Good evening. This is the start of the month conservation commission regularly scheduled meeting is Monday, February 9th of 2026 at 6:30 p.m. Um, this is a
hybrid meeting with the in-person uh portion being conducted in town hall and one accountant room and the remainder is on Zoom. We have participating
commission members, everybody who is appointed myself, Jula is vice chair. We have clerk Dan Pearson. We also have Marker Joe Carvalo
and Miller. We have one vacancy. So if there's any mountain resident out there who would like to join, please contact the office and or the secretary for the select.
Um and I think all so our first item on the agenda is last um meetings minutes. Um the only two that can't vote on that is
uh are Lisa and Courtney. Uh but we have um four people who can. Any comments? Um I just have one on the first page. It says no discussion was held about conservation internship.
>> Yeah, we didn't. It was on the agenda, but we didn't discuss the internship. So, I was just noting that. So, people didn't think I missed it in the minutes. >> I thought we John, was that the prior meeting we discussed the details or >> I think I brought it up to the
commission saying that we were looking into it. um with the intern starting with us. >> Yeah. But then we we had uh you you described um the intern and when they were going to work. >> I think that was the prior meeting, but
I can go back and double check. >> Well, okay. Um All right. I mean, as long as because it was a discussion. I I just don't recall whether it was a prior meeting or not. But at any rate, anybody
else have any other comments or questions about minutes? [clears throat] >> Uh, on the second page, something I noticed, the second paragraph below the bullet, uh, Siggonowski shared his screen with
the commission, blah blah blah blah. Uh, and it says, um, the site is currently used for commercial use in the front and landscaping operations. Um, now is that landscaping operations
in the front as well or did we mean to say landscaping operations in the back? >> I think the landscaping operations are to to the side. >> Yeah, they were to the side because I I think there are bins on that.
>> Yeah, they want to move them >> and they're going to be moving. It's not clear that it's actually an active landscaping business, but there are um there's there's a greenhouse in the back, too, right? So, there is equipment
associated with a landscaping business. >> Do you want me to clarify to the side, Dan? >> Uh, you could put that in. I don't think it's going to be the end of the world if you don't. >> Okay, I can do that. >> Thank you. Anything
else? If not, among those who attended this meeting, we're looking for a motion to accept as discussed. [snorts] >> Oh, um, there's one other thing I think
latou may be might be spelled wrong. >> Okay. >> On page, let's see. these >> page five, but I might be wrong.
Um, so I should have looked it up, shouldn't I? >> Uh, I can check the permit cuz I think that's the owner of the property. So, I'll check the permit to check to confirm. >> Okay.
Thank you. All right. Looking for a motion. >> I'll make a motion to approve the meeting minutes from the January 26, 2020 uh meeting. >> We have a motion by Mark, seconded by
Joe. So, um, be sure I get this right. So, uh, Dan, Mark, and Joe, how do you vote? >> Yes. I >> I >> I
>> and I'll throw in an I and uh the other two will be uh abstains comfortable with that. Um our next item um do we have any further anything to add with regard to 181 West Main Street?
>> Nothing as of yet. >> Okay. And then um we don't have any public hearings to be continued. Is that correct? >> That is correct. >> Um okay. Uh and how about um inquiries
or departmental updates? >> So I have um as I we hinted earlier with the intern, I've been having Kai have been helping with a lot of field investigations. So actually he's been coming out to a lot of site visits with me. Um, and also I'm I'm giving them
some tasks with helping us with baseline documentation for our conservation restriction areas. Uh, we haven't been really keeping up with that. So, uh, he's going to be helping and assisting me with that and we're going to be monitoring those properties probably heading into, uh, you know, May when
he's done with us. So, that's the plan. So, I'll give you guys updates as we progress over the next couple months. >> All right. So we are now at continued
public hearings. Um so file 215-1191 a lane. Uh apparently they're um whatever they had to settle with the planning board
was settled and there no changes no substantive changes to the plan. Is that correct? So we can consider um closing the hearing unless there are any further comments or questions. >> So they did provide an updated plan. I don't know if the commission wants to
see it, but >> that was in the uh >> that was in the application that they recently submitted, >> but the that was in the Google Drive. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Cuz I went through that. Well, all right. Maybe I looked over. All right. >> Sean, do you mind?
>> Yeah. Can you um >> have it? Well, the problem is Can you make me go host so I can share? >> Oh, okay. >> Yeah, cuz I can't >> want to keep them under control. I can't do it from there, huh? That's weird.
Why is he on here? >> Why can't I make >> I can't make Courtney closed. >> Yeah, sure. All right, Courtney, you should have the ability to share your screen now.
>> Uh, we can you're you're I don't know if you can turn your volume up, but >> or get closer to you. >> Uh, yeah, we can we can hear you. Okay. Um, so the plans are substantially
similar to what um, you guys saw last in November. Um, just a very quick recap. The existing lot is about 7 and 12 acres with um, some isolated wetlands on site and some buffer zones to border and vegetative wetlands.
Um, we're proposing a three lot subdivision and sending Aubry Lane into a COAC. Um you guys have seen um the grading, drainage and utility plan um showed
storm water. Um right here you can see that we have a landscape island in the middle of the culde-sac um to fulfill the planning board's uh requirement to have a park in a subdivision. Um,
and this last page after the details is the landscaping plan that is new. Um, and it shows this uh landscaped park in the center. Um, we added some black spruce trees along uh the boundary from
uh the lot we're working on with the gutters to provide some screening between the uh drainage basin here and the houses here. And for this here, we have proposed uh 6T fence um to provide screening um which the owner of Aubrey
Lane and the owner of the house and they are working out exactly what type of fence they would like to use. Um and those are the the changes we made uh while going through planning. Um last Thursday we had our last uh meeting with
the planning board and got approval for the definitive subdivision social permits. Um and that is my very very quick run through of the project. >> All right. Any commission members have questions?
Uh and John John, do you have anything to add? >> No, then I don't have anything to add unless anyone does on the on the on the board. Joe, did you make a noise there? >> There was no change just on water. >> No.
>> So, the park didn't change any of that. >> No. Um, so this whole culdeac uh was already sloped to go to this little pave soil here. Um, which will eventually go into the drainage basin. I can show it on uh here. So, even with that, um, it's
still all the high point is on this side. edge of the water will still flow around it. Um, and there's a a curb going around the landscape island. Um, that will help direct flow uh the same as it was if it weren't there.
Uh this is not directly related to conservation's jurisdiction but there was one of Butter who uh approached me about maintaining a buffer with the adjoining properties and did did planning
have any requirements with regard to the subdivision rules and and maintaining a buffer with adjoining properties? Um so these properties in the back I think I remember one of the abutters um made um this butter was concerned about
this side of the lot. Um and here we're planning to maintain these trees and we show the proposed new tree line here. Um and I believe this was about 100 foot of screening. Um and then down here where there is no screening, this is where we
added uh black spruce trees to provide screening. um since we didn't have them >> and and normally >> as long as Oh, go ahead. >> Yeah, go ahead then. >> No, I I was going to say as as long as
uh Julian has admitted to being at a slight tangent. I might just ask um the uh Pyia Mariana is a wonderful tree uh and I wonder why you picked it. I haven't I don't remember in well over 10
years anyone putting a black spruce um using that. Why? I wonder why you picked it. >> Um well, I was encouraged to look at coniferous trees. Um, and I know that uh
we were looking for deer resistant um trees that would provide a visual buffer. Um, and that that fit the description for for me. >> Well, it has very nice cones, too.
>> Anyway, just curious. >> All right. So, uh, >> I just have one one question. >> Sure. Is the street going to be accepted by the town as public way or is it going to be remain private?
>> It's going to remain private. Um, it has to remain private because of the the minor street. um because of the the width that we're proposing, it's classified as a minor street and in the subdivision uh rules and regulations, a minor street is not
allowed to be accepted and we we can't that that will never be an option. So, John Thomas, do we have the um I assume we have the&m. We just need to make sure the ownership gets to
uh the the eventual property owners here. Yeah. Yeah. The HOA for the the residences. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I think I have that in the draft by the way for order. >> All right. So, um so going to open it up
to the whole meeting. Anyone have any questions about this um project? If not, uh I think now we have adequate information that we can consider uh closing
the public hearing. >> So >> that was pretty simultaneous. I I think uh Dan, you've got it and Lisa is the second. So um roll call
vote starting with Lisa, Dan, and Mark. >> Hi. >> Hi. >> I excuse me. >> And uh Joe and Courtney. >> I I >> And I'll throw in an I. The motion
carries. Um >> Courtney, would you be able to give back uh hosting privileges? >> Oh, yes. All right. So, we will consider the um orders and conditions later in the
meeting. And our next hearing is at file number 250-119850 Lab Street. Um we were primarily concerned in and do we have a a representative of that project? >> Thank you, Courtney.
Thank you. >> Yes, someone on the meeting. Josh White. >> All right. And um do you have a plan that you can present if we give you host uh for co-host privilege? >> Yes, I do. >> See?
So, is he now? Yes. Okay. >> All right. Can you guys see the plan now? >> We can. And you're going to need to expand it a little bit particularly in the area of interest. >> Yes, I will. Uh so again, Josh White from JD Cvil representing CAM for this
project um on Clap Street. Um the first meeting we had, um there's a couple comments. Um and I wanted to just go over some of the things that we changed. Um, one was just a general comment about
the overall limit of work. Um, we were able to reduce it about 25% um, from before. Um, we pulled some of the grading back in the back um, as well as added some uh, boulder walls
um, just to reduce the amount of grading that was needed. Um so we we reduce it about 25% which is uh quite a bit for this um lot. The we've also um changed
about 8,800 ft² of the driveway is now um gravel. So up by the house, um we kept this it's about 100 feet this section as paved and there's a couple other sections along
the um driveway. Um, so we kept it paved about 50 feet off the street and then we changed to gravel and then um at the crossing we kept that
about 100 uh about 50 ft there for the crossing and kept that paved and everything else will be gravel. Um still a 12t wide um driveway. Um so that um reduced the amount of impervious on the on the site by a good
amount. Um and then we were also asked to look at adding some storm water management for this. Um kind of the best we could come up with for the portions of the paved driveway. We've got uh a
small keystone diaphragm just off the driveway and a stone infiltration trench. um various dimensions um for this one here. >> And then
up on the near the house, a similar one here. It's about 100 ft long. Um and that so those will handle the runoff from the driveway. And we also added a uh roof infiltration system
to handle the runoff on the roof. Um this one I believe is the this is size for I believe the 10year storm and then anything above that would just um kind of bubble out at the the down spouts and
the obviously the site is graded to drain away from the house. Um that's basically a quick summary of some of the changes that we made. Um oh one one other thing I wanted to touch on.
Um we did add some snow removal areas on the plan. Basically designate where it should be um removed. Um, basically [clears throat] the sides of the driveway outside the 100T buffer zone.
And in this area where the crossing is, we are adding a poster rail fence on the side of the driveway to kind of um enforce that snow should not be pushed
into the wetland off this driveway in this area. And same thing here off the driveway and then at the end over here. So they can just push it this way.
That's basically the quick summary uh of the revisions that we made and we believe that um we satisfied the um storm water requirements from the um your bylaw um for this site because of
the limit of work being over an acre. Um so that's that's pretty much it for this. Do you guys have any questions? >> Uh, I don't any anybody on the commission have any questions?
>> Yeah, I have I have some questions. Um, can we go back to the entrance where you meet Clap Street? >> So, um, I did miss the last meeting, but I did the minutes um and the file. Um, was the decision to revert to gravel
what was that based on? That was the client was looking at this and just thinking about ways that he could potentially um save some money as well as make it um
as well as help us with the the storm water requirements. Obviously reducing uh the significant amount from pavement to gravel uh made the storm water requirements a little bit more manageable. Um,
so that that was basically just his request um to do that and we um did that the best we could in leaving some of the areas like I mentioned um paved where we think they should be paved.
>> Yeah. I mean, I can tell you firsthand that it's really tough to plow gravel driveway in the winter. Um cuz I live on one. uh and you're going to constantly have ruts and gullies and you're constantly going to be ripping that up and every time it rains it becomes a
mess. So, uh in light of paving, I would ask you to extend that stone infiltration trench along could be the full length of it. If you're going to save if you want to save the money, the applicants think they're going to save money paving, you're still going to have rubble and it's going to contain silt
and it's going to contain fines because you don't have bread. So, I would ask that you run that stone infiltration trench along the length of it. Um, the next thing is I don't think you mean snow removal area. That implies that you're removing snow from that area. I
think you mean snow storage. Is that what you're trying to say? >> Yes, that's that's the idea. Yes. >> Okay. So, I would change that cuz right now the way you have it written, it looks like you want people to remove snow from that area. So, um, that should
say snow storage area. Um, your crossing. Let's get to your crossing. How much cover do you have over that pipe? Cuz this is this is exactly the situation I have at my house as well. And I ended up having to pave over that
pipe because of all the frost heaps. There was not enough cover over that pipe. Um, so I think you should give some consideration to that based on the depth of cover. Um, is is that a stream connection or you're just is that just an equalizer pipe between the two
wetlands? >> Exactly. It's just there's an old covert there and we are increasing that size because it's it's way undersized and it's um partially buried.
>> Okay. So, what's the depth of cover? Is there a detail for that pipe? >> Yes. Let's see. Yeah, about tw 12 inches isn't a lot. Is that is that uh HD um um H20 loading is the first question. The second question
is, you know, once you start scraping, if it's not paved, you're going to kill half that cover with just with the plow alone. I'm living it, brother. [snorts] So, you might just have to pave over to the pipe. What was the point?
