##VIDEO ID:8QGZqh75ai4## ing how the public may join Additionally the meeting may also be broadcast by each Camp through one or many of its channels or platforms please note that this meeting is being recorded and that some attendees are participating by video conference accordingly Please be aware that others may be able to see you and take care not to screen share your computer anything that you broadcast may be captured by the recording supporting materials that have been provided to members of the commission for this meeting are available on the town's website this meeting will feature public comment after commission members and staff have discussed each project application on the agenda the chair will open the discussion to public comment members of the public who wish to speak are asked to identify their name and address three minutes will be afforded for each public comment each vote taken in this meeting will be conducted via roll call of the members so now I'll confirm which commission members are presentent um Jim here pres Ted Ted bar present Ed I'm right here Janine present and Matt present all right and I will now confirm staff that are present Kim present Anna present and Joe present awesome all right so um before we get started I guess I'll just make a note that as shown on the agenda here we had some cancellations or continuations so we will not be talking about the 150 Fruit Street notice intent um and we will also not be talking about the DPW Wood Street RightWay project that's continued to September 24th um okay with that being said um we do not have any documents for review but we do have draft minutes for review May 21st 2024 and June 11th 2024 um does anyone on the commission have any comments on the minutes or not have time to review them okay so if we don't have any comments and we feel comfortable um can I get a motion to approve or accept the meeting minutes from May 21st 2024 and June 11th 2024 I'm happy to make that motion thanks Ted a second I heard Janine second yes second okay thanks um and then all in favor we'll do the roll call Jim hi Ted hi Ed I Janine I and Matt I and I'm an I so those are all set um so we still have some time let's move on to the Toll Brothers um Wood Farms violation discussion tree removal in the buffer zone continuation Kim do you want to um go over what we have receive sure sure um so at our last meeting we spoke initially about this so this is the um Wood Farms development off of blueberry um kind of next to or adjacent to the schools um as part of that development the um permitter or applicant had agreed to install an um surface runoff trench behind some of the Lots on blueberry um that trench is also located on land that is going to become conservation or land or rather held in a conservation restriction um so what had occurred is is during the preon preconstruction meeting Toll Brothers and I uh specifically Ted um who we have been dealing with or who has been our Point person uh for this project and the project on Chamberlain Wayland we had spoke about a 15 foot wide kind of limit of work for the installation of and maintenance of the trench uh what actually happened in in reality was um a wider swath of vegetation was was cut down so um at the last meeting the Conservation Commission had requested more detailed a more detailed sketch and more information so essentially the um showing you know the limits the limits of the impact uh and as they relate to the the buffer zone and the and the resource areas applicable to the Conservation Commission uh the commission also asked so the commission had asked for the number of trees cut down the ID of the tree the size of the caliber and then um a plan showing the actual construction limit of works you know what what we felt was like actually reasonable and then um proposing some origin and sedimentation controls down gradient on the downg gradient side of the trench so what we have here is the 30 foot wide proposed drainage easement for the trench the buffer zones and then uh Toll Brothers have identified it looks like approximately 15 trees with the associated diameter of breath Heights that were identified as being uh removed and we do have Ted on the call correct I thought I saw him yes I'm here okay Tad um okay so thanks for putting this together um I think one of my my questions would be um and maybe we weren't maybe it wasn't maybe we were just talking about the buffer zone or the buffer area um in the last meeting the 50 to 100 and identifying those trees um my question is I'm assuming that this cutting probably extended outside of that area on either end of the the buffer zone as well in the conservation restriction area is that correct there's probably some trees outside um that were cut outside of that 30 feet that's correct um we that was the plan that I showed last time uh add some additional clearing I would classify it as less additional clearing but there is more than what is shown just in the bucker area here okay um I think that's probably something that the commission needs to consider and also be conscious of that were um you know kind of responsible for the conservation area as well not just obviously what's in the buffer zone of the Wetland is very important to protect the Wetland but um these are trees that were taken down additionally in conservation it's area that's intended to be um conservation restricted area um don't know what others feel about that but I'm thinking we should probably expand um as far as what trees were cut down outside of the [Music] buffer who the chair this is Ed yes sir I am I am the representative to the open space preservation commission and this property is due to come to us and I and I I I was uncomfortable in the first place because of this drainage ditch and I'm more uncomfortable now and while I'm sort of getting off on a rant um the fact that trees were not marked the ones that were to be cut down apparently or did the party doing the tree removal just go off and do what they wanted um I would like to know that thank you and the the trees were the clearing limits were surveyed um and we walked those limits with Kim so they they did go outside of those limits uh being shown in the field yes I understand that my question was were the trees that were to be cut down individually marked to be clear what was going to cut down and what was not going to be cut down this to me smacks of well I hate to say this bad management um you know management is trying to put up some parameters and identify them clearly and if people step outside those clearly marked parameters then there needs to be a consequence it's not clear to me that the parameters were clearly marked in terms of individual trees I would say that they were marked um in in a fashion that is consistent with industry standard um the it's not standard to Mark each individual tree as cut or don't cut but rather to mark the line yes Jim you respond to that I'm pretty sure the standard practice is to flag a tree or paint the tree that is going to be removed not just a line so that everything within that those markings is removed so it was going to be selective cutting each tree would need to be mark I think at this point in time um you know for for future we I guess need to be very specific about how we Mark out um areas um I'll just relay that to you Ted too I guess you'll probably do the same um but at this point in time you know I think we need to look at what what you know what impacts were and how we're going to mitigate for them um Ed is the open space so this property will come who's going to be the manager responsible for the open space um conservation restriction is it Conservation Commission in the end probably it will be halt okay but you know that's up to Halt they have to um accept the property and I I can't obviously State whether you know whether they will or won't to the best of my knowledge um myy Gasser who's the president of halt and Ted I'm sure you know halt is the Hopkinson area land trust um I don't believe that he has walked the property or has you know rendered any comments onor at all okay um Melissa I have a question for you yes are you uh Ted I appreciate as Melissa said I appreciate what we're looking at here Melissa are you asking for a second one so we have a better understanding of the trees outside of the buffer zones or are you comfortable and I'm not asking you to be comfortable I'm just trying to understand your spot are you comfortable with an estimate the trees outside of the buffer zones or would you like a new map that has all of the trees indicated I think that all the trees should be indicated I'm just not sure if that's outside of our jurisdiction to determine what type of mitigation um you know might be needed in the you know out outside of that buffer in the conservation restricted area um if that's for us to have cash out here um or if that's something that ultimately HT or the open space open space we ask Kim and Anna for their thoughts on that question yeah Kim Anna do you have any idea maybe it's something we need to look into I don't know yeah that's a tricky one um it's probably something we need to follow up on um you know obviously there's there what is you know regulatory um which is you know written in our bylaws in the well protection act obviously there's the jurisdiction of the buffer zone in that way and then there's also um you know just neighborly and friendly so it also depends on you know how to Brothers wants to um receive you know the commission's feelings or instructions and and process that as well so yeah for the for the you know benefit I think of to Brothers as well I don't want to say this is what you need to do outside of our jurisdiction and then have someone else come and tell you you need to do something more um either I to you know make sure we're including the parties that need to be represented I guess for the area outside the buffer um so I think maybe we need to do a little homework on that um so for this I guess