WEBVTT METADATA Video-Count: 1 Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=yL3SoEpfSig Part: 1 1 00:00:00.080 --> 00:00:17.520 Uh want to welcome everybody to the July 27th uh 2026 Norton Conservation Commission public meeting. The first order of business is the meeting minutes from 7:13. Anybody have a chance to review those. Anybody have any comments, questions? 2 00:00:17.520 --> 00:00:35.840 >> Um I I thought they look pretty good. On the last page, there is a there should be a there. >> Got it. >> Last page. It is. >> Okay. So, my >> Sorry. 3 00:00:35.840 --> 00:00:52.000 >> At the at the >> Okay, you uh uh just a uh a quick uh report to the commission. Uh I can attest uh to at least one of our town's ospreys doing fine. 4 00:00:52.000 --> 00:01:08.479 So, because I just got a picture What if how many, Dan? >> Uh, I don't know. I don't know. But this one. >> Okay. >> This one looked fine. >> Okay. 5 00:01:08.479 --> 00:01:24.000 >> All right. So, other than the there to there, um, any other comments or questions? If not, I'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes from 7:13 2026 as drafted. >> So, move second. 6 00:01:24.000 --> 00:01:45.520 Uh motion made by Julian, second by Dan. Roll call vote. Uh Dan from Joe. >> I Okay. Uh Julian and Mark. >> I I >> and I'll vote I. 7 00:01:45.520 --> 00:02:03.680 Uh next item on the agenda is violations 21 West Main Street violation notice. Uh John Thomas, you want to take it away? >> Yes, we have received nothing from the applicants consulting as it pertains to the afteraction permit. Um I will I 8 00:02:03.680 --> 00:02:19.040 guess I can obviously if the commissioner wants I can request an update from the I guess Mark Arnold from Goddard Consulting to see where they stand with that. But my understanding is that they still have a pending septic approval plan which is going to be in 9 00:02:19.040 --> 00:02:35.920 front of the board of health. uh at their next meeting uh which is in August. So I can definitely reach out to Mark Arnold and see where they stand with that. >> Um yeah, if you can do that and then also just remind them that we'll be looking for uh storm water management as 10 00:02:35.920 --> 00:02:51.920 well. >> Correct. >> Okay. All right. So don't think there's any further discussion on that one. Um 292 West 3 violation notice. >> Folks, good evening. Uh Chris Feroli of 11 00:02:51.920 --> 00:03:07.840 Ger Consulting. I unless uh unless John wanted to preface anything, I figured I would jump in and kind of share with you some of the changes since the last time we spoke if that's okay. >> Sure. >> Go ahead, Chris. You have screen sharing 12 00:03:07.840 --> 00:03:23.920 capabilities. >> Great. Um so based on our conversation last time that we were together uh two weeks ago I think it was we had made some changes to kind of how we had quantified things as 13 00:03:23.920 --> 00:03:40.879 well as some of the proposed renaturalization. Uh so one thing from a square footage perspective that came out of our conversation was we uh trimmed down how much square footage we were quote unquote taking credit for with the 14 00:03:40.879 --> 00:03:57.159 pre-existing volleyball court there now to be just the area that overlaps. Um so shaved off about 1,000 square ft there. So our delta so to speak becomes a little shy of 4,800 ft. 15 00:03:57.360 --> 00:04:14.560 Excuse me. As we move down, our planting uh that would qualify as restoration stayed the same. We are providing extra mitigation now to kind of make up for that difference. So, uh I will quickly 16 00:04:14.560 --> 00:04:30.880 jump over here. I think this is a good way to look at it. Up here uh closest to the road, we have some lawn removal and native rooted vegetation there at a 2:1 ratio for mitigation. Uh some restoration here 17 00:04:30.880 --> 00:04:47.680 within the footprint of that resurfaced parking area at 1:1 for restoration. Uh, and then we're also now proposing there's a couple of like gravel piles out in the woods over here that are certainly unnatural features and we're 18 00:04:47.680 --> 00:05:02.160 proposing removal of those kind of dump piles. Uh, and obviously subsequently planted with native vegetation in that place afterwards. Uh, so you can kind of follow the math 19 00:05:02.160 --> 00:05:22.560 as we go down here. And that this just shows it in a slightly different view. Those couple of hatched green areas will all be planted. Uh we also did provide kind of a more pointby-point performance standards 20 00:05:22.560 --> 00:05:40.240 assessment here. Um, so I don't feel that we need to go through that in excruciating detail, but I know one of the salient comments from last time around was providing some better square footages with regard to this 10% threshold that applies in the riverfront 21 00:05:40.240 --> 00:05:57.440 um regulations. So we have some of that in here, some square footages for reference. Uh, and then some obviously restoration and mitigation to make those square footages work at the end of the day. back over to the planting plan. Um, 22 00:05:57.440 --> 00:06:12.400 other one of the comments was to provide a little bit more detail in terms of soil specs, seeding rates, this type of thing. So, I think we've we've gone through and provided uh, you know, a soil spec. We're calling for top 23 00:06:12.400 --> 00:06:28.880 dressing with a 50/50 mix of compost and loom. Um, and we've given some, you know, approximate numbers for for what those volumes and yardages will look like there. We've had to because we're increasing 24 00:06:28.880 --> 00:06:45.600 the square footage of our planting areas, we've improved the the number of plantings that we're proposing. Those are all reflected down here in the planting schedule. Uh we have a uh application for the seed mix upland conservation wildlife mix as 25 00:06:45.600 --> 00:07:00.560 well as that's shown down here on the cut sheet from the manufacturer. Um so I think that those are the high level or at least the you know the relevant changes from the last time we spoke. Um are there any questions 26 00:07:00.560 --> 00:07:16.880 from the commission on any of that portion of things? >> So let let's start with Sean Thomas. Did you have a chance to review this? Did you specific to conformance with the uh standards for the 10% threshold? >> I don't remember seeing this to be honest with you. 27 00:07:16.880 --> 00:07:32.479 >> Oh, did we have we did you submit this, Chris, prior to? >> Yeah, I had I had sent this to you on I want to say maybe Friday morning. John, >> did we receive anything, Megan? >> Uh, we did. I uploaded to the Google Drive, I believe. 28 00:07:32.479 --> 00:07:48.240 >> All right. Yeah, I was out on Friday, so I didn't see this. So, I'm Gotcha. Sorry about that. >> That's all right. Um, so I guess the question is, you know, my biggest thing with this whole entire thing is I get the mitigation plantings and the the you know the ratios and everything like 29 00:07:48.240 --> 00:08:04.639 that, but what's the what's the next step? What's the what's the plan? Are we are we looking at an afteraction notice of intent filing? Is that what's going to be for this? because, you know, obviously legality and legally we can't basically authorize any of this work because my 30 00:08:04.639 --> 00:08:20.720 understanding is it's probably going to require some machinery out there within the riverfront area. So, I guess the question is is how how is this going to happen and how is this going to be done? I guess from a standpoint of, you know, what are the next steps and actions? Chris? 31 00:08:20.720 --> 00:08:38.000 >> Yeah, for sure. Um, obviously, you know, I think some of that is the commission's prerogative, but from from where we stand, I think the I I know the owner's desire is to kind of keep it moving as quickly as possible. And I think doing it with an 32 00:08:38.000 --> 00:08:55.360 enforcement order um to some extent might help facilitate uh getting the ball rolling in terms of you know we might not be waiting for um you know all the things that go into an NOI but obviously that's the commission's 33 00:08:55.360 --> 00:09:10.800 discretion. I I think there was a little bit of conversation on that last time that we were together but I'm not sure that the plane was really landed. Well, if we could back up for one second, John Thomas, do you need time to review this package seeing as you only 34 00:09:10.800 --> 00:09:28.080 audit Friday? Because I still have questions about 10% which kind of glossed over. Um, do you need more time to review this package? Yeah, I mean I guess you know as I look at this and I think about this is that you the biggest thing is you know we still want to make 35 00:09:28.080 --> 00:09:43.200 sure we're under the 10% threshold and the mitigation that's coming in afterwards is not going to basically give a clean slate. You know what I'm saying? Like that's not how this is going to work. So I basically want to make sure that the owner understands and whoever's working on this project 36 00:09:43.200 --> 00:10:00.640 understand that you know whatever you're permitting and whatever you're proposing with the existing gravel you're just