our regularly scheduled Norton Conservation Commission meeting for uh April 14 2025 and um first item on the agenda is meeting minutes we have a couple of
different sets of minutes um and we still may not be able to retire um February 24th let's see what we got here um we can't because uh Mark isn't
here okay done deal that one was quick um so that got tabled and I think we'll be able to um do the last one and you know
uh Paxton is one of those magical people because he's listed both as present and absent uh in that meeting so um it was his twin oh okay his his um antimatter
reflection uh so I I guess I assume you were absent so we're going to call you an abstension but um work a 9 to5 um I just fixed that
okay so we have uh we have we have four so I I didn't find anything anybody have any comments for uh March 24th if not we can entertain a motion to approve as submitted
i'll make that motion second we have a motion by uh I think Joe was that your voice seconding it um okay so Tama and Joe how do you vote hi hi
Dan and Paxton oh Paxton is an and I'll throw in an I so we'll record Paxton as an abstension all right uh so we have a couple of
hearings that have requested um continuations according to the notes uh first is file number 250-1173 uh 0 South Washington Street um requested a continuation I believe till
um the 20 28th yes not a risky motion anybody want to do it moved uh second um Paxton Beach out so motion by Tama seconded by Paxton tama and Joe
how do you vote i I Dan and Paxton i I and I'll throw in an I the motion carries uh next continuation is for file number [Music]
250-1174 which is 371 Rear Old Colony Road um again they request until um April 28th continuation i'll make a motion to continue it um
okay motion by Hama and seconded by Paxton uh Tama and Joe how do you vote i I and Paxton and Dan i I And I'll throw in
an eyes the motion carries uh next up is continue public hearing file number 250-1175 225 South Worcester Street um do we have a representative of the applicant uh yes we do my name is uh
Peter Lavoy i work with DNL Design Group and you probably can share your screen yes so this is this is just comment this is a parcel that was before us not too long ago for evaluation of wetland resources
which are off uh the side to the side of this map so we do have a a tongue in there but why don't you go ahead okay um so since the last meeting uh we did have planning board uh our planning board meeting uh we've also uh went through a
couple rounds with the peer review and uh the peer review has signed off on the storm water so the storm water uh has got uh the thumbs up from uh the peer review uh PGB uh engineering um besides
that um there were some questions at the last hearing um I added a separate sheet a detail sheet which mainly deals with uh the proposed crossing in the replication area so on this sheet I
added um a construction sequence um that the commission wanted so I did show a a replication in a construction sequence um plan right here um I also took in account the temporary disturbance al for
the footings for the retaining wall along both sides of the the culvert that's going to be uh installed as well as the retaining wall so the temporary disturbance will be roughly 1,200 square
feet and that would be brought back to uh wetland it would be back it would be brought back to wetland species after so that would be um fixed also on this sheet
um there was a question about the replication area and if we were going to disturbed uh mature trees so basically what we did is we located the existing cop path which runs along here comes
across the wetland area at a at a wider location the wetland is wider in that location but yet there is a a a cop path that runs through there and there's a T so basically once you get to this replication area and the existing
conditions it goes up the page in two different locations so we're proposing to put one replication there and restore that cop path that's in that location and then on the other side we have
another replication area which we have inspected and there are no mature trees in that location so just wanted to point out that we added the the cop path so we knew exactly where it was and then we
could use that for a replication area to restore that area back um there was another the the answer to the question is there are no mature trees in that area that is correct yeah it's it's more small trees so there's no
large mature trees in both replication areas um let's see we'll go back to this one um we had uh because this runoff flows towards the butter in this location here
um we added an earth berm along the property line with vegetation and then we had like a low point in the back that was discharging directly into um the replication area originally now it discharges into a little settling pond
with a spillway and then it would go towards the replication area so we did remove that drain line that was discharging directly into the replication area um and then where there
was a 25 foot no disturb zone that's what we labeled because before we had a 25 foot um buffer zone on the plan so we did change that label uh on the planet and that that is basically all the
changes that we made the proposed development followed storm water management um we do not increase any rate or volume off the site towards the abutdders or towards the wetlands
uh so and you know that so that that's basically it unless anyone has any questions I can try to answer um so just uh I have a question for John
um you you've gone over the um the storm water response and and you're happy with that John because in your in your write up I guess the write up was early yeah this one's this one's good they Yeah we're good we received a little bit
