The discussion on the Brook Street solar project was comprehensive, with the commission considering a variety of measures to address the issues. The standing water in the basins was a primary concern, as one basin had drainage problems, and another was found to be unsuitable for an infiltration basin due to slow drainage rates. The engineering firm recommended reconfiguring the basins and potentially adding a sub drain or low flow drain to facilitate drainage. To gain a better understanding of the situation, the commission requested soil logs from test pits and a sketch indicating their locations.

During the meeting, the challenges faced during the excavation process were also discussed. These included unstable soil conditions and safety concerns that complicated the construction. The commission stressed the importance of obtaining further information to comprehensively assess the issues and secure a solution that would ensure the project’s compliance with stormwater standards and effectiveness.

The commission engaged in a detailed examination of the soil conditions surrounding a Basin, reviewing pictures and discussing the presence of organic material. The need for an alternative design for the Basin, potentially featuring an outlet structure or piping, was proposed. The debate over the suitability of solar panels in standing water also surfaced. Additionally, the need for a joint meeting with the planning board was emphasized.

In a related vein, discrepancies between the permitted design and the as-built design of another project behind Aros were reported by Weston and Sampson Engineering. The commission ordered design engineers to conduct stormwater calculations and modeling on the as-built plans to confirm compliance with regulatory standards.

The discussion also extended to the requested waivers from the town’s subdivision rules and regulations for the zero Elm Street project. The stormwater committee noted that they had not received formal applications for the waivers, despite mentions in a previous correspondence. This highlighted potential communication breakdowns and the need for proper documentation and review processes.

The status of the stormwater agent position was briefly discussed, with the town administrator working on a description of the job requirements. However, no updates were reported on this topic. Public comments raised concerns about the potential impact of design differences on groundwater levels.

A representative from Zenith Consulting Engineers commented on the confusion surrounding the review process for a development project requiring waivers from the stormwater committee. The lack of an engineer on the committee to provide expertise and assist in decision-making was a point of concern. The committee members and the engineer from Zenith engaged in a debate regarding the requested waivers, particularly concerning the slope inside the stormwater basin. This discussion highlighted the importance of clear communication and proper submission of waiver requests, as well as the need for coordination between the planning board and the stormwater committee.

The commission also discussed a new system for reviewing development projects and the associated communication breakdowns and delays faced by developers. The need for better communication, understanding of the process, and a joint meeting with the planning board and Weston and Sampson to resolve project issues was underscored.

Moreover, the commission deliberated over various requests and concerns, including the status of a formal approval request, a cleanup at Sunen Brook, the completion of construction work at a project site, and plans for long-term land use for grazing and crop cultivation.