The Raynham Channel
Welcome to Raynham Community Access & Media (RAYCAM), where we engage, learn, and create community access media. We are dedicated to providing a platform for all voices to be heard and shared. Join us in creating a vibrant and inclusive media community.
The Raynham Channel
Conservation Commission 06/05/2025
(Episode Description is AI generated and may be errors in accuracy)
When most people think about environmental protection, they picture national parks or global climate initiatives. But the real frontline of conservation happens in town halls across America, where dedicated volunteers on conservation commissions make crucial decisions about wetlands, development, and natural resources right in our backyards.
Step into the Raynham Veterans Memorial Town Hall, where the Conservation Commission navigates the delicate balance between development and environmental stewardship. This meeting offers a remarkable window into local environmental governance as commissioners review everything from routine compliance certificates to complex proposals with significant ecological implications.
The discussions reveal the technical expertise required for these decisions as commissioners and consultants debate soil hydrology, stormwater calculations, and wetland connectivity. Watch as they meticulously investigate whether an isolated wetland might actually connect to a larger system through underground channels—a determination that could dramatically alter development possibilities for a proposed public safety facility.
What's particularly fascinating is witnessing how these environmental guardians respond to pressure. When a cell tower applicant suggests possible federal litigation due to delays, the commissioners remain steadfastly focused on their environmental protection mandate rather than being rushed into approval. This commitment to thorough review, despite significant pressure, demonstrates the crucial role these local bodies play in ensuring development occurs responsibly.
Whether you're interested in environmental protection, local governance, or simply curious about how decisions affecting your community are made, this meeting provides invaluable insight into the careful, deliberative process that shapes our local landscapes. These may not be the environmental battles that make national headlines, but they're the ones that most directly affect the natural resources in our communities.
https://www.raynhaminfo.com/
Copyright RAYCAM INC. 2024
you evening. Everyone like to call the June 4th meeting of the Conservation Commission to order. Be advised, all these meetings are recorded. Linda, would you like to read us in?
Speaker 2:public hearings and meetings heard by the Reingham Conservation Commission on Wednesday, june 4th 2025 at 530 pm in the Rainham Veterans Memorial Town Hall, donald L McKinnon Meeting Room 558 South Main Street, rainham Mass, are relative to filings in joint hearings and or meetings under the Mass General Law, chapter 131 and 40, as amended In the town of Rainham, wetland Protection Bible.
Speaker 1:All right. First off, a request for a certificate of compliance for DEP number 269980, 255 King Phillip, map 14, parcel 99, lot 1. I'm just going to read them all because you're involved in them all, phillip. Map 14, parcel 99, lot one. I'm just going to read them all because you're involved in them all, okay. Then we have DEP number 269, 986, 260, south Main Street, map 14, parcel 99, lot two. Map 14, parcel 99, lot 2.
Speaker 3:Dep number 269-981-250 South Main Street, map 6a, parcel 9, lot 1. Good sir, good evening Board members, attorney Ryan profit on behalf of the applicant, advanced development. As the chairman read, this is for request, first, of compliance with regards to four different parcels 178 South Main, 250 South Main, 260 South Main and 2255 King Phillip, aka formerly known as 254 South Main. These houses have been built and sold for some time. Everything has been complied with. The engineer we had first had done the plans, I think retired, so we had a new company come in and review everything to make sure that we were in compliance. Evan Watson from W&A Engineering went out and reviewed all of the parcels to make sure we were in ENGINEERING, went OUT AND REVIEWED ALL OF THE PARCELS TO MAKE SURE WE WERE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORIGINAL ORDERS OF CONDITION. He FOUND OUT THAT WE WERE AND HE'S PROVIDED US WITH LETTERS TO CERTIFY THAT FOR EACH OF THE PARCELS. So WE'RE JUST ASKING THAT THE CERTIFICATES BE ALLOWED.
Speaker 1:CAN I? Review REVIE yeah, yeah, okay, okay um, we'll do it by lot number for voting, okay, um, all in favor of lot one uh 255. King phillip, I'M SORRY MY MISTAKE.
Speaker 5:MOTION TO REQUEST COMPLETE CERTIFICATE COMPLIANCE DEP 269-980-225 KING PHILLIPS STREET.
Speaker 1:SECOND MOTION BE MADE. Second NOW ALL IN FAVOR AYE OPPOSED UNANIMOUS. Second now all in favor aye, opposed, unanimous. Okay, next will be 260 South Main Street, lot 2.
Speaker 6:Motion. Motion to provide a certificate of compliance for DEP number 269-986, 260 South Main Street, Map 14, Parcel 99, Lot 2.
Speaker 1:All in favor. Aye, map 14, parcel 99 lot to all favor. Okay, next IS GOING TO BE 250 SOUTH MAIN STREET, lot 3. Motion. Motion TO.
Speaker 5:APPROVE REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 269981-250 SOUTH MAIN STREET, PARTIAL 99, LOT 3.
Speaker 7:SECOND MOTION.
Speaker 5:BEING MADE SECOND.
Speaker 1:All IN FAVOR 250 South Main Street, parcel 99, lot 3. Second, mr Convain seconded All in favor, aye, opposed, yes, all right. The last one is it's still going to be a lot one, but it's 178 South Main Street, parcel 9, lot 1.
Speaker 6:Motion to provide a certificate of compliance to DEP number 2691032, 178 South Main Street, map 6, parcel mine to or one sorry seconded.
Speaker 1:Welcome Dan. Second it all in favor. Aye opposed thank you very much thank you, sir, appreciate you All right. All right up is a north of intent for zero. Paramount drive. Map 15, lot 176, dash 3g, dep number two, six, nine, ten, seventy proposed commercial building, sir. Thank you, mr chairman. I need need the add in the green cuts.
Speaker 5:Thank you. In ACCORDANCE WITH MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL LAW, chapter 131, section 40, and THE TOWN OF RAYNORM LOCAL BYLAW, the RAYNORM CONSERVATION COMMISSION WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON WEDNESDAY, may 21ST.
Speaker 4:THEY HAVE THE TIES FOR FOR JUNE 21ST, BUT THEN WE CANCEL THEM.
Speaker 8:OH, that's RIGHT, THAT'S.
Speaker 1:RIGHT.
Speaker 5:OKAY, so WE'RE GOOD TO GO. Yeah, so I SHOULD SAY JUNE 4TH, right.
Speaker 1:WELL NO. Read IT AS IS READ.
Speaker 4:IT.
Speaker 5:AS IS.
Speaker 4:BECAUSE IT WAS.
Speaker 5:YEAH, okay. Wednesday, may 21, 2025, 530 PM. Donwell MACKINNON MEETING ROOM RAYNORM VETERAN MEMORIAL TOWN HALL. Located 558 SOUTH MAIN STREET, RAYNORM, mass. On A NOTICE OF INTENT FILED THE GRECO AUTOMOTIVE GROUP. The APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMERCIAL BUILDING WITH ASSOCIATED CLEARING, marking, lot, drainage UTILITIES, grading AND LANDSCAPING, with 100-FOOT BUFFER OF BORDERING. Vegetated WETLAND, at THE LOCATION OF ZERO PARAMOUNT. Drive RAYNOR ASSESSORS MET 15, lot 176-3G. Copies OF THE APPLICATION PLANS WILL BE VIEWED AT THE RCC OFFICE DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS AT THE DOWNER HALL. You MAY ALSO CONTACT RCC BY CALLING 508-824-2706. All RIGHT. I'll SEND ALL THAT TO YOU.
Speaker 10:OKAY, thank YOU, mr CHAIRMAN. My NAME IS BOB FORBES FROM ZENITH CONSULTING ENGINEERS. This PROJECT IS FOR GRECO FORD. You MAY BE FAMILIAR WITH THEIR EXISTING AUTO DEALERSHIP ON ROOF 44. This IS FOR A PROPOSED POTS WHOLESALE, pots DISTRIBUTION CENTER, light MANUFACTURING FACILITY AND SERVICE FACILITY. This IS ON PARAMOUNT DRIVE. There's NO ADDRESS. It's LISTED AS ZERO PARAMOUNT DRIVE IN THE TOWN RECORDS AND IT'S THE LAST.
Speaker 10:AVAILABLE UNDEVELOPED LOT IN THE RAIN AND WATER SUBDIVISION and the town records and it's the last available undeveloped lot in the random woods subdivision. It's five. It's a. It's a five point six acre parcel and approximately four point five acres of that is a blend. You can see here. I've highlighted the wetlands line in green and the 25 foot buffer in blue. This is a large building. It's approximately a 39,000 square foot footprint and two entrances out onto Paramount Drive and associated parking and vehicle storage areas.
Speaker 10:As far as the week, just to let you know, we have gone through the the Planning Board review. As far as the drainage approval for this site plan that you're seeing here, that we've submitted to you guys. As far as the drainage goes, all of the land slopes from Paramount Drive down back into the wetland system, as one would expect. So what we're doing is we're collecting all of the runoff and putting it into infiltration basin and subsurface infiltration structure. Here it's going to be underneath the parking area. That has been, as I said, that we went through the plenty board review and that's been reviewed and approved by the consultant, the engineering consultant, who looked at that. I just want to point out that we do. We do creep in. As you can see, right here we have a finger of the wetland system that comes to a point here and we do come into the 25 foot buffer in this spot and it's approximately 270 square feet. We've been able to maintain the 15 foot setback to that, we have a vertical wall here and the reason for that we obviously you may recall it I did contact you, mr McCray, and we were hoping to come in just to talk about that at the onset of the project and we weren't able to to do that. So this is this, this is the the impact area here to the 25 foot buffer, and I may I might just also point out that this lot was established as is before the wetlands bylaw was enacted, so it's not applicable. The 25 foot no disturb is not applicable to this lot.