on the later side um so all the storm water things have been addressed for this one and also um I guess Peter you want to go back to the the mitigation sheet for just a second this one here yeah so for instance we
have what is it 3,200 square feet of bill right yes yes and and that that doesn't include the 600 in temporary and then the other 615 right correct no it doesn't that's just No it's because that's going to be restored right so
then if we add all that together that's going to be what 1215 and 3,200 that's 44 4,400 and change right so we're less than 5,000 so we're still good for it you know and then for instance you don't have to worry about
any sort of water quality stuff so I'd say you know from that standpoint it's is an acceptable kind of you know project as as that pertains to not needing a water quality certificate for this okay and the mitigation itself it looks like
you've got what is it uh 2,000 and then what is it another 2,000 another 2,000 so you know could we increase that potentially a little bit with the temporary impacts yes but they're not permanent so you only really need to do uh one to one for all the permanent
impacts so because you're going to restore the temporary errors like you said right that is correct yep yeah so I I don't see an issue when it comes to the mitigation crossing as it's shown or as he has on this sheet but I will be looking at this sheet as construction um
would proceed and making sure that it's followed to a te and you know making sure that everything's uh kind of all set um the other question I had snow storage obviously that was discussed the last meeting correct correct yes that that has not changed as part of any of the work that you've done with the storm
water basins right no no has not changed okay all right anybody else have questions in the from the commission and we can open it up to anyone in the meeting who might have a question about this project and you can do that either by going to
the reactions button and pushing the hand raise or you can just take your mic off mute and ask a question so seeing no questions it it it appears that then everything that is needed has been presented and we can
consider closing this i I would I would like to make a comment well we're still in front of planning board so I I would you know I would I don't know if I I mean I would have to ask my client but I think we should keep it open and just in case um things changed with planning
board we are meeting with them tomorrow and and that's certainly something that um we should do then i mean that you're right if we close it then that that becomes a sticky amendment process and and so on so if
you have to make a change so that that's fine then uh if you I agree uh if you are uh all set we can consider uh a continuation until April 28th april 28th
okay yeah I would like to continue so then what I will do from my standpoint um in the office is I will put together a potential order for the next meeting in the event that everything works out uh if there's any
new renditions or revisions made to the plans just make sure to send those over to me um and upload them to our to our portal okay all right okay thank you very much thank you
so I think we're now uh ready for a um a motion to continue so moved uh so moved all right joe beat you to it uh Dan but uh uh you you have a second how's that
uh so motion by uh Joe seconded by Dan to continue this until April 28th uh Tama and Joe how do you vote hi hi and uh Paxton and um
uh Paxton and Dan i I and I'll throw in the motion carries thank you Peter okay thank you uh our next our next uh [Music]
is file 250-1176 47 Oak Street um it's my recollection that we um had pretty much uh gathered all the information
necessary to close and we kept it open because it was a 21-day period more than 21 day period um and Assuming that's sheer recollection so we can proceed to consider a motion to close yes and we received the updated plan from the
applicant surveyor u showing the mod modification to the visual barrier so we have all that so um I do have a draft order available for the commission this evening so if the commission would like to you know move towards closing this project I I would recommend that they
could do so all right just to since this is still an open public hearing uh anyone in the meeting have any question about this project 47 Oak Street if not we can entertain a motion
to close file number 250-1176 so move second we have a motion by Joe seconded by Tama joe and Tama how do you vote i
I and Paxton and Dan I I and I'll throw in an I the motion carries uh we'll consider that order of conditions later in the meeting uh the next
uh is u file number 250-1168 um this concerns the uh redesign of the intersection of route branch 23 and uh north and south worester streets
um and again the all information necessary was gathered we are set to close unless there are any specific questions or new information and John I'm assuming there is not none that I'm aware of u the applicant's representative provided us some
documentation regarding those hooded catch basins so I think we should be all set for the commission to um render a decision on this one all right so uh again opening it up to anyone in the meeting who might have a question and if there are no questions
we can consider a motion to close the public hearing for file number 250-1168 come on guys be daring i can make that motion excellent second so a motion by Paxton seconded by Tama
um Tama and Joe how do you vote i I Paxton and Dan I I and I'll throw in an I so motion carries thank you Elise
and that brings a close to our continued public hearing we now have uh file number 250-1177 concerning um work on the Mansfield airport runway and taxiway uh
do we have a representative of the applicant yes hi uh my name is Joe Rogers i'm the wetland scientist from GCA um here to represent the airport and Gail the engineer on uh on the project um I can give you a little brief
