Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20180917 - Planning Board - Agenda TOWN OF HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD Monday , September 17, 2018 7:30 P.M. Hopkinton Town Hall, 18 Main Street, Hopkinton, MA ______________________________________________________________________________ AGENDA 7:30 Misc. Administrative Business 120 Pond Street – Scenic Road approval compliance review 7:45 Continued Public Hearing - 90 Hayden Rowe St. – Site Plan Review Proposed school bus parking lot with associated site work on an existing athletic field (field #9) located behind Hopkinton High School. The proposed lot includes 33 bus parking spaces and 35 passenger car parking spaces. 8:15 Public Hearing – Saddle Hill Road Lots 5A-11A – Scenic Road Permits – Saddle Hill Realty, LLC Proposal to alter/temporarily remove various sections of stonewall on Saddle Hill Road in order to construct driveways and connect utilities for seven new single family residences. 8:35 Public Hearings – Bucklin St. & Leonard St. – 1) Stormwater Management Permit 2) Petition to construct a paper street – Wall Street Development Corp. Proposed construction of a paper street entitled “Bucklin Street”; design and construction standards. Proposal to construct five single family homes with associated driveways, utilities and related grading. 9:00 Continued Discussion – Wilson St. / Legacy Farms North – Legacy Farms LLC Review and discuss drainage concerns and Scenic Road issues. 9:30 Public Hearings – 52 & 55 Wilson Street – 1) Stormwater Management Permit Application; 2) Earth Removal Permit Application – Eversource Energy Proposed Stormwater management and earth removal work associated with the construction of a replacement Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Liquefaction facility. Business to be considered by the Board at any time during the meeting:  East Main Street Sidewalk Completion – Legacy Farms, LLC  Approve minutes of 7/23/18  Planning Board member reports and future agenda items  Correspondence 1 Town of Hopkinton Planning Board 18 Main Street, Hopkinton MA 01748 508-497-9745 DATE: September 13, 2018 TO: Planning Board FROM: Georgia Wilson, Principal Planner RE: Items on September 17, 2018 Planning Board Agenda Miscellaneous Administrative Business: 120 Pond Street – Scenic Road approval compliance review The Board approved the repair and rebuild of a scenic stonewall located at 120 Pond Street at its hearing on 6/11/18. Both the minutes and the decision indicate that the wall was to be rebuilt with existing weathered stones. Staff has been made aware that the wall appears to be built with a mix of new and original stone. The Board should review the materials in the memo (application narrative, photos, minutes, and decision) to determine if they would like to bring the Applicant back to Board to discuss measures of corrective action, if necessary. 1) Continued Public Hearing – Site Plan Review – Major Project – 90 Hayden Rowe – Town of Hopkinton School Department. Decision date: A decision is due 90 days from the close of the hearing and a majority vote is required for approval.  Gary Trendel, Carol DeVeuve, and Frank D’Urso are not eligible to vote. All other members are eligible to vote. Site and Project Details: The applicant proposes to turn an existing athletic field behind Hopkinton HS into a parking lot for daily and overnight school bus parking. The lot will have 33 passenger car spaces and 33 bus spaces. The parking lot was designed to fit within the existing athletic field footprint. Conservation Commission: A portion of the project is within the 100’ wetland buffer zone and the applicant filed a Notice of Intent with the Conservation Commission. The Commission issued an Order of Conditions at its 9/11 meeting. 2 Peer Review & Comments: DRB Comments: The DRB reviewed the project at its 6/19 meeting and issued the following recommendations: 1) Light poles should be no taller than 15 ft. 2) Consider placing the lighting system on a timer or making it motion activated to reduce unnecessary lighting at night. 3) Revise existing directional signage to accommodate the sites new traffic pattern. DPW Comments: DPW had no comments on the project but did provide further correspondence on snow plowing and snow removal. Please see email dated 7/16/18 from DPW Director, John Westerling. Board of Health: Shaun McAuliffe, BOH Director, reviewed the project and had no concerns/comments. BETA Review to date: Please see final BETA peer review update dated 9/7/18. All issues have been resolved. Site Plan Standards (§210-136.1): The site plan shall be designed to conform to the Site Plan Standards in §210-136.1. I have attached draft conditions to the packet which outline the compliance of each Standard for the project. 2) Public Hearing – Saddle Hill Road Lots 5A-11A – Scenic Road Permits – Saddle Hill Realty, LLC. The Applicant is proposing to alter and relocate various sections of stone wall to accommodate the construction of seven driveways. The application states that the removal of the stone wall in the area of the proposed driveways will be reassembled with the existing stones returning into each lot. The application also proposes the temporary removal of various sections of stone wall to run underground utilities from utility poles to the seven house lots. A majority vote is required for approval and a decision is due 21 days from the close of the public hearing. The Applicant has provided detailed plans and photos for each of the seven lots. John Westerling, DPW Director and Interim Tree Warden, had no comment on the application. The Board approved two scenic road permits for 6 and 8 Saddle Hill Road on 6/25/18. The approved work was for the temporary removal of two 4’ stonewall sections in order to run power from utility poles to two new houses. Staff went out to the site on 9/13 to review status of the active permits for 6 and 8 Saddle Hill. The work is actively ongoing as approved and has not reached the repair/replacement stage yet. The Scenic Road Bylaw provides as follows: § 160-6. Criteria for work projects. The Planning Board’s decision on any application for proposed work affecting scenic roads shall be based on consideration of the following criteria: A. The degree to which the proposed work would adversely affect the scenic and aesthetic values upon which the scenic road designation was originally based. 3 B. The necessity for the proposed work in terms of public safety, welfare, or convenience. C. Compensatory action proposed, such as replacement of trees or walls. D. Availability of reasonable alternatives to the proposed work which could reduce or eliminate anticipated damage to trees or stone walls. E. Whether the proposed work would compromise or harm other environmental or historical values. F. Consistency of the proposed work with previously adopted Town plans and policies. 3) Public Hearings – Bucklin St. & Leonard St. – 1) Stormwater Management Permit 2) Petition to construct a paper street – Wall Street Development Corp. Request to continue the Stormwater Management Permit public hearing to October 29, 2018. Request to continue the Roadway Petition application public hearing to October 29, 2018. 4) Continued Discussion – Wilson St. / Legacy Farms North – Legacy Farms LLC This is continued from the Board’s 6/25 meeting. During previous hearings for the Trails at Legacy Farms project, the Board entertained concerns from abutters/residents about drainage problems and scenic road issues in the Wilson St. /Legacy Farms North Road area. These concerns were outside the scope of the Trails project for discussion, but Legacy Farms LLC agreed to discuss and brainstorm potential solutions at a separate informal meeting. I have compiled the correspondence/photos of the identified issues and placed it in the meeting packet for the Board’s reference. Last discussions with the Board included the review of a preliminary plan provided by VHB (engineering firm) relative to the redesign of the inadequate detention basin adjacent to Wilson Street. BETA noted that they needed more information regarding the original design of the basin to determine if the proposed redesign will solve the drainage issue; VHB provided the requested design and calculation documents from the original project. VHB’s proposed improvements include resizing the basin to control peak rate of runoff from the Legacy Farms project parcel onto Wilson Street. DPW: Please see email from John Westerling dated 9/13 regarding runoff observations and infrastructure maintenance. BETA Review to date: The below submissions/comments have been received since the last hearing (6/25) and are organized by date in the meeting packet. BETA peer review comments – 9/12/18 VHB response to comments – 9/6/18 BETA initial peer review comments – 8/29/18 VHB basin redesign plan submission – 8/8/18 4 Scenic Tree Removal: John Westerling and I reviewed the Scenic Road designation plan for Wilson Street in comparison with the removed trees along the right of way (ROW). The estimated ROW for Wilson Street is 30 ft. The Scenic Road designation plan measured tree distances from the road center, meaning any trees measured greater than 15 ft. from the road center are not within the right of way. Of the identified trees on the designation plan from Legacy Farms North to Kruger Road, three were identified as being within the right of way. Mr. MacDowell has offered to plant 5 replacement trees in areas identified by the Board. 5) Public Hearings – 52 & 55 Wilson Street – 1) Stormwater Management Permit Application; 2) Earth Removal Permit Application – Eversource Energy An application for a stormwater management permit (SWMP) has been submitted to the Board pursuant to Chapter 172 of the General Bylaws, Stormwater Management and Erosion Control. A majority vote is required for approval and a decision is due by 9/25/18. A SWMP is required because there will be more than one acre of overall disturbance. The Applicant has also submitted an application for an earth removal permit pursuant to Chapter 96 of the General Bylaws, Earth Removal. A majority vote is required for approval and a decision is due by 11/1/18. Both hearings are being held concurrently. Eversource has filed a petition with the Department of Public Utilities (DPU) requesting zoning exemptions for the project. The DPU process is ongoing, and a decision has not been issued. However, the DPU has granted Eversource's requested zoning exemptions in the past. Both the Stormwater Management and Earth Removal bylaws are General Bylaws, which the DPU does not have authority to waive. Project: The site is located in the Agriculture and WRPOD zoning districts. The total land area of the project is 76.6 acres with an estimated land disturbance of 10.75 acres. The stormwater management and earth removal is associated with the replacement of the Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) facility’s existing natural gas pretreatment and liquefaction system. The replacement system is proposed to be located in the area south of the existing fenced LNG storage tank area. Materials Submitted to date: The SWMP/Earth Removal Applications, narratives, and plans are included in the meeting packet. The plans submitted with the SWMP are the same plans submitted with the Earth Removal permit application. The following application appendices were too large to include in the packet but can be accessed via the link below: Appendix A – Abutters list Appendix B – Stormwater Report 5 Appendix C – Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Appendix D – Operation and Maintenance Plan Comments: DPW: John Westerling, DPW Director, has no initial comments on the application. BETA: Please see BETA review letter dated 8/31/18. Earth Removal Criteria: I have included the General Requirements (Sec. 96-3) that apply to all earth removal operations in the packet. The Board has the ability to waive any of the requirements. Section 96-3.H requires that a 100’ buffer strip of undisturbed land be maintained at all boundaries of the lot and street lines. The application states that the buffer is less than 100’ in various areas of the site. A waiver should be requested accordingly. Approval Criteria The Earth Removal bylaw (Chapter 96 of the General Bylaws) states in Sec. 96-6 that earth removal permits may be granted by the Board if it finds each of the following: 1. The proposed earth removal conforms to the purpose of the chapter. 