>> Yeah, we we do have um I know it's hard to see on this because we had to have this surveyor stamp it, but um see this line right here, >> this vertical one, and this vertical one right here. This section is going to be paved. >> All right. So, let's let's mark that.
So, if you and I are studying this this much to figure out that those two lines represent pavement, the contractor is not going to know that. So, I'm going to ask you to mock up this plan so it's really obvious that that has to be paid. And again, I would like to see the trench extended in those areas uh where
you're not getting paid. And I think that's all I had. Yeah, I I'll just uh make a comment uh with regard to snow removal and and that is I also have a very long driveway, but most of the time,
unfortunately, not this year, but most of the time I have a large snowblower attachment that I put on my tractor and that's much easier to control with regard to avoiding damage to a gravel driveway. And it might work out with
this to the homeowner. There are fairly good size snowb blower attachments that can be put on um zeroturn mowers. So that might be an option for the owner to avoid uh perennial damage to the uh
gravel portions of the driveway. >> Yeah, I think we have to assume though it's going to be plowed because we can't, you know, control how the homeowner removes snow. So, I I can't imagine somebody doing this one by hand, but >> Oh, I I agree. It could well be plowed,
but uh you know, it'll have to be the choice of the homeowner to either have the convenience of a commercial plow driver come in there or reduce the long-term costs from the damage that the plow does by by using an
alternative method. So, you know, I would say the most important part of this this driveway is obviously the piece of it that's in the buffer. So, I would like to see, like I said, the um the gravel shoulder extended from the pavement limit up to
the pavement limit and then beyond that um in within the buffer zone possibly. That's all I have. Uh >> any other questions or comments from commission members? Hearing none, I think we can open it up to
questions from any member, either those in the audience here or on the Zoom call. If you're on Zoom, you can just take your mic off mute and start your question, introduce yourself, including
your uh address relative to the project or you can go to the the reactions um button and the hand raising feature is there. But I don't see any questions or hear
any questions. Uh, so I think you have everything we need to to close. Is that your sense, John? >> I mean, besides the comments that Lisa just made for plan revisions, um, you know, obviously I think those
can be adjusted by the applicant engineer. Um, as long as they reflect the comments from um, the comments that were made by at least this evening. Uh
so the engineer uh can do that and then we can consider a um an order of conditions at the next meeting assuming those things are turned over to John. Does that sound like a plan Josh?
>> Yeah, we can we can make those um changes. I I one thing I just wanted to comment on. So we've in regards to extending the trenches along the length of the driveway. We
one of the reasons so there's kind of two two reasonings why they are where they are and [clears throat] the size that they are. First, um, we sized the, so I mentioned that
they we, um, sorry, we changed a portion of it from pavement to gravel at the applicant's request. Um, and then kind of on top of that, we designed the storm water systems, the trenches on the
sides to meet the storm water requirements from your bylaw, which is an intro runoff times the impur base area. So, we're treating and that's that's how we came up with these sizes of the trench. Um, came up to nice round
numbers, 60 ft long. So that's that's kind of for example for this one. That's why it's sized that way. Um same as the other one up at the house. Um it's size to handle the 1 in of
runoff which is required times this pavement area. Um and then the same thing like I mentioned about the roof system. It's sized appropriately for this um
almost 3,000 ft house. Um so we we uh are required to um provide 590 cubic feet and we've got 608 cubic feet in those three systems
that I've outlined. Um, and that's that's meeting the requirement per your bylaw. So, I don't think we I I understand that there's going to be runoff from the gravel, but uh the bylaw
speaks to the impervious area. So, that's that's kind of why everything is sized the way it is and shown the way it is. Um, so I just wanted to kind of clarify, not necessarily push back, but just clarify
what the way we sized this. So I'm not looking for infiltration, Josh. I am looking to prevent sedimentation into the wetland as that gravel degrades is plowed and may not be completely
compacted over time. >> So the difference is I'm not looking for infiltration in those areas. I'm looking to um minimize sedimentation into the web. So, this isn't about meeting quantity, it's quality at this point.
>> Okay. So, you're just looking for uh a couple feet of >> I call it rip wrap, but something along >> some some mixture of smaller stone probably, you know, 3 in minus just to capture >> some of the silt that may come off of
that. That's all. I'm I'm not looking for um quantity. I'm looking at quality. >> And you I will remind you that you elected not to pave. So it's still considered impervious surface even though it's gravel. >> So don't we don't want to get that
confused. >> Yep. >> Yeah. >> It also sets yourself up for success in the future if the applicant ever wants to or the landowner ever wants to pave that. So, I think, you know, setting yourself up for success moving forward is probably the best choice of action
for this project because I know, you know, if I own this house and I had to do this with this gravel drive, I'd probably want to pave it at some point. [clears throat] >> It's exactly what happened to us. It was not paved and we had to pave it because it was a disaster.
>> So, anyway, um, lessons learned. That's why I'm passing along. Um, so is there any way we would be able to conditionally approve or close or we just need to continue um until we can
make those couple changes? >> Well, it procedurally it wouldn't make a difference whether we continued or closed. Um, and it because we would just close at the next meeting and then issue the order of conditions that. So, it's
just one half does the other. >> Yeah. >> Uh so, I mean, why don't we continue and you'll have time to put the changes on the plan and then uh then we'll close next time and issue. >> That makes sense. What's the date of the
next meeting? >> February 23rd. >> Uh February 23rd. >> 23rd. Okay. [bell] Okay. then we'll request a continuence until until then um and we'll get you
updated plans based on those couple um comments from tonight. >> All right. So, any further comments or questions from anyone in the meeting? [snorts] And if not, we can consider a motion to continue this hearing, which
is file number 250-1198 until February 23rd. Lisa makes the motion. >> Well, I think Lisa got the so the motion and Dan gets the second. So the
Lisa, Dan, and Mark, how do you vote? >> I >> I >> I and Joe and Courtney >> I >> Joe, are you uh you're still on mute? I don't Okay, so that's an I and I'll
throw in an I. So this hearing is continued until is it the 23rd or the 20? The 23rd. Um
next is file number 250-11990 East Street which is a um temporary crossing uh to gain access to the upland areas. Um, and Brian, I think believe you are
the representative for this. One of the key issues was the staging area for constructing the the or for stockpiling the materials for the crossing. >> Uh, yes sir, Mr. Chairman, Brian Dunn with MDL Land Development and Permitting
with offices at five Bristol Drive in the town of Southeastern. here on behalf of the applicant, Pascal Latu. And um yes, you are correct. At the last uh public hearing, we had some questions about how we're going to use uh the mats
for the temporary crossing uh where we were going to have a uh storage area on site for the >> Brian, a couple of members uh that didn't see this plan last time. So, if
you if you can you you do have sharing capacity. So, do you have a plan you can bring on? >> Let me share the plan then. Yes, sir. Hold on a second. >> Let me know when you can see it. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. There you go.
>> So, yeah. So, as I was I was saying before, the um couple of the questions were uh for this temporary access, we're going to be using uh the area over here on the site uh for, you know,
stockpiling some of the um the u mega deck mats uh swap mats that are going to be used uh you know during this uh temporary access and uh any additional erosion control material. that that might be needed as part of
this. The intent really is is to do this in the snow condition uh which is most ideal uh as you know we met with uh John and Paul at the town hall in regards to this so that we're trying to do this
while we have you know some snow on the ground. So it's really ideal uh conditions for us to do this. So uh it is a temporary crossing. Uh it is the intent of the um the applicant uh with
the with a machine a backhoe excavator uh to use about three different types of uh three different um mega deck uh heavy duty swamp mats and then use them as a temporary crossing as they bring the machine uh over here through the
resource area to get to the upland side uh of the site. So we can do some soil testing with the board of health um and do some soil evaluation as well for seasonal high groundwater. So the intent is to uh use this area of the site where
there is some clearing in this area. So it's not really all wooded in area in this in this part of the property. So it' be ideal uh to offload the the mega deck um mats, put them here, the rotors control and then um you know prepare to
use them to bring the machine across um the wetland in the resource area. And these are floatable uh floatable types of mats. They also can be used to uh create a bridge. And that's really the intent uh as we cross over the stream in
this area in the frozen conditions. So um it is a a temporary alteration and um we did uh last time we were here we did not have a D file number so we were waiting for that information. We received that um probably a few days
after the our last meeting with you and um they had some minor comments in regards to stream crossing guidelines which we understand you know if the park test comes back positive that we would have to comply with the stream crossing
guidelines for our our permanent design whatever that is going to be uh based on what the the perk testing the soil testing uh come back at. So um uh based on the information I received from the
client and the uh type of excavator uh the the mega deck mats are roughly about 7 1/2 to 14 ft wide. Each one of them weighs about I want close to,00 lb and um has a rating of about 600 PSI.
And let me see some other information. So they can hold up a probably an 18,000 lb uh excavator and um which is really about about 10% of the total use of the uh mega deck
mats. They really have good uh strong um maximum stability um and it's ideal for them to be used in the snow. These are the same type of mats that you know National Grid uses on on their easements when they're doing
work on on their ements restoring some of their power lines. And um the the machine can either have a narrow bucket or a larger bucket so that if we're you know getting into some ledge or some stony uh material uh then
they can swap to the larger bucket when we're digging the holes and use a smaller bucket to you know break through the snow and the ice. So it it would be my understanding that most of the most of the ground is probably frozen at least a foot to 2 ft of of frost right
now. So um we're asking for an order of conditions for us to allow and for us to be able to do this temporary crossing for us to be able to do test and soil evaluation. Mr. Chen.
>> All right. Any uh further questions from commission members on this crossing? >> Brian, last week at last meeting we discussed that it was going to be a 12,000lb machine. Is that still the case? I didn't notice your quoting in
your >> Yeah. So, I I don't think we have a specific machine chosen yet because I'm not too sure which one they're going to rent. Uh, but I know that the there was a question about what was the total capacity of the Megaex. So, they could
they could hold the machine up to 18,000 lbs. So, that's a that's a pretty large machine. That's a that's a large excavator. Excuse me. >> That's a very large excavator. >> Yes. So, >> last time you were talking many now, we've gone up to 18,000 machine.
>> Uh, I think what the question was, what was the maximum size that the Mega Decks could use? uh could could hold. So, I I think it's going to probably be a smaller machine. I mean, an 18,000lb excavator is probably a a 330 or a
larger. So, I don't really think we need a 330 or a larger machine like that uh to get down to 10 ft of refusal over here. So, >> but you you can put a a jackhammer attachment on some of these machines, is
it? I mean, >> yes. Mo most backhanders can have a uh you know a hammer placed on them. So if they have to you know go through some ledge or some stones they they could do that the hammer through that um that area of the the harder material.
>> But if we're h but if we're hitting refusal um already and we're not at 10 ft then I can't I can't sight a septic system in some of these areas. So we want we we're going to avoid that as as much as we can. It's really a a factf
finding type of mission here to verify if this area on the other side of the resource area is viable for development. >> But but the I think some of the discussion last time was whether two foot of frost can be broken through with
your standard backhoe. >> Yeah. with with the with a smaller type of backhoe they can uh I'm sorry a smaller type of a bucket they can they can use the machine and the force of the machine to to bust through the ice and in and the the hard ground. So the the
the idea is to use the conditions that we currently have uh which was is ideal for this type of a crossing. It's frozen. It's on the snow. um it's going to be less detrimental to the resource areas and it it might take a little bit
longer for the um excavator operator to bust through the ground and get to where we need to go to once we get to the upland side, but that's up to that experience operator. and and what is the area of the upland that uh roughly I
mean are we >> right so we I mean here we have this is where the you know we're going through the resource areas here you can see this still correct Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, ideally, ideally, we're going to be up, you know, up in this area
here. Let me go back to another plan and show the if I can show me the rest of the site. So, ideally, we have all of this upland here to utilize uh as possible areas for a so soil
absorption system or multiple soil absorption systems. So, we're trying to, you know, get through that that resource area to get to this upland area here and and uh, you know, poke some holes and have them witness with the board of
health and to ideally site an area that possibly could be used for a a new septic system. So, is that roughly 10 acres or >> uh the total area of the lot? Um,
you know, hold on for a second. cuz in the notice of intent. Uh let's see. Yeah. [clears throat] >> [snorts] >> Yeah, it's not doesn't show. >> All right. I mean, we'll find out later if you can.
>> Yeah. I mean, they have uh there's such a large area of uh of Oakland over there. I'm trying to see in the narrative that we put together. >> Well, that's fine. Any any further questions? I did. I don't think my
budget >> as well after Joe put the site back up. >> Last last time we did discuss, you know, minimal disturbance. The whole discussion last time was we were going to bring a mini machine in and we discussed 12,000 lbs. And I mean, we've
all seen here in town what happens when we let a large machine a fragile site. They just they go destructor and start ripping trees down and making an absolute mess. We've seen it time and time again. So when we're talking these protests getting through a sensitive
area like this, you know, I really like to see who's the smallest machine capable. I mean, these max are big. Last time you said you were going to move them to the mitten and now we're talking a lot bigger machine. So
I'm just questioning this. Okay. So if if I may through the jet. So the the the intent the yes I remember at the last meeting we we're talking about using a mini excavator but the question was also what was the maximum size
machine that was allowable to use on these mats because it was a question. So I was only answering that question that the the the maximum size machine could be upwards of
18,000 lb. I don't think that that's the intent of um [clears throat] of pass >> but it machine that we're going to run I'd like to see it >> I'm sorry I'm >> I'd like a weight the weight size
machine that we're going to do this on cuz when you're now you're saying hey we can bring 316 in here and that's a big different >> okay you want so you want us to specifically tell you which >> I don't need to know the machine. I want
to know the weight. >> Okay. >> All I want is a weight >> of the exact >> the exact model. >> I don't need the model. I just want to know a weight. >> All right. >> Someone wants to bring it a backo in. That's fine. If we're going to say
18,000 lb, a machine of 18,000 lb, not 36,000 lb. I thought the question that was asked of us last week was what's the maximum size machine that would be allowable to go on
the site and use these mats. So I will get that information. I don't know if if you can let Charbell um you know speak to that right now because I know he's on the call. >> Hello Mr. Chairman. >> Oh yeah, go ahead.