overview of the the project if you'd like do you have a uh plan you can share with us yeah I can do that assuming you have sharing capacity there i do let's get down to
it okay sorry [Music] just 350 pages well it sounds like they were very thorough joe I'm gonna be honest with you i didn't read all of it so I'm sorry oh
John hurts well all right found it okay I'm in business here let me share this and I mean I didn't read it all either but from what I could gather from
looking at the plan there's not a whole lot that's going to be done out there no it's uh it's it's for an airport project it's it's rather straightforward um so you I'll go I'll go through from the beginning here
so the the whole idea here is um you know the the airport has determined um that the the runway is in poor condition uh so the the purpose of the project is is to primarily address um the surface of the runway and some of the stub
taxiways and while doing that make some um storm water improvements um a majority of the work is on uh the Mansfield side but there is the significant portion on in Norton um the areas that are shown with these waffle
um texture are areas of existing uh pavement that are going to be removed from um from use and removed from the site and reveated as part of the project and so overall with both towns combined there this project will remove about one
one and a quarter acres of pavement and turn it to um vegetation um so here's the demolition uh plan these are the the two taxiways that will be removed these internal ones um and then there's an
existing storm water uh shallow swale here with a um a covert uh culverted exit to an existing head wall and so there'll be some improvements proposed related to that and then um you know up
updates to the safety FAA safety um signage and uh beacons that are along the edge of the of the runway um so this is what it looks like without the uh the internal um uh
taxiways removed uh the adjustment by sacrificing this one they have to round out this edge so within the buffer zone um in Norton alone the there's a removal
of about 3500 plus um square feet of asphalt from the buffer zone as part of the project um this is the kind of nuts and bolts this is the area uh of work that's
proposed uh the dashed line is the outer edge um with of erosion controls that would be in place um and then everything in yellow is area within buffer zone that's that's shown within the site so
there's a lot of yellow on this map it's all within the existing uh turf area that's uh adjacent to the the runway um or the runway itself uh there's no new clearing that's part of this project um
it's all just temporary uh disturbance or some minor regrading that's required by FAA in order to get the approach and landing elevations and to improve the um sheet flow drainage of the runway itself
um this plan shows kind of that improvements of this infiltrations uh trench that is already within the uh the interior of the runway uh and then they're going to replace the the covert itself but not touch the head wall just
um just work on the on the inner portion of the of the runway um so that this is the delineation that took place back in November of last year
of 24 uh we went out in April end of April uh with John to review no end of March with John to review the the site and look at the flags um and yeah I guess I'll stop there and
pause see if there are any questions all right uh questions or comments from anyone on the commission i mean this appears not to be terribly disruptive it's it's going to
improve things by removing some impervious so yeah I was I was just going to ask is that it's a buffer zone area right so there's not a requirement So there's not a requirement to to restore it back to natural habitat it
just will become grass or how will it how will it Yeah it's all currently um turf grass and it um it will be it needs to be maintained for the um you know for the approach and landing runway and so it just will be temporary it's a
temporary disturbance that will be put back to grass um and maintained and mode yeah all right any uh other questions or comments uh from anyone in the
meeting and it would appear uh John that we have enough information to consider closing this um hearing tonight i would say so to the commission yeah I mean look me looking at it you know I
say that the work itself is pretty minor uh especially with what they're proposing and um I think I think it's it's okay to render a decision this evening if the commission chooses to do so i'd like to make a motion to close file
number 25077 second uh so we have a motion by Joe seconded by Paxton um Joe and Paxton how do you vote i I Tama and Dan how do you vote
i All right and I'll throw in an eyes the motion carries the um the hearing is closed and um I don't think we have a a um order conditions prepared but we um can
certainly uh keep the uh I mean we have only two weeks before our next meeting right so we don't that's correct we I will have an order conditions ready for the next meeting um I don't think there's going to be much in it so it's going to be probably probably the same
as the other order that we issued for similar projects for the um Mansfield airport all right so uh that closes our public hearing portion of the meeting and we do have I don't think we have any requests
for certificates of compliance or extensions but we do have two sets of orders um the first one is file number 250-176 which uh concerned the 47 Oak
Street uh project and um there are findings that are unique but the only um condition uh is the onee uh ensure the wetland area has been
restored to its natural setting i guess there was a lot of uh rubbish material that needs to be removed but everything else in this set is our standard set of of orders with regard