basically starting a brand new project. So how we look at this is the extent of the existing gravel out there that's currently being left in that purple shade is going to be you know your 37 00:10:00.640 --> 00:10:16.399 disturbance area but you're also offsetting with some mitigation. So, we just need, I guess, a really good concise kind of plan that we would basically have with a restoration plan rather than the little drawings. I guess the the the I'm looking for basically 38 00:10:16.399 --> 00:10:31.440 something a little bit more in-depth from the surveyor and also Goddard basically putting a compilation on a sitebased plan which is basically the wetland mitigation plan versus the GIS exhibit because I want to see you know how are you going to access those areas 39 00:10:31.440 --> 00:10:47.839 in the woods between the existing lawn and and the um you know the river. How are you going to basically do that and where are you coming in for the access points? How many trees do you need to take down to basically get a machine in there to basically rough grade that area back into where it needs to be? Those are all sorts of things that I need to 40 00:10:47.839 --> 00:11:03.440 understand from a from a um development standpoint and also a construction standpoint. That's what I'm looking for is how are you going to do this? And if you're going to do it on an enforcement order, I'm probably going to tell you no because I just think that creating more disturbance within the riverfront area 41 00:11:03.440 --> 00:11:19.120 is not something we're looking for. I'd rather you come in with a, you know, an afteraction notice of intent filing so that way we can permit it the right way and put in the notice of intent and really document all the conditions that come with it. But that's just my opinion. I I leave it up to the commission to make a decision on what 42 00:11:19.120 --> 00:11:39.040 they want to do. >> Anybody comments on that? whether we want to see engineered plans which I personally think are warranted and we're going to need them for the notice of intent anyway. We need to know how much fill is coming in what the 43 00:11:39.040 --> 00:11:57.440 gradings may be to accommodate those plantings. So you know the cartoon if you will could maybe get them started to order those plants to get everything in order but I still think not still but I think we may need engineered plants. We'll need them in eventually for the 44 00:11:57.440 --> 00:12:14.399 notice of intent anyway. >> Why not? Lisa is the the expert. >> I mean, Lisa, you've deal you've dealt with a lot of these projects before in the past, right? >> Mhm. >> And what typically happens? 45 00:12:14.399 --> 00:12:30.800 >> Well, we would need engineering plans. We need an existing conditions topographic plan and a proposed plan with grading and plant things. I mean, I think this is a great start and I would say to maybe go ahead and order those plantings if again, John, if you agree 46 00:12:30.800 --> 00:12:47.440 with those plantings so that you don't want to miss this window this coming fall to plan. >> Yeah. And I think similar to what we has had previously for 181, you know, West Main Street, a similar project that Goddard has been involved with, we're going to need a detailed ship sheet of 47 00:12:47.440 --> 00:13:06.800 alternative plants that are similar in composition to what is being presented in case they're not available from the suppliers. Um, that's just another thing that is typical that we get. Sure. Okay. I if I may for a second, I 48 00:13:06.800 --> 00:13:21.760 think I'm I think I'm hearing pretty clearly that it sounds like the request is for a, you know, a more comprehensive plan view of what we're proposing out here. Uh probably with somebody's stamp 49 00:13:21.760 --> 00:13:39.519 on it and ultimately a notice of intent for whatever work is to remain, so to speak. Uh, and I was trying to jot down a handful of things that you rattled off there, John, in terms of access, trees, 50 00:13:39.519 --> 00:13:56.399 um, plant subs, that type of thing. Is there anything else that I should bring back to the team to kind of set us on the right trajectory here in terms of uh, what we need to pull together to provide the commission with? I mean, the other alternative is looking at other 51 00:13:56.399 --> 00:14:11.680 other alternatives where you're not going to be disturbing existing areas that are currently vegetated. Um, or I mean, obviously, I think it's a good thing that, for instance, you're you've approached your client, you guys have found some areas that are gravel or or 52 00:14:11.680 --> 00:14:28.240 debris areas that you're looking to reveate and repopulate with vegetation. I think that's a great idea. The question that I ask is can a contractor basically get in there with a small Bobcat or small machine to do the work? I don't know. So that's where it's basically important to understand the 53 00:14:28.240 --> 00:14:45.279 logistics behind doing it. If you think that for instance you can do it with minimal impacts within the riverfront area, maybe the commission would consider enforcement order, but that needs to be basically ironed out. So, if you're looking for prioritizing the queue and not having to file a notice of 54 00:14:45.279 --> 00:15:01.360 intent application, you need to come in and basically be 100% certain to the commission that no additional impacts are going to be result from this and how it's going to basically be currently right now is worse than what it's going to be when you're done with it. And I 55 00:15:01.360 --> 00:15:17.760 think that's the approach that would be the most appropriate action. But if you can do it by hand, some of it by hand and some of it by uh low impact machinery, I think that's probably the idea that you want to move forward and present. But if you're going to have to come in there with a huge excavator to get all the bulk of material, then 56 00:15:17.760 --> 00:15:31.839 you're probably going to have want to come in with a permit. So that's basically my two cents. >> Okay. Okay. I hear you on that. Um so, you know, obviously minimizing impacts as much as possible and all that good stuff will be a part of it. Um, I think 57 00:15:31.839 --> 00:15:47.920 it's probably I mean, you know, all things considered, the access is is really not that bad. So, my hope would be that it's something that we can absolutely do to the commission's satisfaction in terms of keeping that impact as, you know, constrained as 58 00:15:47.920 --> 00:16:04.480 possible um and not coloring outside the lines, so to speak. Um, so I think that is certainly good marching orders for us. I think that uh I think I saw Craig on here from him, but anyway, we'll be 59 00:16:04.480 --> 00:16:20.639 in touch um to add some more detail to to site plans from that end. And I think that should put us in a pretty decent place with uh as far as you know, plans for what still needs to happen out here. 60 00:16:20.639 --> 00:16:36.240 Does that sound about right? >> Chris, I just have one quick question and I apologize if you addressed this before. There's a a spot labeled miscellaneous garbage. Is the plan to leave that in place or to remove it as part of this? [clears throat] >> We we had we had gone back and forth on 61 00:16:36.240 --> 00:16:53.600 this. Um there's like an old dunk tank and like a bunch of like weird stuff out there. Um, we had thought that that would be a good thing to to loop into this as well, but kind of to John's point that he was just just discussing 62 00:16:53.600 --> 00:17:09.120 there is, you know, are you doing more harm than good by trying to pluck stuff out of there? So, um, as of right now, we're not proposing going in any further than to, you know, those couple of little pile areas. There is some stuff 63 00:17:09.120 --> 00:17:25.120 in there that I'm sure uh you know would be better served getting out, but it's not at least some of it is more than just you know picking it up and carrying it out. >> Right. Okay. Thank you. >> Um so that's why we haven't included that at this point. 64 00:17:25.120 --> 00:17:40.400 >> Okay. >> Julie, did you have any comments? >> Not really. I I just procedurally though uh we're talking about the 10% impact in the in the riverfront and is 65 00:17:40.400 --> 00:17:57.280 that going to be is the activity going to be recorded equally whether this is an enforcement order or a notice as far as future activities go? >> Yes, they're going to be capped. They can't go any higher than they are now. That's why I wanted it documented so 66 00:17:57.280 --> 00:18:14.559 that it either through the enforcement order or the order conditions whatever we issue we can document that number and basically they're not going to be able to disturb anything else in the work they're maxed out there today right now they're they're over the 10% is that what I saw Chris quickly yeah I mean we 67 00:18:14.559 --> 00:18:31.280 are a bit uh a decent bit over 10% right now but I just and maybe I'm misunderstanding something here but uh here. Maybe maybe this is a good uh moment to look at this together. 