So, uh this is the start of um Norton Conservation Commission uh regular scheduled meeting for January 26th, 2026. Um, participating members participating
tonight are myself, Julian Kadish, chair, uh, Dan Pearson, clerk, and we also have Mark Fernandez and Joe Corbalo. Um,
and, uh, director is John Thomas. He is on. And we also have our assistant make it her up on Zoom as well. This is a meeting totally conducted over Zoom because
because of a recent substantial snowstorm uh making an in-person option not possible. So, um, hang on, having some computer issues.
There we go. Um, so, first item on the agenda tonight is um minutes, which I think we do have uh enough members uh to do. Any comments on
the minutes of January 12th? Um, we had a full board for that meeting and any questions, comments, revisions. Uh, if not, I can entertain a motion to approve the minutes as submitted.
>> So move. >> Second. Motion by Jeff Joe, seconded by Mark. Uh Dan and Joe, how do you vote? >> I I >> and Mark >> I. >> And I will throw in an I. Motion
carries. Next on the agenda is uh violations. Any any new uh information about 181 West Main Street that we need to bring up? >> No, not right now. I know that they're working on getting some
information. They talked about the last meeting. So, I haven't heard I haven't received anything from them. Um, and my understanding is that they're not here tonight. So, that gives me indication that they're going to need some more time. So, we'll wait till next meeting. I'll try to get in coordinate with them in the in the in the meantime.
>> All right. Um our next item is continuences in this hearing which would be uh related to the continued public hearings. Um we have two that have requested continuences. The first one is
uh Abrao Lane file number 250 1191. They're requesting a continuation until February 9th. >> Uh Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to continue file 250191 to February 9th.
>> So now you on Yes. >> Uh we have a second. >> Second. >> Uh I think Joe got that one. So uh a motion by Dan, seconded by Joe. Uh Dan and Joe, how do you vote?
>> I I >> and Mark >> I. >> And I'll throw in an I. Motion carries. And then our next continuation is um uh 50 Clap Street file number 250198.
Um they also requested continuation until February 9th. >> So moved. >> Second. >> We have a motion by Dan, seconded by Joe. Dan and Joe, how do you vote?
>> I. and Mark >> Hi. >> And I'll throw in an I. The motion carries. Um so uh next up is um any public inquiries,
departmental updates? Uh you do have the conservation internship, but we talked about that last round, but >> we did we did receive one inquiry. Um Craig Siginowski is actually on the call. I met with him last week with his potential client. Um they're looking to
do a permit application potentially um over at 376 Old Colony Road. This is Steve Lasciva's property. Um but the applicant is a different individual and he is interested in parking cars on the
property. I told him basically that you know the the challenges with that are you know proximity of parking the cars near wetlands making sure that for instance those areas are protected in addition making sure that the wet wetland mitigation
um you know review and requirements are followed through for that property in entirety because we don't want that to go by the wayside. So that would be wrapped up potentially in any sort of future permit. Um, but for us to issue an order conditions on this, we would
first have to release an enforcement order that's been on the property since the late '9s. So, that's kind of the it in a nutshell. But Craig, I don't know if you want to um share this share your screen and kind of show the um the
commission kind of your thoughts for a rendering for that. Uh >> Craig, it looks like you're muted. Can I see it now? >> Am I Oh, am I muted? >> Uh, no. We hear you.
>> No, we can hear you. >> So, okay. Um, 376. I don't know if either Steve or Paul, excuse me, Paul Samo is a used car dealer out of Rhode Island and he's looking to put used cars on this property. the existing buildings
in the front over here. The uh when what is now a liquor store and some used to be uh green houses, some are still intact and in place. Currently, Steve uses it for his landscaping.
So, this is what they're looking to do. Uh so it's not it's not parking like a parking lot where they you know people come in and out. This is maybe stacking used cars on the lot. So
the spaces are a little bit smaller. So the fir these spaces over here are currently being used by the store. This is where the existing bins are for the landscaping in this general area. And this is what they're looking to do with cars.
So you'd have 25 over here. Of course, we have the wetlands right along the property line here with a 25 ft buffer. We would propose either a post and rail fence or a row of boulders to keep
people out of the 25 ft buffer as well as the veral pool that we have here, the existing replication that Steve did for uh the wetlands violation. And then the BBW along the northwest property line is
a so the 25 foot buffer would be protected. Um and they would eventually if this gets going be looking to convert this building into some type of repair shop which would not be for the general public. It would just be for the cars
that are kept on the lot. So, as John said, we'd have to have an O andM uh in place prior to the filing as well as a post. What would happen afterwards as far as, you know, they're going to have attendance on site for used car sales. I
believe there's a small office right in this corner of the existing building that is vacant at this time. That's where the they would stay. Uh so they could they'll have to set it up so that they can check the site on a daily basis for possible leaks and
whatever else with the cars, but this is what he's hoping to do. Um obviously this whole area has previously been disturbed. It's pretty much flat. It's a one 109 running around here. This is
where we put the septic system for the existing store. So it's a little bit higher up. Um, supposedly that's all uh H20 loading and can handle cars on top of it. We need to confirm that. We met with the border health agent the other
day where we're talking to John. So, he wants to see some confirmation that cars could be parked up here. So, obviously, we would move the landscaping bins and that would be part of the notice of intent would be to re to replace them further down the line
outside the 25T buffer. That's a general idea of what they'd like to do. I don't know if Paul Simones is on tonight or I mean they knew about the meeting. So, >> all right. You ready for questions, Greg? >> Sure.
>> Well, this this activity is permitted by the board of selectman. Is that correct? >> Yeah. He's you would have to go for his used car lot license. He wanted to do this first to see if it was even a possibility.
>> Well, I guess the question is what is the higher uh bar? Is it getting the used car license or is it getting this site up to to standards for
being sure there's no contamination of the adjoining wetlands? >> Uh that I don't know the answer to. I've only worked on one of the one other used car lot in town right down the road actually, but we weren't involved in the process of getting the license. They were taking over an existing
uh site. So, I don't know the answer to your question. Uh, >> okay. >> Paul would be on tonight. He knew about the meeting. So, >> yeah. Uh, and I guess the next question is, are all of these cars intended to be in
running order and not in need of repair for leaks and and stuff like that? Yeah, that when we met informally with John the other day, he he did indicate that these cars would not, you know, not need
repair, but then again, he's al also phase two would have a repair shop, but they bring in used cars and I would assume they would look them over in that shop and get them to the point where they could be put on the lot and ensure that they're not leaking. But that's why
you'd have to have an on andm process and somebody would have to be able to check it on a daily basis. Yeah. And I I remember Paul indicating that his plan first is to bring the cars in uh along the road along Old Colony
Road and have them inspected by the attendants and the the mechanics that are going to be basically taking a look at these cars. And then once they're basically confident that the cars are not going to propose or propose or have any sort of
potential issues with any leaks or whatnot, they would be moved back into areas that might be in more sensitive environmental areas like the buffer zone. So that's what he indicated to me. Um, I would presume that's going to be in his ONM as part of the process because, you know, that's what I would
want him to do if that was the first first step in trying to make sure that, for instance, there's going to be no uh leaks or any sort of hazardous spills or anything happening within our jurisdiction. >> Right. Thank agreed. >> I have a couple questions here. >> Yeah, go ahead.