>> So my name is Charbell. I um I'm thinking about renting a uh most likely 18,000lb machine um just because it will be more than adequate to break through the frost. The mass are actually rated for uh 86,400
lb and they're rated at 600 PSI and the 18,000lb excavator only exerts 5 1.5 PSI. So it's under 10% well under this. It's the mats are kind of like uh very extreme. They're uh kind of overkill for
this, but we're just going to use them for extra protection. Um and the excavator is 7 1/2 ft wide. So, uh it's not still classified as a mini excavator. Um I think this mini excavator is up until I believe it's
20,000 lb. So, and the mats also they have um like tread on them so the esavator won't uh slip off which was discussed in the last meeting. So, none of that uh is very, you know, preventable from happening because uh the mats aren't just like a
slippery surface. All right. So I I mean the obviously [clears throat] if something goes wrong it's going to be a lot more of a pain for you guys than than for us because uh
so if you're saying it's going to be an 18,000lb machine and that that will not be any risk uh to coming off your little path and you can navigate that path particularly in the right turn. uh the the right
angle there. Um fine. Joe, do you have any problem with that approach? >> I don't as long as we're not going to know machine. [clears throat] >> Okay. So, >> we won't be
>> all right. So, >> and then also also, Mr. Chairman, you know, we we had the surveyors and uh out here to identify the area that you have on the plan as the least amount of of of
trees that would be have to be or bushes or whatnot that would have to be um you know driven around so that we're not you know pushing down and you know altering a lot of the trees in the in the resource area in this area for these
mats to go down. So we we specifically went out there and identified this path that this we didn't just dream this up. So this is based on being on the ground and identifying what the best uh access
is without you know detriment to the resource area. >> All right, fair enough. Uh any further questions? Yes, I have several. >> Okay. So, you you're asking for permission on
how many lots? Two lots or So, access is one thing, right? So, you're asking for an order of conditions on two lots. Correct. >> We're asking for an order of conditions on Well, it's actually we're going to be
on all all four lots. So you've got this one lot here, two lots, three lots, four lock, >> right? So you're going to be taking So that's this is just access. So that you're going to be potentially taking those tests within the buffer zone on the other lots as well.
>> No, the intent is to get past the uh the resource area here outside of the buff outside of this buffer zone here that we have on the plan, which is the 100t buffer zone and a 200t buffer zone to the riverfront. So the intent is to be
doing these tests on this upland area here and all the way to the back of the lot like I >> Okay. So there's not going to be any test pits performed within the buffer zone. >> Nope. >> Okay. So my question to you is I would want to see this the 100 foot buffer zone staked out because I've seen this
gone go sideways so many times when the first people in the door have no idea where the buffer zone is and that they're not supposed to take any test bits there. So, I would like to see the buffer zone staped out whether with orange fence or construction fence or something. Um,
>> so the second thing is in your construction sequencing, which I couldn't read. Um, I assume you're going to have the the alignment st. >> Um, yes, actually it's already staked out. >> Um, that's that's one of the things that we did as part of this if I may through
the chair. Y >> um you can see on the plan stand line 6 5 4 3 2 and 1 this. So this this center line here has been staked out. The other part when we were here at the last
meeting um uh you know through the chair again is we said we were going to flag this area so that it was clearly identified so that that when Charbell or whoever else is going to come out here and put these mat the mats down and bring the machine across they know
exactly where to put them >> right because you're going to be wiping out the stakes obviously so you have to move the stakes so that >> we said at the last meeting that we put orange flagging on the either side of the erosion control so that they knew
exactly where this um these masks needed to go and the access they that they had to use. So they just can't drive wherever they want to drive. >> Okay. Oh, you mean sediment control? What do your sediment controls consist of? >> Uh we have I think it's waddles and we
have waddles. >> Okay. So where are those waddles in Plant View? uh the the dash line I was just pointing to. So the dash line right here. >> Okay. Okay, I got it. Um
so you mentioned the width of the panel. You mentioned the weight r uh rating. What is the length? What's the maximum length that you span? >> They're 7 1/2 by 14 ft long. >> Okay. So, and how wide is that? Is the
uh string in that location, the crossing location? >> My my basic question is you're going to be able to span it from bank to bank. >> Yeah. So, these are actually these decks are actually they they float. So, the intent is to, you know, be able to put
them on top of each other to make a bridge in this area. Okay. Um, so you also mentioned that you did look at uh, and I appreciate this, uh, at least the fewest amount of trees coming down. Um, there's another area.
This does not look like the narrowest river crossing though. Uh, but I'm just wondering, it's further. Yeah, that's the pinch point is down there by 175 down there. >> Yeah. So, this would be the smallest part, but I know >> No, not that one. There's another one down closer to the road there. 15 14 I
can't read that thing. Right where your blue arrow is. Yeah. Right in there. >> Oh, right here. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. This it's just very dense. If I threw the chair again, it's very dense in this area here. We That's why we
didn't choose that. Okay. >> Um, >> and then the other thing too, if I may, uh, you know, Lisa is, uh, is that if there was going to be a driveway or a road, it would have to come in this area
here in this in this area here. So, this temporary alteration also allows us to reuse um, that in the po in the in the proposed development. >> Okay. Um
was the last question I had? Oh. Uh are you providing a detail of those vats? >> Yes, they were on the plans. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Uh and is anybody going to I would ask that somebody witness uh somebody from your team or and or
John to uh again I've seen this gone haywire. First person in just goes where they willy-nilly. I don't think we would be opposed to any conditioner says uh myself or one of our other engineers to be on siteation,
but we're going to be there anyways. >> Uh to do the protest and witness that so >> um so it' be we would we would be okay with that because we're going to be there anyways. >> Okay. And then John Thomas, the final question I have for you is I'm sure
we're going to crack this thing solid with the conditions that so they do the perk testing. Um, you know, they're going to need to go back in the spring to make sure the matting didn't kill anything. Uh, and number two, if there's
nothing that's viable out there in terms of the the perk test, um, how this place is going to be restored. Yeah, I think we'll definitely have to uh button up an order conditions or propose an order conditions with those conditions outlined specifically.
>> Um okay, as you recommended, >> one more thing, Brian, while I still have you, um >> Yes, sir. >> could you please what in this rendition of this plan or whatever it might be, >> can you outline where the storage area is going to be? um and tell us what how
that's going to be delineated in the field so the contractors know what their limitations are. >> Okay. So we can do that. So the storage area would be outside the >> whether whether you want to hash that area with some sort of designation
you know put it put some you know stars or something on it. I don't I don't really care. But, you know, what I really want is to basically have some sort of barrier or some sort of physical, you know, demarcation so that way the contractors know they can't just go willy-nilly as they come off the road.
>> Understood. [clears throat] Got it. >> All right. So, any further questions I think from anyone in the meeting uh about this crossing and um
if there are >> No. Oh, just one more point of note, John Thomas. So, we'll be issuing this permit on two lots then, right? >> Oh, well, it's the whole project is for I guess this this whole project is for those two lots based on what we're
seeing here. Yes. >> Right. But the physical work in our jurisdiction is limited to two of those many lots there are. Right. >> Two lots. Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. So, are those going to be se are those existing lots? >> Yes. So, right now there's four
different there's four different lots. >> So, >> right. But we're only get you're only looking for permission to be in the buffer zone on two of them. Correct. Which >> is Right. No. That is correct. Oh, the question is, do you need two separate You're not going to get two separate orders, right? You're going to have one
order for both lots. >> Yes, please. >> All right, you're all set, Lisa. >> Yep. >> Okay, so uh unless there are further questions. So, uh, Brian, normally we would continue,
although we would issue the order. Next time we just close. Uh, >> Julian, I would just ask the the public if they have any questions. >> Yeah. I I mean the whole the whole anyone in the meeting uh either in the
room or oh if you can just um identify yourself and yeah at the podium I think you can >> and uh just where where you are relative to this project. >> Um my name is Christopher Pulk. I'm
right next door. I own 123 and 127, which is everything that abuts >> this entire I I actually go threequarters of the way around their property. >> Okay. >> Um my question is the mats, how long are they going to be down
cuz I believe that there's there's water flowing. I I haven't checked it the past couple of days, but I guess they're supposed to float, but I'm just curious how long they're going to be down. >> Yeah. Well, the intent is that this is likely to be the lowest flow time. So,
uh Brian, uh why don't you address uh the duration because obviously as spring uh gets closer, the flow is likely to increase. >> Yeah. So if I may through the chair, uh the intent is to use upwards of three to
four of these mats to bring the machine through the wetland and cross uh the stream uh with in the frozen condition. So once the machine crosses, it's going to need those mats again. So they'll be picking them up and rotating them back
ahead of the machine so that so that they can continue to make this crossing. So once they drive over here, so they put these mats down, they drive over, they're going to have to pick these up and put them over here to keep continue moving forward here. So they're going to
be there for maybe just a however long it's going to take to drive the machine over here, lift the mats up, rotate them, and put them in and keep on going. >> So like a couple hours, then a couple hours to come back, >> right? Get that. >> Okay. Oh, well that that actually
clarified. I thought they were going to stay in place as long as you're in the upland area. Um doing the the actual perk test. We you're saying it's kind of like >> kind [clears throat] of like >> last week we discussed that these weren't going to be pitch that there was
going to be a mat that was going to stay intact for the entire time and they were not going to be pitch >> and then after discussing with the client and the owners that that's not what they want to do. they would have to rent a whole bunch of these to leave them in place.
So, >> and last week's discussion was to reduce the amount of damage by not doing this. >> And that's and that's exactly what we've done by showing this area that has a limited amount of trees in it.
>> Yeah. So, you're not going the shortest route, you're doing the least vegetation impact. >> That's correct. >> Put that down. So, if you have a plan to do anything later, you're going to straighten this up. >> I'm sorry. Who's asking these questions,
Mr. Chairman? >> Uh, >> the neighbor. >> The the neighbor. And just repeat your name again. >> Chris P. Chris. Chris P. >> Yep. P. >> P O L K. Okay. >> What's the question? >> The question was that um when if you do
decide to do something, this is going to be straightened out. It's not going to be the way it's described on this. Oh, you're talking about if it comes >> if it if it comes to fruition, if it parks, if >> Yeah, that that [clears throat] obviously wouldn't be a road that would pass.
>> The stream crossing will have to be designed in a way that formulates to meet fire and safety protocols also for street layout and all that kind of stuff. So, um it's the configuration is not ideal for any sort of roadway or driveway crossing, right?
>> So, it will have to change. >> Yes. Okay. All right. Yeah. Then and so it's just going to be down for a couple of hours. I'm just worried about water flow because it is going to start to warm up and this does flood out quickly. I just don't want to be impacted. That's all I'm worried about.
>> Yeah. I I think I the intent is to have this uh done and the mats pulled totally out of there before we get anything close to spring. Is that uh correct, Brian?
>> That yes, that's the intent. That's that's what we discussed with John and with Paul at town hall. And ideally, you know, it you know, I want to get on the phone to the board of health tomorrow if things go well tonight and get some
dates as soon as possible to get this get this done and get the machine in and out of there as fast as possible. >> All right. Well, our next meeting is >> 23rd of February. So, presumably
shortly after that, you can get this done. >> Okay. Thank you so much. >> Uh, any further questions from anyone on the call either in the Zoom portion or
in the inperson portion? If not, we can consider a motion to continue uh this hearing for file number 250-1199. >> Uh so moved to February 23rd. >> Seconded.
>> We have a motion made by Lisa, seconded by Courtney. Uh and let's hear. So Lisa, Dan, and Mark, how do you vote? >> I, >> Dan, you're not on the screen right now,
so I can't >> Sorry. I >> I >> There we go. Okay. And then Mark, >> hi. >> And uh Joe and Courtney, >> I >> I >> And I'll throw in an I. So, uh, Brian,
we're all set to see you, uh, next meeting, which is on February 23rd. >> Okay. So, that's when we're going to have the order conditions issued. >> Uh, that is the plan, Brian. >> That's the plan. Yes. >> Can you make can you make those
adjustments to the plan? >> Absolutely. And then I'll get the surveyors out there sting that 100 foot buffer zone right away. >> Okay, great. >> Okay, >> very good. Thank you so much everybody. Appreciate your time. >> You bet. >> Thank you. Bye now.
>> We have completed our continued public hearings portion and now are moving on to our new public hearings. They include three house lots on Germaine Way. The
initial one is labeled nine Ger Germaine Way uh and it's file number is f 250-1200. Do we have a representative for this um hearing? >> Yes, I'm here. Uh Gregory Bonovitz,
Autoland Engineering >> and uh we need [clears throat] you. You probably have screen sharing um permission at this point. If you can bring up the plan. Now, this is a subdivision on Twine
Street. Just press share. Let me know when that's okay. >> Uh, we we see lot 13, Greg. >> Uh, yeah. So, I think we're on um nine Germaine Way, lot 13.