Speaker 10:Again. I just wanted to show you what we've got for erosion control. We have again highlighted the wetlands line in green AGAIN. I JUST WANTED TO SHOW YOU WHAT WE'VE GOT FOR EROSION CONTROL. We HAVE AGAIN THE HIGHLIGHTED WETLANDS LINE IN GREEN. We HAVE SILTSOCK EROSION CONTROL SYSTEM PROPOSED AROUND THE ENTIRE SITE KIND OF, not ONLY AS AN EROSION CONTROL BARRIER BUT ALSO AS A LIMIT FOR THE CONTRACTORS TO MAKE SURE THEY barrier, but also as a limit for the contractors. We should stay within those limits. We have two empty tracking pads at the at the entrances, and we're proposing silt sacks and all of the catch basins, including the one that's CATCH BASINS INCLUDING THE ONE. That's THAT THE SYSTEM, the ROADWAY SYSTEM, the EXISTING ROADWAY SYSTEM, drains TO OUT IN PARAMAR DRIVE, and THOSE WOULD STAY IN PLACE UNTIL THE SITE HAS BEEN FULLY STABILIZED. I'd BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF THEY HAVE.
Speaker 4:I'd be happy to answer any questions if they happen. We're going to have to look at it some more, especially with the drainage component. But I will note though historically the commission has looked at lots that have-existed the bylaw. However, it's not a correct statement to say that the 25 foot buffer does not apply, Unlike the zoning bylaws that are promulgated by the town under the zoning act. That freezes square footages, frontages for lots. The wetlands by-law is promulgated under home rule, so there is no freezing of a provision in that. So it will go up to the commission to decide, if it feels SO, THAT. It WILL GO UP TO THE COMMISSION TO DECIDE. If IT FEELS THAT THEY CAN WEAVE THAT REQUIREMENT.
Speaker 10:YEAH, I'm JUST READING RIGHT FROM THE WETLANDS BYLAW. It SAYS THIS PROVISION SHALL NOT APPLY TO LOTS THAT WERE CREATED BY DEED OR PLAN RECORDED IN BRISTOL. Registry OF DEEDS PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THIS BYLAW.
Speaker 4:THAT'S CLEAR AS DAY.
Speaker 10:Bristol registry of deeds prior to the adoption of this bylaw that's clear as day. That's from the, that's from the conservation bylaw, worksheet number.
Speaker 1:But WHAT I'M LOOKING AT HERE?
Speaker 10:YEAH.
Speaker 1:THAT'S RIGHT THESE SQUARES. Is THIS A WOODEN FENCE OR?
Speaker 10:NO, no, that's JUST THE SYMBOL WE USE FOR THE GROCERY CONTROL VARIANT OH. Okay, all RIGHT. Yeah.
Speaker 1:ONE THING WE WILL DEFINITELY NEED IS WE ALWAYS ASK FOR WATTS LIKE THIS WHERE THEY'RE SO CLOSE. One thing we will definitely need is we always ask for lots like this where they're so close up to the wetlands, especially on the back Snow storage plan where you're going to put the snow.
Speaker 10:Okay, yes, as you can see the parking area in back. The intention is to utilize that as snow storage. They're not actual parking spaces for customers, they would just be vehicle storage areas. So I will absolutely add that to the plan, though.
Speaker 4:No problem, nobody very supposed to be for vehicle storage and you have a vehicle stored there, then you're not going to have that available.
Speaker 11:You know, like you said they're proposed as vehicle storage.
Speaker 5:They would have to be part of the maintenance. They would have to be part of the maintenance.
Speaker 1:Yeah, they have to be moved out prior to storms or something, I don't know.
Speaker 10:Yeah, I don't know if you're familiar. It's exactly what they do on their existing shot.
Speaker 1:I mean okay, yeah, yeah anticipation of a storm.
Speaker 10:They figure it out.
Speaker 1:Yeah, you're gonna have to show on your plan, no problem, no storage. And if you can't store it on site, you have to have a maintenance plan to remove it, that would be the intention.
Speaker 6:Yep, what's the need for the 30-foot roadway?
Speaker 10:Emergency vehicle access around the building. As you can see, that building is pinned as close as we can to the front setback line. It's the minimum depth that they were they can. They can do what they need to do inside the building and we we were able to get to show the that the emergency vehicle could get around it. We needed that 30-foot distance around the building to be able to do that.
Speaker 5:What's the distance impacted by the incursion of the 25-foot?
Speaker 10:I actually measured that right before I came. It's 15.15 feet from that one ONE. Wetland FLAG.
Speaker 5:NO, I MEASURED THE DISTANCE. How LONG ARE YOU GOING TO DO THAT? How MUCH OF THAT AREA IS IMPACTED ON THE 25-FOOT? You've GOT A RETAINING WALL HERE.
Speaker 10:YEAH, IT'S 274 SQU total impact to the buffer zone. There's no impact to wetlands.
Speaker 6:What's the temporary impact?
Speaker 10:Those walls can typically be built with three feet beyond the vertical wall, so I can get you a total on that, but it's going to be somewhere around 300 square feet. It's very similar, very small. How high are the walls? Get YOU A TOTAL ON THAT, but IT'S GOING TO BE SOMEWHERE AROUND 300 SQUARE FEET. It's VERY SIMPLE, very SMALL. How HIGH ARE THE WALLS.
Speaker 4:Excuse ME, how HIGH ARE THE WALLS, well OF.
Speaker 10:COURSE. They VARY, they GO FROM NOTHING TO HOLD ON. I'll TELL YOU WHERE THE WALL IS ABOUT SIX FEET HIGH AT THE HIGHEST POINT.
Speaker 4:SO WE'RE GOING TO NEED A STRUCTURAL INGENIATE ABSOLUTELY. Yeah, THAT'S ON THE. Plan. So we're, going to need a structural engineer.
Speaker 10:Oh, absolutely. Yeah, that's on the plans.
Speaker 4:Because when they did the semi-grade coat, when they did that one with the tall wall, they came up with the tie-back details and all that stuff. Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 10:Yeah, I can't do that.
Speaker 1:So were you retaining wall near the wetlands and the one at the back? Yeah, those go down to zero basically. Yeah, all right.
Speaker 10:As with any.
Speaker 1:The only thing I would request is something along that between the two to vehicles from keep going back.
Speaker 10:A fence or something like that. Yeah, whatever you guys would prefer, I'd be happy to put that on the plan.
Speaker 1:Yeah, just, I mean some type of barrier to say.
Speaker 10:Like a post and rail fence or something.
Speaker 1:Yeah, something that won't get broken down or whatever.
Speaker 10:No problem, I'm happy to do that yeah and signage.
Speaker 1:No work beyond that. Yep, all right, anybody got anything else?
Speaker 10:Anything, anything yes, they're showing. Oh yeah, the test bits are are in the Arizona and the locations are, I believe, on. I'm not sure if they're on all the plants, but they're ARE IN THE AERIZU AND THE LOCATIONS ARE, I BELIEVE. I'm NOT SURE IF THEY'RE ON ALL THE PLANTS BUT THEY'RE DEFINITELY ON THE EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN. Would YOU LIKE ME TO GET YOU THE REVIEW LETTERS THAT THE NO, BECAUSE THEY REALLY LOOK AT IT FROM STALLWARE COMPLIANCE.
Speaker 4:THAT'S WHAT THEY MENTION empire. Just look at it for stormwater compliance.
Speaker 10:That's one of the main reason. The reason why we had to put that subsurface system is because they wanted us to be able to statically hold the tires yes, the water quality volume volume.
Speaker 1:No, no, all right. Anybody from the audience have any questions on this project? Yeah, all right. So would you like to continue till July 16th so that, as you can review, the stormwater sounds great. To me there is that the earliest CONTINUE UNTIL JULY 16th, so THAT AZU CAN.
Speaker 10:REVIEW. The STORM WATER SOUNDS GREAT. To ME IS THAT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE.
Speaker 1:THAT'S THE EARLIEST MEETING YEP. Yeah, that's PERFECT. Unfortunately, we're BACK TO OUR SUMMER SCAPE.
Speaker 4:YEAH, so WE'LL GET YOU STUFF BEFORE THEN. Okay, great.
Speaker 10:OK, could you repeat the July 16th? Thank you very much All right.
Speaker 1:Could I have a?
Speaker 5:motion. Motion to continue. Notice of Intent 0, paramount Drive Map 15, lot 176, denzel and G EP 269, 1070, to July 16th.
Speaker 1:Motion to be made Second Seconded All in favor. Aye, opposed. All right, we'll see you then. Okay, thank you very much, everybody, all right. Next up is continued notice of intent for North Main Street, dep number 269-1068, proposed cell tower.
Speaker 11:I don't know, did they realize that they skipped on it? Yeah, you skipped on it. Oh, you know, I skipped on it, mr Chairman.
Speaker 1:No hold on one second. Oh, I'm sorry my mistake. Gentlemen, could you just give me a minute? I apologize, my goodness, sorry, I didn't see it. That's okay, all right, I'm just going to back up one Request for determination of the pickability for 85 Christine's Path proposed in-ground pool. For 85 Christine's Path proposed in-ground pool. I just saw it there and was wondering what it was doing on my table.
Speaker 9:We can get that. Yep, that's the other one. Okay, I didn't know if I needed to have a chance to put it out. It's a second year.
Speaker 4:It's one. Thank YOU, SENATOR. It's WEDNESDAY.
Speaker 1:I HAD.
Speaker 4:THE ONE.
Speaker 1:ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR.
Speaker 4:I CAN'T INCLUDE. You CAN INCLUDE THE DAY IT SAYS FIVE BUSINESSES PRIOR, so IT CANNOT INCLUDE THE DAY AS PART OF YOUR FIVE DAYS.
Speaker 3:WHEN I TALKED TO Amy, I asked her about that and she had said that that would be okay.
Speaker 4:No, no, five business days before. Yeah, she could have given you today as a hearing date.
Speaker 3:Yeah, that it's your responsibility to make sure that Well, no, I had asked her what date that should be printed, and she told me.
Speaker 4:That's not her responsibility, that's your responsibility. That's that's what if she did? That's your responsibility so.
Speaker 3:I need to re-advertise on the re-advertise yeah it's not the five business days, all right can I have? Our continuance to hear it doesn't matter, never gonna.
Speaker 1:I can't open it okay all right, sorry about that, I'm sorry, all right. Continuing notice of intent. North Main Street, dep.
Speaker 4:Because they already left, but because they did not advertise it properly. They have to really find their products too Right, because it was never open. So let me go tell them actually.
