Condition 22 is phase clearing plan. So on the phase clearing plan, we only uh suggest that there be some clarification to that. Uh there's clearing trees and then there's clear cutting the site, which would be once you clear the trees, cut the trees, you stump and grub. And we think that that uh distinction ought to be made clear in um in section 22 of your conditions. Uh so, modify to state that phase one shall only include clearing, stumping, and grubbing necessary to install erosion and sedimentation controls, as well as temporary basins and swales, prior to uh full stumping and grubbing of site for complete construction. So, identifying the areas where the stormwater appurtenances are located, clear stump and grub there only, and then proceed to stump and grub as the development takes place. Uh this distinction is to allow cutting of trees for the full site, but not stumping and grubbing for the full site until sedimentation controls are in place.
Obviously, that Well, to us, um simply cutting the trees, but leaving the root structure in place, continues to create stability to the ground cover. Um so, we feel that even if the trees are cut, without that stumping and grubbing, the the the the town's concerns are adequately addressed because that ground really isn't shifting. It's not going anywhere. Um and uh again, I'll invite John Granier to step in and inform that a little more technically. Can I Can I ask a question about that? Yes. Typically, how would you do your clearing? With mechanized clearing or with crews with chainsaws? I think it'd be a combination of both. Um you know, up on the Highland Road side, which is not developed at all, uh certainly a combination of both where we'd need some machinery to move boulders and things like that, and and we'd have to get into some fairly thick um >> So, you'd be using like skitters and and whole tree chippers and things like that?
Right. I can chime in on that if if it helps. Yes, John. Through the chair Yeah, through through the through the chair John Grenier with MP design. Typically what they do obviously that that they go in there they'll cut the trees methodically and then they would have some machinery on site. If if not to hold the trees to cut them but also to stockpile the trees so that they can be loaded onto trucks and hauled off offsite. Those are all rubber tired machines. They're not tracked machines that would really start in place grubbing it. There would still be the leaf litter. There's still would be the stumps left in place so that we believe that that would adequately keep the [snorts] site stable. The downside to doing that is if they go to they just cut in areas where they're going to do some either the basins or temporary basins and then they have to shift about and start another area where they want to do a temporary basin or whatnot.
Now you're bringing the tree clearers back in. It's it's much less efficient than you're going to leave areas that are open for erosion potentially longer. The more efficient you can do it, the more the quicker you can get your erosion control in, the quicker you'll stabilize the site. Well, my my concern about the way it's done is if you're going to be using skitters, they're typically very tracked rubber tires with chains and that really tears up the ground. Doesn't matter if you leave the stumps in, you're going to have a lot of disturbed, exposed soil left over from the skidder operations. Um not to mention when they drag a tree, they the branches on the tree wipe all the leaves off the off the ground and expose all the soil. Um I and I understand you want to clear the site, you want the clearing crews out there wants, you don't want to have to keep getting them back there for every lot kind of thing.
And I understand that aspect of your construction. Um I guess what I'd like to see is some kind of a a a more um involved erosion control plan that doesn't just use per perimeter controls. Something that maybe you um cordon off each lot or something so that you you break the site into smaller pieces so there isn't as much runoff running for such a long distance to gain speed and cause the erosion. Um some sort of internal erosion controls, not just perimeter erosion controls. We will definitely be doing that. We'll have um temporary sedimentation basins within the site as well and we'll be directing water towards them. Um and and again you need the ability to um you know, carve swales, dig temporary basins, um which obviously would include doing some stumping and grubbing. Right. Uh we just want this site to work smoothly. Yeah.
Um but we understand the concern that we don't want the whole site opened up at at once and just have perimeter controls in place to to try to hold everything back. That's not We just want to be able to have the flexibility to install temporary whether it's swales, temporary basins, installing the the permanent basins and and make everything flow um smoothly and not chopped up. So. Billy, you got anything? Any ideas? Well, I mean if as far as using skitters, you could and at club and for sensitive site they use forwarders which probably a little more expensive. Um but I'd say if they do clear the site, I agree that breaking it up and creating um creating some additional you know, road control barriers throughout the site to especially on the steeper sections cuz I know one site when I was at Wachusett, that was putting a lot of sediment in.