>> Is any of this material going to be impervious surface in here? Is the thought process to that? The intention is they don't want to pave >> even if it's not pavement. Is it going to be stone? What would the material be?
>> Right now it's gravel and it's >> uh the general route been traveled many often times with trucks already. So I mean these these areas are more or less just stripped of top soil but probably not traveled on. So, we'd have to look
into what, you know, what would be the best. It was me, I'd want pavement, but that's not what my client wants. >> And is this site capable of doing any storm water treatment on it? Because we're
looking, you know, when you're going to There's a lot going on here. >> Well, again, that's why I would want pavement. It makes it easier. Uh, keep it clean. Um, >> th this this was once the site of 370
construction. Is that correct? >> What was that? Oh, I I do not know the answer to that. When we took it on, it was completely vacant. I don't remember what the uh previous building was. >> Okay. Right now, I think there's a
liquor store here and a um loom and storage um just a stockpile material uh company that's using the space, >> right? All up all up front. The the landscape bins are in this area and right around here. >> Even the way at Joan here, I mean, it
doesn't look like they'll even be placed for snow storage. So, you know, with what we're seeing in front of us, this is >> we're trying to use every single inch of what's there without compensating anything else. >> Yep. That's why we wanted to come before
you as an informal to see I agree with. We're going to need to see what, you know, snow storage and and I again, if if it was me alone, I would say we need pavement and drainage system for the leaks, but they obviously don't
want to. If we get to that point, then we'll bring in I was I would recommend bringing in JDE Civil, which we've been I've been working with uh you know, they take on the full drainage study and so forth uh at that point, but client
doesn't want to do that. Um, so >> yeah, but but also this this plan of trying to put uh well, it's not 99 parking spots, but it's if you remove
Well, let's see. You're saying the 1 to5 is not part of this. That that goes to the the existing store. Yeah, there was currently there that the entire front is existing pavement up until >> but but then then they start with a new
sequence one to 99, >> right? >> With the idea that they would presumably have as many as 99 used cars on this lot, which the way it's the way it's um
laid out is highly impractical. just moving around 99 cars if you have somebody well I want to see car 67 and you know you have to I mean it's impossible the way it's laid out uh to
get those get 67 out of there without moving a whole bunch of other cars. So what I see happening is the the 25 ft would in practice become non-existent.
It was just they would just totally uh run over any kind of barriers. Uh I mean unless it were a physical barrier there. >> Yeah, we were proposing either a fence or boulders and probably in the more sensitive areas you'd have to go to a
fence then want to bring boulders on top of the replication area along here. >> I think I I think we need some some real engineering here. this is to even try to come up with anything here. It's just >> and and I think the the plan to be
realistic would be, you know, 50 lots would would be as a business something resembling more practical. Uh and 50 lots is a fairly large used car
operation. So I I think they kind of I don't know what the thought was. Well, let's just throw spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks. I mean, that's kind of my response to this. But anyway, I mean, anybody else have comments about
the practicality of this layout? >> So, I guess just to recap, Julian, your comments there, what you're saying is everything to the south of the greenhouse. So, as we're looking at this map to our left, um, that would need to be removed for
you to even entertain this, uh, concept, right? Does that seem reasonable? >> Well, I'm not sure removed. I I would I mean, if they're going to put a physical barrier >> Mhm. fine. But the idea of putting this
density of parking lots of of parking spaces and and at the same time being able to operate a business just seems I'll I'll use the term marketkedly impractical.
uh you know, if you're going to have attendants trying to move around cars so that one can be examined and test driven and things like that, um it's just far too many parking spaces.
It should be half as many so that there can be ways to maneuver these cars. And u I was just going to say, did we talk about snow removal yet? Yeah, >> Joe Joe did bring up the point of snow removal, Dan. So,
>> okay. Sorry. >> That's something that's gonna have to be >> That's something of that's going to be in with the permit application and their onm. >> And the other thing is I don't see fire access all the way around this is being a used car lot, the ability to get fire
in here turned around. I mean, a fire truck can't turn around in here the way this is laid out, you know, then that's going to put them into our wetlands or potentially who knows where. It's just >> Yeah, it's I mean, why did they choose
this site? This this seems like you're trying to make any kind of business owner tear their hair out. Um, anyway, I I just I'm all right. Well, I think I think
>> I'd like to see storm water in here. >> I think I think Craig has has received a lot I don't want to get too more in on this, but I think Craig has definitely um received a lot of feedback on this. So, I I I would anticipate that Craig's going to go back to his client and let him know of the situation. And Craig, if
you need me to send you over summary of some stuff, too, just let me know. Okay. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. >> Yep. All right. So, that was um public inquiries. Um and you were implying that um your
conservation internship is is a plus and a positive. Any further comments you want to make about that? No, I I think you know we've we had about maybe an hour and a half conversation of just trying to understand what um Kaya is
looking basically to um learn and I'm going to basically set up a program where Kaia can learn from what they're interested in. So that's what I'm going to do and part of it is understanding wetland science and how to delineate wetlands. And I basically said, "Well,
get get ready cuz we're going to go do some uh winter winter investigations." So, always fun. >> And and when is this intern uh present in the office? >> Mondays and Wednesdays. Uh not today, though. Um >> Okay.
>> But this upcoming Wednesday, he will be in the office. So it's um um all day or and this is >> from from about 10 to about well he has he has soccer practice so 10 to about
2:30ish. >> Okay. And this is a uh a Weaten student. >> Uh this is a Stonehill College student. >> Stonehill. Okay. >> Yes. >> All right. Very good. And uh so I think we're ready to move on to continue
public hearings. So, we've taken care of uh our first one with a continuation. Uh the next one is 93 King Phillip Road, which was a restoration um plan review. And as I understand it,
we gathered all the information. We're ready to close the public hearing and later issue an order of conditions. Does that sound right? Yeah, that's that's if the commission feels comfortable with everything um that was discussed the last meeting,
>> right? We reviewed the proposed plan last time >> and I'm I'm okay. Anybody have a questions or comments before we proceed to an order? Uh a motion. >> I would just ask the public if they have anything before we close.
>> All right. Um, so this is open for any public comment as it was the last hearing. Uh, anybody have any questions who is on the Zoom meeting? Uh, and you can do that by either going to the
reactions button and raising pressing the the hand symbol or you can just take your mic off mute and identify yourself and ask your question. But I don't hear anything or see anything. So I think we're ready for a
motion to close. >> So moved. >> Seconded by Mark. Uh Dan and Joe. How do you vote? >> I I >> And Mark I. >> And I'll throw in an I. So, this hearing is closed. We'll address the order of
conditions later. Um, we're moving on to file number 250-1196, which is uh the Mansfield Avenue project at the intersection of Mansfield Avenue and uh Ravar Street in Norton. Um
involves two 36 unit apartment buildings. So again, we reviewed this in detail last meeting and I think we have all of the relevant information. Any further questions or comments from
commission members? Uh any comments or questions from members of the Zoom audience? And if not, we can consider a motion to close the hearing for file number
250-1196. >> So moved. >> We have a motion to mark seconded by >> second. >> Seconded by Dan. Dan and Joe, how do you vote? >> I >> I.
>> And Mark >> I. >> And I'll throw in an I. Motion carries. The hearing for file 250-1196 is closed. We'll address the order of conditions subsequently.
