Joe B we're going to open the meeting if anybody hasn't signed in there's a sign in she by the front door and I'm sorry you had to walk around our doors are broken okay uh Zoom reminders um no members of the commission are actually um on on Zoom but will be joined by the um peer reviewers from from Zoom um all votes must be taken by row call if there's people watching on zoom and members of the public body must be clearly audible to each other and to members of the public remember um when you want to start saying something to say your name and your address okay um going to open the meeting and start with the minutes everybody have these are the minutes from our last regular meeting which didn't have a solar component the 17th right yes April 17th absent any additions or changes not quite there whole okay system okay Tom I'm good okay great all right okay all those in favor of passing the minutes I okay um now we're going to open the hearing for 5:30 Glendale Agra solar proposal D we 1731 0238 um just going to read you a little brief uh summary of The Narrative Glendale Road Development LLC proposes to construct a commercial renewable energy facility at 5:30 Glendale Road parcel's 29160 and 29165 property is zoned r six the primary development site is 53 plus or minus Acres owned by Jonathan gipero and State Line property man Management LLC the facility would be a 4.95 megawatt AC ground mounted solar F photovoltaic array with required electrical equipment Transformers switch gear Etc and a lithium ion battery energy storage system storage system it would be operated in conjunction with ledge Valley Farm as an agricultural ground mounted solar system where the interior array Fields would be utilized as pastures for grazing sheep cattle and poultry tonight we have as I said our two peer reviewers on Zoom um Melissa Cody worked on the notice of intent peer review and Jean Christie assisted with the storm water review I'll also note that Patrick coin from the planning board is here um probably with a lot of questions he's uh the the uh chair on the planning board for this project as uh the normal chair has recused and our responsibilities with the planning board especially as pertains to storm water overlap uh a great deal so we're trying to keep coordinated so that uh the demands are equal okay we have an yes you mind letting me in please oh yeah we need him for sharing all right um we have an almost overwhelming amount of information to review this evening but it's probably our last opportunity to get information from Melissa and Jean um because we only contracted for two visits to the to the actual commission meeting um it's sometimes possible if we need to to contract for a little extension but at the moment we don't have one so tonight's to ask your questions Gan and meliss do you have any coms that's problematic uh see Rory did it yeah it's when he put Rory on mute there you go Gan and and uh Melissa do you have any comments about whether you're willing to extend to another uh meeting or review or not I don't think we have a problem with that um we would just want to update our or you know give you an amendment for that work um depending and the commission can determine if or decide if you know you want us in person if you want us virtual whatever we can talk about that um either probably maybe at the end of the meeting yes talk about things today okay um I'm because we have so many things to review I'm planning on setting aside the wildlife habitat evaluation the riverfront restoration plan the markers for the wetlands boundaries the de d definition of land and agricultural use issues around the northern AB buding properties the agricultural integration plan for the animal part of the proposal and safety operations issues for the next meeting we do have our Wetland scientist and party who prepair the wildlife habitat evaluation here this evening okay we'll work in some comments then I can do a presentation that's well we'll just have to switch it in okay um and I'm hoping to schedule two meetings for June um we have some commission members leaving and I'd like to do this while all the informed people are still around um one the first week and one the third week as normal okay the last meeting on this project was April 17th um when Melissa and Jean presented their peer reviews of the noi and the storm water report um comments on both have also been provided by the commission and DP and on storm water by two other Consultants Gary Weiner and a long-term uh a long-term resident and frequent consultant and uh a an opinion solicited by one of the residents from stepen garabedian whose comments were uh uh PhD all of those were uh forwarded to the proponents and the reviewers but I don't at this point have any comments back for any for either of those people I think Gary was planning on coming to this meeting thank you okay as if those comments were addressed okay we can always also entertain them at the next meeting if we need to okay uh since then the proponents have been developing responses to both the original peer reviews and to uh other comments from the uh all the various entities uh we have Rory Walker here um who represents glendell development um Nick feneno who represents level Design Group does you're physical engineer right civil engineers civil engineer and he's he's done a lot of the write up work on this and um oh Stephen Rivery I'm principal just I got her Consulting I was they hired me to come in and look at the habitat restoration and you're from uh da daughtered so we can't hear okay so you got to talk really loud unfortunately we don't have microphones not even the them ones that you hold up colist they hired me to do the habitat evaluation got Riverfront restoration G Consulting yes who did also a lot of the original site work um way back when we're doing the an red and everything they were around so they they're very familiar with this property all right so we'll start um if you will Nick with a description of just an overview none of the little nitty-gritty an overview of the alterations that you've made to for the new plan sure I share right now sh pain I have to have permission to host this last time I can't remember how we did this oh yeah and I gotta remember how to do it I think you just make him the host what's another do you remember is it under my name you click on my name can you right click my name and make me oh it's under your name could be wrong oh yeah go to the dots see make Coast make Coast it's up in the middle there we go so while uh Rory's getting that going here we took a look at all the comments and made a single plan revision dated April 22nd 2024 and then we also submitted individual letters addressing the different uh comment review letters from R address that was submitted along with the wildlife habitat evaluation the planting restoration plan and an updated storm water report can you all hear him now talk louder okay I'll talk louder you may have to just talk really loud I'll just talk loud if you guys need me to stand up I will so and move your chairs wherever helps you so taking a look at all the comments we've made some significant changes to the proposed layout for the solar array is the number of racking tables um so this layout as we have today we redu the total number of tables not the panels physical tables difference yes what's the difference between the table well a panel is what 2T by 3T Rory and the table is the thing that they're mounted to so the rack like the technical rack so that's how we're um we're counting the uh the quantifying the amount of solar panels on the site so we reduce the amount of panels by about 11% um the reduction occurred in this in this Center area here where we had there's an Upland null and we originally had a driveway coming across here that we're going to have a small Wetlands Crossing so in looking at you know ways to have less impacts to the area um we decided to completely remove all those panels that were located here remove the driveway and remove the crossing so that um reduces the impact to the the boarding of vegetative Wetland and to the 25t no disturb Zone significantly by doing that we removed all of the Wetland disturbance which which is approximately 2500 square feet and an additional 4,000 square fet of disturbance within the no disturb zone for our Crossing there so the current layout only has disturbance within the 25t no disturb Zone in this area right here where we need to cross we're not crossing the Wetland but we get very close to the Wetland with our driveway in order to gain access to this 12 acre area so there's no other areas where we're encroaching into the 25 foot no disturb Zone there's no longer any Wetland filling and there's no longer any Wetland replication areas as we're not doing any filling work um we our fire tank which is located in this area here we provided some additional detail and actual we specified an actual tank for that area um so we have our full details which the amount of disturbance required to install the fire tank I know that was a question raised by both planning board and some members of the public so it's going to be a 30,000 gallon subsurface tank it's a fire fiberglass tank standard package system for um fire storage tank with Associated pumps and other types of equipment to fill and get the water out of the tank when needed add that Judy I spoke to the fire chief based on your request so I walked in through the site and I was able to answer all of his questions so he was happy with what we we good all right go to the landscape plan please thank you SE do sorry nice colorful one okay Landscaping plan kind of shows the area the ground cover types that we going to be we propos to have throughout the site and it gives a better picture of some of the changes that were made so in this area through here there was there there is an existing gravel track or driveway as we're calling it we're proposing to have that removed and this whole any area in blue is proposed restoration area within the 200 foot Riverfront area so that'll go with detail but you know we're going to be removing all this impacted impacted area where there's a inable and we'll be painting this area in blue here to help restore at least the 100 foot corridor from the the edge of the identified stream in this area we can't restore the entire foot 100 foot Corridor as we have the driveway in this existing area in the barn which comes through there but our goal with this updated plan was to provide as much restoration as we can within those you know impacted areas even though you some are gravel covered some are just you know maintained field areas so we're looking to provide Restoration in this area through here and through here is can I interrupt you y um is there a reason that you didn't go the whole width uh up in the upper one I mean since the owner is the same owner we still need the drive oh wa the whole width here yeah well this is the property line here yeah but you could expand it into his property well right can't do work on other people's property but it's his property the same guy that owns this parcel no no no no no this this is land owned by others not by not by Jonathan not by Jonathan no okay Jonathan's Parcels it kind of comes along and it's up here all right um but this area where we're ending the restoration somebody is the you know located field area so anything beyond that is wooded or currently vegetated so through this area it's primarily field grass area that will'll be restoring and through this area it's mostly field a grass area from the section of the driveway into the site we did you know remove this uh decent amount of panels through this section of the riverfront area too to minimize our impact we're now under the 10% permittable threshold before we weren't with you know with our reasoning being it's already Disturbed it was already grass area but we understand uh the requirements so that reduction of uh array panels in this area does bring us under that 10% threshold um that you're usually trying to shoot for and also if you look at the numbers we know with all this restoration area uh there is some credit to be had there um with the restored areas okay is that a good place to cut off so that we can go to the peer reviews um yeah let me see if I had anything else of importance to note those are the main changes mostly everything else was you know dealing with storm water comments updating the basins um doing a little bit of other work but those are the main items so yeah I guess we can look at the details as we go along okay Melissa do you want to go through your peer review sure um do you want me to share my screen or just yes that would be nice okay um well here it goes um so as as soon as I'm able to um authorized to share I will we just need little buttons I have to undo him maybe no we can have more than one host can't we had a reclaim post to me okay okay did you get on there now Melissa yeah one moment please okay there we go so um so we formatted our letter uh in the same way that that Gene formatted the storm water responses where there's a lot of text reiteration just to facilitate working through the process uh not having to go through multiple documents um so the first is more an administrative item um yes um where we noted that um in the documents we initially received we did not see a signed copy of the actual WPA form 3 um the response was that uh the commission has that in their files and if that is the case then this requires no further discussion is that yes great um the next comment had to do with Section seven of the bylaw which requires coordination with other boards um the response was that uh a special permit and a storm water permit have been applied for with um the planning board um and uh you know our response to that was that you know it's within the commission we defer to the commission to determine if that's sufficient to um satisfy the intent of section seven of the bylaw so if um section 7 requires um notification of um not just the planning board but other uh Municipal departments as well so we defer to the Commission in that instance um if you are satisfied with the level of coordination and opportunity for other excuse me boards and departments to re to the has very flexible about uh going to other boards So you're satisfied yes okay um the next comment had to do with providing an Alternatives analysis uh regarding impacts within the 25 foot buffer zone um as they described in their introductory uh presentation and detailed here um they have significantly modified the design and reduced disturbance within the 25t buffer zone um I think more significantly they've eliminated direct impacts to bordering vegetated Wetlands um as they noted um so um based on this we you know and in consideration of the overall scale of the project and the site um you know we obviously it's the commission's decision but to Grant a waiver for work in the 25 fot buffer