Speaker 1:All right, continue to notice the intent. North Main Street, 269-1086, proposed cell tower 1068. 1068. Didn't I say that? No?
Speaker 5:1068. That's what I said 1068. Oh, 1068.
Speaker 7:1068. I got 1068. I got it.
Speaker 9:I'm having a very tough day. It started early this morning. It started to get hot, you know.
Speaker 7:All right, so good evening. Thank you, mr Chairman. My name is Brandon Phanup, with Ecosystem Solutions. With me, to the right in blue, is Phil Fusco. He is with a company called HDR, and then we have Scott Adams from advanced engineering group. Okay, so, since we met last, as zoo has made his comments and we have a response to comments which is going around now by 17 plans that are easy to open up and read and follow along with. So there were four parts to the response based on Azu's comments. We have advanced engineering's response to Azu's comments in letter form, which is right, just past the cover letter, just beyond that, is it engineering by stormwater? And report. Then one thing that was asked for is a geotech investigation. So there was a geotechnical engineering evaluation that was done by a company called our W Gillespie associates and finally the revised plans. So so much of this has to do with the engineering and I am a scientist. So if you have any particular comments or you want any clarification, just the guys for you All right.
Speaker 13:Just a small correction. I'm not with HDR on this assignment. I'm on my own, all right.
Speaker 1:Why don't you just walk us through what has changed on the plans?
Speaker 14:It's actually pretty minimal overall. Most of the comments were in the drainage reports. There were some ancillary comments specific to the surveying notes on sheet c1 and c3. Those have been addressed by the surveyor. They're really unrelated, I guess, to the noi specific application. They're just like clarity notes on the survey and responsibility and what the work he had done in the boundary and things like that.
Speaker 14:So that was corrected on sheet C1 and C3. There was a couple of details on sheet Z5 that was pointed out by Azu. They were primarily like a trenching detail that might have referenced like a typical cover of a mold or something and that was revised on sheet D5 to basically it shows both a paved surface, a loam surface and then there's a note above that says finished grade is to be surfaced as specified in the details, meaning under the access road. The top surface is going to be going in the access road. So it just specifically says that that's the intention. But it shows the required depth and has all the typical notes that are national grade.
Speaker 14:The culvert remains the same as the previous design by the board. You can run down the comments kind of one at a time and just say which ones were addressed, if you like. That's strong, that's what we like. So comment number one and we basically just said it was going to be completed by the wetland scientist's prior to the hearing, which it was done right. You can revise the doors to the tent and that's been submitted as part of the package, the stormwater checklist. Do you want to handle that one? Yeah?
Speaker 13:The stormwater report. Yeah, the site was on the ground as it had its pre-existing condition, although the access road is a part of the previous use. The post-fault communication site itself is a new development and the analysis has been updated as such. With that we use the water quality rating, for the two inches has now been incorporated, associated updated results. So small water report was updated analysis and it's all part of the package.
Speaker 13:Moving to three in situ soil analysis and evaluation characterize and classify the soils on the site. That has been performed with test. Fits have been excavated on the site and groundwater levels have been determined. Have not been determined, so bill in and groundwater levels have been determined to have up in the channel, so bill that sits around. Water level determination provided One cannot ascertain the groundwater amount being calculated to either or not be deferred to the town check search committee. Okay, we responded to that comment.
Speaker 13:A subsequent Rawls value analysis was performed and was determined that the hydraulic soils group A correspond to the Rawls value of 8.27%. The value of 6 was used, which is a conservative for soils consistent in most sand. The value of only see is 2.41. Notice that this effect had been added in the for the purposes of this response. The value was lowered to 5 as a measure to prove the small effect on this change. So we updated the values to that effect. Also, we did some. We've got some boring data for the soils and added that by RW Gillespie in March. We've added that to the report and referenced it and that basically confirms the presence of moderate to loosely compact sand consistent with no depth to water at beyond 12 feet. There was no water table that reached up to about 12 to 14 feet Depth of water in about 19 feet. So that basically confirmed what we've got is more of a conservative analysis. So with that, while this may not be a placement for the PROTEST, the borings indicate concurrency in the selection of the hydraulic soils, group A. The hydrologic analysis substantiates the free drain. So therefore the analysis is based on more conservative approach as an official response.
Speaker 13:Moving to comment four, stormwater report collating TSS treatment with the LTPP is provided in stand 4 but no support calculations are determined. Also, claims stand 7 to be in operation. Both cannot be true. Again, we maintain the position of the project as not qualified as a redevelopment project, considering no existing development on the site. Water quality volume calculations presented are'm not clear in our logical what. What happened here was just a transposition calculation, so we rewrote that and made it clearer to that family. So the official response to that is water quality calculation has been clarified with further explanation provided along with mathematical comparison.
Speaker 13:The water quality score event of one in a rainfall has been added and performed in the hydro cabin model. It is now demonstrated that with the available lines provided the containment of the water quality event is evident and satisfies the standard for four, the stone within the compound and trench alone would contain the storm eats and tire. Water quality snow event was also run with a two-inch depth, achieving the same result. Therefore the TSS threshold of 80 percent. The flows generated at these storm events show minimal flow on the HSGA. So in the HydroCat model this flows with the soils. The obstruction of the soil is so long that it didn't register within the lower intellectual computation. So when we added the two inch, it shows it generated enough flow because it was less than .01 CFS. Now if you drop below that, the model just ran over to inch and came
Speaker 13:back. How you have results told me to each one. Yes, your thoughts on flow Five. Any questions? I'm just figuring along Flow areas of 25 storm and 100-gig of storm should match Flow areas of these storm events. Use the same area value for all storm events as computed as part of the subcatchment calculation. Any discrepancy is the value of the hydrocat model. In Toronto the deal with value is not very well so sometimes they have to be cut off. So I think that's the point. I think computer is part of the subcategory calculation. Any discrepancies in the value of the HydroCat model is wrong. We deal with values that are very low so sometimes they can't show rounding
Speaker 13:errors. The HydroCat model has been updated so we did update it. It's in the report. It's in the report, page six, page 13 of the stormwater report. Quotient report of .07. And that ratio is incorrect. Yes, acknowledged, and we did fix that. 7. Water quality swells and grass channels, filtration pumps clean techniques that's been removed. Water quality soils and grass channels, filtration ponds clean techniques that's been removed. And no grass swales. There's some ancillary grass soils around the side of the forming of the. You know the restored areas with the grade. So some of that forms like a grass swale but it's not used in the calculation for the tss. We do not have that. Tss is only the trench and the report. Uh stormwater report provides rates of raw comparisons between the pre-development conditions and post-development conditions. The H-14 report biometric comparisons for the stormwater. Biometric considerations are similar and proportional to the peak flows that are required for this computation. Those are extremely small, corresponding to the numbers. Really, we're talking very small. That's a survey really. That survey yeah, we talked about that already is the detail.
Speaker 14:Yep yeah, we did talk about time, the trench detail that called out a specific coding and now it's. It's referenced on the plans that it could be the loan payment and or, as noted on the site, plans for a service condition okay, so you haven't decided what it's going to be in different areas.
Speaker 14:It's going to change. So once you know when it's up by the compound, it may, it may leave. It's leaving the access road, so that area is going to be home, and by the street to get to the utility pole. If they cross the section on the paid day burn, it'll be paid. So just tell them the contract that, depending upon your site conditions, you may have one of these free time of service.
Speaker 1:Okay, because they're underground condos, so yeah, but I guess my question is the whole roadway going in? Has that changed? No, it's still going to be gravel, yes, crushed stone.
Speaker 14:All right. Yep, there's crushed stone service and then, um, so I mean basically just to simplify the product overall, right, we basically have the geo report now that basically says yes, this is in fact, you know, all the land use documents, even usgs maps, say that this is the gravel pit slash, mining under land use as far back as the 90s and prior to that. Um, we're so installing a crushed stone compound within 50 feet of sand. Basically, that's where the boron came out loose and fine, sand the water here. I'm gonna prove something, by the way, I had a couple hours today so I went out to the site and did my own test bit, just for curiosity's sake, to verify everything did in fact match the boron and it did, and I actually just poured some water just to see what would happen. I literally couldn't keep the whole filled, because it's fine to lose. And 15 gallons of water less than six minutes and 16 inches of water trained in under a minute, like it's literally going to put garden hose in this and it's, it's gone. That's how much sand and how loose and accessible it is for groundwater. So there is no way that this could have the adverse impact.
Speaker 14:Basically, you know, to a lane on this, what we're proposing here. They monitor this area. For the carriers it's basically like parking a truck on the side of the lake. That's their footprint. Their whole pad is a 10 by 20 pad. The water will be come off. Those pads be infiltrated into the boards of the crushed stone and infiltrated into the sand bottom of the petromine. And then the last comment that we had was basically with respect to the culvert. The zoo was recommending the use of a. It says basically a proposed circular pipe culvert that the crossing should be replaced with an open bottom box over in order to preserve and maintain the natural and hydrologic characteristics of the wetland resource area or stream beds. As we know, there's no stream exists here. You know this has been here since likely the 70s when 495 was installed and showed up on some of the aerial photography prior to 1985. So that's my understanding from talking with locals in that area. That stuff was used for construction of those projects in that time frame. But it requires some time.
Speaker 14:There's no stream that they are to protect within a room by a cohort. We're proposing, as I believe was addressed previously and we got it right too, that we were going to put a box cohort in action, Two cohorts in rather 12 inch cohorts. That is identified on the plans as a way to hydraulically connect the north south. We're able to do this with barely enough room to basically install them without having actual impacts to the bodies themselves. It's very tight in that area. The cover over this pipe. We're basically proposing a classified pipe because the cover is going to be limited to about 12 inches. So we kind of just get on that side of caution with a bigger classification, stronger classification of culvert pipe to make sure it doesn't crush.
Speaker 1:Um well, that's that's yeah, that's my concern.
Speaker 13:Just a regular pipe that will crush what's the great to reinforce pipe class 5 pipe which is basically, so it has a thickness of about two and a half inches.
Speaker 14:Yeah, yeah we're not going to get a boy should be you pipe which most people would propose in this type of circuit for a typical driveway. We're not proposing that here, proposing a class 5 pipe that's capable of supporting this little class 5.
