All right, I'm going to call the Monday, February 23rd, 2026. >> Recording in progress. >> Morton Conservation Commission meeting to order. Uh members present. Um Dan, Mark,
who else is here? And Joe, and we're missing Courtney and Julian. >> Courtney just logged in. >> Okay, we have a minute. Okay. Uh, first item on the agenda is the
meeting minutes from 29. Anybody have a chance to look at those? Any comments, questions? No comments from me? Anybody? Anybody out there? Anybody alive? Let's Let's get through this. Come on. You
know me. I run tight ship. Let's go. >> I'll I'll make a motion to approve the meeting minutes as written for the 29 meeting. >> Motion by Mark, second by >> seconded. >> Second by Courtney. Um, Dan.
>> Hi, >> Mark. >> Hi, >> Courtney. >> Hi, >> Joe. Where's Joe? Did we lose Joe? Where's Joe? >> He's here, but muted. >> Oh, there he is. Joe, there's a motion
on the floor for meeting approval. severe connection issues. Uh, if you hear me, yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay, that was an I. Take it as an I. Okay. Uh, so the 29 meeting minutes are accepted.
Uh, next on the agenda is violations for U 181 West Main Street. >> No updates to report for that one. >> Okay. Uh, next one is violation for 292 West
Main Street. >> So, that's a new one that I issued uh last I think it was last Friday or last Thursday. Uh, looks like they expanded their parking lot downtown a pub off of West Main Street. So, uh, I talked to the owner, had a nice phone
conversation. Um he seemed very open to he didn't know what he was doing and obviously he made a mistake. Willing to make whatever needs uh to fix the situation, but that's not going to happen until all this snow is gone. So it's going to be a while. >> Okay. But they know what they need to
do. >> They know what they're going to have to do. Yes. >> Okay. >> Uh so the next item is um if there are any requests for continuations. Do we have any tonight? >> We had a few. Um, Megan, do you want to
just go over those real quick? >> Uh, the only one I know about in advance was the 89 North Washington Street ANRAD. >> Um, >> and that that was continued last week, correct? >> Yep. >> Yeah.
>> And then other than that, I don't know off the top of my head. I don't have access to my email right now. >> Yeah. I didn't receive any requests for continuances as of um in my email. So, >> so beyond the So, was the um 89 North
Washington already um continued to >> March >> to March or to tonight? >> To March? >> To March. >> Oh, okay. So, we don't have to vote on that one. >> Okay. >> All right. Moving right along.
Uh let's see. Okay. Uh if there's anybody in the audience from the public that would like to speak uh on anything wetland related, you can uh raise your hand or unmute.
>> Nope. All right, John. Any department updates? >> Uh town hall will be closed today and tomorrow. So just a heads up. So, if they pay your taxes or do any of that, um, you're going have to wait till Wednesday at least. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Uh, okay. First continue public hearing is 250-119850 Clap Street. Uh, work for um construction of four-bedroom single family home, replacement of a culvert, wetland crossing in mitigation work.
We have a representative. Is that you, Josh? >> Yes. Uh, can everybody hear me? Yeah, >> perfect. Uh, let me pull up the plan. You guys see that?
>> Now we can. Yep. >> All right. Perfect. So, again, Josh White from JDE Civil representing Cam Eisner for this project. Um the just a couple minor changes that we made from the last meeting. Um first we added um
we added some more call outs for the different materials of the driveway where it um where part of it paved and part of its gravel. So we added more call outs along it so you can see the difference. Um and then second, we
changed the wording of the snow removal snow storage area. We changed it so the areas are snow storage areas. So the snow is to be stored in those areas. Um and they don't conflict with the
um storm motor BMPs that we've added um from the last um revision. and they're out of the 100t buffer zone from the wetlands. And um one of the comments that you had, Lisa, at the last meeting was regarding
runoff from the driveway uh specifically the gravel portion. So we added a a twoft gravel strip uh on both sides of the driveway. So they'll grade down to
the existing grade um and provide 2 ft of gravel um gravel or rip wrap. We kind of left it up for a little bit interpretation, but it's the idea is it's going to be larger larger stones.
It's probably like 3 in or so. Um that would be along the entire length of the driveway. Let me see. And I would stop up here at the um the paved portion in front of the house.
Okay. Um did you uh call out a size for stone? I I assume somebody's going to contractor's going to be building off of these plans. So, >> yes. And we uh here's the detail of the of the driveway. a 3-inch dense grade
crush stone on the sides. >> Okay. >> For for about two feet or so. >> Okay. Uh John, did you have any other comments on this? >> Not off the top of my head. >> Okay. Uh any commission members have any
further comments on this? >> No. Okay. Uh, hearing none. Anybody from the public have any comments at for 50 Clap Street? >> Nope. Okay. This is popular. Um, that said, uh, I will entertain a motion to
close public hearing. >> So, motioned. >> Motion by Courtney. >> Second. >> Second by Mark. Um, roll call vote. Um, Courtney and Mark. >> Hi. >> I, >> Dan and Joe.
>> All right. >> Hi. >> And I'll vote I. Okay. >> Thanks, Josh. >> Thank you. And just for clarification, um, will you guys draft up the order and
issue it at the LA the next meeting? Is that how this is going to work? You have that ready for the next one, John? >> I have it ready for this evening if they want if you want it. >> Okay. So, we'll be voting on that at the end.