zone but um there's clearly been an effort to um tailor the design to avoid and reduce those impacts anybody have any questions about that what they're talking about so are they proposing that you weigh the 25 there is 30 some feet no 695 feet I think it is there is still some um intrusion into the No No disturb Zone where paths cross um and that sort of thing maybe we should go back to the map I suppose can we do that sure I'll stop sharing so that you can yeah I think we're going to have to so we can see the maps um there was a slight followup to that question or recommendation to the commission um there's roughly 683 square feet of disturbance for in um just looking for uh further clarification of you know will that area be allowed to revegetate naturally or is that going to be kind of a routinely maintained footprint within that 25 foot no disturb Zone and where is that um well it is up to can you point to where the 600 where the area of grading within the 25 foot is go to 22 that's that's it's a more blown up VI of it right there okay yeah sure show so it's in this this section right here where we're we're looking at so so may I respond to the question yeah okay so yes the the goal is to let that area revegetate there's a section of retaining wall through there that obviously won't ve revegetate naturally but um other than the small rip wrap pad uh for the pipe outlet and the a block retaining wall which is about four feet high the rest of the area will will revegetate naturally I think I specified you know Wetland uh seed mix to be planted through that area um to kind of get it going and get back to what it is today okay while we're up there have you calculated if you just put the road straight through instead of going over next to the property line how much more intrusion that would be into BBW and no disturb Zone to pull the driveway like instead of making that little Loop just make it straight through the Wetland so bring it all the way outside the 50 Foot Zone um yeah I haven't come up with a number but I do know that you know to have a a limited Crossing it has to be your last resort or you know that that's typically how D would look at it where they'd want you to look at all their Alternatives before you apply to fill weapons so in in the situation we had previously there was really no other way to get to that Upland null other than going through the area where we're initially proposing the Wetland disturbance we chose the most narrow area um to have the least amount of impact but in this area there is an there's a possibility granted we receive approval from the planning board to not impact bordering vegetative Wetland that's so the planning board is okay with that patri they he can't comment on that but you're saying they said it was okay no no I said if they if they did okay if they don't allow it we'll have to now we have a situation where it hasn't been allowed and now we have to come back to you to fill Wetlands because we're not being allowed to install the driveway where we're showing it that would provide the least amount of impact if that makes sense I mean I can come up with a number if that's what you're looking for but I just want to explain eventually why why we're not doing that because we have to look at all their options even you know yeah using adjacent properties if if possible um as a contingency how do how do you feel about that possibility going across the wetlands to get it away from the edge I prefer it where it is I it personally forget they allowed they allowed two strein Crossings in um zero Su Road CP yeah yeah I'm just worried about the neighbor because that's awful close to the to the edge yeah it's it's close but there's really no you know there's the residence is over 500 feet away um you know we'll keep all the work on the property providing a solid fence through that area Landscaping we're doing our best to mitigate that that impact um by with those additional measures but um you know that's like I said if it's not allowed that we'll have to address it um but if it can be allowed we have to request to you that this is how we proceed okay any comments um John is that you back there can't see your face Matthews nor Mon and I made comment to the planning board at their meeting and let me back that up was I was one of the original members of the latest solar bylaw in the in the bylaw okay it's 50 feet what we decided was 50 ft and then 100 of the other 50 could be if you will violate but that saate the neighbors should not be imposed with that meaning that is violation of the planning board I would go the planning board say the same thing I'm suggesting that they look and see if they can find it another way that's that's just L any comment Patrick no I wouldn't want to say anything tonight okay there was somebody over here who had well yeah just sounds like no matter what be there's going to be a what well right now it's it's pretty marginal it's just the a little bit of the buffer even though it's a no Disturbed zone of the buffer it's kind of a specialized area closer in um if it was moved straight it would actually cross the wetlands um so it's a tough decision I think yeah I have one one comment cind G Body 594 um in regards to um Nick's comment about the that you know the houses it doesn't you know the waiver will probably be good and and fine because they could plant some grass and stuff and um and our house is 500 ft away anyway but we actually have plans to um be building um a a little cottage down there right near our stone wall down there and so we are going to be living down near our property line we'll be submitting all the the um applications and everything so our primary place that we live will not be 500 feet away it will be right there on the just let okay there was a letter from the commission I believe that they were going to actually approach theuts to see if they could do a delation on their property yeah right where the cber goes under that no no as far as I know we won't be the whole area was looked at well it they didn't go into that area when they did the OED they went out the corner and they did a little piece subject to flooding but they didn't didn't do that area we went back after the fact for the intermittent stream and that whole area was looked at thoroughly by the consultant at that time if there PBW just beyond just north of the the inlet where that intermittent stream starts the time and bond consultant would have said there's off-site BBW up in that area they didn't look at at a lot of the stuff that's around they didn't even go mostly onto Jonathan's property they just did what was they looked at our anrad review was limited to the subject property right so correct um there's a map a picture could you go into the oh did you put that in yeah oh in there yes it's in there [Music] right I have some a recent photo that are from that right in that area I believe one say May 15 right here yep okay and now it says property images that's at the North which one um a a and b okay here's a Swamp Cabbage growing right near the wall and the next one and that there's clearly what a lot of water there so I have no context where that picture has been taken from that stone wall there up in the corner is the stone wall she's talking about right that's the start of the intermittent stream right that the water comes under the so when the Culver my understanding is that when the CT was sized it wasn't sized presuming that there's water coming from this side just just starting essentially at the C I'll correct you as a professional engineer I looked at available mapping and size the Culvert to take any flow that gets to that area I wouldn't specify a pipe that doesn't work um but that picture you're showing that's inside the Wetland and if you go straight through there where all that those Vines and stuff are right there under there that's the start of the um there's like a cart path right there correct and then water flows under that cart path it's like an old uh like Stone I would even call it a Culver just like couple stack stones that make a place for the water to to travel storm flow to travel through that underneath and then it gets on the other side Melissa can you see this picture no I can't see whatever is being shown on the screen there it's not being shared through Zoom okay Judy may I ask a question is that taken on the landowner's property or that Butter's property the ab Butter's property looking at the landowner land I didn't go there it was sent to me understood but I didn't know that picture that person is on John's property looking up looking North or looking South uh no on um I'm not sure how you pronounce it y col I can this is actually on my property and this stream follows the rock wall between Gadis that water runs all the way down the stone wall between my property and her property and runs to that and that stone wall is the stone wall between my property and gnip paro's property so my only concern is that we sized the storm waterer covert large enough to take this into account yeah I I can send in calculations too if that's what you guys would want but just wondering where where long the cart path was this taken it's just hard to get context of where you are I mean behind that wall water could P up anywh far Corner if you look at the corner between the three properties where the three properties join that's where this is [Music] must so it's right here yeah see it's right before that bump in the property line right so it's it's near that my my sense was that it's close enough that if there's a support that's built for the road with the covert in it water coming from there has got to go through that covert okay and when when was this taken Thursday Thursday last so just if you can consider that yeah I mean it's up to Rory he's the one paying the bills for the Wetland scientist okay um we'll get to it again I'm sure when we get to the storm water part but I just wanted to bring that up while we're up here okay Melissa can you continue uh yes can you uh I gotta get you back en thank you yeah I can't help with these things I run a meeting with all the people showing on the screen F which button to push okay don't okay my brother's right here oh are we going back to the m I don't know what do you want what do you want now Melissa you want control again uh if you want me to resume the comment review sure yeah we have it there we go all right um so actually I have a follow-up question there um regarding the comment that was made that that that area that's in the 25 foot no disturb Zone would be seated with a wetland seed mix uh more a question I I guess what would what would the benefit of seeding it with an uh an Upland area with a wetland seed mix be not already Wetland I'm sorry it's New England conservation mix not Wetland mix there go okay apologies written on my plan I knew I specified something specific for that area thank you okay moving on um so uh this was a the next comment number four has to do with um defining limits of disturbance um on sheet two there is uh an area between utilities polls four and five where it just kind of ends um it's not is that where is the Terminus of the limit of disturbance between there and Glendale Road um so just point of clarification there I had a note about that I was one okay um this was in response to um the flags that were placed a Flags a through e to close the gap in the BBW boundary um just noting that that that has not that was not part of the the peer review that tyan Bond performed of the anrad filing um seems defined by topography but we have not reviewed that in the field um talking about the next comment details relative to that subsurface water storage tank in buffer zone um and again you know there was more detail provided um more detail shown on the drawing uh and we just with the note that the limit of disturbance had been modified we just recommend that the commission require U provide summary to Resource areas and buffer zones um since that has changed from the initial application um yes so the limit of disturbance line doesn't go north of the driveway anywhere right except way at the other end correct yeah so for the where the tank is it's south of the driveway and I had to make it a little bit larger area given the size of the tank and how tall it is then the depth of the excavation we'll need to have so I did have to expand it didn't go into the 35 excuse me 25 foot no uh disturb Zone marginally expanded but uh it does not encroach to the 35 foot no uh disturb so we tried to keep it as close to the gravel driveway as possible we don't want to get too close because a 30,000-gallon tank that's a 10ft diameter tank so it's a it's a it's a large excavation so we don't want to compromise the roadway um when it gets installed but you do want to have access to it for the fire department so um we were balancing that uh but we were able I think we're able to fit it in relatively well in an area that um I believe it's mostly grass right now it's not a vegetated um part of the buffer so it's um it is still buffer zone we do note that but it's not in the 20 5 foot notice Zone and it's a grass area currently any questions yes Gina hi Gina 219 a road I'm a little confused about um want to go back to talking about how the flags were placed and then question prior to the uh fire storage tank s b going actually go out and check to make sure those flags are accurate now no that's what um Melissa was noting they haven't been checked hearing what I was having a hard time yeah they haven't been checked by tyan Bond they've been placed by I yeah a couple weeks ago but it's a very obvious Wetland Border in that area Okay so want to go back to the fire tank the water tank for a second the diagram that was provided it looked like there was a tank and then there was like another piece of equipment right next to it plan it's like a like a tank and then almost like a pipe yeah that that the tank set up one won't have that second part of it I couldn't get an image without that so I was provides for just the tank without the that is correct yeah that's for a separate application if you're connecting to a building so the way this tank works is just they come down the driveway they fill it up with water then they go away so it just it doesn't have Pip anywh else a few stand pipes one for filling and one for evacuating water when it's needed I'm assuming it's the same one as they have at the um power station on Allen Street yeah you go by you see a couple pipes sticking out of the ground yeah yeah I was just curious because I wasn't sure if the hole accommodated both for the tank and that pipe but if there's no pipe then the hole's probably fine correct yeah there'll be there'll be no um I forget what they call it there but yeah that was the that was the best image I could get on the uh the manufacturer's website for they have a pump for yeah had some type to it yeah that's that's if you have a separate pumping