All right. Good evening everyone. My name is Andrew Shepard, chair of the Towns and Planning Board. Call this meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. I'd like to have a roll call of all the board members present. So, please say your name. >> Hopsis, present. >> Lance McN,
>> Red King, present. >> And Andrew Shepard, present. Would you please join me in the pledge of allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. >> I'd like to thank all of our veterans and those who are currently serving here and abroad and their families and those who contribute their time to public service. I think we owe them our gratitude. This meeting is being recorded and be uploaded to the Town of Towns and YouTube channel.
And I think we have a little bit of a smaller group tonight, but I think we can we jump right in or we can let's go to 1.4 approval of the minutes. So, we've got meeting minutes from March
9th, February 23rd, and February 9th. Did anybody have any comments or get a chance to read through them all? I read them and I didn't have any comments. >> Okay.
I I read them. I don't think I had any issue. There there are a few spots, Beth, where my name was spelled differently than how I tend to spell it, but I'm okay with that. >> That's a sweet way of saying it. So, uh, I guess if there's no other issues, I'd like to entertain a motion
to approve the the meeting minutes from March March 9th, uh, February 23rd and February 9th. >> So, move. >> We have a second. >> I second.
>> All right. Uh, I'd like to go around and uh say your vote. >> Harold Hos says, yes. >> Red King, yes. >> And then Andrew Shepard, yes. Okay, so that's 1.4. And I believe we
got to wait or can can we did I hear that we're skipping um 2.1? >> Uh is that the hearing? Yes. 2.1. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Well, the way it's handled is you the board has to open it at 6:35 and
then continue it at the request of the applicant and then um come back into session, the normal meeting session. Can I just ask, did you guys approve all three dates of the minutes? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yes.
>> Uh let me be clear, the minutes only have two dates and you said three. >> Yes. I uh actually uploaded March 9th, which was like a 10-minute meeting during that. >> Oh, yeah. That was that was a record.
Yeah. >> Yeah. It was We were in and out of here in 10 15 minutes. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Well, we'll wait a we'll wait a minute before we open. Um
>> Lori, all we can see is the top of your head. Okay. Right. There we go. >> So, how's everything on Ver? You guys lost power. lost power for an extended period of time.
>> How long was it? >> Probably 12 hours, 14 hours. >> Oh, wow. >> Yeah. >> Do you have a generator? >> No, I have one, but I got to tow it up there and it just wasn't worth it. >> You know, you need to get one of those whole home ones that come on automatically. The minute you spend all
that money, you never have a power outage. >> Right. Right. I don't have Lance money, I guess. I don't know. >> No, no. It's just you you get one of them and get that and you'll never have a power outage again. Not because a generator comes on. It's just that because you spent that money, you don't
have one for sure. >> We at 7:35. >> Okay, we're at 6:35. >> You guys' clock is a minute faster than mine, which I won't take issue with. So, >> you're actually at central time, so you're at 5:35 to be candid.
>> Yeah, I I am an hour I am an hour behind you technically. Um, so let's open up the public hearing for uh 2.1 uh 6:35 p.m. Continued public hearing for 22 West Meadow Road. Um, originally I was going to be abstaining for this item,
but per the applicant's request, um, I believe this will be continued and not discussed tonight. So I Beth what do we do we need to entertain a motion to so >> I would just have someone else chair you
just need to open Carol just open continue public hearing if you want to read the letter from the applicant that's about all we can do we can't have any other discussion and then you go ahead and uh take a vote to continue it to a date and time certain
>> I think I need to be appointed to say anything on 22 mess road meadow road Yep. Procedure. Standard procedure. You recuse Andrew. Um and before you do, just uh appoint Lance as a full voting member.
>> Okay. Um I appoint Lance as a full voting member. >> Let me just pop off for a minute. >> If um TAM, can you kick me off? Beth, it's on here again for um 2.37 p.m. Is it just getting continued to
later tonight or to another meeting? >> Uh >> the next meeting. >> Can you tell me what you're talking about? >> I don't see it. It's 53 West Meadow. >> Oh, is that a different address? >> Yes. >> Right now
>> 22 West. >> Oh, sorry. You got to see the eye doctor. >> Okay. So, you want me to read the letter now? >> So, you want to open the continued public hearing. I gave you a public guideline. >> Okay.
>> Okay. So, this Carol Hopson said I'm going to continue and reopen the public hearing. And now I'm going to read the letter from the applicant. It says, "Dear members of the towns and planning board, thank you for your continued attention to the screening requirements
for the solar facility at 22 22 West Better Road. We are working towards a solution to the screening issue and request more time to work out the engineering details along with confirming that we are keeping all stakeholders happy. This solution is
intended to better align with the requirements of section 145-86F of the town of towns and zoning bylaw which specifies a provision of a vegetative buffer outside of the fencing. We are asking that the hearing
be further contained to April 20th. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Warren Provost Lock Brook Solar LLC. I would like to make a motion that we continue the public hearing until April,
what was that? April 20th. April the 20th at 6:35 p.m. >> I'll second that motion. >> And um >> Last McN >> and Carol Hopes, yes.
>> All right. Based on that, I make a motion that we Oh, we already continued it, so we don't need to close it. Never mind. >> So, Beth, I guess I was confused cuz Andrew recused himself. Sorry. >> That's what >> Oh, okay. >> That's why I >> Okay. >> Okay. >> So, now does Andrew come back or do I
have to close the public hearing? Uh, we have to wait until 6:45 so Andrew can come back and I would recommend that we knock off some of the stuff on the agenda while we are waiting for the 6:45
public hearing. >> Okay. What else is on the agenda? >> We have a letter. >> Oh, we also have Yeah. Um, I don't know if he's on yet. Yeah, Frank my partner is on from Roy. Um,
>> yes. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. So, if Andrew comes back, why don't you uh let Andrew come back in and and we can >> Andrew >> Andrew is b uh let me send Andrew a text. >> Okay. Okay. >> That might be the best way to do it.
>> Yeah. >> Doesn't TK have to bring him back on? >> Yeah, but I I mean >> I just put him back on now. >> Okay. Are you bringing him back on? He's right there. >> Hey, >> thank you all. >> So, Andrew was just talking about
skipping down to uh >> 4.1. >> 4.1. Yep. No, no. Uh, actually is uh >> 4.3. >> Oh, okay. >> Regarding five turn pike, an old project. I think it was before
you were on the board before any of you except the Lancer. No paral plants on the board. Anyway, um the engineer is here and going to update the board on the project. Okay.
