So, uh, this is the opening of our scheduled conservation commission meeting for the town of Norman. It is Monday, March 23rd, uh, 6:31. Attending tonight we have myself, Julian
Kish, chair, Lisa Peroa, vice chair, Dan Pearson, Mark Fernandez, Joe Carlo, and Courtney Miller. Uh, also in attendance down the hall with me
are our director Thomas and our assistant. And uh we have an audience here in the link room and then um everyone else is in.
So first item of business is uh meeting minutes meeting minutes of um February 23rd. I was not in attendance on that meeting
because I was snowed in and had no electricity and no internet. And so Lisa, you were chair. So technically because I wasn't here, I can't really act on these. There were some minor corrections
that we dealt with on page three and four where my name appears inappropriately but that's being edited and um my name correctly appears in the absent column. So Lisa if you want to
field any discussion on the minutes. >> Yeah. Uh do anybody have any questions or comments corrections? fine to me. >> Okay. So, is that a motion there? >> Oh, uh, in that case, it's a motion.
Yes. >> All right. >> Motion to accept the minutes. >> Okay. >> Oh, motion by Dan. I think Court E2 it worked. Um, to accept the meeting minutes for February 23rd, 2026.
Is that Yeah, February 23rd. Uh, roll call vote. Dan and Courtney. >> Hi. >> Hi, >> Joe and Mark. >> Hi. >> Oh, Joe, I think you're on mute. >> Uh, there you go.
>> Um, I'll vote I and I assume you abstain. Julian, >> I abstain and you'll at some point have to come in and sign the sign the minutes in the future. All right. Thank you. >> Uh, next on the agenda is violation
discussion. I don't know if there's anything new. There's a few that are listed. >> So, Sophie Estelle is here from Goddard Consulting to talk about 181 West Main Street. She's going to give us an update. >> All right. Sophie, you're on.
>> Thank you. Hello. My name is Sophie Estan. I'm a lot scientist with water consulting. I'm representing the property owner at Fish. Uh so since the previous meeting we have been working towards a septic design uh as previously discussed. Uh we do have protests
scheduled for with the board of health for April 6th. Uh so once we have those pro tests uh completed we'll work towards a septic system design. It's projected around uh end of April after talking with uh Riser Engineering.
Uh John Kilty is also looking to um obtain a variance from board of health uh for the proposed use of one of the uh retail areas. Uh this is this meeting is for April 6th. So once we have that variance obtained and then also the
proof tests are completed for the septic design, we'll look to um have that finalized design towards the end of April. Then we'll submit a notice of the intent with the sector design and mitigation plantings with the commission. >> So any any questions from the commission
at this point? I'd be happy to answer. >> I have a quick question. Where do we stand with the patio that was pulled >> with the the patio to sorry, go ahead. >> The patio to the rear of the building. How do we stand? Where do we stand on that now? So I believe we are keeping that as of
right now. Um we'd be happy to discuss any alternatives with the commission but we were looking to um do mitigation for 2 to1 to and that's included within that within that mitigation number. So I guess my questions so are you know
obviously you know there's going to be a lot of mitigation that's required for the riverfront alterations and things of that nature. Do you guys have numbers all set up for that? >> Is that something? Yeah. >> Okay. >> So we had um sent over a quantification
of that where we had done a historic review of all impacts um after 1996. >> Right. Uh so the total litigation is about 14,364 and of course if there's any additional um impact proposed with the septic design temporary or permanently it will
also include that in mitigation. >> Okay. So that that was the point that I was leaning towards is understanding that the septic design is also going to have to be quantified in that as well. Okay. So I guess we're going to look forward to seeing those numbers and all the that information. Do you think by the next meeting that we have do you
think that seems sufficient? Um so after talking with Tyler from Visor Engineering uh he's projecting a finalized plan towards the end of April. Um so we would probably aim for that I believe May 11th uh deadline submittal. So hopefully a quick turnaround as soon
as we get those finalized plans >> and then you're going to quickly be able to put on all the mitigation plantings that month. Is that kind of the plan? >> Um as of right now it does depend on how the hearing process goes. we did include in our mitigation that it would either
be the spring growing season or fall. So, obviously, if we're able to, we'll try to get those in um by this growing season, but um if not, then the projected fall growing season. >> Okay.
So, I guess I would ask that if you could come before us um at the end of April, the 427 meeting to tell us what your progress is and and do we really have to wait until the fall to rectify violation? Is there anything you
can get a jump start on this spring? >> So, we did want to include the mitigation plantings in that notice of intent. So, that would be a part of the hearing process. So, um, once we get that in, then the first hearing, we attend and any questions from the commission with that after we get the final subdivision.
>> Okay. Why why are we waiting for the notice though? Wouldn't we just be voting on a restoration plan, John Thomas? Why are we waiting? I >> I think I think part of it is is this, right? Is that for all the alterations that have occurred already on the property, there's going to be restoration that is comes after that.
Then obviously there's the second phase where they're going to need a septic system in light of um their whole situation with the building and whatnot. So one way or another you're going to have to put in the mitigation plants regardless of whether you put us in put in a septic system. So I guess the
question is I mean it would be great to you know see that for instance there's going to be some restoration efforts that are going to be fasttracked in the interim while you're still working. So you're doing multiple things at once. I mean, that's kind of something that we'd be looking for, but obviously that's for the commission to decide, but I think
that's kind of what I would be looking for, something along that routine. >> Sorry, I don't want to see this dragged on any further. And I don't want to wait for a notice of intent for a septic system. This you're not going to lose a whole season because you're waiting to get a notice of intent for a septic,
which is not ideal. So, I I need to separate the two things. So, I would like to see a planting plan and I would like to see it implemented this spring. I'm Could I just um make a quick point for the chair? Um so in terms of why we're kind of doing it in congruence is
because we don't want to put the the current plantings down and damage the current septic system. I mean it's a lot of mitigation area where we're still um designing where the septic system and the leeching group will be.
putting down plantings and potentially damaging the existing leeching system would not be ideal either. So that's why we were kind of doing the mitigation plantings with the septic systems designed in condurren one another. But there's probably only a few places on
the property that you could put the leeching field, right? So to my mind the strategy would be to plant in areas that you know absolutely you can't house the leeching fields and then from there you leave your options open for leeing fields.
>> Thank you. You took the words out of one. >> Understandable. But we're still so we're potentially looking at the leeching field possibly being under the parking lot. Uh we're still doing tests to determine where the existing leeching field is. So, if we were to put
plantings down where they're currently proposed on the plan N um shown at the previous meeting, we don't want to cause any damage to the existing leeching field and we're still determining whether or not it's feasible to put it under the parking lot as well. >> So, it sounds like it's sorry, Lisa, it
sounds like to me that you could stake out the leeching field where it currently stands and work around that and plant around that area. So that way you give yourself enough room or the contractor enough room to do the work that they need to to make whatever connections they need to out to the front if that's where the design's going
to go. I've seen a couple of these, you know, issues happen and they've worked around it. The contractors are very good at keeping to the limits and if you put sediment controls down, you can definitely do that. So, you know, I I personally think that there's there should be some action taken. Um, obviously I don't get to make a decision
on this, but you know, I think that the board also feels my sentiment to this that we want basically some sort of restoration efforts for the the um alterations that were done within the riverfront area. So, can we look forward to a proposal
for that restoration? And I don't know, the next meeting is April 13th. Does that sound like a possibility? we can definitely discuss um with our team and see if there's an option to um kind of separate the mitigation and the septic. So, um we'll plan to be at the
next uh meeting with an update on that. >> All right. Any any further questions? >> I have a I have a quick one. Maybe do we have a D number on this? >> Uh I I don't think we have a filing. So So the violations So they should be
two separate ordinance. Correct. We have a violation. >> Any new work would be in order with a D number. >> Correct. >> Yeah. >> Correct. All right. So, are we going to address this as a violation or are we going to not address this?
