##VIDEO ID:atKOYSwJTOk## 2024 open meeting of the hopkington Conservation Commission being conducted remotely consistent with an act extending certain covid-19 measures adopted during the State of Emergency the new law authorizes all members of a public body to continue participating in meetings remotely the open meeting laws requirement that a quorum of the body and the chair be physically present at the meeting location remains suspended for this meeting the hopkington Conservation Commission is convening by video conference via Zoom app as posted on the town's web meeting calendar C and the Conservation Commission agenda identifying how the public may join Additionally the meeting may also be broadcast by hcam through one or many of its channels or platforms please note that this meeting is being recorded and that some attendees are participating by video conference accordingly Please be aware that others may be able to see you and take care not to screen share your computer anything that you broadcast may be captured by the recording supporting materials that have been provided to members of the commission for this meeting are available on the town website this meeting will feature a public comment after commission members and staff have discussed each project application on the agenda the chair will open the discussion to public comment members of the public who wish to speak are asked to identify their name and address 3 minutes will be afforded for each public comment each vote taken in this meeting will be conducted via roll call of the members um let me just admit a couple more people and then I will do roll call okay I'll I'm going to confirm now which commission members are present um Ed you're first remember Ed yes I remember that I pushed the wrong button Ed's present Jim present said present uh Matt present all right and we are not expecting Janine correct Kim correct okay so Jinan is absent and I'll now confirm staff that are present Kim present Anna present and Joe is on vacation so I believe we have is is Tom from Lucas yes I'm here Tom lyy thank you for joining us tonight filling in for Joe um okay so with that we have a revised agenda tonight so I'll just point out that um we have three hearings that are being continued the Hoppington Stone and Garden at 28 Lumber Street 1 150 Fruit Street and 132 Clinton Street all three of those will not be discussed tonight they're being continued um to Future meetings all right so we don't have any documents for review so we'll jump to minutes for review um July J 16th 2024 does anyone on the commission have any uh comments on the meeting minutes or not able to review them in enough time no questions we're good all right can I get a motion to approve the meeting minutes from July 16th 2024 this is that I'll make that motion and I'll second all right um and I'll do the roll call Ed hi Jim I Ted Ted isn't I um and Matt I'm gonna abstain because I wasn't present at that meeting okay and I'm an i all set on the minutes um that's it for work session so with that I'm going to jump to the new hearing and I need to read this one um the hopkington Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday September 24th 2024 at 700 p.m. virtually online to hear all persons interested in a request for determination of applicability filed by H long Corporation for site access and exploratory subservice investigation location 109 Winter Street assessors map R16 block 23 lot 0 um all right so this is one that we've seen a few times um and we currently have a um order of conditions for a house in the back of the lot so that being said Kim do you want to give a little update on what is going on now sure yeah so just to recap this is um a site a single family home with an existing um single family home driveway that connects up to Winter Street the the lot itself contains a lot of area in the back the lot is byed by an intermittent stream and Associated BBW um I it was 2020 the commission approved a crossing a bridge Crossing of that intermittent stream um and the construction of a single family home in in the rear of the lot uh the applicant had reached back out to us subsequently um maybe a few months ago and was looking to get started on the project and um I had realized that there would be a little over an acre of of disturbance on the site and so we realized that the project likely um tripped the need for the local storm water bylaw here in town so after some um back and forth withdrawn the applicant has um realized that they're they're likely going to need to get that storm water by law permit and along with that they will need to provide some type of storm water BMP or SCM and so the applicant would like to complete soil test Pits on the Upland side of the site to uh you know have an evaluation of of the current existing conditions of the soils and you know what type of infiltration might be appropriate in that location that being said the applicant needs to cross the intermittent stream temporarily in order to get Machinery over here to the Upland side to be able to complete that testing um normally normally the the test pits and the borings are exempt from filing if they are in the buffer zone only um but this one is not the crossing portion is not exempt so the applicant has filed a request for determination of applicability for the crossing um and I'm going to let them take it from there for more of the details is Joe Mark went on on the call yes I am good evening all um the project originally approved in 2017 had a storm water study done um for the project um in the ensuing seven years obviously things have changed chiefly the rain total amounts that go into a study uh that's driving um this need for the storm water permit uh as you all know it's u a relatively quick and easy process to gather that information we simply have to get to that rear location as Kim had mentioned what we are proposing is uh sto uh steel plates to uh bridge that intermittent stream channel um and folks that were on the Commission in 2017 May recognize this proposed Crossing this was approved by the commission as part of the original order of conditions so we're going back in the same location is the permanent Crossing with a methodology that the commission found acceptable in 2017 to do that soil testing with a mini excavator and we feel this will allow us to get back there with the least amount of disturbance we have examined a couple other options the swamp mats um a crane to drop the mini excavator in um they all have their negatives and they're all um very expensive so we hope that that this kind of idea since it's something the group has seen before and it's really a Prelude to the permanent um Crossing uh you'll find acceptable the stream channel is dry now given the the recent weather events um there's no flow in there