system that would feed a sprinkler sprink so that that's not necessary he doesn't have a good picture of was confused about so suppose something fell into the tank and you had to empty it would you be draining it into the BBW no there's nothing that would fall into the tank that doesn't standand pipes with connections and they're kind of like a fire hydrant you have to take the connection off it's not going to be open to the air for anything any animals to get in or anything like that so they'll have to unscrew the I thinking more of some dumb oil person D I've seen that happen straight into somebody's basement okay all right okay Melissa continue okay um so the next comment number seven has to do with the um underground the proposed underground electrical conduit versus overhead Electric utilities um and alternatives to doing a a a trenchless technology that aligns it beneath the Wetland um go to the page here so um those are the images that were provided in the response um you know it's it's short-term versus longterm it's a question of short-term versus long-term um the HDD in theory avoids direct impacts to the Wetland provided there's no Frack out during construction um the footprint of the road is already Disturbed even though it is in um other areas subject to jurisdiction so it's really a matter of what potential future maintenance um disturbance the the commission would entertain Tom Greg do you have opinions on this do you understand what the question is there's an underground can you go back to the other page y right on the lower one there's an underground line there that would be put in right using that horizontal drilling kind of stuff to get it in there um which has uh materials that they use to do that drilling that when she says Frack out could essentially pop out and come through the surface I guess it's happened um and any maintenance that would have to be done if something got stuck in the line or whatever would require driving onto the BBW ah right the alternative is to go along the edge of the road which is uh requires a trench so it's more trenching but it's easier to maintain in terms of not going onto the BBW so as Melissa said I think it's a tough uh choice to make yeah just everybody knows mil Road was the little Bridges at the very beginning of the Middle Road the little quick curve there's a version of that that goes under there for the gas line the natural gas line very small compared to this but the same idea and when when m road was just redone with the gas lines they had to do the under underground trenching same idea but this is just a bigger picture of it bigger idea of it yeah I remember that any comments Gary do you have any comments about that um I I can't face for Gary oh right okay can't call you Gary I think Gary had submitted his his concerns to you in a letter that what he did ask me is to make sure address I do remember that when they did the M Street one he was very concerned about thator Melissa can do you have any more information to help us decide about that I guess maybe it would what would help the conversation um could be a discussion of you know typical future maintenance if the conduit was installed via directional drill beneath the Wetland what what would normal you know what would be the activities around normal or routine maintenance of of the utility within the conduit none I mean this is again there is a 4in diameter hole two of them with a 2in diameter hole for uh Communications and then inside there is a conduit with pipe and wire it is my assumption that there will be no maintenance done on that at all wires need to be replaced you would just sleeve them pull them through right you would have a pool line of some sort worst case scenario there's a catastrophic failure in 15 years of one of the conduit lines then there's two options you trench down the driveway to replace it or you directional drill again you wouldn't drive through the Wetland to to repair one of these conduits you would redo the process maybe 10 10 to 15 ft in in a separate Direction so you have enough spacing I don't know what the exact spacing would be and then you would directional drill a new line whatever impacted line which would very uncommon would just remain in place they they pull the wires out and then that would just stay underground in perpetuity um but you know it's underground utilities the conduits generally never fail there's no traffic load that would drive over this we have a heavy truck that would crush the pipe so I mean people always tell me that but I watch them bring up a really huge pipe at Smith not big enough for what they had to put in so they had to retrench the whole thing yeah so it would be a maybe a third underground line at you know at the same spacing as between you have you have those two um would be that'd be option one not allowed obviously if that happened youd still need to come back get a new permit through the Conservation Commission well didn't matter which way you went because you'd still be going through buffer zone area and Riverfront area if you're going to trench traditionally through the driveway or you would still need the permit for the directional drill um so you don't have strong feelings either way Ian I like the underground the underground one I just thought if we could decide tonight for that because they have to keep re redrawing it both ways it would be nice when they do the redrawings if they didn't have to I kind of like the the trench along the drive you like the driveway version it's just there's more disturbance with that as long as the other as long as installing the other one doesn't fail it's not after it's in I think it's pretty stable it's the putting it in that because they're they're driving fluids essentially through to get it through and they can rupture into the wetlands it's more of like a screw is not's no liquids involved they're not doing that this time because when you have a Frack out isn't that the understanding is that stuff comes upwards when you see this video excuse me Melissa I was saying that most horizontal directional drilling requires some sort of drilling slurry which is what the Frack out what fracks out um what breaks through the the ground surface at a weak point so if their methodology is a a a trenchless technology that doesn't use a drilling slurry then that's a different conversation about that risk there is slurry but again the device itself is like a screw that goes to the ground she is correct about the slurry there is slurry okay this this all this is a little complicated for me sounds it's it's just I I think this needs to be more looked into it it's no worry just says oh yeah you just put a couple fires under there but this is very complicated with the wetlands doing in the underground and the wetlands are all there how are we assured that we going to be able protect them I think you can't be it's it is as I understand it relatively low likelihood and it's a pretty common procedure um as he said it was used in on M Road on Mill Road it's used very often when they have to get a wire that's small enough under a stream if that stream is really stable they'll go far down and then across and then back up there's also occasions when we haven't allowed it across the stream and they've attached it to a bridge instead um so there are alternatives um the trenching around that that's going to disturb the whole Edge um well it would count into um Disturbed are area when they're when they're totaling up how much area is Disturbed some of it would get included if it goes through a wetland which is like at the top at least dring Frack Frack out there's a Poss they use they use a like a screw with a slurry to keep it so everything doesn't jam up and this and it's possible sometimes for for the The Guiding pipe to break and the slurry comes up into the wetlands um it's a relatively small pipe so there wouldn't be a ton of it there um I think uh we won't vote tonight if people don't have strong feelings we'll look into it a little bit more to go for the underground I think it's safe enough you do okay first one and Tom favors underground yeah but he does so what happens if they were to do this underground Drilling and they hit rock what happens then then they have to quit through it or they have to blast it they would go have to go through it or around it they couldn't um blast under the BBW so it would just be like just like that no they probably drill right through the rock dep what kind of drill yeah go right would just take longer and cost more but it yeah it still it still gets done if they decided they couldn't do it they'd have to come back to the concom and say can we go around the edge instead change yeah so that's an that's an option overall we feel that this is less impact that's why we're proposing it this way just so we're clear I mean yeah sending the conduit down the driveway or through this way it's really the costs are the roughly the same the I mean it's a little bit more wire to go the other way but it's really should we vote on it or do you want to wait that's why we're proposing it in this fashion is that that underground rough I think it's between four and six feet again depending on where where ledge is they they want to avoid the ledge so okay just remember having that mention and it kind of goes you know the way they do it it kind of right it's like an arc so it's not going to be a straight run it kind of runs like a long sweeping Arc goes down hits like kind of a low point and then Works its way back up to the the terminal point okay well we we will reconsider that um June 5th try to double check okay Melissa okay um so comment 8 had to do with you know just clarifying what kind of stock P what the stock piles to be removed in the riverfront area consisted of um and what the you know how the these areas were going to be stabilized because areas beneath large stockpiles are not it's just going to be bare soil um so they clarified um they clarified the location um and the intent to you know rake lomman seed to to stabilize those Footprints and then otherwise ReStore in accordance with goddard's um Riverfront area restoration plan um that's all a reasonable approach um and again we we reiterate the um you know the extent of modification to the Design Within Riverfront and other resource areas is I I don't know if significance the word um but there has been there have been changes that deviate significantly from the numbers that were propos or presented to the commission on WPA form 3 page three um and these are all factors in how the commission evaluates the Project's compliance with the applicable performance standards so we're reiterating our recommendation that the commission require um an updated version of WPA form three page three and then compliance with Riverfront standards I agree no yeah I should have done that there's a lot of information I that yeah and there's a lot of moving parts so I want to make sure it was the final fin before we got to that point I I understand where you're coming from um it's a but you know be when when you arrive at that point if when you arrive at that point then that is um you know kind of a a summary recommendation there um the next comment had just had to do with concrete and material wash out details with proper uh proposed protective measures um they added a concrete wash out detail to the plans and that is you we note that that is been completed I had trouble reading that picture for of the wash out does it have does it have a barrier to keep yes it's like a concrete pad but is there anything else for concrete pad essentially excavate out a shallow hole and you line it with I think it's 80 mil poly plastic a few layers and then when the concrete truck from when they're pouring the pads they'll have a little bit of leftover Concrete in the truck that they call that the wash out then drive to this established area outside of the buffer zones that's well established and he'll empty out the concrete into the plastic into the hole it then dries and then it's dug up and properly disposed of um you know through means in a dumpster and where is that going to go spot for it re Ro controls tell me back in the old days when they cleaned out the concrete trucks they could clean them out anywhere you can't any in a contr environment and the slurry that's left it's taken care of properly so I have a spot on the plan I mean we don't have to pull it up but you know the the the horse track and you know where there's existing gravel area just outside the barn so right where that gravel area kind of hits the track it's on c3.0 like me pointed out to you on your little plan um it's out it's the only area I can get outside of the 100 foot buffers and kind of keep out of the [Music] way we right there this is concrete out so that's this is the 100 foot buck line the whole area is outside of the the buffer zone okay 3.0 in the new M kind of the center of the page that's the there yeah have a 3.0 yeah this one has a 3.0 it's different I see okay thank you uh next comment had to do with um clarifying sting and receiving Pit locations as well as any conduit string out areas um you know if the commission uh approves the HDD beneath the Wetland um we we recommend um specific preconstruction submitt detailing the contractors means and methods that the B sequence of construction um and in the event that there's a you know you talk about ledge or a boulder or something like that if if in the event that that the equipment gets kind of stuck in the middle what is there um plan to retrieve it if they can if they can just pull it back or if they have to do something else so again it's kind of like a contingency plan so that the commission is aware of the potential activities on site so for that I would just recommend that be a condition of approval that we provide a drilling plan because this is the works years down the road and we don't know who's going to be doing the drilling so once a contractor is Select elected we'll have them provide a plan on how they're going to do the work what their contingencies are typical uh protections they have in place for sensitive areas things of that nature and then that be submitted to the to the commission before the work begins um kind of outlining all that but it's hard to for us to nail those items down when I'm not doing the drilling and we don't know who's going to be doing it I think a condition of approval that would require that information prior to uh the work being done or start a construction would be would be a fair okay I I will agree that that is uh a typical preconstruction special condition when certain you know atypical means and methods are proposed Judy because there is no drilling plan um and I spoke to Gary about that uh basically he said that uh they want to make sure you want to make sure that they prevent any migration of um groundwater from the Wetland along that cable with the drilling you're going under