I think the plan is to address it as a violation as of right now and then hopefully when they come in for a design alternative that's going to work for their client then for instance whatever other additional mitigation they're going to need for that you know that's going to offset and they'll put
additional mitigation in along with that. Um but I think it's it's obvious based on the information that Goddard has provided that alterations did occur out there and that they need to be resolved. So, >> so in the best interest, I think we should make sure we keep this separate
so it doesn't drag on any longer. >> All right. So, we we look forward to some kind of proposal or discussion on April 13th with regards to the mitigation work. Any further questions, discussion? And
if not, we can move on. And thank you, Sophie. >> Thank you. >> Thanks. >> So, next uh violation is 292 West Main Street. Um where we stand. >> So, I met with the owner of Downtown Pub
last week. Um we walked the property, there was no snow on the ground. Um it appears that they put down some asphalt millings in the riverfront area. And I basically ask the land owner to um consult a surveyor to quantify and um
basically survey the limits of that. So that way we can get a site plan and basically see how much disturbance has occurred within the riverfront area. I am not certain if it was asphalt millings in the past, but I noticed that they were fresh. I didn't see them previously vers looking at aerial
photoggramometry. So, they're going to have to quantify that and basically come in similar to what we had over at 92 East Main Street. Similar kind of uh plan to come in with something like that. All right, sounds good. Um,
are there any requested continuences this round? >> None. None as as of right now. >> And anything reports from staff that we need to talk about? Uh, I have to um leave this meeting a little bit early. I had to go to the finance committee meeting. So, I'll be leaving probably in
the next 15 to 20 minutes. Just want to give you guys a heads up. >> No closing. >> Oh, and uh we can't close any projects uh this this evening because of the timeline window. We'll be beyond our 21day window. So, I just wanted to keep
the board um give them that information. >> All right. So, uh, next up on the agenda is continued projects. Um, file number 250-203 Pine Street, notice of intent, wheat and estates. Um, unfortunately, I missed the
last meeting which in which there was voluminous discussion, but as I understand it, um, the storm water review is complete. Um, and I guess you guys recently went before
planning here. So maybe Claire, you can tell us where you stand at this point. >> Sure. Uh for the record, Claire Hogabone, wetland scientist with LEC Environmental Consultants representing the applicant. Uh we also have Bob Forbes with Zenith uh consulting
engineers joining if there are any questions about the storm water. Uh but since the last meeting of February, we provided a uh response to comments letter to the commission on March 5th and that included a summary of responses
to the discussion we had at the last meeting and a summary of some of the plan revisions. So if I may share my screen. >> One second. Claire, hold on. >> Okay. should be all set.
>> Great. >> I'm going to pick that screen. Can you all see the set of plans? >> It's coming. >> Uh your name, but I don't see it. Okay. Y >> you see the set of the cover sheet of the plan set. >> Yes.
>> Great. So, uh first revision right on the cover page here. Uh per the request of the commission, we added a note in the left corner here on the cover sheet indicating the uh individual lots requiring notices of intents with the
commission. So we have that list here so it's very clear for any um for the applicant down the road. Just scrolling down a couple more plan sheets. I'm going to go down to the PDF page 8.
The engineer took a closer look at the two wetland crossings. We were discussing uh adjusting the two 24-in diameter culverts into uh open bottom box cover culverts. So the engineer was able to make that work with the design of the infrastructure uh beneath the
crossing. So we have two 4t wide by two foot tall open bottom box coververts at each crossing or one at each crossing. I don't want to get that too confused. Two total, one at each crossing. Um and commission member uh Lisa also requested
um some clarity with the tight graining at the crossings, how they flare out to a 3:1 slope, a vegetative slope. So the engineer added some details. I'll just try zooming in a bit. So the engineer added some detail for the extent of rip wrap to continue and
allow that continuation to the flare um a little more realistically for the construction. And just on this next sheet for the second road crossing there's our open bottom box cover and some detail on the rip wrap.
Go down just a few more plan sheets. So, on this overall plan, uh, at the last meeting, we were discussing that the planning board requested that the applicant consider some alternatives with the two entrances off of Pine Street to alleviate any headlights from
cars exiting the development in uh, projecting their headlights onto neighbors across the street. So the engineer did uh shift the two entrances a little bit, but we are keeping both of the entrances. So with that in mind, the
engineer did add a note at the bottom of the sheet to direct the contractor to identify one entrance and one exit from the site when they are constructed. I feasibly I think they're going to construct one entrance first. So they
might be using that as an entrance exit for a time, but once the second location is uh identified and cleared, they'll use one designated entrance, one designated exit. And on this sheet and other sheets,
notably the erosion controls have been depicted along the uh wetland crossing as well. So that's clearly defined with erosion controls being installed at the base of the proposed toeup slope. And lastly, I think it's this plan sheet
here. I wanted to point out that the engineer included some detail uh sheets for the two wetland crossings and that's a little clearer with the extent of rip wrap at each of the crossings. Well, uh we also looked into the operations
and maintenance plan. Uh there was a comment uh about the snow and ice removal that there was a little ambiguity to the language. So that has been made clear for the homeowners association and we reviewed the remainder of the document and didn't find any other ambiguous language. So
it's uh pretty straightforward uh to direct the homeowners association to avoid chemical use uh for snow removal. Um, we did go through a couple of other responses to comments in our letter. Uh,
notably the engineer providing information regarding LI measures that were considered for the storm water design and again Bob Forbes is on the call if we want to discuss that further. Uh we also provided information regarding the timber guard rails and uh
that they are preferred by the applicant to retain the aesthetics with the surrounding landscape. And the applicant will uh in intends to install uh pressuret treated wood that will have a minimum lifespan of 40 years. And we
also provided some information on the subsurface propane tanks uh that the in the installation of those will be overseen by the fire department and by the plumbing inspector before any backfill. Uh so those have to oversight
of local officials. And I don't believe there's any real permitting involved with that. It's just notifying them and having them be on site before anything is back filled and fully installed. And the tanks would be provided by a local propane supplier. that's required to provide them uh in accordance with the
most recent EPA and state standards. Uh one of which is the tanks being constructed with a sort of secondary chamber that would monitor for any leaks. So it reduces the risk of leaks for these subsurface tanks and if there
is a leak it would ideally be caught before it becomes an issue. Um so with that I think that comes all of our responses. Oh, go ahead. >> Just a quick question. So, regarding snow and ice removal, can you remind me or show me on the plan where where the
snow is going? Like, is it being piled up somewhere on property or >> That is a good question. I'm not certain if there's a snow storage uh specification on this plan set. Uh Bob, I know you're on the call. Do you have
on the top of your head if that's contained within any other document? >> Uh, hi. Uh, Mr. Chairman, this is Bob Forbes from CNS Consulting Engineers. No, we we didn't show it. Um, it's typical that I mean it's going to be
like any roadway. We're going to they're going to plow to the edges of the roads. Um we we do not show specifically where it's going to go on these plants in towards the end of the culdeac which is outside most culdeacs are outside um any
buffer zone. Um so we just intend to plow it like typical roadway. >> Thank you. Yeah, I think to that to that point, we are struggling with this because this is going to be private ownership. Okay. So, you're going to have a private entity
trying to figure out where they can file snow and store snow. So, this in my view is not going to be handled like a typical subdivision where your DPW comes in and does what they need to do. So, uh let's go back to the conditions. Uh I'm
going to ask you to put dedicated snow storage or at least a dope um on the plans that says the snow storage is going to be outside of the buffer zone and then we're going to cross reference that with your O and M plan if you can go back to that.
>> I'm sorry. Yeah, the O and M plan list. Okay. Um so I think we need to add something that said uh snow storage uh must be outside of the 100 foot buffer zone. And then the other recommendation I'm going to make is um uh we need to
clarify that statement that you have under number five. Um instead of is allowed it should say is required. Right? Again this is going to lay people in a management company to implement. It
needs to be bulletproof and very simple, >> easy to understand. >> Yes. But thank you for making those other um changes to the plan set. Correct. >> I I would just suggest that that kind of um says to me that
that you're telling us they're telling the homeowners associ association to use chemical addictives. Uh if you're saying required um >> no it says without chemical additives without
>> I mean and if that's not we'll put this way if this is not clear we need to reward this sentence. >> Okay should be putting a declarative statement that says the use of chemicals chemical additives is not allowed as part of the snow um
>> that's an excellent that's an excellent suggestion. We'd be happy there. Yeah, I think it's a little ambiguous the way it's written. >> No, I agree. I totally agree with that. >> Okay. So,
um I just I would say that there are no chemical um additives allowed in conjunction with or part of the use of sand and salt. >> We'll do Yes, I agree that that's made some Okay. Um, Lisa, you're all set.