we really feel like we can set those plates get in uh get out do our testing get out and remove those plates with with very little alteration to the BBW or the the stream channel okay thanks thanks Joe I do um remember this site um I think you know normally and I think they I I guess my question would be um how is this just going to be a day of work and can you sequence it when the stream is dry the idea is to follow in there as as soon as possible um I expect um the testing to take just a few hours so it's the prep the placing of the the steel plates and the removal on the way out but yeah one day tops okay and what type of just out of curiosity what type of BMP are you thinking about putting on the site are you pretty confident in the the two locations for the test pits yes we've done a in the ensuing months since that site walk that Kim mentioned a moment ago we've developed uh septic system design site grading design site specific house design so we've been able to pull together based on soil testing um 100 feet away done for the septic system we've been able to generate a preliminary design we're pretty confident that infiltration Chambers for rooftop and that infiltration base and be able to do a couple test holes in each of those areas in the circles highlighted on the site plant who the chair through the chair it looks like Melissa might have been I think Melissa's Frozen I think she froze Melissa just dropped so it looks it just switched the host to Tom so she's not even on the call anymore well Tom lyy yeah so Tom if you could let Melissa back in if she tried something I said I don't see anybody coming in her I'll text her really quickly oh her computer just shut down she needs to restart oh I guess she texted you yep okay Tom is there a way to P to pass maybe I don't know if Ted or Matt could could jump on and be the [Music] administrator let me see pass the Hot Potato bear with me here I'm not sure why it defaulted to you I'm flattered um okay I just switched it to Ted oh thank you 5050 shot Ted does that mean I'm running the meeting until Melissa gets back congratulations Ted great Kim did you have something to add I did so actually U to pass the ball back um I believe Lucas environmental had a review so I just wanted to go over if um Lucas environmental had any comments uh sure so I went out to the site last week um prepared a brief memo uh took some photographs submitted that to uh the board um I would just uh Echo what what Joe just said regarding the site um the the crossing location looks like there's already a foot Bridge there um a lot of the herbaceous layers in seasonal decline the streams dry uh it doesn't appear that there'll be any need for uh tree clearing or any cutting of larger vegetation like that um I think um I gave a couple of recommendations in the memo one um I didn't review all the flags on this site um a lot of them were old and and kind of faded um but I think given the nature of this work um and the timing it made sense to not check every flag but I recommend it since I don't think the site's been reviewed since 2017 for wet flag so if there's a future n coming down the road I think maybe it would be a good idea to have the line refreshed and relabeled and maybe just verify the flag locations at that time um and I just had some recommendations of you know just what Joe said getting the the temporary Crossing out of there um as soon as possible um perhaps maybe just have uh Joe um prepare memo just a brief summary letter of when the work was done when it was completed maybe some photographs of what the crossing looked like before and after uh the equipment comes out um as far as means and methods it seems pretty um standard um and and like just said I think this is brief work and it it makes sense to do it now as opposed to the spring or the winter you get more severe rain events coming through and to that point you know if there is say like a nor Easter coming or or remnants of a hurricane or whatnot uh maybe delay the work until any of the large rain events have passed I think that's the and they they're incorporating some erosion controls with straw Waddles and silk fence that seems appropriate um and I think the usually work within a nob or no build Zone requires a waiver I don't know if that would be necessary for an RDA but I just thought I'd bring that up in case administratively uh the commission should they choose to issue negative determination um maybe include those waivers if it's appropriate to do so thank you I was about to ask for some photos it's not much of a foot bridge is it it's barely there's barely anything left and and that was one of the recommendations to take that that footprint whichever left of it remove that as well is that the stream Crossing underneath there is that log going over it that's correct look like that's the location of the T pit yes chair uh yes is that you Matt I'm happy to give you the chair Matt uh maybe I missed it out of the gate but I heard there was an order issued for this single family home and that this Crossing this temporary Crossing is in the same location as a more permanent crossing that's already been approved by the commission if they're only going in there to do the temporary Crossing and do some test pits they're certainly not going to disturb an acre why would this n work not already be covered under the order of the commission's issued I will look to Kim for an answer I hope I don't think that the borings were necessary at the time that the noi was filed is that Joe to the chair yeah I believe in reading the storm water report feel like they were they were going to do U confirmatory tests once construction began on the storm water mitigation they were relying on the test holes 100 feet away um done for the septic system I think one of those things that um at that time given the the approval they had uh the test spin information would event come but um it wasn't uh wasn't pardon me wasn't tied down with original approval part the proposed locations within the footprint of the ultimate disturbance for the project that was approved the proposed test hols that we're contemplating yeah were at the edge of um the the mitigation it was uh but we show this generally at the 100 foot buffer um the mitigation was was right from the oh gosh about 35 ft from the BBW back up to the 100 for buffer so we're a little bit right uh east of most of the mitigation proposed in 2017 does that feel good Matt yeah I'm just I mean in 2017 there was uh no minimum offset to the uh limit of work regard related to the mitigation that has since been changed in the bylaw to maintain a 50 foot offset I think some of that work was down a little tighter simply because there wasn't a reg a regulation that um made it unacceptable we're just trying to catch up with uh the change of policy