if we just talk for now about the area within our that is definitely within our jurisdiction within the Wetland buffer um we have the trees marked here now at the caliper [Music] um and we need to mitigate for the trees I know in past projects Kim looked up for me um which was helpful the project that we had on um 56 dowy Street which was a residential home um it's not quite Apples to Apples but we had required 2: one mitigation with sizing at a minimum 8 foot height of 3 in caliper trees to replace those that were taken down um any commission has um thoughts or input on that and whether um this area was maybe cleared of some brush um as well and obviously we want to maybe not just put trees but have trees and um seed or whatever else is needed to kind of stabilize who the chair this is Ed yes Ed I'd like to ask Ted and I don't mean to put you on the spot right now Ted to come up with an answer but I'd like to ask Ted to come up with go go home think about this and come back with this is what we think we want to do I'd appreciate hearing that thank you I mean Ed I've I've thought about this leading up to this meeting and and honestly the two to one replacement was what I had in mind um of the trees that we cut out here so if there are 15 that are cut it's 30 trees um I mean I think that's a pretty substantial um planting and and I can work with Kim and Anna on where those specifically go or I could work with the commission um it's up up to you guys but um that that was my thought coming in I'd like to have the open space commission discussed this but our meeting is Thursday it's too late to add it to our agenda um but where this is supposed to be open space land in the end I think open space um deserves an opportunity to think on this okay yep go ahead Ted um as I remind folks once every three meetings I'm a high school history teacher I'm not an expert in this but I wonder um this area that got cleared has been left to Mother Nature's whims and desires for couple decades I wonder if Mother Nature would allow twice as many trees to be replanted and I wonder if maybe some trees ought to be at a different area in order to make sure that the the replication actually lives on and not that mother nature wipes out half of what uh Toll Brothers plants and pays for um I don't know if we have the ability the latitude to do that but I don't know if mother nature would allow twice as many trees or else maybe they would have been there before and maybe that's part of what Ed's committee might talk about as well um if if I could comment on that I mean I think we would be willing to plant in other areas uh I'd say regardless of jurisdiction I don't know how that then translates into however this is um I guess kept on the record um but certainly be willing to do that if that was the commission's wish okay through the chair yes Kim um my personal feeling on it is that um planting most if not all of the mitigation trees in in this area in the buer stone is appropriate um just because now we have so much more of the canopy open here um that I think these trees might be able to thrive on the addition additional um sunlight that being said will every single one of these trees take and you know end up being a 20 foot plus high tree probably not probably some of them will stay shrubby but that's kind of the natural process taking over right um you know and obviously in terms of the buffer zone the more the more plantings we have the less chance we have of invasive species you know moving in on that edge effect so that would be my recommendation if it's possible to you know do all these mitigation plantings and not compromise the long-term functionality of the drainage the the drainage infrastructure which I think based on the more realistic limit of work I'm assuming that that is probably possible um but obviously you know let me know you're the contractor Ted okay yeah without doing a plan I couldn't say for sure but I would venture to Guess that we could fit them there survival you know you guys probably are more expert in this than than I but um I can talk to a landscape architect if if we needed to okay yeah I think that would be great if you could have a landscape architect kind of help playay that out um within our jurisdiction and like Ed said we'll try and Loop in open space and see um what happen outside that area and I think the other thing that we were looking for is um an additional set of maybe erosion controls or fence on the opposite side you know the Wetland side of the drainage easement while the contractor is working in the area so that we don't get any additional creep yeah we we can do that I I would hold the 30 foot line um that we show there when after we met last and actually even before that the instruction to them was you know don't don't touch anything in there don't go in there again um so it it remains in the same state it was for the past month or two um and we can we can put Sil fence up on that line um it would be good to be able to get the work done that was proposed there but I don't want to to you know step on anything that may still be discussed so um I guess that that's one thing I'd like to get a little bit of clarity on through the chair yes Kim the other item at play here is that um the neighbors here are really in favor of and looking to see that this that this drainage infrastructure is installed prior to the you know prior to a lot more of the the project moving forward at the site so this is kind of a critical path um there's also a condition in our in our order that says this needs to be done as one of the first items so um in terms of us having discussions around the mitigation it's definitely something that we should try to expediate just also keeping in mind you know the the the desires of the you know really closeup buts yeah no I I appreciate that I don't personally have a problem with them working on putting in the drainage trench as long as that silt fence is put up on the other side you know to kind of contain the limit of work while we work through the mitigation plan and I don't want my unhappiness or the related unhappiness of the open space preservation commission to get in the way of making some kind of progress here yeah um any no one else on the commission has any um comment then I'll open it up to public if there are any members of the public that were here to comment I don't see any hands okay um okay so you can put up the Sal fence work on the drainage trench um and come up with a landscape plan a mitigation plan for us te does that work I can do that would you like me to work with staff to develop that yes okay and in the meantime we will reach out to um open space and Halt and to talk about the areas outside of the 100 foot buffer while while I was comfortable getting survey uh between two meetings I'm less comfortable thinking that we can come up with a fully formed mitigation plan by the next meeting um it's probably two meetings if I had to guess okay I'm okay with continuing out too for the record I'm okay too I just would suggest that the planting is all be native Y and for the record I would caveat that I am not a landscape architect so I will just be doing my you know best best assumptions based on creation of of wetland replication areas and buffer zone mitigation areas in the past um okay through the chair yes it sounds like Ted Ted was amendable to this but you know I think our expect my expectation would be when he comes back to us in October with the plan it's a plan that was prepared by a landscape architect so that we're not putting the burden on the commission and Kim to decide whether or not the pl the plantings are going to survive and are appropriate for the use I I agree with that Matt does that work for you Ted yeah no problem okay thank you um so I think that's it I don't think there's anything we need to vote on or do this point other than um put you on the agenda continue to our first October meeting okay yes since it feels like we're at the end I was waiting for what sounded like the end of that discussion I just wanted to Circle back to something Ed and Jim said um Ted my understanding is no clearing has begun for any of the Lots or the roads or anything because this has to be approved before the next set of clearings is that true no the the lots and the roads have been cleared the the lots have not been stumped for the most part okay but the road has been okay so and as far as we know maybe this is a question for Anna and maybe Kim I'm not quite sure what Kim is is where where she is in the project at this point uh we see no other violations at this point I wanted to say can we be more careful marking trees whether it's what you Ted think is the industry standard or what Jim suggests clearly what happened shouldn't happen again and maybe if the trees were more clearly marked there's something right there so hopefully we don't see any other problems and if there's more clearing to be done I'd request more careful marking before any of that happens I think we're pretty much set here but I okay understand the concern okay through the chair yes Kim um I do have to disagree with Ted a little bit there so Ted Barker hook nope Ted Merchant sorry um I have been out I mean I was out there I was probably like four or five weeks now um but it does seem that there's probably four or five lots that have been cleared grubbed and are kind of you know this active construction happening on them um and then the road is about halfway halfway installed so I think the phasing ended up being um different than what was originally anticipated due to the site conditions um you know just to um we know that it was really um it was really really muddy and Topping wet out there so it was very difficult to to get in um so you know I would have liked to see this trench go in sooner that being said like the site conditions are really difficult and I know they were trying to get in there um I agree with Ted and that the way that that toe Brothers had it marked