2. The earth removal operation on the permitted lot will not: (a) Be injurious or dangerous to the public health or safety. (b) Produce noise, dust or other effects detrimental to the normal use of adjacent property. (c) Have a material adverse effect on the health or safety of persons living in the neighborhood or on the use or amenities of adjacent land. (d) The earth removal activity will not result in traffic conditions on roads in the area of the earth removal activity which will cause unsafe and dangerous conditions. (e) The regulations contained in this chapter will be complied with. The bylaw notes that the Board may impose permit conditions, which could include:  A requirement that the operation occur in phases;  The submission of periodic status reports;  Establish hours of operation;  Post a bond to guarantee conformity with the conditions of the permit;  A deposit of funds for engineering review and inspection of the premises during the earth removal period. Stormwater Management Criteria: The project is subject to the Stormwater Management Standards. The following are the 10 standards, what is proposed, and BETA’s comments to date. 6 Stormwater Standard Proposed BETA comment #1 – No untreated stormwater – No new stormwater conveyances (e.g. outfalls) may discharge untreated stormwater directly to or cause erosion in wetlands or waters of the Commonwealth. Applicant proposes deep sump catch basins, proprietary treatment devices, and one new detention basin with a sediment forebay to capture and treat stormwater. 1) Provide calculations for rip rap sizing to demonstrate that the proposed stormwater management design will not cause erosion. #2 – Post-development peak discharge rates – Stormwater management systems must be designed so that post-development peak discharge rates do not exceed pre-development peak discharge rates. Calculations have been provided to demonstrate that post-development discharge rates will not exceed pre- development rates, with the exemption of two areas (design point 4 & 6). No impact to downstream areas are anticipated. 1) Clearly define all final surfaces on the plans for existing and proposed conditions (including, but not limited to, gravel, grass and pavements) #3 – Recharge to groundwater – Loss of annual recharge to groundwater should be minimized through the use of infiltration measures to the maximum extent practicable. Applicant proposes directing runoff to an infiltration basin. 1) Revise wording for “detention basin” to “infiltration basin” if the intent of the design is to infiltrate stormwater rather than control flow. 2) Utilize Frimpter method for soil borings and test pits conducted during non-seasonal high groundwater months. 3) Conduct a minimum of one soil boring or one test pit for every 5,000 sq. ft. of basin areas, with a minimum of 3 borings for each basins. 4) Show soil types on existing and proposed drainage maps. 5) Provide monitoring well in the infiltration basin. 6) Include draw down device within the infiltration basin. 7) Provide interim contour for top of proposed detention basin. 8) Consider redirecting emergency flow of stormwater runoff west of the proposed basin to avoid flow over the access road. #4 – 80% TSS removal – For new development, Please see submitted stormwater report for a 1) Provide TSS removal calculation worksheets for each treatment train. 7 Stormwater Standard Proposed BETA comment stormwater management systems must be designed to remove 80% of the annual load of total suspended solids. description of the proposed treatment trains and TSS removal rates. #5 – Higher Potential Pollutant Loads – Stormwater discharges from land uses with Higher Potential Pollutant Loads required the use of specific stormwater management BMP’s. Applicant proposes to implement proprietary treatment devices to capture and pre-treat the required water quality for the site. Complies - standard has been met. #6 – Critical Areas – Stormwater discharges to critical areas must utilize certain stormwater BMP’s approved for critical areas. Not Applicable Not Applicable #7 – Redevelopment – Redevelopment of previously developed sites must meet the Stormwater Management Standards to the maximum extent practicable. Proposed project is considered a partial redevelopment and includes net increase of approx. 4.2 acres. The Applicant proposes BMPs to capture and treat stormwater runoff to maximum extent possible. Standard will be met if all comments are addressed. #8 – Construction Period Erosion and Sediment Controls – Erosion and sediment controls must be implemented to prevent impacts during construction of land disturbance activities. Applicant has provided an existing conditions and demolition plan showing erosion and sediment control locations. A draft SWPPP was provided. 1) Revise erosion control barrier to provide a min. of 12” diameter straw wattle. 2) Show temporary stockpile locations w/ erosion control. 3) Provide provisions to protect the infiltrative capacity of the basin during construction. 4) Provide the following on plans: a) Direction of stormwater flow and location of slopes after grading. b) Location for storage of materials, waste, equipment, etc. c) Location of stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity other than site construction. 8 Stormwater Standard Proposed BETA comment 5) Add plan notes on the specific erosion control criteria listed in Appendix F, No. 2. 6) Recommend condition that SWPPP be provided prior to construction. #9 – Operations/Maintenance Plan – A long-term operation and maintenance plan shall be developed and implemented to ensure that stormwater management systems function as designed. A Long Term Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan was included. 1) Include a Maintenance Agreement for all stormwater maintenance facilities in accordance with Appendix D, No. 3. #10 – Illicit Discharges – All illicit discharges to the stormwater management systems are prohibited. A draft Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement has been submitted. 1) Provide a signed Illicit Discharge Statement. Board Action The Stormwater Regulations adopted by the Board states that the Planning Board’s action, rendered in writing, shall consist of one of the following 4 options:  Approval of the SMP application based upon determination that the proposed plan meets the Standards in Section 7.0, will adequately protect the water resources of the community and is in compliance with the requirements set forth in the Bylaw and the Regulations,  Approval of the SMP application subject to any conditions, modifications or restrictions required by the Planning Board which will ensure that the project meets the Standards in Section 7.0 and adequately protects water resources, set forth in the Bylaw and the Regulations,  Disapproval of the SMP application based upon a determination that the proposed plan, as submitted, does not meet the Standards in Section 7.0, does not adequately protect water resources, or does not comply with the provisions of the Bylaw or the Regulations.  The Planning Board may disapprove an application “without prejudice” where an applicant fails to provide requested additional information or review fees that in the Planning Board’s opinion are needed to adequately describe or review the proposed project. See the table above for the referenced criteria. 9 East Main Street Sidewalk: Please see attached letter from Roy MacDowell, Legacy Farms LLC., regarding the incomplete section of sidewalk on East Main Street. The section to be completed starts at 83 East Main Street and continues west towards the Town owned athletic field parcel located adjacent to 51 East Main Street. As planned, the sidewalk will be going over a section of bridge that connects to an access road leading into the athletic field. Legacy Farms, LLC. is before the Board to determine if the Board would like to have the sidewalk completed up until the bridge portion, or wait to complete sidewalk construction until the bridge is installed. There is no determined date as to when the bridge will be constructed. Future Meetings October 1, 2018 7:30 – Misc. Administrative Business 7:45 – Continued Public Hearing – Wilson St./ Cedar St. – TJA Solar – Solar Special Permit/Stormwater Management Permit. 8:45 – Continued Public Hearing – Whisper Way OSPLD – Definitive Subdivision Application 9:30 – Public Hearing – 55 Wilson Street (Secondary Access Road) – Eversource – Stormwater Management Permit October 15, 2018 7:30 – Misc. Administrative Business 7:45 – Public Hearing – 18 Cedar Street – Off-site Parking Special Permit Application – Janice Brown. Town of Hopkinton Planning Board 18 Main Street, Hopkinton MA 01748 508-497-9745 June 14, 2018 DECISION Application for Scenic Road Permit submitted by Vincent D’Eramo for ​120 Pond Street ___________________________________________________________________________ Pursuant to the provisions of MGL Chapter 40, Section 15C, Chapter 160 of the Bylaws of the Town of Hopkinton, Scenic Roads (the “Bylaw”), the Planning Board held a public hearing on June 11, 2018 on the application of Vincent D’Eramo for the repair and restoration of a 100’ section of existing stone wall at 120 Pond Street. The Applicant proposes to repair a 100’ section of stone wall that has had fallen stones due to car accidents, fallen limbs and deer crossings. The Applicant plans to maintain the look of the wall by rebuilding with the existing weathered stones. The Planning Board, after review of the request and consideration of the criteria contained in the Bylaw, voted to approve the repair and reconstruction of the stone wall as shown on the plan entitled “120 Pond Street” dated May 14, 2018. Muriel Kramer Chair Cc:Director of Municipal Inspections Fire Department Board of Selectmen Department of Public Works SITE PLAN REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING OUTLINE 90 Hayden Rowe Public Hearing Dates: July 9, 2018, July 23, 2018, August 1, 2018 (no discussion), September 17, 2018 1. √Project introduction and review – Applicant 2. √Principal Planner Comments 3. √Consultant Review – BETA Group 4. √Planning Board – Add to outline 5. √Abutters and Public – Add to Outline 6. Detailed Discussion a) Parking Lot Design b) Access/traffic c) Stormwater management d) Lighting – Compliance with standards e) Landscaping and Screening f) Signage 7. Discuss status of other permits (Conservation Commission) 8. Discuss site plan standards and plan revisions to be made, if any 9. Discuss conditions of approval with applicant 10. Close public hearing Vote on Site Plan and Conditions BETA GROUP, INC. 315 Norwood Park South, 2nd Floor, Norwood, MA 02062 P:781.255.1982 | F:781.255.1974 | W:www.BETA-Inc.com September 7, 2018 Ms. Georgia Wilson, Principal Planner Land Use, Planning and Permitting 18 Main Street Hopkinton, MA 01748 Re: Hopkinton High School Bus Parking Lot Peer Review Update Dear Ms. Wilson: BETA Group, Inc. (BETA) reviewed the supplemental/revised documents for the proposed Application for Site Plan Review for the proposed development referred to as the Hopkinton High School Bus Parking Lot in Hopkinton, MA. This letter is provided to update BETA’s findings, comments and recommendations. BASIS OF REVIEW BETA reviewed the following documents: •Response to Comments,dated August 24, 2018 prepared by WorldTech Engineering, Woburn, MA •Plans (16 Sheets)entitled Town of Hopkinton, Hopkinton Public Schools Bus Parking Lot at Hopkinton High School in the Town of Hopkinton, Middlesex County, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts,dated August 24, 2018, prepared by WorldTech Engineering, Woburn, MA •Existing Conditions Hydrocad model (chamber wizard for the 4x4x90 concrete gallery), dated August 23 2018 •TSS Removal Calculation Worksheet, dated August 24, 2018 •Hopkinton High School Bus Parking Lot Stormwater Comparison Table (w/180 foot Gallery) •Autoturn Template,dated August 2018, prepared by WorldTech Engineering, Woburn, MA •Stormwater Operations and Maintenance Plan for Hopkinton High School Bus Parking Lot dated August 24, 2018, prepared by WorldTech Engineering, Woburn, MA COMPILED REVIEW LETTER KEY BETA reviewed this project previously and provided review comments in a letter to the Planning Board dated July 5, 2018 (original comments in italic text), WorldTech Engineering (WTE) provided responses (responses in standard text), and BETA has provided comments on the status of each (status in bold italic text). PROJECT OVERVIEW The site is within the existing Hopkinton High School property at 90 Hayden Rowe in Hopkinton. Specifically, the project is located within an existing athletic field behind Hopkinton High School. The site is located in the Residence B (RB) Zoning District and within the Water Resources Protection Overlay District. It is not within MassDEP watershed protection area (Approved Zone II). MassDEP Hopkinton High School Bus Parking Lot Peer Review September 7, 2018 Page 2 of 9 Priority Resource Map indicates the project is not located with NHESP estimated habitats of rare wildlife or rare species. The site is not located within a FEMA mapped 100 year flood zone. NRCS soils maps indicate the soils within the project site are comprised of Broadbrook very fine sandy loam with a Hydrologic Soil Group Rating (HSG) of D (minimal to no infiltration). The Hopkinton Public Schools is proposing to construct a parking lot at the location of an existing athletic field behind Hopkinton High