Uh so this is the start of the mountain conservation commission meeting of January 12th, 2026. It is now 6:30. Um apologize to everybody because it's
been a long time since our last meeting which was November 24th. unfortunate way. Um, our members uh participating tonight, we have a all the members that
are on the commission currently, myself, Julian Kadesh, chair, Lisa Rosa, vice chair, Dan Pearson, our clerk, and we also have Mark Fernandez, Joe
Carell, and Courtney Miller. We have John Thomas and Megan Park uh as our director and assistant. Um first item on the agenda is minutes from uh 11:24 because it's
been quite a while. uh which was going to go through that as review. Uh that meeting opened discussing um 92 East Main Street as a violation. During that meeting that uh enforcement order was
lifted and that's going to um that actually was presented as a we actually had a hearing point for that now or not 92 East Street. >> You voted to issue that.
>> So >> So that was last meeting. >> That was last night. >> That was in this meeting. Okay. Um 181 East Main Street is I believe either going to come up tonight or that is in in discussion. Uh Abrao Lane we're going
to be issuing an order of conditions for that tonight. >> They actually requested a continuence. >> Oh they did? >> Yeah they have to they spoke to the planning board and they have to make some adjustments to the plan set. >> Okay. >> So they request a continuence instead.
Okay. Um and 10 Robinson Lane, um we closed that hearing and issued an order of conditions last time. 65 Hill Street with a single family dwelling. We closed
that hearing and issued an order. Uh 63 Hill Street, uh same issue. This is the drain houses that had a uh a shared uh private drain line. that had to be dealt with with um
the highway department. Um and down in drive, we're going to close today and issue an order. Uh 378 Old Colony Road, we're also going to close today and issue an order.
uh zero Mansfield Avenue. We closed two um open orders where no work had been done. And that project will be before us in different form today, slightly different
form. Um and the orders of conditions we've already discussed. So with that reviewed, any comments from commission members, any corrections? Uh and if not, we can consider a motion
to approve the uh minutes of November 24th. >> Dan, you're you're peeking, but you're muted. >> Sorry. Uh just one thing. Um top of page three
uh there is let's see second bullet down from the top department update Thomas stakes new project has come into the blank. >> Mine says the office.
>> Oh >> well it doesn't show on mine either so I don't know >> why. Well, I guess it's all right. >> A Google Drive issue. >> Well, either way, I'll double check that it says the office.
>> Okay. >> And uh that's it's all I had. Ready for a motion? So moved. Uh, >> second. >> Dan, is that you that moved it? >> Mark.
>> Oh, Mark. Okay. He just uh got your mic off really fast. All right. So, motion by Mark. Uh, and I lost to the second one. Joe was Joe. Okay. Second by Joe. Uh, roll call vote starting with Courtney, Dan, and Mark.
>> I I uh Lisa, and Joe. >> Hi. I >> and I'll throw in the motion carries. Uh our next item uh is
violations 181 West Main Street. Do we have anything new tonight or >> I think Sophie has some stuff. I'm going to >> make her a co-host so that way she can share her screen. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you, John. Uh so my name is
Sophia Down. I'm a wetland scientist with water consulting representing the property owner Hyp Patel for the violation notice on 181 West Main Street. So I'm going to go ahead and share my screen. Are you all able to see the screen?
>> Yeah. >> Okay, perfect. So since the last hearing on November 24th, we did submit a checklist to the commission as requested that detailed uh certain submittal deadlines working towards a mitigation plan.
Uh we had also submitted a quantification of riverfront area impacts and buffer zone impacts. This was submitted on December 15th and we have submitted a riverfront area performance standard and mitigation
plan. uh this past Friday on January 9th. So for the quantification of impacts, we did look at historic aerials from uh mass from uh masculat pictometry and mass GIS.
We also reference uh photographs that were taken during the November 20th site visit. So, we did see um there was some vegetated disturbance towards the northwest and east of the existing commercial building that existed uh
prior to the 1996 regulations being put into place. So, these were not included in the quantification. Uh we did run through some aerials um within the quantification, but I know this is a bit tough to see, but this is a 1990 aerial. Uh you can see a bit of
vegetative clearing here over in this section and in the front of or the rear of the building. So this purple area here is uh what we quantified for the vegetative disturbance um/impact
uh since the 99 1996 regulations were put into place. Uh we also quantified the impacts of the existing stone barbecue area shown in orange here. and the newly constructed concrete patio
shown in orange here. So, the total impacts that were unceritted within the riverfront area and buffer zone is about 7,182 square ft. So, we also proposed a mitigation planting plan um as required with the
violation notice. Um this included a 2:1 ratio at uh 14,364 square feet uh in um compliance with the mitigation and degraded riverfront area performance standards.
Uh so within this area we did section out a section um where the existing septic septic tank is. Unfortunately, we don't know the exact location of the leeching field, but did estimate it uh based on a 30 foot race radius from the
septic tank. So, this area will not be planted. Uh so, the entire 14,386 square ft area will be seated with New England conservation seed mix and we'll also have a natural loan soil uh placed
and then seated with that mix. Uh we proposed about uh 33 trees which include striped maple flowering dogwood, red oak and American hop corn bean and 100 shrubs which include service berry,
black huckleberry, Carolina rose, low bush, blueberry and witch weasel. Um so at this point I'd be happy to discuss this further uh with the commission. Any questions or comments on the mitigation plan?
Uh so this this is going to be submitted as a notice at some point. Is that correct? >> Um so we are looking to potentially um replace the septic tank down the line um if it is determined to be failing. So we
would do um get the notice of intent permitted with an order of conditions and then do the plantings to avoid any damage um to the plantings. So, John, is this under an enforcement order or is it just a violation?
>> It's a violation right now. >> So, we don't have to lift any enforcement. >> There's no there's no active enforcement order on the property. >> Okay. So, the they would potentially when springtime comes just proceed to plant
this and then submit their their notice. I think it's in the best interest of the applicant and their consultant to do that anyway in the springtime. Um whether that be a NOI for a restoration
because you have a very narrow window of opportunity to actually get this done. I mean, we're seeing it now on a couple projects where things have been done um without proper approvals and there's a very narrow window to kind of basically secure that footprint for making sure those plants get established and making
sure that the seeds germinate. Um and then there's a 2-year monitoring plan that goes along with that. So, I think, you know, I hear I hear the fact that they're you know, talking about the you know, potential replacement of a septic system, but that is ancillary to what is currently out there right now. So, I
think the commission should be either requesting a notice of intent for this wetland mitigation effort or if they want to go forward with the septic repair, they go for for that and they push for that as well. And that should be done um sooner rather than later cuz you know, April's coming upon us and
they need to get all these plantings. Got to make sure that the consultants or whoever they're going to be getting for the supplier is going to have all these plants because it's a lot of plants that they just listed off. So, you know, they're not they might need to get replacements. they might need to get other um inventory or other kind of
species established and they then they have to come back in front of the commission to get approval for that. So um I think just to make sure that the transition goes seamlessly they should um move towards making this a valiant effort to kind of get this done sooner rather than later at least prep it. So
Sophie, I assume you distilled down the general thought that um putting together a um a notice of intent sounds like the next step before before springtime is upon us.
>> Yes. Yeah. And we're actively working um to get the septic figured out too so we can hopefully include that in there. Uh but we are working towards the plantings um in late March to early April. >> All right. Uh any other comments?
>> Yeah. Go ahead, Joe. >> Uh I see there's no access or fire or anything here around the back of this building. Uh I'm just questioning why we've kind of left some of that out. Well, Joe, I think right now we're
looking at a violation and not a formal um notice. Uh and >> but see seeing some of these trees and plantings here, you know, if this is kind of the thought process here, we're blocking access also.
>> And uh Sophie, I would agree that that's going to need to be considered in your restoration. Yes, we can definitely account for that. It is um a bit of a tight space with um the amount of mitigation we have to do
with the 2:1 ratio, but we can definitely try to um work in fire access in there. Of course, >> uh any other questions from the commission members? >> So, um I think it would be helpful if you could
get the septic approved at the same time because otherwise you're just going to compromise what you just planted, right? So ideally you want the septic approval in the notice of intent. Um so in the end what is going to be the
impact uh impact or percentage of um degraded in the riverfront? the graded riverfront. I believe it's about 65%, I can look back at the calculations, but um this is also accounting for the area of the commercial building that's already
existing, the parking lot that was existing prior to 1996, um the previous vegetation clearance, um and then the area that has recently been impacted. >> Okay. So in the end when you walk away
you'll have um in excess of the 10% allowed because some of it was grandfathered. Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. So is it I would ask that you make that really clear in the notice of intent those uh figures what what was
grandfathered what's new what's uh and what the end result is in terms of um percentage of riverfront. Yes, absolutely. And for reference of the commission and the quantification, we did run through the aerials and um separated out what was grandfathered and not. So, we'll definitely make sure to
include that in the notice of intent. >> Thank you. >> Uh any other comments? >> I would just add the snippet that you should have an exhibit similar to what you have here, but showing the degraded areas and the more naturalized areas. and to aid into Lisa's comments that she
just had because a visual of that would help the commission immensely be able to decipher all the riverfront uh calculations on top of just seeing it visually. So >> yes, absolutely. >> So John, technically this is not a
public hearing, but uh do you entertain audience questions? >> Um I mean the audience can definitely ask. This is more of a discussion because it's an acting violation. >> Okay. >> Um there's nothing really for open um I guess on on the on the table
because we don't have a permit in front of us as of right now. >> So, anybody have a burning question they want to ask? If not, um we're going to move on to the next item on the agenda. Are there any >> Thank you, Sie.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Are there any uh Oh, a royal uh a lane requested a um >> a continuence. Yes. >> Continuence until um >> the next meeting.