out was was the industry standard and um you know did appear to anybody kind of on foot walking to be very clear um I think the way that they are marking is very clear I think just somewhere along the line the communication broke down and I think the the folks um doing the tree work you know were struggling with the site and just kind of said the big machine that they had was easier and knew that they could get the job done so they just kind of railed through it um so it's really I think it's really more of a communication issue than a marking issue if that helps that helps me anyway thank you okay okay I I think I understand uh the direction here and we will um we'll get going with the sil fence uh on the outside before we start the trench work and come up with a mitigation plan through a landscape architect okay great I appreciate your time yep thank you all right um it's about 7:30 so we'll go up to the continued hearings which we have one of um yes sorry um would you be able to open 150 Fruit Street and then continue it without discussion um yes I got to find the sheet okay the hackington Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday September 10th 2024 at 7M virtually online to hear all persons interested in a notice of intent filed by Wagner braa for site work associated with the construction of a single family home location 150 Fruit Street assessor map R2 block 9 Lot G this application is subject to the Wetland protection act chapter 131 section 40 is amended of the general laws of Massachusetts and the Wetland protection bylaw of the town of hopkington um all right so we're open and going to continue that to the next meeting yes please y September 24th okay continue that to September 24th can I get a mo for that like to make a motion to continue that hearing till September 24th okay second this is that I'll second all right and um I'll do the roll call uh Matt hi Janine hi Ed is an I I'm not sure which one you said said okay Ted's and I Ed I uh Jim all right and I am an I so through the chair you know like if we did this in the standard same order or alphabetical order and then Ted and I wouldn't get confused trying to keep you on your toes I kind of like being on our toes make sure that you're paying that particular one I I missed it's it's it's getting late for this guy who's been busting his excuse me all day and here I am barely struggling to stay awake and keep focused be kind to me okay you'll be first Ed every time from now on who's first Ed or Ted Ed Ed is first every time every time every time all the other names can be mixed up as long as Ed always comes before me [Laughter] yes ni said you see that yes okay so like if I say I want to be number one remember that please okay you're number one from now on all right so um now we have town of hopkington 147 Hayden Road charleswood School notice of intent continuation um so I believe we have some of the team on the call um to present some updates on the project that's right uh for the record CLA hogaboom Wetland scientist with LEC environmental Consultants I have uh Timothy persons from the town of hopkington joining I see Chris Everly with fex here as well uh Dan collie with Perkins Eastman the architect and I believe Michelle kaserman with Samy Odes is also joining um since the last meeting we attended on August 20th uh we I think the outstanding item that we were just waiting on before we could um submit some final documents to the Conservation Commission was the storm water peer review report being conducted by TIG and bond through the site plan peer review process with the planning board I know the commission was uh also anxiously awaiting to see those results as well uh we received those two days after the meeting on the 22nd so um since then the team and specifically Samy Odis has been working diligently to uh respond to those comments and um prepare responses provide uh revisions to the plans uh in response to all those comments and we just wanted to take this opportunity today we didn't have a chance to submit revised information ahead of this meeting but we want to use this time to give updates on um sort of what comments were provided in the storm water peer review report and uh Michelle will go over what Samy Odis is in ending to uh provide in their response and some material changes to the plan as a result we just wanted to use this as an opportunity to gain any additional input from commission members uh before issuing our um formal responses both to Lucas uh environmentals peer review comments in addition to the storm water um if I may share my screen I before I pass it to Michelle I did want to go over some additional changes to the plan plan uh overview um that we were making since the August 20th meeting um yep I think you should be able to okay so you should see a landscape plan with some red uh text sort of scattered about yes great um so this is sort of the latest iteration of the plan set this is our Landscaping plan um drafted up by uh Traverse Landscape Architects and some notable adjustments we've made to the plan that you'll see with our formal uh submission includes a response to Lucas's comment that no cultivars should be proposed within the buffer zones to the isolated Wetlands at the secondary site entrance here at the school so instead of the I think previously it was a few of cultivars of um Maple and maybe one or two other species but now we are proposing straight species of red maple red cedar and Eastern Hemlock um within these areas and I believe sort of extending into other areas of the Landscaping plan as well um it was more a d comment but we are showing snow storage areas throughout the site as well that are located outside of buffer zones um as we discussed at the last meeting we did adjust the geometry of the driveway entrance to remove pavement outside of the buffer zone to this D series isolated Wetland um and as you can see um where my cursor is currently on these green markers we are showing permanent immovable barriers for the conservation markers that'll be provided by the commission uh in buffer zones to this isolated Wetland here we're not in the buffer zone to this uh isolated wetland in the northeastern portion of the site but we do have permanent movable barriers proposed along uh this emergency driveway and parking space here and at the site entrances to the secondary and the primary entrances on each side we are proposing Critter crossing signs so folks are aware that when they're entering the site um that you know there may be Critters coming about throughout the property um and just to be cautious and aware of their surroundings when they're driving through the property um I believe that shows what I wanted to provide updates on for this plan sheet I'm going to move to the Landscaping plan on the Eastern portion of the site a lot of this is outside of the buffer zone but I just wanted to indicate we also have three educational signs that we're showing on the plan now one is at our proposed rain Garden by the school and we have two educational signs proposed to the rear of the uh recess area in proximity to our storm water basin um we also have three uh conservation markers proposed in the buffer zone to the offsite Pond and something that Lucas asked our team to evaluate further which prompted uh our discussion at the last meeting was alternatives to some of the work within the buffer zones uh notably the no disturb or the no um build zones and you know we just we sort of resolved that Central piece and we'll address the uh secondary site entrance but there was a second comment to ask uh if we would consider um extending this retaining wall that's at the southern extent of the property here along the pond um to reduce grading and what we intend to provide in our formal written response is that yes it was considered but the installation or construction of a retaining wall would not have changed the outcome of the proposed driveway within the buffer zone and in fact it would have increased the amount of impervious or you know permanent fixtures in the buffer zone sort of adding to the impervious area we would be asking for a waiver for from the commission um so so that's sort of why we were proposing grading in this area to reduce the amount of proposed impervious and uh increase the amount of restored buffer zone following the construction of the project but since that comment we did uh incorporate more shrub and sapling plantings within this portion of the site before it was just restoration seed mix now we're proposing a series of uh Eastern red cedar and red Maples along this entire slope three of the red Maples and 16 of the red cedar will be in the buffer zone as well um so I just wanted to point those out before I passed it on to Michelle and perhaps it would be a good time just to take a quick Q&A if any commission members have anything to say about what I've gone over thus far the chair this is Ed yes said verly Claire you do a heck of a nice job um you noted that hemlocks at that what I'm going to say is the southernly entrance and there is a disease that's getting hemlocks are these the same hemlocks that are susceptible to The Woolly whatever it is that uh is taking them out I am not certain of that answer but I will correspond with our landscape architect about that she was unable to attend tonight we'll talk we'll Circle back on that before we finally Anze the plans if they are the hemlocks that are susceptible to that um would you call it a woolly something or other very technical The Woolly part is right and it's like Al Alid or some some tongue twisting name like that the chair woly ad Delan okay so I wasn't that far off close you're close I I'll correspond with her I'll connect with her and we'll see if there's a fair alternative um if we see a concern with that planting species and perhaps it's something that if we propose it now we'll make uh an infield decision before plantings are ordered and delivered if we find it's a an issue thank you anyone else