School, for the daily and overnight parking of school buses. Upgraded pedestrian connections from the High School to the Loop Road are also proposed. There will be a total of 33 bus parking spaces and 35 passenger car spaces. Stormwater management at the site includes the installation of erosion controls, installation of a deep sump catch basin, construction of a drainage swale, and the modification to the existing stormwater detention basin. The project will directly impact buffer zones to bordering vegetated wetland. Therefore, the project requires compliance with the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act and Town of Hopkinton Bylaws. ZONING Article III – Residence B (RB) District The site is located within the Residence B (RB) Zoning District and within the Water Resources Protection Overlay District (WRPOD-1). The proposed use, parking for public schools, is permitted within the district. Article XII - Water Resources Protection Overlay District The site is also located within the Water Resource Overlay District (WRPOD-1). Z1.Provide calculations to demonstrate lot size and total impervious area do not require a Special Permit in accordance with §210-70C2.WTE: According to §210-70C of the most recent Hopkinton Zoning Bylaws (September 2017) states that “no special permit shall be required for items (2) and (4) within the WRPOD-1 area”. Thus, item 2 does not apply as the site is in the Water Resources Protection Overlay District (WRPOD-1). BETA2: Agreed, a Special Permit is not required however “a system of groundwater recharge must be provided”. This may be difficult to achieve given the poorly draining “D” in the project area. Provide documentation including alternatives for recharge to the maximum extent practicable.WTE2: The parking lot design includes some grass/landscaped areas in the traffic islands. The design also includes extensive resizing of the detention pond and with the revised design a reduction in the paved area of the lot concurrent with the reduction in the number of busses stored. Reiterating the issue that the site is located in poorly draining “class D” soils, this is essentially the maximum practicable extent of infiltration available. If for example, the design called for the retention of water in the bottom of the pond. We would be required to prove that the water retained would infiltrate in within the maximum 72 hour period required. This recharge duration is not achieved in a class D soil. The result of this retained water would be mosquitos breeding in the bottom of the pond. BETA3: Explanation identifying infiltration challenges provided – issue resolved. Hopkinton High School Bus Parking Lot Peer Review September 7, 2018 Page 3 of 9 Article XVIII – Supplemental Regulations The project proposes the construction of a parking area containing 25 or more parking spaces and, therefore, is subject to Site Plan Review. The Applicant has submitted an Application for Site Plan Review. Article XX - Site Plan Review The project proposes the construction of a parking area containing 25 or more parking spaces and therefore is subject to Site Plan Review. The Applicant has submitted an Application for Site Plan Review. §210-136.1 Site Plan Standards Work, parking area, landscaping, and stormwater management features, is shown in the buffer zone of the bordering vegetated wetland on site. Unique natural or historic features were not observed on the site. Minimal tree, vegetation and soil are to be removed as the site has been previously developed. The site does not abut residential zoning districts or properties. Proposed utilities are shown underground. The project proposes two vehicle access drives on the existing access drive behind Hopkinton High School.Site lighting is adequate with no spillage to residential properties. Parking areas are designed to bylaw requirements. Project is not expected to be a significant generator of noise or odors. The Site Plan complies with Zoning except as noted above. See appropriate sections for comments on Zoning. SP1.Provide vehicle turn (AutoTURN) plan to demonstrate adequate turning radii at the entrance/exit and through the proposed parking lot.WTE: An AutoTurn plan has been provided for the parking lot entrance/exit and through the proposed parking lot.BETA2: The plan was handed out at the meeting. Provide formal submittal of plan for distribution and review. WTE2: The AutoTurn plan has been formally submitted along with updated plans on August 21, 2018. BETA3: AutoTURN Template shows vehicle paths encroaching on adjacent parking spaces. Update plan to show clear path access for buses. WTE3: AutoTurn template has been updated and is submitted along with revised plans on August 24, 2018.BETA4: Revised vehicle turning plan shows adequate turns for buses – issue resolved. SP2.Provide dimension(s) of the existing access drive off Loop Road, behind Hopkinton High School. WTE: An existing dimension of the existing access drive has been provided. However, it is not within the current scope of this project to make adjustments to access drive at this time. BETA2: Information provided - issue resolved. SP3.Label existing Loop Road on the site plans. WTE: Label has been added to the plans.BETA2: Information provided issue resolved. SP4.Verify that accessible parking spaces are not required per ADA Regulations.WTE: According to ADA Regulations, for 26-50 parking spaces one (1) standard and one (1) van accessible handicapped parking space is required. The Sign and Pavement marking plans have been updated with this change.BETA2: Spaces provided – issue resolved. SP5.BETA recommends constructing sidewalk along northern edge to be ADA compliant.WTE: Sidewalks grades along the north edge have been revised to be ADA compliant. The sidewalk extending from the bus lot walkway to the Loop Road has been eliminated due to the inability to meet ADA compliance given the slopes of the existing topography.BETA2: Plan revised- issue resolved. Hopkinton High School Bus Parking Lot Peer Review September 7, 2018 Page 4 of 9 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REVIEW BETA did not receive a traffic impact report for this project and therefore review of traffic is not included. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REVIEW SW1.The following should be provided to complete the review: a.Pre and Post development watershed maps including all upgrading drainage areas and time of concentration paths.WTE: Pre and Post watershed maps of the back of the High School have been provided.BETA2: Provide plans that show limits of watershed areas and time of concentration paths. WTE2: Plans have been provided.BETA3: Plans revised – issue resolved. b.Pre and Post development HydroCAD Diagrams showing model routings.WTE: HydroCAD routing diagrams have been submitted. BETA2: Provide diagrams printed from HydroCAD program. WTE2: The printed HydroCAD diagrams have been included with the reports. BETA3: HydroCAD diagrams provided – issue resolved. c.Detail of existing structure labeled “Conc. Chamber” showing all pertinent information for modeling including outlet pipe.WTE: A detail of the existing concrete outlet chamber has been included.BETA2: Detail provided - issue resolved. d.Identify and show roof drains from existing buildings on drainage plan.WTE: The roof drain information is on the original plans. The drains from the roof were not all accessible at the time of survey.BETA2: See a and b above.WTE2: The roof drain information (general routing schematic of the roof drains) has been added to the existing watershed maps and the entire building was added via aerial maps and as-built plans to clarify the drainage routing. Additional information is available on the existing as-built of construction plan U-3. BETA3: Plans and calculations revised – issue resolved. SW2.Update Section at Stone Lined Drainage Swale detail to include depth and side slopes. BETA recommends eliminating loam and seed area between pavement and stone swale and adding a foot of elevation on down gradient edge to prevent breakout.WTE: The channel/swale has been eliminated by the revised grading and request for a particle separator. See revised design.Plan revised – issue dismissed. SW3.Provide additional detail of new small detention basin and 4 foot wide swale including materials and features to prevent erosion.WTE: The small detention area noted has been eliminated (refer to SW 2)BETA2: Plan revised – issue dismissed. SW4.BETA recommends adding a catchbasin at 12+25± to capture runoff from access drive.WTE: The catch basin has been added and connected to the proposed oil/particle separator. This is in addition to the proposed bus parking area.BETA2: Additional CB provided as well as two double grate catch basins. Revise plans to provide a minimum of three feet of cover over drainage pipe. WTE2: Due to required site grading, a minimum three feet of cover cannot be provided over the drainage pipe in some areas. However, the Contractor will be required to submit shop drawings that the proposed pipe to be installed shall meet the manufacturer’s specifications prior to installation. BETA3: Provide provision for protection of pipe during construction. WTE3: Notes were added to the pipe trench detail regarding the contractor’s procedures for working around Hopkinton High School Bus Parking Lot Peer Review September 7, 2018 Page 5 of 9 and over drains. Notes include post installation video requirements for the drain pipes installed. BETA4: Notes have been added to the plans to protect pipes during construction – issue resolved. SW5.Consider revising proposed grading of the parking lot to avoid concentrated runoff towards the corners of the parking lot at ends of swale.WTE: The parking area has been re-graded to pitch toward the center (refer to SW2).BETA2: To avoid ponding water on pavements, BETA does not recommend pavement grades of less than 1% grade. WTE2: Parking Lot grading has been revised to a minimum of 1% grade. BETA3: Revise grading of accessible spaces to meet 2% maximum allowable slope. WTE3: Grading has been revised.BETA4:Grading has been revised to meet 2% maximum allowable slope for accessible spaces – issue resolved. SW6.Clarify if spot grades in swale signify top of curb elevation.WTE: Spot grades have been eliminated per the revised grading.BETA2: Plan revised – issue dismissed. SW7.Check grade to verify that flow can enter new detention basin.WTE: The stone line swale has been eliminated from the plans in lieu of the new closed drainage system.BETA2: Plan revised – issue dismissed. In accordance with Section 245-13.A(4), the project was reviewed in accordance with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Stormwater Management Regulations. The following are the 10 standards and relative compliance provided by the submitted documentation. NO UNTREATED STORMWATER (STANDARD NUMBER 1):No new stormwater conveyances (e.g., outfalls) may discharge untreated stormwater directly to or cause erosion in wetlands or waters of the Commonwealth.The project does not propose any new outfalls conveying untreated runoff –standard met. POST-DEVELOPMENT PEAK DISCHARGE RATES (STANDARD NUMBER 2):Stormwater management systems must be designed so that post-development peak discharge rates do not exceed pre-development peak discharge rates. The project proposes a stone swale, small detention basin and expansion of the existing basin to mitigate the increase in peak rate of runoff as a result of this project. SW8.Update and clarify table comparing pre- and post-development peak discharge rates. It appears that there is an increase in peak rates for 2, 25 and 100 year storm events.WTE: The revised table with the 2 year, 25 year and 100 year volumes has been revised and submitted.BETA2: Revise the design to meet Standard 2 – no increase in the peak rate of runoff. WTE2:Since the last submission of the project, the number of busses and the proposed parking area has been reduced. This reduction in pavement reduces the run-off from the parking area and allows the additional area needed to increase the pond volume. This increase is needed to mitigate the proposed volume increase as well as mitigate the existing condition given the increase in storm event rainfall volumes over those volumes that were used when the pond was originally designed.BETA3: Design revised – issue resolved. (address following comments) a.BETA3: Provide backup detail for existing subsurface “gym roof” concrete galley included in models. WTE3: The 4x4x90 concrete gallery used is attached. The gallery length used is based on the surveyor’s notations and is shorter that the gallery noted on the as-built plans. The total length is 90 feet as opposed to the 180 feet shown but not dimensioned on the U- 3 As-built.BETA4:As-built plan provided – issue resolved. Hopkinton High School Bus Parking Lot Peer Review September 7, 2018 Page 6 of 9 b.BETA3: Provide modification to detail for existing outlet structure to detention pond in accordance