2 12 25 WO PB Draft Minutes

6 • Ms. Triolo replied to Ms. McGovern by saying if the geotechnical is made a condition of approval and if the requirements with regards to permeability testing is made a condition of approval that in the event that the soil fail and are Group D or less they will go back to the board with a new design system. But they think to make it a condition of approval and to require a funding of Mr. Scott to be engaged on behalf of the board to review the geotechnical report, to be present when they are taken, to watch the testing, and to see that the Collier’s design bears out. The applicant will provide all the information with regard to the soils and soil testing as it is in live time. GENERAL DISCUSSION • Chairman Bagoff asked Mr. Scott does the board need to have all these items prior to their deliberation or can he condition and which is ideal. Mr. Scott said in a lot of instances it can be done as a condition in a situation where you may have an existing building and it doesn’t allow for you do the testing in advance of doing demolition. In this instance they do have the ability to do the geotechnical investigation because there is no building that has be razed in order to do such investigation. Mr. Scott says he doesn’t see any reason why they can’t do this as a condition. He will leave it up to the board if they would like to move forward even without having that information at this time and making it a condition of approval. • Chairman Bagoff asked Mr. Scott how long would this study take. Mr. Scott said it would take approximately 2 days in the field of drilling and testing. It will then take sometime for them to send the information to the lab, have them analyze it, get the information back and then for them to put together a report can take another few days so in total this can take 2-3 weeks. • Mr. Simon said this is not a long process to make sure the system that is seeking approval is the system that is intended to be installed. • Mr. Simon said after taking a look at the plans, the Collier’s subsurface system is encroaching on steep slope. If this system needs to be modified in size, it may implicate steep slopes and they have no idea what the soil type is, what the seasonal ground water table is, if there is any mounding in the area, and they don’t have any hydraulic calculations. • Ms. Triolo said this house only has one backyard and the applicant

is, what the seasonal ground water table is, if there is any mounding in the area, and they don’t have any hydraulic calculations. • Ms. Triolo said this house only has one backyard and the applicant only has one place that he can put the storm water management system in. They will expedite as a condition of approval to get all the soil testing and if has to be moved, it will be moved, if it has to be enlarged, it will be enlarged, and if the chambers have to be changed, it will be done. These are all engineering in-field situations and are common and ordinary. This is not a major development, it is a singular family home and this system is going to be put under his backyard. BOARD QUESTIONS • Mayor McCartney asked how will this comply with storm water regulations. Mr. Cokeley said they are increasing impervious coverage by more than a quarter of an acre; they are actually reducing with the introduction of porous pavers so water quality is not required. As far as the water quantity requirement, the system has ben designed to meet the required reductions and exceed them. • Mr. Klein asked Mr. Cokeley to explain if a mistake was made and the soil testing came out that it’s the worst soil, how much larger would the chamber be, how many more chambers would you need, how much bigger of a piece of pipe would you need. Mr. Cokeley said the groups A, B, C, and D are typically indicative of what you can expect