yeah I think we're good okay uh with that I'm gonna pass things off to uh Michelle kaserman she also would like to share her screen to go over um the plans that Sam Odes have been working on okay thank you Claire um can you see my screen yes okay perfect uh so this is the updated uh storm water uh plan the overall site um and so uh going through the comments from the per viwer um there is some changes but majority of the St water system is staying the same um we have kept the various uh detention and infiltration systems um and really the largest change that we made is we added a steing basin from the uh larger uh detention Basin um in L of the drywell system um and this reduces the velocity of the water uh leaving and so part of the piew comments were to analyze uh the various uh points of analysis throughout the site and so we broke that up and so when we submit back uh the revised storm water calculations as part of the perview responses we have various points of analysis looking at throughout the site um and so to help reduce the amount of water going to the rear the property um that would sheet into the woods into the abutters um we've rerouted a little bit to kind of balance the site a little bit better in terms of storm water um and then we added this Basin to slow the water down um to reduce the peak rates and the volumes kind of in this rare part of uh the site um and that's really the largest change kind of in terms of a site plan to the storm water system um and then as part of the peer review comments uh two of the comments that we got and we kind of wanted to discuss with the board um is that there was a request for a sequencing plan in terms of um the erosion control plan so this is the revised kind of overall uh site preparation and soil erosion plan and so we're showing the overall kind of plan um we will be submitting a draft Swip as part of the response uh to the PIR review letter um and then a final one will be uh submitted at minimum two weeks prior to the start of construction um and the reason why we're submitting a draft is because the uh general contractor is not yet on board due to how the project is being bit out um so all the contact information and kind of the sequencing is not yet generated we have the overall so the question you know to conservation is if that is acceptable um that is a kind of a condition of approval that we follow up with the sequencing plan um while we are submitting the overall um soil erosion [Music] plan um I don't know Kim you can chime in if you want but I'm thinking that I understand that the contractor needs to be on board to help with the phasing and make sure that you know they're good with it if we can have we conditioned that in the past or is that something that um you'd be comfortable with writing a condition that they come back once the contractor's on board with a final version for us to review is that a question for me Melissa yeah yeah okay um typically I like to see phasing plans um it allows um the commission to at least have a little bit more assurance that the entire site isn't open at once um that being said phasing plans we usually see on like subdivisions or large commercial sites I mean um you know this is not a single family home project but it's also not a subdivision so we're kind of in that middle that middle ground um I personally would feel more comfortable if there was basic sequence ing or phasing um you know if even if it was just like a phase one phase two just so that we know that the contractor has some guard rails on how much area they're going to be managing at once um I see you know my experience is that if the contractor knows that they have that area they're going to expand into it um and then obviously you know they have to manage it so um that's just my that would be my two cents through the chair yes um so we discussed this with the planning board last evening as well um we are publicly bidding this and one of the challenges of this particular site is that um dewatering for this site is largely going to be a design build based on how they bid this our preference to elaborate on what Michelle was saying would be to create certain um require re Ms within the contract whether that's something that we work with you to include in the order of conditions that would um require that they develop a dewatering plan that we could review with the Conservation Commission agent prior to them being allowed to um strip and Grub the site and using that requirement um so that they would need to submit an acceptable plan for that dewatering in order to determine the ENT to which they were allowed to clear the site um that would give the conservation agent the opportunity to hold them to a standard that they have determined themselves with based on how they bid the project um and would also um put the onus on the contractor that is selected because we do by state law have to go with the lowest um bid responsible and responsive contractor as part of how we procure this project we don't have the option of selecting a CM bringing them on board having them develop a plan in advance and then um deciding how they'll tackle the project there are certain restrictions that we could suggest but this is a considerably large building and so phasing um could vary greatly on how the contractor is going to attack this and therefore bid it so I think um in regards to dewatering plans um that's pretty typical Kim that we require dewatering plan be provided by the contractor it is and I'm wondering too if it's also required under our storm water bylaw um I get nervous uh typically we see contractors one shouldn't say typically sometimes we see contractors throw together very halfhazard dewatering plans of 24 hours before they wanted to start construction as a um oh we forgot this kind of item um so that's why you know I get a little bit I get a little bit nervous about that um kind of getting boxed in between the contractor mobing and and having a having a solid plan well and do the chair um because of the size of the project uh the Swift will need to be registered and filed um so that is at minimum two weeks before they're allowed to start any type of um disturbance on the site and so um we would be submitting that final version um at that time because we're only able to provide a draft Swip at the moment um that my office is putting together but then it goes you know that draft would go to the contractor once they're on board they would finalize and kind of add to it and then they would have to actually file that with the state and then um that would also be submitted back to uh both con uh conservation and the planning chair how many acres of disturbance are proposed so uh let me pull that up right now so the limit of work [Music] is 784 th000 square feet which is let me put that to acres I believe it was around 63 um so that's the I believe the entire property is 63 okay the limit of work of actual disturbance is 18 acres and then within that there is the building Centric site and then the athletic field site so it's about a a 2/3 1/3 relationship there but we do need to go through the first in order to access the site and we do plan to meet with the building department to make sure that their standards for Access are met in terms of being able to operate the site since we are fairly deep in the woods and so we're looking to do that with the new building inspector once he's um or Building Commissioner once he's approved by the select board which I believe is happening tonight so a followup question um and I'm not sure who to who this is necessarily directed at on the project team on a typical school project like this after you get access adequate access to the footprint of the the building is the is the building Foundation one of the first elements that's constructed typically through the chair um it's it varies greatly um it has to do with number of factors uh building foundations will certainly be one of the things that will move forward but um for comparison with the Hopkins site we're installing the drainage first in and the um geothermal Wells and that was a change in approach originally that was later in the project um but the contractor determined as they looked at it more closely that was advantageous to get that out of the way from a site Logistics standpoint this is an extremely large site that's fairly deep off the uh roadway and so creating access to the site is going to be first and foremost um their concern um we suspect that creating um temporary measures to be able to approach the work in a meaningful way will factor into that as well but within those temporary measures um there's a there's a great deal of means and methods to determination that's going to have to be done by the contractor of whether it makes sense to get a handle on the storm water first and then do the uh building foundations or whether they want to spend money on the extra um impact of managing water on the slabs that are going in because the position of the slabs relative to the water table is very close we're actually um currently planning to waterproof multiple um wings of the building because of interaction with groundwater and so they may decide that they need to handle dewatering of that before they tackle the site so it that's where that's where it gets into this gray area of we can tell them you have to attack attack it in a certain sequence but telling them that that may um limit the means and methods that they could use to deliver the project to the town in the best value we are are looking um I know you guys didn't receive it as part of the packet that was submitted but the geotechnical report recommended WellPoint dewatering so we're not you know digging a hole and sticking a pump in it we're doing considerable dewatering in order to be able to build a slab below the water line thanks CHR I guess the the the reason I'm asking these types of questions I'm trying to think of a a that may be amendable to both the commission and and the