File number 250-1197 which is 113 King Phillip Road. proposed um work for construction of a house addition uh on posts. Um again I I are there any questions or comments? I think
we gathered >> one one thing I just need to get um Craig to let the commission know was the he updated the init basically stated on the record. Craig, can you just let us know what the overall um square footage
and cubic volume of impacts is going to be for the BLSF? >> Uh, sure. Um, so we share screen. >> So there nine posts. We did the math on the actual columns. They're 4.7 cubic
feet, total of 42.3, but then figuring they're going to disturb while they dig. And then so it's 144 square feet of disturbance. Uh the cubic feet we is at 42.3 and then we're uh
compensating 79.9 by regrading this area here. I can get at the plus button. Bringing the contours in here. They had the driveway ends over here. So the 73
73.4 4 which is the uh flood plane level and then the 74 move the dry well outside so it's no not going to be within the uh flood plane area. So that's where we uh proposing the conversation.
>> So in in uh the findings it has bordering land subject to flooding BLSF approximately xxx. So, is that is that the 144 you were looking for uh John or
>> Yes. Yes. And I'll add the in the when we issue an order for this one. My that's my understanding we're going to um I will also update the cubic um the cubic foot uh foot disturbance as well. >> Well, I think I sent you an updated uh
sheet. Yep, I have it. I just wasn't in the office to read the plan. Sorry. >> All right. >> Not a problem. My client's on uh >> All right.
>> She got out of the snow. >> All right. Um so any questions? Any further questions from anybody on on the commission or anybody on the call? Um,
if not, I think we can consider a motion to close the hearing for 113 King Phillip Road. That's file 250-197. >> So moved. >> Motion by >> and it's seconded by Mark. Um,
Dan and Joe, how do you vote? I >> I >> and Mark >> I I'll throw in an I motion carries. The next continued hearing we have continued again at 50 Clap Street continued to
February 9th. We now have a new public hearing for well, we don't have a file number, but it's zero Hodgees Street notice of intent uh for a construction of a temporary stream crossing to access uplands. Do we
have a representative of the applicant? >> Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, Brian Dunn with MBL Land Development and Peritting on behalf of uh Pascal Latu, the owner of the property. I think she's on the call as well. And uh
>> hello everyone. >> You can probably share your screen for the plan. So we prepared a uh notice of intent uh for this temporary um access. Uh Mr. chairman, members of
the commission, a very detailed report. Uh, as you can see, uh, hopefully you have a copy of that or were given a copy of this application. Um, as you know, uh, this commission issued an ORAD, uh, for this property,
and I can also share the plans, too. But I just wanted to quickly go over the application that we submitted so you can see what we submitted in detail. um describes the site conditions, the location,
um where the flood zone is, the ORAD issues uh on the resource areas uh for the wetlands, bank and riverfront areas were approved back in August of 2025. And then a description of, you know,
what we're trying to do. Uh let me get to that that plan. Hold on for a second. So, um, okay. So, here's an overview of the property. As you you may remember seeing it one
time when we did the overad application and was approved. It's the all of these uh lots. One, two, three, four. Brian, I hadn't come through yet. >> Okay, >> it's still >> I I can see it. >> Oh, there we go. Okay,
>> I can see it on my screen. >> I see it now. >> Okay, so that's uh really the existing conditions plan. Let me just get to a um really a USGS map. So this is East Toddes right here and this is the entire
property that we're we're talking about doing this uh crossing. So um and then we we uh prepared the uh temporary crossing plan and here's the the ORAD plan that we
just kind of regurgitated. Here's the vernal pool and then here you can see here's the the limits of the uh the stream area here. for the Meadow Brook and then for the temporary crossing. What we're trying to propose is really
coming off of East Hodgeges 15 ft wide um access. And then what we what we did here is we had the surveyors go out, locate trees and try to give us uh the best location
that would be uh would minimize the amount of alteration in this area of trees. So this area here really goes around the trees that are that are in this area uh as part of this temporary
crossing. And we discussed with John um and also with um Paul the planner about trying to do this in winter conditions in frozen conditions and we're we're kind of right up against it right now. So it's a a good time to do this and to
have this crossing. So, what we're proposing to do is have these like what we call these mega deck swamp mats uh in that area of the crossing so the small excavator can drive over uh in that area
uh so that um there's really really no permanent damage or alteration in the resource area uh that we're showing here. But those those mega mats have to be put in place
by what size um piece of equipment? >> They're actually 7 and 1/2 uh ft wide. So each section um uh can can be placed with a with a mini excavator and um you know doubled up for
the access so that the the mini excavator can drive over it. I think I said 15 ft wide. So each mat is 7 and a half plus or minus. So it would be uh able to access uh the mat go over it.
And this is a classic HDPE type of mat. This is what national grid uses when they uh cross over wetlands areas when they're doing work in their uh utility easements and power power easements that they have throughout the Commonwealth.
uh this is a known proven uh use to to make this type of access. And then on either side of the mats we also have you know erosion control with the uh filter mitt uh sedimentation uh erosion control barrier that would be
also installed as part of this uh temporary crossing. Yeah, you have angles there. Uh, I mean a right angle at one point. And you're saying your mini excavator is small enough that in order to make that right angle turn, it would not come off the
mat. >> No, I mean the the the mini excavators are, you know, they're they're not as big as a regular excavator. So, or a backhoe. So, >> Brian, when you say mini excavator, can you give me an idea on,000 pounds? What
size mini excavator are we talking? 10,000lb escal. What's the size of >> 20,000lb esavator? >> Hold on for a second. I'll I'll give me a second. >> Uh Pascal, what's the size of the machine that that uh Charbell is going to use?
>> Around 12,000. >> Thank you. All right. Um, >> yeah, if I want to I want to call it a mini excavator, it's like a Bobcat uh mini excavator. It's a quite small. >> So, it has about an 8ft reach on the on
the the back the bucket. >> Okay. >> Exactly. >> All right. So, it's it's about the size of a of a small tractor with the back hoe on the back of it then. >> Yeah, I can get you the exact dimensions. Hold on. Well, I mean, if
you if you say that that width is adequate so that it can turn without going off the the the stuff, I mean, I'll I'll believe you. >> Yeah. The the intent is for them not to drive over that. I mean, we're going to
be on site when they're uh placing these mats. We're also going to be there when we're doing the perk tests. So the intent was and what we did with this, you know, this uh layout that you have is to show a layout that does not
permanently disturb trees. So you know, we we looked at this, made sure it was 15 ft wide, was adequate for that machine to go and maneuver, and they can they can go there and um you know, easily turn right and turn left. I mean, 15 feet is quite wide for this type of a
machine. >> Yeah. Well, you're in the you're in some very iffy soils there. So, if you go off that mat, you may even though things are
frozen in the wetland, it may not be adequately frozen and you could lose the machine into the wetland and have a hell of a time getting. >> That's Yeah, that's that's not our intent. I mean, if we had to um make sure we we'll we'll make sure that he
stays on the mats. >> Yeah. If he wants to have a good day. >> Yeah. >> He would stay on the mat. >> Yep. So, 15 ft is should be wide enough for that machine. And like I said, we if you look at closely closer uh to uh the
plan, you can see you see the red um X's here. Those are the center line stakes um that the surveyors put in uh where the where the best crossing would be. And then we also took pictures of this
crossing too uh so that we had a good really good idea of where this you know temporary crossing was going to be. >> Okay. >> So this is this has been pretty well thought out. We just didn't you know throw it on a plan and say that's where
we want to cross. So, it was it's been planned out specifically where we need to go. >> One quick one on these swamp mats. Are we pitch bowling them or are we using a swamp mat entirely along the way? So, there's going to be a swamp mat that stays the entire time or we moving them
in front and moving them as we track or you know what's the operation plan for this? the the the intent would be to put all of these in place, leave them in place so that we can because we're going to be out there for at least a week
doing some tests possibly >> and and you're sure you can dig a hole with this 10,000 lb 10 to 12,000 lb machine >> we run into ledge which I don't think we're going to but um >> well what is the plan if we do that
because you know while we're here Yeah. So, if we're if we're going to run into refusal and and we don't have 10 feet, then I can't put a septic system in. So, we're going to know that right away. That doesn't mean we need to have a bigger machine. So, if we're running
into refusal, we have to stop. If I can't get to 10 ft, then I can't sight a septic system there. So, it's >> So, if we limit you to a 12,000lb machine on this site, you'll be happy. >> Yeah, that's the intent. That's that's what I said of a mini excavator. Yes, sir.