>> Yes. Uh thank you, Beth. Um if you can hear me. All right. This is Frank McPartland with Dillis and Roy here on behalf of uh my client, County Estates Condominium Trust. Uh the planning board uh granted a major storm water management permit with site plan review
for um re repaving of the existing parking lot and adding some parking spaces as well as the construction of a new storm water management system um in the end of February of 2023. Um so apparently as I found out a couple
of weeks ago uh the board has not received any updates at all about the project. So, um, one thing I'm I'm here to remedy that, uh, to let um the board know that, uh, construction has been completed of the storm water basin
portion of the the project. Um, Gillis and Roy has, uh, surveyed that ba basin and we will be filing an interim asbuilt plan with the planning department um, in the next couple of weeks. uh paving work
has not been done yet. Um the client tells me that that work got uh basically back burnered because they had some emergency roof repairs come up and they didn't have funds for do doing the paving. Um I had submitted a letter to the
planning board um discussing uh permit extension act tolling which um basically says that um um with the stormwater management permit being issued in February of 2023. Uh
that means it would have had an expiration date of February 2025. Um, per the permit extension act, uh, that new expiration date would be February of 2027, uh, which would be 2 years after the
original expiration date of the permit. Uh my client has asked um in in a discussion today that the um planning board extend consider extending the the the permit
for one more year to February of 2028, which would allow the condominium board time to secure more funds for the remaining parking work. So, right now they um they're in the process of um securing uh three bids for the work so
they they can find out how much money they have to raise from the uh the condominium o owners and then um they're hoping to be able to get the work complete by February 2028. Um, and as I said in in the meantime,
I'll be submitting an interim as built to document what work has been completed at this time. Uh, and I will also be reviewing the permit on behalf of the of my my client and making sure any additional information that the that the
uh the planning board needs is is submitted. >> Sounds good. Thank you, Frank. >> Thank you. Um Beth, in terms of process, um do do we need to make a a vote? Is the
tolling I feel like I remember the tolling being automatic, >> correct, Andrew? >> So this is already extended technically till um 2027. >> Yeah. So you could just add a year on to that by a vote. They said, "We understand the expiration date is
February of 2027, but the board would like to create, you know, a new expiration date of 2028." You know, however you want to word it, but we certainly can do that. >> So, I'd like to make a motion that we extend the deadline for the storm water
permit from February of 2027 to February of 2028. >> An expiration date. extend the expiration date from February of 2027 to February of 2028. >> I'll second it.
>> We've had a motion made and seconded. Is there any discussion? >> Mr. Chairman. >> Uh yes, Lori. >> Um if I may, I was on the board at the time of this was approved with Carol and Lance. And I just want to say that uh
Country Estates is a self-managed um association and they have had a lot of um changes in their leadership of trustees.
So the people that were on at the time that I was helping them and not in a management position but in a just helping them go through the process, those people are no longer on
the board. So there wasn't very much follow through follow up with this. So um on their behalf I I would appreciate your um motion for this to be done to help
them out and now that they have Dillis and Roy back involved. Apparently there had been just a lack of a lot of lack of communication. So hopefully that will be finished and they will finally have their parking lot. So thank you.
>> No, it's it's 100% on my radar now. So um >> Okay. >> We'll we'll get this addressed and wrapped up within the parameters of of the permit. >> Okay. I think all the residents will be happy too to finally have their parking lot. >> Thank you.
>> Thanks, Lori. All right. So motion's been made, seconded. Um let's go around and and give you a vote. Carolus, yes. >> Last, yes. >> Red King, yes. >> Andrew Shepard, yes. >> And Beth, um, my calculations has that
as February 13th, >> but I'm not sure if that would be um that was for the 2027 date. So, I'm not sure if that would be that might be a a Saturday or Sunday. So, it it's on or about fe February 13th, 2028.
>> Okay. and I'll draft a letter documenting that and um Andrew I'll have you sign it or you know whoever's available so we could just update that permit expiration date with a letter. It doesn't have to be a whole new permit
just a letter do. Okay. >> Thank you. >> So let's um >> thank you very much. >> Thank you. Thanks Rick. Um so it looks like 647 or 648 like to open 2.2. 2 uh
for the 6:45 p.m. public hearing certificate of completion for Campbell Farms OSPD Storm Water Management Permit SM 2022-01. >> Okay. So, >> Go ahead, Beth.
>> Yeah, I just want to let the board know that all the documents that are required have been filed. So, we have everything and I have the certificate here. um for our signature. So, the board should just take a vote, you know, unless you want
to see anything or ask any questions. Um the applicant isn't here. Neither is his engineer here. >> Yeah, Mr. Ru could talk to to that if you need if you have any questions. >> Do do any board members have any
questions or anything on that matter? >> No. >> Nope. Okay. I'd like to entertain a motion to um approve the request for a certificate of completion. And being that I'm not present, I'd like to have
authorized Carol to sign it. >> And I'll make the motion to approve the what is it? I I'll make a motion to approve the certificate of completion for the Campbell Road OSPD
and have Carol sign it. >> I'll second that. >> All right. Any motions been made and seconded? Any discussion? I'd like to go around and and share your vote. >> Carol Hus. Yes. >> Lance McN.
>> Brett King, yes. >> Andrew Shepard, yes. Okay, very good. So, we got a few minutes till our 7 p.m. hearing. Uh, let's I wonder is there any correspondences printed out? I know
there's some in the portal. Um, >> so can we do like 4.1 and 4.3 and well, excuse me, 4.1, 4.2, and 4.4. >> All right. 4.1 letter to um intermission determining of compliance of section 3A
of the zoning act. >> Yep. That just is a confirmation that um the attorney general approved um the zoning and the zoning map that was submitted and everything's all set with MBTA for towns and we're fully in
compliance. >> Well, that's good >> with that letter. >> K4.2 too. >> Uh that's the memorandum and um also to add to that memorandum.
uh the uh the grant administrator slash wearing the other hat as the intram administrator did uh submit a uh DTA proposal for town to take the findings
from this particular uh concept plan that was was created under uh a UPWP program and move to see if we could get some forward movement with it in terms of like a putting it on the
transportation improvement program. It's the intersection right here. Okay. >> You've all familiar with the concept plan, but that's uh that was submitted late last week uh right before the deadline. So, we'll see what happens. That's a DTA. Okay. >> Other than that
pending, so hopefully we'll get that that one. Can you do 4.4 if you want? >> All right. 4.4 for report to the town of towns and planning board from Loris Provos VP of operations next amp regarding 22 miss west metal road
that's you have that where is that one is that here I think so >> yeah maybe not
the annual report for Um the solar array H. >> Is this it right here about Is this it? >> There you go. No, that's the >> Okay, >> so it's >> Oh, that's 53. Never mind. >> Should be
in this folder. See if I can find it. Might have it over here. Oh, there's no I turn it around. I think there >> you don't mind. It's short. >> Were you here for Campbell? Uh, >> no. I'm here for 75.
>> Oh, okay. >> So, so this is from Nexium. Um regarding 22 West Bennett Road, Walkbrook Solar annual reporting per bylaw 145-86 approval condition two dear town of
towns and planning board. This annual report certifies compliance with the requirements of this bylaw and the approved site plan including control of vegetation viability and health assessment of plantings installed per lock solar array layout and materials
plan sheet C-201 revised 2819 noise standards and adequacy of the road. This annual report provides the information on the maintenance completed during the course of the year and the amount of electricity generated by the
facility. Annual energy production is 1,819,99 kilowatt. Annual array maintenance July 30th, 2025. Vegetation maintenance mowing June 23rd,
2025 and September 29, 2025. October 8, 2024. Nexam notified of landscaping outside of lease area at 22 West Battle Road impacting required screening vegetation. Thank you. Warren
Provost, Vice President of Operations and Maintenance. Do you want this back via folder? >> So you don't lose it. >> All right. Thank you. >> And this goes to all the different board.