to project phasing and completion any questions about the proposed trap if not we can consider a motion to accept the draft as submitted i'd like to make a motion to accept the
draft as submitted for 250176 second so we have a motion by Joe second by Paxton second uh you're you must be in a I think you're traveling at near the speed of light because your time seems to be going
slower is that possible Dan uh anyway Dan and Tom it is possible how do you vote i
and Paxton and Joe hi i I motion carries and our next set of minutes of of uh conditions is for file number 250-
1168 which is uh the intersection of 123 and Worcester streets uh we do have some unique stuff for the findings and one item
one is has got specific material to this project everything else is our standard orders of conditions is the sorry is like the gray highlighting just to demonstrate what
might be different versus kind of the standard format you got it yeah i try to I try to make it so that way you guys can see the difference yeah and the findings obviously are unique but then once you get to special
conditions there are occasionally things that are unique to the project and those only are for the section one everything else is what we usually issue so unless there are any questions or
comments uh we can consider a motion to accept this draft as submitted as well i'll move to to uh accept the order of conditions for 250-1168 second motion by Thomas
seconded by Paxton i'll make that motion uh was that you i'm sorry i'm getting flight of the navigator i'm just That's what I'm feeling right now i'm dating myself a little bit here but he's a little bit behind yeah I don't know what Dan and Tama how
do you vote i I Paxton and uh Joe I I throw in an I motion carries so I think we are at the end of this meeting
uh I mean that was that was good timing I guess megan 8:30 right i really did think it would be longer i thought it would be longer too what so um one thing to kind of keep
everybody on the no is I've been hearing rumblings in town hall that they want people to be starting meeting in person versus the Zoom meetings i've heard rumblings
from some select board management side of things so just a heads up obviously I don't know if they can do that but I've heard it so I don't know if it's gonna go anywhere but we are legally allowed
to have um Zoom meetings i just don't know if they make it a mandate for the town then I don't have an option so well I I guess the question for them is they they must feel that it is a better
um service to the public to force people to come to town hall uh in all kinds of weather i I I talked to the town manager today and I said you know none of our meetings ever really go over an hour but I know
that most of the inerson meetings that are other departments they last a lot longer so I don't know why that is but I'm just saying that is there will there be any cl I guess this is just for future uh interest but
clarification on whether um you know everyone has to be or if the if there will be not exemptions but if if a contractor can't get there in person or something like that whether we can still allow some remote
participation that that I I don't know honestly I don't know if they're trying to um if they're they want to get rid of just everything like you know all Zoom whether it be hybrid or Zoom or have the hybrid option i know there are people that meet there are boards that meet in
person that have the hybrid option and that seems to work as well so I I just don't know um but more information will be probably relayed to us as this progresses if it goes anywhere i just know we're going to continue doing the Zoom meetings until we're told we can't
anymore when you said you talked with the town manager is that still is unit still yes okay yes when is his retirement uh it's supposed to be at the end of this fiscal year so June 31st i know that they're
seeking um finding his replacement i just don't know where they currently stand because I just I don't get involved with it so yeah okay well for you know I I originally had
uh ambivalence about Zoom uh but I think the public is pretty much used to this method of interacting with others so I think the vast majority of
the public is very comfortable with this and I think it serves the public's needs well right i mean we just had how many applicants on this evening that probably are more than 45 minutes away from
Norton just to kind of inform the commission not everybody is 5 minutes away or lives in town so a lot of people that are coming to present these meetings they live further away their corporation or company is further away um their client might not be local so
you know for the public and the people that live in town it's very convenient and properly but for all the people that are coming to present projects and um you know for them to be there and organize everything and you know it's and if somebody's trying to come to a meeting and they can't make it and then
the public has come out to to hear their presentation and they have to cancel and reschedu it's just the the levels of inconvenience to the the public um are also included in these inerson meetings
right so so I just wanted to I just wanted to keep everybody in the loop on that um I've heard rumblings about it but I'll let you know how things progress and if I hear anything else but I'm going to continue doing the Zoom meetings until management or anyone you know puts out an order that says we need
to start meeting in person again so all right fair enough all right so thank you you guys and Julian I'll be in I'll be in touch with you this week about that boat too okay oh yes and uh hopefully I'll get out there and see
exactly where it is all right sounds good okay excellent all right everybody thank you have a good night have a good night okay bye