>> So, January 23rd, I believe. >> Uh the 26th maybe. >> Yes. 26th. >> All right. So, >> I'll make a motion to continue that. >> Second. >> We have a motion by Lisa, seconded by Dan. Roll call vote. Courtney, Dan, and
Mark. How do you vote? Hi. >> Hi. >> And Lisa and Joe. >> Hi. >> Hi. >> And also I So um anything under public inquiries and
department updates that we discussed? >> I have quite a bit actually since we've had some time off. So I'm just going to try to go through these as as quick as as possible. Um, we have our five-year community rating system update this year. It's basically an audit with um a
couple representatives from uh CRM and also um not CRM um the sorry uh community flood plane and managers and also uh FEMA are going to get together. That's on March 4th. Um we just submitted two one-stop grants, two
culvert replacement projects, one on West Hodgees Street and one on Pine Street. Um that premeating scheduled is for this January 14th. Put those in for the deadline on January 9th. Hopefully we get one of them at least. We have two
trail improvement projects happening in town. Um we're going to be looking at enhancing the trail system over at Johnson Acres and investigating some potential of the Shoreway property that it butts the Norton Reservoir. Uh we have an intern starting with uh the
department uh on January 21st. uh Kaya Seahan uh Stonehill College um uh student looking to uh enhance his uh expertise in the environmental field. He's going to focus
on construction monitoring and uh environmental uh wetland assessments with myself. So, he's going to work Monday and Wednesday until April 24th, I think it is. And that's going to be in the afternoon. So, I'm going to take them out on inspections and uh try to
teach them as much as I possibly can. Um, and also lastly, we still need some wedding signatures from some of the members. So, if you could stop by the office, that would be great if you haven't signed yet. So, that's it. Okay.
Uh, so we dealt with uh number 250-1191 Lane. Next item is a continued public hearing 378 Old Collaring Road. We completed um collecting all the
necessary information and we potentially can close that public hearing uh before we issue an order later in the meeting. >> We'll make a motion close public hearing for 250-1193. >> Second. We have a motion by Lisa,
seconded by Joe, uh Courtney, Dan, and vote. >> I >> Joe and Lisa, >> I >> I >> and I'll throw in an I. The motion carries. Um, next item is file number 250-1194,
13 Downing Drive. Again, we collected all the information about um a u construction of an ingground pool and I believe we can consider a motion to close this hearing. >> So motioned.
>> Second. >> We have a um motion by Courtney, second by Mark. Courtney, uh Dan and Mark, how do you vote? I >> I and Joe and Lisa, how do you vote? >> Hi.
>> Hi. >> And I'll show an I. Motion carries. Uh last of continued coverage hearings is file number 250-118061 West Main Street. Um that uh discusses
the uh construction or reconstruction of what is uh I believe on the Dona site. Um, and again, we collected all the information and consider a motion to close. >> I'll make a motion to close public
hearing for file 250-1180. >> Second. >> Seconded. >> Uh, we have a motion by Lisa, second by Joe, Courtney, lost by a few milliseconds by Courtney, Dan, and Mark.
I >> I >> Dan, you're frozen, it looks like, but you have a check mark. Um Joe and Lisa, >> I >> I >> I'll throw in an I. So Dan, >> I
>> Okay, there we go. All right, fair enough. Uh motion carries. So we're now in our new public hearings. The first one is file number 250-1195 93 King Phillip Road um involving proposed work for general restoration.
Uh do we have a representative of the applicant? Yes, sir. Uh so please uh actually you're going to bring up but um I guess he he doesn't need a microphone. Can everybody hear him? But first identify yourself.
>> Michael K. Hey, Hill. Uh, >> come up here. >> Yeah. Yeah, sure. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So um mass de mass D uh EA has uh submitted
the has seen the um notice of intent. My understanding is there were no uh holdups on that side. It's been submitted. Uh we we uh produced it with um uh ECR
and presently uh you all have had it I understand for review and I'm just here to see if you had any questions about it. >> All right. So um John, you want to make any comments before we open it up to the commission?
>> Yeah. So mainly what this if everyone is understanding of this project this is in light of that violation that happened at 93 uh 93 King Phillip. Um what transpired out of that was a notice of intent application to really um you know
get into them wanting to um you know enhance this property but also do it on an environmental kind kind of sensitive way. So, what they're looking to do is they're looking to remove some the retaining walls that have kind of all I guess passed their prime uh per se because they're all dilapitated and
there's lots of cracks. Um so, what they're going to do is they're going to replace them with the environmental sensitive uh core logs which you can see a diagram in the left here um that kind of sees um shows kind of the um the cross-section of how they're installed
and what they're what their intended use for. >> Can somebody share screen? We're not seeing anything. Oh, sorry, Lisa. That was my fault. >> Okay. >> I got confused, too. >> I was like, "All right, I guess we're just going to talk about it." >> I definitely forgot. I definitely forgot
to share screen. There we go. Okay, now you can see it. >> All right, there we go. >> Are we good? >> Yep. >> Okay, great. So, do you want me to go over that all all again or are we good? >> No, I would just start out with what's proposed. Yeah.
>> Yeah. So, what they're looking to do is they're looking to remove the retaining wall and they're going to replace it with these uh core logs and the details here on what they're what they're looking to do. I've seen these um you know done if they're done properly, they they come out pretty pretty well um on
coastal projects and whatnot, but along embankments and and um water bodies and things of that nature, I've seen them. Um is ECR going to be doing the work? You going to have another contractor doing >> Zach's uh construction company? Actually, Zach.
>> Okay. Is Brad going to be overseeing the work? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> All right. As long as Brad is overseeing the work. >> Yeah. >> Zach, can you do the construction? >> Just a quick question about Sure. >> the long term of these four logs. They
become uh vegetated and stabilized. The long-term vegetation. >> Yeah. the the intent is for it to have a more natural transition. So what it the they're supposed to be used as an embankment stabilizer, but a lot of people have been using them for actual enhancement purposes. And what happens
over time, if they're done correctly, they will take root of certain vegetation to keep that bank stabilized over a more more significant time. Um, and I think that's the that's the purpose here is to get away from the concrete retaining wall format, but have it more of a natural embankment.
>> It becomes integrated into the not the facade, but the embankment. >> Do you see it with anything that would get the longer vegetation? >> And no, they're they're anchored into position.
>> It's like a it's like a engineered >> compost material. So they basically are seated by the neighbor and the wetland. >> Exactly. Yeah. >> I'm sure Brad could give a better explanation of this, but he does this more than
>> Yeah. And and uh they're the higher cost alternative for sure, but uh he was pretty insistent on them being installed. So >> that's what we're going with. But presumably because >> this will be a um kind of a biological
barrier if it gets damaged it repairs itself by renewed growth. So in the long term it may be cheaper. >> That's correct. Yeah. But it's definitely the long-term solution. >> Yeah. >> And I will remind the commission that
there will be a two-year monitoring plan associated with the issuance of any order of conditions with this project. So if there are any sort of hiccups or any sort of issues with the um stabilization of the embankment, the applicant and the landowner will have to fix them. So over that 2-year stage,
>> I would just add to that. So you just have to make sure that the these things can degrade over time and sometimes the more time more uh times are exposed like if the water is at a higher level, they can degrade. So, I would ask for a
three-year uh monitoring period just to make sure that they don't degrade prior to the establishment of the root and the vegetation. >> I think that's fair. I think that's fair. 3 years sounds good. >> Okay. Thank you.
Um All right. So, actually, we're kind of at the stage where any other questions from commission members we're open for that. >> I have a small one. >> Yeah. Go ahead. In the use of these logs, are we doing some elevation change? It's kind of hard to see here on
the plane plan. Is there any swailing or anything that's happening where these logs are going in? It's, you know, that's my belief that, you know, they're just a coconut fiber encapsulation,
>> right? So, did you say elevation change? >> Correct. >> Uh, no, that wasn't the plan. And it was basically to uh remove >> they're going to stay on grade basically. >> Yeah, exactly. Yeah. >> Leave them like a sediment control,
>> right? And they're stepped up, Joe. They're stepped up just like retaining wall, right? >> That's why I'm asking if there's a change of grade here because I see the stepping >> that. >> Yeah, there definitely is. It's think of it as taking the place of the retaining wall. It's just probably at like a 2:1
slope instead of a vertical slope. That's right. Yeah. That's that's kind of why I wonder if just throwing some normal wetland species seeds on top of them will promote stabilization much faster. But
>> yeah, you usually do see the seed mix, Julian, thrown in there so that as they degrade the seed the the seed pops and then it stay then it takes the vegetation takes the place of the coral log. >> Yeah. So, but I assume it would be more
than just wildflower mix. I assume it would be >> it's going to be something that's a little bit more hardy. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> So, in the event of collapse here, uh what's the stabilization plan? Well, there there should they should
have more coral logs on hand to replace any sections that are in disrepair or need attention during let's say some sort of weather storm or something like that. They should have more core logs like like for instance we would have for
contractors they would have to have more sediment controls on site. they should probably have more core logs available in the event that they had to make repairs to that system and they could basically just uh insert those uh maintenance sections like they would
sediment controls. But I would just comment um it it would depend normally on the prevailing winds because what would degrade this is if you had directly uh oncoming waves and where this is on
economic it generally doesn't face that if if anything the wind normally would either go tangentially or even offshore. So I think this installation is likely not to be degraded during the time it's
getting stabilized. >> Right. It's a fair distance from the uh water line too. >> Yeah. >> All right. Any any further questions from commission members? Uh anyone in the meeting have any
questions? Uh, and I don't know how many we have on on Zoom, but uh, if you're on Zoom and want to ask a question, um, you can go to the reaction button and raise your hand or
just take your your mic off mute and ask a question. But hearing none, uh, I think um, we can consider now Our next meeting is two weeks away. So, uh, I think we're all
set to either close or continue until we close and issue. >> I mean, I can work on drafting up an order if if the, you know, the applicant wants to hold off on closing. But, I mean, or we can close and issue an order at the next meeting. It's at the discretion commission.