What forward? >> Lance, would you have the um noted correspondences from neighboring towns? >> Bunch of those. >> Yeah. Um I can do that. There's one pretty important one that's going on
tomorrow that the pim has been contacted a couple of times by Oakland. >> Okay. So, this is the only one that you believe that's relevant. >> I think Oh, is that the one the 10y year the 10y year
>> plan or something? >> There's just the one just the one on top >> I I would say. So, yeah. Yeah, that's but I mean everything else is in the folder and let you know. So, >> all right. So, I'm just going to read um one notice from an ab budding town
and uh this is from the town of Mason, New Hampshire. Um dated February the 26, 2026. Um you are hereby notified that the Mason Planning Board will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, March the 25th. So
that's in a couple days beginning at 700 p.m. The meeting will be held in the gymnasium of the Mason Elementary School. Um and uh it's dealing with an application by 1524 Brook Line Road LLC
proposing an 8phase excavation site plan um approximately 67 acres on Brookline Road. The proposed excavation is expected to span 8 to 15 years and ex uh ex exact
gosh I can't say uh excavate approximately 35 acres in total with a primary route proposed along south New Hampshire route 13 through Brook Brooklyn New Hampshire. Okay. So, having a budding calendar, they've
been reaching out a couple of times through email to the planning board office and asking if um planning board members have any comment on the project. So, I didn't offer any comment. I didn't know like if anybody wanted to look it up. The application's online, so you can
look that up or you can go to the hearing. That's that's the biggest thing um you know that came in for regional interests. Okay. So again, the public hearing on that is
going to be in March the 25th at 7 p.m. >> Y for that Wednesday night. >> Okay. So I think that's just about everything and we'll just wait a few more minutes till 7 o'clock.
Oh, how much time do you have? Um, >> we have three m two minutes. >> Yeah. What about the site visit for Cedar Road extension and the public hearing? Can you set those? >> Okay. Yeah, sure. Um, >> thinking I didn't get a a lot of
feedback from the consulting engineer, the peerreview engineer, um, as to when they're going out. they wouldn't they would probably like to go with the board either if possible. Um I didn't I did try to ask the applicants engineer and
he didn't give me much for you know dates or time. So I guess the best get you know best thing to do is just set a time that works for the planning board and we'll go from there. >> Excuse me. Which item is that on the agenda? >> Road extension
>> 3.1 subdivision. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Okay, >> Beth, is that actually an extension of Siver Road? So, is that something the town will take over? >> Uh, I believe it's a private, but I don't know. I don't think it's a town 30th town road.
>> S Road is a town road though, right? >> Yes. But I don't know about the extension. I think it'll be Don't know that. That's a good question. >> Well, so if it's private, it'd be considered common driveway then, right? >> I guess it would. Yeah. >> Yeah. because I don't understand it because yeah, an individual cannot
extend a road. The town has got to extend the road. >> Okay. Yeah, >> that's kind of what I was thinking. >> Yeah. >> All right. So, we need to set a hearing date and um a site visit date. >> Does anybody have a dates that uh I mean
a hearing wise, I think it would be Is there anything we need to wait for? Um Beth, do you know how peer review is going? Uh, it's going pretty well. The storm water isn't done yet because that engineer hasn't been um been uh able to
get to it yet. I did get an email update from the town's peerreview consultant and uh let me see what he says here. He's moving along very quickly. >> I guess we we either set it for the six or for the 20th. And the six is Easter
Monday. >> Six is too soon. It can either be the 20th and I can I can get that done posted in a letter notified by the for the 20th or May 11th would be the other one. It doesn't matter, you know, it
really doesn't matter. The board has 135 days. So, >> so I make a motion that we um schedule a public hearing on April the 20th. >> Okay. at 6:45 p.m. for the Sver Road Extension
definitive subdivision. >> Oh, wait. You did for the other one you had 635, right? >> Yeah. Or let me You mean make it seven? >> Well, uh 650 maybe because 22 West
Meadow might take 15 minutes, right? Or >> All right. Let me just make it at 7 o'clock. >> Yeah. Okay. All right. So, I amend my motion that we have a public hearing on April the 20th at 700 p.m. for uh the SE road extension.
>> I'll second it. >> Okay, we got a motion and a second. Does any discussion? Otherwise, let's go around and share your vote. >> Carolis, yes. >> Lance McNe, yes. >> Andrew Shepard, yes. I will not be in
town for that day. I will do my best to attend remotely. >> Okay. >> Um I I just like to make a motion that Beth schedules a site vis visit um you know after you know polling the board
members and the the weatherman. >> Okay. Because it would be you know before >> before the public hearing. >> Yeah. But I think the easiest thing is for you to look at the weather and >> Okay. you know, schedule it with us and we'll show there. Show up. >> Okay. >> Beth, if I had questions, when would I
bring them up on this? Like during the sitewalk or the next at this meeting? >> You have you reviewed the application? >> Oh, yeah. Y >> Okay. So, you can ask me questions uh before the hearing anytime. You can come in and ask me questions and I can get answers for you. Okay.
>> Um other than that, you can't discuss it with any board member or anybody a member of the public. >> Sure. >> Until the public hearing. >> Okay. Um and even then you can't discuss it with the public. Y so at the public okay so I'll work on either does any board
member want to share any times and dates that are preferable. >> It's easier if you just propose something and people say yes or no. >> All right. >> That works. There's quite for this um and I'm trying
to find out whether we need to send notification by certified mail for this. So that's >> for the site visit. >> No, for the definitive subdivision approval >> the public hearing. >> Yes, >> I'm pretty sure that you I'm pretty sure you need to send a Butters >> certified.
>> Yeah, >> that would be really expensive and certified letters are 10 bucks each. Oh, yeah. >> All right. I I'll Okay. >> I didn't think the plan board needed to >> I That's what I'm like kind of stuck on because I >> I don't know that the town has to do
that. You should check. You should inquire on that. >> Yeah, I'm going to check. >> You may want to check with Kieran because I'm not sure we budgeted money postage. >> We do recover the cost of mailing. I do
the mailings. Yeah, I do the mailing but >> I feel like the budget's like really tight. >> Yeah, but I haven't >> Yeah, I mean I I mean you just have to notify the abutters and it's just you know certifi if it's certified then you have proof of notification,
>> right? >> But you could obtain that other ways. >> Yeah. Like you can do a cheap uh certificate of mailing and the post office will certify that they mailed it to all the people on the list. >> Oh, okay. probably what we can do >> or or during our site visit we can go knocking on doors
>> wouldn't when wouldn't that be responsibility of the engineer >> only the technically the statute says the plague boy has to do it it's funny conservation commission the >> okay >> let's let's in the interest of time
we'll open up the 7 p.m. 2.3 public hearing and TCAM you can kick me off cuz I'll be abstaining and you guys can just take me back when you're ready. >> Oh, this paperwork. >> So, I guess the first question is do we have a quorum issue or that the lack of
Mr. Sheepard? >> No. Well, there's five five board members. >> Okay. So, three is a majority. >> Does he have to reappoint Lance?
>> Uh, no. No. lines is good. Okay. So, I can just go ahead and open the meeting or do I? >> Yeah. >> Okay. This is Carol Hoses and I'm opening the public hearing for a three-wheeler road modification to major
storm water management permit application 2022-02 March 23rd 2026. Um, and I have to give the legal notice. >> Do you have to in a continuation? I
don't think so. >> No, no, I don't want to do that. Um, okay. So, I guess I can have representative present. Is that what's next? Proposal.