68 00:18:31.280 --> 00:18:51.240 Uh oh. And an area proposed work will not exceed the amount of degraded area provided proposed work may all drop to 10%. [clears throat] Um so some some numbers to those points. Total riverfront is 114,118 69 00:18:51.360 --> 00:19:07.840 ft. 10% gets you 114 call it. So we're, you know, a decent chunk over that 10% threshold. Um, but we do, you know, as we continue reading, it does say except in 70 00:19:07.840 --> 00:19:24.160 accordance with FNG below which describe the restoration and mitigation protocols. So um I mean maybe correct me if I'm wrong here but my understanding is that you know if he were to pursue something in 71 00:19:24.160 --> 00:19:40.880 five or 10 or 50 years from now that as long as you can make restoration or mitigation work within the the parameters of the performance standards here that would be something that would be permittable. you would have to revisit that in light 72 00:19:40.880 --> 00:19:56.480 of the existing conditions at that time. Um, right. Sure. But you know, the mantra is that you don't want you can't get any closer to the river, right? Can't get any closer. You have to improve and improve existing site conditions. Um, >> yeah. 73 00:19:56.480 --> 00:20:14.000 >> So, I personally think this site uh warrants a site visit this project so we can see exactly which trees may be coming down, how close they are, where we think equipment could come in. So, I I think we should have a site visit on this one. Not to detract you from what 74 00:20:14.000 --> 00:20:29.520 you need to do to keep moving to get an existing condition survey. >> Yeah, sure. >> Um, but I I do think we should have a site visit. Yeah. No, I think that >> Yeah, I think we'd be happy to do that. Um, would you I guess to your point, 75 00:20:29.520 --> 00:20:46.440 would you like us to flesh out access and exactly what goes where a little bit more before we schedule that or you just want to get it on the books and see it so we're all kind of working from level? >> Yeah. I do want you to put some thought into where it could be so that we can evaluate it when 76 00:20:47.280 --> 00:21:04.000 >> So, okay. So again, I think the first thing you need to do is get an existing condition survey >> and figure out how that fits in with, you know, to John's point, you take many trees down, what is access going to look like? Um, and then maybe once you do that, we can have a site visit. 77 00:21:04.000 --> 00:21:19.840 >> Okay, that sounds good. Well, I think I've got uh definitely got some some to-dos here on our end. we will kind of continue to to flush this out and uh make it a little bit more cohesive for you with with some of the feedback that 78 00:21:19.840 --> 00:21:35.919 we just talked about and maybe within maybe in uh two weeks from now we can talk about scheduling a site visit. >> Sure. [clears throat] If you could u come to the next hearing and give us an update that would be great on 79 00:21:35.919 --> 00:21:50.799 >> I think that's fine. Um, >> okay. >> And I apologize. I don't know if uh my internet is being a little funny right now, but you are all frozen, unfortunately. >> Probably got some issues with audio, too. >> No, I think Thomas, if you could have a 80 00:21:50.799 --> 00:22:06.880 a chance to review the um the package, the information, if you have any comments, just work with Chris directly. >> Yeah, I will take a look at it um tomorrow and provide any comments that I have on it to to Goddard there. 81 00:22:06.880 --> 00:22:23.039 Can you guys hear me? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Oh, okay. >> So, Oh, John. So, if you could My internet unstable. Okay. >> It's everyone. Lisa. >> Yeah, it's us, too. >> Okay. >> This is very odd because this is one of 82 00:22:23.039 --> 00:22:39.440 the few times. >> My internet is fine. [laughter] Chris, uh, are you still Can you still hear us? >> Yeah. Yeah, I can still hear you guys. I turned off my video. Maybe see if that helps. So, uh, John, if you can take a look at the package and get any comments 83 00:22:39.440 --> 00:22:57.440 you have directly to Chris, that would be great. >> Sure thing. We'll do. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, if there are no further comments from the commission, we can move on to the next um agenda item. Uh, public inquiries, any department 84 00:22:57.440 --> 00:23:14.799 updates, any comments from the public regarding weapons in the town of Oregon or the Weapons Protection Act in the town of Oregon? So, I have a few if you guys want to hear them. Sure. >> So, um the one thing that I do have for 85 00:23:14.799 --> 00:23:41.600 the board is >> let me just share my screen if I can. So, this was something that I put in the Google Drive for all the commission members, but this is basically a a notice that I got from the uh office of 86 00:23:41.600 --> 00:23:57.280 dam safety of a um a federal grant offering funding opportunity uh for FEMA's high hazard potential dam program. And one of the things that they identified with it was 87 00:23:57.280 --> 00:24:12.559 the Chartley Pond Dam. We already have currently a um $250,000 grant in with Eco1top for uh the permitting and design component um for assessing an evaluation 88 00:24:12.559 --> 00:24:29.440 phase for that dam. Um but you know, part of this money could potentially go towards uh funding that or it could go to funding something else. uh in relationship to that dam moving forward. Um I just need the commission's vote uh 89 00:24:29.440 --> 00:24:45.840 for me to option in or option in the from the conservation commission's um authority because they are the managers of that water body for us to basically um be part of that the team for the grant 90 00:24:45.840 --> 00:25:01.360 opportunity. So, I just need uh a vote for authorizing uh department conservation department to submit a preliminary ODS survey to reserves Norton's eligibility while awaiting FEMA's formal notice of funding opportunity. So, >> do you want a movement? 91 00:25:01.360 --> 00:25:17.200 >> I I just need I just need >> just a vote. >> Yeah, just a vote. >> Would somebody want to move that motion that John just uh talked about? >> I will move I will move that. I so move. >> Second. >> Second. >> Okay. Um, 92 00:25:17.200 --> 00:25:32.720 roll call vote. Uh, Dan and Joe, >> I >> I >> Julian, Mark, >> I I >> And I'll vote I. So, John, is the 250 all-encompassing? And I got to tell you, we're running 93 00:25:32.720 --> 00:25:49.440 into issues all the time where uh towns have a budget and it's nowhere near what they need for permitting and design. It's probably half. >> Yeah. And unfortunately in reality >> in reality I bet I'm just hoping that we can get the grant. Uh obviously you know 94 00:25:49.440 --> 00:26:05.200 PAR's pretty good with the numbers. They they gave us the estimate. >> Um so they're actually the ones that wrote all the um ODS compliance regulatory I guess stuff for dam management. So I lean to them when I have questions. Uh they they kind of knows the ins and outs of of all that. 95 00:26:05.200 --> 00:26:21.120 So they're they're the experts when I lean towards dam management and safety. So, um, they gave me the vote. Um, Heather actually works, she lives in town and she's al also Norton resident, Heather Shanks, but she she helped and assisted us with the, uh, the proposal. 96 00:26:21.120 --> 00:26:38.240 So, >> okay. Well, let's hope we can get there. >> I hope so. Um, number two, I don't know if anyone has um looked on the Google Drive, but uh the conservation department's going to be well was tasked with uh managing 97 00:26:38.240 --> 00:26:56.880 the um Norton water bodies program. So, just to kind of give everybody a heads up. Um so, I don't know if the commission had any questions or concerns regarding that, but I have a few things to add if anyone wants to ask questions. 98 00:26:56.880 --> 00:27:13.440 Well, uh, we briefly touched on that in in the last meeting. Uh, and it puts us in a difficult conflict uh, situation. If we if we are an 99 00:27:13.440 --> 00:27:30.159 applicant and [clears throat] also we're moving on the proposal, it how do we resolve that? >> Right. So actually the conservation department, myself and Megan would be the applicants and the conservation commission itself would be the owner of 100 00:27:30.159 --> 00:27:46.240 the dam of the of the of the ponds cuz they technically are. Um you would still be the regulatory authority. The only challenges with that is that you don't get my help on anything. So issuing orders of the conditions, doing field inspections, the typical conservation 101 00:27:46.240 --> 00:28:02.159 director duties that I would do, you don't get. So, you would have to hire a um third-party peer reviewer to take my job and responsibilities. And that doesn't just stay with the with the um with this project. It goes for 102 00:28:02.159 --> 00:28:16.960 every project that is associated with the ponds. Um Winnott Pond, uh Norton Reservoir, Charlie Pond. Those are the three ponds that we we do. But any any adjacent land owner that lives on those ponds, any project that comes in front 103 00:28:16.960 --> 00:28:32.399 of you, I can't touch because it would be a conflict of interest. So for instance, the commission