>> Well, I think, you know, best to use the weight of the machine versus saying a mini because they're, you know, very different. All right. Any further questions from commission members? And and John, do you have any comments on this?
So, this project doesn't have a U DP number yet as far as I know. >> Yep. >> So, we're still going to have to hold out off on that. >> Yes, sir. >> Um, and unfortunately, I guess, you know, we'll just have to wait till the next meeting, which is going to be what, February 9th.
>> Yeah, >> that's right. >> Yeah, not a problem. Yeah, we, you know, I tried to reach out to the D today, but they were probably closed because of the weather and um, you know, as as luck will happen, watch, we'll get the number tomorrow.
>> It's not a bad thing. >> It's not a bad thing at all. >> Nope. >> We We normally I mean I I I want to be sure your machine doesn't have a problem on these mats.
So, as long as your, you know, the people who know these, >> Julian, I own a machine this size, they have no problem. >> They have no problem on that. >> Okay. >> Whatsoever. >> So, so because I don't know what my size my tractor is,
but I don't think it's 12,000 lbs. But, um, I would probably feel comfortable on on a 15t wide mat. But but you you know the the the equipment better than I do. So >> Julian when I when I did a lot of
consulting work uh in my previous life uh we did a lot of work for Eversource and National Grid and this was staple for a lot of the work that we got to witness and make sure we could they were basically the contractors. I was the environmental consultant on the job
making sure that they were out there. So, you know, Brian's job will be making sure that, for instance, they contractors keep to the provisions of the permits. So, >> yeah. All right. As long as everybody's comfortable with the mechanics because,
you know, you get a machine in a swamp, it's a hell of a mess. >> Yeah, understood that. The intent, Mr. Chairman, and members of the commission, is for the machine to stay on the mats.
All right. Uh, so any further questions from commission members? If not, any questions from members of the audience and we already decided that it's going to be continued until February 9th. So if there are no further questions or
comments, we can consider a motion for that. Well, they hang on here. What? Um, you're continuing it, but when so you're >> we don't
>> I'm uh you're assuming or uh that uh in on February 9th that it's going to be cold enough to uh do this uh in in the next few days from now. >> Wait a second.
If this were if this were not frozen, these mats would still hold this machine. Is that correct, Brian? >> Yeah, absolutely. Yes. But what we're trying to do is uh go on the the advice
of of John and and Paul at town hall in regards to the the most best time of year to do this. And usually when you want to cross a stream, you want to try to do it in frozen conditions instead of
um you know, you know, beautiful 80°ree or 90 degree weather. >> Sure. >> When it's when it's, you know, flowing, you know, quite full >> or in the early springtime, but it might be, you know, flooding in this area or or flowing uh you know, with a lot of
water. So this way we're trying to minimize the uh uh the construction activity, the temporary construction activity in these resource areas so that you know we don't have you know sinking sinking machines in the resource area.
>> Yeah. I mean it's a lowflow condition. I think that's the key. >> Yes. >> Focus. It's not so much that it has >> So the winter time is probably the most ideal time to do this instead of August. Julian, may I ask a question?
>> Sure. >> Uh, in the event that it's you get approval and it you put the mats out and then it snows on the mats, how what do you do with the snow? >> You just drive over it or
>> Yeah, pretty much the tra the the mini the excavator will be able to drive right over the snow. >> Okay. I just didn't know if it was going to have to be pushed off the mat. >> I would think you would probably want to at least try to find the limits of that mat so that way you knew where it was.
That way, for instance, you didn't complicate things moving forward. Um, you know, when when I was when I was back in the consulting world, that's typically what we would do is, you know, the contractors would bring brooms and shovels out there just to try to find the edges. So that way they knew at
least where the limits were because a lot of these areas weren't always um, you know, safeguarded with fencing and stuff like that. They were just kind of just let to do their own accord. But >> yeah, I mean, we've got the filter mitt going in on either side. So, >> yeah, >> ideally we could orange flag it uh and
they'll be able to see where the filter mitt is. >> Yeah, that might be that might be something to take into consideration as well. >> And then they can just they can just shovel it off or broom it off if it's fluffy enough. >> Well, I guess supposedly in the forecast we're getting another 11 inches of snow
next week. So, >> that's that's what I saw too. And then I also have to, you know, after I get your approval here, I have to submit things to the board of health to get some dates. >> So, >> understood.
>> All right. Have you guys dug in the area? I know I did a test hole in the last week here and I still had frost. So, much better. Uh we have done we have done uh zero test pits out here on this lot. >> And uh I can tell you I could not break
the ground with a mini. >> Yeah, that might be that might be a little difficult um once we get to the other side, but we'll >> I guess we'll cross that bridge when we get there, unfortunately. Um >> well, hopefully the snow insulates the ground a little bit. >> Yeah, that would be great.