>> Okay. Perfect. >> Mhm. All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Uh, so next up is 250-11990 East Hodgees Street. Is anyone here on behalf of the
applicant? >> Yes. Good evening everybody. Brian Dunn for the applicant with MBL Land Development and Permitting offices at 5 Bristol Drive in Southeastern Mass. >> Brian, you have sharing capabilities, so you can share your screen if you need to. >> Excellent. Thank you very much. Let's go
to sharing because that's where that's where the magic happens, right? >> I thought I was in the office, but sure. >> Good answer. Okay. Uh so members of the commission, last time we were here, uh there was some
discussion about the the crossing and uh the temporary crossing. Uh what we did was um we al we went out and had the our surveyor stake out again the center line and uh both sides of this crossing
uh so that you could uh clearly see where the crossing is. the temporary crossing is going to go uh and where the excavator is going to access the the mats uh to get to the upland area of the site. We also uh in one of the emails
was requested for us to stake out the buffer zones. We also staked out the buffer zones and we those stakes are have blue flags on them and the erosion control limits have orange flags on
them. All the stakes are clearly marked what they are uh for uh your review as well as John's review as well as the contractor and you know whether or not um uh one of us from MBL will be on site
uh to witness the installation of the mats uh and so on and so forth. It it would be my understanding that we would be there because we're going to be doing the test bits anyways. So, one of our uh staff members will be there on site uh to make sure that the excavator
and the equipment stays in the mapped area of this temporary crossing. Uh also uh requested during the last meeting was us for us to show on uh on the plan where uh storage area and equipment and
swamp mats some erosion controls would be placed uh during during this uh time that we're accessing the site. So, we chose an upland area outside the buffer zones uh close to the front of the lot, which also gives an area for the
equipment to pull off the road and uh park over here, you know, outside the buffer zone. We were also asked um for a construction sequence. We've add that added that to the plan. uh some general construction notes
and then a uh some notes on operation and maintenance and uh prevent prevent prevention. So, um, and then we also received an email from John through one of the commission members that, uh, we addressed,
um, through, uh, the owner's uh, son, Charbell, who will who will ultimately be doing the the work here for the temporary crossing. Um, so we've we've emailed that information over to you uh, based on um, Mr. Kavalo's questions
through John. And um so right now I think we've addressed everything that needed to be addressed so far so that we can get this order of conditions uh issued so we can file for the perk test applications and I get some dates from
the board of health to do this in the uh winter and frozen conditions. Lisa, >> so uh John, are you um all set with any of your comments or concerns? >> Um I'll let you guys make some more
comments and concerns and I'll fill in where you guys leave off. >> Okay. So, I guess the first question is, uh Joe, would you like uh Brian to go over your uh list of comments and provide a response,
>> please? Okay. If you could do that, please, Brian. >> Okay. So, I'm I'm going to read the email that was sent out to to John and to Joe and members of the commission. So, uh there was some uh questions about the uh excavator swing radius. So, the
response was the proposed excavator will have a zero tall swing model. While the upper structure rotates, the swing occurs above ground level and remains within the defined construction envelope. There will be no tracking and
disturbance outside the approved temporary access road limits and approximately an 18,000lb zero tall swing configuration requires less clearance to rotate than a conventional tall swing machine such as
an 8,000 lb um TB235. Therefore, thereby reducing the overall operational footprint. Number two was the Matt. >> Well, hold on. Hold on. Excuse me. So, once you give us a response to the first
one, I want to make sure Joe is okay with that response if he doesn't have any follow-up questions. So, we'll take them one at a time. Thanks. >> I do have a follow-up question for that. Brian, understanding a zero tail, uh, that refers to the back end of the
machine, which states primarily over track set. So, if we're working on a 14 foot wide swamp mat and uh let's say right track is on the edge of the 14 foot swamp mat and we rotate from the
center position of half of the distance of the width of the machine. And if our lower dipper stick is at dead zero or in the carriage, what is the swing radius from the bucket while holding the mat
the mat at a height of over 7 foot? What is that radius? >> Um, okay. So, we're we're really getting into construction means and methods, which is really not our engineering forte. So, They need to make sure that you're staying within my 15t.
>> No, I I understand and that's that's the intent of our design for them to stay within this limit. Um, and for us to be >> question is I need to see the engineering data that they provide you that you will stay within this envelope.
>> Okay. So, hold on for a second. So, is Charbell, are you on the call? because it this isn't really an engineering matter about how construction means and methods and the swing of a a bucket and so on and so forth happens. So it's really so it's
really it's really a constructions means and methods type of a thing. So it's not really an engineering matter but I understand your question and I want to try to get it answered. So hold on a second. >> What Joe is trying to make sure of is that this is we know you can only take your best guess as an engineer. We are
trying to make sure that you can construct this within the confines of what you're asking for and that it doesn't end up a wider envelope and there's more impact. That's our concern. So, I mean that said, if there are some
things that you just can't answer at this point, I would suggest that we add a condition that says the contractor is going to come in and provide this detail, this level of detail. If you can't figure it out now, we'll just condition it. >> Okay, that's fine. Because I think that
one of the things was that if if the commission is not normally um you know in favor of uh the swing kind of a situation that the applicant will have to put down the mats uh as shown on the plans and only use that um
area and not do the swing method. So if that's the way we want to uh condition it, then I then that's what we need to do. >> Okay. So it sounds like for that first one, Joe, perhaps we need to add a condition to that effect. But condition
either that or we'll have to survey the trees in there to make sure that all of this can stay within the confines to make sure that this application through this roadway to make sure that we're operating within
those confines that they're >> so and and if I and if I may through the chair we uh specifically uh went out there and located trees and in this area and also made sure that
this was the path of least resistance of uh resource area alteration which includes trees. So this was specifically mapped out for that reason and I I think I remember saying this at the very first
meeting that we had. So we didn't just like arbitrarily pick this location of the path members of the commission. This is a a well determined way and access to get to the upland area with the most
minimal impact to the resource areas. >> Right? I think we understand that point. Joe's point is once you add that swing radius with the mats on top, you know, taking into consideration the root, is it a viable?
Is it not that it's a viable route, but is the root sufficient? Is the width sufficient? Is the clearance envelope above sufficient? That's the point he's getting to. We understand it like on foot, this makes the most sense, but from a construction equipment, is it
going to result in additional impacts? I think that's where Joe's going with this. >> And and I'm I'm saying if we do not use the swing method, there will not be additional impacts. They will stay within the limits of the erosion control and the limit of work for this temporary alteration.
>> Okay. So perhaps that's how we was unable to uh unmute. I don't know why I was having technical difficulties. Just let me know what questions you have. >> Okay. I'm sorry. Can you identify yourself for the record, please? >> Uh my name is Charbell Latou.
>> Okay. Will you be performing the work? >> Uh yes, I will. Uh the excavation work. >> Okay. So, uh, so Joe, we can either condition it or and if if they come back that it's insufficient, they have to open up public hearing again,
which I don't think they're going to go that way. So, let's say my concern is with this, you know, pitch polling method or shuffling method that you're going to exceed your envelope here. and without the proof and
an engineering site that uh you know I'm struggling with this. So you know in my opinion if you're going to attempt this you need to go back to the original plan with using the proper amount of mats and not having to you will not exceed the area. Your
overlaps are correct. Your spacing is correct. Your impact is approved. Um, and also I'm not sure if this plan, you know, using the swing method needs to be refiled with uh Mass Wildlife
because I'm assuming it has changed since the submission. >> No. Uh, if I may through the chair, the the plan has not changed. the uh with the limits of the work that was shown on the original submission, it still shows all of these uh uh mats going down at at
a given time and uh the limit of of alteration has not changed. So everything that was filed with natural heritage is the same uh except for the staging area and the
construction sequencing notes that we added per the last meeting. So all of this area here that I show on the plan and the number of mats and the spacing and everything has not changed. On the original plan, it was 33 mats if
I stand correct. And you had overlap. And I still see on this plan, it does state there's overlap. So if you're using three mats, your overlap still doesn't work for the plan provided. >> Correct. >> Joe, was your preference then the
original which showed them I think that the most the most minimalistic impact would be the original way. >> Y >> and it would show the most stability because all mats would be connected bolted through with a proper number of bolts and assembled as a system and not
as a you know individual unit. Because if you're using three mats, how are you bolting them together as a system? Yeah. Okay. This is a system design. So, Brian, what was the switch from the original to this
uh in the number of mats? If you could remind me. >> The the number of mats I'd have to go back to the um original plan. So, hold on a second. >> Okay.
So if we go with that original system, it sounds like there's not the uh issue of the swing radius every time reinstalling them. Is that the point, Joe? >> Correct. It's staying within the envelope and protecting >> protecting the wetland and stream crossing
>> with basically an assembled road that is engineered as a road. >> Okay. So unless there's a a reason, we would probably default to the original that just shows laying of the mounts once, which is the least intrusive so
impactful. So the original plans had 33 mats. And then the current you're showing is how many? >> Well, we took the we took the number off because we were going to use three to four mats overlapping. So,
>> so the original was uh 33 mats and then the new one uh does not identify the number of mats needed cuz we were going to just use like Charel stated before >> uh three to four mats and overlapping and then picking them up and rotating
them. But if that's not what the commission wants to, you know, put in as an order of conditions, then we have to go with the connected number of of uh of of mega decks, which would be 33. >> Yep. Okay. Sounds like that's where
we're headed. Uh let's move on to the next comment. >> Uh before we get to the next comment, Lisa, I just have a couple comments uh for the applicant. I spoke I know my understanding is that um you're gonna have these test pits inspected by the
board of health agent. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> And I talked to the board of health agent the other day and he would had some concerns and questions surrounding if you're not going to go with the 33 mats all at once, how are you going to
get water across the area um and enough water to do all the perk tests that you plan on doing? and also how is he gonna get out there uh and get away basically to uh when he's done for inspections. So, you know, I think the 33 Matt just
strategically and logically is the only way that you're going to be able to get the board of health agent out there. So, I just want to re reiterate that as well. >> Understood. So, you technically answered the question. So, >> okay. Thanks, Ron.