at the planning board regarding the storm water management permit and the changes within the stor water bylaw yeah so it looks like that rip wrap slope and some of the proposed work is is beyond where the test bits you guys are requesting I mean I'd be in more inclined to have this work be performed under the order that that we've issued and and issue a negative determination because we've got conditions that are issued for the project I suspect those same conditions that what we would want to see even for the temporary Crossing which is likely some erosion controls like you're shown on the plan um but also may have some other items in there that are that are [Music] worthwhile I see that Melissa is back with us so I will very happily hand the keys back to her thank you Ted for taking over and I apologize when did you get back just just a second uh I've been on for a couple minutes okay so so I don't know how much you heard but we were just I I came in we were talking about uh I heard some discussion on um where the work is proposed to be in comparison to the original plan which I see is up here now yeah my question Melissa was basically you know why not have this work performed under the order that's already been issued by the commission given that it's the Crossing's in the same location the test prits are within the footprint over the overall disturbance and they're certainly not going in there today or next week whenever they're going to go in to do these test bits and disturb more than an acre so they wouldn't be in a position where they would necessarily need the the storm water permit to do the two tests just a thought right mean y yep would we amend the existing permit or would it just be assumed that it's covered and that our standard conditions for restoration oros and sedimentation apply that's how I'd view it right because there it sounds like they were planning on having to do some additional test pits in support of the final design for the project it's all with an overall footprint of disturbance we have conditions that have already been issued for the project that cover like you said the erosion segmentation controls the restoration of the area that's Disturbed why create more work by issuing even if it's issue a negative determination with conditions where you got to write up conditions and issue the negative determination just keep it under the order and everything's already done that would potentially give them a little more latitude to I guess the reason I asked my initial question about how confident we were with the two test pit locations and whether they would potentially change or need to go back if you know those locations weren't great and you had to look somewhere else and it would give a little flexibility to do that I think as long as it's within the limit of work that we approved here um so our approval and maybe you already covered this the order conditions that we have right now allows for that steel plate system that they're looking at for temporary Crossing yes it does okay yeah stole it from sheet seven of eight okay Kim do you have any um thoughts on that hesitations ah there it is um paste no I don't I mean I think I think that's a good plan okay Joe why didn't you say something earlier wish i' had been smart enough oh sometimes talking things out loud um you know brings it to the Forefront can't see the well they say you can't see the forest through the trees or something [Music] like Okay then if that's the case then and that's how you want to proceed see Joe then um do we just have Joe pull back up that that um request to the chair yes is that a is that a question for me that's a question for you sorry s um we could we could go either way I mean if the commission feels so inclined we could issue a negative RDA or um the applicant could request that that we could request to withdraw without prejudice and this office could okay this office can issue just kind of like a letter that says like we understand this work is taking place and we've reviewed it and we um expect that it is um in line with the approved order of conditions and will not result in any more impacts than we're already in approved under the existing permit sounds good to me does anyone else have any comments anyone from the audience anyone from the commission nope so moving forward um they're anxious Frank and Sally are anxious to get started um the expectation was we would begin as soon as we had um some kind of understanding with the commission do we coordinate with Anna do we to move forward um putting all this in place um at our own risk how would you like us to to move through this next few days to the chair yes okay so Joe it sounds like you're you're wanting to go the route of withdrawing without prejudice correct okay um so if you could submit just um email something to me and Anna in writing and then um it's my understanding what I'm hearing is that the commission feels like this work is covered under the existing order so you already have a valid order so I would say that you can proceed with that work um I would our office will put something in writing but um for now what I would do is follow Lucas environmentals recommendations I would put together a short report so I would take before photos and then um complete the the work put the um temporary brid in and then as after you pull it up after photos um and and give us a little before and after report as well um let us know you know if the works take like 24 hours before you start just a heads up so that um we can go out there and look at it if we if we need to um and that's kind of how I would proceed okay um I just want to make sure to through the chair I'm not sure if we need to do um public comment um yep I can ask again does any anyone from the audience have any comments on this request I don't see any hands or anything up so I think we're all set in that on that Kim through the chair yes I believe Mr fips was trying to signal but I don't know if he knows how to unmute yeah you're definitely on mute um I can't unmute [Music] you and you just hold the space bar down that you can also type in the chat mean you can mute people but you can't on me I can't unmute Mr fips have you tried just holding the space bar down oh there we go there we go it's unmuted now um yeah you want to do this before you have any tropical storm coming um I've lived here all my life and only once in a hundred years had I seen that stream full to maximum in fact it took out Winter Street so much water came down from those two upper you know runoffs that feed into it so you want to get in there before you get a lot of water coming down there and Joey looks like he's ahead on the steel plates because the last time they did some test work up there I it's unimportant who did it but they just drove the excavator right