would have to set set up a separate uh 53g account revolving fund to pay for an outside source consultant to assist the 104 00:28:32.399 --> 00:28:49.279 commission for any duties that I am not able to legally do in relationship to my current duties, if that makes any sense. So, I just just wanted to advise the commission on the the kind of the conflict of interest kind of things that I just I'm a little concerned with if I 105 00:28:49.279 --> 00:29:04.640 take if I take on this this role and responsibility for managing the um the program for the water bodies. >> John, did did you mention you were going to run by town council? >> Um so, I did speak to the the town 106 00:29:04.640 --> 00:29:20.000 manager surrounding town council, but um I haven't heard anything on that. So, if the commission would like to uh make a request on whether this is something that town council should probably have legal input on, um I think that's something that the commission can 107 00:29:20.000 --> 00:29:35.360 formally request from the town manager and the select board. >> Oh, I I I think absolutely we need to because this has implications much broader and much, you know, ongoing in the future. It's going to 108 00:29:35.360 --> 00:29:51.840 cost the town in my view unnecessarily. Um, if we just switch the applicant to the select board or some other entity in town, I mean that's that's really all it is, right? It's the applicant. >> Yes. >> One word. >> Yes. 109 00:29:51.840 --> 00:30:09.520 >> Refresh my memory. >> The select board was managing this prior. Is that correct? Or has been up until now? >> That's correct. For the last 10 years, the select board is managing this as the applicant. They have the current current accounts. They know exactly how much money is in each account. 110 00:30:09.520 --> 00:30:26.000 And and I guess the question is why do they feel this change would be beneficial to the county? >> I cannot answer that question. >> Well, perhaps we can pose that question in a letter to the select court. 111 00:30:26.000 --> 00:30:42.000 >> Is this what we call delegation? >> Yeah, but it's unnecessary and it's it's unnecessarily burdensome to the town. we're going to have to pay basically money to replicate John what John does for the town which is silly in my view. 112 00:30:42.000 --> 00:30:58.640 Absolutely silly. So John, if you wouldn't mind take should the letter come from I I can start to write it. I can write it if you can fill in some of the gaps about um the implications. >> Sure. I have um drafted up all the stuff 113 00:30:58.640 --> 00:31:15.039 that I've done research on. I spend a couple hours actually of my own time uh doing this. So that way for instance I can provide the commission because I don't want it to detract from my day-to-day responsibilities. So over the weekend I put together a bunch of stuff for the town. 114 00:31:15.039 --> 00:31:29.760 >> So well in my view I think the first stop should be legal counsel >> because if they say hey it's not a conflict then this whole thing goes away. I I don't know. But >> but I don't see how they could possibly say 115 00:31:29.760 --> 00:31:50.240 it's not a conflict. I mean >> I mean how do other channels handle it? Don't know. Don't know. I mean unless it's it's definitely a separate entity. Um and then maybe maybe legal counsel can um uh 116 00:31:50.240 --> 00:32:07.039 take a position that the right thing to do or the smart thing to do would be for the board selectment to continue with it >> as the applicant. So do we do we think it's worth it seeking counsel or we just want to send 117 00:32:07.039 --> 00:32:22.960 a note a letter to the select board? Well, well, I'm almost wondering if the select board doesn't realize the the conflict by choosing to just lump it all in one. You know, maybe they felt it was 118 00:32:22.960 --> 00:32:40.000 logical, but you know, all of us have to do this ethics thing every two years and this is a definite conflict of the applicant also being the judge of the project and that that's that doesn't compute. 119 00:32:40.000 --> 00:32:56.880 >> John, just for the >> just for the record, could we get the title of this position? >> Oh, I don't know what the position is going to be. I there isn't an established title. There's no um you know because obviously you know I'm a unionbound employee. So if there's a 120 00:32:56.880 --> 00:33:14.960 change in title or additional responsibilities added to my job description I have to um make it known to my union rep. So just so that way the commission's aware. >> So it sounds like we're going to go the way of the letter then. So just to I 121 00:33:14.960 --> 00:33:31.519 guess put the select board on alert of what the implication is and do they still want to go this route? Please advise basically. So Jean, if you want to u um pass me whatever draft you have, I can um add to it. >> I can pass you all the information I did 122 00:33:31.519 --> 00:33:46.960 research on, Lisa. And obviously I I mean I'm not a legal attorney, so I can't, you know, all this stuff that I I basically have researched, you know, is it might it might not be correct. So I don't I want to basically validate it. And I think that getting town council's 123 00:33:46.960 --> 00:34:03.200 opinion on this matter uh is the right tact for the town. It's the right tact for the commission. And you know, obviously I I don't want to incur any more additional costs to the town that need to be. Um you know, cuz that just is not efficient. 124 00:34:03.200 --> 00:34:18.800 >> Okay. So, it sounds like we're back to getting counsel prior to sending a letter to get confirmation that it is indeed a conflict and that your research to date is, you know, accurate, so we can reference it in a letter. 125 00:34:18.800 --> 00:34:35.040 >> I also thought that wasn't such a bad idea, finding out what other towns do, >> which is mainly why I asked what the title was. But if we don't, >> right, >> we can't ask them what they do in the case of >> I don't know what. 126 00:34:35.040 --> 00:34:53.679 >> Do we need a motion then for you to uh engage town council on this issue? >> I know I can't engage town council. >> So the um >> what do you mean >> manager has to >> the town manager has to engage town 127 00:34:53.679 --> 00:35:10.640 council. I've already um got in contact with town manager advised him of the potential need for getting um town council involved to make sure that this is something that can be done. I have not heard back on whether town council has given a letter cuz typically if there's a potential conflict of interest 128 00:35:10.640 --> 00:35:26.480 or something like that then for instance it should be vetted out through town council. I have not received a response from town council. What I'm saying is that I'm be giving I'm be I am being given a directive to do something and the challenge that I have right now is I 129 00:35:26.480 --> 00:35:43.680 have to basically do what the town manager is telling me to do. So that's what I'm doing. >> All right. So I it sounds like we may have to meet with the select board in person to explain this dilemma because 130 00:35:43.680 --> 00:35:59.920 it it's like catch 22. we can't get legal counsel without it being authorized, but they're just telling us what to do. And it's like we need to communicate to the people that are apparently directing 131 00:35:59.920 --> 00:36:16.079 this choice uh and saying this doesn't work. >> But since when can't we reach out to town council? Jen did all the time. I'm a little confused by that. There may have been a different working 132 00:36:16.079 --> 00:36:32.000 dynamic at that time. >> Okay. So, John, when did you send the letter to the town manager? >> I have uh documented records. I can't remember the date. The first one I sent, I think, was in June, and the last one I 133 00:36:32.000 --> 00:36:49.760 sent was today. Saying that I would bring it to the attention of the conservation commission this evening. >> Okay. So, I'd say we bypass the town manager and go right to the select board. That that's they're that's where the buck drops, right? 134 00:36:49.760 --> 00:37:03.920 >> Yep. Um, >> you know, why bother on the channel manager if he's not going to give you the time of day? Let's just go to the select board. >> I'd like to make a motion to be put on this whiteboard agenda to discuss. 135 00:37:03.920 --> 00:37:23.839 >> I'll second that. >> Okay. Who puts it on the agenda? John probably can't. >> Nope. >> Uh, we have to talk to the secretary of the select board. 136 00:37:23.839 --> 00:37:39.920 >> Okay. >> Do you remember Julian or him? >> Well, I don't really I would have to just go to the office and say, "Look, we have an issue and we need to be on the agenda." >> Okay. >> And who will do that? >> Is that something you're willing to do? 137 00:37:39.920 --> 00:37:58.720 Uh yeah. Uh I can probably do that on Wednesday. >> Okay. >> All right. Um so that motion was made by Joe and seconded by >> I might have seconded but whatever. 