Let's start with the next question. comment. >> The next question was about Matt installation. >> So, okay. >> So, that does that really does need to be answered if the commission is going to condition it. >> Yeah. >> Um because we already we already went
over the size of our mats. We described that. Um and then the equipment. We are we already discussed what kind of equipment we're going to use. Okay. Was that it? >> Yes, that was was just really three questions that were asked of of us
through Joe and through uh John. >> So, um that said, Joe, are you um all set with this >> providing that recondition of 33 minutes? Okay. >> That this is the most >> y
>> responsible way to do this under the proper conditions of you know frozen ground and >> yep and based on the board of health agents comments. So >> health. >> Yep. Okay. Um any other commission
members have uh any comments on this? Uh if not, any members of the public have any comments on this? No. Uh, and John, you're all set. >> I am all set as of right now. I just want to reiterate that concerns from the board of health agent. That's it.
>> Y Okay. Well, I think we can add that as a condition. >> Perfect. Uh, and through the chair, is it possible to also have a vote of for the order of conditions this evening? um so that we can move forward with submitting our applications with the
board of health as soon as possible. >> Uh we're gonna close tonight probably, right? We're going to close the hearing. Um but you're going to owe us a plan set that's reverts back to the other plan set, right?
>> So I think the order conditions will be ready at the next hearing. John, >> I think that the um that should be fine. Uh, I'll have an order of conditions drafted up and if the applicant wants to move forward with uh coordinating an inspection with the board of health agent, it's probably in his best
interest to do do so now uh because he's pretty backed up. >> Okay. All right. I think we're all set with this one in terms of comments and questions. So, I will uh entertain a motion to close the public hearing for
file where the heck am I? 250-1199. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Motion by Mark, second by Joe. Um, roll call vote. Mark and Joe. >> I. >> Uh, Courtney and Dan.
>> I. >> And I will vote I. Thank you much. >> Okay. Thank you so much everybody. >> Thank you. >> Bye now. All right. The next public hearing is file 250-1
uh 1200 for 9 Germaine Way and it's a project for single family house associated grading and utilities within the buffer zone. Do we have anybody um representing the applicant?
>> Yes. Uh Gregory Bonovitz board engineering. >> Okay. You want to share screen, >> Greg? You have you have the ability to share your screen. >> Okay. >> All right. Does everyone see that?
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> Nine. Germaine way um made some revisions on the plan um and we revised the um the legend to show the proposed tree line and was showing that proposed
tree line. Um we um revised the silt sock line detail. Give you a chance to look at for a second. >> Yep. And um we're also put on a split rail
fence detail. Just keeping on that for a second for you to look at it. >> Okay. So, your sediment control line will be converted to the split rail fence line. Is that right? >> Uh no, no, there's two um there's two
distinct um lines of sediment control. Um I can show you when we go over to the um the plan view. This is all set. Okay. And so here's the plan view. Um the sediment control remained uh where
it was. Um we just updated the detail. That's where the um sediment control was approved on the uh subdivision line uh subdivision plan and um that is currently in place. And the split rail
fence uh is proposed um right adjacent to it and then um goes along the tree line up to the 100 foot buffer on this side and um goes past the 100 foot buffer on this side.
And >> okay, >> that was the changes that we made. >> Okay. Uh John, are you all set with this? >> Yes, I think I'm all set with it as long as the commission is. >> Yep. Um commission members have any
questions, comments? Any members of the public wish to comment on nine gerbane way? Okay. Hearing none. I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing. >> So motioned.
>> Second. >> Motion by Courtney. Second by Mark. Roll call vote. Courtney and Mark. >> I. >> I. >> Joe and Dan. >> I. >> I. >> And I will vote I.
Okay. Uh, that does it for nine. Germaine way. Uh Greg, I assume you're up for the next one as well. Uh >> yes. >> Next hearing is for file 250-1201 for 27 Germaine Way.
>> Okay. So 27 Germaine Way, lot 4. Um we made similar uh changes to the plan. The proposed tree line has been updated. the um silt sock um detail has been updated
and also the um the split rail fence detail was added and um the location of the split rail fence has been shown on the plan right along the easement line. So, here's the easement line and it's
just coincides with uh the proposed split split rail fence. >> Okay. Oh, so I think we talked about this last time. Your sediment control line there was dictated by the subdivision plans. That's why it's on the other side of the drainage easement. Is that right? >> Yes.
>> Okay. Okay. Uh John Thomas, >> I have nothing. Okay. Uh, any members of the commission have have questions or comments? No. Okay. This is fairly straightforward. Uh, anybody from the public have any comments for 27 Germaine
Way? All right. Hearing none, I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing for file 250-1201. So moved. >> Second. Uh motion by Mark, seconded by Joe. Was
that Joe or Dan? >> Uh me. >> That was Dan. Okay. >> Uh roll call vote. Dan and Joe. >> I >> I >> Courtney and Mark. >> Hi. >> Hi.
>> And I'll vote I. All right. Next uh public hearing is for file 250-1202 for 25 Germaine way. You can take it away, Greg. >> Okay. Lot five is right next door here.
So I'll switch over to that sheet. >> Similar changes again. the proposed tree line in the legend. Uh split rail fence detail and the uh silt sock line detail
and um location of the silt um uh sediment control is per the subdivision plan previously approved. The um proposed S uh split trail fence uh goes along the drainage easement line and um
pass the 100 foot buffer and um that was all the changes. Hey all set, John, >> I'm good. >> Okay. Uh any members of the uh commission have any questions or comments?
Any members from the public for 25 Germaine Way? All right. Hearing none, I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing. >> Uh, so moved. >> Second. >> Motion by Mark, second by Joe. A roll
call vote. Dan and Joe. >> I >> I >> Mark and Courtney. >> Hi. >> Hi. And I'm really sorry, guys. Somebody's screaming for help outside my house. So I I need to go see what's
happening. >> Okay. >> Okay. Uh and I will vote I thanks Greg. >> Okay. Thank you. Have a good evening. >> You too. >> So uh John Thomas, do we have to wait
one two we have to wait for Courtney to get back? >> Yeah. Maybe maybe we should call the police. do you think? >> Well, she said she's gonna go outside real quick, so
I don't know. We have a quorum. >> All right. Uh, let us, um, move on to the last one of the night, but the most exciting. You ready? You ready, Claire? Where's Claire? >> I'm ready. Uh, Claire Hogbone with LEC
here. And I'm I apologize. My camera decided to stop working. >> All right. So, we are This is the continued public hearing for file 250-1203 0 Pine Street, Wheaten Estates for construction of a residential
subdivision including two paved roadways within a BBW grading site development within the 100 foot buffer zone. Uh so, Claire, if you want to uh you can share screen though still, right? You just can't.