applicant here as it relates to not being able to have a phasing plan because we don't have a Contractor on board but also putting some guard rails up for when that contractor is actually brought on board and starts thinking about how they want to attack this project so certainly don't want to take away their ability to to identify the most economical and efficient way to build a school and develop the site so if just throwing around numbers out here let's say it's about two acres of area to get adequate access assuming that would be stabilized that leaves you somewhere in the ballpark of 15 Acres of site that needs to be developed from the commission's perspective at least in my opinion if we did you know a five acre area at a time that could be opened up that gives us the guard rails we need um it would also give the contractor the ability to figure out where on the site they want to attack right so you said about 23 1/3 so if the field is say 5 acres in the site the school footprint and the the playground and the parking area is another five acres each right five acres for the school five acres for the playground parking lot they've got some options as to how how they approach the site um and we could potentially include some language in there where it's a five AC five acre at a time um of unstabilized footprint right so you could put the foundation and that becomes stabilized that opens up another three acres of you to to for the contractor to move elsewhere on the project site and disturb disturb Woodland start to install the field start to install parking lots um so just throwing that out there as a thought to the fellow commission members and and the applicant if that would be something everyone's amenable to through the chair um I think that becomes problematic because there are ways to stabilize larger areas than that and um just for perspective the building itself is about a 60 to 65,000 square foot footprint um the drainage area is probably um if you put it all together I think the drainage footprint of all the structures together is probably Rivals the building if not larger throughout and it becomes problematic to tell them that they can only tackle you know five like a third of the at a time because they'll need to know rules that determine when it's stabilized and so we can we can have a condition of that defines stabilized in their eyes and they'll know that they need to meet that um that was what led to the discussion of having a um really it's it's the storm water that creates a lot of the problems with clearing a large amount of area and that's why we focused on Water Management as the requirement that they can manage a larger area of water it just requires more money to do so so they have to do a cost benefit analysis of how much they want to invest in managing dewatering which is a contractor designed activity versus the amount uh that they want to tackle of the site and it also gives us um both us as the um on-site representatives of the Town making sure they're meet meeting the requirements of the contract and also the conservation agent the authority to come in and say you're not adequately managing the storm water is required by the plan you submitted you need to deal with that before you um proceed any further and we end up before you guys as a violation as a result yeah I think that's certainly anyone else feel free to sneak up here I think that's that's really what I'm trying to get at here is there's got to be some controls the the the Swip that'll be prepared has to comply with the nift's construction General permit there are definitions in that permit for what is temporary stabilized areas and what is permanently stabilized area so the contractor should be fully aware of what a temporarily stabilized area is and what a permanently stabilized area is I think our concern as a commission is we don't want them to go open up 18 Acres on day one and has to try to manage that throughout the duration of construction it's certainly from my perspective doesn't make sense to work on the field five acres on day one when you got a building to build drainage infrastructure to install arking areas to construct uh so that's what I think that's what we're all trying to avoid is is that day one just freefor all go clear the whole site and then have you know two years of of managing a site that's under construction I think that um I can just chime in for a minute based on our experience if we leave it completely up to the contractor um to do their sequencing and bid it that way then I assume that the cheapest way to do it is to have your tree clearer come in once and clear as much as they can um that's what we see are constantly fighting with contractors about um and trying to then then we have to backpedal later for all these unstabilized areas so if it's up to the contractor and that's what they're coming in and thinking that they're going to do based on what they bid um is open up big areas um and then you know they come to us with their final phasing plan we don't accept it and push back and say we want different phasing then I'd wonder if they you know come at you with the change order because now they have to do all these things that they weren't anticipating um because we didn't have you know some sort of phasing in place um you know for them to to consider if I may through the chair um so and I've seen on other sites on larger sites where you know sometimes the contractor does come in and they do cut the trees all in one go because that is a sub but then they will leave uh the root the the base of the tree kind of the roots the stumps um and all that kind of underneath vegetation and then we can limit what or say you know certain areas are not to be cleared and grubbed until afterwards um because that's just the sight person coming in and removing the top um so we've seen stuff like that happen on sites where it is you know they are able to cut the trees down all at one go um within that limit of work but they're not uh actually um uh opening up the site where you know if it is raining it's not preventing that erosion um and sedimentation because it is still covered with vegetation but it's just lower vegetation so this this draft phasing plan that you have how many phases is it showing right now what we're showing as part of what the plan on the kind of the screen is the overall um soil erosion um in sedimentation plan um and so there are we do have notes saying that that you know certain areas are not to be touched until afterwards um so areas of that are sensitive such as the Basin um where you know the soils we you know we don't want them to be silted up and to get clogged that is the um kind of secondary phasing um of what we're calling out in terms of soil erosion where those areas are protected a little bit longer until the war can happen from start to finish um because it's important for areas like the rain Gardens and the bio retention basins that uh once you do start that work that it's finished and then it's not just left as an empty hole because then the soil mediums do get clogged um so we're calling out stuff like that um and we're calling out areas where SE uh temporary sediment Basin can be located as well as paths for uh swell um and we've sized them based off of uh the Swip and the cgp sizing methodology um that's part of that nipes um but we're not saying you know construct Basin one and two first and then move to Basin three and four but we're just calling out various areas on the site based off of existing um topography and what the proposed topography would be that where these low-lying areas but they're not conflicting with uh drainage areas and so we're showing kind of a general um what would be a general movement area throughout the site based off of you know where the proposed Road would be um and then we're showing where the building would be but we're not saying you know but you know there's colums where you know outside of the the buffers you know that we're trying to stay out of so not to have stock piles within those areas but we're not saying that you can only use this area for uh lay down area in this area um of the general site that's outside of the uh buffers um you know within the buffers it's definitely you know do not stockpile anything in there and through the chair um we're not opposed to establishing a sequence that the contractor must follow I think the um the concern we have is that if it is based on area or um or a sort of a predetermined um uh a predetermined size that they have to work with as they move through the site um there are ways that that can be met with a larger area with a larger level of effort and so we're seeking to find a compromise that doesn't restrict their ability to use means that adequately handle the large area while at the same time providing them opportunities to approach this in what will be the um sort of the best um approach for the town's Ben most cost- effective approach for the town's benefit that respects the needs to meet certain requirements throughout the site okay the chair yes uh I knew the five acres sounded familiar for some reason uh the Construction general permanent limits contractors to having five acres of land disturbance at any given time so it is written into the Construction general permit that's managed by the EPA so they're already on the hook to maintain or construct the site in a manner that does not have more than five ACR of disturbed land at any point in time during construction okay Lissa yes um so Matt is um making some very good points I would agree but it sounds to me unless I'm missing something uh Chris from vertex you're not willing to say that you'll limit the amount of clearing and grubbing to the work area uh what I that's not what I'm saying what I'm saying is that I would prefer that we establish some rules of the road that the contractor can be held to by contract as opposed to prescribing a phasing that must be followed in terms of how they build the building so I'd