138 00:37:58.720 --> 00:38:18.240 >> Okay. Julian. Um a roll call vote. Van Joe >> hi I >> I >> Julian Mark >> I I >> and I'll vote I >> Okay, thanks for bringing that to our 139 00:38:18.240 --> 00:38:32.880 attention John. >> You're welcome. So, I just I just want to follow up with one thing. Um, I want the public to know because obviously people watch these videos is that I'm not against, you know, doing this work as the as the project manager for the 140 00:38:32.880 --> 00:38:49.920 town's 770 acre water body program. All I'm asking is basically if that allows me the ability to still do what my contracted job and roles and responsibilities are for the town. That's all I'm looking for clarification from. um if that deters from my current 141 00:38:49.920 --> 00:39:06.880 roles and responsibilities, obviously that role and responsibility still needs to be fulfilled. Um and unfortunately that puts pressure on the town to potentially get an outside source consultant or someone else that's more experienced um to do the level of work 142 00:39:06.880 --> 00:39:24.000 that I do on a day-to-day basis. So I just want the public to understand that that's the reservation I have. It's not about, you know, this being, you know, in front of me as a as a new role and responsibility. It's more so understanding that can I still do my job? That's basically it. 143 00:39:24.000 --> 00:39:41.119 >> Well, but I but there also may have been a misunderstanding with regard to the select board as to the procedural restrictions with regard to what we we do. But I think each each commission has its own required 144 00:39:41.119 --> 00:39:59.760 procedures and they may not have been aware of the details and we have to make that clear. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um want to move on to the next item. Oh, unless you have anything else, John? >> No, I'm good. Thank you. 145 00:39:59.760 --> 00:40:16.000 >> Okay. So, we don't have any um continued public hearings. So, we'll go on to new public hearing. >> First one is file 250-117. Sorry Lisa. >> There's um there's the vote of acceptance for the conservation. >> I'm sorry for 146 00:40:16.000 --> 00:40:32.640 >> I missed that. You are correct. >> 162 Street. >> Yeah. 162 Westbain Street. Um so, John, do you want to give us a summary on that? So, Robert Peas is actually in the audience tonight, but he provided a uh very um I guess 147 00:40:32.640 --> 00:40:49.280 comprehensive um summary uh of the um the document which was part of the requirement for the agreement that was put in place between um both sides for the town and also his his side too. Um and as part of that, the conservation 148 00:40:49.280 --> 00:41:05.839 restriction was what came out of that whole agreement. Um that all was vetted through the um through the uh state. They reviewed it. Uh I think there was probably a couple renditions that went back and forth a couple times uh for about I think what was it two or two two 149 00:41:05.839 --> 00:41:20.800 or three years? Four years. Four years he says. >> So it's been a four-year road process, but it was finally um finalized from the state's perspective and they had everything that they needed. So um you know the next steps are the I guess the 150 00:41:20.800 --> 00:41:38.160 not the notorized signatures for the members of basically signing off that they accept this conservation restriction that was agreed upon. Now my understanding is that needs to go in front of the conservation commission but it also is going to have to go in front of the select board. So, um, obviously 151 00:41:38.160 --> 00:41:52.720 the first step would be to go in front of the conservation commission to make sure that the the commission is satisfied with the content that's within the conservation restriction. I know it's a very lengthy document. I've looked through it. I've actually, you know, helped Robert get through the 152 00:41:52.720 --> 00:42:10.319 process. Um, so, you know, I looked at kind of the restrictions, prohibited and permitted uses. I'm comfortable with it. Obviously, I leave it up to the commission to make the final say as they sign the dotted line. Um, but you know, I think that's why Robert's here tonight is just basically to take this and move 153 00:42:10.319 --> 00:42:26.800 towards a recording at the registry. >> A point of information. Uh, I think I know exactly where 162 is, but can somebody refresh my memory so that I'm music store? >> So, it's it's Bella Music. 154 00:42:26.800 --> 00:42:43.200 >> Ah, okay. So, this document becomes a legal instrument, right, that's recorded against the property. Um, and did I know it was lengthy. Did everybody have a um chance to review it? We need more time 155 00:42:43.200 --> 00:43:02.520 to review it. Anybody have any questions comments? Uh I have not but um I am going to choose to abstain because I was asked to abstain in the previous part of the proceedings. 156 00:43:02.640 --> 00:43:18.760 >> Okay. Uh so if there are no other comments I would entertain a motion to accept the conservation restriction for 162 West Main Street. >> So moved. 157 00:43:19.200 --> 00:43:36.319 Second >> motion by Mark, second by Dan. Uh, roll call vote. Dan Joe >> I, [snorts] >> Julian, [clears throat] >> Mark, 158 00:43:36.319 --> 00:43:51.119 >> I. >> And I'll vote I. >> Okay, passes. So, on to the next board. Right. Yes. Thank you everyone. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So, can they just come in whenever? 159 00:43:51.119 --> 00:44:08.560 >> Yes. If you could please Megan is a notary, so if you could just please come in um and uh give your signatures, that'd be great. >> Right. So, we need wet signatures on that. >> Correct. >> So, everybody must show up. >> All right. 160 00:44:08.560 --> 00:44:23.359 >> John, should I leave it? >> Thank you, Mr. President, for your patience on that. >> Thank you. Just a a note of u information on our previous um with regard to getting uh on the agenda of 161 00:44:23.359 --> 00:44:40.480 the select board. Uh it would not I'm going in on Wednesday. It would not be the following day. Presumably it would be at least the week after. >> Yeah. >> They're not having a meeting until mid August anyway, I think. >> Okay. 162 00:44:40.480 --> 00:44:57.359 or we need time to digest uh what we're going to talk about. So, okay. So, new public hearings file 250-1173 163 00:44:57.359 --> 00:45:13.839 for 0 South Washington Street. If we have a representative, um if you could remind us where we are because we have so many zeros in town. Um, >> state. >> Yep, I know it. Um, I don't have the 164 00:45:13.839 --> 00:45:33.440 best locust for you, but uh I'll go ahead and share this over here. Um, >> this has been before us multiple times. I think when you see it, we'll recognize it. >> Yeah. Yeah. This is part amendment for 165 00:45:33.440 --> 00:45:48.319 uh I should have read that uh proposed amendment for the removal of improved retaining wall changing the grading and reorientation of storm water management system. >> Yep. Exactly. So uh this is our site here on South Washington Street 166 00:45:48.319 --> 00:46:05.680 uh just to the south side if that provides you a little bit of a context there. And >> what's the building across the street? you know, >> uh, this one I don't know off top of my head, but I can pull up a quick fast 167 00:46:05.680 --> 00:46:21.520 mapper for, uh, >> yeah. So, just so you know, moving forward, we're going to change the format at Norton here for presentation. So, the very first thing we're going to ask every applicant to do is to share an aerial photo so we know where we we are in the world, logo, and then you may 168 00:46:21.520 --> 00:46:37.040 proceed with your engineering plan. So, going to try to start spreading that word. Um, >> sounds good. Go ahead. Let's start now. >> Let's go here. A little impromptu, but >> yeah. >> Uh, you see my mass mapper screen? 169 00:46:37.040 --> 00:46:53.440 >> Not yet. >> There you go, >> Lisa. I think it's your Toyota building. >> There you go. >> Uh, so this is our site here. This is our this zero. Uh, we got 495 up here and want to cut it obviously uh taunt 170 00:46:53.440 --> 00:47:08.160 just a little further down the street down this way. Uh, does that this is plain street crossing here. Does this orient sufficiently? >> Yep, that helps. Thank you. >> Beautiful. Sorry, I never know exactly how much context to give as somebody not 171 00:47:08.160 --> 00:47:24.480 from town. Um, >> well, I'm from town and I still can't keep the zero straight. So, give us zero like I don't know how many times a public hearing here. >> Gosh, I know. Um, all right. [snorts] I'm back on site plans. Can is this showing up for 172 00:47:24.480 --> 00:47:41.520 everybody? Not yet. >> Lisa, this was originally presented as an Amazon parking area. >> Oh. Oh, the parking lot with no building associated with it. Uh, yes. >> It's had a few different iterations. Um, 173 00:47:41.520 --> 00:47:56.319 >> okay. Anyway, without going all the way back in the record, the gist of what you folks approved about a year ago, um, was this 5,000 ft kind of shop building, mostly just a frame of a building that 174 00:47:56.319 --> 00:48:12.319 stays the same. Uh, basically the remainder of the site outside of the 25 plus or minus a couple of feet for constructibility sake, uh, was going to be a gravel