>> I hope so. I will give it a shot. Um, see share screen. Can you all see the plan set with the proposed conditions? >> Yes. >> Excellent. Um, and I went ahead and colorcoded some of the the wetland
boundaries and some of the buffers since we had that discussion at the last meeting. Just wanted to get ahead of that. Um, but so ultimately since the last meeting in February on February 9th, uh, we provided supplemental information to respond to some of the
comments uh, brought up at the meeting that weren't entirely resolved at the meeting. Uh, we don't have revised plans before the commission at this time. Um the engineer is uh continuing to update the plans to respond to peerreview comments for storm water and incorporate
the commission's comments from the last meeting as well. Um but ultimately what we wanted to do was submit what we could respond to for the commission so we could continue the discussion, confirm that any of those comments are um addressed or if anything else needs to
be addressed prior to the next meeting with the revised plans. Um but what we will expect to put in the revised plans includes includes the updated siltation controls and the applicant um instead of silt socks would like to install silt
fencing along the entire limit of work. Um so that'll be updated on the detail sheet and uh the construction entrance and exit will be identified. However, the engineer informed me the planning board
had asked him to evaluate um what the project would look like with just one entrance off of P uh Pine Street. So, he's looking into that and he just didn't want us to put something on the plans for the commission in case the planning board ended up going with
uh recommending one entrance. But um we'll inform you what uh the result is there. And if it is going to stay with two entrances off of Pine Street, uh we'll certainly have one designated and one um one designated
entrance and exit off of that. Um and we'll include some more detail of the erosion controls at each of the crossings. Um, I remember that was a comment brought up um with the constructibility of the crossings and uh
where the siltation controls will be going. I believe that detail is on here, but it might need to be fine-tuned. I spoke with the applicant who will also be the contractor and he indicated he would have the machinery in the limit of work. So essentially in the footprint of
the crossings and it would maneuver to import either on-site fill material or import fill from offsite to construct uh the crossings. So he's not anticipating any temporary impacts that need to go beyond what the limit of work shows or
essentially the limit of grading. Um, and I believe that covers what we'd expect on the plans. Is there anything before I go on to what we did respond to that I missed that the commission members would like to see in revised plans?
>> Um, I mean, I I have I do have follow-up comments on this that will influence your plan. So, I think we should save those till after you go over what um what's been updated since the 9th since February. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um the other comments that we
addressed uh include uh deicing question for storm uh snowstorm which we're all experiencing today. Um, I went through the drainage report prepared by the engineer and they prepared a long-term
pollution prevention plan to be implemented by the HOA and at the end of that document uh is a note for snow and ice removal and that will um allow um sand and salt but no chemical
application for any snow removal. So, that's indicated already in their long-term pollution prevention plan. >> Uh, hold on a second. >> Go. Yep. >> Hold on. Uh, the word primarily is not going to cut. So, we're going to have a
long chat about O andM and how this is implemented by the homeowners association at the end uh, you know, towards the end of this discussion today. The word primarily is subjective. So, I'm going to ask you to strike that. Um, we're going to be scrutinizing every
entry on this on and M to make sure it's practical, to make sure it's succinct, and to make sure it's something that the homeowners association will be able to, um, uh, easily implement. We'll put it that way. So, um, in my view, this needs
to be bulletproof. So, I'm going to ask the engineer to look this over. Um, and I don't want to see words like primarily doesn't give good direction. It's that's discretionary. So, we really need um
some clear directives on this because you have to remember it's not going to be the town. It's going to be a third party and it's going to be private privately owned and they're going to be homeowners and a homeowners association trying to navigate this, figure out what
it means and implement it. So we need this to be really clear. >> Okay. >> Okay. Okay. >> Understood. >> Okay. >> Uh going on to the next comment. Uh the
request for vernal pool survey. The applicant agrees to that. So we're open to that uh as a special condition in the order of conditions to conduct that in the 2026 spring hydro period. uh and provide documentation if it is certifi certifiable of the heritage hub submittal to the commission for your
records. >> Uh there's a question about the sewer main connection in Pine Street. Uh my understanding is that the connection would come off of this eastern entrance and continue east on Pine Street to
connect to uh Germaine Way um where the terminus of that uh sewer line is being installed. The applicant to my knowledge has not submitted other applications to the town. He would need other approvals
and reviews from the town from different departments. My understanding is that's not before any of the town departments at this time, but um it's understood that that work would incur occur within buffer zone to presumably bordering
vegetated wetlands and bank. Um so when that comes to fruition, the applicant would submit a notice of intent or an RDA, whichever is appropriate to the commission's review before starting any of that work within Pine Pine Street for the connection. Okay. Uh, we need to
stop and talk about that for a second. So, now we're talking about segmentation. So, the sewer line would not be put in yet for this project, correct? >> The sewer line >> to serve this project. >> That's my understanding.
>> Okay. You're going to have to come in maybe amend the notice of intent because if you have impacts associated with this development and then you start saying, "Oh, we're going to separate the sewer out. We're going to it we're going to permit that separately. Now we're talking about
segmentation. So I would ask you to amend this order of conditions to include the sewer work so that you have a single and complete project with one number. Is that something that the commission would be open to having as a special
condition? Essentially stating that, you know, when the applicant wants to permit the Pine Street sewer that it would be allowable under an amended order, it wouldn't increase any wetland resource area impacts to my understanding.
>> Well, we don't know that yet. Probably it's not hasn't been flagged. It hasn't been located. So, in my mind, you have to request an amended order of conditions and add add that plan set. I don't know how many sheets it's going to be to the next
um tying into the next subdivision, but >> we might not be able to amend the order, this current one, because it's had it just covers these parcels. So, if their connection needs to be on a separate parcel, then it would be have to be a
separate permit. Um >> it would be a different chain a limit of work, >> but it's in Pine Street, right? >> Yes, it's in it's in Pine Street, but if the connection is on another parcel, like say it's on Germaine Way or something like that and that's what
they're tying to. I don't know if it's on a separate parcel, then for instance, it would basically I think the town of Norton would have to be on the permit because it's there right away for Pine Street. Well, as the owner. >> As the owner. Yes.
>> Right. >> So, I think if they did it as a separate as if they did it as a separate filing, I think that they could do it that way. >> But it has to be accounted for in this order of conditions or its segmentation. If it were serving other residents of
Pine Street, I could see that in my view, this is part of the project. This this project is a no-go without that sewer. So we will have to get creative on how we
put together a condition for it then. >> Yeah, >> it's doable. >> I I think I can work something and I think we have permitted it in the past separately, but I'll have to look through our files. >> Okay. But it's again it's got to be tied
to this project somehow, >> right? >> Yep. Okay. I believe that gets me to the last point that we were able to address in this response to comments which is the values of the 3M river ACEC.