>> Okay. >> Is that correct? >> Okay. I think I had it as the agenda. We opened up Yeah. So this is um D file number 250-1200. The project is a uh single family
dwelling with associated grading and infrastructure. Um little quick background on the actual subdivision. Um Balffor residential uh cluster subdivision off Pine Street. Uh the
planning board approvals were in 2023 certificate of approval and notice of finding and decision. The conservation approval for the subdivision uh border of resource area delineation
was May 11th, 2021 and the order of conditions for the roadway and drainage construction was January 26, 2023. We are on Germaine Way. The roadway is
um under construction. Um the infrastructure is has been in installed. The roadway is paved and um the lot that we're working on that we're discussing is block four. So it's the uh third one in on the left.
>> Uh lot 13, right? Lot lot 13. >> Oh, yep. I am sorry I >> yourself lot 14 give the overview these are the lot numbers lot 13 >> and here is the site plan
the lot size is 62 653 ft 1.438 438 acres assesses ID is 24912. The lot is served by public water and sewer. There is a portion of the lot
that contains a drainage easement. This line right here and that is actually 8,125 square ft on the lot. Some um dimensions that relate to the disturbances and setbacks relative to
the wetland resource area. The total disturbance for the um house construction is 15,59 square ft. The disturbance within the 100 ft buffer which extends from the tree line
to the siltation control and uh incorporates a portion of the home in the grading is um 8,535 ft. The closest point from the dwelling
to the wetland is the deck here and that is 64.1 ft. And the closest point of disturbance uh to the the wetland is in this area is
47 uh ft. The um saltation control that's shown here um is this approved saltation control from the subdivision plan and the order conditions and that is uh installed and has been inspected
regularly. [clears throat] >> So conclud this this zigzag line what does that denote? That is the tree line and it was uh just the way the drafting came out.
>> Yeah, it it wasn't it's not in the legend. So I >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> I I presume that it was a tree line, but >> it's not the conventional >> tree line. All right. So that's so that will remain
a tremendous disturbance. And um so based on the information provided, the proposed single family dwelling is being constructed within an already approved residential cluster subdivision Balffor. The project acknowledges and
respects the established resource area boundaries and as confirmed by the or overad and order of conditions for the roadway and drainage construction. All critical structures and planned disturbances maintain setbacks
significant setbacks from the wetland. The project has been designed to minimize impacts in and is consistent with the prior approval for balf farm subdivision and conditions issued by the conservation commission and planning board.
So I can uh go over any questions at this point. Well, there's always [clears throat] always a question about um the tendency of homeowners to want to expand their backyard.
And I'm presuming that at some point there's going to be a visible barrier to denote that that's the buffer to a wetland resource.
>> Yeah. Yeah, permanent physical barrier. >> Yeah, that's typically our standard >> because I think all three of these lots have the same problem except perhaps four which has a a rather
uh deep drainage uh structure. It might not encourage people to try to extend their lawn in that direction. >> Yeah. But u but on this one I I can see that it could happen because you're uh
once you get down the very steep grades from the house you're on rather uh gentle grades. >> So is there any way to convert the I guess that's a silk fence uh to convert that post construction to
the visual barrier that would probably make the most sense. Sure. >> Just a suggestion. I don't know how anybody else feels about that. >> I'm in agreement with you, Lisa. >> Okay. Um and then I would just ask that
you either label uh Julian's same thing Julian had a comment about the tree limit of the tree clearing. And then because we have the luxury of having a house number, uh if you could please put the house number on the plan as well, that will help us because right now
we're we're not even referencing lot 13. Oh, no. Here we go. Okay, good. >> All right. So, it was probably just our agenda. >> Okay. >> Yeah, we don't always have house numbers. >> I know, but
definitely a luxury. Also, the >> Thank you. >> the parcel for this is 9-12, right? And it's just lot 13. >> Yeah. For some reason, the assessors intended to match up the builder's lot
number with their property ID, and it didn't quite happen. >> Okay. >> It happens quite frequently. All right. So, um, any further questions about this particular lot,
um, from commission members? [clears throat] >> No, I I would just ask that you, you know, add a note that says to convert the silk fence to a, um, maybe a split rail fence or something and then put a detail. >> Do you have a detail of that silk fence?
That was the silt fence that was actually on the um this is the approved subdivision plan. So, um that's shown I could find >> So, is your contractor going to have
this plan as well? I mean, we're only approving your plan, >> of course. Yeah. Yeah. So, I'm going back to the uh order of conditions for the roadway, right? >> And this this is what the commission saw um back in Right. So, if somebody were
to pick up your plan, a contractor, um you probably need to show uh if you go to your plan. >> Okay. >> Silt fence. That's what we're approving. >> Mhm. >> That silt fence has already been approved and that location is already
installed, >> right? My point is if it degrades and the contractor has to replace it, you need a detail. Looks like you have a detail. That's fantastic. So, that was my point. Um, the next thing is you just probably want to add a note and and put
a split rail fence detail on here that talks that says the sediment control, not erosion, that's a sediment control detail, by the way. Um, and we don't want to put stakes through the straws because it completely undermines the
integrity of the netting. So, we want to take that um stake out. We don't really like those anymore. they're frowned upon by EPA. Uh, and put those at a 45 degree angle um against the um the water and not through
the water. So, just if you can update that detail, it's a sediment control detail and then just take the steak out from the middle of it. >> Okay. >> Um and then add a note in plan view and provide a detail of this rail fence.
Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Um, so [clears throat] if there are no further questions among commission members, we can open up uh questions to anyone on the call,
including those in the in the in person in the room and those on the Zoom meeting. And again on Zoom you can go to the reaction button and I think it's there's a symbol for raising your hand.
Yes. So if or you can just take your mic off mute. Um if there are no further questions uh we can continue this until our next meeting in which time um do you have a
question? Okay. Um at which time uh we would close uh and issue the order. Uh so you're okay with u continuing this hearing for the the twoe period until
our next meeting? >> Yes. >> So I'll make a motion to continue the public hearing by 250-1200 to the February 23rd meeting. Second. >> Uh Lisa makes a motion. Dan uh gets the
second. So um Lisa, Dan, and Mark, how do you vote? >> I I >> All right. And then Joe and Courtney. >> I >> I. >> And I'll throw in an I. So we have two
um additional carbon copies. Our next one is file number 250- 1201 27 Germaine Way and uh it is I believe lot 4. Does that sound right?
>> That is correct. Yeah. So this is 27 Germaine Way, lot 4. And I've showed you the the locus map before, but it's the um the third lot in on on the left.
So, this one is um [clears throat] similar approved subdivision. Um there's a current order of conditions on it. Um the siltation control has already been um installed and this
that's the siltation control that's on the um approved subdivision plan. Um the lot area is 55,255 ft 1.26
acres assessor's ID 2493. The um property is served by a public water source. The drainage easement area on this property is quite large. It um it's from here and then it extends to
the rear of the property. It's 38,205 square ft. There is a total disturbance outside the drainage area, drainage easement. So this
drainage easement line total disturbance of 15,366 ft. The disturbance inside the 100 ft buffer up to the drainage easement line is the 100 ft buffer is 2,100 ft.
The closest point from the proposed dwelling to the wetland is 93.1 ft. The closest point from the drainage
easement line to the wetland is 76.2 ft. The um erosion control runs along the uh 50 foot buffer uh sediment control.
Um, [clears throat] so this is the same issue with with regard to you have relatively modest grades once you get uh into this drainage easement and it it would invite
somebody with really a minimal backyard area now to potentially expand it. So a physical barrier will be required there. And then the bottom you have this this grayish
uh pattern uh at the bottom of the drainage easement. And does that indicate >> just its course or is there a different material in that gray area? No, that that's actually an access um
way along the um drainage easement for um for maintenance up there. >> It's a maintenance corridor. >> So, it it it gets mowed or what what order? >> Um, >> right.
>> I'll switch that over to the um this is again the approved subdivision plan. um that was from 2023 that was already um >> approved under the order of conditions. So that isn't the right sheet and I
would have to flip through all the sheets to figure out um where it shows that. >> Yeah. I guess >> so you I mean on larger sites those are usually gravel. I don't know. >> I don't think it's gravel. I think it's
just a a relatively flat area so they can um gain access. >> But presumably vegetation is controlled today. >> Yeah. So here's here's what they're showing along here. Drainage maintenance
access typical to remain clear of vegetation or any obstruction. >> Okay. >> Doesn't say what the ground cover is. So I don't know if it's loaded seed. Maybe they just extend the limited seed from the basin onto the top as like a part of the burm.
>> I would. Yeah, I'm thinking it's a level grass area. >> So, in that case, Julian, if we go back to the site plan, we can't possibly put a split rail fence on in the drainage ement because you could be including access. So, I would suggest putting the
uh keeping that where it is. It's already in place, right? And >> yeah, >> following the split rail fence along the south. Is that south? Plain south. Uh along the drainage, >> the other side of the drainage >> being close to the house.
>> Oh gosh. >> Yeah, it has to follow there because you need to keep the rest of that green clear for access. You can't put a fence up in an easement, right? I think I think demarcating the drainage easement between that corridor and where the
house is, I think would be sufficient as well. I mean, you're outside the buffer a little bit, but I think just having that precludes that from expanding going into the drain easement. >> Mhm. So, place the fence along the dash >> that that dash line there. Yes.
>> Okay. >> Yeah. If you don't have that barrier there, there's no telling what could wind up in the middle of the easement. You know, sheds >> and swing sets, other things. >> Did you say a pool or something?
>> So, if you could [laughter] put a pool there, >> I'd figure it out. >> Um, and then I'm going to ask you to make the same update to the uh sediment control by taking the stakes out of the center of the Oh, you said it was already in, right? Yeah. So that
sediment control is was actually uh the same sediment control approved on the definitive uh subdivision plan. >> That's too late now. >> That detail. So that >> I must have missed that. >> That's shown. >> Yeah, that's shown here. It was in what
was it? 2023. Um >> Jim, I don't know. I was slipping. You didn't catch me on that one. >> So that was um >> I didn't catch it either, so shame on me, too. >> That was the order of conditions from Yeah. January 26, 2023. >> Okay. Well, it's already so
[clears throat] good for next time when you come in. >> Okay. I'll I'll make sure I update the detail anyway. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any further questions from members of the commission? And
hearing none, uh any questions from anyone uh in the meeting? And if not, we can consider a motion to continue uh the hearing for this lot uh until
February 23rd in the same manner. >> So moved. >> Second. >> We have a motion by Dan, seconded by Lisa. Um Lisa, Dan, and
Mark, how do you vote? >> I I Lisa, I don't know if you >> Oh, sorry. I >> And Joe and Courtney, >> I >> I
>> And I'll throw in an I. And our next um hearing is 500 250-12 uh 25 Gainway, which is lot five, I believe, right next to lot 4. Lot five. Just a quick look at the locus
map again. Uh right next to lot lot four there. And uh just a quick rundown on the um areas and um distances. The lot area is 54,790 square ft, 1.258
acres, sess ID 2494. The drainage easement area on the lot is from this dash drainage easement line that most likely will be putting the post and rail fence along. Um, and that
totals 37,989 square ft. The total lot disturbance outside the drainage easement, which would be the drainage easement and all around this tree line that I'll update the um the
legend for out to the roadway is 14,839 square ft. The disturbance within the 100 ft buffer to the drainage easement is relatively small on this one. It's this dashed 100t
buffer up to the drainage easement line here. And that's 1,62 ft. The closest point from the dwelling to the wetland is 97.5 ft.
The closest point of disturbance from the drainage easement line to the wetland is 83.5 ft. And again, this um siltation control is already in place um from the subdivision
plan conditions issued for the subdivision. Um just to clarify uh these roadways and the drainage easements along with all of the uh other structures are in place
already. Is that correct? >> Yes. All >> right. So it's just just the house construction that this pertains to. >> Yes. And in this portion, there are only three of the houses that are actually
uh get into the buffer. Is that correct? >> That's correct. Yeah. >> All right. Um, anyone have any questions about this one? This one just barely gets into the the buffer >> pretty much. No, I think we're looking
for a split rail though on the I don't know what this up the page is. Uh just along Yeah, along the along that line the ement all right. Uh anyone
else in the among commission members have questions? And if there are none, uh, anyone in the in the meeting have questions. So, as with the other two lots, we can consider continue a motion for
continuation until February 23rd. >> Oh, Bob raised his hand. >> Bob. Oh, Bob B. Okay. So, uh, the person affiliated with the computer named Bob B.
Uh, please identify yourself and where you are relative to this project. >> Um, this is Bob [clears throat] Butler. I'm at 133 Pine Street. >> And your question? >> Uh, question. Uh, just general question
on on this project um in Lloyd Circle. Um, are these both on uh public sewer? >> Yes, they are. Okay. So, we have public sewer all the way down Pine Street now.
>> No, this um sewage system um connects to the um the sewer on the rail trail. Yeah. On along the rail trail through here. So, there's a um there's a sore main >> that runs down to main and around there
and then through an easement >> uh to the rail trail. >> Okay. Yeah. Um, I'll have a follow-up question when we get to the the other the Wheaten project. So, okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. So, that is a good question. I
mean, um, it will eventually run down um, Pine Street to the Wheaten project. >> All right. Uh, any further questions from anyone in the meeting? >> Started now. I think we got a we needed the motion. Uh Julian. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. I'll make a motion to continue the public hearing file 250-1202 to February 23rd. >> Second. >> We have a motion by Lisa seconded by Mark. Uh and um Lisa, Dan, and Mark. How
do you vote? >> I I >> and Joe and Courtney. Hi. >> And I'll throw in an I motion carries. Uh thank you. And we're going to move on now to
>> Thank you. Oh, good evening. >> You bet. >> Thank you. >> Uh file number 250-203 which is labeled Zero Pine Street. It is so estates. >> And we have an inerson representative.