They opened up a hillside and a lot of sediment came down and one way was was they created a a a lot of barriers going up the hillside. >> almost. >> Yeah, of of erosion controls and then they also used flock logs too. Um and as a way of um dealing with the steep slope. So um Oh. Yeah. Probably forwarders maybe overkill for that site, but I think as a way to get around. Yeah. So If you think about it this way as well if I could add um there are storm water appurtenances throughout the site and if you recall what I said in my introductory remarks, um we're going to be identifying locating those first and that's where we would stump and grub first and because they are located throughout the site by [snorts] the nature of the activity, it's going to be segmented into smaller pieces.
Um so we won't be attacking it as as a whole. We'll be identifying those those segments and uh I guess uh if I were going to characterize it we're going to be working internally out. Does that make sense? Mhm. At least from a lay point of view because I'm not an engineer and I don't play one on TV. So it says the commission, I've re-worded that condition to read the applicant shall submit a phased clearing plan to the commission for review prior to construction which shall include the segmented clearing of the property with the erosion and sedimentation controls around each segment. Can I ask our engineer to weigh in on that? Yeah, that makes that makes sense and on top of that too, once a site contractor is is chosen and um they will be part of the process of knowing how they want to work the site um knowing that we don't want to open up the site in its totality.
So um I think if that's prior to construction starting, we can get on board with with the contractor and know how they want to work the site the most efficiently and and pre- um prepare something that can uh be submitted to your agent. Who who is just speaking? Uh that was Sean Graney. Oh, okay. Um I think Mike Carter's got his hand up. Yeah, he does. Yeah. Um Mike Mike Carter GCG Associates, um they're going to have to do a SWIP in this project because they're over an acre. So, that would normally be something that's included in the SWIP. So, if you want to add to that condition, that cuz you know Yeah. as required by the SWIP. Yeah. Because that's that's something that's required under a SWIP. Okay. John, do you concur? Yeah, no, I'm fine with that and and that's why we have you here, Mike.
Thank you. >> Yes. It's exactly true. I'm good with that. And all right. This isn't something that Dan's going to comment on, is that correct? Or Yeah. Um I don't see a hand raised by Dan. Oh. Okay. So, the next condition kind of has two two issues we'd like to address, and this is following our conversation from last week. Um and this is with regard to condition 32, no uh uh with regard to new impervious surface. So, uh John went out, and there was, you might recall, some discussion around what the capacity of the system is, and is there any additional capacity available for new impervious surface. And in fact, uh there is. There's 300 square feet per lot capacity under the current proposed system. So, we would propose some kind of a mechanism that uh would allow a so-called de minimis increase in impervious surface up to, and I remember Mr.
Crouch uh Commissioner Crouch um had some thoughts and concerns about this particular issue. Um so that we would identify de minimus um additions to impervious surface up to not exceeding 300 ft per a lot and then we'd have to figure out a an enforcement mechanism for that and then anything beyond that would require an applicant a homeowner to come back before the board for a modification of the stormwater management plan. The other issue that came up in that condition was the definition of impervious surface and we would like to see that moderated slightly to not include decks so long as they are not covered by a rooftop that type of thing. A deck usually sits on pilings on the ground the water you know kind of flows through it. If you're standing under a deck in a rainstorm you're going to get wet. Uh and into the ground so we would ask that so long as the deck is not roof covered and closed that it not be included in impervious surface.
So those are the two subsets of the that that that issue. And John do you have anything to add? No you stated it very well. Okay thank you. Um are there any questions or comments by the commission on that issue? Would we say no increase of greater than 300 ft be on yeah beyond the permitted footprint. Okay yeah. Is Mike okay with this? Mike Carter? Uh Mike, do you have any uh comments on this? No, I don't think it's if if you could John and I talked about this. If you could just give me some calcs that just demonstrate the area to make so I can confirm it. It should be pretty easy. Mhm. >> Not a problem. We already ran the numbers. Yeah. And with respect to the um the deck, I do agree. You know, as long as the deck doesn't have a uh roof underneath it, the water goes into the ground under the deck, and usually there is um you know, I guess I would say that under the deck it can't be a paved area.
It has to be a you know, a crushed stone or or it could be pavers that are, you know, allow infiltration, but not paved there. hard surface. Yeah, and and to clarify that for Mike, a lot of times people will they'll have a deck, but then they'll put if they have a walkout, they'll put a patio below it. Well, no, that patio, if it's a concrete patio, that's impervious, so that would count. But if it's just a stand-alone deck, that wouldn't count unless it has a roof over it. I think they could also use pervious pavers. And they could use pervious pavers, correct? >> Mhm. The way you have that written, I think The way that's written, I think is backwards cuz it's in the list of what's not allowed. So, it'd be covered decks, comma uh decks over a pervious surface would be a separate category.