>> No. Uh, for the continuation. >> Okay. We just need to read new material that was received. >> And you can read my notes. You don't have to read all of that. >> Oh, just do the highlights. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um
action taken at the February 23rd 26th meeting. The board voted to approve the proposal from Graves Engineering, Inc. for a technical peer review of the three wheeler threewheeler road storm water management application. An email an
email was sent to applicant requesting funding to an escrow 53G account on February 246. On February 27th, 26th, the applicant's representative submitted a letter to the planning board informing the board that the escrow account would not be funded
and requesting reconsideration of the peer review for three-wheeler road tones and mass. action >> sign entity or are you >> no I don't >> discussion of letter and whether the board wishes to maintain it vote for
employment of engineering in to conduct a technical peer review of the three-wheeler road storm water management permit application or take any other action there too after discussion take a vote to affirm decision
Okay. So now we just go and discuss. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> I'd like the opportunity to present. >> Okay. >> Madam Chair. >> Yes. You go ahead. >> My name is Greg Roy with Wilson Roy. Thank you for your time. I appreciate
it. Um and I wanted to um I wanted to just say by introduction that I apologize and I wasn't you're getting a little choppy here. Ryan Proctor from my office was here a month ago. When you first considered this I was not present. I wanted to acknowledge that. Um,
but I wanted to u I wanted to I guess summarize the letter that I gave you the the February 27th letter uh relative to the the facts u as we see them uh pertaining to this application and actually add a little bit to it since since I uh since I've uh written the uh
letter. The fact of the matter is we're we've been at we've asked you applied for modification to the stormwater permit. Um and in this case be we've asked you for that modification due to the fact that the project is being reduced one that's a very important fact
the initial permit that you that your board granted I think Lance might have been the only person on the board back in 2016 or 17 when this was first uh permitted um was for >> five at the time >> for a larger site roger that was for a larger site for about 100,000 cubic feet
of additional material that was going to come off the site the the modification that you have in front of you is a reduction to all those all those parameters. Also, what I didn't say in this letter um but we I subsequently took a look at the um both
the 2016 approval and the 2020 approval uh that was uh approved by your board. Neither of those not the initial application or the updated one was peer reviewed. Uh so we presented the entire project to you which was larger in
extent much more earth removal much more uh earth disturbance and you didn't peer review it as far as I can tell it was approved in one meeting and we had a we had a decision. So we're here tonight um to ask you to reconsider your motion uh
relative to the peer review. I mean we're we're basically here trying to clean up what we're we're seeing as sort of an administrative uh process here. We have a valid the applicant has a valid storm water permit. It doesn't expire, I don't think, till the end of this year. Um, if we weren't here
tonight, there could be more disturbance uh work happening on the site um than is than is currently happening. we're we're here. We filed this a month or two months ago, whatever it was, uh to really just administratively
catch up uh with what um with what the applicant is actually doing, which really was just to keep and reconstruct one of the buildings on the site and as a result of that dramatically reduce the amount of soil removal that's happening on the
property. So to us, to me, and I I apologize. Ryan was here last last meeting and really didn't feel like he had the opportunity to uh uh to mention this and not that he might have he might not have either. He's a junior engineer. Um but really this does not rise in my
view to the level of peer review. Um this really rises to you're in the you're in you're in the camp here of a reduction in the overall scope of work. We're here really just trying to clean up the clean up the product. I do have a question and somewhere in
all these documents that I've read um it said by keeping the bond that it increases the amount of impervious surface and so and I'm not really sure what that means
>> but I also read somewhere that um how will this be how will this increase be accounted in the stormwater basin. We're proposing so we we're not we're proposing to relocate the storm water basin just due
to the way that the grades are being uh revised on the site, but we're mitigating the storm water in the same way as we as we were in the previously approved project, which again you did not peer review. Also, the barn that's in question, it's not like this is a new structure. Yes,
we had intended to take that down. We approved, you know, we were going to take that down. we're going to remove all the soil underneath it. You know, as I said, a much more dramatic and extensive earth removal operation. Um, it was determined that that barn we wanted to keep that the applicant wanted to keep that barn. A building permit was
issued for that. It's been constructed and it's resulting. So, yes, it's compared to the initially originally approved. You have a modest increase in storm water, but it's not anything more than what was there existing because the barn has historically been there. So, we're not proposing a new structure that
hasn't been that hasn't been on the prop on the property. So, it's not like we're proposing a brand new structure that's going to introduce all kinds of new storm water on the site. So, I mean, it just it just doesn't seem to us to rise to the level of um major modification
here. >> What's the reduction in yardage going out, Greg, from what was proposed? >> Yeah, I put that in the letter. It's um >> read it. Sorry. >> It's okay. >> It's right here. It's now down to 150,000 square feet from 26.
>> Yeah, that's the that's the overall disturbance. I think the cubic yardage reduction is somewhere around 100,000 cubic yards, right? So, and that's where you Yeah, I think you've been on the site that the building that was reconstructed sits up pretty high. That was going to be originally the previous applicant, the Amadons, we were going to
we were going to remove that. We're going to take that that hill down and bleed that out into on the, you know, westerly side of the site. Just was decided not to do that. So arguably we're talking about a less impactful project overall. >> Yes.
>> Um two comments to make. So first of all, I'm an engineer. >> Okay. Um, and I started going through the storm water regulations, but I'm an electrical engineer and um, may you know, I mean, they are complicated and
so I am concerned that I do not have the background to be able to review it. Second, um, regardless what was done in the past, but we have been requiring
other applicants to go through a peer review on their projects and I think it's important that we are fair to across the board are my two comments. >> Greg, do you have any comments?
>> I'm not an engineer, but I do work in the business. >> I know you're smarter than I am. I don't know about that. >> Um I don't know. To me, it's a permit that's already been issued. There's a reduction in scope. I don't if you I'm you know I would defer to you Greg in a
way because if you've already made you know determine where the storm waters go, determine that the basin's big enough. I don't Yeah, I mean that's the other thing. You have it, you have the benefit here of a storm water basin
that we've drastically oversized. We're doing an urge removal permit. So, we've oversized the basin. >> Our 100 year pond ponds that much in the bottom of the of a basin that's, you know, several feet deep. So, you just don't have a situation here where you're where you're you're um where you're
really up against it. I I haven't been to the site in theater until really, but >> thankful. >> And you can defer your decision if you want. >> Okay. And I assume you're from the public. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. And you want to just state your
name and >> James Doyan 42 West Me West Towns. >> Um I'm here on in regards of I have about Gary's property. my time about spoke 22 west metal and
three-wheeler. >> Lucky you. >> Yeah, it is. Gary Gary's an outstanding everything he's doing up there in an agricultural basis equal to reclaiming on and on. I could get into a big
tangent about that, but just to read about Mr. Roy, it was originally what we approved back in 216. I'm also on conservation commission so I'm very familiar with everything that's being done up there that has been done etc.