Um we provided in the supplemental information that the importance of environmental resource and open space preservation and management is identified as values in addition to unique biological value, public health benefits, significant and significant
wetland resource areas. Uh so as we note in the supplemental information and within the original notice of intent document um we're not expecting the project to result in adverse impacts to those values through the minimization of bordering vegetated wetland impacts
increasing the BVW on site by 64%. I'm sorry that might even be an incorrect No I'm sorry that is uh because it's a one to 1.6 six uh four ratio of replication for the area lost. So we are
increasing the size of wetlands on the site and in the ACC. As a result, um we are implementing low impact development which is a recommendation in the ACEC designation document um through proposing this cluster development which
would allow preservation of the 24 acres of open space which also includes the u natural heritage area polygon that is highlighted partially in the southeastern portion of the site in yellow here. The open space will also include riverfront area, a portion of
Rumford River, uh this vernal pool in the southern portion of the site, um and forested upland and wetland habitat as well. Um the applicant will file a deed restriction uh prohibiting any future wetland resource area impacts in
perpetuity on this cumulative property. Um so no future impacts would occur uh in accordance with that deed restriction. Um and the ACEC designation document identified um a potential threat to h
public health uh might occur through inappropriate development. Um and in that case the project is going to maintain water quality both through implementation or through construction and after construction. Um during
construction, the implementation of the sediment controls um will prevent any uh erosion or sedimentation beyond the limit of work. And uh following construction, the proposed storm water management system will also prevent um
any impacts to the water quality or groundwater quality outside of um that area. Um so I believe the you know the project has been designed to take into account the the values that are
indicated for this ACE. Um and I just had a few other notes to go to unless the commission wanted to pause to talk about that as well. >> Um I I do have some comments on the ACE and the relationship to this uh
subdivision, but if you want to continue that's fine. Uh, sure. It was just a few uh other notes that I just didn't include in the writeup and uh was informed after the fact. Um, I was informed by the applicant that at the
last meeting I did misspeak about the electric connection for the homes. He did confirm that there will be um subsurface propane uh for the homes. He indicated that the propane tanks would have to be installed 10 ft off of the
building foundations and they would be approximately 10 ft wide. So at the outermost limit of these tanks, they'd be 20 ft off of the foundations. Um, and as you see on the plan, I'll just zoom in a little bit to make it a little easier to see. Uh, we do have,
I believe it's 10 of the 21 house lots have dwellings shown in the buffer zone. Again, these will all these 10 lots will be permitted individually with the commission and the layouts might change, but for the most part, uh the dwellings
are certainly outside of the 25- ft buffer and most of them are outside or close to the 50ft buffer. The only house that I believe is skirting more in the edge of the 50ft is here um to the
right. And then there's one that has a corner in the 50t. So presumably um the propane tanks with these 10 dwellings um would still be able to have a a decent distance off of the wetland boundary. Um so that that covers it for me. I'm happy
to continue conversation and questions from the commission. >> Um Claire, it's John. Just um could you provide us a list of the lots that are going to be coming in for a notice of intent uh in the future? That way I can list them in any sort of potential order. Yes, that is a great suggestion.
Thank you. >> Thank you. >> So, I'll open it up to um questions and comments by commission members. >> I have a couple here. >> Y >> I have a couple here. uh as pertains to
the uh the LI standards um I see this you know this is a virgin site and it seems like we're treating all the storm water in you know a typical way and all the sheet flow in a typical way I mean it doesn't seem to be any natural infiltration systems here or water
gardens or anything to deal with any sheet flow it seems very you know not as responsible as it could be considering the sensitive area and the water tables and a lot of the hydraology in the site, >> right?
Oh, I apologize. Um, when I when I was speaking to the LI or low impact development, I was speaking more towards how the ACE document was suggesting it with respect to consolidating development and not so much the storm water management. So that that might be
on me of sort of mis misinterpreting or misrepresenting the LI. >> Okay. >> No, I think I think the I think the cluster development is one component of lid, but the second part of that to Joe's point is, you know, concentrating
runoff and infiltrating it in a single location where we're trying to get away from that and is there any, you know, going through the whole lid criteria for storm water. Is there any opportunity for rain gardens, for swailes, for for things like that which should be
explored for this site? So, I might want to pass that note along to the civil. What lid factors in terms of in terms of storm water have been um explored for this site? >> So, Lisa, nature-based solutions. Is that what you're looking for? Something
along those lines. Um yeah the typical lid features which are rain gardens more more infiltration spread out among you know along the within the site instead of concentrating it in a single location. It's the premise of live is
you know today every square inch of this property is allowed to you know infiltrate through rainwater. Now we're collecting it and we're putting it into three discrete locations which does not exactly um you know
promote um additional um runoff to the aquifer and that's the whole purpose of lid. So I would ask the civil what uh they did I mean to address the lid in terms
of storm water compliance. I'll I'll pass that message along. And the storm water has already gone through one round of review with the uh peer reviewer that's uh reviewing on behalf of the planning board and the commission. Um so I'll look into that to
see if that's even a comment that they brought up and that's if that's already been addressed and if not we can certainly provide a response to the commission. >> Okay. This is in John. Is this in our drinking water aquifer? >> Oh, I'd have to take a look. I'd have to
take a look at Mass Mapper again. >> Okay. >> But I I think it is. >> Claire, do you do you know the answer to that? I because I know I think the ACC was nominated for um because of the drinking water and because of um um
habitat, wildlife habitat. >> Yeah, I'm just scrolling up here. This is the uh existing conditions sheet. Uh the first sheet of the plan set. We are in the zone two wellhead protection area for a majority of the site. This is the the boundary of it and it's excluding
this northwestern corner but includes the rest of the site >> and uh in the southeastern portion of the property which actually none of the work is proposed is the uh interim protection wellhead protection area. >> Um
>> beyond that I'm I'm not certain. Uh what was it again? You were asking for the drinking water supply. >> Yeah, I mean it's in the it's in the um you just said it's in that zone two up in that left or zone one. So even more
important question for the civil is how are you dealing with you know increased infiltration and again not putting it into one or two discrete locations because you want to maintain that uh infiltration throughout the site as much as possible.
Um okay so I'm sorry. Joe, did you have any other comments? that just it was just the hydraology questions that matched out with that just to make sure we're balancing things out. >> Okay. Um any other questions or comments
by commission members? >> Um so I I do have a couple of questions and comments in general. I appreciate what you've done to date on this. Um I think you know the the work in the ACE and the
impact of the wetlands is at the discretion of the conservation commission. Um you know first you're supposed to avoid impacting wetlands in in a an ACC. Uh then you need to minimize and you need to mitigate. Uh that said I don't think enough
attention was paid to the wetland crossing itself. Now, if you can go to that that plan sheet that shows the um the dual pipes. Now, I understand that we don't have a stream across it. I also understand that we're not in um priority
or estimated habitat, but what concerns me is that one of the values um of the ACE is wildlife. Now, you know, the priority habitat limit is a line on a piece of paper. Does it really end right there? We all know it's
probably doesn't. Um and again because the ACE is valuable to wildlife habitat, I would think at a minimum that those crossings, granted their wetlands, uh be open boxed uh colorates there and not
individual pipes. Um again, in the spirit of the ACE, number one, and number two, again, you're going to have homeowners that are going to be responsible for the upkeep. um of this site and those uh single pipes are known
to clog. They're known to have sediment accumulation. We both know that the homeowners association is going to be hardressed to know, oh, I have to go and maintain those pipes. You know, where are they going to get the money? So, I would rather see an open bottom box cover
culvert at both of those crossings. Um, and then the uh Oh, one thing the grading. If you can zoom in on the grading at uh I think it's road C.