>> Uh, yes. Thank you. >> Uh, any other questions for members of commission? >> I have a couple. >> Yeah, go ahead. >> Uh, as far as the lid standards, can you show us any areas that were improved with any of the natural as opposed to
just this direct focus? Has there been any rain gardens added or any other grading to deal with this water in a different way? >> Um, I can address the rain garden things directly. Um, on a on a subdivision
roadway, um, we don't particularly care for the use of rain gardens. We do like them for like roof runoff uh situations where you don't have the potential for floatable contaminants uh which are you know what you would get off of dripping
from vehicles. So we we don't care to use them in parking lots. Um and we especially don't care to use them in uh in homeowners association because the maintenance requirements become difficult. um they're difficult to
maintain and they have a high uh failure rate if they're not maintained correctly. Um so so we we try to avoid um uh rain guidance. So in other words, if we if you get drippings from vehicles that are floatable in our in our um in
our design, we have hooded catch deep sump catch basins which will uh prevent some of the um floatables from getting into uh the ground the groundwater. I I absolutely understand that on hard
surfaces. I'm talking more of the sight braiding in these areas. We're not seeing any, you know, thing to deal with the sheet flow or anything other than this. Everything seems to be directed at the road and >> yeah, exactly. We want we want any
imperous area directed into the roadway so then it can get fully treated. In other words, we don't want this is designed such that any all driveways drain into the roadway system so it can get collected and treated uh
appropriately. Uh 100% of the paved areas get treated collected and treated. Um so yeah, we don't want it uh flowing off the site untreated >> for that matter. So, so data shouldn't exist in the world of subdivisions. I
mean, that does that's like counterintuitive. That almost doesn't even make sense. >> Well, brain garden is not the only lid measure. Uh there, >> right? So, why don't you walk us through the lid measures that you looked at for this project and which ones you introduced. I guess that's what we're we're looking for. >> Claire, I don't have that that lid uh
document that I put together for you. Do you have that available? >> I do. I can share that with the screen. This is from our sub our response to comments uh that Bob helped collect the response here. Uh so Bob I can scroll down with you if you want to
>> run through what you put together. >> That's good. So the first one we took a look at reducing imperous surfaces. So when we went to the planning board obviously we had to do it we wanted to do it for a couple of reasons. Number one, we always want to reduce imperous
surfaces to reduce runoff and contaminants from the runoff. And number two, we wanted to minimize um pavement width so we could make the crossing with as minimal impact as possible.
So that's the first one that we took a look at and that's where we ended up coming to an agreement with the planning board. We got that we have the minimum that they're willing to accept there. um disconnecting flow paths. I wrote the per the proposed project has been
designed to disconnect flow paths in multiple areas to reduce runoff. The placement of the roadways intercepts runoff patterns, collects the runoff and discharges it to storm water BMPs. The BMPs are designed to mitigate runoff rates as well as to improve the quality
of the runoff from the site. Storm water basins are situated such that they will intercept storm water runoff flows prior to important discharge areas on site. So all designed areas of uh storm water discharge are treated. uh that includes
the those those the basins are uh positioned such a way that they collect all the roadway but also overlay runoff and uh we we there's several uh this is we have swailes directing uh lawn lawn
and wood runoff from getting through get into the basins. Uh the interception flow paths limit the distance runoff can flow thus preventing channelization of flow and subsequent possible erosive flow velocities. Uh then treating storm water at its
source. Uh the proposed storm water line management system includes deep sunk catch basins fitted with first fence water quality units such that oils and up to 75% of total suspended solids will be collected prior to storm storm water
continuum through the subsurface drainage system towards the infiltration basin. So we're we're taking out a lot of the TSS prior to arrival at the infiltration basins which is a good idea because it it prolongs the life of the infiltration basins as well. Uh the inf
infiltration basins are situated so they are close to the source of runoff namely the roads and proposed homes. Uh these basins collect infiltrate and treat storm water near the point that is generated. Should be noted that most of the storm water is proposed to be
infiltrated within the basins and close proximity to the development. In the event of larger storm events which there is a minim minimal amount of storm water that will be discharged to the ground surface, there's significant distance between infiltration basin discharge
points and any downgradient wetland resource area. So we we cut them close to the roadways far away from the wetlands. how it works. Uh then we minimize open minim maximizing open space minimizing disturbance.
Uh that's the whole idea of this cluster development. Um we have almost 25 acres of permanently preserved open space and then there's another 14 acres on individual lots that are either in wetlands or in buffer zones and will
remain wooded. So we're talking about what's that total sorry 30 almost 39 acres uh being preserved open space here uh which which is equal to approximately 70% of the total land area in the
development uh protecting natural features andor enhancing wildlife habitat. The proposed open space preserves a portion of the site that is mapped within NHSP priority and estimated habitat. uh also including
the open space of potential vernal pool and riverfront area as well as wooded uplift areas of the open space areas uh also by the adjacent uh open space and conservation land on other parcels. Um I I'm sure you most of most of all of you
are familiar with the area. There are large open space areas permanently uh uh permanent conservation land um that the the open space that we provide in this uh development. Um then we look at that I talk about the
other LI methods such as country drainage or road roadside swailes to collect runoff were not chosen and that's for that same reason. uh we find that uh contaminants are more readily uh get into the groundwater when you have
uh when you utilize that country drainage system. Um and uh considering the site is within ACC in zone 2 while detection area wasn't a preferred option. The proposed storm water management system includes deep sump catch basins fitted with proprietary
water quality units designed to collect oils and TSS prior to storm water continuing through the subsurface drains the subsurface drained system towards the infiltration basins. Um the storm water management systems that are
designed to meet uh MA uh mass DP storm water management standards and the local storm water management bylaw and function as a maintenancefriendly system for the HOA to maintain and that's again that's getting back to the uh to the rain garden issues which are not
maintenance friendly. In fact, one of the maintenance uh items that's listed in the storm water line management standards is to completely remove all vegetation and re in media 30in deep media and replace it. Um so that's
certainly not essentially rebuild um the rain god. Uh and as individual house lot developments designed smaller rain guards to collect and treat water from roof down spouts and driveways will be considered. Um, we don't need to do that
because the so our system works without it, but we'd be happy to uh to look at that and certainly on the ones where we um come back to you and and um and require uh to submit a notice of intent
um when we're doing work within 100 ft of the wetlands on those individual lots. I don't know if that helps. Does the planning board require any dry wells? >> No. Put roof front on.
>> Yes. >> No. We're collecting it. We um I personally don't like to put underground. If I can avoid underground systems, I I do. And the reason for that is cuz when
they fail, you can't see them failing. Um, so we like to try to if if if if we have to um we'll do infiltration of roof runoff um on individual house lots. But in this case, we're able to put it on
the ground, direct all of that water into our storm water management system and uh and treat it, mitigate uh the runoff rates, >> right? But you're not going to clog your system of roof off because potentially it's not going to have sediment
pollutants. So, uh, a couple things I'd be looking for. The lots that are going to come before us that are in the ber zone. Uh, hope John Thomas is still around because we have to remember to, um, ask for some rain gardens on those. And then the ones that are not, um, I
would look to have um the dry wells. I The planning board used to require that. Do they not require that anymore? >> They do not. It was never mentioned. No. No. So, if it's clean runoff, why would we have to put it into rain guys?
>> I'm talking about the clean runoff going to a dry well because you want to interject as much runoff in as many locations as you possibly can to spread it out just like it is right now. Mother nature, right? There's rainfalls all over the site and you're just now taking it, collecting it,
putting it in select locations. So, that's why we like to have the dry wells. >> Yeah. We're not going to we're not going to fight that. When we come to you with individual house lots, we just find an incredibly high uh incidence of failure in uh in putting roof off subsurface on
lots >> and and it fails. Why? Because it gets clogged. It shouldn't get clogged because I mean there's no potential pollutant source, right? >> It's not it's not pollutants. It's vegetative matter coming off the roof roofs. That's typically what does it
>> um I would ask uh is John's not there? >> No, John John had to go to his meeting. >> You can ask John to check with the status of why drive wells are no longer required by the planning board because I remember at one time we commented on them all the time and we were assured
that the planning board had already required them. >> Okay, >> that's all I have. Thank you. So just uh curiosity, how long does it take these uh infiltrating systems to fail from that matter coming off the
roof? That's >> well it all depends. There's there are people who maintain their gutters a year couple times a year like I have to at my house and there are other people that never do it. It also has is a function
of uh depth to groundwater. It's a function of u uh the type of soils that you have on your lot. So if they're tighter that it's going to take a little bit long it's going to take longer for them to to uh to dissipate obviously
when when they fill up. But um what happens is you most most home you should to be on the safe side you should always put a wide connection at the bottom of your roof leaders. So when and if they the subsurface systems do fail
um it they could act as regular downspouts again. In other words the the water seeks its own level comes will no longer go down into the subsurface system. you know, just discharge onto the ground, which is uh
which it's nice to have it designed, the system designed to be able to handle that flow. Uh and like again, we're not going to uh fight those. Uh the if this commission wants those on the individual house lots, we're certainly not going to
fight it. Um, we've seen them fail in as soon as 5 years time in a worst case scenario. >> All right. >> I mean, if we went by everything failing and not maintenance, we wouldn't do anything. So, I don't think that's a
great reason. I honestly don't not buy it. >> I know. And I'm not at least I don't You don't understand. We're not I >> Yeah. Yeah. I just want to know why the planning board is not requiring it. And as the engineer of record, if you tell me the soils aren't conducive to it,
great. But I need you to tell me that. >> We need to explore that for the next hearing, but I think we need to move on. >> Well, um I mean, >> we'd be happy to look at that on every individual house. If we can't if we don't adept to groundwater, we're obviously not going to be able to do it.