like why can't you okay I'd like to give them the flexibility to come up with a plan that follows the rules in the way that they develop it so I'd rather a stipulate requirements that they must meet to be able to go through and clear the land to protect against the concerns that the commission has as opposed to saying that you have to build and stabilize the foundations one section of the building before you can move to the next you have to fully establish all of the drainage before you can begin the foundations I believe that there are ways that the contractor can dewater the site and provide um the means and methods necessary to protect the land from sliding down the hill I I know we're on a a slightly sloped site here the concerns that the commission is aware of but the schedule and the efficiency that they move through the building may require that they work in multiple areas of a large site at the same time and so I am uh I'm going to have a staff person on sight throughout the duration of this we're going to be very concerned about the impact that we're creating to the neighbors particularly downhill and so we'll be very mindful of that but I would rather be able to go to bid with the opportunity for a contractor to propose additional measures to handle whatever rules we put in place I say we in the context of this commission as well as the design team um rather than to prescribe that you must tackle the site in a prescribed way so you're going to you're going to um put in the contract with the general contractor that they need to meet certain performance standards but not have them um submit a plan of how to meet those before they start work if you allow them to start work and do any work and then they come up Melissa is right they'll be change ERS all over the place no through the chair along the way with the performance stand how they're gonna meet those yeah I think I think what I understood was that um was that your intention is for the contractor to provide the plan once they're on board for review correct I think providing a plan and um reasonable acceptance of that plan being a condition whether that acceptance is through the design architect through um a walkthrough of the erosion controls with the the concom agent I think providing a plan is absolutely critical what I'm saying is I would rather uh provide a performance standard for that plan and then measure that plan against that performance standard than to prescribe how they need to approach the site in terms of clear this area before they move to the next through the chair yes Chris I think we're saying the same thing okay yeah I'm not from from my perspective you know I was using just as an example this area that area the 5 acres is intended to kind of be that prescription as to how the contractor Works their way through the site and they're on the hook for that anyways because they're going to need coverage under the nip Construction general permit that caps them at five acres of land disturbance at any given time during construction of the project so we're not asking for anything they don't already have to do it just gives us the guard RS we're looking for in our order that's being issued that the contractor is going to you know both in the Construction general permit and in the order we issue there's guard rails on what they can and can't do as they work their way through the site and how they how they disturb those acres and temporary stabilize them and permanently stabilize them that's that's means and methods they can figure out what what's best to approach first last and in between um but that's that's the performance standard that's in place yeah and what I'm reacting to is the desire to have more than obviously they're going to have to follow the required nifties and um the Swip plan that is issued as part of the project and they're going to have to meet all their permit requirements and that's a known that's true of any contractor that is hired to do this work and that's enforceable just the same way that's enforceable for all contractors what um what I'm trying to guard against is overly saturating the requirements above that to the point that it limits their ability to attack this in the most economical manner while providing for all of the requirements necessary to guard against the the things that the commission is concerned about so I think we are saying the same thing it's just a question of how that appears in our documents if it's a a nift's requirement does it need to appear in our documents different than that requirement that they already need to meet would be the question that I'd raise um and then if I may also through the chair um I don't know if you can see my screen I have the um the internet kind of open but from the EPA site it says uh what is the stabilization deadline requirements in the EPA cgp total amount of site land disturbance occurring at any one time and there is if there's more than five Acres um so the cgp does not limit just from 1 to 5 Acres you are allowed to dist serve more than five acres there are just some additional rules for that um and this is if you can see my screen just off of the EPA website is it is it Ed yes Ed I just I want to make clear that we have had such a history on Hopkinson of siltation problems from developments because they were not carefully managed or properly managed that I think you need to forgive us for being a little um sensitive thank you okay um I I guess I think you know you're looking for feedback um as you go and update your plans according to the the storm water review so I think you have some feedback from the commission um and we can look closer at the plans and the notes that you have on here I think including um notes even if it's repetitive of what's in um the nift's requirements you know there's some key ones that I think are worth repeating on a plan set so so it's right in front of the contractor um because nine times out of 10 they're not they're supposed to comply with it but um unless it's right in front of them um it's easy to forget um so I mean I appreciate the comment you know the notes that you have on there about protecting the infiltration um systems because that's another big one that we deal with with contractors is not um necessarily doing that so um things like that are things they're supposed to do for the storm water standards but it's worth repeating in a note um and having that on the plan so um I think anything you can do like that that will help the contractor um as they're looking at the project and understanding that this is a really difficult site um for storm water I mean yeah the groundwater's High I mean do you anticipate dewatering at any depth that you dig for any utility for any anything um on the site not just the foundation um I it's the where we had the test pits Michelle I think the back part of the site was wetter but we're anticipating um the large excavations are going to need substantial dewatering um the smaller ones it's probably going to be local dewatering um in terms of utility trenches yeah so some utilities will need for trenching the watering um we are showing that where we're providing recharge we are having um the adequate separation from groundwater uh to the bottom of the systems uh but some systems are um we do have both retention and detention so the noninfiltrating storm water systems are um within that groundwater table um and then but the the recharging ones aren't so it's going to be kind of a mix throughout the site um and depending on where they are in the site on where that groundwater elevation is and then we measured you know the seasonal High groundwater elevations um and so that's what we're providing the separation from the recharge depending on the type of year it is if it's a dry year and when they're doing this I mean the groundwater elevation can be lower so even though we're in the you know they might be trenching in an area that is is the seasonal High groundwater should be higher they might not even encounter the groundwater because uh depending on the type of year and if it's a hot year with a little Rin so that's one of those kind of things that fluctuate um from Time of the Season and to the site and kind of year to year I think from from what we're trying to gain from tonight I think the um the way in which the comments were written discussed sort of having a phasing plan and and as we take this back and discuss our comments amongst ourselves and prepare a resubmission um we've outlined sort of how we've set some rules on this plan overall for how they need to attack various areas if we coupled that with some performance standards that they needed to meet that we reiterate for them in terms of compliance with the requirements as well as certain expectations for submitting a plan in advance of um is something along those lines something that the commission would entertain or would we need to take it back to the um you can build this and then you have to build this and then you have to build this from a sort of a prescriptive approach and it sounds like the commission from what I'm hearing would support a performance standard of rules that the um contractor would need to follow and you would just like us to spell those out clearly in what we resubmit I I personally would be in support of the performance standard as you just described in spelling that out um for the [Music] contractor agreed we don't want to dictate to a contractor how they need to build the project that's their responsibility the chair this is ADD with a question it's a little bit outside our current discussion in in an earlier session um it was discussion about the foundation and the foundation materials or the foundation design or something because of the high water table could someone kindly clarify that for me sure Ed um so what is proposed and I Dan are you on the call yes do you want to take that one in terms of what we're proposing for how we're building the slab well we're not it's a conventional