>> Was there before the snow was there. That's >> I'm just trying to be optimistic. >> Yeah, me too. I I like the way you're thinking, John. >> I I I do appreciate the comment about the ground being frozen. So, I mean, the
longer it stays at uh you know, 20° with a minus5 degree windchilled uh windchill, it's going to be uh the ground is going to continue to get frozen and you know, deeper and deeper. So hopefully uh the the excavator that
they that they're going to have there is going to be able to break through it. If it doesn't, it it it doesn't then I we're we're kind of stuck for a while. >> Yeah. >> Go to plan B. >> The the issue is is the limiting factor is when the the
flow in the stream marketkedly increases. Uh so you there's a little bit of wiggle room. I mean that's I mean, what what are we going to call spring? Uh the end of March. Um >> yeah, I think the first year these days,
>> technically the first day of spring is March 21st. >> I I have a feeling it's going to moderate before then and you'll be able to break through the frost, but uh >> Okay. >> You you may not be able to do it now,
but u but you can get your mats in place. >> Excellent. I like that. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. >> Uh, so any questions from >> I I do have one quick one before we get on here. >> Sure. >> Um, do we have a staging area prior to
coming on this site? And can you just if you do have one, I understand this, you know, this material is probably not going to just be unloaded off a truck. Um, that it's staged in an area that's proper that John approves at least. Yeah, I I would say that this would
probably be the staging area uh if I threw the chair, Mr. Chairman. Um uh for the the mats and any erosion control to be stockpiled uh while they're being, you know, brought over to the site where the
crossing is going to go. >> So that's relatively clear there trees there >> right here. I'm I'm I'm not too sure, you know, how dense the trees are in this area. Um, Pascal, do you know if this area of the lot has a lot of trees
on it? >> I'm not too sure. >> Well, you can do prior to the next meeting, Mr. Chairman, if I may, we'll take some pictures of this area, the staging, um, and maybe um, you know, locate an area that's open and not where
trees are going to be, so the, uh, the equipment can bring the the mats in and place them in this area. And we'll show that on the plan. >> Okay, that sounds like a good idea. Uh, any other comments, questions? So, uh, if none, we can go on to, um, a
motion to continue this hearing until February 9th. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Uh, motion by Dan, seconded by Mark. So, uh, Dan and Joe, how do you vote? >> I,
>> I. >> And Mark, >> I. >> And I'll throw in an I. The motion carries. Thank you guys. >> Okay. Very much. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. >> Thank you. >> Very good. >> So, the next issue is a request for
well, is it a formal request for certificate or partial or John? Maybe you can help me out with this business. It's a full. >> It's a full. But you're saying there were modifications made
during the construction which were not disclosed until now. >> Yeah, we're going to let we're going to let Kyle and um Gail Associates um go into that.
>> Okay. All right. Do we have a a screen share to refresh our memory? >> You want me to start, John? >> Sure. Go ahead. >> All right. Uh, good evening, commission members. Thanks for having us on this
evening. Uh, for the record, my name is Kyle Rowan. I'm a project manager with Gail Associates speaking on behalf of our client Norton Public Schools um regarding the athletics complex improvements project at Norton High School. Specifically, obviously
we're talking about the uh certificate of compliance request for this project um governed under D permit 25501091 uh which was issued March 1st, 2022. Uh I believe this evening we are joined
by Wade Lazat, the director of facilities from Norton Public Schools. Should anyone from this commission have any questions specifically for the end user of the facility, those would be best to go towards him. But in terms of the overall project and our role as the
designers, I will speak to um our current application as as well as going into greater detail on the changes that took place during construction. So, Mr. Thomas, I don't know if you want me to go through the full application
package, everything in the cover letter that we provided, or if you want me to just jump straight to the changes in construction. >> I think for the purposes of this discussion, just highlighting the changes of what was initially proposed would probably be, you know, just the
probably the easiest thing to do right now. >> Okay, sounds good. Um, I will see if I can share my screen. I believe so. Make sure I share. Click on here. Let me know when you all see a a cover
letter. Uh we do see a cover letter. >> Okay. Um so this is the cover letter of the COC application that we just submitted. I won't go through that language. This details the enclosures that we've included.
And enclosure 7 is uh the summary of construction changes letter which obviously isn't always something that you see in a certificate of compliance application but um it was requested during the initial uh application for this back in July that this is something
that we provide. So uh a bit of a timeline we did submit originally in July. Um we did not have a summary of these changes in construction and uh in addition to that the asbuilt that had been provided by the general contractor uh understandably and agreeably was not
quite up to standard. So in the meantime we went out we got an updated asbelt from the general contractor that's included in this package. uh it is Gail's opinion that that that plan does meet the requirements the typical standards of um a post construction as
the other change relative to our July submission is of course this uh construction changes letter so I'll jump straight to that closure 7 the cover letter to this goes through in greater detail um each basically what
we've done here is we've provided all 14 construction sketches whether whether or not they were remotely related to um drainage andor this permit. But we've provided in an effort of being transparent all the constructions that construction sketches that took place during this project. Some as small as
you know changing a detail on our Ballard, but other obviously are larger and more related to overall storm water management. So the ones which are more closely related uh we'll start right with SK construction sketch01
which was issued in May and June of 2022. And I'm going to just jump right to the plan here. So this was the most significant change that occurred on this site. And to give a bit of a background
here, um, might actually help if we look at the, uh, existing conditions plan to give some background before anything happened. One second. Trying to zoom in, but I don't think my
computer likes being on Zoom while also sharing things. All right. So to give you a sense of the site, there was an existing track uh and natural grass field at this facility. So more or less our project was
reconstructing a track with a synthetic turf field in the interior more or less in the same footprint. It expanded somewhat um to the north, a little bit to the south, but the existing grandstand bleachers remained. Those were not reconstructed. And uh pretty
much the limits of the track were the limit of work for this scope of the overall project over in this location. Um the original survey and pre-construction observations implied that the track and field the existing track and field was a closed drainage
system with two outfalls into the wetlands to the south here and here. Um the original permitting documents submitted back in 2021 and 2022 reconstructed this track and field again
as a closed drainage system intending to tie into these two existing outfield outfalls with two new outlet control structures as a form of attenuation and treatment more or less an overflow for the enclosed uh system of this track and
field. So those would remain the primary outfield outfalls for this facility. Um during demolition it was uncovered while they were starting to strip the subgrade and starting to put in some of the other drain lines like the collector
pipe around the field which were always in the in the design. They found that there was in fact very buried drainage infrastructure throughout the fields. Um, it looked like it had been installed originally when the high school was built. This is conjecture. I can't
confirm this for sure, but just based on the depth, it appeared to have been stalled um been installed during the original high school construction or sometime in the past. And then an additional track and grass field was in fact built on top of that drainage system. And then we came in and we
started removing that surface. And um that's when we uncovered that system. So catch bas and rims, drainage manhole structures uh along with their associated perforated piping um were all very much buried beneath that existing
field and that's what the contractor uncovered and that's what brought us to this situation where we needed to make a change to make this drainage system function. So >> a a quick quick question. >> The drainage the drainage system is
confined >> to this area only or are there other pipes that cross underneath? Uh >> so that was our right. So that was our original understanding based on site observation and the survey was that it
was a confined system. However, once they started digging, they found drainage lines throughout this field and they found connections to a catch basin and pipe here as well as connections to a pipe that was underneath the bleachers, buried under the bleachers
running up this way. So during construction, we discovered that this system was not in fact closed. It was tied to uh pipes and structures to the north of the field. So what this sketch did, what this
redesign did is um maintained that flow and that pipe, those channels uh same size as what was existing. Um so you can see the connection points to the points north of
the field here and here. Those were maintained and those pipes were run through on either end of the field. one on this side, one on this side. Again, doing what we came to learn they had always done, which is run from north of
the site through to the outfalls. Um, what else we have on this plan? You have four outlet control structures in each corner. One here, here, here, and here.