>> Yeah. We normally don't close until we have order conditions in hand and we close and issue. Okay. Do >> you have any problem with discontinuing? >> No, that's fine. >> Close next meeting. >> Uh, all right. So, I think we can
entertain a motion to continue 93 King Phillip Road until the 26th. Is it? >> Second. >> So, we have a motion. Uh motion by Lisa and I think
um so Dan, Mark, and Joe, how do you vote? >> I >> I got three eyes there. Lisa and Courtney. >> I I >> And I'll throw an I. Motion carries.
Thank you. Um, zero Mansfield Avenue is a rebirth of a project at the intersection of Reservoir Street and Mansfield Avenue.
Uh, and we have a representative at the applicant. Uh, and the engineer. We have two here. Okay. Well, why don't you guys introduce yourself and I think we can bring up here for the Zoom members and
you have however you want to do it. Uh just it up on your screen. Okay. >> Uh my name is Jack Di. I'm an attorney with offices at 144 Bank Street and we're represent the app. Yeah. >> Phil Cordiero Allen and Major Associates
principal with the business advisor. So what I'd like to do at the beginning is review a little history to bring everyone up to date. Uh so you may or may not remember but quite some time ago has to be more than a year I think. Um we presented a project to you for this
site which consisted of 60 units. Um it was two buildings. Uh and the this commission issued in water conditions approved the storm water uh and
just waiting for him to get this stuff done. Uh and then uh the planning board voted 4 to3 in favor of approving the site plan review, but the 4 to3 vote in favor of the special
permit for the multifamily building needed five votes. So it failed. We appealed that to the superior court and over the course of some time had some conversations uh with town council and
there were certain requests that were made of us uh in exchange for having the court remanded to the planning board for further hearings. So what we did was that we cleaned up the orders that you
had issued at your last meeting. So because those were never acted on. So now we're here new for a very very similar project. Uh we have been in front of the planning board uh and um they have deferred further action until
this board acts. Um and I think it's important that the same plan be in front of both boards. So we wanted to make sure that we were proceeding with you appropriately um before they took any final action. >> Yeah. Before we get to the bigger scale
plan, uh I just want to clarify the exact spot this is on that stretch of answer level. It appears that uh produce barn and hardware barn uh business is
directly across from one of the buildings and then uh mass gas and that other facility next to it is close to opposite. You you are correct.
Uh, and so, uh, what the planning board asked us to do was to agree that the town's 10% affordability requirement would apply to this project, even though there's some questions as to the way your Bible is written, and we
agreed to that. Uh, they also asked that we make sure that we extend the sidewalk all along the frontage all the way down to the intersection of reservoir, and we agreed to that as well. Uh and the third thing that they asked
for was that the third lot which we call lot E which is the you show it up with your person. >> Yeah. >> So it's the >> it's this lot right here right there. So
they asked that we um donate that to the town uh so that it could be forever preserved as open space and we semi-ag agreed to that. So let me explain to you what that means. What that means is >> clarification. Does that include the
triangular piece? >> That's the triangular piece that I'm talking about. The triangular piece if you look at the left building that's lot C. >> The middle building is lot D. And then the right hand one is ling.
>> Okay. All right. Sorry. >> And so obviously economics drives everything. And in order to make this project work economically, but giving up Y, we needed to increase this to two buildings of 36
units each or 72 instead of 60. So that's the major change that you're going to see is that one of the buildings is longer than it was the first time you saw this. In order to do that, however, we needed to use a small
piece of lot E for parking uh on this site. And so what we did and you Phil will take you through the plans and show you everything here perhaps. Yeah, you can see you can see a little
bit better there. Uh we needed a small portion of lot E in order to make it work for parking. And so we uh resubmitted this plan and that's the plan that's before you. It's also the plan that's before the planning board.
So we then held a number of discussions with the town planner, with your conservation director and indirectly with the town manager as to the donation of lot E. And a suggestion was made by all of them that they did not want to
take title to lot E, but would rather that we uh as a condition of approval by both you and the planning board is that we agree to deed restricted so that it could not ever be built on other than
the small area we need for the parking. And that way we would continue to own it, continue to have the liability for it, continue to pay taxes on it, but the town would get the benefit of it never being built on. And so that is the third
item that we agreed to. And that's what we have been working towards uh with the planning board. Uh the idea is that uh we would work out a deed restriction in perpetuity in favor of the town with town council assuming that it was
approved and that would be a condition that that be recorded. So from the perspective of conservation, we're primarily uh looking at uh storm water and uh
any kind of drainage into joint wetland mass. Uh and I just want to emphasize what you haven't mentioned now and that is this project depends on being on a sewer line. Is that correct? >> Yes. So Phil's going to talk about that,
but our intention, and we're working with the water and sewer commissioners on this, is to bring the sewer line all the way from the center of town all the way down to the to the site. And that's how many linear feet? >> 2,000. >> About 2,000. And uh we've had a number
of discussions with the water and sewer commissioners. This is in their master plan to extend the sewer here. They don't have the funds to do that now. So, this would actually be of some benefit. One of the things that I know a number of a neighbors asked about was at the
last hearing as well as the one we've had this time is whether they would be required to connect to the sewer. The answer is no. There is a town bylaw that says that you do not have to connect unless your system fails. If your system
fails, your septic system, then you can be required to connect to this, but you would not have to abandon your system and connect to this uh sewer at this time. There is an exception to that, however, which is that if you're located so far from the street, your house is
that it would be an economic hardship, you can get a waiver from the SW commissioners and reestablish your sector system. But the general rule is where your system fails, that's when you connect. So uh the uh other thing that I wanted
to bring to your attention which was the last time the question was do the buildings go where they are or do they go right up next to the street? Is the parking lot next to the street or is it behind the buildings?
So in this zone there are guidelines uh in the bylaw that say that the building should be on the street and the parking lot should be behind. Uh but those are only guidelines and they can be overwritten. The planning board the last time, at least on the site plan and the
positive move, that wasn't enough, agreed that we should do it this way with the um keeping the buildings away from the no touch zone uh and basically using them to protect the wetlands and keeping the parking lot along the
street. And the planning board has again inquired as to whether that is the conservation commission's view of how this should be developed. Uh and we would hope that you would agree again
that this is the proper way to do things despite the guidelines that protecting the wetlands is the key here. Uh, I know that, um, we have a memo that your director wrote, um, that we shared with the planning board that suggested there
were a number of reasons why it was better to do it this way than to have the parking lots in the rear. I'll let him speak for himself. Uh but uh that is in essence that's the same as last time
but again the planning board is questioning whether that is the environmentally sound way to develop this property. So uh that's what I had to say. I'd like to let Phil say what I haven't said and to explain the project
to you the wetlands and and where it's located. And certainly um I'm sure John will chime in at some point. Well, parking lots are in front of him. >> No, no, this is your presentation. >> Okay. >> You good? I'm good.
>> Uh so Jack covered a lot of the material, so I'm just going to touch upon them very quickly. I'll get into some detail on storm water and then certainly open it up to questions. John, if you wouldn't mind, the easiest thing could you go to page two of this plan set since you're driving the bus.
>> Sure. of this planet. >> I just want to close the loop. >> Keep going. Keep going. Right there. That that plane right there. >> Uh it's a little out of sequence in terms of what I'm going to narrate, but I do want to dovetail into what Jack
outlined. So, the previous applications that this commission saw for the 60 units existed on lot C and lot D and lot E was by and large untouched. The reason we're here is that even though we maintained the general same limit of
work line because of our extension into law e, which I'll show you in a moment on the plans, that's why we are here is because there is new work that this commission had not seen. This plan illustrates uh the applicant's commitment to creating the conservation
preservation area. It's a little light and possibly difficult to see, but it is our intent that lot C will continue. Lots D and E will be consolidated into lot D. And on lot D will be 3.4 acres of
that land that Jack referred to as conservation pre preservation area. It's on the right side of the triangle with a lightly drawn cross-hatch pattern just to give the commission a flavor as to where that area is more particularly drawn. And if I can jump in, there is a
zoning reason for this, which is that if we had only parking as the principal use on lot E, then that would be a zoning violation. So we had to combine D and E together into one lot which is pending before the planning board so that we
could then have the parking as accessory to the building which is what parking is right. Ideally the goal under planning was to consolidate all of it into a single lot but with two principal structures supported by the parking we need to maintain maintain them as two
separate lots. So, we will have lot C and lot D. And on lot D will be that conservation preservation area. Okay. If you wouldn't mind then scrolling down further onto the plane set. I'll let you know with the stuff.
Keep going, sir. Keep going. Keep going. Keep going. Keep going. Right here is the good plan. Uh so this is the layout plan. By and large, it's the same as what the commission has seen. Uh going left to right is lot C and lot D. Two
parallel buildings each 36 units. Uh the one on the right is longer than the original plan that the conservation commission had seen prior. Uh and then obviously we extended sort of that appendage on the right side of the screen. That's the projection into what was then still known as for the moment
today lot E but ultimately will be consolidated into E. It's to allow for adequacy of parking and some parking structures along the page north side of this plan. That is the border and vegetated wetland. Um the plan that's in
front of the commission for consideration tonight is a buffer zone only based project. Um we have ensured to make sure we maintain the minimum 25 ft off of the BBW line as uh subscribed
by the bylaw. And in cases specifically building B, which is the building on the right side, uh we do require two retaining walls uh to support that building and not encroach within that 25- ft buffer zone. uh we have made sure
that those walls which will be segmental block can be constructed their face of the wall is approximately 27 feet off of the wetland boundary um far enough back that we can install our erosion and sediment control measures along that PBW
resource area boundary and then build the wall up which will essentially be a fill wall. So we are confident that we do not need to come back in front of this commission and and ask for any more encroachment any more proximity uh to build the wall as as shown on the
plan here on now Jack alluded to the layout which is the same and that the parking remains in the front of the site uh you know as preferenced by the previous applications. Uh we did get some questions from the planning board as to why given how the bylaw is
written. Uh but we obviously assert that we understand why the commission would see this as a benefit which is you have a permanent stabilization approach with those buildings closer to the resource area boundary. You have your lawn area closest to the resource area boundary.