with proposed HydroCAD model. Recommend including a screen/rack to prevent smaller orifices from getting clogged. WTE3:The pond outlet structure details have been modified and notes have been added regarding the procedure used to plug the existing cored openings, the location of the new openings and the requirements for screening over all of the openings.BETA4: Detail and notes have been provided to clarify the design of the outlet structure – issue resolved. SW9.Use a minimum of 6 minutes for time of concentration in the stormwater model.WTE: The time of concentrations have been revised to a 6 minute minimum as requested.BETA2: Calculation revised - issue resolved. SW10.The plans and details show a stone swale collecting stormwater runoff from the parking lot and directing it to the detention basins while the stormwater model and TSS removal calculations utilizes a grass swale. Revise for consistency.WTE: The swale has been eliminated form the plan and details do to the addition of the oil/particle separator and the closed drainage system added.BETA2: Plan revised – issue dismissed. SW11.Include the proposed detention pond/extension in the stormwater model.WTE: The extension of the pond has been eliminated. The Hydrocad models reflect the changes made to the pond side slope contours to increase storage. (refer to drainage and grading plan)BETA2: Plan revised – issue dismissed. RECHARGE TO GROUNDWATER (STANDARD NUMBER 3):Loss of annual recharge to groundwater should be minimized through the use of infiltration measures to maximum extent practicable. SW12.Provide required deep hole soil tests within each basin to determine seasonal high groundwater elevation and soil texture in accordance with the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook.WTE: Per our phone discussion, the pond bottom is dry for most of the time and there is no sign of ground water in the bottom, therefore test pits to establish ground water is not needed. Soils are determined by soil reports to be class d and no infiltration is calculated in the Hydrocad models. Soil texture is not needed since no infiltration is assumed in the analysis.BETA2: Explanation provided - issue resolved. SW13.NRCS Hydrologic Group Rating for soils is “D”, do not include infiltration for detention basin. WTE: No infiltration is included or assumed in the existing or proposed Hydrocad modeling. BETA2: Calculation revised - issue resolved. 80%TSS REMOVAL (STANDARD NUMBER 4):For new development, stormwater management systems must be designed to remove 80% of the annual load of Total Suspended Solids. SW14.Provide documentation that the Town will commit to street sweeping at a frequency necessary to achieve 5% TSS removal. BETA recommends not including this credit.WTE: The DPW will include the street sweeping frequency in the MS-4 permit. The credit has been removed via the installation of the oil/particle separator.BETA2: Provide updated TSS removal calculations. SW15.Grass swales require pretreatment to receive 50% credit for TSS removal, revise design as necessary. Also some runoff will bypass the majority of the swale (see SW5).WTE: The swale has been eliminated (refer to SW2 response).BETA2: Plan revised – issue dismissed. SW16.Provide sizing calculations for all BMPs.WTE: The design reports for the oil/particle separator and the calculation for the water volume to water quality conversion per MassDEP standard has Hopkinton High School Bus Parking Lot Peer Review September 7, 2018 Page 7 of 9 been attached. The calculation was performed using a 1/2 inch storm. The selected EOS 24-1400 has been added to the plans and the manufacturer’s detail has been added to the plan set. BETA2: Stormceptor sizing provided – issue resolved. HIGHER POTENTIAL POLLUTANT LOADS (STANDARD NUMBER 5):Stormwater discharges from Land Uses with Higher Potential Pollutant Loads require the use of specific stormwater management BMPs. The proposed project is not a LUHPPL – standard not applicable. CRITICAL AREAS (STANDARD NUMBER 6):Stormwater discharges to critical areas must utilize certain stormwater management BMPs approved for critical areas. The project site is not within any critical areas – standard not applicable. REDEVELOPMENT (STANDARD NUMBER 7): Redevelopment of previously developed sites must meet the Stormwater Management Standards to the maximum extent practicable.Project does not meet definition for redevelopment –standard not applicable. CONSTRUCTION PERIOD EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLS (STANDARD NUMBER 8):Erosion and sediment controls must be implemented to prevent impacts during construction or land disturbance activities.The project proposes an erosion control barrier (compost filter tube) around perimeter of project area. project proposes to disturb greater than an acre of land. Therefore, the project will require the filing of a Notice of Intent (NOI) with EPA and development of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). SW17.Provide erosion control around the proposed parking lot area along the north/northwest side. WTE: Erosion control has been revised at the NW corner as requested and to meet the revised grading.BETA2: Plans revised - issue resolved. SW18.Indicate stone construction entrance, inlet control protection for catchbasins and stockpile areas on the plans.WTE: Inlet stone protection notes have been added. Silt sacks are labeled on catch basins. The stock piled areas will be in the work area only, the locations in the work area will be determined by the contractor based on his/her method, the excess material will be removed. BETA2: Provide dimensions for stone construction entrance consistent with the Massachusetts Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for Urban and Suburban Areas.WTE2: Dimensions have been added to the Site Prep Plan for the stone construction entrance.BETA3:Dimensions provided – issue resolved. SW19.Recommend a condition that requires the Contractor to submit copies of NOI and SWPPP prior to commencing construction.WTE: SWPPP requirements for the contractor are included in the contract specifications. Since the NOI and OOC are in review the contract specifications require that the work not start until the OOC is prepared. The OOC will become part of the contractor’s documents to follow.BETA2: Include condition. WTE2: Notes have been added to the plans stating the Contractor must.BETA3: Include as condition. OPERATIONS/MAINTENANCE PLAN (STANDARD NUMBER 9):A long-Term Operation and Maintenance Plan shall be developed and implemented to ensure that stormwater management systems function as designed. SW20.Provide a long-term operation and maintenance plan.WTE: The long term maintenance plan that was prepared for the existing site is a two page document and discusses cleaning frequency for various facilities. This project modifies a detention pond that is listed on the original O&M statement and the addition of the oil/particle separator. The maintenance of the new facilities and the remaining site will be incorporated into the Town’s MS-4 NOI. BETA2: Provide required Hopkinton High School Bus Parking Lot Peer Review September 7, 2018 Page 8 of 9 operations and maintenance plan and include spill prevention plan and safety provisions for mobile fueling operation. WTE2: The long term maintenance and operation plan has been submitted as requested. The O&M plan includes an inspection form with the inspection and cleaning requirements for the stormcepter and catch basins. The spill prevention plan and emergency spill procedures have been included.BETA3: Include safety provisions for mobile fueling operation in revise O&M.WTE3:The O&M Manual has been revised, see section 1.7 and Attachment A, which is the mobile fueling spill procedure provided by the fuel supplier.BETA4: A revised O&M Plan has been provided, including safety provisions for the mobile fueling operation – issue resolved. SW21.Indicate area for snow storage on the plans.WTE: The Hopkinton DPW does not stock pile snow on any of the school properties. All accumulated snow is loaded out so as not to interfere with school operations. The DPW director will prepare a letter confirming this. BETA2: Provide letter from DPW to confirm. WTE2: The O&M plan includes the statement that snow will not be stock piled but removed from the site by the DPW under their normal snow removal operations. BETA3: BETA defers to DPW practices. ILLICIT DISCHARGES (STANDARD NUMBER 10):All illicit discharges to the stormwater management systems are prohibited. SW22.Provide a signed illicit discharge statement.WTE: The illicit discharge statement will be included in the Town’s MS-4 NOI. BETA2: Provide required illicit discharge statement. WTE2: The illicit discharge statement has been included, the responsibility of the site rests with the DPW director as part of the Town’s MS-4 NOI.BETA3: Statement provided – issue resolved. UTILITES No additional utilities are necessary for this project. LANDSCPING The submitted plans do not show landscaping in conjunction with this project. LA1.Provide required plantings for parking lot or request waiver from §210-124E.WTE: Given the nature and location of this project, a waiver will be requested from §210-124E at this time. Budget constraints preclude the purchase and installation of plantings currently. However, if deemed required, the applicant will seek to secure additional appropriation for the purchase and installation of plantings next year. BETA2: Provide waiver request. WTE2: Plantings have been added to the plans. BETA3: Label plants on the plan and provide a plant schedule. WTE3: Plants have been labeled and a planting schedule has been added.BETA4: Plant labels and schedule have been provided. BETA recommends the following revisions for the final planting plan which could be included by condition: a.Consider using only Red Maple trees (specifically drought-tolerant cultivars). London Planetrees may require more space than shown on the plans. b.Show trees 30’ on center to allow for adequate spacing both between trees and between proposed lighting. Hopkinton High School Bus Parking Lot Peer Review September 7, 2018 Page 9 of 9 LA2.Provide details of stabilizing steep slopes and revegetating disturbed areas not covered by pavements.WTE: Slope stabilization details have been added to the plans.BETA2: Detail provided - issue resolved. LIGHTING Three 25-foot high light poles are proposed in parking area. The photometric plan indicates a maximum to minimum ration of 50 to 1. L1.BETA recommends including additional lighting in southeast corner to improve that ratio §210- 136.1.N(1). WTE: An additional light has been added to the southeast corner. BETA2: BETA recommends relocating and reorientation light poles to get a better distribution of light in the parking lot. WTE2: Lighting has been revised.BETA3: An additional light has been added to the southeast corner of the parking lot to better distribute lighting – issue resolved. L2.Reduce height of luminaries to 15 feet or request waiver from §210-136.1.N(2).WTE: Parking lot light pole heights have been designed to be consistent with other campus lighting systems. A waiver will be requested for this requirement. BETA2: Applicant has requested waiver. WTE2: Luminaires have been revised to 15’.BETA3: Plans revised – issue resolved. L3.Provide details for foundations, light poles and luminaries.WTE: Details of foundations, light poles, and luminaries have been added to the plans.BETA2: Detail provided - issue resolved. L4.Provide hours of operation for lighting.WTE: Operation hours for lighting shall be consistent with other school campus parking lots. BETA2: Provide typical hours of operation. WTE2: A note has been added to the Lighting Details.BETA3: Note added – issue resolved. WETLANDS A vegetated wetland system is located on the western edge and southern edge of the project. Portions of the development area are located within the buffer zone of wetland resources and require an Order of Conditions from the Hopkinton Conservation Commission and MassDEP. Limits of work are shown within the 100 foot buffer zone of bordering vegetated wetlands. BETA emphasizes that the stormwater management system will not provide protection of wetlands and down gradient water resources if not properly maintained. If we can be of any further assistance regarding this matter, please contact us at our office. Very truly yours, BETA Group, Inc. Jillian Bokoff Philip F Paradis, Jr., PE Staff Engineer Associate O:\6000s\6070 - Hopkinton - School Bus Parking Lot\Engineering\Reports\High School Bus Parking Lot Peer Review 9-7-18.docx 11 12 13 14 15 10 + 0 0 16+00212223 24 252620+0026+30.76 16'18 SPACES AT 9' = 162'13' (T Y P . )40'(TYP.)24'12'12'10 SPACES AT 9' = 90'9'7 SPACES AT 9' = 63'9'18' 30'   ƒ PROP. 6" WHITE PAVEMENT MARKINGS (TYP.) PROP. 12" WHITE PAVEMENT MARKINGS (TYP.) 1 4 '16'9'9.5'38'76'9'12'9.8'ƒ23 B U S P A R K I N G L O T S P A C E S 10 BUS PARKING LOT SPACES 10'13.6'123 0+003+33.69 LOOP ROAD AUTOTURN TEMPLATE HOPKINTON HIGH SCHOOL BUS PARKING LOT HOPKINTON, MA TOWN OF HOPKINTON HOPKINTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS 89 HAYDEN ROWE STREET HOPKINTON, MA 01748 PHONE: 508-417-9360N STORMWATER OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PLAN FOR HOPKINTON HIGH SCHOOL BUS PARKING LOT HOPKINTON MASSACHUSETTS PREPARED FOR: HOPKINTON SCHOOL DEPARTMENT 90 HAYDEN ROWE STREET HOPKINTON, MA 01748 REVISED AUGUST 24, 2018 PREPARED BY: WorldTech Engineering, LLC 300 TradeCenter, Suite 5580 Woburn, MA 01801-5580 STORMWATER OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PLAN 90 Hayden Rowe St, Hopkinton, MA 01748 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.1 General Description 1 1.2 Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement 1 1.3 Responsibility 2 1.4 Documentation Requirements 2 1.5 Maintenance Program 2 1.6 Emergency Spill Containment 3 1.7 Mobile Fueling Spill Procedures 4 2.0 Inspection and Maintenance Frequency and Corrective Measures Required 4 2.1 Disposal of All Drainage System Sediment 4 2.2 Sweeping Paved Areas 4 2.3 Maintenance of Grassed and Landscaped Areas 5 2.4 Deep Sump Catch Basin Cleaning 5 2.5 Stormceptor Cleaning 5 2.6 Detention Pond Area Maintenance 5 2.7 Stone Lined Outlet 5 2.8 Estimated Maintenance Costs 6 2.9 Maintenance Plan List of Tasks 7 2.10 Drainage Operations and Maintenance Inspection Form 8 2.11 Snow Removal 8 Attachment A Safety Provisions for Mobile Fueling Operations STORMWATER OPERATIONS AND MAINTAINANCE MANUAL For Hopkinton High School Bus Lot Page 1 of 8 1.