Please identify yourself. >> Sure. For the record, Claire Hogabone, wetland scientist with Environmental Consultants. No, 89's after this. >> I got words. Sorry, guys. >> All right. Do we have a plan with us?
>> Yes. I shared a presentation with Megan and John that I would like to go through and just introduce everyone to the project. Sorry, can I interrupt for a second? Are we I thought 12:04 was first or is that just the
>> It's in It's in the conservation report, but the agenda is Yeah, I got >> I got it backwards. >> Never mind. [clears throat] >> Sorry, I got it backwards. >> Never mind. Okay. Sorry. >> We can be flexible. >> I can't minimize what I'm recording. Interesting.
>> Still not seeing the shared screen. >> We're working on it. We We uh Okay, here we go. Now, how's >> Can you all see that?
>> Uh, words. Okay, now we can see it. Okay. >> Do you want to just zoom in a bit so the um >> one page say? Yeah, maybe. Yeah, that'll work. Uh so again, for the record, Claire Hogab, uh wetland scientist with
LC Environmental Consultants representing the applicant for the Wheaten Place Residential Cluster Development. Uh you see on this aerial image uh the site is comprised of three uh lots just located south of Pine
Street. Uh if you want to scroll down to the next page here. Perfect. Uh so on the left we have that aerial from the uh introduction slide that is uh depicting the three
undeveloped forested parcels just south of Pine Street. And then we have the perennial stream Rumford River uh flowing in east direction along the southern property boundary. Um yep perfect. And then we have uh FEMA
flood plane designation. Uh we have a zone AE uh extending um from the regulatory floodway in the south portion of the site that goes up to elevation 62. Um so that uh bordering land subject to flooding is present where it extends
beyond the uh bordering vegetated wetland boundary. Um but I don't believe it appears to extend much farther. Um on the right of the screen we have the natural heritage area um data layers for estimated and priority habitat. Uh you
see that's mapped within the southeastern portion of the site. And notably, the project when we get to the um proposed project in a couple slides is not located within natural heritage area habitats. Um
that's great. And also, I don't have um a map for this, but the entire site is mapped within the 3M River uh area of critical environmental concern or ACE. Um so here we have the existing conditions. Uh the wetland resource
areas on the property were approved by the conservation commission through an ORAD that was issued December 20th of 2021. Um typically that permit would be for three years and um uh come 2024
I guess it was when we were expecting it to expire um we had submitted an extension request and subsequently very shortly after the weeds act was um enacted that automatically extends permits that are valid between January
1st of 2023 through January 1st of 2025. another two years without an applicant needing to uh take any action. So the ORAD was automatically extended and now expires uh this year December 20th um
2026. Uh so what you see on the existing conditions, we'll just stay on that for another second. Um in green we have uh bordering vegetated wetlands. You see it's sort of in a Y configuration in the central portion of the site and uh the
BBW continues in the southern portion of the site associated with the Rumford River. Um just in that south central portion of the property uh outlined in pink is a potential vernal pool and that boundary was also authorized or approved in the O-r. Um we have 200t riverfront
area in the uh black line work um extending from the Rumford River and I believe there's two sort of black uh boundaries or black line work on the eastern portion of the site sort of in a north south direction. One of them is
the natural heritage uh data layer and the other I believe is the interim wellhead protection area that is in the southeastern portion of the site. Hey, we can go to the next one. >> Oh, sorry. Can you zoom in and show us the flood zone relative to the existing
conditions? >> It's kind of a little blurry. >> It's kind of grainy, but it's here. >> Zone AE can kind of make it out. >> Okay. And that's elevation 62. Um, what about the regulatory floodway? Oh, that
would be interior of that within um the Rumford River itself. >> I don't believe it's depicted on this plan sheet. >> Okay. But you're not showing the regulatory floodway. You're just showing the AE zone. >> That's correct. The landward boundary of
that BLSF. >> Okay. Thanks. >> All right. We can go to the next slide. So, here's a an overview of the proposed project. Um, it includes uh three subdivision roadways. Uh, they're
identified on the plan as road A, road B, and road C. Uh, so we have road A is that loop road that comes right off of Pine Street uh with two entrance or exit points. And from that the western road
uh is road B that extends um providing access to those uh looks like seven lots and road C is on the eastern side uh providing access to uh looks like 2 4 6
8 10 more properties. Um overall this is a 21 lot subdivision. Um for the purposes of designing the storm water management system, the driveways and house uh layouts are shown on the plan, but um we're not seeking off uh approval
of the houses themselves. Uh those will be individually permitted similar to um the three that you just saw from Borderland Engineering uh prior to this discussion. Um this is a cluster development. So all
of these lots are um no less than 40,000 square ft um or one or a little under an acre. Uh and that allows a good portion of the property to be preserved as open
space. So on the left of the property um where you see a big text box that's about two a little under 2 and 1/2 acres of land that's going to remain as open space and a little off the screen um in the bottom right of the screen and
including that potential vernal pool area is also about 22 1/2 acres of space that'll be left for open space. So you can see um the work is avoiding that riverfront area. we're not getting near that bordering land subject to flooding
and avoiding that um natural heritage area polygon as well. Uh 16 of these lots are going to be accessible via the two uh roadways. The both of those roads, road B and C require um wetland crossings uh which
I'll touch on at the next slide. But uh before we go there, we have four infiltration basins proposed. Uh two of them are just uh at the bottom of the screen with uh road B. There's one over by road C and uh the fourth is just
within the uh loop road A. And those will receive storm water from subsurface drainage infrastructure uh to be installed within the paved subdivision roads. Um we also have subsurface utilities, water line and sewer that
will be um installed either beneath the roads or just immediately adjacent to them um and shoulders believe. Ready to go to the next slide. Um so I just want to touch on those two
wetland crossings. So road B is that left crossing and um on the left side of the screen I just highlighted in green the actual border and vegetated wetland impact. Uh we got n uh 1,95
ft of permanent impact proposed and um the road itself is 24 ft wide uh for the vehicular traffic uh pattern. Uh there's one 4 foot wide sidewalk, uh timber
guard rails on each side, and um rip wrap slopes that'll be graded at a one:one slope. Um in other cases, like for example across the street, um with that filing, we have retaining walls proposed. We considered
that for this project. However, um not always common, but in this case, since the road is only only going to be elevated about four or 5 ft above the existing grade to install uh retaining walls would actually result in
more impacts to the wetlands in order to facilitate installing the footings and installing the metal guard rails that would have to be installed on those as well. Um so in this case uh grading on each side with the one to one slope rip
wrap is going to result in a less impact as opposed to the vertical retaining wall. Um Zenith Consulting engineers the engineer that prepared the plans and the design also include two 24in diameter
coververts to um allow for hydraologic connection to remain between the wetland on each side of the crossing. Um to the right of the screen we have proposed replication area shown um that's immediately adjacent to the impact area. Uh before we really fully developed the
plans, uh we had an interdep departmental meeting with um various departments in town. Um John Thomas was the uh present representing the um commission and we were seeking his input on
the preferred uh approach for wetland replication. Since we have two crossings, uh would it be preferred to have one large replication area or one replication area as close to each impact area um as possible? So, he suggested
the ladder. So, that's why here we have a smaller replication area. And when I say smaller, it's actually um quite sizable. It's uh 3,500 uh square feet, a little bit more. And it's going to be a 1 to 1.86 86 ratio
for the area lost. Um that was another suggestion that John had um requesting that we attempted to create uh replication areas at at least a 1:1.5 ratio. Um so if you want to scroll down
to the next one, uh we go to the eastern crossing or road C. Uh this is a bit of a larger crossing area, albeit in the most narrow portion of this wetland. Uh we have a little over 3,000 square feet of permanent
impacts. Uh we also have at this crossing uh two 24-in diameter pipes uh for hydraologic connections. And um on the right of the screen is the replication area. That's again in close proximity
um at a 1:1.5 ratio. So cumulatively, if we're looking at impacts as a whole with replication as a whole, we're under 5,000 square ft of permanent impacts. And cumulatively, we're proposing a 1 to
1.64 ratio of mitigation for the areas lost. I want to scroll down a bit more for the next one. Uh so during construction or sort of the construction sequencing here um of
course prior to any work commencing the contractor will install the uh sedimentation controls at the limit of work uh identified sort of in the darker um thicker black line work around the development here. Um the silt sock
detail on the left of the screen is shown. That's what's going to be installed along the limit of work. And before I uh have Lisa have to tell me what I've heard a couple of times already, I already took a note that we'll get the um erosion control or the sediment controls uh updated on the plan
so the stakes don't go through the silt sock. Um but those will be installed prior to work starting. The contractor will then install um the anti-tracking pad at both of the site entrances off of Pine Street
that's about 50 ft long. Um and that'll remain maintained throughout construction to reduce um sediment leaving the site with truck traffic. Um the contractor will then um begin
clearing and grubbing vegetation. Uh one of the first steps will be to excavate the four sediment uh or storm water basins. Those will function as construction period storm water management areas as well. Um and then
they will continue with uh grading and constructing all of the roads and utilities. uh catch basins will all be installed within the roads as well and um they will only go online once the entire site
is stabilized and the storm water basins are able to receive um storm water flow from those areas. Um, let's see. The sediment basins uh and storm water will be inspected weekly or
after uh half an inch of rainfall in a 24-hour um period, whichever one happens first. And uh since this project will result in over an acre of land disturbance, it will require a NIPD's construction
general permit. So when Zenith prepares uh the finalized storm water um pollution prevention plan to be approved by the EPA for that permit will provide a copy to the commission for your records. And I think one more slide to go and we
can jump to questions. I just wanted to go over the regulatory compliance uh very briefly, but um we are submitting this project as a limited project uh for construction of a new roadway of the minimum legal and practical width acceptable to the planning board. Uh so
we have a 40 foot wide crossing overall at both of these crossings in the wetlands. Um but the minimum allowable width for the vehicular portion of the road is 24 ft wide. That's the most narrow um that [clears throat] the town
will allow under the subdivision regulations. Um minimizing impacts as much as possible with one sidewalk and as I mentioned before, grading versus a vertical wall. Uh in our no tent application, we
addressed um that BBW impacts in the ACEC are allowable so long as um the proposed or the work is proposed as a limited project which is up to the discretion of the commission to approve a pro a limited project. Um still
nonetheless we are under 5,000 square ft of permanent wetland impact. So we still remain under the allowable threshold if this wasn't a limited project. Um we are providing over 1:1.5 uh ratio of replication. Um and then a
final um recommendation from John when we had the interdep departmental meeting was to you know for us to get ahead of the um anticipated request for a wildlife habitat evaluation. So we went ahead and prepared that with the notice
of intent. uh we did the simplified uh appendix A and the detailed appendix B wildlife habitat evaluation forms and um ultimately drew the conclusion in our report that um the wetland crossings
would not reduce the site's capacities to support wildlife. Um so with that I think that covers everything. We did receive the D file number. There were some comments more related to the water quality certificate. um and cautioning
us to remain under 5,000 square ft. Um and I believe there was a comment for subdivisions. Uh we need to file a D restriction that no work in the future would result in additional wetland impacts. So we would intend to do that
as well. Um so we are expecting a wild >> that for the other one too. >> Yes, we did. Yeah. >> Okay. Um so questions from members of the [clears throat] commission.
>> Could you uh just uh clarify again um the relationship of this large plot to the ACE? uh these three parcels or the entire site
it's entirely mapped within the ACE. >> So it's it it's within the ACE. Okay. >> Correct. >> The whole thing. >> Um [clears throat] do we have a problem with that as a commission?
Um am I missing something? I'm probably I'm usually missing something, but >> no, you're not, Dan. It's it's held to a higher standard, right? So, the the the question you need to ask yourself is is there any is there
any unnecessary filling? Is there any unnecessary alteration of the BBW because it's supposed to have a higher quality because it's inside of an ACC. Now, I don't know why the AC the AC is nominated based on certain values. So I
don't know whether it was the Rford River Carter or uh Seamic or I don't know if you know Claire. Um so there's a reason why an ACE is nominated and accepted. It has specific values. It would be interesting to know what the
values are associated with the ACE. >> Um is it aesthetic? Is it visual? Is it the uh habitat? Is it the wetlands? I I don't know. Um, which one was that? Um, [clears throat] Claire, >> the three Mile River.
>> Oh, three Mile River. So, if you could um give us some information on that that I think that would be helpful. >> Okay. >> Um, also Lisa, you use uh the word maybe the word you used was necessary.