I've abuted that land since 1959 when we originally grew up. Um not to get into taking up too much of anyone's time. It was originally approved for 105 acre removal
yards of material to be removed. Then I think it was reduced back down to less than 50,000 yards at this point in time. If I don't know if you have the raw numbers you should have those. >> I don't have them in my water. I apologize. I don't have the reduction of
the cubic foot cubic yard. Okay. But in rebuttal to what you had said about pvious and impervious material to the barn and water flow off of it, it's moot point. That footprint is existing. No
different with the barn roof that is there now is to what the old barn was. He did not increase that footprint. That bottom was built off the original concrete work that I recall being done when I was a kid.
So what has happened there? They're not going to remove almost 60,000 plus yards. That whole area is going to remain stable. So what is what is being done and in
completion is going to be much less than was originally planned on. So there's a it as he you had stated it's gone in the other direction of any
impact in in the storm water injury but the storm water operations are very difficult and there's a lot to it. You have to be very acclimated to it and do it
consistently to understand it and be able to go. But I I am seeing this third party peering view starting to come up in front of even my board right now. And it's it I understand where it comes
from, but is it necessary? I'm just asking this board, is it necessary? is the ability in in the group unable to
overview these plans and understand where they are going. >> Absolutely. >> With your assistance. >> Yes. >> That's the thing. It's a technical review. Drainage helps. We don't have >> We
don't have an engine. and even you >> I I have a degree in environmental science but not in >> they are very difficult even when we go to a 401 water test but but you have to you have to look at the subject you have to look at the matter before you there are definitely
times when you need to do a peer review I'm not trying to dispute that but I just don't think this is one of them you got you got a reduction you got a reduction in the amount of overall >> land but you're talking to people who don't have the background >> no you just got to look at the Yeah, you just you just >> I can look at a plane, but it doesn't
mean I have to stay into all the I mean are you disputing that we have a reduction in Eric? >> Yeah. >> So that that's all you really need to know. It's a it's a small >> I don't know that because I'm not an engineer. >> Why not? You're disturbing less land.
>> I don't know. By disturbing less land what changes it could change something by disturbing any land. >> Um project change myself >> for the better. Project change for the better. You didn't peer review it in the
first place to change it. Just >> Well, I'm sorry. >> That's what the the fact the the facts of the fact that fact is really important. I'm not asking you to approve something that we're expanding or >> that's a totally different scenario. we wouldn't be asking for this if
>> I I mean my comment on this is that as a board member I feel an obligation to the community to make sure that our bylaws that they have passed are complied with and to
make sure the regulations that we have put forth are complied with. And my two points were very simple simple. I do not have the expertise to
say the regulations are being complied with and our water, our aquifier and everything is really important to all of us. And second, we are currently requiring everyone to be peer-reviewed
and I want to be fair to all applicants are my two points >> and I agree with Lance. So what we see l typically is where it's a reduction typically what we'd see in other places that we see it just picked
up in an asbuilt that it hasn't been peer reviewed you know I'm I'm just telling from what we see it hasn't been peer reviewed before I agree with you with the peer review but in this case it wasn't peer reviewed before why wouldn't it be just picked up on an asbuilt and
because once again it's a reduction that's the way I personally would look at it I don't know that's my point exactly You know, a lot of times we would a lot of times you wouldn't even be here. >> Bill, it's too late. The system is already installed. >> Not if it's not if it's less work.
>> No. So, talking about installing a storm water management system and making sure it operates based on the plans that you drew sign and stamp. >> We don't know. And if you wait till the as well, that's too late. Then you have to go back and >> No, it's not. You can decide to approve
it or not. accept the so I would like to make a motion that we >> Excuse me. Could I mean to interrupt? I'm I'm I'm so sorry to do that. I just wanted to kind of part out with one quick comment.
>> I I'm a little curious as to your statement. You are going to a board require a third party peer review on everything that comes in front of the planning board? I didn't say that. >> No, that's not what you said. We have a
a process for storm water management permitting. It's on the application that the applicant you requires a peerreview consultant fee as part of the application. It's part of the the way that the planning board that was a part of the order of conditions.
>> I don't know anything about that. >> Order of conditions is conservation. This is planning board. >> But what I'm trying to say is that correct me. You said that you are looking for a third party peer review on on everyone. You said to be fair with
everyone you >> for storm water. I'm not saying that. >> Okay. That's what I want to understand. >> Yeah. Like for example, if you were to come here with an ANR >> Yeah. >> We will not have a peer review of an ANR >> application. Okay. Correct. Correct. the
board is very well capable of looking at what the re regulations and the bylaws are in 145 and 175 to determine whether or not the ANR is acceptable. So due to the inability with this commission right
now, it's beyond your scope to be able to make an approval on this because of the storm water and it's hard to difficult to decipher and understand and approve. >> Personally for me it's it's it's beyond
my capabilities. I understand it is I agree it is difficult but at the same time it was just stated it has already been approved and there's been a a major reduction in
the footprint of construction and earth removal. Thank you. I I I apologize. I appreciate you allowing us to speak. You're welcome. Yes. >> You want to go ahead and make a motion? I make a motion that we u um continue to
require a peer review of a three wheeler road. >> Second it. Should we vote? Are you still take a vote? >> Lance McNally in favor. >> No.
>> And Carol is in favor. >> So it does not pass. need a board quum. >> I was you have only a three member board. >> Fine. >> So you three majority. >> Yeah. >> So that motion does not pass. >> Did you know?
>> Yeah, it does. >> No, it doesn't. You have two two yeses. >> Did you vote? >> Yeah, we had >> two yeses or one no. >> Two yeses. Correct. You need three. you qu
>> unless as three you stand as quorum. >> Okay. >> As only three. >> You formed. You would have to be unanimous. >> So, did you actually vote? >> Yeah. >> Yes. Yes. No. >> Oh, okay. >> Yes. Yes. No. >> No.
>> I don't know how that works. >> I don't The motion didn't pass. >> I don't believe that. I believe two out of three is a majority. It's It's not your majority. Your quorum is three. >> Our quorum is three, but we have a majority of two. I mean, we can let
legal look at that. >> Yeah, we can have legal. That's fine. But you're doing this a long time. >> I mean, I believe that it fails. I mean I mean the mo the motion carries. >> Two. >> Yeah, it doesn't.
>> Well, I'm just saying I believe it does. >> It does. >> Okay. Well, that's fine. Carol, if I may. I just >> Okay, go ahead. >> Yeah. Um, okay. I I hate to disagree, but the membership of the board is five.
A quorum is three. So, if you're having a vote, like if there's only three of you, then the three have to be in the affirmative. And I could be wrong and I think you're very uh it would be astute to ask legal
counsel to be sure, >> but your quorum is three of a five member board. >> Okay. >> It does not and I believe on a vote like this, you need three if that's all you
have in attendance >> to be in the affirmative. So, not going either way, but I'm just saying that from my experience in chairing and Robert's rules, that would be correct. But I'm not an attorney.
>> You should just wait until Robert's presence or heart rate. >> Listen, I I don't think you can. I don't have the adversary either. But what are we going to do? We just going to vote on things until we get the vote we want? Like, are we going to continue it? We just voted on it. My eyes it like from
what's being described, it failed. So, we're going to wait for more people to come here so it can get voted down. >> I don't know. >> I'm I'm Well, if if if the attorney says that it fails, then then it fails. >> Okay. >> But I'm I'm good with that.