the would it go down the pipe or how would it well not so much down the pipe but I don't know how close they're drilling to that without without a proper plan okay if they drove too close to the B land there could be you're talking about the two entrance points where they drilling yeah they're actually drilling under the Wetland so he's saying under but you have to be careful that you don't go too close to the Wetland okay at the entrance points at the entrance and exit yeah okay yeah that they're far enough away from the the physical entrance and exit that if when you they open a hole to put the machines in it's that water from the what start Ping into it close so that would be part of that I hear your question I'm sorry I one comment on the plan it's noted approximately where we're going to be starting the drill and where it comes out just so that those big boxes right perfect that would be another part of that review when drill okay thank you John um again we we've kind of touched on this next comment a little bit preemptively and that is um uh the concern you know potential for Frack out and unintended impacts to the landscape above the alignment um the response was that if the commission included required a condition for pre-construction drilling plans um that they would once the contractor selected they will provide that um we have no further comment uh the next comment is about the um concrete retaining um concrete block retaining walls um at that we're back up that top space yeah okay um they provided a cross-section um again looking at the uh looking at the detail that was provided um it seems quite steep um you know and then there will be a concentration of flows that could potentially contribute to erosion in close proximity to the Wetland boundary um again this comes back to what what modeling has been done what what is the contributing area what kind of flows will this area see um and then you know why are we changing the can the culbert be match to the existing topography so the culbert's actually going to be less steep than what the grade is through that area we're going to kind of fill it in and you know on the plan and we detail it's about a three you know three to 0.3 feet per foot pitch which is so it' be 3 feet over 100t if you were going to look at the the pitch of the pipe that way when you say fill it in on the entry side or the exit side on the exit side we're kind of raising up underneath there a little bit um as we're filling that's where the disturbance is required in the 25 foot no disturb zone so we're doing a little bit of grading and then we're going to have uh we have we kind of picked it over a little bit so we could put a splash pad in so we have a little rip rat pad that is proposed at the bottom but um I did size it so I got um very old Topo for this that whole hill um and and looked at the flow paths so I can I can provide that information do a little separate um summary on how I size the pipe but um you know the pipe slope itself I don't believe it to be too aggressive it's it's kind of working with the natural grade through that area and we're providing um you know Outlet protection head where today there's a c there today and there's there's nothing that exists there today like I said it's just a few looks like granite slabs that were kind of stacked on each other to uh to form this little uh Culvert that exists today so um but yeah I can provide the additional calculations if that's the what what the comment is trying to yes get to yeah okay okay um the next comment had to do with addressing bvw performance standards the elimination of any direct impacts to bvw means that this is no longer a relevant comment so no further comment there um again the modeling of the again of the next one similarly because that Wetland Crossing was eliminated that is no longer relevant and there's no further comment regarding that the Culvert uh proposed at that location um so the next one had to do with impacts to um streams and wetlands there's um been modific the sorry again this goes back to summarizing the currently proposed design um which we discussed previously um and the need to um evaluate where you are with design modifications and approval before final you know finalizing that but so that the commission can evaluate the final design relative to the standards um the next ones have to comments have to do with addressing the riverfront performance standards and again we it it comes back to there has been significant design changes um relative to Riverfront in particular so um addressing the standards relative to the currently proposed impacts um after that uh has to do with the wildlife habitat evaluation which was completed but I understand um the commission desires to discuss that U maybe at the next meeting um and actually it turns out we have somebody here sure did that so we probably need to discuss it then in that case I I turn the floor over you want to discuss that now sure all right well um I have a question before we move on um for the last review we just did there was talk about um oh the S been designed to mitigate impacts East Brook and all that stuff but we haven't talked about how they're going to control the temperature of any runoff going into Eastbrook that more storm water even though it was discussed in the noi which one you're talking about 16 I don't have the original I don't have the document you guys were reviewing I was looking at ah um they summarized the site up but there was still no top of how they're going to mitigate impacts East Brook which the response um we will probably look at that more when we get to the storm water half that Jean's going to do but I am going to ask for a more detailed restoration plan uh for the for the riverfront restoration because there's there's two uh drawings but we'd like to have something that says what kind of filters are you going to put how are you going to stabilize it how you going to keep a trucks and things from going into it all that sort of just a a narrative I'm I'm going to send you a list of all that stuff so that you don't have to okay yeah one of those figures you had that had the restoration area on it and they had the areas have different vegetative zones you need control yes please well always pulling that up good evening everybody I'm Steve Ribery I'm a senior ecologist Wetland scientist I've been do do this for 24 years I live next town over I work a principal at Godard Consulting um we were retained by the applicant to conduct the habitat evaluation and look at potential impacts to Riverfront area and come up with a restoration plan or enhancement plan to the riverfront area to maybe offset some of the impacts that are there um so that was kind of the task that I was brought into recently on this um so there was kind of the habitat assessment there were kind of two comp components to it there was assessing the the impacts to the riverfront area which is under the bwon protection act there was also another I think added request maybe it came from the commission at an earlier hearing about evaluating some of the impacts to the buffer zone for the area that's kind of out in the back right side sheet so for I'll talk about it in two different kind of right so there's front stuff which up front that riverfront areas fairly compromised right now it's got a lot of invasive species there's you know there's existing field it's moan or hate or whatever it's done to maintain it in a field state currently so the habitat value of that is is fairly limited there's lots of invasives between the field and the and the stream there The Perennial stream on that side the area here you can see that's in the the cyan blani stream which one you talking about one on the the unnamed one I think it is right that one doesn't have a name the West W one yeah correct so the area that's in blue there is area that's now currently field that's part of it's within the riverfront area that's outside of where they're proposing to work so my habitat evaluation included that area and the parts of the riverfront area that they're going to be converting to the solar array um most of the area I think all the all the riverfront areas that they're converting to the solar are either Disturbed degraded or field now pasture type habitats so habitat value is fairly Limited lied um lot of potential area in there for restoration because they can there's areas of that field that they're not going to use and I'll talk about my restoration plan in a little bit um but that area is not overly that useful for wildlife particularly Wetland dependent wild life which is what the whs protection act requires us to review and look at there you know there's nothing significant there there was no unique habitat features it's it's a maintained essentially Hayfield pasture type setting right now on the other side once we get into the forested area that's all buffer zone that we evaluated there's no set D standards for evaluating wildlife habitat impacts to buffer zone but it's a common ask that people have of me from time to time it's easy to evaluate Buffer's own habitats but in that sense I'm looking at more generalized Wildlife that could be there things that could potentially use the site looking at the different types of vegetation and natural communities that exist out there you know currently it's forested the forest age out there isn't incredibly old you know you can tell the site was probably cleared in relatively recent history not you know anytime in the last 10 years but the age of the trees they are fairly young they're all fairly even age stand you know it's probably 30 years old 40 year old stand of trees what time of year did you do this I was I've been out there multiple times my initial evaluation was probably February and March this year looking at the vegetation and the tree classifications out there there did you look for Turtles did I look specifically for Turtles no I mean I was looking for Habitat suitability like what's the habitat context of the site what could use the site based on habitat features that are there okay you know not any any particular Wildlife I just know that all the territory around is um especially across the street is natural heritage yes yeah and there was one found in the driveway just when this project was beginning okay right at the front edge it's not on the mapping yet cuz they only do it like every yeah and and I do a lot of natural heritage work too they don't every time there's there's been plenty of rare species I've submitted and they don't make that doesn't make the map because it's not far enough away they they have their own science that they put behind how they draw their polygons um but General habitat out there it's you don't average Upland Forest you know it's useful I'm not going to say it's not useful for certain things it's Habitat right it's it's Forest you know deer coyotes turkey song birds all those things can easily use that habitat um not necess protected species not necessarily anything that's uncommon but you know there would be a general shift in usage of that site by clearing trees you can say that about anybody's lot that you clear trees on um it's really no different here there there be a conversion of that to something that's more pasture like with this proposed use you know a solar array with essentially pasture underneath it as I understand it um so there's that that conversion there's always on these solar sites there's always a a Brushy Edge that develops over time there's the cleared area then there's the trees and there's always this kind of area between the fence and the tree line that they have to maintain for you know solar what are shadowing effect on the the arrays that turns into scrub shrub habitat which ends up being having to be maintained like that and that's actually a fairly useful habitat if you want to talk about deer and turkey and that type of stuff they tend to be attracted to habitats like that this is outside the fence yeah it would probably be some of it could be inside the fence I don't know exactly where the fence goes relative to that but generally that stuff typically is outside the fence but there's some maintenance to it that's needed to keep the trees from turning into 100 foot trees again to shade out the array um so those end up tending to be scrub shrub zones that develop over time um and again there was nothing overly unique or there was nothing special about that area I didn't see any you know unique features for any specific species out there General Wildlife use yes you know it's a very large habitat block I actually started my evaluation before they removed that road in the middle and that other some of the solar array so you know some of my initial comments on maybe you know having some fragmentation kind of go away having you know not having to bisect the Wetland and eliminate some of those wetland Crossing so it's more of a it's less of an encumbrance for for wildlife movement the overall size of this array is fairly small I've seen a lot of solar projects in my career you know I've seen ones much much bigger than this this is fairly small scale for a solar site um you know use of the animals out there it's it's you know I I look at it no different than a farm in that sense there'll be animals in a field right you know the solar array itself doesn't really change you know that that potential usage of the wildlife it's it's a fairly quiet facility there's not a lot of noise there's not a lot of light there's not a lot of traffic coming in and out to disturb Wildlife Things become acclimated fairly easily to kind of a quiet site like this on the perimeters so it's not in that sense it's not really that that disruptive but you know will there be some disruption of the local population of wildlife during construction sure is there going to be you know some number of less species of deer or something out there sure you know there's going to be less of that but none of that's you know Wetland dependent stuff that you can really come at and regulate in that sense you know I don't want to say that there wouldn't be any disturbance to Wildlife that'd be silly obviously you're clearing Forest there's some disturbance um it's just is it allowable is it permissible to the commission um so that's kind of the summary of the the habitat assessment and the findings I don't know if you can throw up that restoration plan if you have that on there I'm sure I can get it but you sure just sure so it's part of me looking at the riverfront area I also looked at the part of the riverfront that they weren't doing anything with and trying to go okay well they're not doing anything with this is there a way to enhance these parts of the riverfront increase the riparian Zone around that stream you know enhance the the habitat value of that area and there's some opportunities in there there's a lot of invasives both in the riverfront and in the Wetland um it's I'd say average