>> Believe that's this one here. I can >> I could go to a different sheet that zooms in a bit better at each of the roads. Here we go. >> So, if you can zoom in there. was really looking carefully at this
grading and is there a wall going in? >> No, the uh applicant considered a vertical retaining wall. However, the uh impacts to install that would have been even greater um than what is proposed
which is just uh grading at a one to one slope and on each side of the road will be uh rip wrap on that one to one slope. Is that shown anywhere? That rip wrap. >> Yes, there is a cross-sectional sheet.
Uh, let me just zoom continue down here. I believe this is the roadway crossing cross-section here. So, the rip wrap is shown on each side. Okay. Okay. So, let's go back to plan view for a second. Some of that grading
looks real funky to me. Um I g I I g I guess it's one one along there for the rip wrap but then it kind of comes to a point which is not normal. Um that means you need a wall. So where all those uh contours start to converge
onto a single point. Where did I see that on the on the left side there? >> Right there where my cursor is over. >> Yeah. Yeah. That's almost physically impossible unless you extend the rip wrap almost like into a wing wall shape
because what you're doing is you're converging all those grades. I would ask your sibl to look at that again. >> So just so I understand it the it's not so much where it's tight here because that's representing the one but what you're talking about is this area here. Right.
>> Right. See they're all converging almost on onto a point. I think I saw it on the other road too which is >> okay. It's a very creative way of showing grading, but it doesn't work. >> Okay. So, you're suggesting perhaps the rip wrap should be in, you know, at least more clearly defined on the plan
view of where how far the rip rack rip wrap extends from each side, >> right? Because I think you're the grades are a little I won't say disingenuous there, but uh I don't think you're giving the contractor uh any space. Grading shouldn't come to a point,
right? We know that. So I think the rip wrap's a little shy there. >> Okay. >> Um and then you check uh you can check the other crossing uh as well. Um so the last question we had um and again
you really need to explore the use of box culverts here >> um in the in the interest of the ACE even if it's common wildlife. >> May I ask a question about that? >> Sure. So that is something I would want to talk to the engineer about because of
the both of the roads are only going to be elevated about four feet maybe as much as 5t above existing grades. I just would want to ask them about would a box cover culvert even be feasible with the subsurface utilities that would go
beneath the road and if they aren't um is that is there an alternative that the commission would request you know if it's not box culverts is it larger diameter culverts or if we can't make the box culverts work then would the two
24 inch diameter culverts be sufficient? Well, I mean, if the the if it's a shallow um and you don't have a lot of cover over it, I would say it's it's worse to have the 24s, right? Better to have the box cover because it's concrete. But anyway, that's my opinion.
Oh, yeah. See the the grading on that road B, too. See how it all comes to a point on the other side? That's we call that cheating in the real world because we just kind of shove those grades in. Um, but I did, you know, realistically you can't
grade the contractor can't make that work. So, I would ask you to extend the rip wrap in those locations. It's it's not realistic. Um, so uh I would say that if if um if you can't, you're going to have to try to come up with a modified design
for that crossing. And I hope it's open open bottom to facilitate uh wildlife passage. >> Okay. We'll look into it. I'll I'll connect with the engineer and see if it's feasible. >> Okay. Or or something similar that's
open box. Um and then uh where's John Thomas? Do are you showing any split rail fences on each of these lots that are in uh jurisdiction so there's no encroachment? Yes, we are. I just want to zoom back
down to the cross-section view. >> So, on each side there's timber post guard rails rail on the wetland crossings. >> Oh, no. I'm sorry. In each house lot, the split rail fence. >> Oh, uh,
>> that is a good question. I don't believe that's detailed on this plan in particular. I can look into that. It might be up to the contractor when they are selected for the house construction. >> Well, we would want you to show it on
each lot. Oh, I see. So, you're not coming in, but this is for each lot as well, right? We're approving the 10 lots that are in jurisdiction. Correct. Correct. >> Yes. And I I believe, you know, that's certainly something we'd be open to whether it's adding it to the plan or
identifying that it's something that would need to be provided to the commission for any of the split rail fencing layouts before it's constructed. >> Yeah, we typically ask for it on a plan set though. >> Yes. So, I think what we've been doing
for the other ones across the street is separately when they come in for a single notice of intent, we've been requesting the visual barrier on those projects specifically. So, the 10 lots that come in in the future for notice of intent applications, we're going to be
requesting a visual barrier. The applicant, I think, is aware of that. Correct. >> Yes, that's correct. >> Oh, okay. I'm sorry. I thought the lots that were in juris the houses that were in jurisdiction they were asking for permission from tonight. >> No, they're going to come in separately
for individual notice of intents. >> Is that stated anywhere? >> Yes. Uh that's in our notice of intent narrative. Uh we indicated that this request is to approve the subdivision
roadway grading storm water management and the house lots are depicted or the development of the house lots and grading um is depicted for each individual lot for the purposes of justifying the storm water design but
the individual house construction will be uh permitted separately. We do note that in the notice of intent narrative. >> Okay. So, the narrative is not enough. Um, I don't want a contractor looking at this set of plans specking out uh all these houses. So, I want big bold
letters somewhere all right on the plan set that no house lots, you know, any house lots within the 100 foot buffer zone are not part of this um approval or application, however you want to word it. So, it's really clear. Contractor
doesn't always read the notice of intent, but they do read the plans. I intend on putting that in the order too, by the way, just to work clear. Lisa, >> okay, so it should go on the plans because I look at this plan set. I would have only put the houses on the storm water set. I look at this set of plans
and it looks like we're approving house lots, too. There's no distinction in the plan set. So, you need to make that distinction really clear. >> Understood. >> Okay. Um, any other comments? Uh John or anybody
from on the commission? >> I'm all set for right now. I know we're not going to be rendering a decision this this evening. So I know they have a lot of revisions they need to make. So once we're fine-tuned, I'll have some more comments then. >> All right. Uh what was the gist of the stormwater comments, John?
>> Uh well, my understanding is that uh they had to make some adjustments. Um Pat Brennan from uh PGB uh gave some responses and I don't want to go into detail because it was quite a quite a list. Um but what I will say
>> quality, quantity, what was it? Both. >> It was a little bit of both. And uh the the engineers working on getting those refinements done so that way they can be on the next agenda. >> Okay. >> All right. Great.
>> We have one quick one, Lisa. uh the silt fence versus the sock uh especially where the environmental sensitivity is in the site. Um does that change anything for wildlife or migration or
time frame? I know we're asking for a vernal pool study but it just does it become a roadblock? it it does become a roadblock. And that is also uh one of my comments is would
be for when they plan on constructing and and facilitating development out here, when they plan on doing all the work. Um I would make a strong recommendation to wait till vernal pool season is over. Uh so that way it doesn't become an issue. Um but you
know, obviously that's something that the applicant needs to advise us on when they plan on doing construction. But we first need to decide um once the permit is rendered. So you know it's just a end of kind of discussion that we'd have with the applicant.