layown yard. So it was 175 00:48:12.319 --> 00:48:28.640 effectively maxed out on everything that we could possibly do in the buffer zone. U so wetland covers about 2/3 or 3/4 of the site. And this is the plan I'm showing was what was approved about a year ago. 176 00:48:28.640 --> 00:48:45.040 Basically everything outside of that 25 was was going to be a gravel surface parking area or I think um asphalt millings but for whatever the case may be. Um the perimeter of that parking 177 00:48:45.040 --> 00:49:01.280 surface was going to be retainable to be able to make as much use of that lateral space as possible. Um, so we are here before you tonight to ask for a bit of a change to this one that I think is 178 00:49:01.280 --> 00:49:16.800 a a decent reduction in the impact of the project to be perfectly frank. Um, it turns out retaining walls are really expensive and we would like your permission to eliminate those retaining walls and instead of having parking 179 00:49:16.800 --> 00:49:33.040 surface again more or less right up to the 25 ft line to have traditionally graded side slopes. Um, and it effectively just shrinks the parking surface by about 24,000 square ft. So, 180 00:49:33.040 --> 00:49:51.760 I'm going to flick over to the new site plan which we just submitted to you, but just pay attention because the I think this will kind of illustrate the change. Uh, so you see here we've kind of got this gray hatched or stippled area. Um, 181 00:49:51.760 --> 00:50:08.160 and so just flicking back and forth between these two area becomes pretty appreciably smaller. Uh so a smaller parking area and if we go and look at the kind of area calculations down here 182 00:50:08.160 --> 00:50:24.400 that we go from uh 275,000 in change green area which I know is a nebulous term bear with me almost 300,000 square ft of green area 183 00:50:24.400 --> 00:50:40.880 uh with a commensurate reduction in the gravel area out from [clears throat] 77,000 square ft and change to 53,000 square ft and change. So we lose about 24,000 square ft of the gravel parking surface. 184 00:50:40.880 --> 00:50:56.480 Um as part of this what had been previously approved for storm water management was a subsurface infiltration field. uh we maintain about half of what was 185 00:50:56.480 --> 00:51:12.480 originally the subsurface infiltration field that still functions you know basically as originally designed and approved. We also pull halfish out from underground to be a conventional surface basin here. Um it 186 00:51:12.480 --> 00:51:28.800 does a couple of things. It allows a most importantly for the project to still continue to meet the storm water standards. uh it allows for that area to be vegetated. So, we're calling for a native seed mix in the basin as well as 187 00:51:28.800 --> 00:51:44.400 on the side slopes. So, picking up a a fair chunk of, you know, give or take half an acre of native vegetation, uh as compared to what was previously approved. And I think probably an underrated pro of having a surface basin 188 00:51:44.400 --> 00:51:58.800 is it's much more easily accessible for maintenance. Um, so anyway, it it really amounts to just a shrinking of the footprint of the gravel yard with some ancillary changes around the around the 189 00:51:58.800 --> 00:52:15.680 fringes. Um, I think that sums up the changes. Uh, so if the commission has any questions, I'd be more than happy to answer them. Uh, but otherwise, >> the first thing I'm going to ask you to do is to zoom in because this is not legal at all. >> Okay. So, we need to look at the 190 00:52:15.680 --> 00:52:30.640 grading. We need to look at the transition. We also need to look at what is the surface type for the rest of the project site now that it's not going to be that um asphalt. Uh so I think 191 00:52:30.640 --> 00:52:47.520 here we have proposed gravel surface storage area. Um so this is the same surface that was previously approved just shrunken down. >> Okay. Now, instead of having painting walls basically, you know, one 192 00:52:47.520 --> 00:53:03.599 or two feet off of the 25 ft buffer line, which is this dash line as we go around this way, uh those become just graded sign slopes. And I'll flip to the next page where you can see obviously 193 00:53:03.599 --> 00:53:21.440 those contours along the edge here. uh the that elevation difference changes a little bit but it's generally in the you know 4 to 8 foot range that slope from top to bottom. Um and 194 00:53:21.440 --> 00:53:39.200 these get slopes seated with that conservation wildlife mix native vegetation around the perimeter infiltration basin seated with erosion control restoration mix for detention basins and moist sites which is a mouthful but again native vegetation in 195 00:53:39.200 --> 00:53:55.760 the infiltration basin down off the south edge of the of the parking surface here. Um, is there anything else that would be good to look at in a little bit more zoomed in detail? >> Is there any curving? >> Um, I don't believe there's curving. 196 00:53:55.760 --> 00:54:11.119 >> No. Uh, so my concern right off the bat um is is you had the retaining wall that basically, you know, kept any potential pollutants from entering the drink. 197 00:54:11.119 --> 00:54:25.680 You've done away with that now. So if there's a spill or something, it's going right over the side. Um, so we do have half foot tall lan seated burm along top of slope which I think serves that 198 00:54:25.680 --> 00:54:43.680 purpose. >> Okay. Um, I'll open it up for comments from the commission. >> I have a question. [clears throat] >> What's the grade of your slopes? Are they 2 to1? Uh I don't have a ratio offhand uh but I 199 00:54:43.680 --> 00:54:59.680 can take a quick measurement uh if you like here 40 scale >> as far as durability goes that's kind of important for this kind of use. Well, especially if there's no curbing, Julian, if there's any erosion, it's 200 00:54:59.680 --> 00:55:15.200 just going to, you know, start creating rails and gullies and it's going to erode that slope. And that's my concern over time is without that, you know, part of storm water management to get the water into the catch basin is curb. Why you have curves? It's the only reason you have 201 00:55:15.200 --> 00:55:33.599 curves. >> So, we've got uh here, what is that? 24 six. Uh, you know, you go from 82 to 8. Yeah, it's about 6 ft uh over 16 202 00:55:33.599 --> 00:55:56.079 horizontally in that spot. Um, >> two and a half to one, something like that. >> Yeah, it's something in that neighborhood. Uh we go 82 to 88 here over about 18 ft. So yeah, it's 203 00:55:56.079 --> 00:56:15.760 it's a little bit better than 2:1 I believe would say generally. So is there any reason why you didn't do the curving? I mean, I'm sorry, the the the wall around what was left, right? So, you're 204 00:56:15.760 --> 00:56:33.200 shrinking it. So, if you had a combination, like, does it have to be one or the other? So, if you were to put the wall around where the parking is going to be and then let the rest of it be a natural grade, it doesn't have to be one or the other. It's like all or 205 00:56:33.200 --> 00:56:48.240 nothing here. And I'm seeing something. It's a compromise to handle storm water the right way. Yeah, I mean the Yeah, I think it was, you know, primarily, if not entirely, a financial 206 00:56:48.240 --> 00:57:06.160 decision uh in terms of the the price for substantial retaining walls as opposed to just grading out the side slopes. >> I'll ask the question again. So, if you were if you go back to the layout plan and you were just to take a retaining wall to just put it around that area 207 00:57:06.160 --> 00:57:22.880 that's going to have the the arcing with the >> Yeah. >> you know, you were able to reduce the footprint. Um, >> so it was just purely financial. So, I would ask that this be peer 208 00:57:22.880 --> 00:57:38.559 reviewed to see what the implication is of having no curving. I am just uh not convinced that's going to help with those side slopes and and you're not really going to do anything to contain storm water because that's what curbs do, right? So, it's just 209 00:57:38.559 --> 00:57:53.440 going to run off now. Before, I mean, you you theoretically had the retaining wall to act like a curb, right? Nothing was going past that. Now, you have nothing. Now, you have sheet flow that could potentially go right into the drain, 210 00:57:53.440 --> 00:58:09.280 >> right? Yeah, I understand the concern there. I do I don't remember offhand if this was if this burm along the the edge was was part of it uh previously along the top of the wall. I would hazard a guess that it wasn't. Um so you know we 211 00:58:09.280 --> 00:58:24.559 do have 6 in of of containment. You know effectively in my mind it act sort of was a Cape Cod BM. Um you know seated BM along the top of that slope I think was that was the intention of of adding that. 212 00:58:24.559 --> 00:58:44.480 So somewhere else it would apply. >> Yeah. Well, that too. It's not a structural detail. Correct, Joe. So, uh, I would I would ask that this be peer reviewed um with special attention 213 00:58:44.480 --> 00:59:06.720 towards storm water operations and