through the water in the brook and up on the hill and what you don't want is silt running down into white hle so I think he's got it pretty well under control it's only G to take him a day I mean they broke the excavator in there the last time so okay thank you take that under advice Joe all right I think we're all set then on this one great well thank you yep all right next up we have DPW Wood Street right away notice intent continuation um I think we were pretty close on this one last time but we got some comments from d and a file number so um we have um carrier VHB on the line want to give an update on where we're at uh sure this is Luke bue from vhp I can I can give a little bit of an update uh Carrie unless you want to go I just saw your your picture pop up no you got it all right um so we we finally got our DP final number yesterday um so it was was a little bit of a weight um and uh we had previously received comments from the peer reviewer Weston and Samson and provided a response letter and supplemental information um and uh Weston and Samson's latest letter is dated um September 6th there were four outstanding items in there um minor like um just minor items uh I believe all for those items I believe they had listed saying you know this is a minor item that we uh recommend be in included as a condition of approval um I can go through those those four if you guys would like sure sure so um uh I I'll if if you guys don't mind I'll skip over the ones where they basically said this comment is addressed yeah that's fine okay uh yeah so comment two um they were just looking for the invert of of the at the outfall of the existing 12-in pipe that discharges across the street um so um basically what they said was we recommend that the the commission consider a condition that we provide that information prior to construction um and so that's that's that's in on that one there was um there uh item number three um was basically that uh there they they uh suggested a minor correction for a misplaced Contour um they they uh similarly recommend that an updated plan be submitted as a condition of approval great uh number seven was um some storm water calculations uh pipe sizing and um basically they they had uh said that we we noted something it was just a pipe siiz discrepancy um but that that it um and uh using uh in the calculation it said concrete pipe instead of PVC um but similarly you know that it's it's a minor they noted that it was a Minor error and that um we re they recommended it again as a condition of approval and the last of those was um item number uh nine which was a a um uh they noted as a scrier error on The Limited disturbance line uh not encompassing the um the ramp at the uh at the entrance and similarly they uh recommended that be uh included as a condition of approval okay um we we did receive one comment from D um along with our our file number I I'll kind of uh defer to Eric olssen from from our team good that you guys got it so you were CCD on the email um so they were asking you know what is the total amount of degraded Riverfront area on site and does that area um um does the area that is already degraded lacking topstone vegetation plus the addition of the area proposed exceed 10% um the answer in this case um is yes um the reason being that you know this this project is a roadway project and not located on a lot or property um so when you when we outline the project area on on the plan set it is mostly the roadway um so the only area that's not within um the uh paved are paved areas is the 55 square fet of impacts um around that um Stone pad that we are proposing um so they also commented um if the total does exceed 10% mitigation should be proposed as the area described for work does not appear to be described to lack topsil and vegetation to comply with 10. 585 and so um in my response you know um while our project doesn't fully comply with 10.58 5e there is um there is a provision in the general performance standards for Riverfront area under 10584 d1a that states structural storm water management measures may be allowed only when there's no practical alternative um so that's why we didn't propose mitigation and this case um I didn't outline Alternatives specifically for um for just that stone pad in the noi but I outline them in my answer here so I guess in this case the Alternatives would be no action or or possibly just repairing only the existing 20 um square foot um degraded Stone Pad but um I think both of those would result in continued erosion and sedimentation into the stream um I think it's obviously no action that would that would just continue on and I think the 20qu Ft Stone pad isn't large enough um for what's out there right now um another potential alternative would be re-rooting the Overland blow in that area but that would likely either result in Greater impacts to the RFA to reroute it or a larger cost um to the project for installing additional Stone water controls within the roadway so um I I think um you know that I think constitute no practical alternative um so I don't know if anyone has any questions on that response yeah Kim can you just um do you have the plan handy just so we can everyone can look and see what this particular area is that we're talking about it's the next page over hi I'm through the chair I'm Peter BOS also with BHP and then it's the stone pad right next it's this is right next to the DPW facility I froze for a minute sorry yeah I'm trying to find a photo too I know we have through the chair yes I do have a photo if you need me to share um it if you did Route the Overland flow as you suggested was an alternative where would it go it's like like any other spot um I don't really think so I mean right now if if you um can I am I able to share sure yeah I have the I have the photo in a um in the RDA graphic that I um that I have so pardon the RDA graphic from when we presented before um um am I sharing here we go share can you all see that yes it's this photo right down here so as you can see it's a it's a curb cut and the water flows down the street through this curb cut and right through here to so to to move it around would require I think you know additional impacts um within the RFA I don't know if there's a real easy way to to to move it so really um as part of this project you added a couple catch Basin along the street too right so theoretically are you already re-rooting some of the flow that's coming to this curb cut anyway so there'll be less flow and hopefully less you know theoretically less erosion because it's going in the pipe instead theoretically yes yeah okay um so I mean if you would if you preferred that we only made you know um up just upgraded the existing Disturbed area I mean that that is an alternative but um I think you know when it when it comes down