All of our uh hot centers, vehicle movement, pollutants, oils, etc. the snow management. Those will all now occur as far away from the resource areas as we can. And everything that's on that parking tray will be captured by
a storm water management system that has to be required to handle the runoff condition and provide uh uh adequate treatment in accordance with um storm water management standards. John, if you'd be kind enough to advance uh two
pages, please. Right here, sir. Uh so this is our grading and drainage plan. Uh we provide it to you as being in keeping with all of the requirements of the storm water management handbook and uh any town of Milton based requirements. Uh everything
that is constructed on site is collected through a series of deep sump and hooded catch basins routed through a water quality device. Those afford us total suspended solids removal prior to going uh into a centralized infiltration basin
in the area that we have between the two buildings. Um that gives us our required recharge volume. It gives us our peak rate of runoff reduction. It gives us our peak volume reduction. It gives us our phosphorus removal. Uh and then the ultimate overflow from that storm water
basin will then drain towards the wetland resource area as it does today. Um all of those calculations which are included in the notice of intent were included with the special permanent site plan review applications that's in front of the planning board. They engaged PGM
engineering Pat Brennan to do his peer review. Um we have completed that peer review. We have satisfied all of those technical requirements and we're hopeful that the commission can rely upon those findings as we talk about storm water here in this forum. Um in terms of the
area behind building A which is that left building uh we obviously do want to have some green space available to um the residents uh for the 72 units that are here. Um so there is a projection to have just some flat green space and then
a transitional slope uh down to the resource area. Again no encroachment within within the 25 ft area film. Um the basin that you see there is about 54 ft off of the resource area boundary. Um
so we are proposing an impervious liner on the downstream side of it. We want to make sure that there's no opportunity for breakout. There's no opportunity for any unintended consequence of building a basin that's clo close to a resource area and water runoff uh into that zone.
So that was again all worked through with Pat Brennan in terms of what our intentions are and how not only can we meet the storm water standards, we can make sure that the wetland protection act uh is protected here um as well. >> Quick quick question.
>> Yes sir. >> Those are 2 to one or 3 to one slopes? >> 3 to one slopes. 3:1 uh because we believe those can be uh stabilized easily with grasses. They can grow in very quickly and they're manicurable. So we can cut the grass without any heroic
extraordinary measures in order to do that. >> So we do we did want to make sure those those were three to one through there. Um the retaining walls to get into the metrics those are about 6 ft in height. Uh just to give the commission a scale as to what we're going to be constructing adjacent to to building B.
Um they will be equipped with fall protection. We'll put a rail on top of them uh to make sure nobody um falls down. Uh John, if I could ask you to scroll. Actually, I'll go back two pages, please. I'm sorry to keep sending you in circles.
>> Uh right here on this plan here, we do also want to make note, um if you look in the upper left corner, we have some note. It says proposed signage every 50 ft along the 25. Thank you for highlighting it. Um, so we do want to make sure and highlight for the
commission that we do have signposts that will be placed along the buffered buffer zone line to bear the placards that the Norton Conservation Commission would like us to put on there. Uh, those are spaced about every 50 75 ft along that the entirety of that line just to
alert the residents here that that is a conservation zone. Um, I did mention at the outset snow storage. Um, we did designate snow storage in the front of the site. Uh, there's a cross-hatch pattern. Might be
sort of difficult to see on this zone uh on this plan at this depth, but it is there. Now, the snow sur is fairly minimal um in that we're trying to balance the needs of the development. the fact that we are sort of encapsulated in a tight area of uh at
the street level. We do need to make sure there's adequate landscaping here in compliance with zoning and not let the snow manage uh the snow storage compromise on landscaping. Um so what we have asserted to the planning board will assert here to the commission is the
applicant has agreed to and subscribes to the D policy relative to snow removal which is we have limited area available on site. Uh we will use the areas at the front of the site for snow storage where it may impede uh vehicular circulation
uh site distances. Um we will remove that uh as expediently as we can and any snow removal from the site goes to areas deemed uh acceptable under the DP policy. So in no case will we use our conservation area to store snow. Will we
not push it into the basin? we will not push it into the resource areas. Um so we will we will take it off site and make sure it's uh handled um properly. Um as Jack mentioned, fully serviced by municipal utilities here. So one of the
things that you will not see is a septic system. Uh so the applicant is bearing the responsibility of a 2,000 f foot sewer extension that will not only be for the benefit of this project but will be absorbed by the town of Norton the
DPW the sewer commissioners that will afford the town the opportunity to connect other users uh into the line that will go from this site all the way down to library square at the center of town. Um we are detailing the final uh
program on the sewer with the sewer commissioners. So that work is ongoing. Um that work will probably take place uh maybe outside of the confines of the planning board and the conservation commission since the sewer commission is the one responsible for ensuring we have
the right specifications in place. Um so that that will continue. Uh but all totaled we can avoid having a septic system here on this site and we can take it down to an area where the town can handle sewage. Uh we have water, we have electric, uh we have adequate
circulation for our emergency apparatus vehicles. All elements that are sort of born from the planning and zoning environment, but they do inform how we designed this site and to make sure we meet all of the requirements for the
conservation commission. Um I'm happy to go into greater detail. >> One more item which the planning board asked. This is not a condominium project. This is a rental project. Our client BERN intends to hold the project to own it to manage it. So questions
always arise, you know, about making sure that the orders are enforcable, that the maintenance occurs. And so with uh our client a long and wellestablished company uh will be continuing to be responsible for this program.
>> Thank you. So any questions the commission? >> Sounds like it'll be a good time to avoid the center of Martin and that sewer line is being put in there. You know, it's actually, as I understand it, the design is run along the side of the road, not down the middle of the road,
which will be still be an impact, but not as great. >> You're still going to have all the trucks. You're going to have mass DOT personnel. It's it's still going to be a fun. >> It is not without challenges. >> I mean, I I avoid the center of town now when I can't, but that's another issue.
>> But the benefits will will outweigh the temporary construction. All right. Uh, so questions among commission members. >> Uh, can we go to the grading plan, please? >> What is that?
>> Forward two points. >> So, I understand this is going to be a fill. Uh, how much fill are you bringing in? Uh, I think we're in the order of 15,000 yards plus or minus. That's that's still to support the gravel base. That's the
structural fill below the building. So, that's that's everything to get from existing grade to finish grade once you've stripped off the organic. Okay. >> Okay. So, so about how many feet is that? So, your first floor elevation is I can't read it. Not zoomed in.
>> Anyway, >> right. So this this is actually a a particularly fine point. It actually came up in the planning board environment that I do want to be very specific with my words to try to paint as clear a picture as possible. Those two buildings as you see them will be
about a foot and a half above the elevation of corresponding Mansfield Avenue. So it is not rising a whole lot but the site as it currently exists drops down quite dramatically once you get off the shoulder of the road. So
there's approximately 5 to 6 ft of fill under that building zone, that rear zone of the site, which is what we're pushing out into those transitional slopes that you see on plan north side of the screen and ultimately that retaining wall.
>> Okay. Was there any thought given to shifting the building on the right over I don't know where Plan North is, I'm going to say Plan North is up the page. any thought to shifting that building to the west to eliminate some of that
grading and potentially the wall? And does that give you any This seems like there's a little bit more room right where the detention basin is to maybe get those buildings closer together and put the detention basin on the other side. >> Um, >> no idea, but I'm just asking.
>> So, so there there was consideration. Um, but it was a balance between a number of different factors. You know, one is ostensively we wanted to bring the plans back in front of the planning board and the conservation commission reasonably as they were approved and just adding the additional detailing
without reinventing the wheel here. Um we don't want to bring bring the buildings close together. These are three-story buildings. Um but we do want to make sure that there is separation uh between those just for residential
feel sort of you know user enjoyment. if you will, uh, moving it what I'll call to the right, you know, sort of absorbing, uh, lot E a little bit further. The fact that we didn't do that was really born from the original notion, which was we were donating as
much of lot E to the town under conservation preservation. Now, we're obviously retaining lot E at the preference to the town administrator. Uh but we really wanted to maximize that conservation preservation area by not sort of spllaying the project out any
further down um Mansfield Avenue. And then the last reason is spllaying it further down Mansfield Avenue. Um the entrance that you see there, the rightmost entrance, uh probably would want to walk down with it. Uh which we didn't want to bring it much closer to
the Reservoir Street intersection. So sort of a conglomeration of all of those individual reasons. Yeah. >> Okay. Um thank you. Um so the so is that open space going to be open
to the public and how would they access it? Is there any parking available or is it just for the neighborhood? So, it is it is not open space that is going to be signed and noted to be open for the public, but we're not going to
actively chase anybody out of there either. Um, that was really born of the discussion we had at the tech technical department head meeting as to whether you want a land area that you would advertise as open space for the public.
because we are retaining the ownership of it. We cannot advocate for public openness so we can >> Yep. Okay, I got it. Um, let's talk about your wall. Do you have a wall detail? >> Uh, we have on our planet. It's a
standard typical segmental wall detail. So, it is very much not accustomed to this site. Uh, it's just indicative of what we would likely build. It'll be at the very end. Keep going, sir. Right there. Right in the middle of that page. >> Oh, I see it. Okay. So, the
what you're showing in plan view is at the top of the wall or the bottom of the wall. >> So, in other words, you going to have enough room in between? You showing us the the top in plan view or you showing us the toe and do you have enough room to build it there, the 25 ft?
>> So, we we are showing you the face of the wall, which would be the toe, the bottom of the wall, um to make sure we have enough room to build it. And uh we heard that messaging loud and clear, which is if we're showing it, make sure we can build it so we're not coming back
to ask you for a foot or two um later on. Um so we we treat tweaked through that during the design phase. >> Okay. So I would ask if you don't know if this is the I know this is a representative wall gets the point across. Um, so John Thomas might just
want to add a condition that says, you know, the if the contractor elects to change the wall type, they need to um to notify us or give us a plan for the record. Um, so let's also talk about your snow storage area. >> If I before you step off of the
retaining wall, I apologize for interrupting. Um, I'll note that these walls are greater than 4 ft, so they will require building permits. So, we do have to go through all of the motions. So, you'll see sheets and details on those walls. All right. Please. >> Okay. So, if we can go to the snow
storage area. I understand it's really tight, but where you have them is extremely awkward for a plow because they're going to be have the they're the back end of the truck to the building and they're going to be plowing forward, which is not typically how it's done.