management. Do you want a motion? Somebody's so inclined. >> I'll make a motion uh on uh file 250-1173 214 00:59:06.720 --> 00:59:21.119 uh that the applicant should have uh the area peer reviewed by the appropriate uh what engineer >> with attention to storm water standards and operations. with attention to storm 215 00:59:21.119 --> 00:59:37.040 water standards and operations. >> Second. >> Okay. Um if there's any other Well, we can we'll go ahead with the roll call vote for this before we open up to the public. So, uh I have a motion from Dan, 216 00:59:37.040 --> 00:59:54.559 seconded by Joe. Uh Dan and Joe. >> I I >> Julian and Mark I. >> I. and I will vote I um can still that doesn't stop us from continuing any other comments that anybody has from the 217 00:59:54.559 --> 01:00:08.880 commission. >> Yeah, I just a question I I don't know what ability of those uh I mean it's a a 2.6 6:1 slope. And [clears throat] I don't know if there's some kind of soil 218 01:00:08.880 --> 01:00:25.040 fabric that can be buried to reduce the chance of it totally collapsing, particularly during wet conditions. Uh, and if so, that potentially will have to be part of the u 219 01:00:25.040 --> 01:00:40.640 modified order. I I maybe you can comment on this, Lisa, better than than I can because I don't know what the durability of that kind of slope with this kind of setup is going to be. >> Uh that's a structural or ge that's a 220 01:00:40.640 --> 01:00:58.000 geotech question. [clears throat] So, uh maybe that's something that the um peerreview consultant can I think because I can just see all kinds of stuff even though you have no snow storage. I can see snow just being 221 01:00:58.000 --> 01:01:13.520 pushed over the edge and the house destroying whatever burm might be there kind of like it's going to be a mess over time. >> Yeah. Yeah. It's going to be maintenance and then once it's, you know, if it's 222 01:01:13.520 --> 01:01:31.599 not maintained, it's out of sight, out of mind. So, um, if there are no other comments from the commission, I'll entertain any comments from the public for this project. Okay, there are none. 223 01:01:31.599 --> 01:01:50.799 So, um going to continue until August 10th or do we >> Well, I I suppose we'd mostly be looking for a peerreview letter in that time, I think, unless we, 224 01:01:50.799 --> 01:02:06.079 you know, had any thoughts of our own to interject before. I I don't know does the commission have a typical engineer that they use for for this sort of thing and I don't know if you have a ballpark of usual turnaround time on that. 225 01:02:06.079 --> 01:02:22.559 >> I have to defer to John probably. >> Uh depends on depends on who we use obviously. That's that's the question. Um you I know that Pat Brennan did the original peer review on this um and his turnaround times were very quick. So, um 226 01:02:22.559 --> 01:02:39.839 I know he did the original one for the three or four renditions that this project has gone through. Um so I think that he will probably have the easiest time uh confirming and validating all those questions that the commission asked this evening. >> Sure. >> Um but please be aware that moving 227 01:02:39.839 --> 01:02:56.160 forward we probably probably will have additional peer reviewers on on hand to basically look at these projects. But to close out some of the previous ones, I think having him use be used on this one would be appropriate. >> Sure. Yeah. I think in that case then we 228 01:02:56.160 --> 01:03:13.359 hope for a fairly quick turnaround and and we'll continue out to your next year. >> All right. Uh Chris is does this have to go undergo um another review by the planning board? Uh so there was a planning board meeting 229 01:03:13.359 --> 01:03:30.640 a couple of weeks ago that the the gist was uh an attempt to continue to use it for or [clears throat] to I guess to push again for using it for Amazon bands uh which they 230 01:03:30.640 --> 01:03:45.839 basically gave a preliminary but fairly firm no. Um, so I will have to defer to to Dan American on that one. My understanding, and but don't quote me on this, was that uh being the same use but 231 01:03:45.839 --> 01:04:02.240 just smaller, uh, it wouldn't require a second formal planning board approval. Um, but I don't know that for 100% sure. >> Okay. And part of the reason I'm asking is if the planning board elects to undertake this, I don't know if they're going to have their own peer reviewer. 232 01:04:02.240 --> 01:04:16.960 Um but anyway um you might want to just keep it open for that to make it through that process as well. >> Sure. >> So >> I think then uh even if you have to ask 233 01:04:16.960 --> 01:04:35.119 for a continuence on the tenth maybe you just want to continue it until then for now. >> Yeah. And just make sure our tees are crossed and I do it. >> Right. And now I'll make that motion that uh the hearing for number 250-1173 234 01:04:35.119 --> 01:04:51.839 be continued until our 10th. >> Second. >> All right. Motion by Julian, second by Dan. Roll call vote. Dan and Joe. >> I >> I. >> Julian and Mark. >> I >> I. >> And I'll vote I. Uh we'll see you on the 235 01:04:51.839 --> 01:05:08.799 10th. >> Thanks folks. Have a good night. >> Good night. >> Thank you. Uh the next public hearing is file 250. No project uh no D number yet for 163 North Worester Street map 14 parcel 48. 236 01:05:08.799 --> 01:05:26.319 Uh the applicant is Richard Fette and Craig you have the floor. >> Rim Engineering. >> I think Richard may be in the audience. I have not never met him in person, but one of the He's either on He was going 237 01:05:26.319 --> 01:05:44.960 to either be online or in >> He's here, Craig. He's here. >> He's making sure you give a good presentation. >> Yeah, I think Cameron Larson from ECR was going to be on. >> Yeah, there. >> Yep, he's on. Yep. 238 01:05:44.960 --> 01:06:00.960 >> Okay. So, I can >> I'm here with you, Craig. >> Okay. Uh, can I share a screen, John, or >> Yes, you should be able to share your screen Craig. >> Okay. Well, Craig's figuring that out. We're going to It's the uh It's projects for an addition to an existing single 239 01:06:00.960 --> 01:06:24.640 family home with an embark on PVW flood plane and river. You see that now? We do. Okay, so this lot here is on Northwester directly opposite Salem Street. I don't 240 01:06:24.640 --> 01:06:42.160 have a aerial view. Um, but the lot was built in 1955. The town has a drainage line going up the property line here to the waiting river, which is [clears throat] our property line, the center of the 241 01:06:42.160 --> 01:06:58.160 channel. uh ECR flagged the main mean annual or high water line uh here with the 100 foot interparion 200 foot goes onto the center of North Wister streets there's also BBW along the river with 242 01:06:58.160 --> 01:07:14.240 the 25 ft buffer zone which we're not intending to work in other than we get to that some discarded material that's been there for some time and then the 100 foot buffers zone comes in front of 243 01:07:14.240 --> 01:07:31.720 the house across the yard. [clears throat] So, like I said, the uh house is listed as being built in the 50s and then I found aerial views in the 80s which show the existing house. Zoom in a little bit. 244 01:07:32.720 --> 01:07:50.559 The existing house, you can see the uh room in the back that it's in. I don't know what time it became an addition, but in the 80s it existed as it is. This the twocar driveway and the paved walkway all existed in the 1980s. 245 01:07:50.559 --> 01:08:05.119 So that [clears throat] was um the land was also the yard appeared to be cleared. It's hard to see as tree line, but it's definitely a difference in vegetation near the river. Uh, so it appears that this lawn all existed in 246 01:08:05.119 --> 01:08:20.719 the 1980s and that's about 20,000 square feet. Um oops. So, what we're looking to do is add on to the house. I believe it's for an in-law [clears throat] 247 01:08:20.719 --> 01:08:37.040 in front of the driveway here. Uh, and adding a deck adjacent. This is a actual threeseason room or possibly year round, but it's not a deck. It's a has a wall and roofs, but this would be 248 01:08:37.040 --> 01:08:52.960 an open deck with steps going down to grade. The uh the other resource area is the uh 100year flood plane, which runs at 103.6, six, which we found comes along the side of the house here, runs 249 01:08:52.960 --> 01:09:10.640 along the back of the house, and then runs this dark line under here. So, the addition is outside of the flood plane. We're up at 108 here, 1036 at the back. The rear 250 01:09:10.640 --> 01:09:27.359 yard is a walk out basement. Uh the architect uh is proposing uh 10 helical piles under the house and then three under the deck. Currently below that deck is a existing 251 01:09:27.359 --> 01:09:43.839 planter more of a concrete and that will stay in place with the lawn remain under the deck. crush stone existing under the rest of the area behind the existing house and below the raised. This room is raised above grade about 8 ft which the 252 01:09:43.839 --> 01:09:59.920 deck would be as well. But the house would be set at the same grade as