to it this this area is all um it's it's in the RFA it's it's maintained lawn and some and some weedy area here and there's there's no real habitat features here so I don't think the impacts are really great in in general when it comes to impacts the RFA um it's not like it's um like we're cutting down trees or um you know um non-disturbed um forest or anything like that so it's really up up to your discretion on whether you want to approve it as is or if you are requir us to to maybe seek one of the Alternatives I I personally don't have a problem with how it is right now and um you know looking at the picture and looking at your explanation I think it makes sense in answering D's comment um I guess just as long as you feel comfortable that DP doesn't uh I don't think Kim and I were talking about this I don't think they follow up much on comments um you don't want to wait in perpetuity for an answer um either so I don't know if anyone else has any thoughts on the commission but I I'm I'm I'm okay with the design to the chair yes I'm on board I I I can I understand the logic behind the um responses to D and their comments about Riverfront so I feel confident about it okay um does anyone else have any comments from the the um audience see any okay so I think at this point if everybody's good then it ask for a motion to approve um approve the project and get signatures um from kimer yeah I'll I'll second with a minor amendment that we require a final fully conformed set of plans addressing the outstanding comments thank you Matt um all right uh all in favor Ed hi Jim hi Ted hi Matt hi and I'm and I so um you're all set thank you very much thank thank you thank you all thank you all right um so now we have the 0129 147 Hayden Road charleswood school is back in front of us um I believe we got some copied on the storm water um review letter and I guess I'll just turn it over to um the team to maybe go over with the commission how you're addressing some of those storm water comments and changes that you made um to the latest plan submitt since we last talked hi good evening uh for the record CLA hook Wetland scientist with LEC environmental Consultants representing the applicant um joining me this evening uh Steve Powers with Samy Odis the engineer uh civil engineer on the team um and I see Chris Kenny um the applicant or the owner's project manager um with fex is joining as well uh and yes so since our last meeting on September 10th uh LEC submitted a response to peerreview comments that Luke provided uh a while back on September 18th and that included a revised set of plans uh as Kim is scrolling through currently I think we're at the existing conditions um but if we keep going we'd get to the sort of proposed conditions um so that was revised September 17th and included in our LEC response uh an attachment B was a a phasing exhibit entitled The MP erosion and sediment control exhibit um that responded to or we provided in response to the conversation that we had with commission members at the last meeting regarding the phasing sequencing plan uh during construction and uh yes in addition to the LEC letter we provided the Samy od's response to storm water peer review comments that included I believe it was four comments from D that were storm water related um in that response in the LEC letter there were three remaining D comments that we addressed that were not so much storm water related more plan revisions uh erosion control um additions and uh I believe a suggestion that the commission could um issue an order of conditions for an operations and management plan to be um in effect and perpetuity um I believe our you know we addressed all the comments from Lucas and um just since the last meeting I think the two really remaining things that we wanted to run by the commission uh included sort of the phasing plan that you see in front of you um and then similarly the invasive species management plan I know the commission sort of asked Joe with Lucas to touch uh or provide some input on how he felt on that um so I don't know if we'll get into too many details as far as um you know where the commission's comfortable with the invasive species management plan but I just wanted to go over this phasing plan that Samy od's put together to sort of address the commission's concerns from the last meeting while um not putting too much uh of a restriction on the general contractor um knowing that in their uh bid for the request for proposals for this project they would be preparing a more robust and formal Logistics plan for construction phasing so the uh exhibit you see before you is sort of a takeoff of the site preparation plan and it includes uh a series of text in that sort of top right corner Kim if you wanted to zoom in there uh there's a note One requirement uh in the top left paragraph that requires the contractor to prepare formal Logistics plan with their bid package and that selected general contractor would be implementing this plan um and providing it to the Conservation Commission for review and approval um prior to the start of any work um there are many other details and sort of um I think we were sort of calling them safeguards or just like guidelines lines for the general contractor to be following to ensure that the site is properly stabilized when areas are not being worked on um for long periods of time during construction and ensuring that erosion and sedimentation is not a severe issue during construction um this plan outlines a phase one and phase two but it is sort of generalized to guide the general contractor to sort of the components of those phases but we expect you know something to be prepared that would be um more detailed and uh you know site specific to what the general contractor is able to accomplish given the site and the timeline of the construction um so I think that kind of covers this plan I know this was the bigger topic we talked about at the last meeting um we can talk a bit about the invasive species management plan it's kind of a similar approach we have an outline of what we expect the general contractor to provide in their submission um for a bid and um we expected with that plan as well that the general contractor would provide a final invasive species management plan to the commission for review before I believe 30 days prior to construction is what we're suggesting um and you know we have a slew of other responses to comments from Lucas I don't know if um Tom lyy was able to review or has any comments on them I know we submitted them slightly less than a week ago so we completely understand if that wasn't sufficient time for the peer review to um provide any response but with that I'll just uh pass it back to the commission to ask any questions or continue the conversation thanks Claire um I guess I'll start with you