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION The purpose of this long-term Stormwater Management System Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan, filed with the Town of Hopkinton, is to maintain the integrity of the system as designed and to insure that the operation of the system will continue as designed for years to come. In general this includes performing all other aspects of good housekeeping with regards to the cleanliness, landscaping techniques and driveway and parking lot maintenance on the site. Keeping the site free of trash and debris is considered day to day maintenance. Landscaping crews should be made aware of the stormwater system and shall use practices that will reduce the amount of debris that enters into the storm system. Sweeping of the paved surfaces shall be done by vacuum sweeper quarterly, in the early spring, late spring, summer and once in the late fall. The (O&M) Plan described herein shall be implemented at the completed Bus Parking lot at the Hopkinton High School in Hopkinton MA, to insure that the stormwater management system including all different types of drainage pipes, individual drainage structures including deep sump catch basins and drain manholes, the detention pond and outlet control structure and any of the parts and components function as designed. This shall include the system as well as the maintenance of the landscaped grounds and paved areas leading and draining towards the drainage system. The Owner possesses the primary responsibility for overseeing and implementing the O&M Plan and shall assign a Property Manager who will be responsible for the proper operation and maintenance of the stormwater system. In case of transfer of property ownership, future property owners shall be notified of the presence of the stormwater management system and the requirements for proper implementation of the O&M Plan. Included in the manual is a Stormwater Management O&M Plan identifying the key components of the stormwater system and a log shall be used for tracking inspections and maintenance procedures. The stormwater management system protects and enhances the stormwater runoff water quality through the removal of sediment and pollutants, and source control significantly reduces the amount of pollutants entering the ecosystem. Preventive maintenance of the stormwater system will include a comprehensive source reduction program of regular vacuuming and litter removal, prohibitions on the use of pesticides, and maintenance of designated waste and recycling areas. 1.2 ILLICIT DISCHARGE COMPLIANCE STATEMENT Per Standard No. 10 of the MassDEP Stormwater Management Standards, there shall be no illicit discharges to the stormwater management system. The Property Manager is responsible for implementing the Operation and Maintenance Plan and overseeing activities at the facility to prevent illicit discharges to the drainage system from occurring. It is strictly prohibited to discharge any products or substances onto the ground surface or into any drainage structures, such as catch basin inlets, manholes, water quality units, forebays, basin or drainage outlets. Should a spill occur, immediate action steps must be implemented to contain the spill, cordon off the area, clean it up immediately and dispose of it properly to prevent an illicit discharge to the stormwater management system. STORMWATER OPERATIONS AND MAINTAINANCE MANUAL For Hopkinton High School Bus Lot Page 2 of 8 1.3 RESPONSIBILITY The purpose of the Stormwater Operations and Maintenance (O&M) plan is to ensure inspection of the system, removal of accumulated sediments, oils, and debris, and implementation of corrective action and record keeping activities. The Contract Operator will be the Town of Hopkinton Department of Public Works with expertise and experience maintaining stormwater management facilities operation and maintenance. The ongoing responsibility is the Town of Hopkinton as the owner. Adequate maintenance is defined in this document as good working condition. Contact information is provided below: Responsibility for Operations and Maintenance Plan Name: Director of the Town of Hopkinton Department of Public Works Address: 83 Wood Street Hopkinton, MA 01748 Contact: John Westerling Telephone: 508-497-9740 1.4 DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS An Inspection and Maintenance Record Log and Schedule will be kept by the Owner or Property Manager summarizing inspections, maintenance, repairs and any corrective actions taken. The log will include the date on which each inspection or maintenance task was performed, a description of the inspection findings or maintenance completed. The name of the inspector or maintenance personnel performing the task shall be included. If a maintenance task requires the clean-out of any sediments or debris, the location where the sediment and debris was disposed after removal will be indicated. Inspection & Maintenance Logs will be kept on file at the on-site Property Management office. 1.5 MAINTENANCE PROGRAM The Owner, Property Manager and maintenance staff will conduct the Operation and Maintenance program set forth in this document. The Owner or Property Manager will ensure that inspections and record keeping are timely and accurate and that cleaning and maintenance are performed in accordance with the recommended frequency for each stormwater component. Inspection & Maintenance Log Forms (provided herein) shall include the date and the amount of the last significant storm event in excess of (one inch) I" of rain in a 24-hour period, physical conditions of the structures, depth of sediment in structures, evidence of overtopping or debris blockage and maintenance required of each structure. STORMWATER OPERATIONS AND MAINTAINANCE MANUAL For Hopkinton High School Bus Lot Page 3 of 8 1.6 EMERGENCY SPILL CONTAINMENT The Owner, along with the on-site Property Manager is responsible for educating staff and informing tenants on the environmental benefits associated with the proper maintenance of the site. Staff must be trained and tenants informed via the community website as to the proper spill prevention control and response procedures should a spill occur on the pavement surface. Proper spill control products, such as a granular dry absorbent, must be kept on-site at the property management office in a clean, dry chemical and corrosion resistant container. In the event of a hazardous waste spill on the pavement surface, the following protocol should be followed: • If it is safe to do so, maintenance staff or any tenant detecting a gasoline, oil or other hazardous waste spill on the porous pavement surface should immediately stop the release and use available materials to prevent spreading. • If there is a potentially flammable, toxic or explosive condition, evacuate the vicinity of the spill. • The tenant should immediately contact the on-site Property Manager or staff personnel, who will apply a granular absorbent such as Speedy-Dry or Oil-Dri. The used product should be disposed of properly. • If the quantity of the spill results in more than one quart of product penetrating below the pavement surface, the asphalt area covered by the spill should be saw-cut out and the dirty stone removed and replaced. Standard dense-mix asphalt patch can be used to replace the porous cut-out area. The removed, contaminated materials must be disposed of properly at a Massachusetts licensed hazardous waste facility by a licensed waste hauler. • This clean-up procedure must occur prior to the next precipitation event to prevent the waste material from being washed deeper into the pavement base. A spill of greater than 10 gallons of oil or a spill of any quantity that has reached a surface water, into a sewer, storm drain, ditch, or culvert leading to a surface water, is immediately reported to one or more municipal, state, or federal authority. In the event of a hazardous waste spill on-site, the following protocol should be followed. • If it is safe to do so, maintenance staff or tenants detecting an oil spill should immediately stop the release and use available materials to prevent the spread of oil, immediately stop the release and use available materials to prevent the spread of oil, particularly from discharging towards catch basins located within the bus lot of or access driveway. • If there is a potentially flammable, toxic or explosive condition, evacuate the vicinity of the spill. • If it’s believed that a reportable or dangerous condition exists, immediately call your local Fire Department to notify them of the release. STORMWATER OPERATIONS AND MAINTAINANCE MANUAL For Hopkinton High School Bus Lot Page 4 of 8 • If it is believed that a reportable condition exists, immediately call the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to notify them of the release. Call the DEP Emergency Response Section toll free statewide number, 1-888-304-1133. Be prepared to provide the following information to the DEP and the Fire Department: • Identity of the caller • Contact phone number • Location of the spill • Type of product spilled • Approximate quantity or product spilled • Extent of actual and/or potential water pollution • Date and time of spill • Cause of spill • Contact a Licensed Site Professional (LSP) to assist in further handling of the material(s) and DEP. 1.7 MOBILE FUELING SPILL PROCEDURES The emergency spill procedures for mobile fueling operations as prepared by the current vendor is attached. The owner and project manager are responsible to insure that any new or replacement vendors have procedures in place that are consistent with the standards set forth in the attachment provided. 2.0 INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE FREQUENCY AND CORRECTIVE MEASURES REQUIRED The following areas, facilities and measures will be inspected by the Owner or Property Manager and maintained as specified below. Identified deficiencies will be corrected. Accumulated sediments and debris will be properly handled and disposed of off-site, in accordance with local, state, and federal guidelines and regulations. Refer to Figure 1, Stormwater Management O&M Plan for the components of the stormwater management system. 2.1 DISPOSAL OF ALL DRAINAGE SYSTEM SEDIMENT All material removed from drainage system catch basins, pipes and structures including sediments and hydrocarbons shall be properly handled and disposed of off-site, in accordance with local, state and federal guidelines and regulations. The method of sediment removal either manual or by machine must be documented. 2.2 SWEEPING PAVED AREAS Paved areas will be swept quarterly including the early spring and late fall. Sweeping equipment shall be vacuum type. Walkway area and paved areas shall be swept clean during normal landscape maintenance. STORMWATER OPERATIONS AND MAINTAINANCE MANUAL For Hopkinton High School Bus Lot Page 5 of 8 2.3 MAINTENANCE OF GRASSED AND LANSCAPED AREAS Landscaped areas on the site shall be maintained so as not to allow the grass, tree and shrub clippings and other landscape maintenance debris to accumulate and enter into the drainage system including the catch basins, the detention pond and the wetlands. Fertilizers used shall be slow release nitrogen formula and shall not contain phosphorus. Fertilizers shall be applied to the landscaped areas only and shall not be allowed in the wetlands areas of the site. All fertilizer applications shall be made using commercial grade spreaders and shall be applied on calm days were the wind will not blow excess fertilizer into the wetlands. Any excess fertilizer shall not be dumped on site but shall be removed and placed into the appropriate containers. The detention pond shall not be fertilized. 