Speaker 1:You can drive on it with no comment and the only thing I do and I thought we had in on one of the original plans I don't see a detail sheet on the covered cross section there is.
Speaker 14:There should be. That's showing on sheet Z5. Z5?.
Speaker 1:Yes, oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, I looked at it quick. I thought it was the pipes, the electrical pipes, the same design that was on the previous set of drawings.
Speaker 14:Okay, I'm not sure All right.
Speaker 1:I looked at it quick I thought that was the electrical pipes going through.
Speaker 14:No, that top right was the very common detail. Okay.
Speaker 1:All right Azu.
Speaker 4:Oh, they're making claims. I cannot see like you, that's your, you that's good.
Speaker 1:No, I have verified it. I have to verify it.
Speaker 4:I can't give you a preferred opinion, judge Hudson. Listen to salespeople. Give you a sales pitch. The issue here, for example, when you talk about the crossing TO BE A SPHENE, to HAVE A CROSSING RIGHT, BECAUSE YOU'RE TRYING TO CONNECT- BOTH.
Speaker 4:CONNECT BOTH. Yeah, so THAT'S WHAT I AGREE, no, no, no, let ME FINISH. You WERE SPEAKING. I WAS INTERRUPTING, so PLEASE DON'T INTERRUPT. If YOU HAVE A CROSSING AND YOU HAVE BOTH SIDES, you're SEEING THEM TRYING TO CONNECT THEM HYDRAULICALLY OR HYDRAULICALLY, and WE'RE SEEING THE BOOST COMING PIPED DOESN'T SERVE SOME PURPOSE AS TRYING TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT AND KEEPING THE BOTTOM NATURAL. But ALL THE OTHER CALCULATIONS RIGHT BECAUSE THE FIR calculations right, because the first calculation they provided they claimed they meet all their requirements. Well, they didn't, and then I made the revisions. So I cannot. I have to review what they're proposing to you and say, yeah, they've satisfied that all day. No, absolutely yeah. So that's how I see it, but you guys are the ones that move.
Speaker 4:No, I just wanted to get your opinion and still, no matter how much anybody who presents it here, it is for the redevelopment. Yeah, they may have a sign that has cap bands on it, which they have, but there is no project, no activity, there no development. So the idea that it's a redevelopment is false. It's not a correct statement. But THERE IS NO PROJECT, NO ACTIVITY, THERE NO DEVELOPMENT. So THE IDEA THAT IT'S A REDEVELOPMENT IS FALSE. It's NOT A CORRECT STATEMENT.
Speaker 5:BUT ANYWAYS.
Speaker 4:I HAVE TO LOOK AT. If YOU NEED MY OPINION, I HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT THEY HAVE SUBMITTED TO YOU AS. Evidence OF CALCULATIONS CHECKING NUMBERS AND STUFF YEAH roadway now.
Speaker 14:For the most part. That's why we're here Simplistically, because if we didn't have to bring it, we could bring the overhead utilities back there. We would have been able to utilize the existing access path in its current form.
Speaker 5:Because we're bringing in the utilities and if we went with overhead wires?
Speaker 14:we'd have more clearing across.
Speaker 5:We found this to be.
Speaker 14:We found this to be the typically this is what most contributions commissions prefer, because it doesn't affect the tree growth and things like that having to clear trees, especially within a wetland body, but it does trigger this work. Obviously, to do that, the compound, as we previously discussed, which has been a large part of the comments here, is technically outside jurisdiction. In my opinion and our opinion, it's over 150 feet away from the weather resource and 310 MCR. Section 10.02 clearly states that you know it's outside that jurisdiction.
Speaker 14:It's not affecting that jurisdiction. There's no. If it was a paid surface and everything was being funneled down the access road and into the wetlands, or pipe culvert that was collecting water from outside the area directly discharged into the welllands. For a pipe culvert that was collecting water from outside the area and directly discharged into the wetlands, that would be absolutely within the purview. But that's not the case here. Everything is low-impact design. Crushed stone purveyors are good services for both the access road and the compound. So the water from the compound is not going to discharge directly into the wetland by a pipe network. So while we try to do our best to meet all the requirements of the board, in your view, consultants, that's an area that we're kind of sticking with. But we did it anyway.
Speaker 14:And with respect to the existing conditions, again I have a different opinion. It has been a commercial development. In the past it was a gravel pit, was mining operation. I grant my grant. That has been. It has been utilized in quite some time. But the access path, that everything was existing.
Speaker 14:As I think I stated in the first meeting, these type of sites are kind of rare to us where we can put a site on a very large partial of land that's just about invisible to everybody in the public and utilize existing paths and existing clear areas the max. That's like our dream. I used to find these type of sites. So we're trying to work with the town, work, the community to find sites that are least amount of impact, but we can, to the surrounding environment and to the people.
Speaker 14:So the fact that we already found this weather crossing we wouldn't propose it if it was new but the fact that it's there. But I get it. You want us to improve upon existing conditions. We believe we've done that by adding two to two hydraulically connected crossings. It may not be the cadillac that some people necessarily prefer, but it's a substantial improvement over existing conditions, which I believe is what the board was requesting of us previously. I mean, two professionals can obviously agree to disagree. Right, we're never, ever going to see eye to eye, but I think the board should definitely understand that we made a real good faith.
Speaker 1:note here and that's what we're trying to accomplish here is a good faith compromise absolutely, and you have your opinions. He has his opinions and you know we try to come to an agreement here absolutely yeah.
Speaker 14:And then the other one that I overlooked is mentioned previously. We're proposing a gravel surface today. Now we're proposing a pervious surface with that orange of minus crushed stone service the entire length of the roadway, which is essential cost, but that's the best thing we could do to improve upon a very limited with access road there now that it would be more impactful force to try to improve that. We have to clear sap lanes on the side slope and things like that to really do anything other than what we're proposing. That's the best alternative we can come up with and it is a pretty substantial cost obviously to the client to do.
Speaker 13:To go with that fresh stone surface is definitely more expensive we didn't count the uh gravel drive as part of the calculation for the storage, so it's extremely conservative because obviously there's a 40 void ratio in stone network, so we're talking thousands of gallons of storage within the network itself. I mean. So if we counted that, it would just be very large.
Speaker 14:We're talking about such small numbers existing and the difference is infinitesimal and it's absolutely negligible. You know it's not going to be measurable to anybody, the difference between existing and proposed. So I feel like we're kind of polishing this for no purpose. In my opinion it's extremely small. Anyone with you know an engineer should look at this and say that what they're doing and where they're proposing. You know there's not any engineer's opinion to say that it's not going to have any worse effect just by looking at what's proposed A crushed stone compound in a gravel pit. That's all sand and it's going to be the sand. You know it doesn't take a genius to say the water's going to infiltrate immediately as soon as it hits the stone.
Speaker 1:Alright, anyone else in the board have any questions? Yeah, he's got a little deal. We do the calculations, yep. Anybody from the audience have any questions. Yes, please, sir, just name and address. My name is Francis.
Speaker 8:Parisi. I'm an attorney with Parisi Law Associates. I was in this room back in November getting special permits for the zoning board. We applied back in August of last year and we've been working very diligently on this budget for almost a year now. We, vertex Towers, had built two other towers in the town of Ram very successfully. We worked with Verizon Wireless to build critical infrastructure in the town of Ram, in the town of Massachusetts. We're a very tight time pressures to get this project. There's a lot of federal law that we buy with and this board, the townies, would be very aware that drop the process and it's my understanding this and a lot of it's about back in November. Keep a comment to keep in comments and keep keep getting comments. We keep getting comments, we keep getting comments. The board really has some obligation to move this through as expeditiously as possible. I'm not going to get into the engineering. I think our engineers are doing a great job.
Speaker 1:We've got to get this done. We are trying to move this as fast as possible.
Speaker 8:But see, my problem is that under federal law, the town has 150 days to approve all the permits for this project or I have to go into federal court to assert our rights there. That's the absolute last thing I want to do. But the more we continue this, the more I'm obligated to go into federal court to push this along. With all due respect to the town's engineer and the Towns agent, with all due respect to our agents. You know, you know we got comments yesterday after waiting for two days ago, after waiting a month for for for previous submissions, the, the board has had quorum issues and and I and I respect all that, you guys are volunteers. But at the same time I'm in the position of having to say do I sue the federal, do I sue the town and federal court for not prosecuting this, or do we work together to get it done? So I was hoping that we were going to get a decision tonight, because this is the last step in a very long process to get this site built.
Speaker 8:The engineers have done a very good job. They're very experienced in dealing with these type of facilities. I also tell you it's an unmanned facility, so we'll do six weeks of construction and then no one will drive down that, and I take offense to the word road because it's really an access driveway. It's just a driveway to an unmanned facility. So we've been required by the town's wetlands and and massachusetts regulations to go above and beyond what we usually have to do to just to provide an access driveway for an unmanned facility. So I would ask that the board approve this, with whatever conditions, so we can move forward here. Uh well, we're ready to pull a building, we're ready to start construction and we just need to get this done. So we're ready to pull a building right now. We're ready to start construction. So we're going in another month into your summer schedule just prolongs this and requires me to really think about the place, of what we need to do to preserve our rights all right, that's it.
Speaker 1:what would you like to do? The walls in your court?
Speaker 14:Can we get just a? I mean, does the board agree with the co-op test currently designed and proposed? I guess that's one of the major sticking points.
Speaker 4:Just the whole of information. They filed the application in November but they didn't request it. We didn't have a hearing. They requested a continuation because they did not submit the information required. The application was incorrect. So to suggest that the commission drive its fee, it's incorrect. And they said we didn't do the review properly. They're untimely. Well, they responded two minutes before you, a few minutes before you opened your hearing, and I think of a threat about 150, we probably should check that out. The idea about 150 days might be what their federal requirements is.
Speaker 4:The federal government doesn't look like a Trump. The local, by law knowledge when that's professional action and, uh, it's up to the commission, but I do think that it is. This is a field. It's a field of threat and attempts to, in my view, intimidate the commission. So you have to make a decision, but I don't. I don't think it's a real threat and I don't vote, but, quite frankly, I pick an umbrage with that if I win the position.
