2 12 25 WO PB Draft Minutes

7 from an infiltration rate. The number they used in their infiltration rate is the worst allowable by the state. In theory if they were to go out and get a test this is the biggest the system would be. Anything below that rate which is a half an inch per hour, they would be not be able to do an infiltration system. The fact that is C and not D, gives him the confidence that they will get a percolation rate of an acceptable level. • Mr. Klein asked if you have this the double the size would you be able to put in a spot that wont impact the steep slope. Mr. Cokeley said they could increase the size within the area and not encroach into the steep slopes OBJECTORS QUESTIONS • Mr. Simon asked have you reviewed all the documentation that was linked on the agenda for this evening’s meeting. Mr. Cokeley said he doesn’t know; he hasn’t clicked on the link that was in the agenda. He has reviewed past documentation. • Mr. Simon asked for clarification that the applicant has submitted to the board all those documents. Ms. Triolo said those documents were submitted because the board requested copies of the documents to which Mr. Cohn, the manager of the WayMaker, referenced while he was testifying. • Mr. Simon asked Mr. Cokeley with regard to the requirements of a submission of a site development storm water plan; you have not provided a topographic base map of the site which extends a minimum of 200 feet beyond the limit of the proposed development. Mr. Cokeley said no, he doesn’t believe it was submitted. • Mr. Simon asked have you submitted any evaluations of steep slopes on this property. Mr. Cokeley said no. • Mr. Simon asked if this property doesn’t infiltrate and it doesn’t percolate, then not only will you have to design a new system but further you will not be in compliance with the storm water regulations. Mr. Cokeley said if they don’t get a percolation rate then the system will have to be redesigned but a detention system at a site that does not have infiltration capacity will comply with the town’s ordinance. • Mr. Simon asked will you have to design something to make it comply. Mr. Cokeley said yes, it would be similar to what they have and it will not be an infiltration system, it would be a closed system. • Mr. Simon asked with regard to your zoning table on your plans, did you indicate certain steep slope information as it related to affected lot area.

infiltration system, it would be a closed system. • Mr. Simon asked with regard to your zoning table on your plans, did you indicate certain steep slope information as it related to affected lot area. Mr. Cokeley said yes. • Mr. Simon asked where did you receive that information to lead you to put that information on the zoning table to calculate affected lot area. Mr. Cokeley said he doesn’t recall. • Mr. Simon asked the affected lot area for this site per your zoning table, is it less than 80,000 square feet. Mr. Cokeley said yes. • Mr. Simon asked have you seen any documents submitted with this application that shows steep slope disturbance. Mr. Cokeley said he has seen the Matarazzo plans. • Mr. Simon asked did the Matarazzo plans identify the location of steep slopes on the property. Mr. Cokeley said the plans he reviewed did not, they just indicated the system, the pipes and some of the grading. • Mr. Simon asked did you review the documents from Robert’s dated April 28th, 2021 titled Topographic Survey and Slope Analysis Plan that was submitted by the applicant prior to this hearing. Mr. Cokeley said he did not. • Mr. Simon asked other than the Matarazzo plans, have you seen any plans that show any type of slope analysis for this property. Mr. Cokeley said no, he has seen the Matarazzo plans and the as-built survey which was used as their existing conditions demo plans.