slab in conventional I mean has waterproofing underneath it um full set of full waterproofing underneath the entire slab at the lower elevation of the the the two wings that are a little bit lower because it does step down the site as it goes from north to south so there is water and there's a full waterproofing at the Elevator Shaft as well but there's and that's laab is a little bit thicker for to resist some of the potential uplift but there's nothing really to tremendously unique about the about the foundation system good Ed forgot to push the button thank you all right so you have Fe is it feedback on that um was there there more that you wanted to present yes and then there was one more item um that we kind of wanted feedback from the board is that there was a comment from the peer reviewer about um conducting infiltrometer testing um and so we are Contracting to do so um but we would like it to be a condition of approval that we'd be able to submit the results of the infiltrometer testing um as part of a condition of approval um we are when we spoke with time Bond uh they found that acceptable as a condition um we met with planning yesterday and uh when we asked um the same question there was no um comment against it um and so with right now we are so we did the D test pits uh to do the soil classification and to see where the groundwater elevation is um throughout the site and within the footprints of the various systems and so we are modeling in hydrocad a very low infiltration rate um to be extremely conservative um and so we're using a a 008 to7 infiltration rate when the soils on site are a 1.02 um so we're modeling a very conservative rate and so we're um wondering if it's acceptable to the board if that we the infiltrometer rate results um are uh a condition of the [Music] approval um can you provide like what is the reason why it needs to be delayed as opposed to done now it's just a timing of um getting um the the company to mobilized to get on site to perform the test and then be able to provide the results in that um did they give a a timeline well we have to procure okay we're a public project we have to go out and procure a contractor we have to go out and procure testing that takes time um we've I think we've been out there four or five times already to do various tasks to try and um prepare for building of the building the infiltrometer was something that came in after we had done all the previous testing and come back um to prepare our submission up to this point so to we we have no issue um I can't speak for the owner but I'm assuming the owner has no issue with going out and Performing additional testing if it's a condition of approval um but we would prefer to conclude this process that we've been at since June um based on a conserv ative approach to those ratings and verifying that conservative approach as opposed to putting this process on hold for four to six weeks as we procure a contractor get him available to go out and do the work and procure the testing agent to go out and do the work as well and then issue a report and come back with the results the chair yes have test pits been done within the footprint of the infil Bas through the chair yes they have and they were part of the storm water report um so we had our license soil evaluator go out and do a test pit within each um infiltration system so um that's kind of how we chose which systems are um retention versus detention is the ones with the higher groundwater elevations and we couldn't get the separation we um made them Clos systems and then the ones where there were adequate separation we um we're modeling uh for the recharge um and so but we are using a lower um essentially a dooil uh recharge rate to show that those systems can empty out um in the 72 hours and that we are able to provide um the recharge required through the storm water standards um so that's why we're asking that the infiltrometer and but the soils on sites are a b soils um and so we provided that in the test logs is it fair to say that the peer review comment they're just looking for confirmation that the test pits the tespit soil information is consistent with the infiltration it sounds like you guys are using a very conservative rate that's not required by the handbook correct we're we're being conservative um on this um and so that's why you know we're asking that it be a condition of approval where it's not um like a oh no this might completely throw all the calculations through a loop thank you okay I think um if anyone else has any thoughts on that based on using the lowest possible dooil rating for the calculations um and proceeding with that design seems reasonable um to allow the test to be a condition to me yeah I agree M I've seen this a number of times on projects where a more conservative rate has been assumed relative to what the test bit braws rate is that's required in the handbook would imply and without fail it it gets flagged as we need you to confirm the infiltration rate because there's inconsistencies between the soil data and the the analysis even though it's in inconsistencies in a conservative way so I I agree with you that the condition of approval that would make perfect sense yeah I think if you were assuming the B soil for the design then I would not be okay with it but yeah since it can't really get much worse than what you're designing for um I think that makes sense in this case those are really the the two kind of items um we were looking for direction from the board um so I don't know if there's any other uh questions or comments from the board about just um the storm water or the peerreview comments or um anything else that was presented does anyone on the commission have any additional comments or questions this is Ed yes and maybe this question has been answered and I didn't catch it but we keep talking about dewatering dewatering dewatering and so so we're taking water from this site and it's going somewhere and where is that water going and how do we know it goes where we think is a good place for it and not into someone's backyard Michelle do you want to take that one in terms of how we're dealing with management of on-site water yep um so for for the dewatering uh we are uh um we had the erosion and sentiment control plan and so we're having basins that are sized per um the swip's requirements for sizing uh dewatering let me share my screen [Music] again we go so we're calling out if you can see my plan uh dewatering basins and and they are in various areas um and so we're placing them kind of near areas that are uh so in here at the top uh this is the rear of the site so would Outlet to wooded areas um here it would Outlet again to wooded areas this way um this is actually it kind of the top of the site so it's capturing everything uh plan North you know of the site to come here and then it would continue on through our site um and then as the storm water systems are being uh constructed they would be out letting as per design um and so as designed it's set that they reduce the volume and the peak rates compared to the existing um and so they would be outling to um the proposed storm water system once it's constructed uh would be outl into the various uh Wetlands um and then into the wooded areas um and so this way it would be able to kind of keep the health of the wetlands and not dry them out by completely blocking the water going to them um but we are treating it and it is being controlled as to the rate and the volume that is disch charging okay that might be one of those performance standards Ed that we're looking for um okay is there anyone from the public who had any comments or questions don't see any hands through the chair may I add just two more things before we CL this out and I apologize I don't want to make the meeting drag out too much longer but to sort of tag along the um construction phasing point I recall that Joe provided a comment in the peer review letter to uh request uh an invasive species management plan to be implemented during construction to uh avoid and minimize any movement of the invasive species in proximity to Hayden R Street to either other portions of the site or moving them offsite and um potentially spreading those invasives um that similarly to the phasing is a means and methods approach that we were anticipating including in the big package to the general contractor to have them prepare a very specific plan that addresses each of the invasives that were observed within the site um and I just wanted to touch base with the commission knowing how the conversation went with the other item um that was going to be left to the contractor to provide more specifics um is that something that the commission would be amendable for the invasive species plan during construction um of course with the implementation of providing some of these performance standards that we've been discussing I think it would be extremely clear to be able to tell the contractor you know you're not reusing soil that has uh active seed banks of these invasive species and uh this plan would be provided to the commission or a representative at least 14 days prior to the start of construction as well I just want to run that by the commission members and see how you feel about that um yeah I would um ask Joe do you have any thoughts on this because it's a little out of my wheelhouse yeah I think as long as the commission has time to review it um and and comment on it if there are any issues that um do not do not seem appropriate in the plan uh prior to implementation I think that that that's fine okay we can Circle back with our group and see if there's a time frame a bit longer than 14 days prior to the start of construction that would be amendable to the contractor I don't know the specifics of what we would look for um um with receiving that document whether it's in the bid package itself and once they're selected perhaps that's the moment we provide it to the commission and the representative