Those are all tied into these lines that pass through the field from north of the site north of our development. They are also tied into the collector pipe for the turf field as well as this under drain system which captures all of the surface water, all the storm water that
falls within our actual limit of work. However, I want to emphasize that these systems are separated. Um, we permitted our area of development as a closed system and it is our opinion that we maintained that closed system by way of
these outlet control structures which more or less separate the two systems except in the event of a of high capacity. So there are risers in all four of these outlet control structures. Um and those more or less serve as a barrier to keep storm water from this
field from exiting those outflows unless uh in the event of a designed searchcharge. So, um, long story short, the existing drain lines that run through here and the storm water that passed through the field for
construction that we reconstructed with all new piping and the field that we permitted, we constructed again as a closed system. It is tied into those same outfalls as originally permitted. Um, the real difference is we have this pass through that we were unaware of
until we broke ground. And it's a little hard to describe. Hopefully that clears the air a little bit, but feel free to ask as many questions. >> Well, I I just I'm puzzled as to why this new finding wasn't
just, you know, bone up John and say, "Hey, we we we we have an unexpected problem." And I mean, we're we're here to to to share the solution. It's just, you know, we're part of the regulatory
process. So the it kind of puts us in a spot where all of a sudden oh surprise the project is now different. Please issue an order of certificate uh you know a certificate of compliance. I'm not saying we won't do that. It's
just the procedure seems odd to me. I mean you're you're a your company is a professional project manager. Is that correct? or you're you're kind of >> uh we're we're designers. Yep. We're a
design firm. Um I do want to make clear that this this particular sketch that we're looking at um from June of 2022, this sketch was emailed to conservation at the time. So, um while that may not be true of the sketches that come after
this, as far as I can tell, it was a different project manager at the time. We've looked to confirm whether or not those were sent. They're a little less significant. this a lot less significant. But um this particular sketch was sent to conservation. >> Well, I mean there's a difference
between just sending an email and and >> uh you know making clear there's a new finding which we have to have everybody sign off on. I just it just strikes me
as a little bit jaw-dropping. I mean, we we kind of um I mean, we like to in our participation of the regulatory process to dot our
eyes and cross our tees. And it sounds like, you know, once things got going, you guys forgot about doing that kind of thing. I I just I you know now the question is
I'm not sure it changes anything except I you know kind of have to wrap my head around this but go ahead. >> Well um Oh go ahead if you're going to answer that. >> Well why don't you ask your question and
we'll >> we'll we'll we'll get a a answer. >> Yeah. Uh whenever I hear the phrase it is our opinion that it makes me a little bit nervous. Um because obviously it it
it sounds like uh we're we're not sure that there's a uh uh I think you said that with reference to uh keeping the water out of one place uh
keeping it separated from another place. Um >> well well anyway >> I mean let let me let me try to summarize now in my own head how I how I envision it that you had a storm water
management system designed that deals with all of the storm water that falls within this architectural structure. >> Yep. I can pull that plan up. Uh the
original permitted plan. >> And then and then you found that other storm water structures cross underneath this structure and the previous design intermixed
their outflows. Um, and what you're saying now is you revised that intermixing to intermix only in most the
most extreme events. Is that a fair summary? >> Correct. The uh the field the track and field are still intended to infiltrate outside of the most extreme events in which case that would be the mixing you're talking about.
Yeah. Okay. I I mean basically the existing outflow structures that were there before are still the existing outflow structures. >> Uh but we have we have an infiltration structure as well.
>> Yeah. So this is the original design that was permitted. Um you have the same track, same field, more or less the same interior drainage pattern. And this is typically what you'd see on a synthetic turf field. There are collector pipes that run around the perimeter.
Those collect water from these flat panel drains as well as water that runs into the trench drain around the track. And then you can see down here and here. Those tie into intermediate intermediary drainage manhole structures. It's a new pipe which then ties into an outlet
control structure here with the riser and here with a riser. both of which tie into those two existing outfalls. So this was the original design. This is what was originally permitted and it wasn't until in construction that it was determined that there were in fact
buried drain lines coming from north of this track tying into buried drain lines within this track. And the uh you know the best way we saw fit to manage that. Obviously we can't just cut that off. That was coming from drainage north of
this area was to allow it to pass through our site. And the best way to do that while also maintaining this as a closed system as we have designed here was um by adding two outlet control structures as well as new pipe runs
beneath the field. All right. So, the original drain the original infiltration and storm storm water management system was installed as designed. Is that
correct? >> Pretty much everything you see here was installed as designed. What changed is these two outlet control structures moved up to here and here. We reconstructed these outfalls which were
very much failing. This is one of them before construction here. So rusted 12-in corrugated pipe. Um those were reconstructed in kind with the same exact outfall locations and those pipes were then run to these outlet control
structures. The real change from this plan to uh to what happened in construction is there were two new outlet construct control structures added up at the northern collector pipe here and then a new pipe between them to
allow drainage from north of the site to pass through our system. But again, these four outlet control structures, I should be looking at the new one. Those are what are intended to keep our actual track and field system closed off
from that pass through. >> How are we supposed to know as a board that the calculation when now combining the two are correct size if you didn't know what was underneath
prior and then we add this amount that we known on top. How do we know that we haven't created a secondary problem here? >> Well, I think in terms of permitting um you you design for what you're
constructing and in terms of what we are constructing here in terms of imperous area as well as the synthetic turf field which is modeled as impervious area. Our our design on that front and therefore our calculations don't significantly change. We are still managing it the
same way with outlet control structures. Um with the majority of the storm water intended to be handled by infiltration. Um the difference is when this was permitted, we didn't know there were there were two lines running beneath the fields. And
>> no, but I but I think I think what Joe is referring to is you have unknown flow coming from uh what is it? North of the site. Mhm. >> through each of these two pipes.
And um during and I assume you didn't do calculations of the um the catchment area of those two inflow pipes. And so now
now you have during a high rain event, you have unknown flow coming into this pipe that runs these two pipes that run underneath your field. And then you're expecting
the overflow from your infiltration system to also go into those pipes. and at the same time. And yet you you in the the the high rain event, you don't know what the flow
is going through those pipes. So you may have a a flooding situation. Now during a high rain event, is the track going to be used? Uh no, presumably until the water goes down. But you may
have a situation where the field now will flood. >> I uh I would like to point out this field has been installed since November of 2022. We are not aware of any flooding issues taking place on this
field whatsoever in that time um which is just over 3 years now. And I I fully understand the point that's being made there. I think it's important to convey that there was an existing track and natural grass field in this same
footprint more or less before this project was designed and constructed. The watershed catchment area has not changed. That track and field as well as the areas that we now know are connected through lines uh to the north. those
catchments areas remain the same and that storm water and flow pattern remains more or less the same. Um >> the infiltration has changed. >> Yeah. I mean this is it it I I understand that what you're saying is
it's probably going to work. Um, you know what? One of the things that I I mean I've been on the commission now uh for 45 years and one of the things I would
am proud to say is that with all of the careful design work that has been done with all of the projects that I've s seen go by um we only had one problem in
town. So in in all of those projects um were successful because we had good data and good good um calculations that were done before and that you know the
systems were designed to adequately uh deal with uh with weather conditions. Now, it's kind of like not only is it a big project, but it's a project that the town owns.