Yeah, so those those are things that are not allowed Mhm. as impervious surface. Um, again, we've got this concept of order of conditions, which this is not. Sorry, I don't see >> Right in the middle Uh, you just added it. Yeah. approved by this order of conditions, this permit. Have it. You're right. I figured. Okay. >> [snorts] >> Um, and the final issue really, and we really wanted to get ahead of this as soon as uh, it came up at the last meeting is this issue of surety. So, we provided to the commission through the conservation agent last week a budget for a proposed surety, and then this morning we provided a confirmatory letter um, that the surety is in fact in the process of being put in place so that you could have it. Uh, but the surety basically provides for a total of $213,473 in phases, two phases.
Uh, the Highland Road phase and the Ballard Road phase. The Highland Road phase would be the first phase, and that is for $90,050. And the Ballard Road phase, which is where a lot of the stormwater appurtenances are located, is for $123,423. Um do you have a copy of the uh the budget that was sent to the commission? Oh, terrific. So, we took to heart the uh conversation that that we had and we incorporated within this um you know, the concepts of restoration and completion surety. So, you'll see that there there is a line item uh in each for loam and seed disturbed areas. That is in the event that we cut, perhaps stump and grub, but then something happens and we don't go any further. Well, that would be covered under the surety of loaming and seeding disturbed areas. And then the rest of the items um drainage catch basins, manholes, concrete alleys, etc.
uh would be more of the performance bond issues. So, that if we started those things and for whatever reason could not finish them, the town could come in with the surety bond and finish them.
Um are there any questions about how this will work? Well, what about a contingency cuz you've got the the cost there, but you always throw a contingency in there. Yeah, I believe >> And and inflation. Well, we had a 10% built into this, didn't we? Not into these, but we can get them out. Yeah. So, we can do a 10%. Is Mike, is that sufficient? Do you think 10% is sufficient nowadays? Uh so, you know, I'm looking at the unit prices. Typically, when I do these bonds for the the planning board or any any board in any town, pick a town. You use you use prices that are you would have to pay, the meaning of the town. Not the prices that the developer would have to pay. And you know, I I got to commend them for trying to get this all together. But like for example, they have a installed two catch basins.
They have a catch basin costing $3,000. >> [clears throat] >> You know, if you if you if the town had to go do that on a public works a public project, it would be eight eight to $10,000 for them to install it. So, the intent of the bond is so if it ever had to happen that the town could go had enough money to go do the work under chapter 30, which is the public bidding law for Massachusetts. So, your numbers are low substantially. I mean, that I'm looking I would have carry 8,000 for a catch basin you have 3,000. So, and then one of the biggest things that from the stormwater permit, it's the the initial phase when you got it cleared, stripped, and you got to come in and you you start working and that site is barren, there's just stumps and not much left.
You got to be able to restabilize it. That's usually a pretty big number. And then you at the second phase you usually come in and say, "Okay, you've got that done. Now you're just doing the pipe work and everything." So, I think the numbers is low. Um I don't know how to I don't know how to commission wants to proceed with this. It's you know, it's not it's a little different than the planning board process. It's So, basically what you're saying, this is not based on the prevailing wage costs that the town would be subject to. That's exactly what I'm saying. Yeah. And before we complete the that thought, Um one way one one provision we would like added uh for structural purposes regardless of the numbers at this point and I'm I'm sure we'll resolve that hopefully tonight. Um as one phase is complete, we'd like a release of that bond so that we could go to the next.
So that way we're not carrying because it's a liability to us. So we'd like to mitigate that liability. So if there's a phase that's done, we'd like that released. If it's not done, it's not released. I thought I think that's standard. Yeah, isn't that the way it's done? Yeah, but I want to make that clear because you have this hybrid concept in your stormwater bylaw and it's not fully fleshed out like a planning board. Yeah, it's I understand this is not something we have a lot of experience with on the sports side. >> I think this is the first time you're doing it, right? According to Commissioner Hakanson. Yeah. So thank you for inviting us here. >> with this though if this is low? Um so how low is it? If I may through the chair ask Mike and ask our engineers input because uh you'll recall Mike, we went to you first.