Speaker 4:So the rest of the lawsuit is it's air right, but I think it's a real threat and you have to respond to it and that's why we have pounded our trains and all that stuff. So you have to make your decision. But I do think that submitting information, if that was all that important, we already made our comments and could respond to responses that they provided so that if they're working expeditiously they could have easily turned down a bunch of people working on it. They could have submitted that information even Monday, even Tuesday, even when even there was Sunday, right, that all came in this afternoon, right. So so they so, so you have to respond.
Speaker 14:I call the, react to it, but I said the world it's a guilt with and I don't respond to threat like that I could kill us so for information, mr chair, so we received the comments back from your consultant on Thursday May 29th at 9, basically 9 am, so we did work expeditionally from this past.
Speaker 14:Thursday until today to get all of these comments addressed, compiled, printed and in here. So we basically had three business days to redraft all of our response. The last time we were here is basically two meetings the 21st and the plans were submitted. Prior to that was another I think a week or two prior to that here. So we waited until Thursday. It was like a month and a half basically because it was two meetings to get the initial comments back in order for us to respond. So it was a month, month and a half basically because it was two meetings to get their initial comments back in order for us to respond. So it was a month, month and a half and we get our comments back and then we took three days to get our response. So we did work expeditiously to get these comments in. I can forward you this timeline directly, but again, the biggest hiccup right now it seems to be the cohort.
Speaker 14:So if we, if we can come to an all the comments but again, the biggest hiccup right now seems to be the cold. So if we can come to an understanding, if the board feels that what we propose represents a substantial improvement over existing conditions and that you will allow that, that's probably the biggest outstanding item. And then the rest of these are minor comments in the drainage report. For basically a compound that's outside jurisdiction, that couldn't possibly change to effect and turn it into an adverse situation. It's kind of I call it half a big lie. It's rounding errors and things like that that it's not gonna change the overall response to this.
Speaker 14:If you look at the, there's a summary table in the drainage report that shows you the minuscule existing and the minuscule proposed. It's so small it's difficult to even notice it and it would be incontrovertible in the field from a measurable standpoint. You know, to Elaine it's extremely small. Absolutely, he do his review, but again, it's it. What, what's? What benefit, what change will really implement from that? The comments that we received were mine, extremely minor in nature. Maybe the board would entertain approval on the condition that, as you, agrees to the trainer, so that we can start moving forward with you know the next steps here.
Speaker 1:I guess from what I'm hearing, I'm going to go back to my comment a minute ago. You're the applicant the ball's in your court. What would you like to do?
Speaker 14:I mean ultimately, if the board feels content that we would like you to vote in favor of approval so you're asking us to close the meeting right now.
Speaker 1:Is that what you're asking?
Speaker 8:we are. Have I applied for a notice of intent? We are looking for an order of conditions from this board. That's what we're looking for. If the board feels inclined to vote favorably, then that's what we're looking for. That's not. That's not the vote favorably, then that's what we're looking for.
Speaker 1:That's not the question I'm asking. No, sir, I'm asking do you want to close the hearing? Mind you, if we close the hearing tonight and there's a snafu with his review, there's a number off or something that you missed, a number by your own admission. You missed a number before you cannot. You missed a number before you cannot submit new information. You'll have to start all over. Or we could appeal, or you could appeal. That's your right.
Speaker 8:And I apologize that it was not a bail threat. I'm just trying to get the question done.
Speaker 1:And as we are too. We're not trying to stall you. We're just trying to get it right so that the interests of Rainham are protected and the wetlands bylaw is protected. That's all we're doing, and, as stated time here during the week than anybody. Nobody's delaying you. It's just trying to get this right that the project will not present problems in the future. That's all we're here to do Represent the town of Raina and make sure that everything's done correctly.
Speaker 8:I have the confidence in my engineers that they've designed it appropriately so that it won't have any effect on the blood and the sport.
Speaker 1:Once again, that's your opinion. I have full faith in our engineer that he would sell for our interest, the board's interest.
Speaker 8:If we were to keep the meeting open we're next.
Speaker 1:Meeting is scheduled for July 16.
Speaker 8:July 16, so we've lost another month and a half.
Speaker 1:I would respect the request that you All right, before you run it through, let me just so Do I just ask this one question Is it possible, or let me say, would it be within the rules, for us to call a special meeting?
Speaker 4:That could be done. We've done that before, okay.
Speaker 1:All right To try to make everyone happy here, okay. Everyone happy here, Okay. Would anybody in the board have a problem with meeting today's, the 4th meeting on the 25th for this sole purpose? Would you be able to get your review accomplished by then?
Speaker 4:Yeah, prior to then. Yeah, remember, just for the record, the last time we gave, albeit verbal, we gave five comments. So basically last Thursday was to memorialize all these comments, because all these comments were made before I'll be at the room, okay.
Speaker 1:I can do the talking for you. I can do it. No, I can't. Okay, that's a warm point. I'm sure Riley can make it.
Speaker 4:There are three on the phone.
Speaker 1:Oh, there's three on the phone Well we have a car, alright.
Speaker 8:So I have two issues. One in order for us to respond or close out, we would need concurrence from the town's consulting engineer in a reasonable amount of time. So kicking the can down the road to the 25th and then getting comments on the 24th is not court concurrence, is not going to serve anybody's purpose.
Speaker 4:so that's what they have said in your special promise permit. So we have written report, we have a response. That should be a new grant.
Speaker 8:But can we get a response that we respond in three days to comments? Can they respond within three days? If they're not, if there's other issues, we want an appropriate time to respond so that we can wrap this up on the twentyth and keeping it down the road. And then, how much time do you need? We don't need any time. We we provided information. We need the town to respond. Does it respond by meeting?
Speaker 4:Yeah, yeah, cuz now we have documentation.
Speaker 8:We would ask earlier than that cuz that doesn't give us time to respond to issues that there are. It's my understanding there's still a gaining issue with respect to the type of color, and so that's one of the things that we would look to the board to tell us tonight is are you happy with the design of the color? Because if not, it requires us to do more engineering and we think we've addressed it appropriately. But if we don't have any answer to that, then we're here in August and September and November. Well, with all due respect, in terms of the culvert.
Speaker 4:If they're using a class-fax pantry, then a bus culvert would be more than adequate. It maintains the natural integrity of the ground. So the idea of seeing that it's going to this is where I'm going to vehemently disagree. That is just a well out of professional difference. I'll conclude what I was gonna say. But the bus cover makes more sense for you guys.
Speaker 4:Four, your job is not to save the money, if you will. Your job is to make sure that the natural integrity of the area is maintained. And to Will's point about what I'm talking about, dave's point about protecting the future just like they said, all that gravel pit was an existing condition. The South Tower could become an existing condition tomorrow when they come back and tell you right, this is all existing condition and so we're just gonna make another improvement to that another project. It's a fairly large site with a lot of upland area. So you want what can, so what? As far as what you submitted, we can have it coming for them on Monday, because now we have a trail for them on Monday, because now we have a trail so we can have a come back for them on Monday.
Speaker 13:If I can add a comment regarding the culvert and I heard a conversation regarding box culvert Just to point out a couple of things. With box culvert, it's more expensive the excavation for box culvert, the bedding for a box culvert is more, because it's weak, it's a heavy, heavy object. It needs a headboard. You put a wide, you've got two culverts there. Now to maintain that same hydraulic radius you know, speaking of engineering here which is the flow through, this is the two separate areas Solid that into one area. Required grading of the stream because you have two points there. Well, not stream but wetland area to provide crossing. You've got to bring it together. It's going to be a big headwall, it's going to be a big headlock it's going to be a lot of excitation, just to let you know and I box, covid is a good solution, but in this case it's more.
Speaker 13:It's just more impactful to the surrounding world surrounding one.
Speaker 7:So there's no flow here to have a box cover. There's no flow. There's no flow. And when box covers are required a lot of time, the rationale for that is for the wildlife movement. So they don't have to go up over the road. Because wildlife tends to not like to go through pipes right. The box culvert offers more space for them to go through. But in this case you have an old roadway whatever you want to call it that has been there for decades. It's pretty much its grandfather. It went through the wetland, but it's there. It's been there, I presume, since before 1972 when the Wetland Protection Act was finally given. So the road is a legal road, it's a legal driveway. It didn't have any kind of connection between the wetlands before. So creating a box culvert for wildlife, given that this is going to be six months of construction, and then, I'm sorry, six weeks of construction and then it's going to go back to more or less you know, there's going to be maintenance access with what's every six months to the year right.
Speaker 8:We don't require winter access, we don't plow in the wintertime and also shouldn't even talk about this out loud. That's outside of jurisdiction. We're only here talking about an accident, pre-existing accident, so as I keep prolonging this for something that was pre-existing, I have to defer to the engineers. I don't understand anything.
Speaker 13:They're talking about. Well, in the box cover will be kind of a special design because it's very shallow. We have very little clearance between the water surface and the surface of that rope. That's only about 18 inches to 2 feet A culvert. There we would be looking at a 2x4, 2x3 box culvert. I mean, they make them in certain sizes, but this would be like almost a special design. They'd have to cast that special, so the head wall and then the rip-rock treatments that would have to go in there. We'd be into the jam, we'd be into the wetland.
Speaker 7:So the main value added to the Fox Cobra and my opinion as a federal scientist and wildlife biologist. It isn't for hydrology, it would be for wildlife, but the level of difficulty for even a churl to get over this hump from one side to the other isn't that great and the risk of them getting run over by some kind of vehicle like a residential street is nil compared to that kind of vehicle like it's, you know, like a residential street is nil compared to that kind of a situation.
Speaker 14:So I don't see where the value added comes from when you're talking about wildlife, moving back and forth, I guess, respectively, we would ask the board you know to see if you can do consider a stronghold to decide if the substantial improvements that are currently presented for that culvert your standards and that you can be favorably of that because I think, once that issue is addressed, we can move forward with a news comments and just try to close this out, as was requested by the attorney. But if that's still, outstanding. I just feel we're not going to be productive over the next several weeks.
Speaker 1:I forgot to mention that. Okay, I'm just going to give the board a minute here. We've heard all your concerns over this.
Speaker 4:So on one hand, the television doesn't require flow, right, but then the pipes are designed for flow, they're going to go to size.