Well, so it could alternative structures that on the surface like swailes that would um uh allow runoff to well longer than than it would normally and allow more of it to sink in. Could that be an
alternative design in some sites? Yeah, >> that's what they should be looking at, Julian, for the rain gardens for for those that I'm going to insist on at some point when they come before us for the individual house lot. So, it's either going to be the dry well or the rain garden.
>> Well, the other but it doesn't necessarily have to be a formal rain garden. I mean, it can be a swale in in the grass that just allows the the runoff to dwell longer on the grass to >> Exactly. That's an excellent excellent
suggestion and we s we simply don't have the depth to groundwater necessary to do a traditional uh by the books rain guiding on any of these lots. >> Right. Well, >> I can tell you I'm just I'm really just
looking I want to see a natural election to not affect hydraology that we're draining so much of this site to two sort. But we can take a a percentage of the grading or something and treat it in
a natural way. Obviously, there are going to be areas where they're non-pollutant areas. It'd be a lot cleaner for the site, right? We're obviously cutting the site. There's not a lot of trees being left. So we should be able to develop some
type of natural planting to absorb this and catch it prior to entering the wetlands and creating you know positive hydraology back to the wetlands where it should be going. >> Well that's what percentage of it should be. They're infiltrating virtually everything on the site and if it gets
into the groundwater it eventually gets into the water table into the wetlands, >> but it's coming it's getting there in an indirect way in a non-natural way. And that as far as I'm concerned, that's a lot of what the lid standards are is.
Well, I I just have to state that we we've done we've gone through a full design that meets it exceeds um in every case storm water management. >> This is a virgin site. This is a virgin site. You know, this is a permit, you
know, that could potentially be allowed to happen, you know, with a wetlands penetration with two crossings. We're just looking for a little more. And are you looking for more with respect to the site as a whole or with more respect to the individual house
lots? Because to to Bob's point, >> the development of the residential subdivision roadways and the potential house lots, it meets the storm water standards and exceeds the storm water standards. Yet with these rain
gardens and swale opportunities, they would be specific more towards individual house lots which we are not trying to permit at this time. So correct would be open to seeing in the future with the future NOI filings. >> Are we cutting and grading on this site
at this time? >> Well, yes, >> at the development of the road. So therefore, let's say the development does not happen. So the sites now will be cuted in cut and graded
>> and there will be no measures in place. >> That's all >> the the storm water basins will all be excavated before any impervious is installed. >> That's the first part of the the construction program to put in the storm water management
controls. I I think it is going to have to come down to the what you're saying is we don't want to introduce pollutants through. Okay. So now it's going to come down to the individual homes. So look at the ones that we're going to have control over. We will require rain
gardens. We're asking you to look at the ones that won't be coming before us for the possibility of dry wells in or rain gardens. >> That's what we're looking for. Can I just make a an observation? It it
seems to me, and I'm not the expert. I would love to hear from Lisa on this, but it seems to me that rain rain gardens are not all that exotic uh a measure. And so to say that we
haven't had success with them, well, it seems to me that an overwhelming number of people probably have. I I don't understand that. I don't understand the argument, but well, >> we have had we have had great success
with rain guidance, but not on an application like this. The rain garden would be the size of the detention infiltration base. It would have to be massive to handle something like this. >> But but the objective here is to just
improve infiltration into the ground. And and I don't know if you need to install a whole rain garden when if you're willing to grade it in a way that causes
longer dwell time on the lawn that will also achieve that. And it can be fairly subtle. Um you know it doesn't have to be a huge obvious swale. It can be, you know, slight variations. Now, of course,
I don't know if if people in a subdivision are open to not having a perfectly flat lawn. Um, one with a tiny irregularities that can catch rainwater. Um, that'll be a a design issue for
whoever installs the the grading, the final grading on these lawns. Um, all right. So, I I think you're you got the sense that the commission's view is we want to uh infiltrate as much as possible by
whatever means is feasible in these development areas. So, I think that message is clear. um whether it be a formal rain garden or not. Um I I don't feel strongly but or or a a drywall. Uh
but whatever can achieve that in a reasonable way. >> Oh, go ahead, Bob. >> Mr. Mr. Chairman, you're aware that we're infiltrating 100% of the runoff from the site up to including the 10year storm event in almost up to the 100year
storm event. We're infiltrating everything, >> right? And you're directing it to three locations only. >> You're not taking advantage of the fact we want to infiltrate on each lot. That's our point. >> I don't know how else to make it clear.
Well, you prove to the bigger picture for the roadways because you have to, >> but we're asking you to take it a step further. >> So, you're asking us to infiltrate runoff on lot for lot to lots that are
outside the buffer zones. >> But again, I'm going back to I'm going back to the comment I made about the planning board usually requires it. >> So, a question that's out that's that's out there. And if they don't, there's no reason why we shouldn't be able to, even if it's outside of the buffer zone. You
are crossing an AC. You are filling a wetland in the AC. I don't think this is too much to ask. >> Building of an AC was at the discretion of the conservation commission. >> Yeah, >> we could easily have said no go. >> Lisa, if the storm water design is
consistent with the storm water standards, we can't create new legislation. We're not creating new legislation. Part of the storm water stand was just to look at lid. We don't think they took they they addressed lid to some extent.
They took advantage of the fact that it's clustered and so it's easy to say cluster it. Right? That's easy. What we're asking for is there are other elements to lid and one of them is infiltrating locally on each site instead of just collecting everything
and sending it to three locations. That's what we're asking for. We're not asking for anything above and beyond the regulations. We're asking them to max out lid because of the sensitivity of this site. >> I don't know how else to say it.
>> We're happy to take a look at it. I I I question whether you have jurisdiction over any lot that's outside of 100t buffer zone. I don't question it. I know you don't have jurisdiction over that, but we will take >> I don't know if you want to go there.
All right. Look, look, we we've had a lot of discussion on this. I think the message is clear. The the the applicant has not said we're not going to look at this. So, how about if we move on? Uh there are still some questions here in the
audience that need to be addressed on this. >> Do you want to say more, Lisa? >> Excuse me. >> Uh well, I >> I'm done. >> Okay. I'm done. All right, >> John. I think my message is very loud and clear. >> Okay, thanks. >> Um, so any further questions of members
of the commission? Uh, because we do have to open it up to the whole audience. Uh, whether they be here in the room or on Zoom. So, if I if there are no further questions, >> I know Bob has a question. The different Bob. >> Oh, okay. We have Bob B raising your
hand unless you take your uh mic off mute. identify yourself and ask a question, please. >> Uh, yep. It's uh Bob Butler, 133 Pine Street. Um, I I had a couple of comments just on this whole conversation of the
water runoff. Um, I do worry about the dry wells with maintenance. Um, because you know, I do do think a lot of people don't maintain their gutters. So, I I think you know, there's a chance of those failing in the future. I had no no idea how long they would last before
they fail. But um my my other concern was like with the rain swells like built into the lawns um that I think that would be assuming people would leave their downspouts kind of as is. But I worry like if their
downspouts are just pushing the water out into their lawn and making it a big pond, you know, are they gonna just say, "Okay, I'm gonna, you know, do it myself or pay somebody and and and extend that down spout underground and just put it off somewhere else anyways."
That's my concern with that method. Well, yeah, >> we can only recommend the best we can and what people do later, we can't necessarily monitor. >> Yeah. I mean, that's the thing like you
you want to do things that don't require a lot of maintenance or watching because chances are, you know, the homeowners association and the town's not going to, you know, after everything's built, you know, it's not going to be really looked
at, I think, too much. Um, so that's just my thought on that. Um, my other questions just unrelated. Um, I think there was a field that was added uh on the left side of this map. I think a planning board a planning board member
had u suggested it. So I just wanted to make sure you know the conservation had seen that and everything was okay with that. >> Uh, well I I'm not familiar with what that field indicates. Is that just a an area where people
>> I think it was a planning board member um uh Bob can correct me if I'm wrong but I think a planning board member suggested having like an open field area in the uplands just so you know kids can go play in there or something to that effect.
>> That's that's exactly right Bob. It's uh this is Bob Forbes again. uh playing board member suggested that we uh do a small clearing as like a picnic area or a play area for children and so uh that we decided to put it out there because
it was uh 100% upland and outside and buffer zone. >> Yeah. >> So right where has a cursor is exactly what Mr. B was talking about. >> Yeah, that sounds like uh it's outside our jurisdiction anyway. So,
>> okay. >> All right. >> Thank you. That's all I have. >> Uh, all right. We have, I think, some questions here in the comment room. Do we have a question on this project? Yeah, if you if you want to just identify yourself and ask your question.