>> So the other thing is it doesn't have to be a beall and endall. We don't have to have all silk vents or all you you got to think outside of the box. So perhaps the the answer is the compost filter tubes or the whatever you're going to use uh is in that corridor that we're actually staring at right here on both
sides of the vernal pool. and everything else is a sill fence. So, we can get creative. Just saying. >> And my my other question was the uh guard rails at the process. Is there more permanent, you know, I I
understand, you know, we see this in town, you know, where they're constructed of wood like this, but they they just don't seem to be lasting as long as they used to. And that means that we're back into these sensitive areas again. Um I don't I don't I'm just asking if
there is a another or an alternative that we can look at that's more permanent especially where this is a sensitive site and it would minimalize future impact. >> It's just a question. So Claire, if you could ask the civil to look into
alternatives for that that >> I will I will look into that. I'll ask the civil to look into that. I'm I'm just curious to get their feedback on whether uh metal guard rails are not preferred because they would require footings to be installed that could
increase wetland impacts to install them. But uh I am not the expert. So I I would love to chat with them first before giving the commission an answer on that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So, uh John, I'm going to ask you at
some point to start looking at uh Red Mill Village, uh the order and conditions for that because we are going to be uh uh I'm going to be diligent about putting in conditions here that because a homeowners association has to execute
this and I think we should also consider having the O andM uh attached to the order of conditions. I think it should go on every deed uh for every purchase uh so that the homeowners everybody that is there understands what is what the
expectation is. Um and then perhaps when the when the developer hands it over to the uh association and or the management company uh that the uh one of those entities uh has to come before the commission so they understand
what they're taking ownership of. So, >> understood. I will pull the red mill order conditions. I think that was what back in 2018 or sometime sometime around then. >> Um, but I'll pull it and see what I can get and put it up so that way people can
review it uh prior to that. >> Okay. >> And then also um the if if you could scrub the uh the O andM plan for uh I'll say wishy-washy words so that it's understood again. and it's going to
be implemented by Joe Q public. They have to understand what the obligation is. >> So, it needs to be clearly written. I think it I think maybe having like a guideline set up of what the on andm's going to be like a short-term version of it because you know the challenge that
you run into with with residents and you know they're not going to want to read the whole entire on and m they're going to want a bullet list and I think maybe that's kind of what we would need for them just to have of um what they're bas like a one to two page you know bullet list for them but I think I think
redmail did one like that so I'll I'll pull that together too >> okay but I mean in addition to this, you know, where they know what their obligation is in terms of in inspections and maintenance. That's that that's the given that will be attached, but then maybe just the the summary for them.
>> Yeah, I think having an abstract version would definitely help. Um Okay. And if they need to if they need to look at more detail, they can refer to the the the larger document. >> Yeah. Okay. If we can append this to the order, uh I think we need to. So,
>> all right. I'll take notes on that one. >> Uh, are there any further question? >> Can I just get a better understanding of that? So, are you asking for the applicant's team to prepare something that's uh more digestible for this plan or I I
just want to clarify if there's a request for us to provide. >> So, for the record, we're going to do two things. We're going to look at this and we're going to scrub it for is this conducive to Joe Q public implementing this. At the same time, I would ask that your civil will go through through this
and and remove words like primarily and be more succinct. So, it's going to be a two two-step process. >> Okay, understood. >> Yeah. So, you do your homework and we'll do ours and we'll we'll come together and
maybe have a comprehensive uh O and M or execution by a regular homeowner. >> Okay. All right. So, if I know we have to continue this public hearing. Claire has a list uh and
we're waiting for the P storm water peer review to complete. Um with that said, I will entertain a motion to continue. Oh, I should say ask if there are any um questions um from the uh audience and the public uh
relating to zero Pine Street weakness dates. Okay, >> you have a hand up. >> Uh, Lisa, >> sorry, didn't see that. Uh, Bob B, could you identify yourself, uh, your name and address for the record and ask your
question? >> Uh, yep. This is Bob Butler, 133 Pine Street. Um, just have one question. Um, on the underground, uh, fuel tank. Um, so now we're gone from electric back to
a underground propane tank. >> Um, is that uh allowable in the ACEC wetlands um wellhead protection area? Like is there concerns there? Is there special
permitting needed? >> Uh, that's a good question. Claire, do you want to take that? Are there provisions? Do you have to have secondary containment for propane? I don't know a lot about propane. Anybody want to add this one? >> I will admit as a wetland scientist that is not my area of expertise either. Uh
>> okay. >> I to my knowledge under the wetlands protection act. Uh you know it's subject to the commission's jurisdiction if it's in the 100 foot buffer zone and in their jurisdiction. Um, but to my knowledge, there are no specific provisions or
performance standards for a tank, a oil tank or uh propane tank associated with that. It certainly would not be going in the wetlands itself. We would not be installing these within the bordering vegetated wetlands. Again, they would have to be set 10 ft off of the
foundation of the house and we have no homes within 25 ft of the wetland boundary. So I I don't foresee an issue with that affecting the wetlands themselves. Um so again I I don't believe there's any
specific permitting required for those uh with the commission. Um, and from my review of the ACE designation document, I didn't see anything very specific even to guidelines or restrictions on house
development and what's, you know, a specific component of that. Um, you know, their values are associated with um water quality, groundwater quality, wildlife habitat, and resource area
protection. So, um, you know, proposing these tanks out as far from wetlands as possible certainly is a mitigation effort, um, to ensure the protection of resource areas within the site. And, um, I could certainly
look into more information from the applicant and with respect to what what are the potential risks, if any, um, if there's a failure and what would that look like? um and if there are um
any considerations to um ensuring something like that doesn't happen in this location. >> Yeah, that that would be appreciated. Uh Claire, even for my own benefit of um I guess pro subsurface propane tanks as a potential pollutant source. Now that
said, is there I mean I'm just looking at the layout now. is, you know, you said it has to be 20 ft from the foundation. So, I'm thinking that you may be able to locate those outside of the uh can you look I mean, first and
foremost, you want to avoid. So, can you locate those tanks um outside of the buffer zone completely? And if not, can you locate them as far outside, you know, from the edge of the wetland as possible? That's going to be, I guess, the exercise uh when you come in for the
house lots. Yes, I I agree with that. And just by the looks of it, we have the 100 foot buffer zone in the dashed sort of light orange line work. A majority of the houses, again, from my not being an expert on this, appear to have space
outside of that 100 foot buffer. Uh except we do have one, >> definitely two. This house is currently shown entirely within the 100 foot buffer. um and potentially three uh that it's a little tight. So, I I at this
time can't really confirm that it's a definite possibility that all of these houses would have it located outside the buffer zone, but I do appreciate the suggestion of proposing them as far away from the wetland boundary as possible if it's if
it works with the house design when they come before the commission. >> Okay, that makes sense. Um, so Bob, did you have any followup to that? >> I I just, you know, just googling it real quick. It says wetlands often have high water tables and saturated soils
that accelerate tank corrosion and facilitate rapid pollutant spread while not explicitly banned everywhere. Stringent uh D permits and secondary containment are usually required to prevent leaks. So any installation of a subsurface tank
would have to meet the state standard. So well those aren't proposed as part of this project at the moment. So I would ask that when the applicant comes in they give us a standard detail on those. So you go up sorry the the house lots are not proposed as part of this. Right
now we're just looking at the infrastructure the roadways the grading the drainage the crossings. So, >> right, >> they're not asking for permission to install propane tanks at this time, but I will um I will say that um if and when
you do come in for the house lots that you provide that information, typical detail um and and maybe it will go a long way to um you know uh maybe referencing a a building code or a D code about the integrity of those tanks.