>> Okay. >> Are you good with that? >> Yeah. But I I agree with Beth. I mean, my point is that we did not pass a motion to change what we had previously agreed with. >> I don't disagree with you. That's right.
Right. I'm okay. What I disagree with, are we're going to continue it until we get more members here so we can get more members to vote on it and see if the vote changes. >> I I'm all for if Becca just asked Adam if if not having three yeses means it
fails. Okay. >> Then then I'm okay. >> The motion fails. >> Yeah, the motion fails. So, I'm I'm good with that. >> But but but the bottom line is we're nowhere. Well, no. It reverts back to your motion the other day. So, it means they require to have a peer review and
fund the escro. >> Correct. That's where you're at. >> I can tell you we're not going to do that. >> Okay. That's perfectly fine. You can refuse. >> I hope that you I we we hope that you will see the logic of what presenting, but I can tell you that we're not going to the applicant is not interested in
funding peer review. >> There's a process for appeal and this is not it. So, you can go through that process. No, we're not going to appeal it. We're just we're not going to fun the bure >> then it's not going to be approved at the end. >> If that's what you do, then then we might appeal then we will appeal it.
>> Okay. Okay. >> But but All right. So, let me let me sort of summarize this. Currently, we had a public hearing >> on on whatever date it was >> and we basically had as a board
requested a peer review. The applicant has come back for this public hearing basically asking the board to reconsider the peer review. >> The board did not have a quorum to
approve or disapprove. >> Well, you had a quorum. You just didn't you didn't >> we didn't have a vote to accept the applicant's desire or refute the applicant's desire. We're nowhere. So, I
think it's prudent to continue the public hearing >> when there's more board members here and I don't know how the board members are going to vote. >> I don't even >> I I I disagree
only because if if that's what we're if that's what the planning vote is about, I don't think I want to be part of it because if we're going to vote like are we going to just keep continuing things till we till we get the vote that >> I I just don't know. No, no. I wouldn't say that we're we're we're delaying it to get the vote. I'm trying to say how
can we put finality into this because I you know, personally I think it's unfair to leave an applicant um >> hanging. >> Oh, no. I agree with you. >> Um you know, and if we had another person here, >> do do you expect to have more people at
the next meeting? >> Yeah. >> You have five? >> Yeah. >> Total fully. I didn't realize that that two one member would have >> we might have one more member because one has to recuse. >> We only have one more right. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So if we have
>> so we'll have two more extra member >> himself. So >> is the option to have him on video unable? Was he not available? >> Robert. >> Robert. >> He's not available.
>> Okay. Neither partly. >> Okay. So we have two more members. >> Listen. Oh, okay. Why? So there's a possibility. >> No, no, we could have two more at the next meeting. >> Yeah, >> because I am the associate. So I am not a full-time member. >> Thank you. I didn't that that's my
>> Yeah, that's why I would you >> But you could be appointed to vote. I don't need >> I was appointed to vote, but we could have at the next hearing we could have Robert and we could have Hartley, >> right? and you and there would be five.
>> Okay. So, he can is is he can as an interim how can he vote on Lori? >> It's because he's you're a part-time member or >> I'm an associate member. >> He's the associate member. So that when a member is missing for a vote and Beth
can clarify this cuz I don't know if that is only when it's um like a subdivision vote or Beth if you can qualify what the vote is where the um affiliate member or associate member
that is appointed what is the ma what are the issues that he can vote on or >> I think confirm it. So, actually that vote was invalid now that she mentioned it. >> Okay. See, the longer you talk, the more
this will all come out. But >> um I I think you should continue until you have a full board. >> And um then at least you'll have if the associate can't vote, you'll at least have four members. And it can be 3 to
one or it can be 2:2. It it it could be tied up if this is what you continue doing. Okay. >> Sorry. >> So, just so I'm not Don't So, >> Lancepril 20th. >> So, everything you voted on tonight then
is no good. >> I think >> so. He's not a participant in this hearing process. Is that what I'm understanding? Okay. So, we didn't have a part tonight. So, that was my initial good. That's it. you voted. >> I hear you say because you're not sitting in a courtroom if you're not. In
HDC, we have an alternate. If we do not have enough members in our meeting, we bring the alternate in to bring us up to the appropriate amount of members. >> It's not the same thing. >> It's not the same thing, >> if I may. It's not the same thing
because the affiliate only votes in certain circumstances. >> Yeah. There's only certain things. Yeah, >> I'm an associate. I think the proper term is the associate only >> correct >> results during certain circumstances. >> So if it's a member or recus from a
special permit decision, that's it. >> So Lori, they are in a three member quorum right now. Correct. >> No, not >> not for this vote. No, >> they can hold the meeting. >> They can hold the meeting and have
discussion. They cannot vote in this situation and that is not the same for every other meeting. It's only in planning where they have to vote on certain things that are permitted that kind of thing which this is okay. So
>> not announced at the beginning of the meeting. >> So well I to be fair I tried to flush it out by asking that question. That that should have been that should have been made clear at the beginning of the meeting that you're not sitting in. >> Yeah. So,
>> I'm sorry. I thought that I was able to vote on this. >> No, I thought you were too because Andrew Andrew appointed you. But that means everything we voted on tonight is no good. >> Uh 22 West Meadow is fine because that was a special permit. This is a storm water management permit. That's the
difference. So, yeah. >> So, that we're going to have to retract that vote. You can't >> So Lance, you might want to just or Carol, you might want to just take the board through retracting that last motion and that last vote because it really
>> it stands as it would stand as null and void, right? >> So what you can do is I don't even know if they can open the public hearing now that I think of that. >> You can't which is why I asked the question at the beginning you can't. >> It is. >> Yeah. No, they couldn't even open that public hearing. Sorry.
>> All right. I thought you could, but no, you can't. So, >> I guess what you do is you just say >> you'd have to retract that whole vote and then say on the matter of three-wheeler road, uh there is no quorum to continue the public hearing
tonight. So, you're going to continue it to the next meeting. >> Okay. So, we're going once again. This is a continuation from the Zoom meeting at the storm, which I could not make, which I wanted to, but it was announced
that you could take and not have the meeting and it was legal to do it on Zoom. Did not know that. That's fine. But even watching that meeting, I had some concerns as to what I saw. So, >> so you have a hearing at 7:30. So, you
might want to wrap this up. >> Okay. So, in cons reconsideration of um the planning p for peer review three-wheeler road, we do not have a quorum. So we we're tracking any motions
made during this hearing and I can close >> and the next meeting date would be >> uh are we going to go 20 April >> the whole matter will be moved to the next agenda. >> Well the matter will be moved to the next agenda.
>> April 6. >> April 6th. >> April 6 is the next meeting to to this. Thank you very much. >> Okay. >> I apologize. fall under that would 2.2 to that. >> No, no, no, you're not. >> That's the difference. It's special
permit. >> Camp the Campbell Farm one. >> Uh, that's a storm water management permit and um Andrew voted on it. >> Oh, you're right. Okay. >> All right. Thank you everybody. See you in a couple weeks.