Um, you know what what is necessary here really? get mom. >> I mean, I know we're getting into uh higher philosophy, I guess, but um
uh this is a site uh close to the center of town and uh right next to Wheaton, which is our gem in this town. that granted that doesn't uh
uh uh hedge particularly on on water quality but um um >> well water quality is an important factor to be doing. I believe this is also in the wellhead protection area >> or zone 2 was it cla
>> I believe both. I think the zone two I don't have a map on me and I I think I was looking into it for uh something else earlier today but I believe the zone 2 extends through most of the site and the interim wellhead protection area
is the southeastern portion of the site. So are there any restrictions for instance under zoning would so for for that matter Dan it means it contributes to our drinking water supply. So, >> okay. Well, >> then you want to look at, you know,
mainly the um I would say the uh planning and zoning have a have restrictions on like what you can and can't store outside. So, for instance, if it was a Home Depot or something, be like, "Okay, this is a no-go." We don't want fertilizer stored in a in a
drinking water well protection zone, right? So, this one's a little tough because you're going to have individual homeowners and you can't control what they do out there. Uh, is this going to be uh
uh managed by a management company? Is it going to be privately owned publicly? The road? >> That is a good question. Uh, I believe the similar to a project that was discussed earlier tonight, it's going to
remain a private road. So, it'll go to the ownership of the homeowners association when they um are established. >> So, that's even scarier. of you know >> and and you're going to uh thinking of
the map you put up some minutes ago, those two circular blobs that look like feet, uh those are parks, are they parks in quotations or have you not considered
that there needs to be parkland in the uh in the site? Dan, they're already they're already preserving open space. >> They're already preserving open space. >> And and Dan,
um, our review is limited to the context of the requirements of the Retlands Protection Act. And you're bringing up things. >> Okay. You're right. You're right. >> That ground discharge to groundwater,
Jillian, and drinking water supply is certainly within our purview. Well, coffee. >> Okay. >> Uh, but if you if you and actually Claire, maybe you can help me here. Um,
all of the actual houses are outside our buffer zone. Is that correct? >> Um, not all of them. Uh, off of road B, the left one, there's a buffer that extends. Yeah, John's tracing over it right now. So some of those there's three three lots here that are going to
be in our jurisdiction >> and the fourth to the right of that road >> and this one here is going to be in our jurisdiction. >> Okay. So those those come before us later. This is >> so you want to look at the road. You'd want to look at the road in terms of
deicing agents and things like that. But you know it's the same old thing that we had up on Red Mill. How much can we control? How much can we control with, you know, the type of deicing that they put down? >> Now, when you
>> Sorry, I'm sorry, Lisa. >> No, that's the kind of stuff we have to think about. >> Um, when you say that those lots mentioned a minute ago or within our purview, are they within the 100 or what
what line is that? um the 100 ft uh buffer zone or what? >> Yes, that is the 100 foot buffer zone to the bordering vegetative wetland. >> We will have >> what would be really helpful is if you could take a highlighter right now and maybe highlight
what we're looking at because there's a lot of lines here. Um >> I don't think I can highlight it. >> Yeah, but I don't know. >> Oh, that's the erase button. Oh, is that what it is? All right, there we go. >> Highlighter on the far left. There you go.
>> Oh, you got it. >> See how steady you are? >> Ah, not very good, Lisa. >> I'm trying here. >> That's the 100 here. >> Well, that's the 100. That's what you guys, right? >> Yep. >> This way.
This way. >> Oh, John, you get an A+. >> I get an A+. Wow. I can't I I got an A+. >> This is This is like Wow. Getting the gold stars all around. >> Doing fine, John.
>> Um, so Claire, am I Oh jeez. [laughter] I was going to say, am I getting paid for this? But hey, doesn't look like it now. Sorry, that was a little mess up. So there's there's your 100 from buffer that way. And then over here, there's a
couple. Let's see. >> Yeah. So, >> yeah, it's really just those two house lots off of the wetland crossing. >> Well, it's it's three houses. It's six houses total plus the roadway. >> Yeah. >> Portions of six houses plus the roadway.
Uh and then we have another two houses and all that roadway over there. >> Disregard this right here. Okay. Please. Thank you. >> You can try erasing it. Hold on. Here we go.
>> Oh, look at that. >> Yeah, it worked. >> So, that's what's in jurisdiction, Dan. >> And Okay. So, the the 25 if you were to highlight that would be
>> Dan, you're asking for a lot right now. >> Sorry, John. I didn't >> How about Let me put it this way. John, we either ask you to do it or we asked Claire to color code it so that we can, you know, this there's a lot of info on here. That's all. >> All right, let me let me >> let me save the trouble.
>> So now the 25, Dan, do we really need to be in the 25? No, they should have laid out a virgin site so that it's out of the 25. So let's hope they did. That would be an unnecessary alteration. >> I believe that's what we intended to do. Of course, it's unavoidable with a
wetland crossing, but I believe the erosion uh or the sediment controls are um generally on that 25 ft if not further from the wetland boundary. >> So then the next question becomes, it's a limited cross. I get it. I see that
Wheaton College owns property. So once once that happens, you start looking around at what else do they own and is there another way in that avoids the crossing. >> Yes, we did look into that. Um in the Edi report uh for the limited project provisions, we did touch on that a bit.
Um that Wheaten College parcel to the left is quite large um and also has uh I believe wetland resource areas um within it as well. Um so I don't believe you know purchasing it from the
college was really on the table. Um alternatively any land essentially to the south as you can imagine would have required crossing the Rumford River. Uh there's about there's multiple parcels to the south and southeast of the
property that um comprise a bit over 200 acres of conservation land. Um, so really, you know, acquiring any properties to get alternate means of access was not really feasible for this property.
>> So, is this a Wheaton project or were they selling it off? That's what >> No. >> Uh, these parcels uh were not owned by Wheaten College. Um, I'm forgetting the name of the individual
that owned them before, but um, >> and >> I'm not certain. But in any case, it wasn't a Wheaten College. I think they the applicant just chose Wheaten Place. Um, considering the close proximity to the school.
>> Okay. So there's no other property that this entity owns surrounding this property to get into this property. That's what [clears throat] I'm getting at. >> Correct. >> There's no shared ownership. Correct. >> Okay. >> Which is why the limited project is what
the what they're seeking for this. >> So Dan, to answer your question, is it necessary? Well, you know the crossing. If you eliminated that crossing, you would eliminate 1 2 3 4 five houses and you would just be building on that little uh
Well, actually, is there a second? There is a structure. There's two crossings, right? >> Yeah. >> So, you'd only be building 1 2 3 four. You only be building six houses with no cross if you did no crossings. Yeah. But those
>> so you look to avoid it. >> But >> uh did they avoid it? Well, no, not exactly. >> Could you eliminate a crossing? Yes, but this is what they're presenting. So, we have to act on it. And then you look to uh if you can't avoid, you look to
minimize. You minimize the footprint, you minimize the crossing, and then you mitigate. Those are the three steps. >> Now my understanding from from this if I can I guess go back to some preliminary
design concepts that the applicant pro provided us that the commission is not aware of obviously is that this is the lesser of two evil design than what the maximum load out was for the applicant originally. Right.
>> That's right. Do you have the plan that I uploaded today somewhere? >> I might have it. >> We don't have to jump to it if I Google Drive. >> I think the I think the alternative this is the lesser of the two evil alternative which is more I guess
amendable to the impacts within the resource areas than what was what was the max load out that was proposed for a limited project. >> Correct. >> Right. So, well, as part of the planning board process as well, in order to request a cluster development, the
applicant needs to demonstrate um that they could develop the site in a the other C word, what's the word I'm conventional. Thank you. And so they did the conventional layout which got them
21 lots but it also had a third wetland crossing and required the crossings to be in wider portions of the wetlands. So, um definitely would have resulted in more than 5,000 square ft of impacts. And um that's where sort of this
conventional or this um cluster layout really allowed Zenith to find the most narrow portions of the wetland to utilize for the crossings. >> But you could have exceeded 5,000 anyway because of the water quality rates, right?
Well, we just request or, you know, file for a water quality certificate, but >> that just opens the door for a lot more permitting and reviews that probably the applicant doesn't want to move forward with, and it's not worth their time >> for the extra house. >> But do we want them? I mean,
>> do you want the extra houses, Dan? >> I'm sorry. >> Do you want the extra houses? >> No. >> Okay. >> Certainly not. Okay. >> Maybe I'm misunderstanding again. No, we wouldn't we wouldn't receive we wouldn't receive the permits. Those would go to
the state >> for state water quality does. >> Yeah. >> Well, I do have some questions. Um, one is if we could zoom in on how much fill you're putting against that silt suck. I'm wondering if you have enough
freeboard and you need a conventional silt fence. So, how much field are we showing in the in the maximum location? >> We go up to that one. Where's the crossing? >> Probably around one of those driveways or something, but wherever you have
those strong water. So, I'd ask you to look at it. I'd ask you to look at how much fill do you think you're going to side test. You shouldn't even be side casting against a sediment control, but what is
the depth of that fill? And you may need to use a combination. Uh you may need in some locations you may need the silk fence cuz you want more freeboard off the ground, right? Um and in some locations maybe the the 12-in uh waddle is fine. Um I would ask you to look at
that. We don't need to get into it tonight. Uh number two, if we can go to the uh sediment erosion control plan, I would ask that I have seen a tremendous amount of traffic in this town. So I am going to ask you to make
because you have two entrances. I want one to be a dedicated entrance and one an exit. I want them sign really clearly for the contractor. And so you can figure that out based on site distance, whatever else you need to which one works best for sight distance and
turning radi. But I want one in, one out, not two to track. >> Um, [clears throat] >> sorry. The next thing is um just to clarify, so the EPA does not approve the SWIP. It just goes on file. Um so we're
not just going to take the SWIP for uh file. We're going to review it and approve it prior to construction. So that will be a condition. And then the last comment I had is um was the was the vernal pool certified or just a PVP?
>> It was identified as a PVP. we didn't certify it. Uh and we the engineers been designing the project presuming it's certifiable. >> So we would ask you to um be out there this spring document it and then prepare
the paperwork and file with new if indeed it meets the certification criteria >> if it's going to be protected in open space anyway. Do we need that? >> We want it certified. This is our opportunity to certify. If we don't certify it now, what what happens? We just all pretend it's
certified certified. >> It's nothing's ever going to happen to it, though. >> We agree. >> What's that? >> It's It's going to be protected in open space. >> Doesn't matter. >> Okay. >> Doesn't matter to me. I mean, you can't just go on and say, "We're going to
pretend it is." You need to certify and get the documentation to the state. So, it's on this file. We're not going to be here forever. Certify it, please. That's my only other comment. Any other questions or comments from commission members?
So, I think we can open it up to uh people attending in person as well as on Zoom. And again, you may just either raise your hand through the reaction
button or take your mic off mute and ask your question. >> Bob has a question. >> Bob B has his hand up. Um, Bob, why don't you just refresh
our Bob Butler, 133 Pine Street. Um, I bet uh several questions. Um, so the first one, the the cluster subdivision, uh, to determine the number
of lots. It had the conventional plan. Um that included uh the priority habitat in that conventional plan. Um I was told in the planning board meeting that that's actually allowed as
far as you know creating a a conventional plan to determine a uh cluster subdivision. Is that right? I'm not intimately familiar with these subdivision regulations, so I can't say for certain if that's correct.
>> I would think that I can't speak for subdivision regulations, but if an applicant wants to propose something within natural heritage habitat, they can, but they need to submit it to natural heritage for their approval. So making sure that there's no take on the specific species and whatever species is
out there, they need to make sure that they put any sort of safeguards or whatever preventative measures and construction details in place to make sure that there's, you know, no mortality for that species and it's able to thrive as it's mapped in that area.
>> Okay. Okay. But like is that like if they're not really planning on building in that area, but they're using that as you know to determine the number of lots for a cluster subdivision where they won't be um building in that area. And I guess I'm just asking if that's >> I mean you're talk you're talking a
hypothetical thing, right? So for instance, if someone's showing a concept and they're showing that they can do a design in a certain area, yes, they can propose what they're wanting to do. whether they actually formalize a design plan like that, you know, that's that's the question at hand. For this design
that's currently in front of us, they're not proposing any work in natural heritage. So, it becomes not a non-factor for us to review. >> Okay. [clears throat] I just Yeah, I don't know if it's planning board. I mean, just I'm talking about like the number because that's what determines the number of lots that are acceptable,
right, in the cluster subdivision. So, that's why I'm asking. >> Yeah. Well, that's that's going to be certainly within planning board um because that's not part of our purview. >> Okay. Um
another question is the um the wetland disturb area. Um so this same developer has those in the other was it Lloyd Circle? Um, I don't believe there's one in Germaine Way, but there's definitely
one that was discussed quite a bit for Lloyd's Circle. Um, I mean, Germaine Way is more or less adjacent to this project. Uh, so when you're looking at like uh Watershed and the ACC, you know, as
far as like total wetland disturb area, do you do you take those other um subdivisions into account? >> [snorts] >> You mean like as a model and example? Is that what you're talking about? >> So there's a total square footage that's
allowed correct about getting you know further permitting from Army Corps engineers whatever and then so is it acceptable to kind of like count this as a totally separate project from from Wood Circle? It's the same
developer. same developer, different parcels, different scope, different project. So the parcel designation is what um designates kind of those restrictions. So if if I had a cumulative project that span three
parcels, you know, on this property, this would be basically a brand new slate. >> Okay. Um, the next question was the uh I had a
question on the on that circular road on Pine Street. Um, I don't know like what the purpose of having the two streets or two two entrances to the same street on Pine Street is. I mean, is that really
necessary? It just seems like it would be less disturbance just to have like one one street off of street. >> No frontage. >> So if they didn't have that second street, they wouldn't be able to get all those houses in because you have to have
frontage. >> Yeah. My guess >> that's my guess. >> My guess, Brian, is is because of a planning requirement. >> And you know, it also might have to play into water and sewer connections as well. that does factor into the design
and layout for a lot of these streets. So that could be another reason why as well. >> Okay. Yeah. I'm not sure the frontage on on what street were you talking about on Pine Street. >> No, I mean in order to have those lots,
those additional lots, you have to have frontage. So you're creating another road so you can have frontage. Otherwise, you just have the road. You may just have the lots on the one stretch of road coming in. But it's a bleeding board issue. Okay.
Once again, yeah. >> Um, not Yeah. Okay. It's not really a major concern. That's more curiosity. Um, um, so another concern I had was there's like a bunch, you know, a lot of uh carriage roads out there. They're
actually shown on the uh on the plans. Um, and where it's kind of intersecting with the new roads, there's just like an opportunity for, you know, dirt bikes and ATVs to kind of get in there and
[clears throat] tear things up, you know. So, um I didn't know if there would be some kind of uh order of condition or something that you know like those are paths or like blocked off with boulders or something just to kind of keep
motorized vehicles from uh from going into the trails. >> Are those trails accessed by Pine Street today? >> Uh they're really not. I mean, there's one there's like a um the pipeline trail which is like on the west end of the
this property um in between like this property and the Wheaten property. There's like pipeline trail and really just hunters kind of nowhere to go in that way. Other than that, there's real no there's really no access to the trails other than like from behind
people's houses >> or if you walk in like through the woods from Pine Street, but there's no real trails. um other than where they um did their fasting um the roads there already.