Tom do you do you have anything do Lucas review anything or have anything you want to bring um up to the meeting right now no unfortunately Joe wasn't able to review that information um uh before he left so um we don't have anything to provide tonight on this matter okay that's fine we can table that um to the next meeting meeting um so invasive species management plan aside um I guess we can get into this revised phasing sequencing plan that you've presented um I took a look at it I think that it still makes me a little nervous looking at the two phases um especially since we're leaving so much up to the contractor Kim highlighted that one line in there that stuck out at me which is in phase one for full clearing and grubbing of the site um it does say in accordance with the logistics plan but um uh that having that on the plan kind of opens the door I think um for trouble um I guess my comment would be I don't know if the phasing I don't know that we are laying out for the contractor enough checks um or phases that they need to work within here um if we're going all the way through full clearing and grubbing in phase one so Madam chair this Steve pow uh through you to the to you and the commission um so I am the civil engineer um for the for the project of the engineer of record so as Claire alluded to right at the very beginning of this and presenting it um we're we're trying to put some constraints on the contractor without completely controlling the means and methods of how they do it um on the flip side we totally understand the commission's position about protecting obviously the Wetland resource areas on site you know um all of those are located to the you know to the west of the site or west of the building area um Northwest and Southwest so what we wanted to do is be a little bit more specific with phase one and Paramount and and and I think any contractor um would would completely understand that certainly one that would be working on a large project like this with resource areas nearby is that protecting the resource areas as the first order of business so we try to be a little bit more specific in the phase one part of it the fact is at this point until we bring a Contractor on board and they're able to sequence this we we frankly don't have the total amount of phases uh to your point to your point about um item number six full clearing we can certainly remove that and revise that statement to say clearing and grubbing the site in accordance with the logistics plan and and you know um sequence phasing you know within the logistics plan if that if that helps um you and the commission with having some comfort level um with with this plan I I do want to go back to the the original best management practices in the in the um all the way over to the top left so very similar we we were obviously in front of the commission with Hopkins school um while Hopkins is less of a scope because it was you know it's an addition renovation we were working um around the the the B and resource areas we would fully expect a logistics plan um similar to that obviously this would be a much bigger scope um broken down into phases and and have much more specifics on on what the commission would want to see here but we do want to make sure that the the contractor does have the ability to develop that sequencing and the logistics plan how one and efficient and protective way to do it and at the same time um I think you'll see in the in the first four points being able to come back in front of the commission and and actually um submitting something and having the commission review it we're we're completely open to that okay um I I see that I'll just make one more comment and see if anyone else has things to add but um I see in the prior to construction list you know the requirement for the contractor develop that Logistics plan um and provide it to the commission for review um and that's great and I appreciate that and the dewatering plan um is good too I guess where I get tripped up is a lot of times we'll have contractors who put together great plans or they hire an engineer to put together great plans and then they just kind of sit on the shelf and then they kind of steamroll through um The Phases so um I think what I would hope to see maybe I see that under phase one you have to install the erosion controls and then have an inspection um with the Conservation Commission agent um you know a very clear check-in point there um but I would like to see maybe additional check-in points within that phasing that are required in the construction documents um so that the contractor can't just you know they be very clear and specific about you know we need to before we go on to the next phase um and go to clearing and grubbing that we need to stop and make sure that sedent basins are in place and we understand the commission understands what the limits of the next phase of clearing and grubbing are um before they actually go in and do it if that makes I know if anyone else has any comments or if [Music] I'm if I'm uh explaining based on our experience is kind of where we see things get tripped up in construction phases once the contractor takes over things can go really quickly through the chair yeah very briefly I agree completely I'm excited to approve this plan I'm excited to get our town moving forward with a needed building but boy oh boy have we been burned when there hasn't been carefully laid out and checked in on facing plans so I'm with you through the chair uh it's Tim from the school if I could just add in I think maybe the added layer that we have for management on this that may not be on your other projects is that we have an owner's representative through vertex who is on site daily um who would help us as the owner make sure that we're following any that the contractor is following the procedures that are that are put in place so we do have an extra layer of management um that represents us from the schools to the contractor that could help you know hopefully mitigate some of your concerns as well you know that's not anything in in writing that we can give you but that's the that's the point of the OPM is to make sure that we're protecting the things that we're supposed to protect and to build a uh you know a good a good building for the town yeah I appreciate that um and I think that will be helpful and something that we don't necessarily have with the private developments but um and I think that maybe if we can like I said get a couple more review um items itemized within the phasing so that vertex can have those in their schedule um that they'll be keeping to make sure that you know they check in with the commission or have make sure that the contractor does um at a couple additional times s um rather than just kind of the beginning and then at the end