Understood. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> Uh Okay. Are you all set, Bo? >> Yes. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you for participating. >> Lisa, I just want everybody know I'd returned and I did hear most of this
one. >> Okay. Is your neighbor okay? >> I was I was cut out as well for a while there. So, >> yeah. >> Sorry about that. we can >> best we can do under the circumstances
with the weather out there. Okay. Um I am looking for a motion to continue the public hearing for file 250-1203 for weakness dates. >> So move >> uh who beat who? Uh I think Joe made the
motion. Dan second roll call vote. Joe and Dan. >> Hi. >> Oh, did you say I Joe? I missed that. Okay. Uh Courtney and Mark. >> Hi. >> I >> uh and I will throw in an I. And that is
to uh continuation until the uh March 9th public hearing. >> Excellent. Thank you so much for your time and uh hope everyone stays safe out there. >> Great. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. All right. So, the next is 250-1204,
but we don't need it to vote on that continuation because we already did, right? That's Is that March 9th as well? >> The next one. So, it's I think it's the 23rd. >> Uh, >> yes, it's the 23rd. >> No, March 9th. >> No, the one after that.
>> The Oh, uh, yeah, March 23rd. Sorry. Yep. What are the chances? Two two months in a row. 9 and 23. Okay. Sorry, I was getting confused. All right. Uh, so there's no new public hearings. Yay. Uh, okay. We're on to the
request for certificate of compliance for file 250-275, which 275. Really? 26 Barrels Court. I >> It's It's an old one. And
>> it's ancient. >> It is ancient. And I did a um site review. I looked at some aerial photoggramometry as well and it doesn't look like they have changed anything uh since then uh that we would need to take any sort of action on. Um they sent me
over a plan from the '9s and I looked at it and everything seems to be in order. Uh they haven't changed the septic system either. So, uh, they're trying to sell their house and they're looking for a closeout for it so that way they can make the sale.
>> Yeah. All right. So, I'm looking for a motion to issue a full COC for 250-275. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Motion by Dan. Second by Mark. Roll call vote. Mark and Dan.
>> I. >> Joe and Courtney. >> I. and I will vote I uh moving on to uh so we don't have to do we don't have to act on anything but the rail trail
the high school is that right >> they haven't provided us any new information so no >> okay uh any or any orders tonight >> we should have four orders >> four
>> yeah one for 50 clap street one and then the three for the our main property. So, >> okay. So, let's look at 50 Clap Street first. Okay. >> So, I left a proposed condition in there in the event that they wanted to pave
the driveway. I don't know what your thoughts are on that. I thought it would be a good idea though, but I'd like your feedback on that. >> Uh, which condition is that, John? >> Oh, let me just pull it up real quick. >> Okay. Let's see.
All right, let me just pull this up. Share. I I see the language and I wholeheartedly approve it because that's what happened to my house. I ended up having to pay it because it was a mess, >> right? So, you know, I I I took some
time looking at this and I said, >> you know, I'm like, what if they wanted to pave it in the future? You know, I don't I don't want to have them to have to come back and file for a separate, >> you know, notice of intent application to do that. So >> yeah, that and the fact that the rip
wrap is now in place to handle either one, >> right? >> Yeah. >> So if they if they find out that the gravel road scenario isn't working out, you know, in the future and it's a mess with during, you know, snow operations,
then for instance, they have the opportunity to pave the rest of it. >> Okay, makes perfect sense to me. Anybody have any questions or comments for the order conditions? >> So, I'll just remove that last sentence
that's in yellow because we don't need to put that in there, >> right? Commission should discuss. Yep. If everybody's in agreement that that makes sense. All right. So if there are no further comments on this, I need a motion to accept uh the order as written for
250-1198. >> So move >> uh that was a motion by Mark, second by Joe. Uh roll call Mark and Joe. I >> Dan and Courtney.
Hi. and I'll vote an eye. All right. Uh, next up, I was trying to be done by 8:00. I tried. I tried. You're doing a great job, Lisa. So, don't worry about it. >> You are. I was thinking that myself.
You're You're moving things right along. >> Moving them along. All right. Are we at nine, Termaine? >> Yeah. Did you want me to pull it up on screen or are you guys okay? >> I have it on screen so I'm I'm good. So they gave us the visual barrier,
right? Should we take that one off? >> We can remove the visual barrier condition. >> Okay. because they they provided that, right? >> Yep. >> Okay, that's the only comment I had. >> Okay. >> Uh, anybody else?
>> Yep. This is pretty straightforward. Uh, so I need a motion to accept the uh conditions for file 250-1200. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Motion by Joe. I think Courtney beat you
up uh for second. Look at that dog. You're distracting me. Uh John, hold on. That was a motion from Joe. Second by Courtney. Roll call vote. Mark and Dan. >> I
Joe and Courtney. >> Yes. >> And I will vote on. >> All right. Now, now I can focus. What is the dog's name? You better have a dog's name. Is it Is it a bullfold bulldog? >> Brutus. >> She's an English bulldog. Her name's Zoe.
>> She's an English bulldog. Wow. Cool. All right, moving right along to 27 Germaine Way because of course we can't go underwater. So, we go 25 27. But that's okay. Um again, so do I think we need to take off the site plan showing vis
visual barrier? >> Yeah, we're going to take off all those. >> Okay. So basically authorize the work for a new residential home. Okay. Any comments, questions? If not, I will entertain a motion to
issue the order of conditions for file 250-1201. Motion by Joe, second by Courtney. Once again, um Dan and Mark, excuse me. >> I I >> Joe and Courtney.
>> I I >> And I will vote I. Okay. Uh next one is 27. No, 25. We just did 27. You try to screw me up here. 25 Germaine Way 250.
>> We're going to remove the visual barrier. Just letting you know. >> Okay. 1202. Uh we're going to remove the visual barrier reference because it's already on the plan. And are there any other comments or questions? I need a motion.
>> So move. >> Me. Mark. >> Motion by Mark Courtney. Was that a second? >> Yep. >> Okay. Uh second by Courtney. Uh, roll call vote. Mark and Dan, >> I I >> uh Joe and Courtney,
>> I >> I >> And I will vote I. >> And what's last? I think you mentioned there was another one. >> There were three orders and I think we got through them. All right. >> Oh,
>> three for Germaine. >> Yep. And one for Clap. >> And one for Clap. Is that it? >> That's it. >> Come on. I want more. John, let's go. >> You know, you got to tell Norton to keep developing. That's what I got to say. So, >> no more development.
>> Um, I will be out. I will be in Florida this week and I will return next week. So, if anybody sends me an email, I will not respond. So, feel free to reach out to Megan. I have to go down to Florida um for a celebration of life for my father. So, um that's what that's going
to be. So, um >> are you going to be able to get out? Like >> I'm hoping we we fly out Wednesday night, so we're hoping >> Wednesday night. >> Yeah, we'll see. >> That timing was good, though. Gives you a couple days. >> We'll see. We'll see.
>> But Yep. All right. Well, um going to need a roll call for German here. >> Yep. Roll call vote for German at 8:07 p.m. Mark and Dan. >> Hi. >> Dan. Dan just wants to go home. I get it. Dan, that was a yes. Joe and
Courtney. >> Yes. Bye. >> Bye. >> And I'll throw in. >> Am I still there? I I last one. Can you hear me? >> Yeah, we got it. You said yes. >> Okay, good.
>> Okay, thanks people. Stay strong. Stay safe. >> All right, enjoy snow. Enjoy the snow, shoveling, snow, snow blowing, everything. Take care, guys. >> Think about us when you're in Florida.