but we can talk internally about that timeline to afford the commission or representative sufficient time to review that Kim did you have a comment I did so I was wondering if the applicant would be amendable to placing um a section of the bid the bid document which um would spell out kind of guard rails for the contractor in in relation to invasive species management so addressing movement of and management of stock piles um you know the management of of any type of invasive material just kind of to give them that some of those guard rails when they go in to to bid the the process and that um that language could be submitted to the commission as part of this this noi process for review um perhaps that's something that you know can kind of be a little bit of the middle the middle ground um and then when we get that uh invasive species management plan from the selected contractor we'll know that it that it will meet those certain minimum requirements great and then the other remaining thing uh Ed I wanted to respond to your comment because I did get uh response from the landscape architect the hemlock that they selected are more resistant to The Woolly agid and they have found that the disease has not been as much of an issue over the last few years so they're not anticipating any issues with that and they observed other um hemlocks successfully growing around the site and they do very well in partially shaded areas under the tree canopy so they felt like it was a good selection for the site so I just wanted to close the loop on that one for you thank you um all right so thank thank you to the whole team for coming in and um getting our feedback um at this point in the process we appreciate it yeah uh same here for us and I just wanted to close out with um summarizing that we're expecting to submit this uh formal response by the end of this week and uh perhaps more of a question for Joe if we were to submit by the end of this week would that afford sufficient time for review and a peer review response ahead of the meeting on the 24th I would think so i' have to uh run that by Chris Lucas I'm going to be on vacation for an extended period um coming up uh starting next week um so there were I know Chris is working on the scheduling um other people and himself to be working on some of these reviews but um I I would think so but I would defer to to to Chris maybe an email or I can ask him um regarding that to contact the commission right thank you okay so I think for now we'll continue out to the next meeting on the 24th and then if we need to do anything to differently we can get in touch before then does that make sense Kim yes okay all right thank you would you like a motion uh yes motion I will make a motion to continue this hearing until September 24th can I get a um all right all in favor Ed hi Jim hi Ted hi Matt hi Janine I and I am an I thank you all for your time have an excellent evening thanks you too thank you um all right let's see we are now at ratify enforcement and restoration order 163 Saddle Hill Road um Kim do you want to go over what you put together sure let me just pull it up I do also see uh that the land owner is also on the call okay great sorry hang hang here it is okay so per the commission's instruction I prepared an enforcement and restoration order in regards to 163 Saddle Hill Road um if you recall from our conversation last this was a property that um had been operating an unpermitted Landscaping uh operation so there was a significant pile up of um you know partially decomposed landscape de Bree uh the zoning enforcement offer officer issued a season assist to the land owner uh he this he has since ceased the activity and uh he removed the piles of landscaping debris kind of down to the the organic Duff layer at the last meeting we advised the land owner to seed the area um I did advise him to seed it with kind of a hearty erosion control mix so that it would take um the hopefully take um as quickly as possible because there is a large large large infestation of Japanese not weed at the property so as we discussed last time I prepared the e in it um it accomplishes three main asks so um the first one is the one we just talked about the New England Orin control restoration mix for dry sites the second is the request for an existing conditions and a proposed conditions plan prepared by a PLS or a PE I did put some guard rails on on that plan um it does a bought property that's owned by the town so we did think that it was a to have the the boundary lines the partial boundary lines included there um we were looking for Contours we're going to be looking for the adjacent Wetland resource area to be flagged um so that we're aware of you know how much of the buffer zone has been impacted and then also to map the extent of the invasive species Management areas which we anticipate will include um the entirety of the the historic pile areas because um they were they were topped off with significant Japanese Nai before um the the top layer was kind of removed we did also speak at the last meeting about um requesting pibs be be installed through this process um the second portion is requiring the land owner to procure a sight sight specific and phasis species management plan prepared by um an experienced contractor so this portion of the document kind of gives those those guard rails for the invasive species management plan so uh the duration of the contract the company obtain to do this this management a description of the existing conditions and then a description of the plant treatment and management and then um you know methods for disposing of any invasive plant plant material expected followup and treatment schedule uh the applicant is or the applicant the homeowner is going to be required to provide proof documentation proof of management and then um a final inspection report actually this document is a little bit outdated let me see sorry about that I did do some edits today so today I did add some dates to this um there we go so the existing and proposed condition plans I threw a data in of November 30th and then the invasive species management plan is going to be by December 31st um I have the there's going to be a final report on the invasive species management the invasive species management plan is to remain in effect for five growing Seasons or about five years so October 2030 and the land owner is responsible for continued compliance with the invasive species management plan essentially the homeowner is bound to complete uh invasive species management until that time um and then he's also responsible for uh establishment of pibs as well so I think that sums it up the rest of these um conditions are are standard conditions I did put in uh requirement for this to be recorded to the deed and then a process for certification after those five years so that the deed can be cleared as well um does anybody have any questions or comments thank you was that a thank you or I that wasn't thank you no that was a thank you okay I already said do a long time ago um I will Echo Jim's words thank you yeah Kim you're very thorough in this thanks for putting this together um I think you hit all the nails on the head um with the detail here so I guess does anyone else have any questions or comments one quick question and may have been covered already or the last time we met but have these have the invasive species that potentially originated with this stockpile spread beyond the footprint of the property that's that's a good question so it's it's close I think with this property survey we're going to find out if it crossed on the town Town property um okay but it certainly is not able to be quick L discerned in the field um if it's not on it it's right on the boundary which is another reason why it's it's a good idea to start start managing and trying to cut it cut it back and contain it yeah I'm just thinking you know long term if we do this well put together plan over the next five years but there's a patch that you know germinated on Town property is it all for not whereas if we can potentially reach a little further if we have to to make sure it's fully contained and controlled it's well worth doing that day one oh for not weed um no that's a great that's an absolutely great point and that's um you know that's Anna and I coordinating with parks and wck and seeing if we can um make sure that if this is partly on our property that the town is you know also taking an active approach and and especially if it's not a greater a lot you know doing a management so definitely noted great thank you Kim um I know Kim you said the homeowner was on the on the call I don't know if they want to um had any questions or comments or wanted to give a little update on the status of the the property at this point yes hello I'm here yeah this Lucio hi Lucio thank you yeah I I just got that today so I I I looked at it quick I I'll make sure everything's on there I'll take care of everything that's on there it's all been Hydro seated with the seed from from like from the people that you gave me in hadly Mass so everything looks good already great thanks for jumping on that all right thank you okay so for this Kim um do we need to vote I guess at least to sign it uh approve it and sign it if you could vote to ratify it ratify that's the and have Anna sign it okay can I get a motion from someone to ratify this and have Anna sign on our behalf so moved a second all right um I'll in favor Ed I Jim hi Ted hi Matt I and Janine I and I an I so all set um do we have any public forum requests Kim I don't think so Anna nope all right well with that can I get a motion to adjourn so moved so moved well Ed seconds all right all in favor Ed hi Jim hi Ed I Matt hi Janine I and I an I thanks everybody thanks Melissa see you soon yep we did thanks again Kim for everything yep thanks for sticking around Kim appreciate it of course doing my best all right all right goodbye every good night good night everyone all right bye