2.4 DEEP SUMP CATCH BASIN CLEANING Deep sump catch basins shall be cleaned 2 times yearly. Or whenever the depth of the deposits is greater than or equal to one half of the depth from the bottom of the invert of the lowest pipe. The catch basin cleaning shall be done by means of vacuum truck only. Catch basins and outlet hoods shall be inspected two times yearly and before significant storm events in which more than 1 inch of precipitation is predicted in a 24 hour period. At no time should the debris in the sump of the structure be allowed to accumulate to within 2 feet (1/2 of the sump depth) of the outlet hood. 2.5 STORMCEPTOR CLEANING The stormceptors shall be inspected twice yearly and before significant storm events in which more than 1 inch of precipitation is predicted in a 24 hour period. Stormceptors shall be cleaned at least once annually by vacuum method until the bottom of the sump is clear of debris. If in the case that sediments have accumulated to 6” the structure shall be cleaned before the annual cleaning, then the frequency of cleaning shall be increased to twice yearly. The storm drain piping and cleanout risers shall be inspected quarterly and cleaned as necessary. The stormceptor manual shall be consulted for methods of measuring sediment depths. The sediment depth in the structure shall not be allowed to accumulate to more than 8 inches. 2.6 DETENTION POND AREA MAINTENANCE The Detention Pond Area shall be inspected monthly and all trash and debris shall be removed. On an annual basis the wet pond area shall be cleaned and all dead vegetation shall be removed. Maintenance and repairs will be made as necessary to maintain proper growth of the plants. The detention pond area shall be cleaned at least twice a year and sediment accumulation will be removed as necessary. The outlet control structure shall be inspected quarterly and before major rain events and shall be cleaned twice yearly. 2.7 STONE LINED OUTLET The stone lined outlet shall be inspected twice annually. Any debris, trash and leaves accumulating in the outlet bottom shall be raked away. If the stones on the bottom of the channel have become clogged with fines and silt the stone layer shall be removed cleaned of all sediment and reset to the proper grade. STORMWATER OPERATIONS AND MAINTAINANCE MANUAL For Hopkinton High School Bus Lot Page 6 of 8 2.8 ESTIMATED MAINTENANCE COSTS Estimated annual cost of the Maintenance Program is $3,800 to $5,000. Sweeping $ 1,000 to $2,000 Random Inspections $ 1,000 Catch basin cleaning $ 800 to $1,000 (site total) StormCeptor cleaning $ 1,000 (site total) STORMWATER OPERATIONS AND MAINTAINANCE MANUAL For Hopkinton High School Bus Lot Page 7 of 8 2.09 Maintenance Plan List of Tasks This table is a general maintenance reference for cleaning and maintaining the drainage system and all components. Site Drainage Component Maintenance Needed Maintenance/Inspection Interval Sweeping Paved Areas Machine sweep paved areas and gather all lawn clipping and leaves, clear trash as needed Sweep quarterly Clean all paved areas after landscaping activities are complete Catch Basin Inlets Remove Debris from Sump with Vacuum truck 2 times per year 2 Times per year Inspect before major storms Stormceptors Clean Annually or More Frequently If Needed- Sediment should not exceed 6 inches Spring and Late Fall Before major storms Storm Drain Clean to remove debris as needed Spring and Late Fall Detention Pond Area Inspect for dead vegetation and floatables Monthly Inspection Cleaned twice yearly Inspect before major storms Outlet Control Structure Inspect inlets and remove any debris or accumulated sediment Monthly Inspection Cleaned twice yearly Inspect before major storms Stone Lined Discharges Inspect Clean off leaves and debris Inspect Bi-annually Remove leaves in late fall NOTE: With all inspections of structures, inlets and pipes check for damage to the materials. Any broken or collapsed pipes or structures need to be repaired immediately. STORMWATER OPERATIONS AND MAINTAINANCE MANUAL For Hopkinton High School Bus Lot Page 8 of 8 2.10 Drainage Operation and Maintenance Inspection Form Site Maintenance Supervisor _______________________________ Date:_____________ Type of Maintenance Provided: ____ Routine Maintenance ____ Storm Event Total inches____ ____ Other BMP Frequency Required Date Completed Comments Pavement Sweeping Quarterly Catch Basin Inlets and Trench Drain Cleaned 4 times per year Before major storms Stormceptors Cleaned Spring and Late Fall Before major storms Storm Drain Spring and Late Fall Wet Pond Area & Outlet Structure Quarterly Inspection Or Cleaned Stone Lined Outlet Inspect or Clean after mowing or Remove Leaves 2.11 Snow Removal Snow removal will be done by conventional methods by using plows and snow blowers and all of the designated parking and walkway areas shall be cleared. All accumulated snow will be stored on site in the storage areas delineated on the maintenance plan. No snow shall be stored or dumped in areas adjacent to or draining directly into the wetlands. Snow shall not be dumped into the detention pond on site. Snow will be loaded out by the Hopkinton DPW as part of their normal plowing operations. ATTACHMENT A Spill Procedures All Michael J. Connolly fuel trucks are equipped with numerous safety mechanisms and supplies to mitigate any minor mishap that may occur. Every driver is trained how to use those items to prevent, stop & contain when necessary. In addition, supervisors and managers are available to assist with specialized equipment to quickly respond to any emergency. PROCEDURES REACTING TO A SPILL 1st – DON’T PANIC Immediate Response Maneuvers:  Identify the source of the leak.  Stop the flow of the leak.  For a fuel leak, if the gun fails to shut off, close the quarter turn valve located on the hose. Containment of spill:  Immediately go to the side compartment to collect spill containment equipment.  First line of containment should be “speedy dry”. Use speedy dry to create a dam / barrier against further spread of the spill.  You need to work from the outer most point of spill first, with speedy dry, and work inward. The rate of fluid spread will always be greatest on a downward slope. It is very important to get in front of the spread.  Protect and cover any kind of drains, ditches or catch basins. Be sure to use drain covers which are located in your side boxes.  Call your supervisor immediately – they will engage the appropriate resources - i.e. Fire Department and Cyn Environmental Services- 800-242-5818  Follow your supervisor’s further instructions in the containment and cleanup of the spill, while waiting for the supervisor to arrive on site.  Protect the spill area from traffic to prevent further spread of spill.  Start applying pads to absorb the fluids  In the event you run short of oil absorption pads, you can ring some out of their absorbed fluid and drain the waste into your supplied containment bucket and re-use the pads.  When all pooled fluid is absorbed by the pads, be sure to have placed all used pads into containment bucket.  Start applying more speedy dry to the spill. Work the speedy dry into the spill area with the supplied broom. Motion should be back and forth, working the speedy dry into the area.  Sweep up all contaminated material and place into the supplied containment bucket.  All containment material should have been placed in containment bucket and stored back onto the fuel truck to make sure all material is removed from site.  Do not leave the scene until you have been cleared by your supervisor. Supervisor / Management Duties:  Upon arrival will assist in the cleanup and or assess the completion of the cleanup.  Will make a personal follow up visit to the spill the next day to inspect the spill scene and perform any secondary cleanup that may be required.  Log an incident report with all the facts and probable causes. This report will stay in corporate and the drivers file.  Upon a second visit speak with the customer and make sure they are satisfied will the cleanup. Each spill needs to have its cause identified for corrective measures / actions to prevent further spills of its kind. Each incident will be addressed at the next scheduled drivers meeting to promote caution and awareness. STORM EVENT RUN OFF IN CFS VOLUME IN AF TOTAL VOLUME RUN OFF IN CFS VOLUME IN AF 2 YEAR EXIST FIELD 0.168 -0.1 VELOCITY CHANGE EXIST POND 1.08 0.52 0.688 0.98 0.686 -0.002 VOLUME INCREASE 25 YEAR EXIST FIELD 0.468 -0.31 VELOCITY CHANGE EXIST POND 7.42 1.338 1.806 7.11 1.735 -0.071 VOLUME INCREASE 100 YEAR EXIST FIELD 0.763 -1.18 VELOCITY CHANGE EXIST POND 15.75 2.082 2.845 14.57 2.727 -0.118 VOLUME INCREASE PROPOSED HOPKINTON HIGH SCHOOL BUS PARKING LOT STORMWATER COMPARISON TABLE (w/180 foot Gallery) EXISTING CONDITIONS INSTRUCTIONS:Non-automated: Mar. 4, 2008 1. Sheet is nonautomated. Print sheet and complete using hand calculations. Column A and B: See MassDEP Structural BMP Table 2. The calculations must be completed using the Column Headings specified in Chart and Not the Excel Column Headings 3. To complete Chart Column D, multiple Column B value within Row x Column C value within Row 4. To complete Chart Column E value, subtract Column D value within Row from Column C within Row 5. Total TSS Removal = Sum All Values in Column D Location: A B C D E TSS Removal Starting TSS Amount Remaining BMP1 Rate1 Load*Removed (B*C)Load (C-D) 1.00 Total TSS Removal = Separate Form Needs to be Completed for Each Outlet or BMP Train Project: Prepared By:*Equals remaining load from previous BMP (E) Date:which enters the BMPTSS Removal Calculation WorksheetNon-automated TSS Calculation Sheet must be used if Proprietary BMP Proposed 1. From MassDEP Stormwater Handbook Vol. 1 Mass. Dept. of Environmental Protection Hopkinton HS Bus Lot street sweeping .05 .05 .95 deep sump hooded catch basins .25 .95 .24 .71 stormceptor EOS 24-1400 .83 .71 .58 .13 .96 18-001.01 John Gaudette 08-24-18 Dry Detention Pond .71 .13 .09 .04 For 9/17/18 Meeting Draft Conditions 90 Hayden Rowe Major Project Site Plan Review Findings and Conditions: In view of the foregoing, the Planning Board voted on September, ___, 2018 to find that the Application conforms to the Site Plan Standards contained in § 210-136.1 as indicated below, and to approve the Site Plan subject to the conditions contained herein. Site Plan Standard A - Site disturbance in wetland buffer zones and to slopes in excess of 25% shall be minimized. The Site Plan complies with this Standard. Site disturbance in wetland buffer zone is less than 10% of the total project area. Site Plan Standard B - Unique natural and historic features shall be preserved whenever feasible. The Site Plan complies with this Standard. There are no unique natural or historical features on site. Site Plan Standard C - Tree, vegetation and soil removal shall be minimized. The Site Plan complies with this Standard. The project is proposed within limits of previously disturbed areas and the site is predominantly open and flat. Site Plan Standard D - The site activities shown on the Site Plan shall be screened from view from abutting properties in residential use. Methods of screening may include solid fencing, landscaping or other proposals of the Applicant, subject to review by the Planning Board. Such screening may be located on or off-site. If located off-site, written permission of the off-site property owner shall be provided to the Board. The Site Plan complies with this Standard with the imposition of the conditions below. The Applicant shall comply with the following conditions: 1. Red Maple shall be the only tree species planted within the project site. 2. Trees must be planted 30’ on center to allow for adequate spacing between both trees and between proposed lighting. Site Plan Standard E - All utilities shall be underground. The Site Plan complies with this Standard. Proposed utilities are shown underground. Site Plan Standard F - Exposed storage areas, machinery, service areas, truck loading areas, utility buildings and structures and other similar uses shall be visually screened from abutting properties and those using public ways. Screening methods may consist of solid fencing, landscaping or similar proposals submitted by the Applicant, subject to review by the Planning Board. The Site Plan complies with this Standard. Site Plan Standard G - The site plan shall show measures to reduce and abate noise and odors generated from the site that will impact surrounding properties. The Site Plan complies with this Standard with the imposition of the conditions below. The Applicant shall comply with the following Conditions: 3. The Applicant shall be responsible for mitigating all construction-related impacts, including erosion, siltation and dust control. The Applicant shall maintain all portions of any public way used for construction access free of soil, mud or debris deposited due to use by construction vehicles associated with the project, and shall regularly sweep such areas as directed by the Director of Municipal Inspections in consultation with the DPW Director. 