>> Um, so it's going to be very awkward. You're not going to be able to catch much of it. And where do those people park up? >> So, is there garage space for every unit? >> No. >> No, there's not garage spaces for every
unit. Uh we only have the three garages. So, those are amenity based. Uh you know, for those who wish to upgrade to have uh indoor vehicle storage or sometimes some extra storage. Uh we we agree with you. You know, we understand that it's a very linearbased site and it
is counterintuitive to snow plowing mechanics, especially snow plowing that occurs at 3:00 in the morning and and the plow driver has been on, you know, six dunks, coffees, and uh hasn't had sleep in a couple of days.
Um, we do need to identify, you know, reasonable areas that we can do some accommodations. And that's why I do want to point out very specifically that given the site constraints and the challenges, we would temporarily snow
plow probably to long ends of the runs as you as you indicated uh because we need to make sure emergency apparatus vehicles can get into this site all the time. So there might be long runs of snow plowing where it may move from page
left to page right and be stored down near where the garages are located and our dumpster enclosures are as part of our property maintenance operations and then it has to be removed from the site. Um so there's some operational challenges that uh we the applicant the
design team the operations team you know will work through you know as the site comes up and out of ground. >> So I would assume then that you would put forth a robust O andM plan. So, for instance, how does the uh we'll say
that the management company know when they have to take the material offsite cuz we're not going to be policing this these operations. So, how do we know that the management company knows when they have to start um which is expensive
to truck it off site and they're not going to want to do it. >> We we agree. We we agree. So there's there's going to be some inherent thresholds that any property management group will be made aware of from the
jump. And the first one is if there's a scenario that we can't get emergency access in here, emergency vehicles, that's a problem. Um that's a signal. Number two is we can't underutilize the
parking that's required per zoning. So we have a few extra spaces. is available to us. Um, but we can't fall underneath zoning uh just for strict compliance. Um, that's number two. So, if either one of those conditions are met, ops will be
made a way to take it off site. Number three is safety for our residents as they're leaving the property. We can't have any snow piles um that impede sight lines for traffic turning onto Mansfield Avenue. >> Right. So, you and I get that. How do
you quantify that for the management company? That's my question. You and I get that. We can talk about what makes sense from a safety perspective, but how is that articulated to a management company that has to execute the O and M plan? That's my question. >> Uh, no, that's an it's an excellent
question. Um, we can work on language that can reside on site and is part of the onboarding and the training for that property management. Um, I I would argue that it could be a quantitybased
evaluation. You know, inches of snowfall occurring over a 24-hour period, if you will, uh, as as as the likely trigger for materials to be removed from the site. We could quantify. >> Yeah, I think the biggest issue,
although that's not this is not com, is going to be sight distance trying to get out of there. Um >> but again I so I would ask that your on and m plan be very robust in terms of trying to quantify it and even perhaps the management company would have to
come before us at some point or acknowledge receipt of the on&m and they understand what their obligation is. Um maybe we can work that into a condition. John Thomas. >> Yeah, I'm thinking about it too. >> I was just going to say that we should we should have a condition for this for
>> Yeah. So, um maybe perhaps that the um management company has to uh acknowledge that they have read and understood the O andM plan. Um because I can tell you firsthand from experience that all these people are going to have to move their
cars, right? It's either going to be from one side to the next or they're going to have to queue in Reservoir Street while it's being plowed. It's highly inconvenient. Um, but again, it's not I know it's not a concom issue, but it's um I don't think this is ideal for snow
storage. Um, okay. Wall detail. And then what are you doing? You mentioned uh no no touch at the 25 ft. Are you going to put a split rail in or what's your >> uh we we were not intending split rail. Well, it was our understanding that the
commission could accept uh posts spaced evenly uh along the length of the 25 ft buffer. So, not a split rail, but like a 4x4 post with a sign to the commission's preference uh but not a continuous rail fence.
>> Okay. And and to that point, I mean, the reason we usually require it is we've seen many many landscaping companies dumping materials and wet. So to that end, I would hope that your O andM would also include a provision. We would again we would ask the management company to
uh review and acknowledge uh about the um removal of excuse me uh landscaping, you know, materials and debris and grass cutings off site. >> That won't be a standard staple conditioning here.
>> Okay. Um and I think I have one more. Um, so you mentioned Pat Brennan's doing a peer review of the storm water design on behalf of the planning board. Does that include looking at the provisions under the wetlands protection act and
the storm water standards or is it just hydraulics? You know, the system won't work. >> That's the whole kaboodleoodle. That's for conservation and for planning board. The reason why I um because Pat asked me when when we first started this, I said, "Well, they haven't submitted anything to us, but if you could just take a look
at the um wetlands protection act provisions as well and the storm water handbook, that would be great." >> Okay. Now, uh last question. I do have one more. The uh let's go to the sewer. Do you have you show the route for the sewer? >> We do. If you could advance four pages,
please. So my question to relative to this is have you walked both sides of whatever route is it is it going on? >> So have you looked for wetlands and buffer zone along the whole sewer route? So you're saying that you don't have to
come in for a notice to 710 for the sewer or uh so we we have we have walked it. I'm not aware of any wetland areas that would trigger us coming in front of the commission. If we identify them, we can come back and review it with the
commission. Um, what I would suggest, we are we are expanding the sewer within the right of way. So, it would be a a right of way based project uh where disturbances have already taken place. So, we could, you know, to the commission's preference talk about whether an RDA would be a suitable
filing if if wetlands are funded. >> I don't think so. So regardless of whether it's in the within the right of way, we rarely have curving in this town, which means that if you, you know, cut a trench in, >> chances are it's going to the shoulder and then to the drain. So can you scroll
to those sewer plans? So you're including the sewer plans for us for approval along with this. >> Yeah. So is the plan that's on the screen, ma'am. This is this is obviously the site plan with the start of the sewer, which is on the right side of building B, which is the building on the
right. And then if you advance, scroll through the slides, uh, please. So, this is the extension of the sewer as it continues down Mansfield Avenue. And then if you continue onward, you'll see the sewer all the way down through the library square.
So, I would ask you to make sure that there's I mean, I don't want to approve this sewer line unless I know there's no wetlands on either side of that road. I drive this area quite frequently and my understanding is that there are no wetlands. There's wetlands further north
near the Wheaten's campus, but that's nowhere within 100 ft of the roadway. So, >> okay. >> I would be pretty confident to say that there are no wetlands within 100 ft of their proposed sewer line uh extension project. >> Okay. Are we showing are there any catch
basins here or how are we handling construction term runoff on the roadway? >> So the plans do show catch basins and the utilities along Mansfield Avenue. Uh so part of what we are working towards with the sewer commissioners is the
actual extent of the construction and what we're doing. Um and then we'll put together you know pertinent construction related details which include silt fence protection on those catch basins silk sack sacks etc uh along the entirety of that length. So we will put those all
together. Um you know the project in and of itself will seek coverage under the storm water pollution protection the EPA neptes permit process. U so we'll have erosion and sediment control guidelines written into that as well. We've not prepared that document, but we'll have
it prepared prior to groundbre on on either the project proper or the sewer extension. >> That will be condition as well. >> So that's fine. >> Yeah, we cannot you can't start construction until we get a copy of that SWIP for review and approval. Uh speaking of which, I promise I promise
this is the last one. I promise. Go back to where it shows the construction entrance, please. Uh I forget which one it was. It was a >> all the way >> seven control plan. >> There we go. Oh, that one. Okay. So, you
have two entrances although um so first of all, I would not recommend putting them all over where you got utility conflicts. First thing you're going to do is say I can't put a construction entrance there because I got to put utility in. So, I would shift
that's just not realistic. I would shift those exits so that they're off of the drainage systems. And I would also ask you so you don't have uh construction vehicles just cutting willy-nilly all over the site is to put
an orange construction fence or something along the frontage of this so that the um construction trucks aren't just cutting in everywhere and they have to use the dedicated exits. >> You have perimeter fencing, my understanding is right this project.
>> Well, just not in the front. I don't see anything in the front. >> No. Is is that correct? >> Well, construction fencing. >> Yes. >> Yes. We we will erect construction fencing along the length of the project, the frontage. So, it wouldn't be willy-nilly. Um it would be restricted
and the entry would only be wherever the final stabilized construction entrance would be located, >> you know. So what what we like to ask boards and commissions you perfect perfectly valid point is once we have the contractor we sit with the
contractor and work through all of those details and those refinements and the order of operations and we we home and find those right locations and we'll make sure that information is is shared with the commission. >> Right. So your SWIP will supersede this
this document. We understand the intention is here to show us that you understand your BMPs, but um we'll look forward to the swift. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Uh other committee members have any questions? So, we can now open it up to both the
audience here in the current room and anybody on Zoom. If you're on Zoom, you can do the raise your hand or uh take your your mic off mute. So, any
questions here in the in the room? And >> I have a question on Zoom if you can hear me. >> Uh we can hear you. You're coming out as Jacob Gingga. Is that right? >> Jingga. Yeah. >> Um did I hear earlier on in this
proposal that part of it was extending the sidewalk as well? Yes, that's correct. >> Um down the loop and connect along reservoir. >> Just to the corner. >> To the corner and returning onto reservoir. >> Yes. >> Uh and if I could ask where you live
relative is it nearby relative to >> Yeah, I live on Mansfield. >> Uh close or opposite the >> close. Yeah. Um no, that was it. I was just curious. I have no other concerns. I just wanted to make sure I heard that right.
All right. Any other uh questions from Zoom or anyone else? Uh so where we stand, we still are waiting for the um storm water review. Is that correct?