Speaker 14:And your interest. The pipe requires filling.
Speaker 4:It displaces the natural world. So I think about it. Probably should not be at cooling items out of the application. Approval this one and continue on this one. Yeah, I don't want to. You can't segregate the project, so that's, that's. I agree with you, and then you just move forward and make good decisions. It's a project as a whole, right.
Speaker 14:Respectfully, though. We kind of have a fork in the road, so we kind of need some direction.
Speaker 4:I don't think there's a fork in the road, mr Chairman. I'm doing it without your risk. You have an application, you're going to review it. You said I'm going to get my response back on Monday and then they can have a stick to it. I don't know what happens, and then I give you a report name at that quality. You've already had a lot of accommodation to this to wrap it up on the 25th. So I don't think. I don't think you were you should be.
Speaker 6:I don't like the idea of bringing it up.
Speaker 1:No, no.
Speaker 8:It expired in April. With respect to the CONCOM, we filed for permits from the zoning board back in August of last year. So that's where we'll pass that. The zoning board acted expeditiously and we very appreciate that the CONCOM. We filed no number unless there were some comments from the agent that took his time to acquire. But you know it's the agent that took his time to acquire. I do accept that.
Speaker 12:But you understand, we do have to review what you just gave us and we just got it. There's a lot of information here. You said you're going to review it and give you the answer on Monday. Is that something that you can work with?
Speaker 8:At this point we don't really have a choice, so we're not inclined to approve it. Once again, I'm going to give you the offer that we'll meet really have a choice, so um so we're not inclined to approve it, and that's really all.
Speaker 1:Once again, I'm going to give you the offer that we'll meet. You'll get your comments monday. Monday, you can respond. We'll hold a special meeting on june 25th at 5 30, and then we'll go from there.
Speaker 8:You can do back and forth with him on whatever his responses are so everything's gonna be we're trying to be accommodating to you here and I appreciate that, and I understand that.
Speaker 1:I can't remember the last time we held a special meeting for this purpose. So, but like I said, trying to work with you and this is our proposal, but once again, it's your choice. So I'm just again just wanted to reiterate, so you know speaking for myself personally. We're not going to break up individuals.
Speaker 1:We're not going to break up individual items. We're going to respond as a whole. Okay, I'm not inclined to say this part's okay, this part's not okay, this is okay, this video's not okay. Well, I'm saying guidance. We're going to give you the guidance on Monday. We've never broken up a project into. This is okay. That's not okay. This is okay. All right, it's a project as a whole. You present it in a package. We're gonna give it to you back Monday as a package and on the 25th you can either agree with us, disagree with us and make a decision from there.
Speaker 4:Well, they have an option. The judge should be clear, mr Chairman. They also have an option. So, sir, if you don't wanna should be clear, Mr Chairman, they also have an option. So, if you don't want to go any further, close the hearing and then you can give them a decision, and in that case you still have 21 days to think, which you'll ask, which will still put you in that draft code June 25. So they have a choice. They have. It's their prer, rugged it to say no, we're giving you enough information. Make a decision, and then you can close the deal, and then everyone this we're not a question continuance.
Speaker 8:However, we will read in the voice for question or continuous until June 25th, with the understanding of any of the comments on Monday from the town's engineer and I think you've heard our engineers position with respect to this color. So forward and the agent today goes into consideration very carefully because and hopefully we're working towards a final quarter conditions on yes, we will all right.
Speaker 1:Anyone in the audience have any questions?
Speaker 4:All right, Could I have a motion please? So you said that they're not requesting. They are not requesting a continuation.
Speaker 8:Oh yeah, I agree to the motion the board was ready to vote to continue to review that and we're not going to object to that, okay, all right, just reworded it differently.
Speaker 1:So you're asking for a continuation to the special meeting on the 20th.
Speaker 8:I'm not asking for continuation and I'm being very careful with my words here because of this whole time and 50, a deadline that we're on. The board is asking for more time to review the information that we submitted today and we're agreed to that. So but we're not asking for constituents, because what I'd rather have done is the board accept the information and vote to approve the project. The board thinks it needs more time to do that than we understand, but I'm not requesting continuance because our original request was to have the board approve it. So so?
Speaker 4:so you're saying you want to close the meeting?
Speaker 8:No, I don't If the board weren't inclined to vote favorably. I don't want to get in an adversarial situation.
Speaker 1:All right, this is how we do things here. Okay, If you want us to hold a special meeting on the 25th, you need to request a continuance to that meeting and you will get his comments on Monday. Okay, it's players. That's cut and dry. That's it. You need to. You need to either close the hearing or ask for a continuance to the special meeting on the 25th your request to continue this until the 25th.
Speaker 8:Thank you, sir.
Speaker 1:I'm understanding that we're going to get comments if I want to Thank you. Motion. Motion to continue. Motion to continue.
Speaker 5:Motion to continue. Motion to continue. Motion to continue. Motion to continue. Motion to continue. Motion to continue. Motion to continue. Motion to continue. Motion to continue. Motion to continue.
Speaker 1:Motion to continue. Motion to be made Seconded. All in favor, aye, opposed. Thank you, okay, we're going to end the test. We have just about two minutes. Thank you you For 2254 King.
Speaker 11:Phillips Street proposed public safety facility. Good evening, I can't go to the architects project manager again. This again we have John from left, John Perry planning and Marty from Jacobs I love that scientist and civil engineer.
Speaker 11:So we last time we were here, we were discussing we discussed going back out to the site, doing a little bit more work, research and getting more information on what happens on the abutting property. So that's what we've been doing for the last couple weeks. So I'm going to kind of turn it over to John and Marty and talk about the property and the one house. Yes, sir, hey, everyone Hi.
Speaker 1:Just one quick housekeeping item, just for the record. Marty has done a lot of work for the town in the past so I have no issues with it. Just for the record.
Speaker 16:So everything's okay, thank you all right. So again we're here for the VRDM, the random public safety facility site. After our site meeting the Commission, there was three objectives for us to go back on the site. One was to investigate the connection between wetland B and C. The other, the second objective, was whether or not the wet B met the volume criteria for an isolated land subject to flooding under the wetland protection act. So, with that said, so given Chair Nicolay, professional wetland scientist, and Caitlin Nover, soil scientist and soil evaluator from Jacobs, went back down the site at the legal estate 22nd.
Speaker 16:They took a deeper dive into the connection between wetland B and C. They conducted three soil plots and determined that the soils in that swale area that we all saw when we were out there were not hydric, based on definition. The second item I believe it was Langdon did the calculations to determine whether or not wetland B met volume criteria and they determined that it did not. The third was whether or not wetland C was connected to the Forty River. So they took a long, hard look at that and there was a probably about as was described.
Speaker 16:I didn't see this particular area three to four feet of. Is it connected or is it not it's clearly downgrading that there was. There was a defined channel um straight to the river. So, based on looking at it a little harder during a wetter time of year, when they looked at it originally intended it was in november 2024 and I believe it was still a drought at that time Um, so they looked at a little letter, they looked at the soils it was empty. So they basically they determined that they couldn't defend definitively that was not connected. So so our opinion at this point is wetland C is connected to the port river and therefore bordering vegetated wetland and subject to a lot of protection. Um, a little bit.
Speaker 16:They also looked at the area that leads from wetland b towards it, man excavated area um is the developed site there and this water was there and they found a collapsed headwall and they tried to determine whether or not they could find an inlet to that and they couldn't find any connection to another wetland from that area. So basically, wetlandland B, in our opinion, is isolated. Wetland C is bordering vegetative wetlands. So that's really our findings. I know that there was a video taken by the commission showed the site very wet standing water. We did take to look back at the underground weather, three inches of rain that day. So based on the poorly drained soils that are out there, it was reasonable that they would be standing water throughout the site. So, and I think that I think, based on what I saw, came to look at, the connection from sea to the Fort Dremel was very evident that day. So those are our findings from our additional field investigation during water time in the in here and I'm here to answer any questions outside relationship.
Speaker 1:You watch the videos so unfortunately you will wrote their first range. We had and I did not think to take videos. But I went out there the second rainstorm and I did take the videos and they were identical to the first rainstorm. In one of the videos where I was standing in the center between um wetland a, wetland b and you could see the water for lack of better words, current going between a and b which drained into that man-made channel you're calling it. And then there was a spot just inside the woodland, probably 40, 50 feet off the parking lot of the Lions Club, where the water just disappeared. It was swirling in nature and it just disappeared underground, like where is this going? So we did a little more walking in to the east almost in line where that was going.
Speaker 6:Underground there's a lot of shruggery and it popped up from underground probably 15 extremely similar flow in that area 25 feet, you're seeing, going into the place where it just seemed to disappear and there was a stick. There's a stick pile over the over that floats in the water because the flow is all going there and then it's disappeared and then I said, picked up again and definitely migrated through another swale, call it down to the river.
Speaker 1:So, and definitely when we're standing up on the higher end of the wetlands I'm not sure I'm getting the name right wetland A, the big one.
Speaker 1:I'm sorry wetland B, the big one, you can see the water definitely channeling all the way into wetland C, going by the stump pile and coming out into that drainage ditch. There was a clear, clear migration of the water from this upper area over here. So the sheet flow was from the high side of wetland a up to c and then the other sheet flow was kind of like at the lower end of A going into B, into the channel.
Speaker 16:So you're okay. So basically A is connected.
Speaker 1:A is connected to B, which went into that channel, but also the top end of a was flowing into see. Yeah, and those were the I tried to guess I could to visualize on the eight videos the way it was migrated. So you know, I am going back to my original statement from day one that these wetlands are connected. And you know, yes, it was a decent rainstorm. It's not a 50-year storm, it's not the 100-year storm, it's just a normal Northeaster storm.
Speaker 6:The thing that concerned me the most is there was significant flow down that sluiceway.
Speaker 16:And it was just disappearing.
Speaker 1:That was the other drainage ditch where the pile of sticks and it just disappeared right, yeah, that's, that's.