toward phase two where we're closing things out through the chair yes Kim are you referring to checkins before the start of different phases or check-ins at project Milestones um I was thinking before moving on to another phase okay but I mean it would it would work around project Milestones as well I think though I think a fa you know a you know there's one in here not really numbered but phase if phase one is stabilizing putting up the erosion controls and whatnot um then there's a clear there's a clear approval review and approval before they move on to preparing the temporary parking and storage moving on to three four five six seven and eight um but I think I guess I guess in my mind once this once the site is cleared and grubbed fully then the then the whole I mean obviously there's different sequencing but for me that's kind of when I consider it being like the whole site is under construction like we're kind of out of phasing at that point so I guess that's why I'm kind of looking for the clarification of sequencing versus phasing like if we need additional check-ins at certain project Milestones or you know within a certain sequence I think that's a different thing than project check-ins with the concom at certain phases because I think like I said once the site is once the site is cleared and grubbed in its entirety I would think that the whole site is in con for our purposes it's it's one phase you know yeah I guess that's yeah no I'm on the same page I think Kim I think I'm just not saying it very clearly in that I don't think full clearing and grubbing should be one phase I think there should be multiple phases of clearing and grubbing that you know once you do one section and you get stabilized before you move on and clear and Grub another phase or section of the site you would want um a check-in with the conservation agent to before you know moving on to that next five acres or you know however the contractor wants to split it out um through the chair yes so the plan that the contractor would submit prior to construction would include those proposed phases yes at that point right okay so I'm not necessarily dictating what his phases should be but I think he should the I think the contractor should propose that in their Logistics plan or what we're calling it there's a couple different names in here Logistics versus phasing versus sequencing um is there a minimum number of phases you would expect to see um probably three through the chair I'm sorry I'm I'm I don't know if I'm misunderstanding it when you're talking about phases and expecting three phases are you expecting the site to be cleared in three sections or you're asking for sort of instead of phase one and two here there's a third phase somewhere there to afford that extra check-in Point like let's find a milestone within phase one that's another check-in point where phase two would technically be starting I don't know if I'm understanding yeah I think that the the phase one should be split into there should be another phase in there somewhere and that full clearing and grubbing shouldn't be a phase in itself okay so so to to the to the chair is would it be acceptable um again this is still a very amorphous logistic explain we're trying to lay it out how we would typically do this if we can build into the order of conditions you know say um for um site visits however long that is prior to you know a certain point where Kim or the concom agent or or commission members come out and actually inspect it but be able to understand that there needs to be four before a certain point um or three prior to progressing with the next phase and then we're able to kind of maybe during the preconstruction meeting um talk about what those are and when those when it makes the most sense to do it and at that point we'll have everybody in the room the commission their representative CL and myself him and the OPM and as well as most importantly the contract just to understand when that is and then we can track it from there but there there will be a certain number that are built into either this plan or the order yes I agree with that I think that's perfectly reasonable yeah yeah through the chair I just want to reinforce what Steve said um we think the emphasis should be given to the contractor at the initial mobilization requirements for the areas they work in and then the BMP sequence they need to adhere to until an area stabilized and then you know working with the contractor to develop the plan and then identify how they'll comply and be held accountable so I think what Steve's mentioning oh Chris got muted sorry we could identify the checkins and then um use those you know around there plan thanks yeah okay and so so through the chair I think one easy way to do it is prior to construction we add which I know is typical anyways for the order of conditions but reemphasize that a pre-construction meeting will be held by and we'll list the representatives to um review you know the next steps review the at least the initial phasing and then decide on those next two or three three Milestones to where the commission members and and their representative will be out at the site to walk it and ensure everything is being done in accordance with the plan but that's just my suggestion happy to retain anything [Music] else no I I appreciate that um Matt do you have anything to add anyone else on the commission yeah what I'm hearing is I think the big hangup is the fact that it says full clearing and grubbing I think if the term full is removed and it says clearing and grubbing of the site in accordance with the approved Logistics plan would make a big difference it's subtle but I could I could do that it's a it's a fair point I'm sorry it's in there but you're you're 100 perc right I could see where that Beed but I will take yep yeah because the hangup is right I don't think anyone here wants to see 18 Acres cleared day one and may have to be managed throughout the duration of their project so if there's an 8 acre area that where the most of the work is going to occur for the first 18 months or 12 months or whatever it is leave the other eight Acres undisturbed until you actually need to go work there for the chair yes can the applicant um edit the notes on the plan and send us something in writing whether it be on the plan or kind of like language in the um in the bid docs about what type of submitt the contractor will be needing to supply and [Music] um you know kind of how to navigate these this communication with the commission and and how often it's going to um happen just so I can have have that to review and kind of feel comfortable with that what's proposed does that sound reasonable just getting a preview yes through the chair I think we'll we'll reconnect with vertex on um offline on where they are