>> No, the storm water review has been completed for quite some time if I'm not mistaken. >> You you are correct. So the stormwater review Pat Brennan's review is complete. Okay. Uh he he appeared in front of the planning board confirming that everything is satisfied.
>> Okay. And um planning board is is all set with this >> uh we're back in front of them next week. >> Next week next at their next meeting. We were in front we were scheduled to be in
front of them last week. We continued to start the discussion meeting. >> You you didn't have a quorum. I believe December meeting. So, so the schedule got pushed back a little bit. >> Um, but uh we have essentially finished
almost everything we need to present to them. But we wanted to make sure that this board didn't have any questions or changes to the plan because if there were, you don't want to have them acting on one plan and you acting on another.
>> Well, and that's that's the issue. So I I think maybe there would be an advantage to continuing until everybody's happy at the playing board and then our next meeting we would close and potentially issue. I think that would be a great plan. All right. So at
this point, if there are no further questions or discussion, we can consider a motion to close the hearing for to continue the hearing for file number 250-1196 until uh January 26th.
>> So moved. >> So moved. >> Uh I think you got a second there, Dan. Uh so u >> okay >> motion by Lisa, seconded by Dan and Dan Mark and Joe. How do you vote? >> I
>> I >> I >> and Lisa and Courtney. >> I >> I >> and I'll throw in an I. So uh thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you for your time this even. >> Thank you for coming in. Uh, next up on
the agenda is a request for determination of applicability. Uh, it's number 1146 and it concerning 86 Mansfield Avenue. That is a site that is a couple
of doors down in the direction of Mansfield. Um, produce barn on is on the same side. Um, so do we have
a representative? Yes, my name is Carol down a little more and then uh run off going into the reservo. We'll do an 18 in deep
slides. Uh so that's pretty much what it is. Uh and currently I think you have pretty landscape as a wood. So it's a fairly thing
reclaimed asphalt. Is that actually there? Yes, it's just the driveway. >> Okay. All right. Well, questions from anybody. >> This was mostly administrative just to
you know make sure that it's by the book and um you know I went out and verified the wetlands so all the buffers and everything here are accurate um and Dylan had Mike Tro come out here to do the survey for him. So okay
>> that's correct. Yes. questions from commission members. >> Questions? >> Yeah. So, there's no there's no work proposed, right? It's just >> So, there's there's some existing vegetation out there
currently. So, where it says the edge of edge of gravel or edge of clearing, that's where the that's where the um that's where the existing vegetation is. And and the trench itself will be
somewhere in the >> Yes. Yes. >> Uh questions in the room, questions on Zoom. Uh and again
this is an RDA so it's a matter of um positive or negative but we'll deal with that when we're back in our regular session. But for the moment it appears we have enough information to close.
I'll make a motion to close the public hearing for file 1146. >> Second. >> Uh we have a motion by Lisa, seconded by Mark. Um so our list we have Joe and Lisa and
Fan. How do you vote? I >> and Courtney and >> Mark, I think, but >> Oh, I >> Yeah, Mark. >> I >> I >> And I'll throw in an I. So, uh, more
than likely a negative determination when we're back in our simple. >> All right. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh, next up is um on my copy it doesn't have a file number yet.
Or does it? 113. >> Yeah, it looks like it's 1197. >> So 250 11 >> 113. >> Yeah. >> 113 King Phillip. Uh yes, this is 113
Kingfield Road. Um and it's for an addition to a house. Uh do we have a plan we can share? And do we have a representative? >> Yeah. Craig Sowski of Brim Engineering representing Karen Dalton, the owner of
the property. >> Well, Craig, you have sharing capabilities. I'll let you share your screen. >> Okay. Do you see that? Now >> you do. You have to up a bit. >> You see that? Okay. That right there.
>> Oh, we can. If you can enlarge it just a little bit, I think it would be uh good. >> Okay. So, is the existing house uh how much the winter cond is there property line? There's an existing
retaining wall that acts as the limit of the pond water line at the time we took it was out some ways. Um the um 100 foot buffer comes >> front of the lot. The existing house was
built in I believe 19 1930 something. We went before the zoning board of appeals in order to have this addition approved. And obviously we need to come before you. We're within the 100 foot buffer. We also have a
flood plane at 73.4 which runs across the front of the property here. These three existing sheds. uh uh currently in the flood plane, but
there's no design to move them or and there's also a garden here with a paved driveway that comes in with a walkway that goes to the house. So the intention is to addition in front removing the portion of this wraparound porch
in order to access uh there will be no steps or anything off of the addition. It's simply a bedroom and an office that will be accessed through inside from the inside of the existing house. And the intention here is we the the architect
added one step up from the existing house into the addition. So it would be can leave it sitting on these easy pure pre-cast pre-cast footings. There'll be nine of them and the existing grade
which is currently at 72.5 to 72.8 will remain as it is. There's no design to fill from that ground to the bottom of the addition. That way they're not disturbing the flood plane, not filling
in any area. Um, we do have sediment controls shown. It does drop off towards the wetlands, the pond. So, we have sediment controls here. And we're also including a drywall
uh to handle 288 square foot square feet of the proposed roof area. So that is the limit of the project. There is no grading proposed. Uh the yard should remain as it is now. Just
like I said as it the detail shows it will be sitting above the grade. So Craig, I just need some clarification. So the the 72*
6, that's that's an elevation. That's not a dimension of the addition. Correct. 72 uh.5 to 72.8 is the ground in the area of the addition. The addition is 12 ft
wide by 24 ft long. It starts a foot and a half from the uh corner of the house over here. So to extend towards the street uh 24 ft. >> Um any comments? John
>> Craig, how are you making out with the building inspector? >> Uh he he was at the zoning board of appeals meeting and uh was very helpful with uh with this project. Okay. Um, obviously it's a kind of a odd situation, but
>> correct. Um, I would just double check to make sure that you don't need a substantial improvement for FEMA. You're out for your client. So, as you're moving forward with this, >> good. So, um, John Thomas, did DP didn't ask
about the quantification of, uh, alterations in the flood zone from the island? >> Yeah. So, I think the even though it's set on peers, you still need to quantify the amount of disturbance. Yeah. >> Even though it's minuscule. Um so
whatever the circumference is of any sort of pier you have to quantify the um the circumference and add that into the um the calculation for a flood plane. >> What's the diameter of those crap? Do you know?
>> Well the top is the detail show is the top is 8 by 8 bottom is 24 in square. >> So it's 2x two. All right. Right. So, we just want to see that calculation in here for occupational flood storage times 9
just to keep track of that as a as an alteration. Okay. >> Yeah, there's area over here to uh help for any any of the film. I think it's going to be very minuscule
if you want my opinion. The amount of disturbance >> should be. Unfortunately, the best place would be where these sheds and gardens are, but we have room over here. >> I think it's going to be a lot less than what we typically see for restoration needed.
Do you agree, Lisa? >> Yes. Yep. I think just having it in in the template and having it in the form as you're claiming it as um disturbance. I think anything usually less than 100 uh
square feet usually I think doesn't trigger it. Actually, I would say probably less than 300 square ft wouldn't trigger any needs for that. >> Okay. >> All right. Um,
so this is a notice. Um, any any other questions from commission members? >> Any questions from either Zoom or inerson >> audience attendance? >> Yes. >> Just uh identify yourself and where you live. And
>> I'm Mr. Butnick. I am uh Butter 111. on the right hand side. We share, if you don't mind scrolling up to the uh the bulkhead there on the water side, we share that retaining wall. Uh it's about 90% 113 and probably have 5 to 10% of
it. You can see that on the right there. That retaining wall is leaning into the pond has been for over a decade. And there's significant sink holes along the back end of that retaining wall. And my question is what
is the the conservation committee's attitude towards that in regards to the building in that flooding? >> Is the retaining wall on your property or on your neighbor? >> It's a shared retaining wall. >> Okay. So my question is is that the
property line designates your own common ownership, right? So for instance, if the retaining wall, if you're having deficiencies with the I guess retaining wall that that abutts the Winnipe Pond, you're responsible for the section that is on your property and your neighbors
responsible for the section that's on their property. >> Okay? So I have photographs and I can show you roughly on my property line, give or take, there is a break. My my bulkhead or retaining wall is where it where it's existed probably for some time and the rest of it is pushing
forward. So in all reality, it's the majority of hers probably gets 60% of that that's being in towards and there's sink holes. >> I would say that it's in the best interest of any any I will say this and I stress this to everybody that lives on
a water body. It is in your best interest as a resident here in town to make sure that your retaining walls are in good standing. Otherwise, it could cause damages to your property and then you have to come in front of us and it's going to be a lot more work and effort
if you wait later on to do the work then do it proactively. So, that's what I stress any resident here in town is that if you have a deficient retaining wall or if you have any issues with, you know, some sort of um some sort of
barrier like that, I would come in and talk to me. I can come out, make an inspection. I can get you in good contact with some people um that are good at doing this this work um because there's going to be some requirements for environmental permitting that's going to be required and there's an opportune time when to do this work that
will actually be benefit not to just the environment but to you for saving costs. So my concern is activity I know the the the land itself is a mixture of clay and sand. So, I've experienced some sinking
on my property. >> I can anticipate, granted, it's not a lot of construction that's going on, but I think any activity would create some vibration. And my concern, granted, I'm not an engineer, uh, is that that that would fail even more. Yes, I am not an
engineer myself either, but I will say is that um a lot of these retaining walls, like we just had one, you know, we were talking about it with the quarter logs previously, um that their retaining wall at 93 King Phillip has passed its prime and one of the benefits
of it is you can do a wetland restoration um kind of plan to actually remove that and install with more natural um um stabilization um that you could potentially, you manage better than a retaining wall
over, you know, 50 plus years or whatever it however long that wall has been there. But I know a lot of these walls that are along Winonet right now um they are in desperate need of some um tender loving care. >> So if that wall falls, I am only
responsible for the port. >> You are responsible for the section of the wall that is coming from your property. Your neighbor is responsible for the section of wall that is on their property. um it is in the best interest of you to make sure that you proactively
fix it or resolve the issue in hand before it becomes another issue because I'm going to be honest with you Winnacon Pond is a natural heritage area you do not I say this you do not want that wall falling into Winnip pond then you have to go in front of natural heritage and
you don't want that so I suggest anybody that has any issues or any deficiencies take care of it get some consultation come talk to me. You know, we can try to help you out. >> Okay. >> Well,
any other questions? Um, so this the proposed addition is a fairly discreet project. We do need the additional information of the displacement put on the plan. Uh, so we
can continue and assuming there's no further information needed, we can close. next time and issue an order. Is that acceptable, Craig? >> Yes. Thank you. >> When is the next meeting?