4. The Applicant shall regularly remove construction trash and debris from the site in accordance with good construction practice. No tree stumps, demolition material, trash or debris shall be burned or buried on the site. 5. All construction activity shall adhere to applicable local, State and Federal laws and regulations regarding noise, vibration, dust, sedimentation, and the use of, interference with or blocking of Town roads. Site Plan Standard H - The site plan shall comply with all zoning requirements. The Site Plan complies with this Standard. Site Plan Standard I - The site plan shall maximize the convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site and to and from adjacent public ways. If supporting documentation, such as a traffic or parking study, submitted to the Planning Board indicates that the vehicular and pedestrian traffic movement depicted on the site plan and proposed in the application will have a significant negative impact or impacts on the site or within the adjacent ways, such impacts shall be mitigated by the Applicant. The Site Plan complies with this Standard. Site Plan Standard J - Parking areas shall be designed so that they are safe and convenient and do not detract from the use and enjoyment of proposed structures. Parking areas shall be designed to facilitate safe pedestrian access to the structures and other on-site facilities. The Site Plan complies with this Standard. Site Plan Standard K - The site plan shall minimize the number of curb cuts on public ways. The Site Plan complies with this Standard. The project proposes two vehicle access drives on the existing access drive behind the High School. Site Plan Standard L - Driveways shall be designed to ensure safe sight distances at interior and exterior intersections and along driveways, in accordance with applicable AASHTO requirements. The Site Plan complies with this Standard. Site Plan Standard M - Sidewalks shall be provided along the entire frontage of the subject property along existing public ways. The Planning Board may approve alternative provisions or waive the requirements of this Standard in situations where sidewalk construction or use is not feasible or practical. The Site Plan complies with this Standard. Sidewalk grades along the north edge have been revised to be ADA compliant. The sidewalk extending from the bus lot walkway to the Loop Road has been eliminated due to the inability to meet ADA compliance given the slopes of the existing topography. Site Plan Standard N - Levels of illumination shall be provided as follows: ● No property may have exterior lighting that exceeds the average illumination level recommended by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America for such use as set forth in “Lighting Facilities for Parking Facilities,” Illuminating Engineering Society, 2014 and “The Lighting Handbook,” 10th Ed., Illuminating Engineering Society, 2011. ● For pole mounted lights in parking and driveway areas, the height of the light source shall not exceed 15 feet, which shall be measured from the ground at the base of the pole to the bottom of the fixture. ● Pedestrian area lighting shall utilize fully shielded fixtures, and the height of light source shall not exceed 12 feet, measured from the ground at the base of the pole to the bottom of the fixture. ● No exterior lighting may interfere with the safe movement of motor vehicles on public ways or private ways open to the public. ● Mercury vapor lamps shall be prohibited. ● Uplighting shall be permitted only when used in one of the following manners: ● To light a primary entrance, when the fixture or lamp is wall-mounted under an architectural element (e.g., roofs over walkways, entries or overhanging, nontranslucent eaves) so that the uplighting is fully captured; ● To light local, state or national flags; or ● To highlight or illuminate a building facade or landscaping, or to highlight or illuminate statues or monuments. ● Floodlighting shall be permitted only if a fully shielded fixture is utilized and no lighting will fall onto the property of others. ● Safety and security lighting shall use motion sensors, photocells, or photocells or timers to control duration of nighttime illumination. ● Exterior lighting of recreation facilities shall utilize fully shielded fixtures and, except as authorized by Special Permit or Site Plan Approval, shall be turned off by 10:00 p.m. or at the conclusion of an activity begun before 10:00 p.m.; provided, however, that in any event the exterior lighting shall be turned off by midnight. ● Blinking, flashing, moving, revolving and flickering lights, as well as lighting that changes intensity or color shall be prohibited except for lighting for public safety or traffic control and lighting required by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration for air traffic control and warning purposes. ● Notwithstanding any provisions of this subsection to the contrary, sidewalks that run along the perimeter of a site and are in a public right of way or on abutting property may be illuminated, and illumination may spill onto abutting non- residential property if requested in writing by the abutting property owner. The Site Plan complies with the Standard. The project proposes five 15’ light poles. Site Plan Standard O - Adequate access shall be provided to each structure for emergency vehicles and personnel. The Site Plan complies with this Standard. Site Plan Standard P - The site plan shall conform to applicable Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Stormwater Management Regulations. The site plan shall show adequate measures to prevent pollution of surface water and groundwater, to minimize erosion and sedimentation and to prevent changes in the potential for flooding. Stormwater management facilities shall be designed so that neighboring properties, public ways and public storm drainage systems will not be adversely impacted. The Site Plan complies with this Standard. Site Plan Standard Q - Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on the roof, grounds or buildings shall be screened from view from the ground. The Site Plan complies with this Standard. Site Plan Standard R - All dumpsters shall be screened from public view. The Site Plan complies with this Standard. ● All Site Plan Standards and Zoning Bylaw Section 210-137 – The Applicant shall comply with the following conditions: 6. The Director of Municipal Inspections inspects Site Plans under construction for compliance with the approved Decision of Site Plan Review. If the Director of Municipal Inspections determines at any time before or during construction that a registered professional engineer or other such outside professional is required to assist with the inspections of the stormwater management system or any other component of the Site Plan, the Applicant shall be responsible for the cost of those inspections. 7. Construction may occur only between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM Monday through Friday and Saturdays between 8:00 AM and 4:00 PM pursuant to Chapter 141 Article 1 of the Town of Hopkinton General Bylaws. August 3, 2018 31 EAST MAIN STREET WESTBOROUGH, MA 01581 508.366.6552 7 CENTRAL STREET PROVIDENCE, RI 02907 401.274.1360 WDA-DG.com G:\common\1066A\Planning Board\Scenic Road\Lots 5A-11\1066.03 SRSP lt001.docx Ms. Muriel Kramer, Chairman Town of Hopkinton Planning Board 80 South Street Hopkinton, MA 01748 Via: Hand Delivery Reference: Scenic Road Applications 10-22 Saddle Hill Road (Lots 5A-11A) Hopkinton, Massachusetts WDA JN-1066.03 Dear Ms. Muriel Kramer and Members of the Board: On behalf of our client, Saddle Hill Realty, LLC we are submitting herewith applications for Scenic Road Special Permits pursuant to the Town of Hopkinton General Bylaw Chapter 160, Scenic Roads. We have enclosed the following: 1. Seven (7) Applications for Scenic Road Permit (10-22 saddle Hill Road); 2. Two (2) copies of the driveway plans 924x36) which include the Driveway Location Plan with photos at each proposed driveway location, Fire Truck Maneuvers Exhibits for each lot and details; 3. Filing Fee check in the amount of $350; 4. One Original Certified List of Abutters and two (2) copies Saddle Hill Road Realty, LLC is proposing to construct single family residences on Saddle Hill Road which is designated as a Scenic Road. Associated with the construction of the proposed houses, the applicant is proposing to construct seven driveways which will require the removal of select portions of the existing stone wall. The driveways have been positioned to provide adequate sight distance while maintaining the rural character of Saddle Hill Road. The dismantling of the stone wall in the area of the proposed driveways will be performed such that the wall will be reassembled with the existing stones returning into each lot. The applications also propose the temporary removal of stone wall at each lot for the proposes of installing underground utilities for the nearest utility poles for each lot. The enclosed site plans depict the location of the walls altered and the relocation of the walls into the lots. The plans also illustrate the dimensions of the driveways, walls removed and reassembled. In advance of this submittal, WDA has engaged in multiple productive correspondence with the Fire Chief and Town Planner to discuss the design and applications. We thank you in advance for your attention to these Scenic Road Applications and we look forward to meeting with you and discussing the application at the next available public hearing. Very truly yours, WDA Design Group Wayne M. Belec Senior Project Manager/Business Development cc: Saddle Hill Realty, LLC MEMORANDUM BETA GROUP, INC. www.BETA-Inc.com BETA Group, Inc. reviewed the supplemental/revised documents to address the stormwater management issues on Wilson Street north of Legacy Farms Road North in Hopkinton, Massachusetts. This letter is provided to update BETA’s findings, comments and recommendations. BASIS OF REVIEW BETA reviewed the following supplemental/revised documents: •Response to Comments Memorandum dated September 5, 2018, prepared by VHB including the following: o Photographs o Soil Log, prepared by Sanborn, Head, and Associates, Inc. •Plan CSK-19 Basin 8 Regrading Legacy Farms Road North Hopkinton, Massachusetts dated August 2018 revised to September 2018 prepared by VHB •Plan Fig-1 Existing Conditions Drainage Figure Legacy Farms Road North Hopkinton, Massachusetts Basin Redesign dated August 2018 revised to September 2018 prepared by VHB •Plan Fig-2 Proposed Conditions Drainage Figure Legacy Farms Road North Hopkinton, Massachusetts Basin Redesign dated August 2018 revised to September 2018 prepared by VHB •HydroCAD Calculations with Peak Discharge Rates Table summary dated August 3, 2018 revised to September 5, 2018 prepared by VHB COMPILED REVIEW LETTER KEY BETA reviewed this project previously and provided review comments in a letter to Ms. Wilson dated August 28, 2018 (original comments in italic text), Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. (VHB) provided responses (responses in standard text), and BETA has provided comments on the status of each (status in bold italic text). FINDINGS,COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The proposed improvements include resizing the stormwater basin to control peak rate of runoff from the Legacy Farm project parcel onto Wilson Street. 1.Existing catchbasin at southeast corner of Wilson and Rafferty/Legacy Farms Road North captures the south portion of the watershed, revise both pre and post development watershed plans to remove this area from the analysis. VHB: Watersheds have been reviewed and revised to exclude the southern portion of the watershed draining to the existing catch basin. The existing conditions time of concentration has been updated accordingly and the proposed Date:September 12, 2018 Job No.: 6035 To:Georgia Wilson, Principal Planner Cc:Roy MacDowell, Wayne Amico, Eric Monkiewicz From:Philip Paradis, Jr., PE Subject:Wilson Street Drainage Analysis Update Georgia Wilson, Principal Planner September 12, 2018 Page 2 of 4 stormwater basin modified slightly to continue to mimic existing condition peak rates.BETA2: Watershed areas revised – issue resolved. 