Speaker 6:Yeah, so that's that's and I try. The concern is because it seemed like that was pipe flow that was going somewhere and it seemed like that flow was coming. There was a very similar flow in the ditch. That and I said it to Dave when we were there. I said if I was gonna put a pipe here, it could go right there to those tree, that tree line. We walked over there and there was significant flow there and there wasn't right above it. That's my concern is that is my biggest concern is that there is something there that you haven't identified. Um, that could be a connection. And if there is a connection there and there is flow, then that is definitively a connection. And if there is a connection there and there is flow, then that is definitively a connection to the wildlands.
Speaker 16:Sorry, you are, that's where we're at. Ok, so what I'm hearing is that this connection potentially here hasn't been fully investigated in this area.
Speaker 1:That's my question.
Speaker 6:Yeah, and I would be willing to go out there with an engineer and show him what where I saw, because, like, I'm concerned that there's something there and I don't, I definitely don't want to approve a project if there is connection and someone could come back later if we haven't fully investigated if we haven't fully investigated it.
Speaker 16:So okay, so that's and then so relative to the connections you know here and then here. So I think that I mean, yes, four-legged grain soils, grains, hydrolytic-connected, sheet-blown connection. I guess the way I would look at it, if we are looking at it in a normal condition, is there a stream? Because it's really the stream connection. It has to be a stream connection. It could be an intimate stream loan once a year. What I'm seeing out there, I don't see a defined. I didn't see the defined. I saw a defined I'll call it a defined channel, but it was very shallow. I'm not sure exactly where it was here. That led out of here towards C, but it didn't extend to C completely.
Speaker 1:I lost it you know, because once again you're talking about that that area was all altered quite a bit when they pulled all the stumps and dumped all the junk out there.
Speaker 6:So that could be significant. There's a significant stump pile in between the two, so we're just looking at it today.
Speaker 16:You know, we don't know. But the stump pile is not.
Speaker 16:You can't consider that yeah so this is before the stump pile. I mean, I think that when we were looking at it I could see the commission's like yeah, there was a very shallow swale. There might have been water in it, I can't remember, I looked up. But if I looked up for a dam towards C, I lost it. It was a rising elevation, like so. So, that said, you know, is there a stream between B and C? You know, I don't think it reaches C.
Speaker 16:As a definition of the stream, it's a defined channel that flows once a year via a gradient. Now here the connection. Here I didn't see any defined channel there. So, is there a stream? I'd have to say no. But is it hydraulically connected? During heavy rains, by sheet flow, yes, but that's two different states. But that's looking at it today, don't know what it would look like. So I think, by definition, are they all connected? Yes, she's one. Yes, but it's not by a stream. It has to be by a stream. That's how I'm looking at it. It's a very difficult thing. It's a lot of opportunity there, some restorations, but I think that we have an up to you. I'm just looking at the topography too.
Speaker 15:Yeah, that would be helpful. Thank, you.
Speaker 15:I guess it's kind of between, specifically between A and B. I'm going to keep it on here. I don't want to show them. We had GPI do a detailed photographic part of a contour, which was very helpful. It looks like it's flat like this. It looks like there's a bit of a high. It's extremely flat between A and B. It looks like there's a bit of a saddle point or a little high point between the two.
Speaker 15:Generally there's an area here where I could see, but it does look like the tip already does slope back towards A. I can see a situation where you have a really heavy rain with the whole thing just full of water. It's a whole area, just a big puddle, where some of this you know could be flowing this way. A bit of it could be flowing back towards A and it's all just one big you know puddle at that point in time and obviously the water's gonna see it's all just one big puddle at that point and then it pops in water and it's this thing above the high point is elevation 35. And then into here is a 35. And then from there it kind of goes back this way and then this way here. So it looks like the bottom is a great line Somewhere between those two. I think you found that the soil transects through. Here were non-hydric soils as well between May and May, not a smoking gun, obviously. I think this is a pretty complicated one. I just want to mention those points.
Speaker 6:Yeah, I think it was further. Yeah, we were.
Speaker 1:we weren't down that low. What we saw it was flowing was up higher. So let's say we were standing probably just south, you know, a few feet of your blue line on A. So we were standing at the top of your blue line, right there, just go over a little bit. Right there. We were standing there when I took the video. Right there, we were standing there when I took the video and you know, once again, the water was definitely channeling and flowing towards sea.
Speaker 15:Yeah, this is again. This is kind of a high point. It's full of things on a high point. It's coming out here, it's level 35, 35 called, or here this, all this is also this way and it all flows, you know depending where you're standing it's.
Speaker 1:You know it's going to be 35 here, but it's going to be 34 over 6 inches, over 34.5 there. So, yeah, this is kind of a low spot 34.5. 34.5.
Speaker 15:So it does. The ground does very flat through here, but does kind of a bit of a high point and it starts to fill down into the sea, so that water will again. It's very poorly drained soils will just sit there until it creates a bit of a head right or some little pockets maybe you've got some head on it and then they'll start to overflow towards you know that topography, so that probably makes sense where you would see some flow. I don't know, you'd see it channeled through here, at least per the contours, but you know you'll see some sheet flow. Right, it's not perfectly flat, so you see some sheet flow.
Speaker 11:I think the question, though, is on the wetlands through here as a sort of weapon and hydraulic yeah, I was just going to point out like so there's this area might be in question here, and just just to bring this back to the project at hand, which is that our building is in this area down here, ample distance from all of that stuff, and, as we discussed previously, we will be obviously replicating your stormwater.
Speaker 1:She flow on the site and the building itself may be down to the lower half of number B, but the rest of the site work is going to take up a large area of what that year with packing lot and drainage. And what I'm very concerned with is the comment that was made in our last meeting was you're going to have to bring in five, six feet of fill to maintain your forefoot for your detention basin, your separation. So how much is that going to affect the cut off, the natural we'll call it the natural flow, whatever you want to call it between B, a and C. That's where, as you can see, your parking lot area is at the top of A, it's halfway almost to the top of C and you're all into, with parking lot and everything, ratings, you're all the way covered over Section A. So you've, with the whole site development, you've basically cut off A, b and C.
Speaker 15:Well, we always strive to maintain the flow patterns. You've basically cut off A, B and C. Well, we always strive to maintain the flow patterns on site. You know the hydraulic flow patterns and I would assume that we would define our design points for stormwater and typically they are the wetland areas, the low points, the wetland areas. I would presume that A would be a kind of design point for us for storm water, as well as c. So if they do connect somehow, we're not touching this up here this is more storm water basin. It could be a swale, it could become a wet pond.
Speaker 15:You know that's going to outlet somewhere to there's certainly a way to hydraulically connect them, if indeed they do connect there. If we're saying there's a stream or a defined hydraulic connection between A and C, we can certainly maintain that we have to look at the spot. There you can get in the sea. Just it's it's so flat, it's just really hard to see. But if there is some sort of hydroline connection where we certainly have plenty of space to you know, to maintain that there.
Speaker 6:I'll point out again the reason. My biggest concern is that sway, where that water goes, because you are on top of a, b and if b is a connected weapon, then the replication you would have to do would be more than the extent of the site can hold. And that is my biggest question. I need to know exactly where that water is going, because if it's going somewhere and it's connected to a stream which it looked like it was to me, but, um, I'm not going to say it is definitive, it looked like it was to me then this site becomes a real problem.
Speaker 6:It went underground. Somewhere over there there was a stick pile and it disappeared. It didn't hook completely to another place. It disappeared, the flow disappeared.
Speaker 1:Where we stopped our site visit that day, we all were sitting and talking. If you went just a little bit further maybe 10, 15 feet that stick pile you can see. You can see where all the brush and stuff is washed in and there was actually a swirl going down. I tried going back there a few days later with a rake and, you know, pulling the sticks away to see if I could see something. The sticks are a big step.
Speaker 6:There's a significant flow into that area and that's why the sticks are there and that is why I'm concerned, because if there is that kind of flow it was a decent flow at that time and it was just gone. We couldn't tell where it would go. But, like I said, I said all right, if I was gonna do this, this is down gradient. We walked down there. There's a swale in the tree line and there was significant flow in that swale where if we stepped a few feet up from there, there was no flow.
Speaker 15:Did you say, before you saw it, did you pop back out somewhere?
Speaker 6:Well, that's what I just described. There's a tree line.
Speaker 1:If you drag no See where the parking lot ends here.
Speaker 7:So not the big log pile back here, no, no, the next the Lions Club parking lot.
Speaker 11:You see where that is.
Speaker 1:Yeah, at the end of the parking lot it starts to turn to high grass and just to the east of there, 10-15 feet, there's brush, you know small trees, brush area and it's definitely a defined channel and it popped up underground right in that area. So there's some kind of pipe there.
Speaker 6:I don't know if it's the same connection, but that's what we have to find out, because if that connection is there, then B is a wetland and is connected to a defined channel with flow, significant flow, and that b is right in the middle of this and I don't think you have the area to replicate b meat.
Speaker 11:What about the differentiated sheet flow and soils Because we got into it. When we started the process, we were all talking a lot about soil and soil composition. Now I feel like we're talking about sheet flow.
Speaker 1:I think they're kind of tied in together, because I'm going to go back to the original statement is that land was stripped, so I think it has changed your soils to how do I put it? A false reading Maybe that's not the right word, but an inaccurate reading. It is my belief that those are connected. With that said Linda last meeting and it's not the commission's job to design this, but have you considered changing things around a little bit?
Speaker 11:Yeah, I mean we absolutely have discussed the possibility of the building in the back.
Speaker 1:I don't, Because the way I'm looking at it right now you've got a mouth to bite. Just my opinion.
Speaker 12:The right hand. Uh, I think the station now is pretty close to the street and the. You know the bays open up and they come right out, right, so you're looking at a building that's gonna house. I don't know how many days you have, but could could they? You know, you could even go forward and have the parking in the back and set it up. So the power grid needs to.
Speaker 11:Yeah, I think absolutely we could. I think a lot of this is driven by the six days and, you know, needing to get busy. We could probably take that a little bit.
Speaker 12:Based on the turning radius is um bring this forward a little bit, but do they drive straight out? Is that how you have it designed, uh?
Speaker 15:they drive straight up but then we we don't have like a 80 foot wide curve cut, so they channel, doing probably a 30 25 yeah, we're gonna do enough room for the apparatus to sit there and you know, add, and then we can take a look at the other side.
Speaker 11:Yeah, I mean we can look at all options, Sure.