>> Sure. Can you hear me okay from here? >> Uh, I can and I think the the system picks you up. >> Uh, Andrew D at 87 Pine Street. I'm in the upper right hand the upper left hand corner of that map right there. Okay. >> I'm glad you have that up because my question is excuse me.
>> So we have the wetlands that run right down along the the side of my house and I've written some letters about this and you can see how I I'm assuming that each one of those house lots are going to be raised up. It's very low down there. Assume they're going to have to raise
them up just so they don't have wet basements. But I I don't know that. I it's been hard for me to read the contour lines to find out how much they're being lifted. So, what I see there is the water's coming down there. It's going to hit that little culvert,
which means it's I don't know how well that water is going to move through there. Right now, that wetland next to my house is very flooded. And you come to the back of my house. So, the back of my property is also underwater right now. And I'm worried that all that water
is going to come down that uh left side and it's going to be pushed that way. Those houses, if they're raised up, the water's going to choose its nice easy path to go the other way and then come come towards my house. Now, obviously,
most of that's not my lot, but enough of it is there is impacted by that water, and I'm afraid it's only going to get worse. And then if that starts to push up in my lawn, then my basement, I've already got, you know, I deal with my water in my basement. I don't need it to
be any worse. So, that is my concern. All right. Well, just for clarification, uh, and and Claire, maybe you can help me here. It's my understanding that the water progresses from, uh, left to right on this this plan. Is that is that
correct? >> That's that's correct. Right here where my cursor is, we have contour elevation 83 and it descends as I'm working my way down to the right of the plan. >> Okay. And I'll just comment um
superficially there's been extensive discussion of the design uh specifically to be sure that water flow does not change before and after. So uh maybe Claire you can um
elaborate on that the fact that that's that's correct and so the likelihood it would that it would change the water flow you get now after all of this careful design and discussion uh is low
but if you can add >> yeah and I mean Bob could even chime in if I'm misrepresenting but the key component of meeting the Massachusetts storm water standards is to not increase the peak flow rate or
increase flooding conditions as compared to existing conditions. So ultimately the storm water management system and the grading design of the site is designed such that it will not impact the neighbors. it would we would not
comply with this uh D storm water management standards if the calculations and design demonstrated that it would impact the neighbors. So after going through the peer review, I believe Bob the storm water peer review is complete at this point on behalf of the planning
board and the commission. So, a peer reviewer has looked at this design and agreed that uh we won't increase any uh water issues onto our neighbors properties. >> That That's exactly right, Clay. You
said that really well. So, and I also want to point out that the uh culverence um that the that is concerned with are uh an elevation more than 10 ft below his house.
Um, so he he there's not anywhere where we're discharging water into the uh wetland system off backs of lots and whatnot. Um, is well below in
elevation, his his house and yard um not only that, but as you stated, it's it's at a much lower rate than with the existing conditions entering that weather system. Are you not concentrating?
I know you said you're dealing with the runoff, but obviously you're changing the contours of the land. Are you not I guess I don't have really like to stand on, but it looks to me like you're concentrating the flow of water down between those
lots. um the the the runoff rate that this is what so we we have what we do is we model the existing conditions uh of so right now we take the wooden lot and we model what's going to the to the design
points in this particular case it's the wetland system um we get a certain flow rate going towards that then we do our design and our the requirement that we have to meet is that the postdevelopment runoff rate into the that wetland
system, those design points is less than what it is under current. So we have everything's modeled, the the the roadways, the lawns, the roofs, the grading of all of this to to to see what
direction everything is going to end up going in post development. And when we do that, we have a reduction in the runoff rate going towards those wetlands. So it it cannot and will not
negatively impact your house or that wetland system or anybody's house. It we're not going to flood from from what we're proposing here. We're not going to have a a negative impact uh storm water
runoff wise and anywhere from this project. I do have another question though. So, as you build this out and you're going to put the roads in and new construction, at at what point do you start to manage
the runoff? because I know you got to put the roads in and then I don't know sewers, however it is you're you're managing the runoff from everything. When when does that mitigation begin to take effect as you're building
up the lots and putting the roads in and all of that? >> It's actually a really good question and the answer to that is the storm water management systems are what get built first before the roadways get built. So it goes storm water, it goes erosion
control, it goes storm water management devices, roadways, then house lot development. So right from the get- go is when the storm water management gets get gets started. >> So So you going to rely on your
post-development basins for temporary construction term storm water management? >> I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you. You going to rely on your post-development storm water basins for construction term storm water management? >> Yes. >> Okay. And those are infiltration basins.
>> Yes. >> Okay. So, those are going to have to be witnessed um the conversion of those because you're going to have to remove the builtup sediment. So, um Megan, if you could make note >> for um the water conditions, please.
>> Yep. >> The conversion of those basins. Thank you. >> One more question, >> then I'm done. >> Don't say that >> for now. This of course now becomes a followup
down the road. What happens if we really do see so much more flooding in my backyard because of this project? What do I have any kind of a recourse? >> The conservation office is always here. uh you bring it to the attention of John
investigation is is undertaken but I'm going to throw a wrinkle in this discussion that is we live now in an era of climate change the the design standards um by which this is designed in other
words this the definition of the storm events uh is old data uh by the old data that we have witnessed for example example, in the state of Connecticut, uh I believe it was either one year ago or
two years ago, two 1,000-year storms in one year. Um so we can't we don't know what the future's going to hold. Um but according to today's design data, this should not impact your your water issue.
I just want to put on the books that we've been living on Pine Street since all of these projects started a few years back and we really didn't believe that any of it would have an effect. Forget the storms of this year. You know, we are seeing flooding on Pine
Street. You know that is icing in the winter and we have to drive around the, you know, to get around. >> I think as much as we try, we are seeing changes in the water table. We are seeing different water on our property than we have seen in a long time. So we
just want to do our due diligent and climate change is one of the reasons. >> Yeah. But unfortunately by the existing law we can't design to what we think might happen. >> We can only design to what the data >> uh
the old data and that is the data that is referenced. >> We're not asking you to do that. We just want to make sure that if it's possible, if it's within anybody's preview in this town, that our lot is also taken into consideration. >> Well, every project, the intent of the
wetland protection act is to not allow development to impact uh existing uh houses. Um, and I'm I you know, I've been on the commission a long time. We really haven't seen in this town major
problems uh with projects that are properly designed. >> Well, thank you. >> All right. Uh further questions either in the room or on um Zoom.
>> Bob, >> Bob, you have a Bob B, you have a recurrent question or is that your old >> uh Yeah. No, I have another question. Um, yeah, Bob Butler 1332 Pine Street. Um,
the upper left, uh, wetland there, does that actually go come from the other side of Pine Street to go under the road or the reason I'm asking is because there's
six new houses across the street. Um, four of them have been built and two of them are in the process of being built and it's kind of directly across. So, those last two new houses are being built now. Uh, they're set way back from
the road. They're like probably very close or if not like almost, you know, partially in wetlands. So, um, they're bringing in tons and tons of fill for those lots. So, I'm just wondering if that could even impact this wetland
that's coming in from that side. >> Well, bear in mind the same due diligence that this project is being designed with applied to that project as well. >> Okay. So, the the houses on the there's
six new houses, but two lots on the right side. Um, looking at this map, um, just inside where the right road is, the right side entrances, there's two denous there. There's one very close to the road and
it's it's built up very high. It's really close to the road. So, when that was built, all that water coming up from that street or from that lot rather was going down Pine Street to the right and flooding uh driveways of existing houses. and
flooding their their yards. And I know I know Jonathan said that they, you know, were in trouble for that. The builder was in trouble. So, I don't know if there was something missed in the plan or just in the execution, but you know, things do happen.
Um, but then the homeowner is the one that has to really deal with it, right? So >> well I would I would comment is if there is a reproducible problem it needs that you are observing it needs to be brought
to the attention of uh John uh to so he can uh take a look at it during rain events and see what's going on. >> Yeah, I believe he did take I mean he took care of I didn't present it. Um and it might be it might be fixed now. I
don't know. I mean, I haven't really noticed an issue recently, but it could be the time of year. But, um, but, you know, things things do happen. So, even though you have even if I assume they went through the same kind of planning process,
um, you know, even if you have a good plan, it's not always executed correctly. So uh but at the same time the applicant's design is reviewed by an independent um expert as well
in all of these cases. Um any further questions on this? Uh and u if there are no further questions or comments uh we we do need to
continue this uh and uh John will need to review the discussion and I I'm I believe we may be approaching the point where an order conditions will be um able to be
generated potentially at our next meeting. Make a motion to continue the public hearing for >> April April 13th >> 250-1203 to April 13th meeting.
>> Seconded. >> Um motion by Lisa, seconded by Courtney. Uh roll call vote. I think everybody's still here. So Lisa, Dan, and Mark. >> Hi. Okay.
