll call vote to um to take a look at that motion. Ben Burn. >> Ben Burn can't vote on this. >> Ben Burn. Hi.
>> Oh, >> I think you're going to have to abstain, Ben. >> Oh, for that one. Okay. Uh abstain. >> Yeah. Thank you. Um Sean Libby. >> Sean Libby. I >> K Develin. >> Kate Delin. No.
>> Uh Pete Law. I motion passes. two to one to one and we did have a quorum for that. Um okay,
so now I confused. Did we still need a hearing next week or do we do it all orders and condition? >> No, we've closed we closed it. We've approved this. >> My mind is fried. We just uh >> I would say >> okay.
>> So the OC's holiday season, it's going to take us a while. Um we had two other uh um applicants this evening that we got to get through. This one's going to be a little bit more difficult. There'll probably be some back and forth as you um
you know um said you would help us out uh with rewriting that with Tim um so we can get this so it's in um because it'll be based on the commission will not an approval but have to accept um the order you'll have to accept the order
conditions and we'll write them up uh of what they are and then you have to accept that before any work uh >> starts. Yeah. No, >> the conditions are the conditions. >> The conditions are the conditions. Yeah. Of what they are. And um >> and you'll see there's there's there's a
lot of them from the erosion control to, you know, pre-construction meetings to different meetings to uh all the things we talked about, the observation wells, um >> different things that I'll have to go through all my notes, but they'll all be in there. So, >> yep, >> no surprises, but they'll there'll be
conditions and >> for sure >> they have to be followed up >> pretty closely. >> Um, great. I think we got this one done. Um, you know, we did spend a lot of time on this project since June, July.
>> It's been six months at this point. >> Yes. And there was a lot of going back and forth and and just in my own personal thought a lot of the info wasn't submitted at all that we requested or wasn't submitted on a
timely basis. So I think going forward as to come to the commission you know and new projects um there's a lot of general requirements fundamental things that we'll be looking for soil groundwater studies kind of a foundation
of how we determine what's happening um you know official revisions to the NOI uh and engineering docs and you've submitted some of those recently but along the way we were working a lot on just emails and discussions um And many
times we'll we'll get from uh the consult engineering updated documents um so that we can see that and you know submitted prior to the meetings. We had some issues with getting stuff >> you know really >> a day or two in front you know um we
also look a lot at storm water management studies water flow calculations just so you know um we all live and learn. and we're all volunteers up here, too. Um, but it just hopefully make any additional um projects that we go through kind of go through a more
timely basis. So, that's my only comments, but I appreciate all the input >> and I appreciate the patience and and uh especially this last one. I I I it was a surprise for me when I got the information about this rubber. I I wish
it was all EPDM rubber as I had mentioned before and I appreciate that you uh could uh hear this through and and I I you know again I wanted to be completely transparent that I it it caught me by surprise and I wanted to
make sure that the board knew that I would not just move forward and see what happened. I I think that's not the right way to do things. So I wanted to make sure that >> greatly appreciated but when you would get our order conditions it would have said 100% this and we gone out there and
it would have been someone else and I would had to shut down the job put an enforcement action in place you know getting the fines all that stuff it doesn't work so much better this way >> you saw it on the emails that's what I was telling the the uh distributors like hey I'm trying to finish this order of conditions and I need the information
you know u yeah >> but >> it's too bad though just another general comments that you only have a couple manufacturers to go too because they >> they're not. >> They seem to be running you around the bush a lot. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Anyways, thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Good holidays, everybody.
>> Oh, thank you. >> Did you guys have to close out your meeting? >> Did you have to close out your >> Yeah. Okay. >> Um, we covered everything else on the agenda. >> I believe we have. >> Okay.
Uh any other information that we didn't know about 24 hours ago that anybody wants to discuss? Um so I think we take a uh a motion to adjurnn. I think I got this motion correct. >> I'll second.
>> Okay. Motion on the table to adjourn. Quick roll call. Sean Libby >> I. >> Uh Ben Burn doing different order. Burn I >> Kate Develin >> Kate Develin I >> Pete Law I We're adjourned.