>> All right. 7:30. >> Thank you. >> I apologize for interrupting your >> No, you don't have to. Is Andrew coming back? >> Um, >> I don't know. >> 7:30. >> Yeah, we have the 53
>> and that's again storm water management permit. >> So, does that mean we don't >> Andrew comes back and we'll be off. Yeah. >> Oh, Andrew's coming back for this. >> Okay. >> But I can't participate in this. >> Oh, that was >> And then we're going to we're going to
get hung up if it's not unanimous. We're going to get hung up here. What? >> If it's not unanimous. >> Oh, true. Yeah. So, I mean, but you can tell the applicant that if they don't want you to vote on it tonight, you don't have to. You can continue it. Um or you can vote to approve it with
conditions. You have options on that one, too. >> Oops. Be careful. >> Phone call skirt. >> No, it wasn't the skirt. It was your foot. What is this one here? What are we doing here? Oh, that's Yeah, that's the
guideline. Oh, thank you. >> Am I good to add Andrew back in again? >> Yes, Andrew. Yes, please. Yes, please. Please. You don't know. Even when I was a chair, we always treated the associate as if we
didn't have five. We always been >> Yeah. Because I was an associate member for a long time. >> Yeah. >> We didn't know. >> All right. Do you want to go revisit all those votes you took back now? Like seven years worth.
All right, everybody. Uh, so we good to move to 2.4 7:30 p.m. 53 West Meadow. All right, I'd like to open the public hearing for M 2.4 at 7:39 p.m. for 53 West Meadow Road for
the new major storm water permit. I see we have I think we probably start it. I see we have Jeff Walt Walsh available or on on the screen. I know he sent some his peerreview comments in. Um, >> good evening. Yes, I'm I'm here. Good evening. >> You mind walking us through briefly
here? >> Certainly. >> Thank you very much again, Jeff Wash. I'm with Graves Engineering, the peer review consultant for the towns and planning board. Um, we were charged with reviewing the um storm water permit application for 53 West Meadow Road. So
the scope of our work is to um review the plans and the supporting storm water report uh for compliance with the uh uh towns and nifty's phase 2 storm water management regulations. Those are chapter 85 and the towns in chapter 175
article 5 storm water regulations as well as um we review the hydraology computations which are a set of calculations to support storm water permit application. Uh we review for
compliance with the mass D storm water management handbook and standards. And then finally we we've got a section we call general engineering. if if our review can't raises a concern but we can't um assign it to any specific uh
regulation but yet it is something we feel of importance and it's an engineering matter we'll put it under what we call general engineering um quite simply we went through the hydraology calculations um those look at the pre-development um
conditions and the runoff generated from the site we review the post-development hydraology calculations We look at the the input data, the modeling methodology, uh the output results, and um basically
we're trying to make sure that there was uh um proper modeling um the use of the input data variables for the different input data and um there's um um an attenuation of peak runoff rates. Um and
then we reviewed the rest of the storm water management document um for the different standards on the mass D. There's 10 standards, one of which is um I spoke a minute about with hydraology. That's standard two peak rates of runoff. There's also standards
for recharge uh water quality and so on and so forth. And then lastly, the two sets of regulations um in towns and um speak to specific things that the regulations want to make sure are shown on the plan. And um um the regulations
also generally different communities have different things that they might add above and beyond mass D storm water standards. Um but the storm water mass DP storm water standards basically capture most everything but different towns have
different things they like to sometimes focus on. Um there was nothing nothing extremely different in the local regulations compared to the uh uh mass D regulations. As for our
findings um quite frankly there I I see no major problems or fatal flaws if you will. Um there was a few house what I would consider housekeeping items um that need to be shown on the plan. For example,
um number two on our review letter of March 20th calls for email address and telephone number of the firm and the applicant. It seems like a trivial matter, but I've always commented on this for different communities because if I'm out doing an inspection, I've got
a set of plans under my arms. If there's a problem and the con the developer needs to be notified, my interpretation is the regulations call for that telephone number to be readily available on the plants. That's why I comment on this not not to be nitpicky um that that there's a piece of
information missing. So again, number two is a housekeeping item, but nevertheless, the information should be there. Number three is also a housekeeping item. Um that's got to do with identifying two different areas that are administered under the state wildlife uh
natural heritage and endangered species program. Um that program has an area called priority habitats of uh rare species and estimated habitats of rare wildlife. They're confusing. I always think of
them as one and the same, but they're not. technically not. Some most often they're they've got the same delineation, sometimes they don't. Um the estimated habitats available wildlife, sorry to bore you with this, but basically if if an area is in that,
anybody filing a notice of intent with the conservation commission has to um notify the natural heritage and species program. the larger priority habitat um has got to do not only with wetland species but upland species. So so
they're not necessarily two of the same things. The plans identified priority habitat quite simply I'm asking show that it's also estimated habitat. Again a housekeeping item. Um >> Jeff if if you don't mind maybe you just try to hit the high level stuff for for
the rest of it. I know >> Sure. Thank you very much. In that case, number four, um it's high level in so far as soil testing was not done at the um specific storm water BMP locations. However,
soil testing was done elsewhere on the site for the septic system. The soils are quite pvious. So, I'm I'm comfortable that the design is in order, but I can't say that conclusively to the planning board without soil testing having been done. So with respect to
number four, I'm recommending that the board um condition it condition approval if approval is going to be voted um to require confirmatory soil testing at the storm the locations of the storm water
BMPs at the start of construction. This gives the applicant the ability to mobilize equipment once do some confirmatory testing. I suspect they're going to find things are good. Uh rather than make them go out and do the testing. Now, um other than that, the other the other
last two things uh last three things, numbers eight, nine, and 10 are housekeeping items that again just dotting eyes and crossing tees. But in to shorten this up, um quite frankly, I have no major problems
with the design. Things are in order for the project that that that they're proposing. Um and and I'd be glad to answer any questions. >> Okay, awesome. Thank you, Mr. Walsh. Um I see Daniel Carr on with Stammansky and
McNary. It's the applicants engineering firm. Uh Daniel, have you had a chance to review the letter uh from the peerreview letter and have any >> Yes, I have uh read the letter and have no problem with those requested changes. >> Okay.
Okay. So, I think I'd have to pull up my or the the form again, but I I think aside from opening it up to to public comment, um if there is any um I I think we're kind of in a position where we could
potentially approve the the storm water permit with conditions um or postpone or or move it to the next meeting for for Daniel and Demansky to come back with with the proposed edits. I think it's kind of potentially one or the other.
Any comments from the boards or the board or any thoughts? >> We can't vote, right, Beth? Because this is a storm water. >> You can vote because we have Andrew. >> Oh, we do have Andrew. >> Andrew, my only question would be who's going to if we if we choose to do the um
soil evaluation, the testing as suggested, who would be the engineer of record of that? Would who would witness that testing? that I don't know. I don't know.
Would you have any comments or haven't come across this? >> I I could share with the board that you could do a few different things. One is to take the uh design engineers word for it if you feel comfortable doing that.