>> Hi. And uh Joe and Courtney. >> Hi. >> I assume you threw in something there, Joe. I didn't hear it. But at any rate, uh is that an I? Okay. And I'll throw in an I. The motion carries.
Thank you, Claire. >> Thank you very much, everybody. >> Thank you all for your time. and have a good night. >> You bet. Our next item on the agenda is file number 250-20489
north of Washington Street is Amrad and there are still issues. I don't know if we have a an applicant uh a representative of the applicant for this. There were suggestions that we may not and we may just have to
continue. So, do we have a representative of the applicant? And if not, >> so I thought they asked for continuation. At least that's in my notes from >> John Thomas. So anyway,
>> well, I think uh I I don't have that information and I think uh we can go ahead and continue it. >> Okay. And I'll moved. >> Second. Have a motion by Dan, second by Lisa. Um, and again, roll call. Lisa,
Dan, and Mark, by your vote. >> I >> I And uh Joe and Courtney. >> I >> I >> And I'll throw an I motion carries. Uh we are now up to
our new projects. There's only one file number 250-1205 127 East Street notice of intent. Um do we have a representative? Yes. It looks like Craig you're going to be presenting that.
>> Yes. Craig Sowski Wind Engineering I believe the owner of the property can also be on. >> So Craig I think we have in the audience with >> Yeah. Yeah. So
>> will you ask any question? >> Uh well I think you have a sharing capacity. Do you have a plan you could share? >> I can share. Uh yes I can. >> Do you see this on your screens? >> We do. you may have.
>> So, a similar project came before you in 2022. I don't know who was on the commission. Um, it was approved for John Quattrochi who was the previous land owner. So, we do have an open uh order of conditions that we're looking to close
out as no work was uh begun on the project. So, I don't know if that's something you need to take care of first. We filed a request first. It's it is on our agenda and we will be dealing with it. So I I I think uh we can
proceed with this and then we'll we'll close out that prior uh inactive or or prior permit that was never active on. >> Okay. Um so this is actually a 46 acre
parcel of land uh which we're only working on roughly an acre in the front but oops. Sorry. The land goes back uh along the Toon Norton Town and City line here off of
East Hajes Street. Mr. Pulk lives next door at 123 uh East Haj Street and he purchased the property from the previous owner and is looking to build a house for his son on this property here.
So, uh we have frontage on East Haj Street. It was a wetlands that had been confirmed by the uh commission back in 2022. We recovered the flags still hanging. We placed the ones that were missing, but most of those were in this
area here where they don't really affect the project. Uh we are not working within this this particular area. It comes back to the corner of the lot. And uh the previous plan had a house behind this area and over behind house number
123 which is on the left end of this property left side of this plan or the west side. So we have uh opposing a single family house here 51 ft back from the street. The zoning requires 50
minimum 35 off the property line. So we meet the zoning requirements by putting it here. We have a private well 26 ft back of the road where 25 is required. We have the 25 ft no touch buffer zone
here. um should say that the weather species areas included the ACE of the 3M river as well as uh we are in the um rare species h priority habitat 602.
We filed with Mesa to uh prior to filing with the commission and we did receive a note letter from uh division of fisheries and wildlife that was included in the filing.
It was previously approved in 2022 but we refiled as we can't use the previous uh no not no take uh notice. So we have the I said the single family house out here,
the driveway coming in off the road. We have high groundwater. So we do have the foundation raised up to uh 102 when the natural ground is around 95. So we have grading around the driveway. The roof water goes into a Caltech uh recharge
system here. And then the septic system comes out back cuz that's where they did the test holes back in 2000. 9 I think or 2020. So this septic design has been approved
by the board of health department. Uh it is a gravity system but we do have to mount it up in order to uh get a depth over groundwater and proper grading along this edge of the 25 ft buffer. We
are calling for a block uh retaining wall, excuse me, that will start near the proposed deck here run 5 ft parallel. So, we're 30 ft minimum from the wetlands, giving us room to install
this uh retaining wall. It is less than 4 ft high. It'll stagger from 96.5 to 99.5 as we move back in order to have the grading over the septic system
meet the required uh one one ft minimum over the top of the system then proper grading off to the sides. So we do carry that grading all the way through in order to have a relatively usable rear yard. We have a 25 ft sideyard here
and as I said a private well. So as as I said the entire property is 46.7 acres. We're using 0.6 uh acres for this proposed construction.
There any questions or comments? Commission members. >> Um I I have a couple. So we're having deja vu with the last filing that we're sending water into East Hodgees Street from the driveway. So perhaps John wants to look at I know
it's out of jurisdiction, but perhaps John wants to look at that in the context of the storm water permit. So essentially your driveway, all the runoff from your driveway is going right into East Hodgees. she's blowing right down to East
Hodgees. And I think that's the problem that's compounding on Pine Street right now. >> So, I would suggest putting a swale or something off to the side to collect that and divert it and keep it on the site. >> Yeah, >> I think we have to start looking at this
as a commission all over the place instead of just having driveways sheep flow to the public right away because we're making the situation worse. >> Right. listening to the previous hearing and I was thinking about that we should put a >> Thank you.
>> put a um graded drain that catches it and also a swale and then the dry well off to the side to catch the runoff before we get to the road. That should have been added to the plan. >> Um the other thing is planning on
putting a visual barrier. >> Yeah, sorry. The uh Well, we are showing the >> Oh, okay. post with the signs one near the road and then as we come along this area more in this area. >> Okay, I see it.
>> And then the last comment I guess he commented about um elicit fill in the property. Can you speak to that? >> Yeah, I talked to John and I talked to Chris. Uh you can he's in the audience. He has a better idea of it. It's I go
back to the locust. Uh I went online to where the uh D me not noted it and back around here at the towing line there's a small pond and it shows up on their screen they highlighted it in red
as being what they call man I forget exactly the wording but something disturbed by men or people. Um, Chris has a better idea that there's a neighbor in the back that he thinks is responsible for that. Um, I don't know
exactly what it is. It shows up as being in the middle of a swamp. So, I'm not not sure, but it's approximately a half mile behind where we're working though. It is on the same property. >> So, it looks like I'm back, by the way, everybody. So,
>> okay. So it looks like to me when I did some aerial I guess investigation on that historic fill that originated when the um the blue I can't remember blue is it blue view or is it blue uh blue view
no >> the blue grass >> blueg grass the blueg grass uh development went in it seemed that when that was nearing completion that that wetland was somehow filled in magically
Um, so I I I take it into consideration because it looked like their developer was out there doing some sort of work that maybe he tried to get rid of some things that might be on uh Mr. Pulk's property currently. Um, obviously if you know I don't know who the developer was
that built that uh community, but I I would leave it up to Mr. Pulk to decide whether he wants to pursue any sort of um legal matters with that developer. uh moving forward. Um but it doesn't seem like it's in anywhere near where he's
proposing to do any work um for this new construction of uh this residence. Um and I've already talked to Jacqueline Sidman about this um from D regarding this, but she just wanted to bring it to our attention.
>> So because I mean is kind of not making sense to me. So there's a violation of the property. I understand that it's not the land owner or the property owner's fault. >> But what does that mean? It's a continuous violation just because they're not building anywhere else on
the site or did you just let it go? >> No, I'm not saying let it go. I'm saying for instance, you know, obviously Mr. Pulk did not do the the work and was not responsible for it. So, he's going to have to take whatever action that he needs to to resolve this matter. Um, as
part of this, um, you obviously this this was this is this occurred before the last time that we issued a permit. Um, you know, and this is this is where I'm kind of saying that, you know, we already issued a permit for this property and it wasn't an issue at the
time. Now, it currently is. um because someone from D, you know, looked at the the um the um impacts from 2005 or whatever it is uh to see what the wetland change was. Um you know, I don't want to hold up the issuance of a permit
uh because of that, but I also think that it's definitely something that's in Mr. Pulk's best interest to resolve. Um I don't know, Chris, do you want to speak on that? >> Um yeah. Well, if I understand this correctly, um what they saw, one of the
neighbors on Blueg Grass Circle was using the property and moving materials back and forth off the property. >> Okay. >> I approached the neighbor and advised him that he needed to have all of that removed.