the existing uh the addition would be set at the same grade as the existing house with no proposed grading around because we do have that flood plane directly behind us. It'll give about 2 ft of 253 01:09:59.920 --> 01:10:14.960 exposed concrete which is pretty typical. >> [clears throat] >> currently or back in the 2000s we found that it appears that well they put in a new septic system there were assess bulls in this area 254 01:10:14.960 --> 01:10:30.880 could not find evidence that they went before conservation and had it permitted so we're including that that's in 2000 that that happened the same time or in that time frame they put a deck off the side of the house excuse me partially on 255 01:10:30.880 --> 01:10:46.800 top of the concrete uh pavement area of the driveway. Uh because the tank sits right here inside our addition that's to be removed and placed over here. We confirm that this is an accurate location of the 256 01:10:46.800 --> 01:11:03.520 aseptic system and the uh pipe should work horizontally to connect to the uh distribution box of the system. So the new tank will be moved out here in the front. The driveway would then be it's 257 01:11:03.520 --> 01:11:19.600 going to have to be torn up to do some of this work including uh putting the drain line in the sewer line in as well as the drain line we're proposing to handle the roof oneoff and the dry well in the front yard. We were up at 108 258 01:11:19.600 --> 01:11:34.880 where the backyard is down at 102. So we can put a 500galon dry well in this area and be above groundwater. So, we're including, excuse me, [clears throat] the disturbance of 259 01:11:34.880 --> 01:11:52.400 removing the tank, replacing the tank uh and the line as well as the 2,000 >> [clears throat] >> uh septic area that was not permitted through conservation as the total 260 01:11:52.400 --> 01:12:08.239 disturbance in the uh riverfront area which is in the outer repairarian, [clears throat] the inner repairing comes behind the back of the house. So, we have um [clears throat] like I said, three helical piles here 261 01:12:08.239 --> 01:12:24.719 and a concrete pad at the bottom of the deck will be the disturbance in the in inner repairan zone. The [clears throat] combination of that uh the previous work and the proposed work comes out to be 9.97% 262 01:12:24.719 --> 01:12:42.080 of the riverfront area. >> [clears throat] >> The revision I made was John helped with the chart. We have a total riverfront area of 35,588 and I proposed uh disturbances 3548. 263 01:12:42.080 --> 01:13:00.640 It gives a breakdown of pre96 and post 96 disturbances in the inner and outer repairing areas. Excuse me. Uh so again, the proposed work is the addition of the house addition off to the side of the existing 264 01:13:00.640 --> 01:13:21.600 house and a raised deck set all set on hill piles. I don't [clears throat] know if Richard has anything to add to that or if you have questions at this time. >> So open it up to commission members. Any questions, comments? Do we have a height 265 01:13:21.600 --> 01:13:37.040 on the top of heel piles there? >> Excuse me. >> Do we have an elevation height at the top of the helical piles? >> Well, I'm assuming that up here under the deck I counted that there would be 266 01:13:37.040 --> 01:13:54.239 said a grade which is at 102 point um they would be along the back edge of the the back edge of the deck would be the three that would be attached to the house here. So over here we're at 103 uh 1029 in this corner. Uh and then I 267 01:13:54.239 --> 01:14:10.000 assume we're going to be having a they call for a 6x6 post on top of that. So that comes up out of the ground in the flood plane about 6 in. So that's what I use to calculate the distur the disturbance in the flood plane area and 268 01:14:10.000 --> 01:14:25.520 then they have an area here where the grade goes up to 105 along this side of the house. So we can >> can I make can we make a note on the plan site of the helical pile height >> unless you have a detail showing that Craig 269 01:14:25.520 --> 01:14:41.120 >> I don't have a detail but I can add that >> okay and that might answer Joe's question as well we put a detail on there and then over here the helical piles are above blood plane I don't know exact what grade they would set those 270 01:14:41.120 --> 01:15:10.239 Any other questions that the commission has? >> No. So, we're right under the 10%. Uh, Craig, did you count the luching field? >> Yes. >> Because I mean, if it's going to be loned and seated, it's really not degraded, right? It's going to be 271 01:15:10.239 --> 01:15:27.760 disturbed temporarily. But >> uh what was the qu what was the question? I I counted from the base of their grading for the as un uh unperimeitted disturbance in the area 272 01:15:27.760 --> 01:15:43.360 prior to >> Okay. But is that long today? >> It is long today. >> Okay. And it >> I'm not counting it as degraded. It was >> Okay. Okay. And so that's going to be long obviously when you 273 01:15:43.360 --> 01:15:58.800 >> Yes. Now they're just going to have to replace this pipe. >> Okay. >> Distribution box >> under the pavement and some of it will be lawn. [clears throat] >> The degraded is the driveway, 274 01:15:58.800 --> 01:16:17.520 the existing house, the existing >> right >> this underneath here is all crushed stone and concrete. >> Yep. Okay. Thank you. >> All right. >> Can I have a flood plane elevation 275 01:16:17.520 --> 01:16:38.960 certificate or flood elevation certificate >> for this one? No, this one wouldn't require it. >> Thank you. Um, so if there are no other questions from the commission, I will entertain 276 01:16:38.960 --> 01:16:56.400 commission uh comments and questions from the public if there are any. Okay. Is there anybody else in the audience there? >> Just just the owner. >> Okay. 277 01:16:56.400 --> 01:17:11.440 All right. So, we can't close this public hearing because we don't have a file number from D yet. Um, and Craig is going to get us the uh the detail in the Hilo files. So, while we're waiting for the number, 278 01:17:11.440 --> 01:17:26.239 if you can get us that plan update, that would be great. So, we need a motion to continue the public hearing for 163 North Worester Street till the August 10th public meeting. So, 279 01:17:26.239 --> 01:17:44.480 >> okay. I heard uh uh Julian >> and Dan. >> Okay. Roll call vote. Dan and Joe. >> I I >> Julia and Mark. >> I I 280 01:17:44.480 --> 01:18:01.679 >> And I'll vote I and we will see you on August 10th. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. All right. We do not have any requests for certificate compliance for signature. We do have an order of conditions. Uh actually, what is it? Is 281 01:18:01.679 --> 01:18:20.560 that an ORAD? Oh, that's an order. Sorry. For 250-1206. Another zero zero Mansfield. >> Yeah, this was adjacent u Alberto. 282 01:18:20.560 --> 01:18:43.840 >> Okay. Yeah, we closed at the last meeting. >> Okay. Oh, I see. I saw this one. Uh, does anybody have any comments on the draft order? >> So, John, that's interesting. They did 283 01:18:43.840 --> 01:19:00.400 they not pay the legal notice yet? >> Oh, they did. They did, I believe. So, why did I have it in there that they didn't? >> Well, it says, "Prior to commencement of construction, the applicant shall complete the following proof of payment of a legal notice." 284 01:19:00.400 --> 01:19:16.800 >> Oh, that's always the case. We always have that as a stipulation in there that they they always they have to provide proof that they >> even if they do, >> even if they do, they have to provide proof that they >> That's always been a stipulation. >> Oh, why am I just finding that now? I 285 01:19:16.800 --> 01:19:35.199 don't know. Who knows? It's in yellow. >> Oh, sorry. I should have left. I should That's why it's in yellow. >> He brought it to my attention. >> Yeah, I'm sorry. >> Okay. So, if there are no other no comments or 286 01:19:35.199 --> 01:19:50.719 questions, I'll entertain a motion to issue the order of commission for D file 250-1206 as written. >> I move. >> Second. Motion by Julian, second by Dan. Roll 287 01:19:50.719 --> 01:20:11.120 call vote. Dan and Joe. >> Hi. >> Okay. Joe. Yeah. All right. Julian. >> Yeah. >> And Mark, >> that's an I. >> And I'll go I. >> All right. What else do we have? We have 288 01:20:11.120 --> 01:20:27.360 anything else? >> I have nothing. I'll see uh I'll see uh Mark and Lisa in uh this this week, right? And then >> so Mark and I are going to meet with Megan and Joe, no, Megan and John to um 289 01:20:27.360 --> 01:20:44.400 go over processes. Uh see how we can streamline things. Um we talked about I I talked briefly about, you know, getting an aerial photo from now on on the screen so we all know where we are before we start in on the engineering plan. Um, little things like that um 290 01:20:44.400 --> 01:21:00.640 that I think might help us go a little quicker, a little smoother uh in the future. So, >> I move we sounds good. Second. >> All right. Uh, roll call vote. Julian 291 01:21:00.640 --> 01:21:16.199 Joe. >> I. >> Mark Dan. >> Hi. >> I vote I. All right. Have a good one. Thank you. You too. >> Thank you.