it out probably 50% of the vegetation in there is invasive edge of a farm field typical you get a lot of Bittersweet and multiflor rows and Buckthorn and all that stuff around those those edges um so my thought is you know where they're going to have their fence the end of the limit of construction everything outside of that that's not permanently Forest put back the forest and everything out there from there to essentially into the Wetland close to the property line um is kind of an I call it a Riverfront enhancement Zone it's not creating Riverfront it's already functional Riverfront and that it's forested it's kind of going in there and improving it getting rid of some of the invasives maybe supplementing it with some additional plantings you if there's you're kind of taking a lot of invasives out and there's really nothing in the under story so those this the green zone with the dots are kind of Riverfront reforestation zones and the blue areas are kind of managed invasive zones that are you know they're forested now but they could be improved um so that's kind of the summary of the pl of the restoration plan I tried to keep it simple and graphical and easy to understand sounds like I might want like a write up that comes with it that's yeah that would be really helpful put text to this too I tried to keep it in construction notes on I think the third sheet just to kind of make it more user friendly to a contractor that has to do it um but yeah you can easily convert this into like a narrative thank that's kind of the summary what I was tasked with and what I did and what I found but you know any questions f for a questions and yep so when were you out there um I mean the summation of my assessment was from multiple times being out there but the the bulk of the categorizing the trees and doing the vegetative cover Maps was probably marchish and you didn't observe any Turtles over there I wouldn't have seen them no they're under they're still under you have to be actively looking for them because at that point they're under the duff in the forest and just maybe they're back sticks out so there's yeah Turtle Eastern box turtle or is it yeah mostly we have box turtles we have wood Turtles as well in the area which would be closer to Eastbrook exactly yeah box turtle you wouldn't even see you know maybe you you could start seeing them depending on when they come when they come out of hibernation but it all depends on the weather this year they or a little later than normal does it make sense to um as the fence is being installed have a screen to make sure there's nothing stuck in there we're not going to be asking for the fence to be raised because that seems to just trap animals inside so oh like a turtle protection plan type of well I'm just thinking of a a one time screening as the fence gets sealed up oh just to like like a almost like a sweep like if are our species site just to make sure that I mean I can talk to them to see if they're that's that I think that's a reasonable request can that be a that condition how do you condition of approval yeah but we could spe oh I could like I could it could be part of it a little bit like I could Define what that sweep is and what it would Encompass so there's and we would keep it solely in the riverfront Zone not around not all the fence for the property right just in the actually for box turtles it could be the whole property but it wouldn't it would be less near the river they don't come out of the river or go to it so the general Uplands you'd be talking about the areas where you're going to surround with fence there's also the pond Judy that is not on Jonathan's property but it's right over the line and we get the big box turtles even on my property you do EGS from that fond the fond it's a it's it's almost an impoundment it's it's on the property next next I I've seen that on aerial photo it's kind of up and over yeah yeah box turtles would not be using an impoundment I mean it could be other turtle species but box turtles are not an aquatic species yeah they don't they don't usually go in the water they go byy the water they're that big it's a snapper well those would be Snappers Snapp yeah they're they're not protected I mean they're they're we don't we don't want anything to happen to them but they're just not protected by speciales they're very they're all over yes I did um try to check into any records there might be about that being a Vernal pool but I couldn't find any so vernal pools are where like salamanders and wood frogs get born on the river like it's actually on stream farther up yeah it has to be pretty untrammeled and there have to be no fish or other things that would eat the eggs so yeah if it's run of stream it's probably likelihood that it's to say wet all year round then it wouldn't those amphibians could support other ones so the snapping turtles might not be able to travel as far as they are used to right they're pretty adaptable though they're not like some turtles like wood turtles have to have a certain amount of sand and gravel and super clean water and a lot of other things for them to be happy but snap Bur you can com Snappers will be nesting all over outside of this fence I mean that's cleared and open there'll be plenty of areas for them to the eggs okay another question I have a couple questions is a this wildlife habitat evaluation is this normally appear reviewed no so we accept that but we didn't accept any of the Wetland flagging that they did during the enra process well it he's qualified to make a habitat he has the the certification to be able to do it so he he's like his own peer review he's a peer review of uh of Ni and Rory I I come into it I know they hired me but I I come into it as a scientist I just make an evaluation I don't have a case Brower against solar it's just this is I report what's there this is my assessment made it sound like the and Christopher Robin are going to come walking out of that solar field too it sounds like it's shanea out there and and just all the animals are going to just live under the panels in Harmony and there's going to be no no uh sound or anything the the way you made it sound I want to move in on soul I mean here's the point he is a paid consultant for them just like in a courtroom anywhere where you get a paid consultant medical consultant whatever and I know that you just said JY that and and I respect your credentials you're you're and do you do this a lot oh yes I've doing this for 24 years yeah right exactly no you just as a paid consultant for Sol for 24 years no for not just for solar no I don't work on only solar sites do you work in mson is that no I live in wilam I work all over the valley oh yeah yeah I do rare species stuff I do restoration sites yeah and for people Building Homes to and again I respect your credentials it so you're a scientist and your Wildlife scientist do you think this is the best spot to put a solar field what not you've got to be out of your mind no he doesn't evaluate that part he just is his job is to inform us what animals are there what animals might be affected what habitat is there more importantly um and uh if we had a screen then the screen would look for specific animals that are there at the time one last question have you ever done a job for a company that that paid you were were you cided against can we keep the conversation to this is It's kind of getting a little bit out of hand well we like to make feel comfortable I mean if she has questions about the report in the comments made that would be appropriate I've found things on sites that my clients have not liked I've found rare species on sites during my habitat evaluations okay they have TOA do you have any comments J I wasn't done with my questions I know Cindy okay but the fence still being in the river front area on this plan is that still considered an intrusion to Wildlife even it's like oh they move the fence but it's still on the River Front itend yeah it's counted in in disruption okay so as I didn't have a chance to read this entire Wildlife study but I did find an interesting paragraph regarding the noise of the equipment and in one breath and I'm not trying to be disrespectful to you but in one breath it was the equipment won't make much noise and then well if it makes a lot of noise the animals will get used to it and then well if it makes noise put noise mitigation measures so which is it I think we'll discuss the noise mostly next time okay but I just want to point that out because the animals aren't going to get used to it they're going to move just like people would yeah no noise is a is a concern of many people okay just want to make that point thank you yeah I have a question um how how are words by the panels by the panels directly or well I mean any Forest birds that are in the forest the forest isn't there obviously they're going to lose habitat you know chickies and tip mice and things that are more Forest nesting um the panels itself there's not a lot of studies on do the panels directly affect Birds there's been studies on grasslin birds when they put panels in fields that were nesting habitat specifically for a grass and species and now the panels disrupt their view shed but these fields are too small for really to attract grassing nesting Birds um but you know some things could work and live in between the panels but there's not a lot of studies on are the panels themselves directly impacting third species I don't I haven't come across that before but I mean the panels IR ly I mean I'm not going to say that the fields are going to be great bird habitat let's I'm not saying they're going to be attractive to Bringing birds in so they're not yeah one animal runs and this and that you know it's continuous y so how how part of it is being dis yeah how many AC I don't know up the top of my head like a forest yeah yeah uh on the on the right side the big area it's about uh I'd say there's about 12 acres plus or minus through the whole site but about 10 on that side that whole right side is you yeah that upper northeast corner is mostly forest and as Steve said it's all young Forest like that area was farmed up until the 70s it all clear that whole back area there you can still see the walls there's still um just disposed old equipment not mechanical equipment but there so yeah it it was a working farm up until the 70s from the information I was able to gather and since that time it's it's vegetated with you know smaller trees and other mostly invasives unfortunately because when you go from as Steve said a farm use to just letting it vegetate naturally um without any supervision you're going to get mostly invasive so that's where we are with them okay we're at 7:30 so I want to get to the storm water while Jean's still here s chairman just ask one question before we get into that I just wanted to respectfully ask the commission follow through on request and writing that they wanted to do a delineation of that Northern Area um particularly since Ty Bond basically admitted that that wasn't in the scope of their liation if we Rec contract with tyan Bon I will ask them to go look at that I thought you I thought the commission was actually going to that's something they were going to take on themselves oh no we don't do delineations oh they would do it we get a professional to do we only can they only if we decide to contract with them again we usually go look at it make sure we agree and look at the wildlife and the I mean the the um plants and things that are there but we don't actually do that we don't have the expertise to do that not Wenda what does well if she comes on yeah I didn't introduce Wenda she is um from grandby and mo recently moved here and she has extensive experience on conservation Comm commissions and with other kinds of uh information if she is on the commission then it would be a possibility that they would do their own delineations so we're hoping that she decides to join the commission that would be a really good thing all right uh Jean can you do the storm water for us happy too um I'll also share my screen if you let me G and while we're figuring that out can everybody hear me okay yes I I think so it should be coming to you see it I suspect we'll run a little bit over 8 o'clock because I want to make sure we get everything from Jean just in case yes you see my letter yeah you can see it yes um so when we received revised documents storm water report and a response to comments um we reviewed them to make sure what the applicant said was going on was happening um and then kind of looked at what's okay what's happening now with this um in general I think we've got a lot of things that are addressed which is great um I do have a few highlighted that I really want to talk about um so looking at the changes that were made there's really no changes to the few a few of of the beginning storm water standards so standard one and standard two they still meet these standards with um the revised design and that's you know new no no new new storm water discharges that are untreated to any Waters of the Commonwealth and then standard two is Peak rate attenuation we're going to get into that part later when we talk about curve numbers because that's going to be a bigger discussion than I'm going to say for the end um so standard three was about ground groundwater recharge we had asked for you know additional test pit information that stuff has been provided to us in the revised storm water report um we found that the storm water basin design um reflects you know the two foot required separation in groundwater or Bedrock um there is one quick little note on here about elevation inconsistency on the drawings which isn't going to change anything in the design of the storm water just something we want to note for the plan edit um the second comment about groundwater recharge was in regard to the quantity of imp impervious area shown there was a discrepancy previously that has been clarified so that we are taking account all the new impervious area on site um so that's been taken care of um C was regarding groundwater mounding so there was no groundwater mounding um there was a groundwater mouning analysis provided previously we needed more information how some of this how some of the um the numbers were developed uh because it's kind of gray in the storm water handbook um but with the very extensive response explaining exactly how we got all the pieces um we were satisfied with that groundwater mounding result and so that has been designed to comply with the St water standards in the handbook can you quickly describe what that is so yeah that's um under a basin our storm water management feature that's infiltrating um we want to be sure that the water that's going into the ground is not causing groundwater underneath that basin to raise up too high um either too high to impact the function of the Basin or to break out at a downstream slope um you know that's