Or two, have somebody witness it. Um, I'm not looking for work, but I am a soil evaluator. Some of my clients for whom I do storm water reviews such as this ask for us to witness soil testing. Others do not. Um, I don't think it's
appropriate to ask the board of health agent to go back out there because it's not title 5 related or related to the septic system. I mean, the other thing for the board to consider, and I know this was against uh Mr. Walsh's recommendation, but that
there was already some soil testing done if we would want that to be a condition or not. >> U Mr. Walsh, what do you think the level of risk here is? >> Pretty low level of risk. um if it was a
less pvious glacial till and or if the design were such that the storm water BMPs were deeper in the ground, there would be a higher level of risk and I would have recommended soil testing now rather than confirmatory
start soil testing at at the start of construction based upon the fact there is some soil testing present. I reviewed that information. shows deep groundwater in the shallow proposal of the uh storm water BMPs.
Again, I I feel there's low risk, some risk, but low risk. >> Does the board have any any thoughts or preferences? >> We we typically see testing in the basins. I mean, I think that the
engineer of record could give us in informal testing, but but I really think it How far are the tests um for the septic away approximately? >> I can answer that. Um so on lot two, the
closest test pit appears to be about 55 ft away from the roof drywall system. in the infiltration trench even less like 25 ft away from the testing that was done. Um and on the lot one pretty
similar about 50 ft away and you know so we we've got testing done basically along these two lots so that you know we've got very consistent results really fast perk rates for the the um septic
system. So it I think it would be pretty unusual to have any different soils at the at the infiltration sites. >> And how big are the infiltration sites approximately? >> Um let's see. They are
>> about 20 by 20 on lot two and about 30 by 11 on lot one. So, what was the per rate for the septics? Do you have that there? >> Yeah, it was less than two and three. >> Okay, thank you.
>> Brett, what do you um what do you what do you think? >> I mean, I think it's consistent and we're talking two to three minutes soil. Like, I you know, I don't I don't think I think it'd be good. my personal >> having dug in that area. I know it's
quite sandy. >> So, >> again, my opinion, very low risk. I I I didn't want to come out and say, "Yeah, you guys are good." Um because sometimes somebody comes out of the woodwork and gives me a hard time. But my experience, I've been doing this for
a long time. I I agree with with the uh board members about um what you've shared about your experiences in that area. >> Daniel, do you Daniel, do you guys inspect the bottom of that? Is there someone that inspects the bottom of it?
>> Um we we have we usually only do it if the town requires it. >> Is that something we require? Yeah. >> Inspecting the bottom of what >> of the infiltration system? Uh, no. >> No. >> It's not a town by it's not in a town
rig. >> I I would I would I would simply put it if if they find something funny, report back to the board. Like chances are probably >> nothing. >> We make that a condition on the permit. I don't know if the wording would be if
you find something funny, let the board >> you find something out of the ordinary. >> Okay. Or could you put that that whole thing in right of the condition like verbatim? >> So item four. Do you think Beth can put
that in as condition? >> Sorry. Yeah, I think Yeah, I think so. >> Any other numbers on here? I mean, I don't know how you want to incorporate the whole >> findings like or how do you want to do this? I I think that, you know, all that
housekeeping stuff is pretty minor. Um, do you agree, David? >> Uh, Daniel, I'm sorry. Do you agree that that's the housekeeping stuff is is just simple? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Just a matter of changing some notes on the plan. Yeah. >> Happy to do all of that.
>> Okay. >> Yeah, that's fine. I guess it'd be subject to um you know satisfactory completion of of Mr. Walsh's letter aside from I don't have it in front of me right now.
>> Item four. >> Item four to which we would replace that with um whatever Brett's wording was subject to anything out of the ordinary on the basin basin floor to to let the
planning board know. Mr. Chairman, if the if the board's thinking of approving with conditions tonight and making a vote, my recommendation to my municipal clients is um if if for example certain certain or or any
comments in my letter need to be addressed, make it to address to the satisfaction not of Graves Engineering, but of the Towns and Planning Board. if if there was ever a dispute between me and a design engineer, I shouldn't have the final say. I think the board should
have the final say. So, I'd like to use that type of wording. >> Certainly, I' happy with that wording. Um, so I guess we got to figure out what the motion would be, but I I guess I'd like to entertain a motion to
uh approve >> the grant. to grant >> approve the grant >> to grant a major storm water management permit >> subject to the um planning board's
approval of satisfactory satisfactoryy addressing comments from Graves Engineering and um our version of item for. All right.
>> Is there any comments? >> So moved it. >> So moved. Okay. Do we have a second? >> I second. >> Second. Okay. Any discussion? Perfect. I'd like to go around and uh say your name, say your vote.
>> Carol says yes. Brett King, yes. >> Andrew Shepard, yes. Okay, you guys are tenatively approved. >> Great. Thank you everyone. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Shepherd, if if I might. Um, I was listening to the discussion of the
previous um matter before the board. >> Sure. I will let you know, Mr. Walsh. I was not present as I was accused, but >> Gotcha. >> I You may or may not be able to bring it up. I'm not sure. >> Okay. I I wanted to share something
not specific to that last piece of information, but voting and quorums in general as I understand it. If if the board doesn't want to listen to me, that's fine. But I figured while I was before you and your and and the board's
my client, I'd like to share with you my my understanding. I understand regardless the the board's going to be um consulting town council and I think that's appropriate. Um but uh may I go on?
>> I I don't have an issue with you sharing your thoughts uh in a general sense as I know we're not supposed to talk about certain matters outside of the public hearing but >> Okay. Thank you. in generally speaking with respect to um municipal boards and
I serve on a conservation commission have for a long time um it's my understanding that when a board has it has a certain number of seats that are that are assigned to it and a
quorum of course is is a um we need to reach a quorum just to conduct business once a quorum is present for a specific item Then it's my understanding that if a
motion is made and seconded and a votes taken on that motion that if it's a simple majority that passes it, it's a simple majority of the quorum present during that. I'm sorry. It's a simple majority of the members
participating in that vote and it's not a not a majority of the board as a whole. In other words, if five board members are seated, it doesn't mean and only three are voting. It's my understanding a majority
is more than is two. Two of the three members would have to pass something. And and the re and and if I may, the the the way I look at it is almost from a negative side.
If the vote had to have a majority of the seats, a majority of five and only three are present, then the two seats that are vacant are a negative vote right out of the gate. So
that's that's why it that's what helps me remember that it's always got to be a majority of the members voting once a quorum's been established for a particular item. >> Sure. Well thank you Mr. Walsh. >> You're welcome. The key,
Andrew, if I may, the key is that certain, and Beth can speak to this as well, that certain votes require a super majority or in some cases a full board vote, and Beth
can tell you which those are. If you're just holding the meeting, you have a quorum to hold and approve the minutes, do this, that, the other thing. uh you know, call to order, adjourn, but certain projects, if you will, or permits that
come before you, and storm water is different than the others, um that requires more people there. It can't it can't be passed two to one. >> Okay. All right. Thank you, Lori. So, I
I think we've gone through all of our uh meeting business as I see it on the agenda. The upcoming meetings we have are April 6th, April 20th, and May 11th. I know April 6th is the Monday after
Easter. Um, and April 20th, I will be uh potentially remote assuming I can make it. But otherwise, I'd like to entertain a motion to adjourn. >> Make a motion to adjourn. >> I was going to say maybe you could sign. >> And I'll sign whatever >> sign the storm water management permit
decision. >> Okay. It's whatever I can't read. Okay. >> 801. >> 801. >> Okay. Uh, do we have a second? >> I second. >> All those in favor? I >> I hope yes. Thank you everybody.