>> I think um Brian what we'll probably end up doing and obviously it's not my purview. It's more of the the the planning board at this point, but it's going to be the open space preservation kind of restriction that they had similar to what they did for Lloyd and
Germaine Circle. I think that's probably what they're going to end up doing for this project. And as of right now, I don't think we've had any sort of issues with any sort of ATVs or or dirt bikes in that area. And that area is right next to the rail trail. So, I'm not sure
this this area is going to have similar kind of occurrences of that happening. But if it does, >> I mean, you definitely do I mean, you definitely do have like dirt bikes that go down that rail trail. Seen it before. >> Well, the electric bikes definitely have. I've seen those go down pretty far. And I think that's part of the
discussion that we're going to have as a town moving forward with the electric bikes, but I haven't I haven't really heard anything or seen anything about dirt bikes. No one's really reported it to to me. So, >> yeah. I mean, I I've seen I mean, I've
seen people driving the side by sides down Pine Street, too. You know, it's like they're definitely around. Um I'm just trying to look for a way to to kind of preserve the land that's out there. I mean, that's what this open space is for. It's not like, you know
what I mean? It's >> you know, walking back there and there's just, you know, a lot of wildlife back there and just, you know, just trying to preserve that area. So, I was just looking for ways, you know, there's like a few few [clears throat] spots where you can kind of block off, you know,
where the old car paths were. Like if you're going to be like crossing those cart paths where you're where you're building, you know, maybe just block them off somehow. [snorts] That's just just a suggestion. >> So, is that open space going to be
public or just to the homeowners of that development? I believe at this time it would go to the homeowners association. I think um yeah I don't think there have been any discussions about the town taking
>> or may we may have even talked about it at the interdep departmental meeting and I don't think the planning board was interested >> the the the discussion >> so Barb it's going to be open space but it's not going to be open to the public >> theoretically. Okay. >> Mhm. Okay.
So, I guess if there are any bikes or anything, any u trail bikes or anything, I guess the homeowners association's going to have to kick them off and not the town of Norton. Okay. [snorts] Um can you bring up the
um that map uh proposed lots again? I had a question uh just looking at it. Um on the on the right side of that uh
Thank you. Um so on the far right side, uh it's like the [snorts] kind of where the corner of the existing lots are. Right in the corner there's like a little like
uh odd shape there like a square but more or like a trapezoid sort of >> oh >> just behind those >> the contour >> properties >> I think he's talking >> is that a contour it's just kind of a weird shape so I wasn't sure maybe it's
just a flat area weird looks like there's too missing back there actually blank and then Yeah. >> Well, there's a >> Isn't that a place where there's a considerable amount of water in the uh
that we saw in the previous um >> that's actually still uphill from that, but that's what I was going going to bring up next actually. Um my property is um so the water is a little bit further to the right of that. Um kind of
goes um through my lot. Uh and the one I don't have my name. It's just the very corner of that lot there and the one next to me. Um and it goes through under Pine Street. But yeah, there's a brook down there. Um and that
was my next question. Uh there's some houses that are at like 85 ft or so there and then the brook is down below at like 65 ft. And so this, you know, there going to be like a lot of runoff
that's going to go down into that brook because when that brook gets high in the spring, especially after like all the snowfall we've had, um I get a lot of it does flood over and I you know my sump pump's running already. So in the spring. So
I'm a little concerned with uh with the building back there that there'll be more runoff. >> John, can you look at the can you go to the quad map so we can see which I assume it's not an inter it's an intermittent stream and not a perennial that he's talking about talking about
>> or is it the continuation of I can't? Yeah, if you look at the green area there at the top of that green area, that's what I'm talking about on the left map there. >> There's nothing there's nothing mapped in that corner.
>> Yeah. See that water? That was what I wondered about. Is that is there some way we could overlay that on the uh on the on the plan or is that outside the >> You want to scroll down, >> Dan? You don't want to rely on that. >> Scroll down. Scroll down to the flood
plane designation, please. And then like that's where that green is is where I'm talking like >> you're talking the opposite opposite side off scope off off locus, >> right? >> And it does. So there [snorts] is a stream there I believe or some sort of
uh water body. I mean it runs it runs year round. I mean it's in the summer time. It does discharge into a pond in the southeastern corner of the property there. If you want to scroll down just to the [snorts] existing conditions. >> So, what you're saying is this water
body over here. This one that I'm looking at here. >> Yep. >> This this whole entire thing over here. >> Yeah. That's what I was That's the pond and there's a concrete dam. >> Okay. So, in relation after the dam, it runs down into three mile.
>> Okay. So then in relationship to that that location is here >> right >> and that is not anywhere in the project area the trapezoid's up here the pond area is down here that other pond might
>> so that gohead >> what about that >> sorry go ahead >> you go ahead uh well in the map directly above to the Right. Uh, and again, maybe I'm just not seeing
how one overlays the other, but it to me it looks like uh onethird of this site is an area uh that is uh concern of concern to
national heritage. Or actually, can you scroll up? Um, >> but they're not in the polygon for Heritage, right? >> Yeah, they're not proposing anything in Heritage, nor are they >> proposing anything IWPA.
>> I mean, you Okay, that's fine. I mean, you do see that a third of that red stuff is uh >> of concern. But >> yeah, you can see the stream channel right here. It's running through the
back of those lots. Those five or six lots right there. >> Yeah, that that's Yeah, mine's the second one down. So, >> yeah. >> Um and there's a covert in the lot next to mine. Um and then it runs into that pond and then through the dam so forth.
But um so yeah, but my my question was um the houses that are built uphill for me, you know, is you know, is that water is that storm water can be managed? Like it's uphill for me, but it's also uphill from that brook. So I would think that
would be some type of environmental concern as well. So my understanding with this design is that the houses will be pitched and elevated so that way everything pitches to the roadway >> and that way the storm water is all
captured within the roadway and managed and then fed into those infiltration basins for this whole entire development. [clears throat] So the design that's going to be peer reviewed by an engineer or is in the process of being peer reviewed by an
engineer right now, everything should be vetted out through that professional engineer to make sure that there's going to be no off offsite um erosion or any off-site sheet flow and everything's going to pitch pitch to the roadways and
dealt with and managed properly in accordance with the [snorts] stormwater handbook and also our local bylaw. Great. Yep. So, there are storm water management design standards that they have to meet, and that's exactly what we're having a third party uh review
right now is to make sure of exactly that, that there's no offsite uh discharges of solar from this development onto a lot of properties. >> Yeah. Well, I mean, there's houses right down the road. there's four new houses down the road right on Pine Street that
you know those were flooded, you know, flooded the neighbor's yards. Um so that's why it's a concern to me cuz if you know if [clears throat] it's not designed right, if it's not executed correctly, then then it's going to be my issue.
>> No, it becomes my issue. Don't worry, I dealt with it. [snorts] I mean, the town, you know, you can impose fines, but you're not the person that has to deal with it, right? It it's it's the homeowners that are really dealing with it.
>> And there was a lot of legal recourse that happened with those um developers. So, um >> okay, >> there's a lot of things behind the scenes that happen that you might not be aware [snorts] of and unfortunately that's why we have the provisions that we have. And um I don't [snorts] think
that developer is going to be building in town anytime soon. >> So to John's point, if you look at the the proposed raids, you can see that they're trying to shed water from the back to the front to get it into the drainage system. So typically that's what you do. You have the house lot, um
all the drainage, all the pavement from the roof runoff or at least half of your house uh in the driveway all going into the street drainage system. That's the basic design feature for a subdivision. >> So, it's to prevent that. >> What's that?
>> Sorry. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interf on that side. >> Exactly. So, it's collected from the lots, the individual lots. It goes into the catch basins in the street and then it's conveyed and piped to those big ponds.
>> Okay. Um, all right. So, is this going to be a totally different subject? Is this going to be a public uh sewer system for this development >> there? Yeah, there's no um proposed
septic with this project. So, these uh lots will be connected to the sewer system >> forced main. Yes. >> Where does the sewer system currently run to on Pine Street? That is a good question. I don't fully
know the answer to at the moment. I don't know if it's on, as far as I know, I don't have public sewer in front of me. And >> where's it? Where's the tie in to the sewer? >> The tie the tie the tiein goes into currently where this this plan does not show it, but they definitely have the
utilities plans. Um the tie-in goes into the design which is to the I want to say to the east which is which is um Bour Farms which is Germaine Way which we just talked about for this project and I
my understanding is they will be tying into that system and feeding it down Pine Street. Is that correct? >> I believe so. >> Yeah. Is this so is it just going to run from Germaine Way to to this development? >> That is going to be my my understanding
>> unless they >> not all the way down Pine Street >> like all the way down Pine Street heading west. >> Uh west or east? I mean, I'm just saying is this just going to be in between Germaine Way and uh this development
here? [snorts] >> I believe so. I don't think the applicant has any intention to extend it, but I I want to >> get an answer from him before I >> I would definitely get >> definitively say something there. >> Now, this this project has been in front of the the planning board already,
right? >> Correct. >> Okay. And I'm sure that's probably one of their questions and concerns regarding that. M >> and also it's probably going to be a discussion and topic for the water and sewer department which is now the Norton
DPW mind you. So that's a question I can ask the Norton DPW director. So >> so I was at the planning board meeting and it you know um consulting um you know they said that it's going to be
public or municipal sewer. it did. Nobody said anything about it. Nobody like kind of asked anything about that. It was just like, okay. So that's why I have no idea what's going on with that. >> Joan, is there a plan that showed the
connection between the two subdivisions? Is for the sewer? Is any of that work in jurisdiction? >> That's a that's a question that I'd have to look into. Obviously, >> I mean, I'm see we're seeing one over here, one over here, and we're saying they're going to connect, but there's
got to be I'm sure there's a wetland who who's doing the permitting for that connection. >> I don't have that answer for you. So, I'll touch base with the applicant and we'll identify if that is in fact a project that he needs to get before the
commission or if it's something that the town is working on with him. >> I'll get an answer for you guys. >> Okay. Thank you. Um sorry [clears throat] just two two more questions. Um the first one a couple of the these are actually both
somebody brought them up in the planning board meeting. Um the first one I and uh I think it was touched on the beginning of the meeting. [snorts] Um was the Ora and if whether that's still valid or not. >> It is.
>> Okay. Fair enough. Um the other question uh this person had in the planning board meeting was um the use of uh underground fuel tanks um such as propane. Um would there be restrictions on that?
I don't know if that's in the plan or not, but um I think some of the other new houses down the road might have propane tanks. So that's why I'm asking. Um, I guess his point was, you know, can you use underground propane tanks in a
uh ACC or watershed area or wetlands area? >> Well, you definitely don't want to put underground propane tanks in wetlands. I could tell you that right now cuz that's going to go against your uh wetland impact for working in ACC. But
the upland areas within an ACC, I don't know if there's any restrictions surrounding that. I don't believe there is. Um, >> well, you'd have to look at the zoning requirements for again what you can and can't do in the drinking water. Well, not not drinking water by Is it Well, is it drinking water? Is it zone one?
>> Zone, it's zone. I think it's zone two for this for this area. Is it >> zone two? Yes. >> So, yeah, that that comes down to your planning board uh in zoning board use regulations on what's allowed. [snorts]
>> Okay. I don't know if the uh the person that the abuter that asked that at the planning board meeting I don't know if they actually got an answer on that. >> Well, I guess the first question is is it going to be supplied by natural gas or electric or propane? >> I just natural I mean not natural gas I
mean we don't have it on our road right now. So um >> Okay. >> So I don't have the utility. Most people have oil, but >> I believe so. I think I heard Al um respond to that question. I watched the planning board meeting and I believe he
said it's electric. >> So, it is electric, >> I believe. So, >> okay. >> Okay. All right. That's all I had. Thank you. [snorts] U [clears throat] any other questions from anyone in the meeting?
So it sounds like well we are definitely going to need to continue this discussion. Our next meeting is the 23rd. >> So I'll make a motion to continue the public hearing for file 250-1203
which is the February 23rd meeting. >> Uh that >> hey do you have a problem with that? I do not have a problem. >> All right. So, we have a motion by Lisa. [clears throat] And did I hear Dan? Oh,
Mark's right. All right. So, um Oh, we got everybody on the screen now. So, um Lisa and Mark and Dan, how you [snorts] >> and Courtney, where are Courtney still here?
Hi. Looks like Courtney dropped off. >> Oh, Courtney dropped away. Okay. Um, all right. So, um, did Claire disagree, too? Oh, no.
[laughter] >> She wishes. >> All right. >> No, John's off the hook now with uh sharing my screen for me. >> Claire, we will see you next time. >> Thank you so much. appreciate your time.
>> Thank you. Uh okay, our next uh hearing is red uh file 250-124 89 North Washington. >> Frank, are you asleep yet?
>> No. Um yeah. Uh so my name is Frank Gallagher of Gallagher Engineering in Foxboro and um I submitted the this um ANRAD application on behalf of um Michael
Peterson. He's the owner and the applicant on this piece of property. Um and [snorts] um so I guess I should see if I can't put it up there. You should >> uh
[snorts] um let's see documents. Um all right. I always I never I never can seem to pull this off. U I just don't honestly know how to do it.