And we're saying, well, we think it's going to work. And it's kind of makes me and you're you're right, it may it may work. It's just it's just we don't know that now. Um, for sure. May work well
enough almost all of the time. Uh and it it just you know it would have been it would have been so good in in 22 to say this is the problem we got to deal with and then we just said well can you make some more calculations
uh so that we know the combined flows will be adequate that the sizing of the pipe will be adequate and you're saying nothing has changed up there but on this on this feel things are
different. I I don't know. I just John, do you want to make any comments about this? >> No, I I mean I think I I will speak as since I am a town employee, I will speak like this is that typically on projects what happens is is that if there is a
change to storm water, the plans get revised and that applicant comes in front of the commission and they bring in drainage calculations. They bring in basically everything to document that the work has been done per the storm water standards. Now I can ask Kyle and
his team of experts is that you know did you guys do all that information? Did you guys follow all the necessary standards to document all that? You know that way for instance you know it could be you know provided to confirm that
this meets all the standards of the you know storm water handbook. Uh are you asking me that? >> That's the question. >> Okay. Yeah. So um this was not designed in a vacuum uh on a whim or in the hopes
that it would work. Uh this was designed by professional engineers with the full intent of working and meeting the requirements of Norton's bylaws in the storm water handbook. I can understand um where this commission is coming from
with respect to this information not being provided. However, I I do have to point out once again this was I believe sent over to the conservation department by the project manager at the time in June 2022 when this sketch was
issued. I do not believe was it emailed to me? >> It was. >> Was it sent hard copy? I I don't know for sure about that, but I know that >> if it wasn't sent hard copy, the email probably bounced back because we can't
receive files which are larger than 15 megabytes. So that's probably the challenge. >> Uh we got a response from you at the time uh which was on June 1st. >> Okay. >> Says, "Thank you for the proposed plan changes for the storm water component
redesign. Please ensure that the minor modification conforms to the approved storm water design flow and runoff rates. Um the minor increase to limit of work in site shall include the installation of additional temporary construction s and sedimentation
barriers at the outfalls and that the commission receives any additional support of storm water compliance documentation and revised plan sheets. So >> all right look the >> I guess the the the key issue is um if
you can provide data to show >> Mhm. or suggest uh that is strongly suggest that the flow coming out of those two pipes that enter the field
underneath it during a high I guess a 100redyear storm. I mean that that's what we're calculating that that flow does not exceed your outflow system so that no further
flow can be added to it from the outflow the overflow of your infiltration systems. You understand what I'm saying? >> Yeah. >> Absolutely. some some confirmatory data that there's still room left over
>> two pipes that you replaced to accommodate more flow so that the system will continue to function. >> Yep. because that that's the the the key and
um condition that we would be comfortable if it if it meets that situation. So can you provide those calculations to show that there is excess capacity in those through pipes
to receive more? >> Most certainly that's uh that's not a problem. I think uh yeah, a large part of coming today obviously to get this conversation started and and confirm that directive and we're we're happy to do so.
>> And and John, would that um kind of meet the issue? >> I think that really would would hit upon all of it. Obviously, this was three years ago, so I don't really remember a lot of this stuff that happened three years ago. Um
>> any other memory? >> No. Regardless, the issue is will the system function as it >> Yeah. And I think that's part of part part of the question is that for instance, I just need confirmation that it still functions and works as designed
per our bylaw and also the stormwater handbook. Um, and making sure exactly what you just said, Julian. I just need basically, you know, the challenge is with projects that have sit for a long time. I I don't I forget a lot of the stuff that happened three years ago. So,
if you could just bring me back up to speed >> and get me where I need to be with this and the commission, I think this we can make this happen, I guess, is kind of what I'm getting at. >> Yeah, that that that would that would satisfy my concerns if we had some data
to show that this field will not drown in a high flow condition and without changing the outflow pipes. I mean, it would be a pain in the ass, but or at least if we we knew that it it needed to be upgraded, then
we could make a plan for it. But if we know that no, it doesn't need to be upgraded, then everybody is okay. >> Yep. That's that's well understood. >> All right. And I'm presuming from the from what you're saying is, you know,
those thoughts occurred and that went into the redesign and all we want to see is is the data that the redesign >> um will work. >> Yeah. Nope. Understood. Additional
additional documentation to back up the design. That is that is not a problem. We are happy to provide it. >> All right. Well, um if we have that and John can review it, uh then potentially we can we can go
ahead with the uh certificate uh at our next meeting or you know, if you need more time to put it all together, that's fine, too. >> How much time do you think you're going to need, Kyle? >> Um oh, >> next meeting is two weeks, so may I
don't know if >> Do we just need to submit it? Um, in this case, just submit it before that two week, you know, 20 48 hours beforehand or something. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, we can we can try and target having this uh to you. What are these on
Mondays? So, >> yeah, it it it actually would be more than 48 hours because 48 hours falls in the middle of the weekend. Friday is a short day. So, >> two business days, I mean. Sorry. >> Yeah. So,
>> okay. Anyway, it worst case scenario, you can push it forward to the next meeting, which is uh >> well, we have um >> are there more amendments here, Kyle? >> Uh yeah, I can go through them quickly. So, I think
>> I think that one was the major one though, right? If I'm not mistaken, >> pretty much. Um so, this is the one that really, you know, Yeah, that's the major one. I'll flip through them briefly. This here again we just wanted to provide everything that happened in
construction. Um this is just a relocation of the discus pad from here down to here. Uh there's a small drainage pipe that is not new. It doesn't change the calcs. This pipe would have been here when it was over there. It just flips to the other side.
Um, see next, uh, just reconstructing the existing chain link fence, just a scope gap there. So, adding that to the plans. Um, let's see.
So, this one, it's in line with that SK1. As we said, we discovered buried drainage under this field and north of the field. Um the contractor so we discovered a buried drain line here. The
contractor followed it back. It ended up being buried. There was a catch basin here about 2 ft below gravel which itself was below the bleacher. Again, sort of owing to this theory that this whole site was, you know, when they
built this more recent field before ours, uh a lot of things were buried in the process. So anyways, they traced it back to a catch basin under these bleachers. Um ultimately we removed that system. We didn't want to we didn't know the condition of this pipe. We didn't
want to keep running that storm water under this bleacher system. Um so we took that construction as an opportunity just to basically take this line, shift it over to here, and that's that's what this one is. So it doesn't change what we were just talking about. It'll be
accounted for in the calculations the commission is requesting. That's just a description of what this sketch is. Very closely tied to the first. >> It just moves the pipe from one spot to another. Is that >> correct? >> Okay.
>> All right. Uh, five. Just change to the dugout fencing orientation. Six. So, this is the actual outlet control structure detail that goes along with that SK1, the first sketch we were looking at. These are the two riser
pipes with their assigned elevation. As you can see, you have the collector pipes around the fields tying into these riser pipes. This outlet is obviously the outlet to the structure, but that pass through that I'm talking about, you know, taking the existing system that
runs under the field that runs through this outlet control structure in a pipe just like this on our side of the screen and then out this outlet pipe. Um what is controlled and what is impeded is our track and field
system which we constructed uh designed to infiltrate via this riser system. So uh that I believe it's described pretty well in the cover letter but just to be clear sketches may have come out a week or two apart but SKO6 is directly tied
to SK1 as is that one we were just looking at of the drain line north of the bleachers. Um, >> so all of these pipes are 12 inch pipes. >> Uh, I can confirm I believe many of >> kind of looks like, you know, the labels
were seemed that they were all 12in pipes. >> Yeah. And um and I guess that's that's the question is what the flow in a in a high rain event the in those
two 12in pipes that approach the field what it would be and whether it can accommodate more flow and how much more flow would it would occur off off the new field or out of the new field. >> Yeah. No, that's understood. Um I am
rather confident those calculations were done at the time when this change was made. I was not the project manager. We're we're chasing things a little bit here too, but um again whether it's a matter of finding the old calculations and providing them to you or doing them
again, we'll we'll get them to you. >> Okay. >> Um I don't want to jump too far ahead this one. So we're on seven. This was just a change to the curbing around the turf field. no impact on drainage. Um, eight was just the addition of
uplighting at a flag pole up by the school. Nine, adjustments to the ballard details. I think we went from permanent to removable ballards out at the main plaza area. It's the same with uh sketch
10 here. Another adjustment to that. This one, I believe, is just an adjustment of the walkway to get us It's no additional impervious. The walkway originally went a little closer in. There was a guy wire to a utility pole that wasn't shown on the survey and
that's why that got relocated slightly. This next one I believe is the second most significant arguably um which was repaving of the existing parking lot. So there is no new impervious area here.