>> Okay, >> which he did. Okay, >> so that has it actually has been removed. Um, I found it before any of this. I I originally came to John right after I brought bought the property and explained that this had happened and um
I wanted to know what I needed to do to correct it at that time. And John, you know, basically told me to go talk to the other land owner, which I did. And he did go on the property and he has removed everything and he has stopped everything that he was doing in that
area. >> He also went through a conservation restriction, I believe. Right. >> Yes. Okay. That's in time. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yes. Yeah. He was he was crossing multiple properties doing things he shouldn't have been doing. And his
comment to me was, "Oh, I thought it was all my land." >> And when he said that to me, I'm like, "Well, funny story. When I own something, I know what I own and I know where it begins and I know where it ends. So, I'm pretty sure you knew this wasn't your property." But, um, that it has been addressed and
it has been corrected. Um, and and also just I I'd like to point out the approval that was already given to this for this property. The driveway was a lot longer. It was going all the way around behind my house. Um, and I don't
think there was any kind of controls put in place for that. Um, also I had just noticed today when I was going over the plans, um, the front elevations are off by approximately 2 ft because there's a driving garage in the front of the house
and the garage is 2 ft lower than the the house foundation. So those levels need to come down 2 feet and I will address that in the the revised plan. M. Yeah. And then where the house is
also placed, um, you'll see it in the next thing. That was actually a pole barn. So, I renamed the pole barn a house. I use the septic in the same place and I reduced the impact, you know, greater than it was. You know, it's a lot less than than it was
originally because, you know, I was always adamant about trying to do as little as possible on this lot. >> All right. further questions from either the commission or anyone else in the meeting. Um
so again this has to be continued uh but there are also some minor changes in plan. Um, so if there are no further questions or comment comments, we can consider a
motion to continue um until April 13th. >> So moved. >> Second. >> So we have a motion by Lisa, seconded by Mark. And again, um, Lisa, Dan, and
Mark, how do you vote? Hi. >> Hi. >> Hi. And Joe and Courtney. >> I don't know. Is Joe still here? I don't see him. >> I >> Okay, there we go. And I'll throw in an
I. So, the motion carries. Uh, thank you, Craig. Um so we are now up to request for certificate of compliance. And as was mentioned during the hearing um we have an old um
permit that needs to be closed out. That's file number 250-113 127 East Hodgees Street. Um and the request is that that certificate of compliance be issued. Um as no work has
been done on the prior motion to issue a certificate of compliance for 250-113 for lack of file. >> Well, yeah, I was before we go. All right. >> I was I want to make sure that the next
project is going to go through before we close this one out. So, so for instance, M Mr. Pulk's here this evening because he he wants to make sure before we close the meeting that we would issue for the new new project
that's in front of us that that because we can't close. >> Does he not want us to vote on it tonight? >> I don't think he wants you to vote on it tonight in case there's an I >> resent my motion. >> No problem. >> All right. So, we're going to table this till next time.
Yeah. >> All right. Next. Next item is file number 250- 1091, Norton High School Athletic Improvement. Uh, and do we need that be discussed by
representative? I assume from >> I mean the the information was provided to us. Um, Kyle Rowan, who is not available, but Peter Spanos and >> Ryan Tacher from Gail are on tonight. if if we have any questions. Um but I look
through all the information. Um it seems like they touched on everything uh based on what the commission was requesting at the last um discussion um for basically you know putting the final stamp of approval on from an engineering
standpoint. Um everything meets the 10 standards according to their information. and it just needs the conservation commission's um confirmation that what was there or what is currently there meets the storm water standards.
>> Yeah, that that was the only question that um whether or not the additional flow into that system um could be accommodated um by the the design modifications that were done. And
it would have made it easier if the commission had been involved in the process and now we're asking you to say yes. All the calculations show the additional flow uh will not overwhelm the system. So Ryan, do you want to feel
that? >> Yeah, sure. So we we revised uh our existing and our post um sort of asthma condition storm water to account for that sort of uh finding a reconstruction about that. >> Sorry, can't can't hear you.
>> Uh can't hear me at all. Just quiet. >> That's really faint. >> Uh you're not very loud. >> Really faint. >> You're really faint. Yes. >> Is that any better? >> That is much better. It's >> okay. Sorry. Indeed. >> Okay. Sorry. So um yes, we redid the uh
hydraulic modeling uh both for the existing condition and the uh proposed condition what we're calling the asphalt condition now uh to account for the um the high school roof and that section of the parking lot um that is being that was being conveyed to the wetlands
through the the storm water infrastructure that we we encountered during construction and that's included I think we can get so the both the existing revised existing and the new proposed as modeling are included as attachments um in that letter that we sent over.
>> All right. And uh as I understand it, John, you're you're satisfied with what you saw? >> I am satisfied from the information. It was over over above and beyond what I expected. So, thank you guys. >> Okay. So, it's >> So, we don't see the need to have this peer reviewed.
>> Well, that's the question that I asked the commission and whether you guys want it peer reviewed or not. I don't think we have any more. >> That's still the question because put it this way. If they had stopped midway, they had stopped before they even started construction or even during construction, brought it to us and said,
"Hey, we have this change." We would have had a peer review. So, I'm just curious as to what the thinking is that we don't need a peer review now. >> Well, let's review it then. Let's >> I'll just ask him a question. I'm not a smaller expert. I cannot sign off on
this as a peer reviewer and I think they I don't know. I mean, Johnny, you kind of left that open to us to say it meets the standard. I don't know. Just throwing it out there. >> I am not a professional engineer either.
So, >> yeah. So, the question is, is it worth having somebody look at it? >> This is This is Peter Sparrow. Can you guys hear me? >> Yeah. Yeah. So, so the the question uh Julian, right? So, Julian, you you
mentioned the previous comment of um that these additional flows were were taken into account. So, uh I just want to make it clear that these once we encountered those lines, those lines were always going through the track and
discharging to the other side toward the wetlands. and the tracks drainage system was connected to those lines. All we did is when we when we found those when we encountered those lines, we were going to tie in our overflow outlet control structure for
the track and turf field on the down gradient side because those two lines that were encountered coming through our track uh and through the turf field uh were going to be now crossing uh our pipes, our header pipes at four
locations. We put four outlet control structures at each one of those four locations. So it instead of putting it at the downstream end, we kept it where our new storm water system was connecting into that line. So Ryan's
calculations that that we that we provided show that there's no increase. Our flows that were coming from the turf field. Remember this turf field is is basically if you think about it it's a 2 acre 1 ft deep pond that's full of
stone. You got 40% voids in it. All that stores water over 30,000 cubic feet of water gets stored there infiltrating to the maximum extent practical the whole time and only being released at a controlled rate. So we are not um we
were not changing anything as far as the flows go. the flows for however many decades were always going to that discharge point we encountered it. We made the same connections and we gave it at a controlled rate. So flooding or anything like that is a function of rate
right uh for the regulations and per physics we are we are um discharging into via the outlet control structures at a lower rate at all design required design storm events. Therefore, we are not increasing anything downstream. And
that's why that whole letter that we gave you uh uh John is is kind of all detailed because we were trying to show the backup to that science to that. >> Yeah. But I think >> that makes sense. Well, the the original issue is
we didn't know where those inflow pipes that cross track came and we we had to be sure that there wasn't going to be a massive inflow that would overwhelm the whole system. And you're saying >> you are comfortable that no, the inflow
is not that massive and the system will still function. >> Yeah. Well, yes. Well, and to clarify, what I'm saying is when we have those pipes, those pipes have remained unchanged. They're carrying that water as they always did through the field and
discharging it as they always did. Uh it's I don't know how many decades it's been doing this. There's never been any reported of any searchcharging, any bubbling of any of the catch basins. Um to our knowledge, um the school uh um
played in them. So, um we're connecting to the same spot. We're just connecting to a to a little bit up gradient of that. At the end of the day, we're still discharging to the same uh as as there always was. Okay. Um
I mean my personal opinion is not sure what a peer review would would achieve. I mean, Lisa, do you do you I mean, what do you have a thought on that or >> Well, I mean, the way Peter explained it
was really good. Um, but I think and I think also think in the end if the town has an issue with it and the system doesn't work, they just go back to Gail. That's all. That's the chance the town has to take. That's okay. >> And and in fact, you know, Gail is
signing off on it. We are responsible for any failings in the future should this not >> function well. >> I'm good at that. >> All right. So with that discussion,
can do we have a motion to um for u issuing of a certificate of compliance for file number 250-1091. So moved back then. >> Uh so we have a motion by Lisa, seconded
by Courtney and um Lisa, Dan, and Mark. How do you vote? >> I >> I >> and Joe and Courtney. >> I >> I >> And I'll throw in an I. The motion carries. Thank you guys for your
discussion. >> Thank you. Thank you guys very much. Have a good night. >> Last item on the agenda is uh issuing a order of conditions for Zero East Hud Street, file number 250 1199.
Um concerning um a temporary wet line crossing to get to uplands. Um we have multiple um custom items.