with that sort of bid preparation and just if there's any common boilerplate language that they expect to use for that or if we need to fine-tune it I would like to be able to get you something in a timely manner where we could give you enough time to review and um you know close this out at the next meeting if we'd be able to so I just want to make sure that I don't want to overc commit um and overpromise but I think that's a very fair request to see at least a preview of what to expect in that bid document so we'll try to put something together thank you um was there anything I think we're good with this part of the plan were there any other storm water comment responses that you uh wanted to point out or discuss with us tonight um as you're working through that document sure um so I don't I don't know if commission members have had a chance to review it um the the latest me Memo from tyin Bonds in response to our resubmittal so U going through it it looks like there was a like three or four comments that were still open-ended that were going to supply additional information to them uh one of them was um I don't think they actually saw the draft Swip we did include it as part of the the um resubmittal um but we um we can resend it to them certainly so they can review um I know the commission always wants to see that as well so one of the the um the items is submitting and I think I included this on the um prior to construction is submitting the final Swip um to the commission for review we'll be doing the same thing with the planning board um couple of other um just two other model model uh hydrocad model comments that were open-ended and they seemed to be they meaning Tai and bond was comfortable with um allowing that as as sort of a a post-approval condition um one was um we broke out all of the tributary areas and points of analysis on the site um I guess there were two areas where they did not see where the volumes were our pre and poost so we're going to supply that information and then a question about our modeling of the the filtration system in the rear and how we did that with um our Outlet uh devices so that's another thing that is relatively uh straightforward and easy to um to address and I think the only other one that I believe my colleague Michelle kman had addressed with the commission last time was um infiltrometer testing so field testing to gauge um infiltration rates um in the field um they meaning Ty and bond is comfortable with um proposing to the planning board that this can be done as a postapproval condition I can give you an update that we just received a proposal from a geotechnical firm uh Mel and Associates that will be performing the infiltrometer testing we're just waiting to get uh School building committee SBC approval on that and getting an excavator out to the site to be able to perform those uh so we're hopeful that can happen in the next few weeks so those those were really the only outstanding ones that I believe um were open um other than that P Bond was um was good with our responses and acknowledged them as such um within the letter okay thank you at least related to storm water there were a couple other lighting questions and things like that but with respect to storm water okay great thanks um okay I think with that um I'm I'm all set with my questions comments anyone have anything else Kim is there anything else we wanted to touch on tonight notes quick um I think perhaps what we should do is wait to discuss the invasive species management plan once LC has the chance to review the language yeah um I'm sorry once Lucas has the chance to to review LC's proposed language so otherwise I'm good okay um so is the team good with continuing this to our October 88th is our next meeting yes we would like to request that continuance if anything comes up uh in the meantime uh we'll request another one if needed but yes October 8th would be great for current placeholder okay and through through the chair one one quick question um So based on the discussions regarding the construction sequencing plan and coordinating with vertex on language and how that would look um we would expect to revise it and resubmit prior to the next hearing so the commission has a chance to review the additional or revised language and additional adds to it is that correct that would be great if you could yeah great sure absolutely thank you okay all right can I get a motion to continue I'll make that motion there a second second hi all right um and I'll do the roll call Ed hi Jim hi Ted hi Matt I and I'm and I so thank you all for coming in and we'll see you next time all right thanks for your time have have a great evening everyone yeah you too take care thank you okay so I think that's it unless we don't have any public forum requests right Kim we do not all right um Anna next meeting we should expect to have some coc's right yes we have a we have a COC backlog that is just making its way to the commission so gear up okay and through the chair no new um public hearings for October 8th so there'll just be continuations and coc's and whatever else um work session items come about all right um I did want to mention that um the Mac fall conference is coming up October 19th I believe October 19 um I think most you probably got an email about that um if you're interested in attending then you can just email Anna and um the town will cover the registration and Anna can sign you up for classes I'm going to go um Ed I know you are interested you're going and Kim is presenting hey um in one of the on erosion controls is that right Kim something like that something like that okay um it's it's a um very basic level um review of the nipy cgp permit and kind of how that overlaps with some of the uh work that the conservation commit does and why conservation commissions might want to care about it so wish me luck I told someone like six months ago I was like yeah totally done they like can I have a favor I was like yeah and I'm like oh boy well you should have plenty of photos from the for examples on what not to do I do have some photos I have in M you do great it's just that crunch time feeling it's three weeks out now you're starting to stress a little bit about it yeah while balancing two jobs yeah yeah yeah exactly yeah not not to mention at least a Bambino and a husband to deal with who baby talking about you Kim hands full so yeah all right um sounds good and we we you you'll be at our next meeting Kim I believe so yes so okay great yeah all right can I uh get a motion to adjourn then I'd like to make a motion to adjourn second wow are the cleaners here I got to get out of here the cleaners are at the door Ed hi Jim hi Ted hi Matt hi and I'm an I thank you everybody good night everyone everybody e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e