>> 26th. The 26th of January. >> Thank you. >> I'll make a motion to continue the public hearing for file 250-1197 to the January 26th hearing. >> Seconded. >> Um, all right. Couple of milliseconds
there. So, um I'm going to say motion by Lisa, seconded by Courtney and um Joe, Mark, and Lisa. How do you vote? >> I >> I >> and Dan and Courtney
>> I may have lost Dan. >> Um he's moving. He's moving. Still moving. I think we did lose, but I'll throw in an eye. I think we'll call it a day. Um, >> next up is file number 250 unknown.
>> Or did we get a file number? >> That one has a file number. >> 55th Street is 1198. >> 1198. Uh, so 55th Street for construction of a four bedroomedroom single house.
And we're going to need a plan when John returns unless you can magically will it through his computer or are you going to be able to do it? >> I should be able to do it.
And there's one of them. If you want to pull it up a bit. >> See it. >> Not sure. >> Recording in progress. What are you doing? >> We We traveled in time.
It wasn't me. >> Now you're playing around. >> That one was me. That one was me. >> Were you good? >> Yeah. >> Okay. You sharing it? >> No, I stopped sharing. >> Oh, okay. What were you doing? >> No, I hit the audio button. >> Uh, this was 50 pot. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Which one was it? >> It's the second one down. >> This one? Yep. All right. So, first introduce yourself and then we can roll. >> Perfect. Uh, my name is Josh White. I'm from JD Civil representing uh
our client Cameron Eisner who's here in the audience as well. >> There you go. Perfect. So, just a a brief uh overview of this project. um his his family has owned
this uh this property and the neighboring properties for uh numerous years. Um and this project started um last year. In May, the um planning board
um approved a plan of land to kind of reconfigure the lots. Um so lot one which has uh the existing house um number 50 Clap Street um that's the existing lot and it's going to remain
um and lot two which is the subject of this project is technically an estate lot um based on that plan and it has just over 50 ft of frontage along the northern side of um lot one
and has a will have a um proposed access easement through that property out to the back. >> Sorry. Is um is the room muted? >> I heard that. >> Yes. >> Okay. Might just name you. Sorry. Go
ahead. >> We hear you. We're good. >> You hear us now? >> Hear us now. >> But I can't hear Julian. >> How can I? >> Cuz we are we are muted. Oh, but I heard Joe just went out. It's >> because you know what happened when you
took ownership? You did >> and I got signed out. >> Yes, we feel your pain, but cherish the silence. >> Can you tell them to get off? >> Am I still connected?
>> You think so? >> I don't think I am. Yeah, you put the audio up there. >> Can you guys hear us now? >> Yep. >> All right. So, you missed that whole conversation. >> Wonderful. Okay. >> We thought you were still out of the room. >> No, no, I don't know. I don't know why
my my thing was muted, but hey, let me um let me just give you the uh the the short and sweet here. Um we've got a uh residential fourbedroom lot project, right? and it's going to be the entrance is that coming off of Clap Street. Uh
there is a stream/wetland crossing uh covert replacement project that's going to be happening here. Um I know that the soil exploration um for understanding whether the septic system is going to park has already has already gone through the process. So
good soils out there, right? >> Yes. Very good. So, um you know, they're here in front of us basically because they have to um replace >> Can you hear? >> I think >> Are we having issues again? >> I think so. >> No, we can hear you, D.
>> Okay. So, I just heard maybe it was Dan. Um >> yeah, I think it was just Dan. It's Dan. >> It's Dan being dead. >> Dan is blank right So the only real impacts that we have associated with the this project are the is the Culbert crossing. >> Blame it all on me.
>> Okay. I will blame it all on you. Um the house itself is is positioned uh to be kind of in the buffer zone partially, but that's mostly grading. Um but besides that, uh the project itself, I
think it's going to have its own mon. It's going to have its own well, right? Private well. Yes, there's a private well proposed um for the back. Um the septic system, we submitted it with this um submitted to both Com and the Board of Health. Um the board of health
is on board with it. Um just pending the outcome of Concom to see if there was any changes um to layout or anything like that. And um once the well is installed and tested, then the board of health would approve the septic and then
construction start on that part of it. Um but yeah, pretty much as you said, it's we're basically here for the the driveway crossing um which is a big improvement um to what's out there. Um
it's an existing 12-in uh RCP pipe that's buried um barely functioning. Um and we're proposing two 18inch pipes um which I believe handles um 100year storm. So it it'll be a
substantial um improvement to that existing crossing. Um, and we do have about um 1,573 square ft of wetland um filling/
alteration work associated with the crossing. And we do have an area of about 1,600 square ft of proposed wetland occupation area just to the north of the proposed driveway. Um Brad
Holmes of ECR. um submitted a reputation narrative and plan along with this. Um so that's that's pretty >> Can you zoom into the crossing? Sure. Really hard to see.
>> Let me just zoom that in. >> I think that's the best I can do right now. >> Try another plus. >> Yeah, the plus. >> I can't. No, the other one. The one right next to it. That one. >> Oh, wow. >> Yeah, just keep going. There you go. >> Okay. All right. Here we go. >> That's That's as far as you can go. But
>> so my question to you is how much how much land disturbance are you thinking that you're going to need for this project? >> So in total >> Mhm. >> Okay. I believe we're almost at 89,000.
>> Okay. So because you're over the acre threshold, fortunately you trigger the storm water stuff. So that's where it becomes kind of a thing to take into consideration, which means your driveway and your
house, anything around that need to be accounted for storm water. >> So I would just take a look at that. See what you can do for modifications. I'm not going to want this to be the Taj Mahal of driveways, >> but I think you definitely need to implement some sort of storm water
management practices because of the threshold for exceeding the bylaw that we have. So, I would just take a look at that uh in a little bit more detail >> and see what you can come up with for adhering to our storm water management bylaw.
>> Okay. All right. >> So, I I have a couple of questions. the proposed wetland replication area. Is there a planting plan? >> Yes, there is. It was I believe it was a separate attachment. >> It is. Yes. >> Yeah. So, it should go on the whole set
of plans. So, it shouldn't be a separate. So, if we're approving this plan set, the plan set's going to be included approved under the order conditions. The contractor should have it in a single place. So, I would just ask that you add
any any details. I'm sure he did. Brad did a planting plan. >> Yes, >> that needs to go on the set always. >> Um, so I would ask that you would add that and not just reference an attachment. Um, and if you can zoom in again, so
what does that area look like that's scheduled for replication? Is it wooded? >> So, for instance, do you have to cut down so much to put that mitigation area in? I'm not sure of uh I believe it is
wooded. I'm not sure of the extent of um that as far as um how wide the the trees may or may not be in that area, but >> yeah. So, one of the things we look for for replication is that you not cut down mature trees. So, for instance, I would
hope that the wetland scientists would have walked the entire length of this wetland to determine if there were any areas that were either degraded or lacked mature trees and identify and and it was fairly accessible. Um, and that's the area we want to focus
on for mitigation, not necessarily cutting down mature trees just to mitigate for the sake of mitigating. So, um, just wondering if anybody did that >> exercise. My understanding is the last time I was out here was to monitor the crossing when they wanted to do the soil
exploration. Um, and I looked to the left and to the right of this crossing area in anticipation of any sort of um, mitigation needs. To the left and to the right is pretty devoid of vegetation.
Um, you know, there are some interispers um, you know, trees of a caliber. I want to say probably around 10 in or so. Um, but I would say that you could definitely make it work in that location that they've selected for the proposed wetland replication area. But that was
me probably a couple months ago looking at this area. So, >> okay. >> But I think photo photographs and um kind of just a drawing and rendering would definitely help on a plan. >> Yeah.
>> So, um, is that a onetoone restoration? Yeah, it's it's a little over, but more or less. Yeah, it's one to one. >> Okay. So, I assume it's going to be like sweeping the room, right? We're going to do the replication area first and then we're going to work back up to
build the the road and the crossing because otherwise you probably won't be able to get down there, right? What's the grade transition to that area? I can't really see. >> It's It's not too steep. Um it's fairly It's fairly wide. It goes down from the
It goes from the bottom of the page to the top of the page toward the wetland. So everything flows that way. Um it's fairly um it's fairly flat in that area. It's not too steep. >> Yeah. The contate
first, right? >> Yeah, I agree. >> Okay. Okay. And then are there any provisions for snow storage or where they're going to push be able to push snow? Because what you like to do on these long runs because I live on a 500 foot long
driveway is you want some relief, right? They're going to push it to some extent and they're going to drop it somewhere. So you just want to make sure that there's enough space for that along this driveway. >> Yeah, we did. So, we we have a 12 foot
wide um driveway proposed and um I want to say the limit of clearing on either side is it's probably pushing 24 I would say for a total width. So, there is um space on the shoulders for
space um to store the snow for the the snow plow to push it to the one side or the other. Um, and then once you get towards the end, just they just pile it straight off the driveway. Um, I think would probably be the best. Um,
>> I think I think it looks to me like they had plenty of room to create snow storage areas if they needed to outside the buffer zone. >> Um, >> right. I think that's what I'm getting at when I can't see the >> I think I think I think that that needs to be investigated. I also would say
that, you know, we also want to make sure that it doesn't interfere with any sort of storm water BMPs that are going to be implemented as part of this project moving forward. So, I think, you know, if you're looking at this, you have to take into account, you know, obviously where the storm water BMPs are going to go and where the stor is going to go and they those two cannot
intersect. >> What is the length of the driveway? >> Oh, 950. And it's going to be >> Yes. >> So John is the yellow the yellow line's the 100 foot buffer. So they may be hardressed to find somewhere to plow
that snow that's not in the buffer, right? >> Yes. >> I mean, I don't know how, you know, we're not going to police snow plowing, but I don't know how we're going to enforce this. But well,
the the buffer itself, I mean, does that prohibit snow storage? >> No, but you don't want to necessarily plow it into the wetland. >> I think for instance, we're going to have a provision in in in an issued
order conditions at a certain distance from this crossing, snow snow storage be prohibited. So in either direction, I think that's what you're going to want to have some sort of provision >> prohibiting that because that's directly where it's crossing. Then from there, you can build actual designated snow
storage areas, whether that's in the buffer zone, whether it's outside the buffer zone. But I think, you know, part of it is just figuring out all the complexities with storm water management, snow storage, and the crossing. I think those are the three main factors that are going to have to
be ironed out. Okay. So, we would ask the applicants represented to identify those. And then just one other thing I wanted to point out, we do have um wetland
posts proposed along the 25 ft um no touch line with the the markers as required. >> Can can you share that location? >> The black really hard to read.