you know just how groundwater infiltrates in and then that the mound gets created and then the mound will slowly go away over time thank you um so the next few standard four five six seven um and eight were already met previously they are still met with the with the current design um standard nine was regarding the operation and maintenance plan um we needed locations of the storm water management features on a plan for that document that is one kind of Standalone thing that we just need all the information in that one one package um so that has been addressed standard 10 is regarding an illicit discharge statement uh the applicant has responded saying that one will be provided prior to construction which is an acceptable timing um according to the storm water standards we age um the we agree that the the commission should include a condition of approval that requires that that statement aign statement um looking so that's that's the 10 storm water standards looking into the wetlands um you know the DP Wetlands policy about solar and how you know storm water management should be worked um number 11 here is regarding the spacing between rows of panels um thank you for clarifying that it's not panels it's Rose which is correct um what the applicant has responded is saying or I I'll step back our comment was in regard to um you know that that D the D policy says your panels need to B spased this far apart um the applicant has proposed something less than that so in order for us to get behind that we need to know why and how um grass was going to be growing underneath the panel so this is more um vegetation growth kind of question um couple factors here the my my comment says it's been addressed but there's a couple points I want to point out here uh the first being this this isn't a concern no how the panel spacing is not as much of a concern to me in my experience with solar facilities um where we have existing grass so a lot of this site does have some existing ground vegetation not in the woods um so there I'm concerned I am a little concerned about being able to establish grass underneath panels um where we have nothing to start from or very little to start from um so we may need to talk about that one a little bit more um and I think I have another note somewhere I may just find it what would you do in that instance put in plugs I I don't think so I think it's just being really be careful about what species of grass we're planting making sure we have really good um growth medium for them um you know sometimes in construction of a solar facility we don't want to bring in a ton of loan um but we probably need to in some areas to make sure that this grass can grow there's definitely species that will grow underneath the solar panels um they've been designed for that at this point um so I think it's it's probably we're probably going to want to create a condition that you know may or have a discussion at least that may specify um you know different seed mix under the panels okay and I don't know if the applicant has any thoughts on that while we're here my only thought is that uh with our response we submitted photos of different solar systems across the Commonwealth that looked pretty ratty frankly I those those only one of kind of lush the rest of them looked really bare to me it is dependent on the time of year in which the photo was taken but the point that I wish to make is that all of those sites were completely bare when that growth was done so understanding uh gen concerned um the in my opinion growth will occur um on these panels regardless of the spacing between rows and in general I I can agree with that once we're make sure that we've got the right the right materials there can we put a condition in for review every six months or something on that for a while or something or if they if if we do an extension they could evaluate well the plan we we're gonna have to come back to close out the permit so if we don't have what we call substantial growth I'm not going to sign off on unless I see 75% where I would sign and say everything's been installed properly so that wouldn't occur until that point that's that's the threshold it'll be under a Swip anyway right you'll have to meet that standard correct and we'll also be working under a storm water pollution prevention plan for a nities permit but overall the final stabilization will have to be there um before we come back to you to officially close out the permit and move forward after Construction John I do have a concern um Jean with what you're saying have you included the information that the agricultural section of this phase is going to support that in other words the grass you're asking I'm asking you if you reviewed that they don't they didn't give you how many animal anal they're going to have gra in there you have no idea so how can you say that this would be fine that's I think that's a topic we're going to talk about in a little bit when we get more to what curve number are we using for this site what is that post construction amount of runoff that's coming off from the site which is later in this topic I think they're related though okay we'll probably have to Circle back just then I'll I'll listen to your curves okay we're good okay um all right so continuing on we were talking about um this was in the previous design where we had the Wetland Crossing and we had swes that were kind of going down to that Wetland Crossing those have been eliminated so this comment number 11 is now um been addressed because it doesn't happen anymore uh comment 13 is in regard to um the elevation of the drip edge of the panel um the D guidance wants it no more than 10 feet the applicant is saying it's now four feet um what the that cattle are taller than four feet so the applicant can respond to that part of it but anyway um the applicant has suggested that um we can add something to the operation and maintenance plan that requires that like a stone drip edge is you know would be in installed if there is a problem um while I say that that's generally a good thing to have I do want to point out to the commission that you may want to think about this one a little bit more um you know the the i in my experience have seen Crush P Crush Stone along the drip edge and then none and I've seen them both work just fine um we may want to look at areas that maybe more conducive to erosion um in more steeper areas how the channels are oriented with the with the topography and even have that put in now versus later I don't think we need it everywhere though I do want to clarify that um so we may want to either talk about that now or table it for later can you go on yeah um I I'm not I have it highlighted on mine so I can remember to talk about it later would you would you turn them would you turn the whole array you can't because they need to be facing a certain direction to so what do you mean say Orient so it's it's going to be the orientation of the how the panel know we want the panel um the drip edge line so the bottom line of the the the row there to you know when it's perpendicular to um the topography reacts differently than when it's parallel to the topography when it's perpendicular water will flow down the panel and then sheep will you know flow this way in a more concentrated way those are the concerns those are the locations that I'm probably most concerned about okay question go ahead okay oops somebody online oh somebody has a question online Steve hello my name is uh Steve garabedian um and I'm a uh hydrologist and I'm assisting Miss Gina Stabilo um I have uh a point I want to make about the mouning analysis um and in particular uh from my uh look at the information that's in the most recent storm water management plan uh Basin three fails uh under um the uh under the conditions that they have uh that they have in that report uh so for example uh their test Hole uh number three they have refusal at 42 in uh in that test hole and if we uh take that three and a half ft subtract it from the ground elevation at that test hole we end up with a Bedrock or or ledge at 5765 uh feet of elevation if we then uh take that from uh the bottom of the uh the elevation of the bottom of basin 3 at 5785 ft that's only 2 feet of sediment between the bottom of basin 3 and the ledge that uh they're showing in their own data in the in this report now they then use a a saturated thickness in the uh hush uh calculations of 3et so how do have a saturated thickness of 3 feet with only two feet of sediment and if I were to use this this correctly which is to say the the uh hush uh analysis um which is readily available by the way online it's a USGS product uh free you can download it anyone can download it um if you use uh what really should be there which is zero feet because there is no water table in that 2T of or in that in that uh 42 in of of sediment that was found there um if you use that um clearly the the analysis shows that Basin 3 fails the the three-day uh the three-day requirement D do you have a comment on that uh my only comment is that we're going to relook at that one um I may have missed that so I appreciate you point to get out to me um it's sounds you know completely correct and what you're saying so we will definitely take a look at that and we can revise our letter to address that you should you should also take a look at Basin 2 all right because Basin 2 although it becomes a bit cloudier as far as exactly what the saturated thickness is uh because uh there's there's more material there so how thick uh the actual saturated thickness is becomes uh a bit of a question but nonetheless if I do the analysis um it looks like uh uh Basin 2 could fail also under the mounting analysis so I also have uh Miss chairman I also have comments about the curve numbers the CN numbers uh that M uh Christie is about to talk to uh about whether I get to it tonight whether we whether I can speak to it or not tonight I I would like to make comments about that when that's possible okay Jan you want to continue sure um so looking at comment number 14 this is where we start to get into some of the you know engineering E comments of the plans um where we looked at the ri W Channel you know had a certain shape on plan but what didn't have the same shape in a detail a cross-section that has been addressed um oh this is the next comment number B was about uh this is a hard one to explain how the grading of this sale so this was um you know when you're coming in from the main entrance and then you turn left there was a sale inside of the road that's accepting runoff from the street from the roadway or the drive aisle um the way that was previously graded made it look like you were using some of the driveway as your sale so we asked for that to be clarified and cleaned up a little bit so that there's a clear edge of pavement and or edge of driveway and Edge of sale that's been addressed um the discharge of the Swale was like in letter C we wanted to see a level spreader Outlet at the end of the sale just to rein you know reintroduce um sheet Flow versus that channelized flow which is what you know often creates erosion that's been addressed um and looking at number 15 uh we disagreed with a delineation of a subwater shed um that has been addressed and revised um looking at number 16 you know this is where we get into what is new impervious and not and what requires total suspended solid removal um we did ask for sediment for Bas to be included as a pre-treatment they've been added but we'd like to see a detail on what those look like um so we'd like to see that added to the plan and then number 17 is is probably the biggest comment of the night regarding um our curve number so your curve number is the you know a number that we'll use in our analysis that reflects how much water will run off of a surface how much water you know taking the water away that's infiltrating or transpara V transpara this is the amount of runoff that's created um in the analysis that was provided we're looking at a curve number of 39 so this was relatively low this looks like really good grass in a good soil condition um and this is where we talk about the uh grazing of it um you know grass pasture is I think we've got a couple options here um I'm find my note of course I can't find it when I want to see it you know pasture continuous Forge for grazing or Meadow was like protected from grazing and not you know having Liv stock on it um and so the I think the argument that or the concern that a curve number should be higher is I think a little aggressive um I'm comfortable with the Curve number that's proposed as our final fully stabilized condition um uh construction period storm water is a completely different scenario um and I don't want to talk about that where we don't have full stabilization um but my opinion was I was I was satisfied with the analysis that was provided and I know that there's um other opinions in the audience uh you at that point we can allow for another question that's fine with me okay I'm speak okay Mr g obedian yep um so um I respectfully disagree with Miss Christie um and the engineering uh analysis that's been done thus far um you really need to understand that in particular uh in the in the question of uh subcatchment area P6 which is the uh heavily forested area on the Eastern side of the uh of the proposed uh development um this is this is an extremely Stony extremely steep slope and um what they're proposing to do is to rip off all the trees cut them all down take out all the stumps take out all the brush and basically take off all of the organic material that's on the soil or um in the in the area and in so doing they're going to destroy the soil structure so you're no longer going to have an A or B soil horizon it's going to be all churned up and this is not only from the removal of the vegetation but also the fact that you need heavy equipment in order to do that you need back hose you need bul bulldozers and the rest of it in order to remove this material now this is on uh uh in particular as you uh will note uh it's in a uh area where um there's uh a soil uh uh class uh 407c which uh in the nrcs uh uh notes uh 18 to 15% slope extremely Stony this um was very poor agricultural soil to begin with and then you're going to destroy the soil structure by uh doing this this grubbing activity I don't see I don't see this supporting any reasonable as far as uh uh you know a pasture or any kind of uh mature uh growth of of grass um and that's that excuse me a minute that area is not proposed for a grazing field is it it's going to be grass it is yeah but it's it's not one of the managed uh crop field there is for the for the sheep or is it a large wooded area to the right of the site no that's that will be be gra field okay it'll be uh grass and raised for the current proposal so the point I wanna the point I want to make Miss chairman is this during the period of time and it will take an extensive