For example, the A1. >> So John, I had comments on the first one. >> Yes. >> Uh you should take the word following. You should just say the resource areas. Okay. When I read that sentence, I was looking for the
>> Oh, yes. I will I will take that out. >> I was looking for the list. So I'm like, where is it? >> There is no there is no list for that one. That's an easy that's an easy one. >> Okay. And then we have the restoration. We talked about the restoration. Um
>> Mhm. >> So is it the restoration of the if the wetlands are impacted or is it the restoration of the uh any disturbance from the vehicle from construction equipment? I guess that's what I'm after on uh page 206 for
>> Yes. So, you're talking about the stuff that I have in there about the we're talking about the what if uh impacts. >> Yeah. >> Um yeah, I guess we could add some more language in there. Uh how it's created or what it what results from it, whether it's from the vehicle or is that what
you're inferring? Um well no my point is that so 13 talks the subsequent mitigation areas but what about just so say where they were in the buffer zone and they're they had to you know some of the some of the ground was disturbed or chewed up through the operation of
equipment. >> So you're talking about >> is that what you're talking about? >> Yeah. Yeah. Any disturbance. So anything that they I think should be So we're talking about outside of the weapon. And I think we should just add a condition to this that says all ground disturbance, right?
>> Okay. >> All ground disturbance should be restored or stabilized when they when they leave. That's all. >> Okay. >> That's all. >> Okay. >> Yeah. This is a very unique one, I will say. >> Oh, yeah. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Unfortunately, the original thought go while the ground is frozen is no longer an issue. I just have to wait now for low water. I don't know how >> I don't know that it's no longer an issue because of the Nisha finding.
They'd have to go back to NIH for a for a finding on that cuz NIH was required frozen. >> Oh, so it's no longer frozen. So they can't do it this season. >> They'll probably >> they'll they'll they'll probably have to
coordinate with Natural Heritage and get confirmation from them. Um so the condition that I would say there is prior to them doing construction or this is pre-construction meeting that we get confirmation from Nishap saying that all
all matters surrounding Nishap have been um have been addressed or have been modified um for nonprozen conditions. >> Does that make sense? >> Yes.
All right. Um, >> John, I I did want to bring up I know I mentioned it early on. Um, I don't know if now's the time to bring it up, but >> you can bring up whatever you want. >> A bond in this situation for the restoration. Uh, you know, I
don't know if the rest of the board knows. John and I had the opportunity to walk this road and there um there are definitely some things that will be disturbed. Yeah, we used to require bonds all the time for years and years and years. We
required bonds to be posted. Um, >> so >> because they owe us nothing on this at the end just to make sure if this does not happen or happens that the restoration effort happens. >> Exactly.
>> It's quite a significant crossing. So I guess the the question then becomes is what's the what's the value amount of a bond for this kind of magnitude of project? I guess that's the question.
>> And we used to have Earl the farmer give us the bond. Uh >> well now we have Joe Joe the farmer to give us the bond. >> Joe the farmer now. So you have to give us an estimate. Joe is it >> do I mean do we have a comparator from prior projects? I mean, I could look
through a lot of old um orders and see what the value at that time was, but at the same point, I'd have to cross calculate inflation and different types of things like that. >> It depends on the acreage, right? How how many acres or how many square feet,
what your media is, are you going to hydro seed it? What what would you do to stabilize it? I mean there's >> there's some there there's some tree removal that has to happen. There's, you know, some some smaller shrubbing and
white pines in the jurisdiction area. Um it's not it's not horrible, but it's not it's not >> Is it Is it 20 grand? Is it 15 grand? Is it >> It depends on how rough they are.
>> What's that? It depends on how rough they are. You know, there there definitely could have been a little more alternative path taken as we saw, you know, where there were not as many trees. Uh seeing it as the snow was melting,
you know, then >> so we would not only need the bond to include ground stabilization, but potentially replanting of trees. >> Yeah. And depending on the time of entry, it could be, you know,
understory. >> So, you going to swag it for us, Joe? >> Don't know how to pull that one out. I'm not as fresh on that one as uh >> Well, so here's an idea. I wonder if we can ask the uh
the applicant to come up with one cuz let me put it to you this way. outside of the tree planting, right? They have to get a quote from somebody to migrate seed to stabilize the site. So, why not ask them? >> It's it's definitely a forested site for
sure. Um but yeah, it's definitely understory. Do we want to put in a pre preconstruction requirement um that the applicant will be responsible for uh quantifying and identifying
>> providing a cost estimate to stabilize the site right in and to mitigate so I think what that we should be very specific so let's talk about >> 13 and then the new condition that we're going to add about stabilization right so maybe we asked them to come up with a
um to post a bond with a quote. We're going to need an actual quote from a subcontractor that addresses number whatever the new number is for just stabilization of you know in the buffer plus number 13.
Does that make sense? >> Is it acceptable to ask for more than one quote? Cuz I guess my concern is like, you know, you're going to try to do it for the cheapest the cheapest price possible and that may not be the the best option. And I wonder if it
wouldn't make sense to have some sort of median >> wildland scientist >> scientist or we could put a contingency on it and add 20% to it. Some percentage, right? But the bond
isn't necessarily going to pay for the restoration. It's only an insurance um item that if the um applicant walks away from the project without with leaving a lot of work on, >> right, then we pull the bond and we pay
a contractor to do the work. >> Yeah. >> Yep. So the the discussion is we'll add the bond requirement. >> I mean, yeah, I think that's on the table right now. I think that's the the consensus of the group here is they're
looking for a bond potentially for this unique project in case there's a a issue that happens afterwards that needs to restoration efforts. >> All right. So you'll be adding that. >> I will add a clause in there. Yes. >> Okay. >> Okay. I don't know what the number is
going to be, but I can >> Well, no. We asked them to provide Well, they're going to have to post it prior to the start of work, right? >> So, it's going to be a pre premeating. >> Pre preconstruction meeting. Yes. >> Yes. >> Pretty pretty.
>> It will be the first item under the pre-construction um line item. That's the first thing they're going to provide us. >> Okay. >> Or or My procurement team uh always makes me get three quotes and then they say they
ask me to provide a rationale for the uh company I'm going with. >> All right, that sounds great. I like that rationale. We're going to use that language verbatim. Thanks Courtney. >> So maybe maybe two at least two votes and it's it's again it's going to be for it's two parts, right? One is just
stabilization of all disturbed areas and number two if they disturb you know, they had to reveate the whole car. So, hopefully they're going to understand what the what the bond has been for, but we need to just kind of make it clear. >> Yeah. It's almost be like a two two-phaseer.
>> Yep. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, that's all we have. I will make a motion to issue these uh order conditions for >> file. I got one more.
>> Oh, one more. Uh 15 E15. Can we uh remove the language heavy machinery and just insert equipment? >> Yeah, we can do that. Which one's that, Joe?
>> Section E, movement maintenance of equipment number 15. >> It's yellow highlighted. >> Okay. Okay. >> Yeah. >> What did you want there? or any equipment any >> any equipment any >> or
just equipment shall not be stored. Is that is that what you're thinking, Joe? >> Yeah, that's typically what the EPA requires. >> Just just equipment, you know, takes who says heavy, who says light equipment is just equipment. Even a shovel, it's equipment.
So, >> okay. You good? >> I'm good now. Thank you very much. >> All right. Um All right. So, we'll continue that motion to issue the order for 250-1199 as discussed. >> Second. >> All right. We need a second there.
>> Seconded. >> Okay. Motion by Lisa, seconded by Joe. Um and again, Lisa, Dan, and Mark, Kelly. I >> I >> I >> and Joe and Courtney.
>> I >> I the motion carries. Um and I think we are at the end of our >> Yeah. Can Can I ask one question of Megan? >> Yeah. I'm really tired of seeing wet signature requirements. Can you tell us
who the I'm going to put my fellow commission people on the spot. Who is the G? >> I don't know what that means. >> You have to come in and have to come in and sign something. If it's not, >> it's Courtney and Mark, right?
>> And >> Oh, well, >> I think Can it be someone else's wife? >> I think Joe gave us by the name. >> Yeah, I have Joe. I have uh Dan. I think I need you too, Lisa. >> No, I did it back in October or something.
>> No, this is from February. >> I'm sorry, Megan. You still need my signature. No, you were like the second two. >> All right. I thought I did it. >> All right. So, Megan's going to send out an email to you all that need to sign tomorrow. >> I've been sending it out for months.
>> So, >> I didn't think it was me. I'm like, I'm tired of seeing this. >> You need directions as to how to find the office and down. >> Well, Lisa, you have to sign the minutes anyway, so you're going to have to come in anyway. >> Okay. All right. I'll be there Friday.
>> All right. Sounds good. >> All right. Um, I think our last item of business is a motion to adjourn. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All right. Motion by Dan, seconded by Courtney.
Um, and again, Lisa, Dan, and Mark vote. >> I >> I >> I >> Joe, and Courtney >> I >> I >> And I'll throw in an I. >> Okay. >> All right. >> Thank god it was a short agenda.