>> It's this red line here. They've got the posts all the letter throughout here. >> Oh, okay. I I don't I don't know if they need to go that overboard, but for instance, that that's at the discretion of the commission. I guess we'll have to see where the snow
storage area is going to go and then also where the storm water B&Ps are going to go to actually identify, you know, something that will be better. Yeah. And how much fill I mean it's actually not directly re relevant to us but how much fill is going on that house
site. I I can't really judge whether it's a lot or just reshaping of the existing grid. >> Uh there there is quite a I don't have an exact number but there is uh a good amount for the septic system and house.
Um >> well if you zoom in I can what's the existing elevation? I can't read it again. Too far. Oh, it's kind of faint. Um, so existing grade is what? >> Uh,
94. >> 94 about >> No, 90. Is that 96? I can't read that. >> And we're going up to 101, right? Yep. >> So, six feet of felt, Julian. And then it goes back down.
degrade. >> So, they're bringing in quite a lot of material >> and it's probably what a four or five to one slope or is it >> uh I think on the >> This looks This looks 3 to1.
>> Yeah, I believe on the septic system side it's 31 and then kind of on the the northern side where the well is I believe it's that's probably closer to 5 to six I believe. Yeah, it looks like the wetland side. Try to steepen it up. Thank you.
Probably two to one. >> Yeah, >> gets steeper. Yep. >> Okay. A lot of fail, Jillian. >> Yeah. And I see a stone wall there in between the the house site and the I mean that stone wall has been or is that
is that actually just a tree line being illustrated? >> No, this this here tree. >> No. Uh up up at the base of the >> Oh, this is >> the base of the grave. That may be the tree line. >> That's the proposed >> Yeah, that's the proposed tree line.
>> Seems like a lot of uh disturbance, right? I don't know. >> Well, they there may be I mean, depending >> like groundwater. Depending on preference, you may want to change that
contour a bit first to make it architecturally more interesting and maybe a minimal plantings. Uh but right now it's kind of like a pyramid, which may not be the most appealing design for the house site, but that's,
you know, that's way outside of what we do. >> Yeah. It's almost like you'd want to put a perimeter fence on this side, but that's just not >> There's a proposed underground propane tank. Is that
>> how how deep underground is that? >> Uh I believe there is a detail towards the banks. >> Yeah, it's kind of right at the surface. Uh I'm not sure why it's considered underground. Why is wanting it to be
underground? Um >> I mean, >> yeah, that I guess that's kind of my question. >> I I would >> There's minimum what? Six. Does that say six feet? I can't read that. >> Six. >> Well, this is 12. This is six.
>> No, no, there's a minimum six feet of cover. >> Six inches. See? >> No. No. Go to the left. Right there. There's a dimension to the left of the six inches of >> Oh, yeah. Six. Six. No, I'd say six inches of cover. >> Six inches of cover.
>> Yeah. >> Or used for vehicle traffic. >> I'd say it's not anywhere near a road. I I don't know what the advantage of of burying that is. >> This is very common. This is not out of the realm of normal. This is >> Yeah, I think this is outside of
jurisdiction anyway. But >> well, I understand, but it it's like for for long-term maintenance. Um, >> a four bedroomedroom house needs that much propane. >> I mean, to be honest with the commission, anything that's within this
area here, the house isn't even in the project area, >> right? >> It's just the crossing and some grading associated with house. >> I agree. >> But but but the problem and challenge here is that if they do go over the threshold of an acre of disturbance, they have to they have to adhere to the
storm water conditions. So that's the only challenge. >> So all right. Well, it sounds like to me that for instance, you know, I don't want to speak on behalf of commission, but that there's some additional leg work that needs to be done on this project. Um, do you think two weeks is
enough time to get that or do you want to push it out even further? >> I think we'll probably have to skip the second meeting in January and go to the first one just so we can get it to you guys. Yes. >> Yes. In time. >> February 9th. >> February 9th.
>> So, you're requesting continuation till February 9th. >> Yes, please. >> Uh, any questions in the room or on Zoom? If not, we're going to go ahead with continuing the
uh the hearing. I'll make a motion to continue the public hearing file. Oh, we're out here. 1198 >> 1198 >> 250 1198 to February
>> 9th >> n motion made and >> second >> seconded by motion made by seconded by Mark um so um Lisa Dan and Mark how do you vote
>> I I >> and Joe and Courtney >> I >> and I'll throw in an I. The motion carries. So, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Uh in the interest of time, we're going to barrel through four sets of orders.
Everybody enthusiastic? >> Super. >> Good luck. >> Uh so, the first one on my pile is 13 gallon drive. That was the uh installation of a >> swimming pool. Um we have the findings.
>> Item four is >> highlighted in yellow. >> What do we have? >> Special conditions. >> One is highlighted. >> I think there's more in the back.
And 37 37 is here in perpetuation. >> Oh no. So everything else in the middle is our standard set of conditions. Any questions or discussion about this set of words?
>> Thanks for coming. motion. >> Looking for you guys are hearing us, right? >> I'll make a motion to approve the order for file number 2151194. >> Second. We have a motion by Mark,
seconded by Dan. Uh, so Courtney I >> I >> I sorry I was on mute the whole time I was making a motion realizing >> anyway. >> I see. >> At least for the best of us.
>> Well, uh, we'll call you John soon. >> That's not you. Okay. Nice. Lisa. >> Uh, all right. And uh so I think that motion carried. I don't know. Did I ask Joe? >> I'll give it an I. >> Uh yeah, Joe and Mark didn't didn't get
their chance to say I, >> but I'll say I too. And the motion carries. The orders for file number 250-1194 are approved as submitted. Next item is um
61 West Main Street. That is the the honeydew site. Um it has uh in special conditions custom is 1 and 31. Everything else is standard
issue. Um and 31 is pretty much standard issue. It's just completion instruction. Um, any comments, questions? >> At this time, I am not on mute and I'm
going to make a motion to accept or approve the order conditions for file 250-1180 as written. >> Second. >> A motion by Lisa, seconded by Mark. Um, so Lisa, Courtney, and Dan, how do you
vote? Hi, >> I >> I >> Joe and Mark how you >> I >> So Joe, you've been on mute. Was that an I or >> I? >> Okay, I'll throw in an I. So that motion
carries. Uh next um is uh Brave Lane. Oh, Ray Lane is No, that's that's >> continue that one. Um, and 378
Old Colony Road. We have a an issue is called Old Colony Drive, and there is none. >> Oh, yeah. Old Colony Road. There we go. >> So, we got to change that. >> Oh, that's got to get fixed right now. >> Okay. Uh, and special conditions under
uh are 1 and 37 again. a little >> any other comments about this uh >> um John, is there any reason why this says removal of man-made debris? >> Man-made debris
because >> as compared to like >> Oh, I see. I see what you're saying. Okay, I will change that. I will change that to a different term. >> Okay, >> it wasn't the gender thing. It was just
man-made debris versus regular degree. I don't know. >> I probably took that from an old order. I'm sorry. >> Woman made debris would be acceptable. But >> I hear you say anthropomorphic debris. What is this?
>> Is it What kind of debris is it? I'm going to say I'm going to say it's metal debris. So industrial revolution debris. >> Yeah, >> I will I will change that. >> I thought it's October. Yep. Second to
last. >> So we'll make a motion to approve the order conditions for file 250-1193 as discussed. >> There we go. >> Second. Uh motion by Lisa, seconded by
Joe, Lisa, Courtney, and Dan. Any vote? >> I. >> And Joe and Mark, how you vote? >> I motion carries. We still have the
>> RDA for RDA. I'm lost it here. It is uh >> 38 is determination 1146 86 Mansfield Avenue. So um limited uh work on the site um
probably ag3 where are we? >> We're we're on Mansfield Avenue. The the the thing that Dylan Rabiro 86 Mansfield, not zero. >> Uh,
what did I say? Whatever. 86 Mansfield. Uh, 119 1146. So, it's the one with the infiltration trench was being installed. >> So, we need a motion for a negative determination. 3G3.
>> Okay. >> So, moved. >> Uh, well, we got competing. So, moved. So, I think we'll go with Joe and a second from Lisa. Um, so Lisa, Courtney, and Dan, how do you vote? >> I
>> I >> and Joe and Mark, how you vote? >> I I >> And I'll throw in an I. Motion carries. And that brings us to the end of our long meeting >> and we are ready for a motion to
adjourn. So moved. >> Yes. >> Second >> motion by Dan, second by Joe, Lisa, Courtney, and Dan. >> I >> and Joe and Mark. >> I
>> I >> I'll throw an I. Thank you guys. All right. >> Have a good one, everyone. Thank you. Good night, everybody. Good night.