time for them to be able to grow anything up on that slope this exposed slope is going to erode under any High rainfall conditions and by that I mean any anything that's going to exceed an inch or so of of rainfall and you know how often we get high rainfall in our part of the part of the United States so this is this is an extremely in particular this this part of the development is extremely vulnerable to high erosion particularly early on uh during uh and immediately after the development of this of this uh proposed solar solar field and that's the comment I want to make thank you Jean um I I don't think it's my position to defend the applicant in this position this topic that was my finding and my opinion on the matter I think it's up to the applicant to address the comment that specific comment um to the commission's uh satisfaction sure so um hold on just kind of go over a few items while they're fresh in my head so anytime you clear a site remove the trees that whole area is going to be vulnerable to erosion during a heavy rainfall event so this is not some sort of specific situation that's why we have storm water pollution prevention plan that's why we have erosion and sediment controls in place we'll be looking at phasing in that back area because that's the only exposed area on the site so we we're going to look at clearing it getting it situated in that back area and then hopefully stabilizing it as soon as possible to minimize any chances of erosion through that back area um do you have extra steps that you're planning to take in that area during like extra that out during the final Swip a prior to construction but I can prepare a statement if that's what the commission would like to see for construction practices specific to that area um you with regards to the curve numbers utilizing the analysis I mean I'm sure tyan Bon will you know reiterate my statement I use standard engineering practice for this design so as um garbedian we can we can change any of the variables but if we start changing variables away from the standard way of Designing things there's no way to an analyze it based on certain standards so yeah I could change the curve numbers I could change the runoff characteristics by a variety of different small inputs but the way that the analysis was done and reviewed by time bond is the standard practice for doing these types of designs these types of storm water reviews and reports um now with regards to disturbing the the sub soil as noted the vegetation through there we're not pulling up 40in D diameter trees most of the trees through that area they're 6 in maybe eight 3 in 8 in but you are going to remove this dumps correct they'll just probably likely be bulldozed and taken out which occurs all the time and good curve numbers are always used in post-development analysis for those types of situations you only use Fair poor when you're really impacting your your subsoil that's way below the ground surface not by pulling stumps from you know a hand you know smaller trees and things of that nature um yes there will be equipment back there to do the work there's no other way to get around it um but we'll be working in a manner to quickly grade and stabilize the areas that need to be worked um John did you have any comments to that I do I do and again I hear what you're saying we always go to the standard and we design to the standard but I'm sorry to say that site may not be able to be designed standard that's where you have to use a little bit more engineering Common Sense okay and you have to maybe take a more conservative to what you're proposing so those are some of the things that you know I can say yeah yeah we designed it standard and all of a sudden we have 100-year flood event or a 100-year event and you know what all that material is washing down Downstream into the wetlands or whatever so you can't just say I'm designed it the standard and that's just incorrect so to clarify we do design to the standards that's proper engineering practices to the comment he's commenting on construction conditions the storm water report is done looking at current existing conditions and final stabilized conditions that's how we re that's how we look at projects and develop the reporting everything during construction is managed through the storm water pollution prevention plan for a site of this size there will be temporary sediment basins that will be installed there will be other um structural erosion and sediment control practices that are utilized a lot of that stuff is you you you implement and design as much as you can and then once the site is cleared you start to see where the concentrated flow paths are and then you install additional measures to address certain areas it's not you have to design it a certain way or the standards aren't right the standards are the standards that's what we designed to but there's different phases of the project we have construction we have right when the site is cleared and at its most vulnerable when it's exposed and we'll be making sure to take proper precautions during that phase of the project we'll be looking to stabilize that back area as soon as possible the only way to really stop erosion is to stabilize the site so that's going to be one of the main goals when we excuse me when we clear that back area along with installing other standard erosion instead of control practices such as like I said sediment traps sediment basins temporary diversion channels check dams there's a whole slew of items that are going to need to be implemented on a site of this size when you do clear a large 10 acre swath of you know wooded area this we're not saying that we're just going to go clear the site and whatever's going to happen is going to happen and then we're going to put the array tables in that's not how it works but to comment on the design and the standards you need to know what you're looking at what the standard is for the report and the calculations that are provided to the commission under the state standards under the state requirements Patrick you have any comments as far as any questions about this or suggestions about what should be covered well as far I mean I understand designing to the standard and professional skills and and that's I get that comment and I think that's place to start right and is there to to address John's comments then about any how do you how do you solve for a variance to the standard I think is what John is saying we're not so can all of that be done in the storm water protection plan the the whip it it should be okay but again going back to all the engineering ends of it you have to you have to look at all possibilities I can understand it's easy to say oh I just designed it the standing walk away that's not yes we can say it sorry though that's being arrogant and just saying that you know what we didn't C in this okay Jean any further comments I think um I think it's up to collectively the commission and the applicant to determine what the next step is in terms of analysis if they're going to if you're going to require that um curve numbers be adjusted okay thank you well definitely you talk about later I may not be like right now so i' like for the record the commission chose a reputable firm such as time and bond who are qualified Professionals in this field they design storm solar systems they review them to review the Project based on the standards that's why we have standards yeah I understand all that and you've said that several times but I think it's also important to consider other opinions other viewpoints and other uh climate changes that are happening right now we have to whether or not that specifically in the current standards we have to know that that that's coming down the line we've had a lot in h in a lot of flooding a lot of um we're working with the municipal vulnerability project just to deal with our our ordinary storm water uh down our roads and things so East no I understand definitely there are values right for a twoyear storm a 100e storm that I can't just say I think we cover legal just I can't do concerned about reality that's not that's not reality in my world I use the current information that's available and public for these types of things okay um make that you want to continue okay uh number 18 was regarding um the actual hydrologic analysis and making sure that we are looking at Apples to Apples and that's been addressed in terms of um analysis sizes and areas uh number 19 was looking at what the proposed impervious areas were being accounted for in the hydrocat analysis um that has been addressed and been accounted for um number 20 I mean these are all some very simple things um the infiltration base in one is not labeled uh we wanted to make sure that it was um it is but it's really hard to see I blew it up with a c the fat line but maybe you could tilt it or something we'll do okay oh yeah then some inconsistencies number 21 inconsistencies about labeling Basin I think that's been cleared up and then lastly was um you know using an overflow Spillway and making sure that we have that referenced appropriately that was all that okay all right um Patrick did you have any more questions or things you wanted to make sure got addressed while we have the peer reviewers here did you want me to go through my comments or come or sure okay so I got the look of is he really all right I I think this uh based on what I heard this evening I think that you answered some of my questions already um yes voice all right I will I can do that hey before he continues Gan and Melissa just in case you have to leave or something um I will send you uh a small proposal in the morning for extending this to review these final items can we can I have the Consultants just make a general statement as far as a percentage of the items that have been addressed with the revised submission and acknowledge that a lot A lot has been done to manage and mitigate impacts to the resource area so I just want to make that clear I don't want to speak for the Consultants but that's how I feel with this new submission and I think based on the comments I was able to read on the screen I haven't seen the letters that that is essentially where we are there are still a few items to button up I'm not saying everything's perfect but I would just like the Consultants while they're here to provide a final statement on where they believe the plans are the submission materials are currently sure I'll start uh definitely with the storm water there's been Improvement you know in this this next round I agree there's still topics to discuss um but a lot of of kind of the I guess you know site plan stuff has been addressed some of the real technical compliance with the storm water standards have been addressed so I think we're doing great on our way so I will I will note um that the goal of any um environmental review is you know you demonstrate that you've avoided you've you've minimized and then you've mitigated your your direct impacts and under the wetlands protection act um and the town's bylaw direct impacts to Resource areas are the most critical to address and the revision of the design to not just reduce but eliminate direct impacts to a bordering vegetated Wetland um replicating and restoring um bordering vegetated Wetland function and value especially exitu is challenging at best um even when welld designed and well implemented so so that is um in my mind a huge improvement over the original proposal and um I think the the outstanding item is as we we spoke to several times was is the kind of final summary of Where the design lands relative to um resource final resource area impact numbers for Riverfront particularly um in compliance with those performance standards so I'd say there's been progress since the uh initial documents I reviewed as well thank you okay Patrick Dy could we ask Mr gabian if he has any final comments mran do you have any final comments um you know it's uh is this going to be continued uh is this discussion and in particular the storm water management plan discussion going to continue into the next meeting it'll probably be considered at all the future meetings because there's still issues um we plan to meet on the 5th and the 15th um this is this is where I find uh you know sufficient or significant deficiencies in uh in the applicants uh in their application um the the issue of uh the discrepancy in the area oh I mean this this is something that someone should have checked before it went out the house before it even came to the in front of the commission I'm not sure addressed it's no yes well number number 18 yeah in number 18 uh and that has direct implications for the storm water management plan now the second storm water management plan has been improved I will I will concur but again uh it does pose still pose a significant risk uh for uh erosion in particular from the eastern part of this uh proposed development okay thank you so I still want to give Patrick some time before it gets desperate the record I'd like to know Mr gban field of expertise in site design design of solar fields in general I know he's a hydrologist but design of erosion control and Management Systems design of storm Water Management Systems there's a a whole list of read on there I would like to know why he's being classified as a competent professional in sight to he's not we're just taking his opinion the same as we would take anybody's opinion that's sitting here when you another person that they called in people to take and like he's a qualified professional no we never said that we're not paying him we're not we're not listing him as aord I would like in civil sight design erosion control instead we haven't made you take of his advice so it's irrelevant well we're we're taking his comments we're taking everybody's comment who wants to comment I mean they're just they're in my opinion they're just comments he's just a guy who knows something about this and who has things to say and it's the same as the engineers who are among our residents and the other sorts of folks who've been on the planning board who have opinions it's no different we're not him as the source we're just listening to what he has to say exactly should be accepted so that's that's a valid point but when I get a letter with a a resume on it I would like to know how it applies to he just did that it's not discussing this evening relevant to whether we take his opion or not just wanted to clarify for the record okay Patrick okay all right floor is yours floor is mine so what I had um when Rory provided the permit applications essentially what I've done is I've read through it and as you can tell through my stickies here I identified places that I wanted I read something here and I read something there and I was trying to be identify are we consistent is it being said the same way so that's that was mostly my exercise other things I'll talk about next week in our