Speaker 12:But if we can use it in less than a minute, I don't know.
Speaker 16:We could do some sort of different option. I think back to your soils question is a good one. The A, b and C were determined by soils because it's a disturbed site. So we looked at hydric soils, by definition, and those are the three areas that we found the hydric soils, and determined that they were a wetland, either, you know, protected under your bylaw and the Wildlife Protection Act, or only under the bylaw, so you know. So our charge, jacob's charge, was to determine whether or not those were connected and what the jurisdiction is that. Hence the discussion of are they connected and under the wildlife protection that we connect them by a stream device, free. There's a definition of stream and that's what we're not seeing is not to say they're not. I draw the connective by she, but you know this new information that you know this new information that you you know, that's obviously something that we don't know.
Speaker 6:I don't know. That's why it's yeah, go ahead. If B is a significant flow, then that's a huge change.
Speaker 15:It becomes a really big problem from outside, it was still to be all the USGS maps too.
Speaker 6:Yeah, and, like I said, I'd be willing to go down and show you what I saw. I'd love to have answers, but I don't know what I, at this point, I'm really questioning.
Speaker 7:B is fully connected to a one-on-one system and that would be a very big problem for the site if it was B is fully connected to the one-on-one system and that would be a very big problem for the site if it was, so say, independent of keeping that conversation separate now for potential compliance with relocating the building.
Speaker 11:What would we be looking for now? We're not going to do the RDA. We'd be outside of that. We'd be looking for something else. Or, once we're outside, if we can replicate it, we'll find out about it.
Speaker 15:Well, we came, we came with an REA, assuming that these were all isolated. The REA is basically saying these are isolated. Does your bylaw take jurisdiction over isolated weapons or military-informed emergency weapons? That's the REA question we have before you. I think we need to, before we answer that question, obviously go much further. We can also, you know, in the meantime we can be looking at what does the site look like if these you know.
Speaker 1:And the reason for Linda's comment. I want to speak to you but reiterating her comment was, you know and like I said, I don't want to design this, it's not my job we're trying to think of ways to, you know, lessen the impact on potential wetland area yeah, I agree 100% think.
Speaker 15:Much when I was trying to make was that we we need to nail down these weapons. Where are they, what are they? And we can certainly be looking at alternates with the site, but we also need to. Until we know for sure, we all need what these weapons are, and where they are, nothing will be definitive and you know I'm going to repeat my statement from our last hearing.
Speaker 1:My job is to protect the Wellands Protection Act and the bylaws of Reagan. With that said, we're trying to work with applicants as much as we can to possibly make their projects work, but we're not going to design it, we're just making suggestions 25th is the next meeting.
Speaker 16:That was a special meeting.
Speaker 1:Next meeting that was a special meeting, oh no, no, no, no, no no no no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no no no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no no no no no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no no no no no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
Speaker 6:Have another meeting. Maybe the other thing is, if you went, you'll see.
Speaker 1:So maybe you're finding some strong young guy with a shovel or something maybe you know that's, that's in this area.
Speaker 1:Yeah, if you just all that I said that's where we stopped and we were all talking with azu, yeah, and he was talking about the channel, everything. He went another kind of around the corner a little bit where it bent. It went another 10, 15 feet, boom, see all the sticks and just all crisscrossed and it's. You know, I'd be willing to go out there and show you. So it's not like a pipeline. You know, it's where the water disappears and the sticks continue to flow. I call it more of a log gym. Yeah, yeah, except they're small, it's not logs.
Speaker 6:But it's significant. The flow going into that area was incredible, was significant, and for it to disappear like it did was. I don't know how that happens without a pipe of some kind, was it? Cheap flow or it was it was. It was rippling current through that swale when we saw it.
Speaker 6:And then the sticks were there, they were doing this and it went. It just disappeared. And that's my problem. That's why, when I saw that, I was nervous with the sight, because that means that B is connected to something else. And when we walked, when I said, alright, if I was going to put a drain in, that's the direction I would go, because that's the significant fall, and we walk that way.
Speaker 6:Right where I said I would put the drain is where we saw flow, significant flow inside a swale running out off the side, so that's that's why I'm concerned about that location, and we need to figure out what's going on all right all right, but if the audience have any comments sir
Speaker 11:hey, any comments? No, I'm just listening, okay, good, taylor McDonald Palmer, I guess my mic. We're not really calling more of a question, I guess what. What is the next here?
Speaker 15:are we looking at redesigning the site plan at this point is, or, I guess it is the next step, a another site walk any other site, walk, whether it's us, whether it's just our team or if it's our team, and then we can get you know, see what you saw, and we all schedule something over. We don't just do it together. I don't know the best, of course, that I ever think.
Speaker 16:I think my partner suggested maybe, although it sounds like it might start to point out yeah, I would get.
Speaker 11:I would get that scheduled as soon as possible. My other question, too, was I couldn't really see your pointing, but was this area where everything was flowing was this awful? Our parcel was this over in the woods area where we want.
Speaker 6:Okay, yeah, so in the back of the FW, yeah, yeah, the flow from it, from b, enters a channel at the edge of the progress.
Speaker 1:Yeah, enters that area, it may be off the lot, but it's still rain and pumping, so it's yeah, I'm not saying it doesn't matter who owns it?
Speaker 6:if it's still, it's a hydric connection to a wetland stream.
Speaker 11:It it's a hybrid connection to a wetland stream. It becomes a. Well, yeah, that's that's why we need to. I was just trying to orient myself with where it was because we were in that area too and I remember we were walking, you know, behind the back okay but I guess we didn't go work.
Speaker 4:Walk us diligently, as we will do. Well, you weren't out there where it had rained. Well, no, no, I'm saying that's fine.
Speaker 6:That's why, because we did see significant flow off the site Follow that.
Speaker 5:So we need to go out there next rain.
Speaker 6:It's hard to plan all these people to go the next. All right, next time it's raining, we'll all be there.
Speaker 1:I guess it wouldn't put it in the weather all these people to go the next? Sorry, next time it's free and we'll all be there.
Speaker 6:I mean, that's the I guess that's the hardest thing is, yeah, scheduling, but the because your deck pile will be there. You'll see the stick pile and you'll say, oh yeah, that's all I mean is significant do you?
Speaker 1:I mean, I know where the sick pile is, is it? Do you want to be there?
Speaker 6:or I don't need to be, because you were there with me and I pointed it out to you and you know where it is. If I can't make it, then I would be fine with you covering it, I'm trying to think of scheduling.
Speaker 1:He works all week so it's hard to him. I do have availability during the week.
Speaker 6:I can usually take a little bit of time to go out, and in this case I'd be willing to. All right, um, I just have to let people know, so schedule it out far enough.
Speaker 11:So yeah, and then when we at that sick pile right, are we looking for j-dopes to just do more explorations around that to make sure that there's not hydro soils in that area, right?
Speaker 6:no, I'm more concerned about the direct that there's not hydric soils in that area. No, I'm more concerned about a direct connection.
Speaker 6:It's not an engineering thing Right, and, you know, removing the stick pile, possibly, or, you know, doing some investigation in that area to determine whether there is a pipe running out from that area to the area that you'll see there, because that, like I said, that concern of mine would make the positioning of the building the way it is. I won't say impossible, but a two-time replication for me. I don't think you can fit it on the site. Well, actually, if that's, that's bordering wetlands.
Speaker 15:There we can't fill more than 5,000 square feet, right. So that's, this is a lot more than that, right all right we would have to review it, you know, to get at least, you know, maximum 5,000 square feet following the rainstorm?
Speaker 11:do you know how long it took for the out of the water to just to dissipate?
Speaker 1:When we went it was probably like the day after that. Yeah, amazing.
Speaker 6:And it was a significant storm.
Speaker 15:Oh sure, um Okay yeah.
Speaker 1:But yeah, no, this was before that. Yeah, okay, so. So I mean this is shortly after our last meeting yeah, like that Wednesday we had a meeting, that Saturday we went down and um and it rained like Thursday Thursday and then we went down there Saturday morning and you know, like I said, it was current. I guess the best thing to do is to check our schedule and we'll just shoot you an email as to what our availability is and we'll try to get something together.
Speaker 6:It's the highest part of trying to get all parties present and I will say if it's, if it's raining, if it's got a good rain, you can fall. That's why I'll write down to it and see. It's not a hindered location by any means. And you'll see, even if you go out there and let dry snow, you'll see the stick model.
Speaker 15:Do you want us to suggest sometimes to meet, or do you want to do it the opposite way? Where you guys? Let us look at our schedules first.
Speaker 1:I don't have one in front of me, okay, and we'll have Amy email you as to our availability. Okay, and we'll go from there. Does that sound good? Yeah, alright, email you as to our availability, okay. So, with that said, the request to continue yeah yeah, we'd like to report to.
Speaker 5:July 16 yeah, I want to go after nope. Sooner the better. Yeah to July 16 Second.
Speaker 1:Motion made Seconded All in favor Aye, opposed. No, thank you, thank you, thank you. Thank you. Did everyone get a chance to read the minutes from May 7th?
Speaker 4:We have a couple of minutes we can hold off. Yeah, if you have a question, okay, we'll hold off on that We'll hold off yeah. Oh, yes, yes, yes, we're going to open that. Yeah, okay, the question is continued.
Speaker 1:Back to that, okay, we have a notice of intent for Oakland. Oakland Street. Yep, and just before the meeting they asked for a continuance to our next meeting. So no to August, to our August 6th meeting, where it was less than 24 hours. They will be assessed a 25, all fine so you know, motion. I mean motion, okay. Thank you very much.
Speaker 4:Correct, okay, motion to the general to august 6th, please august 6th or 16th, six, six july, one up into 16th yeah, okay, uh, motion to continue.
Speaker 5:notice the tent open street maps 17, watt, 61, bp269, 10, 59, 69. Proposed water service continued to August 6th Second.
Speaker 1:Second All in favor, aye, opposed. All right, bill, I have no correspondence. We? I will or you email me, or Amy, we can reveal the result. Okay, I don't think I did insight this this week yes.
Speaker 13:He's got a gas gun, all right, one more motion.
Speaker 6:Motion to close Second.
Speaker 1:Well, it's been a second now, all right.