But um let me just see. See the green share button down the bottom band? >> Yep, I did that. >> Okay. >> And uh so then I have to find out. [snorts]
Um >> it's on my desktop so I don't >> You want me to try to share for you? >> Sure. if you could. Um.
[snorts] Ah, okay. That's it. Yep. Great. Thank you very much. Um, so, uh, okay. So, this property is eight a little under 18 12 acres.
Um it's on the east side of North Washington Street, which is right here. And um the rail the um the new rail trail is is right here.
Um so the parcel of land is all of this located here and it goes actually it runs up north a little bit right here. Um Ken Thompson delineated the wetland. Um and he's got four separate
sections that he did. Uh right here between um North Washington and the and the rail is um a wetland area that's marked by flags um
1 to 16. And they actually >> Can you zoom in there? Sorry. Can you zoom in there, Megan? Oh, to the left. He's He's over by the road. >> No, >> he's starting on the road side. >> Yeah, this is this is the problem. It's not a >> Hold on one second.
>> If you can just pull it somewhere else >> just so we can follow along. >> Yep. Which one was it? This one playing. >> Yeah. >> There we go. Let me show this. >> Okay.
>> Go ahead, Frank. Sorry about that. So right here is flags 1 through uh 16 and uh they really all land between North Washington and the rail trail.
When you jump over to the other side uh this the flags are beginning with the number one here and ending with a number 35 here. And um Ken Thompson also delineated
within this area um what he thought would be a vernal pool. Um, [clears throat] and then we we pick up here. And this was flags um B1
through um I'm sorry, no, those ones are um yeah, those are B beginning with B1 and going to B43 out here. And um he also had what he thought was a
vernal pool right in this area. Um and then there's another large wetland area in this portion of the site and that's uh flags D um 1 through uh 50
with another isolated area here that was potentially I guess a vernal pool. [snorts] Um, >> so I guess Frank, not to I guess you know keep you on the spot for this one, but when I guess when did when did Ken
do this delineation? >> Um, it was uh let me see it was not quite a year ago. Um, I believe uh I included his report in the filing. Let me just see.
>> Right. I mean, so, so obviously, you know, as we've all know right now, I probably it would take me, you know, a whole week to go out here and I do not feel like charging you a whole week of time to evaluate these wetlands because
typically when I go out and make ANRAD determinations, >> if it takes me more than a day, I'm charging you um for my services to review them. And I don't think you nor your applicant want me to do that. So, I guess from my standpoint, you know, to make everybody's life a lot easier, why
don't we table this till all the snow is gone and if I have any questions, I'll reach out to Ken and then we can basically reconnect and we'll keep this on the agenda. But, for instance, we'll just potentially table this until there's no more snow on the ground,
>> right? I I expected that that's what we'd do. Okay. Um, I just figured tonight, you know, it was advertised and and the abut notices were sent out, >> right? >> So, knowing that we'd, you know, table it for some time, I figured at least we
could present the plan and see, you know, I didn't want the notion that a butters would come out and and us not be able to at least present. >> Okay. I'm trying to I'm trying to keep us under our our maximum time ever since
I've been a conservation agent in Norton and I don't feel like going past 9:30 tonight cuz that that would be a record. >> So, I just want to basically speed this up. So, if you don't mind uh you know letting us uh try to not break the record this evening. >> Mhm. Absolutely. Not. Go ahead.
And maybe maybe when we review this we could have uh buffers put around that or or >> it >> so we don't we don't really need to have >> for you John but I think >> what is it
>> probably Lisa did you really remember? Oh, yeah. That's not a record. That's not >> longer woods. >> Anyway. >> All right. Well, >> all right. So, we we will have to hold off on any comments. Uh I just had one.
Is um >> is there any frontage on North Washington or is or is the frontage on North Washington and the rail trails an easement? >> So, that's that's a good question, Lisa. I think before the rail trail was even
[clears throat] constructed, the landowner um partnered with the town to securing easements to provide them access >> to this parcel in anticipation of the rail trail. So that way they wouldn't be landlocked and they would have formidable access to get to this
property. >> That that is correct. >> Okay. So that's that's probably the the stretch of rail trail where there's a sign that says public uh you know it says access. Do you know block private access or something? >> I believe that is the case.
>> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. >> All right. So uh at this point because the um resource areas can't really be verified until snow has melted. We're we're going to keep this on the agenda
and potentially uh continue it. Uh I don't know if you want to continue it for the 23rd because I think the prediction is it's going to stay >> That's optimistic, Julie. >> Yeah, it's going to stay pretty cold. Um
so we could make it uh March 23rd. Um the [snorts] >> applicant is okay with that. Um >> that's fine. >> Continuation. >> All right. >> Which date, Julian? The 24th.
>> Uh no, it's March 23rd is about 6 weeks out. >> Oh, sorry. I'm looking at the wrong date. Uh Frank, at the same at the meantime, if the weather pops, can can get out there to verify that those are vertical pools?
Um, yeah, I can I can talk to him about that. >> Okay. If he wants to just put it on the calendar, that's what we're doing now. We're just kind of keeping track of uh sites that we have to go back to. >> Well, I think that's that's a great idea because March 23rd actually sounds like
a great time to start looking at that stuff. >> That's what I was thinking. I I I mean it's a good thought, but in this in the middle of this little ice age, I can't even see my 23rd meeting. >> We have a hope. All right. So, I will
make a motion to continue the public hearing for file 250-1204 to the You want to go to March 24th, Frank? >> Yeah, >> I'm sorry, 23rd. >> That's Tuesday. >> I know. I don't know why I'm looking for
Thursday the 23rd. >> No, I'm wrong. I'm wrong. You're right. Where am I? >> It's Monday the 23rd. >> Yes, that was my motion. >> Second. >> Okay. Second. >> All right. I [snorts]
just We have to table. Did you have a question, sir? >> No. >> No. Okay. Not a problem. [snorts] All right. So, um we have a motion by uh Lisa. And who seconded that? Uh either Joe or I.
>> Okay. >> Seconded. Um >> Joe. >> Okay. Uh again, I'll I can't do all those in favor anymore, can I? Uh so um Lisa,
Dan, and Mark, >> I >> I >> I and Joe >> I. >> And I'll throw in an I. and Courtney is nowhere in the meeting. Um,
all right. I think that wraps up our hearings. Um, >> thank you. >> Um, see you on August 23rd and hopefully >> it'll be a different era >> far as the weather goes. Um,
we are now uh at our review of orders of uh certificates of compliance, but um both of these have been uh withdrawn. >> No, they they have been withdrawn. Um
Norton High School, the athletic uh improvement project, they've requested more time to get their response for the drainage calculations into us. Um, so that's what they're working on. And, um, David Pashette, who's on the call this
evening, um, they've submitted a bunch of stuff for the rail trail to close out the, um, rail trail project. Um, we still need to, there's still some outstanding items for that one. We need to have a sitewalk with the DPW director. Um, we also need to, um,
review the wetland mitigation areas. Um and um we also need the town to sign off on the on DPW to sign sign off on the affidavit stating that they're going to take over um operations and maintenance
of the rail trail. So those are the three items that are really outstanding for this. Everything else we received from U Mass DOT uh but those are still the three outstanding items. And um >> so John, I have a couple comments on that.
>> Yes. I did not see in the request for the COC. >> We need SWIPS, too. Sorry. >> We need SWIPS. >> I didn't >> What's that? >> We need the SWIPS. >> The storm water pollution prevention plans, >> the reports. We need those as well.
>> Oh. Oh, okay. >> So, we need those. Sorry, that was on my other that was another list item that I they they um >> Okay. >> they gave me. So, but I'm still waiting. I did not see a stamp and certification
that meets the criteria >> for the request for COC. I just saw one pager from beta. >> Oh, you mean from their engineer? >> Yeah. >> From Matt shoot. >> I did not see anything stamped. I did not see this required
certification statement to request a COC under the act which is you know I certified blah blah blah with the following deviations. It was not scam. >> Okay, >> that's one thing. Uh number two, I had walked every square foot every
foot of that rail trail from Taton to Mansfield. I would ask Beta to check the contract specs. I guarantee it did not say you may import in place uh um
ragweed. I guarantee the mass spec said weed free. 90% what what's out there is ragweed. So the taxpayers of Norton got crap for their tax dollars, right? They just
spread crap out there. It all needs to be removed and replaced with per the spec. As far as I'm concerned, it is a sea of ragweed. Unacceptable. I would ask Mr. Shu to go back and look at the spec. The second thing is what did the
plan show for a clearance envelope? Because there are a crapload of trees and branches. So, typically now clear an envelope and it's either now I don't know. I don't have the plans on this one. film. Is it was it to the edge of the pavement or was it to the edge of
the you know maintain mode lawn area? What [snorts] was the obligation to remove the the limbs along the rail trail? Cuz every time it's windy, we're getting all these branches and debris. And I honestly have not seen that on other rail trails. So
again, I would ask them to look at the spec to see if we got what we paid for on both of those counts. It's very noticeable in a couple of stretches, even in the middle of summer. >> Yep. >> The rag is a huge problem. So, I'd ask
every member of this conservation commission to provide me lettered comments which I can forward over to the town manager, the DPW director,
and Mass DOT with your concerns and questions on why this project may or may not get a COC. Oh, yeah. As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't meet the criteria. >> Okay. Well, that's all I need.
>> All right. All right. So, >> so and and it's not fair to ask us to vote on a COC in the middle of winter. So, that should have come in the spring. >> Well, all right. So, we >> can't sign off on a project in the middle of winter. So we we can't act on
it, but we don't need a formal motion to >> take no action. Is that correct? >> We do not need a motion or anything. It's just informative. The um >> the town manager has asked the mass DOT to provide information to close out the
project. So Mass DOT is just following the direction of the town manager at this point in time and I am basically here to provide that information to the board and that is what I'm doing. All right,
>> John, are we coming up on the the end of the original order? Was wasn't it about 3 years ago they started this? >> Yes. So the permanent extension act does play the leads act does play an effect to this. So it's automatically extended for two years. Um but the just so the
commission is aware the final I guess mitigation report that um SJWCA consultants who has been hired by um Mass DOT and and for this project to supervise and review the wild mitigation
areas their final reports coming to us come December 2026. So, even if we were to issue a any sort of temporary or or partial COC, we wouldn't be able to issue a full COC until we receive that report.
>> All right. I'm going to get cranky. >> Yeah, I'm getting cranky, too. >> Well, we can't act on this. >> I I have a quick one here. Can we just to do the legal thing here? Can we table this discussion till pending documentation? >> Yes, we are taking no action. So, in
order to take no action, Now we're just formalized. >> All right. >> All right. And uh well that means we have to entertain a motion and so on. But uh we're taking no action. So >> I would like to move on to the last
required item which is our order of conditions for ao lane. Um >> and also that uh as was just mentioned there still is additional monitoring time um left in this process. So um
we're not really at the final end point. So just wanted to bring that up and say that I agree with um uh what John has stated in terms of holding off uh to do a final sitewalk and getting this additional information to the town.
>> Okay, sounds good. >> Thank you. All right. Um, does everybody have their copy of [clears throat] the orders and conditions for Bra Lane file number 250-1191? >> Yes. I just had a quick question of John
on 37. >> Sure. >> So, uh, sorry, 37H. Do you typically not request the SWIP U reports on a monthly basis? So, you just get them all at the end? No, I always get them on a monthly basis. It's just
>> Okay. So, I think you just need to make this clearer because it just says upon completion provide copies. So, I think we should change that to say on a monthly basis. >> Okay. Sure. We can do that. >> This is tied to just the completion of
construction, >> right? The only the only problem that we have there, Lisa, is obviously I probably want to do that and put that restriction before they start construction. So that way they're aware of it because if they do it after construction and they don't do the swip, then they're in
trouble, right? So I would say if we're going to if we're going to implement that I would bring it into >> I would take that condition which is the sweat and bring it into prior to construction number one >> and um just put in
um >> that what you just said instead of uh GHI it would be provide monthly SWIP reports. Yeah. >> Write a copy of the script inspection reports on a monthly basis. [snorts]
>> Yep. That that was the only comment I had. >> Okay. >> All right. I have a couple more. Um in three, uh where the highlighted just begins.
Please be advised. The And then it has an at in there. >> Oh, the Yeah, that was that's what I couldn't find. That's right. >> Oh. Um, so that has to go. And in four, it says, um, overall project proposes
the construction of six duplex. It's actually three duplex. >> Should be three. Yeah, I know. I found that out afterwards. So, those numbers need to change. >> All right. So, all those and then I I don't I have no other comments. I don't know if anybody else has any other comments.
>> Dan, any questions? Any comments? Looks like he's frozen in time. >> Dan is frozen. >> He's concerned. >> The monkey see no evil. >> Fear no evil. >> Speak. So I will make a motion. We're
ready. >> Oh, I think we're ready. >> Okay. Uh because it is 9:34. We jump home. I'll make a motion to issue the uh order of conditions for file 250-1191 as discussed. Second.
>> All right, [clears throat] we have a a motion by Lisa, seconded by Mark. So, uh, Lisa, Joe, and Mark, how do you vote? >> I >> I >> I. >> And Dan, I don't know if you're still there, but, uh, if you are, throw in a
vote and I'll throw in my eye. But Dan, you look like you're frozen. So, I think we're going to have to go with four eyes. >> All right, John Thomas, we owe you five minutes of your life back there. >> It's okay. It's all right.
>> And uh we'll we'll do a formal um amendment motion, please. >> Uh we have a motion by Mark and second by Joe, I believe. And so Lisa Co and Mark, how do you vote? >> I
I >> And I'll throw in an I. >> All right. See you all uh in two weeks. Good night, >> everybody. Byebye.