planning board okay so the first general question I think I've answered my own question here was when you talk about the site the site is the 53 acres is that the site versus uh the size of the property is 53 the area expected to be disturbed is 21 a half I just in the we talk about the site and I was thinking is you say here the site and is that the so I can clarify that for you so there's two Parcels one parcel is a residential parcel um 530 Glendale Road yeah that's the smaller parcel that's highlighted on the cover and then the rear parcel the larger highlighted area that's the 53 acre parcel where the solar array is going to be they're both included in the application because access to the site is going to come through 530 Glen Road there's an existing access easement that we'll be utilizing and the uh utility poles will be installed that property and that's where the fire tank will also be installed so those three items are why 530 as a separate property but it's still part of the project um is included in the application but the solar array the batteries the Transformers y the fencing the driveways the new the new work it's all on the rear parcel which the total land area of that rear parcel is 53 Acres got it correct okay okay that's what I that's what I saying okay um there's you know there's some typo thing typos in here that I can talk to for worry about um so as relates to the storm water report as I read through this I got to this is just me trying to keep a complete turbidity uh statement here is uh this development is not required to provide turbidity testing and sampling based on the current classif classification of the receiving water the receiving water is identified as Indian Brook not Eastbrook um should the classification of Indian Brook be changed to where testing is required the SW PPP will be updated to testing procedures and requirements so I guess my question is is that just an oversight it should have been Eastbrook or will this be different when Eastbrook goes in so correct it should say Eastbrook and you do turbidity testing when you're doing um when you're pumping groundwater so usually run into those situations if you're digging deep foundations you're you know where you're going to be digging into the groundwater level and you have to evacuate groundwater to complete your excavation we don't anticipate any deep excavations um associated with this property especially if we're going to be doing the directional drilling as previously discussed the only real excav work is associated with the little earthw work with the construction of the gravel driveway which is not going to impact the groundwater table or require groundwater pumping and the installation of the um surface concrete pads which those will essentially be excavated down about a foot compacted gravel placed down and then the concrete pad on top of that so there's no deep excavations so um there will be no turbidity monitoring as part of the storm water prevention plan okay and I do see that uh you've identified it as Eastbrook and other cor right yeah must okay L that one do your plants have a settling pool in them in case there should be brown water that has to be bumped out during no what we would do uh what I specify in the it's like I said it's just a draft storm water pollution prevention plan if it's a small area where groundwater is encountered it needs to be pumped um they would use a sediment bag so it's a large bag uh that filters out the water and you set that um on a nice an area that's not adjacent to the resource area that's as level as you can get it from the resource area you pump into that bag and the water cleans itself as it you know evacuates through the outside of the porest bag and then the sediment remains in the bag that's usually you know for smaller excavations if you run into you know um spots where you need to do that type of groundwater pumping um you would use that you wouldn't have like a Frack tank or a dedicated dug um settling pod for that type of thing so it's in the plan to have something like that available in case correct that's it's detailed there's a there's a manufacturer uh cross-section or section of that of the bag I specified I think it's call go ahead okay uh also in the pl section 5.5.2 pesticides herbicides insecticides it states Nick that use of chemical pesticides herbicides insecticides fertilizers and landscape materials are not allowed on site that's where my question about site and I look looking at what Rory had provided some background it states that in addition to Mowing and weed eating solar facilities often use some herbicides solar facilities generally do not spray over the entire acreage it said the herbicides used at solar facilities are primarily 2-4-d and gly phosphate which is known as Roundup the operation and maintenance plan that Rory provided talks about spot herbicide treatment being done during the first year the second year the third fourth and fifth year so there was a reference to herbicide treatment in those periods and also Nick in your report your separately here it says requirements for storage and use of fertilizers herbicides and pesticides once again it states that the use of herbicides and pesticides shall not be allowed on site so of course my question was pesticides sounds like they will be on site although your your work for the storm water makes the statement that they won't be allowed on site sounds like they will be used on site Roy and I uh crossed uh I will update the omm to flect I apologize that I did not correspond with men I will make sure that we are in sync about they are not to be utilized correct and my main thing was they're not to be I I think what I was trying to convey with that they're not going to be stored on site there's not just going to be an area with a pallet with exposed chemicals that's the important thing it would be maintenance crew would would if they're going to use it or needed to use it they would bring it and remove it from the site but if the commission or the planning board would recommend that they don't be used then the site will still function whether you use um you know spot treatments of of Roundup or not thinking you may use round no no but what I'm saying is you're talking to the wrong guy no no no I'm saying if the commission prefers that it just gets completely removed I think Rory is okay with that we'll remove that part from um the documentation Rory provided I think the likelihood is if you needed to use it like um occasionally the smartest thing to do for some kinds of invasives is um Spot Treatment after they're cut yeah um then you would just come back to the commission I could put any conditions as you come back to the commission and get that cleared I wouldn't want it to be used all the time that's why I wrote that in there um on my end so I me I'm with I agree with you guys I don't for for something like this it's not a manicured you know residential lawn this is we're trying to let it grow as as well as possible but we do need to manage invasives as well I guess my only my experience in having worked in landscaping is you know once you have it available it becomes pretty handy to use it more than you might have intended you know once it's on the site you know it becomes something that uh but if you're it sounds like what you're saying is for the vegetation management plan you're going to remove the spot herbicide section unless it's and have it be something that's approved by the commission we could put a note in there if it's if it becomes a a problem or we can come up with some language that it says in there if Allowed by the commission or you know make a present you know appli to the Conservation Commission to with a detailed plan of where it's to be used in the future okay that's fine okay uh so also throughout the documents uh there's reference to the handling of hazardous materials and here we have something requesting a list of any hazardous materials proposed to be located on site in excess of household quantities and a plan to prevent the release to the environment as appropriate and there's a list of possible pollutants uh in a couple places and also Nick in your document it talks to spill prevention and response and it says the risk of significant spills at the site is limited and will most likely be associated with motor vehicle use or maintenance and you say that the following action plan shall be implemented upon the spill or release um so my comment is the request is for a plan to prevent and what's been provided is really what I see throughout the documents is what do we do when we've had a release not a plan to prevent so a plan to prevent that something for example would be you know there's a concrete pad that exists and anytime there's a transfer of anything that might be considered hazardous or you know you're fueling something or that happens on the concrete pad so that that's the I don't see anything about prevention I see you know how do we attend to spill spills or leaks attend to spills in the event of a large spill you know D so that to me across the documents I don't see the the that piece of it so there's there's two components there's longterm so operate operation of the site and then there's construction right right so longterm extremely minimal you know with maintenance vehicle maybe showing up once or twice a month yeah to you know a pickup truck but um you know we can uh we can provide a little bit more detail in the in the Swip I mean the Swip language is pretty standard for um what's required of the Nifty program I mean that's a very standard document I I modify it a little bit but um you know all that is pretty standard and then you also have the general construction permit which is part of the Nifty program it's other 200 Page document that has a lot of information that contractors are well aware of uh when they work on large sites but if we can we can work up something um for for scenarios um you have that for for next week if that's something you looking for yeah and you actually have I noticed in your you have section five pollution prevention controls and I didn't see anything in what was provided so that I guess this is is this the answer to have something about if if this is complete it's got the pollutant generating activity column the pollutant for pollutant constituents and then the location on site if if this is complete does that is that answer the what page is that in the page 30 yeah it's Section 5 under Section 5.1 you know as as detailed that that that's a draft document as we're not close to to construction yet that'll be finalized um to current standards when we get to that point but we just wanted to provide the draft that shows it will be it'll likely be a condition of approval that the final Swip gets submitted to the conservation commission and most likely the planning board prior to any start of any activity with you know preconstruction meeting to go for everything those are typically uh standard items so um all right so I guess the takeaway is something about prevention yes okay and also eligibility Criterion section page 11 uh it says Criterion C discharges not likely to result in any short or long-term adverse effects to so I don't want to cut you off but like I said that's a draft document okay that's the federal us Wildlife and Fisheries section where we go through a process before we finalize the Swip and we go on to their website and get clarification of any endangered species we know through the natural heritage mapping there's no endangered species what will come up as we not going to say it's on it's listed yet was going to be the the longear bat so there'll be Provisions for that and the monarch butterfly which is not a listed species yet but it always comes up in every nipy permit I file it's always the longe BET and um the the monarch butterfly monarch butterfly is not listed yet by the federal government and this is only for federally regulated um endangered species I believe so this has nothing to do with the Massachusetts plan what's listed in the storm water pollution prevention plan but when we get to that point we'll go through the process the review through uh the Wildlife and Fisheries they have like a website portal I put the address in I put information about the project it gets reviewed and then they generate What's called the consistency letter that says you're not going to impact um the longe BET essentially in in that in that area but all that gets finalized so a lot of the like I said a lot of those items are storm water pollution prevention plan items which like I said it's only a draft document showing that we will have a document in place and that will be finalized with conditions of approval and for all the boards and any additional requirements that come up with regards to erosion and settlement control and other things like that so you know we'll dial that in before construction based on all the discussions we have with all okay so I guess my so my takeaways then are we talked about herbicides and which and then this prevention area of pollution okay okay um we need to Gan or or Melissa either one of you have a comment on what was just said uh Nick handled it perfectly thank you Jean very good um we need to take a vote on the continuation um yes I'm not available the week of the 15th I just want to throw that out there Rory somebody said it was the 15th it's not it's that the 15th 15th is a Saturday great available that third what is it it's whatever the third Wednesday is 19th 19 19th sorry okay so would be the fifth and the 19th that we're planning a meeting yeah and we'll fit whatever leftover items there are into those two times I want to take at least a preliminary vote before people get retired would it be possible to discuss any engine like most of the engineering stuff during the fifths and like the noise stuff where like I I can address most of those comments anything non civil engineering related project related I'll be able to answer um if that's a possibility that would be uh yeah so we going to be doing um same might be I don't know because that's what I had on here that that's in the middle of the day no oh no the scantic yeah we do have another thing happening that day make a review of the scantic Valley water district in it's not going to be just you it'll be a long meeting another thing we got I'm sorry got it yeah so it's going to be like half Max meeting is gonna be for the water have them on first yeah okay just because that's a finite thing we can like do it finish it these tend to go long okay all right all those in favor of continuing to the fifth and the 19 hi all those opposed I'll two of them there all right Patrick any other final things I'm all set thank you thank you well Gan or Melissa anything final before we sign off I'm all set no thank you and I'll send you a request in the morning sounds good thank thank you very much l good night good night thank you anything