This is all within the existing limits of the existing parking lot. But we did regrade it. Um, after construction, it was determined that this lot, a lot of this sheet flow, while originally it was
uh believed to mostly come off this corner, this parking lot actually flowed a little more heavily right to here of this plaza, it wasn't really picked up on the survey, not a lot of elevation information. So, this one was uh, I believe, discovered the hard way. And
ultimately what was done was this portion of the parking lot was just reconstructed, regraded to direct more of that sheet flow from right here just down to this corner. And in that effort, we did add the stone rip wrap trench. Um all this
work is this is the 100 foot buffer line there. was all outside of the buffer zone. But um yeah, that's a regrading of the lot, existing paving and addition of a stone trench as well as addition of a stone trench here. Uh which again was
just to better manage some runoff coming from this existing access drive up uh up right there. >> Okay. >> So that's just the grading associated with this. This is SK12.
None of that system ties into our field in any way. Um, these are the trench details associated with that. And then SK-14, I believe, is very basic, just some very shallow grass swailes before the
LMAN seed took. Uh, some of the walkways are a little low in this area, so just better managing ponding. And then this is the last drainage associated change. I believe it's also our last SK. So this is that reoriented drain line. Uh the one
remember it goes was buried beneath the bleachers relocated to go here. Um these are two area drains that were added um just to handle a little bit of water in this low landscape area here.
>> But that that is grass. Is that correct? >> Correct. Okay. And that that just infiltrates well that infiltrates into the ground that area. >> Yeah. >> All right.
>> And then this is not an SK. This is just uh one of the certificate of compliance checklist requirements, which is the visual barrier between the active use part of the site and the vegetation uh I forget exactly what the terminology was,
but vegetative management area. And so that is a post and rail fence that's outlined here which combined when combined with the fencing for the field that whole area is sufficiently blocked off to uh users and mowing which was one
of the orders of condition order condition requirements. So that is all the sketches. Um again, yes, I would say everything to do with the track is the most significant change and we are more than happy to provide
calculations to back up that design. >> So, you got the short straw to talk to us tonight, huh, K? >> I sure did. Yes. >> All right. Well, all right. Well, it was a surprise party. That's that's okay if
you can get that information to us. >> Yep. No problem. Understood. >> Okay. All right. So, uh we'll so that the next meetings and you can work out with John
which one you you want to come to. We have one on the 9th. We have one on the 23rd of February. >> The next one after that is the 9th of March. >> Okay. We'll we'll try. Earlier the better.
We'll we'll try I'll try and get a handle of that and uh uh Mr. Thomas, I'll be in touch about what what we're trying to target. >> All right, sounds good. >> Thank you. >> All right, thank you everyone. >> Have a good night.
>> All right, very good. Um we are now into our order of conditions. session or segment. We have three of them. Not sure which one is supposed to be first.
Um well 93 King Phillip Road comes up first on the list. Um so this of course the findings are are unique to each package but the the
customized ones in the special conditions are number one and 32 and and and they're pretty I mean these are almost boilerplate as well.
Proof of payment, proof of recording, mass DP uh sign in the installed and posted near the roadway. So this within the
prior to construction um well and buffer restoration area control measures in M32 upon completion that just these are almost boiler plate are they not John? It's like even though they're
in yellow. >> Well, they they're boiler plate for wetland restoration projects. Yes. >> Uh okay. Yeah. All right. Well, anyway, uh anybody have any questions about uh
this set of conditions as submitted? I had no thoughts of modification. The only the only thing that Lisa wanted from the last meeting, and she's not here to attend the meeting, was she wanted a three-year monitoring period
instead of the two. So, that's what I changed it to. >> Okay. >> Based on her counsel. So, >> yeah. Well, if it works, it'll it'll work. And the three-year monitoring won't make a difference. >> And I think it was more so with making sure that the core logs take for the the
embankment. >> Yeah. All right. Unless there are questions, comments, revisions, I think we can consider a motion on this draft.
>> So moved. >> Second. So, we have a motion by Dan, seconded by Mark. Uh, Joe and Mark, how do you vote? >> I >> I >> Dan. Oh, Dan. Oh, you're not present.
>> Okay, there we go. I'll I'll throw in an I as well. Motion carries. Next up is um Zero Mansfield Avenue
file number 250-1196. Um again unfortunately John when you when you put it different color I can't read it when it's printed, but I did. Or at least unless I have
more light. Um but the special conditions 1B construction sequencing copy of the SWIP um
memorandum from the contractor um for construction sequencing and the final overall site operation and management plan. Is that all right? Those are those are the those were the conditions in green
that I sent you an email about. So those ones that you just listed. >> Yeah. >> So I will I will just highlight stuff and just refer to the number designation from now on. >> Well, I think if it were on my printer
if it was in pink, maybe I could see it, but that's all right. I I was able to read it on the on the screen. And then um 37 is also um
customized for this project post construction. Um refers to stabilization of everything. Remove sediment controls. Install conservation markers. Uh submit
electronic copies of the SWIP. um submit a completed request for a certificate of compliance etc as built submit a letter from the registered professional engineer. Um but all the others are what we always
issue. Any comments or questions uh about the second iteration of the orders of conditions for this project and hearing none. I am now listening for
a motion to accept or reject. I'll make a motion to approve the order of conditions for file number uh 250-1196. >> Second. >> Motion made by >> uh motion made by Mark, second by Joe.
Um, Joe and Mark, how do you vote? >> I >> I. >> Dan, you're eager. How do you vote? >> I. >> And I'll motion carries. Last one
is file number 250 11973 King Phillip Road. Uh we did fill in the 144 in in 1D and uh again it's one in 37 that have
been customized. Um, any questions or comments about either of those or anything else in the middle? So the the 1D was the only thing that had to be
filled in. Is that correct on this one? >> Yeah, basically. I mean, for this one, I mean the the only other um conditions that I recommended were prior to commencement that we that they provide a final construction plan
approved by the building department because I want that before they start construction. Okay. All right, Peter, you're sticking it out to the bitter end, huh? >> Motion to
>> That's right. >> All right, we have a a motion to approve from Joe. >> Motion to approve order 250-1197. Second >> motion by Joe, seconded by Mark. Uh Joe and Mark, how do you vote?
>> I I >> and Dan >> I. >> And I'll throw in an I. The motion carries. So I think unless there are any further comments that were in position
for a motion to return. >> So moved. >> Second. Motion by Dan, seconded by Joe. Joe and Mark, how do you vote? >> I >> I
Dan. >> Hi. >> And I'll throw in an I. Thank you everybody. Good night everybody. Good night Julian and Joe and