2.Historical Google Earth maps indicate the surface within the watershed area is closer to “good” than “poor”, revise models accordingly. VHB: The Site has been primarily used for the growth of landscaping plants over the past sixty years. These plants were prepared for sale using a “ball and burlap” method, which involved clearing the majority of the Site of natural vegetation, stripping it of indigenous organic topsoil, and re-grading. Photos of the Site from March, 2007 and July, 2008 (see attached) show the cleared ground surface. Based on this information, we believe the HydroCAD model should continue to classify the ground surface as “poor”.BETA2: Some areas of the “farm” are as show in the recently submitted photos (see southern portion of photo below which would be the south side of Legacy Farms Road North), but historic maps do not show that condition for the watershed under review. BETA recommends use “good” for existing surface condition – issue remains outstanding. 3.Proposed infiltration rate of 2.00 inches per hour is between hydrologic group ratings of A and B while proposed basin is located with NRCS mapped Montauk fine sandy loam with a hydrologic group rating of C, use infiltration rate of 0.27 or provide in-situ saturated soil conductivity tests. VHB: A soil test pit was performed by Sanborn, Head & Associates on June 12, 2015 at Basin 8 (BB-8A) (see attached). The test pit shows sand with some silt and gravel mixed in throughout the soil profile. Based on the format of Sanborn, Head & Associates geotechnical logs, log BB-8 describes a sandy loam or loamy sand. Sandy loam or loamy sand have infiltrations rates of 1.02 in/hr and 2.41 in/hr, respectively. The HydroCAD model has been updated to use the conservative infiltration rate of 1.02 in/hr.BETA2: NRCS lists the soils in this area as Montauk fine sandy loam yet still rates it as a “C” soil. There are several factors that influence ratings. Georgia Wilson, Principal Planner September 12, 2018 Page 3 of 4 "Hydrologic group" is a group of soils having similar runoff potential under similar storm and cover conditions. Soil properties that influence runoff potential are those that influence the minimum rate of infiltration for a bare soil after prolonged wetting and when not frozen. These properties are depth to a seasonal high water table, saturated hydraulic conductivity after prolonged wetting, and depth to a layer with a very slow water transmission rate. Changes in soil properties caused by land management or climate changes also cause the hydrologic soil group to change. The influence of ground cover is treated independently. The soils in the United States are placed into four groups, A, B, C, and D, and three dual classes, A/D, B/D, and C/D. Hydrologic groups are used in equations that estimate runoff from rainfall. These estimates are needed for solving hydrologic problems that arise in planning watershed-protection and flood-prevention projects and for planning or designing structures for the use, control, and disposal of water. The complete definition and official criteria for hydrologic soil groups are available online at Title 210, National Engineering Handbook, Part 630, Chapter 7, "Hydrologic Soil Groups". BETA also reviewed the saturated conductivity profile (see below) from https://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/gmap/.As you can see the soils are not rated “C” because of soil texture but because there is a highly restrictive layer at 32± inches. This is consistent with site observations (water ponding in swale), soil test data (infiltration was so low it was not considered for peak flow attenuation during design) and rainfall events during construction for the Trails at Legacy Farms. Based on this additional information BETA Georgia Wilson, Principal Planner September 12, 2018 Page 4 of 4 does not recommend using an infiltration rate more than 0.27 in./hr. unless saturated conductivity tests are completed and confirm a higher rate – issue remains outstanding. 4.To avoid double counting infiltration in basin, model basin surface as “water surface” with a CN of 98. VHB: The HydroCAD model has been revised to model the basin surface with a CN of 98. BETA2: Model updated – issue resolved. 5.Provide riprap erosion protection at outlet. VHB: Riprap has been added at the outlet.BETA2: Riprap protection provided – issue resolved. Ref:O:\6000s\6035 - Hopkinton - Wilson St Drainage\Engineering\Reports\Wilson Street Drainage Memo 9-12-18.docx \\Vhb\proj\Wat-LD\10018.03\docs\memos\Peer-Review-RTC-8.30.18.docx 101 Walnut Street PO Box 9151 Watertown, MA 02472-4026 P 617.924.1770 To:Georgia Wilson Principal Planner Town of Hopkinton 66 Fruit Street Hopkinton, MA 01748 Date:September 5, 2018 Project #: 10018.03 From:Wayne Amico, P.E. Eric Monkiewicz, P.E. Re: Response to Peer Review Comments Wilson Street, Hopkinton The following is a response to comments received from BETA Group, Inc. regarding the stormwater management on Wilson Street north of Legacy Farms Road North in Hopkinton, Massachusetts. The following Peer Review comments have been provided: Plans: · Plan CSK-19 Basin 8 Regrading Legacy Farms Road (August 2018) · Figure 1 Existing Conditions Drainage (August 2018) · Figure 2 Proposed Conditions Drainage (August 2018) · HydroCAD Calculations with Peak Discharge Rates Table summary (August 3, 2018) All comments are listed below in regular type, with the VHB responses immediately following in bold type. BETA Group, Inc. General Comments, dated August 29, 2018. 1. Existing catchbasin at southeast corner of Wilson and Rafferty/Legacy Farms Road North captures the south portion of the watershed, revise both pre and post development watershed plans to remove this area from the analysis. Response: Watersheds have been reviewed and revised to exclude the southern portion of the watershed draining to the existing catch basin. The existing conditions time of concentration has been updated accordingly and the proposed stormwater basin modified slightly to continue to mimic existing condition peak rates. 2. Historical Google Earth maps indicate the surface within the watershed area is closer to “good” than “poor”, revise models accordingly. Response: The Site has been primarily used for the growth of landscaping plants over the past sixty years. These plants were prepared for sale using a “ball and burlap” method, which involved clearing the majority of the Site of natural vegetation, stripping it of indigenous organic topsoil, and re- grading. Photos of the Site from March, 2007 and July, 2008 (see attached) show the cleared ground surface. Based on this information, we believe the HydroCAD model should continue to classify the ground surface as “poor”. Ref: 10018.03 September 5, 2018 Page 2 \\Vhb\proj\Wat-LD\10018.03\docs\memos\Peer-Review-RTC-8.30.18.docx 3. Proposed infiltration rate of 2.00 inches per hour is between hydrologic group ratings of A and B while proposed basin is located with NRCS mapped Montauk fine sandy loam with a hydrologic group rating of C, use infiltration rate of 0.27 or provide in-situ saturated soil conductivity tests. Response: A soil test pit was performed by Sanborn, Head & Associates on June 12, 2015 at Basin 8 (BB-8A) (see attached). The test pit shows sand with some silt and gravel mixed in throughout the soil profile. Based on the format of Sanborn, Head & Associates geotechnical logs, log BB-8 describes a sandy loam or loamy sand. Sandy loam or loamy sand have infiltrations rates of 1.02 in/hr and 2.41 in/hr, respectively. The HydroCAD model has been updated to use the conservative infiltration rate of 1.02 in/hr. 4. To avoid double counting infiltration in basin, model basin surface as “water surface” with a CN of 98. Response: The HydroCAD model has been revised to model the basin surface with a CN of 98. 5. Provide riprap erosion protection at outlet. Response: Riprap has been added at the outlet. 1 2 8 1 2 8 Excv.Effort RemarksBoulderQty & Class Weather: Sunny, 80F 12" - 24"24" - 36" 36" and larger Depth(ft) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Groundwater Readings Test Pit No.BB-8A Test Pit Plan Excavation Equipment Soil DescriptionMinor Component Proportions Sheet: 1 of 1 AB C EasyModerate Difficult Date Depth to Water Depth of Test Pit Boulder Size Classification EM D Excavation Effort 8' tracelittle someand 0 - 10%10 - 20% 20 - 35%35 - 50% Make: CATModel: 3300Bucket Capacity: 1 CY North Arrow Time Ref. Pt.Stab. Time Geologic Description Ground Elevation: 424 ± feet Datum: NAVD 1988 11:15 5 Minutes StrataDepth (ft) StrataDepth (ft) FieldTesting Data No Groundwater Encountered06/12/15Contractor: Ludlow Construction Co., Inc.Operator: B. LabonneReach: 35 ft Sanborn, Head & Associates, Inc. Date: 06/12/15Time Started: 11:00Time Finished: 11:20 Logged By: J. Rowbottom Checked By: L. Norton Project: Legacy Farms Road North Location: Hopkinton, MA Project No.: 3819.01 TEST PIT P:\3800S\3819.01\WORK\LOGS\3819.01 LOGS.GPJ 2010 SANBORN HEAD V1.GLB 2010 SANBORN HEAD V1.GDT 6/15/15M 1A Dark brown, fine to coarse SAND, some Silt, trace Gravel, few Root fragments. Moist. TOPSOIL. Tan, fine to coarse SAND, some Silt, trace Gravel, few Root fragments. Moist. SUBSOIL. Brown, fine to coarse SAND, some Gravel, some Silt, trace Cobbles. Moist. Test pit terminated at 8 feet. No refusal encountered. 8' 6' EXIST SEDIMENT FOREBAY BOT EL=422' EXIST OVERFLOW STONE SWALE EL=423' BIORETENTION BASIN-8 BOTTOM EL=420' CONTRACTOR TO EXCAVATE 39" OF MATERIAL FROM BOTTOM OF BASIN AND INSTALL 24" BIORETENTION SOIL AND 3" SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH EXTEND OVERFLOW SWALE TO BOTTOM OF BASIN PROP CHECK DAM PROPOSED OVERFLOW STONE SWALE EL=422' PROPOSED CONC. PIPE DIAMETER=18" START INVERT EL=420.5' END INVERT EL=420' LENGTH=25' PROPOSED OUTLET PROTECTION EL=420' 0 SCALE: 1" = 40' 40 160100 \\Vhb\proj\Wat-LD\10018.03\cad\te\planset\LFR-North MassWorks\CSK\CSK-19\2018 Files\Revised_Betacomments\CSK 19_redesign_rev_v2.dwg September 2018 CSK-19 Basin 8 Regrading Legacy Farms Road North Hopkinton, Massachusetts Sheet 1 of 1 Bioretention Basin N.T.S. WILSON STREET RAFFE R T Y R O A D Environmental Services Land Development Transportation Legacy Farms Road North Hopkinton, Massachusetts Basin Redesign Not Approved for Construction September, 2018 2 10018.06 101 Walnut Street, P.O. Box 9151 Watertown, Massachusetts 02471 617.924.1770 • FAX 617.924.2286 1"=30' Existing Conditions Drainage Figure Fig-1 1 1 1 1 1 N1B N1B WILSON STREET RAFFE R T Y R O A D Environmental Services Land Development Transportation Legacy Farms Road North Hopkinton, Massachusetts Basin Redesign Not Approved for Construction September, 2018 2 10018.06 101 Walnut Street, P.O. Box 9151 Watertown, Massachusetts 02471 617.924.1770 • FAX 617.924.2286 1"=30' Proposed Conditions Drainage Figure Fig-2 2 1 1 1 1 8P 8P Table 1 Peak Discharge Rates (cubic feet per second) Design Point 2-year 10-year 25-year 100-year Design Point N1B: Wilson Street Existing 6.89 11.74 14.55 18.76 Proposed 4.13 8.30 12.02 17.78 N1B EX-N1B DP-N1B Wilson Street Routing Diagram for Existing Conditions North Road_Bioretention8_rev Prepared by VHB, Printed 9/5/2018 HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 01038 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Pond Link Existing Conditions North Road_Bioretention8_rev Printed 9/5/2018Prepared by VHB Page 2HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 01038 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area Listing (all nodes) Area (acres) CN Description (subcatchment-numbers) 0.278 92 Agricultural Access/Roads (N1B) 3.582 86 Pasture/grassland/range, Poor, HSG C (N1B) 0.093 70 Woods, Good, HSG C (N1B) 3.953 86 TOTAL AREA Existing Conditions North Road_Bioretention8_rev Printed 9/5/2018Prepared by VHB Page 3HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 01038 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Soil Listing (all nodes) Area (acres) Soil Group Subcatchment Numbers 0.000 HSG A 0.000 HSG B 3.675 HSG C N1B 0.000 HSG D 0.278 Other N1B 3.953 TOTAL AREA Existing Conditions North Road_Bioretention8_rev Printed 9/5/2018Prepared by VHB Page 4HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 01038 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Ground Covers (all nodes) HSG-A (acres) HSG-B (acres) HSG-C (acres) HSG-D (acres) Other (acres) Total (acres) Ground Cover Subcatchment Numbers 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.278 0.278 Agricultural Access/Roads N1 B 0.000 0.000 3.582 0.000 0.000 3.582 Pasture/grassland/range, Poor N1 B 0.000 0.000 0.093 0.000 0.000 0.093 Woods, Good N1 B 0.000 0.000 3.675 0.000 0.278 3.953 TOTAL AREA Type III 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.10"Existing Conditions North Road_Bioretention8_rev Printed 9/5/2018Prepared by VHB Page 5HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 01038 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-30.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 3001 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=172,171 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.75"Subcatchment N1B: EX-N1B Flow Length=866' Tc=10.9 min CN=86 Runoff=6.89 cfs 0.576 af Inflow=6.89 cfs 0.576 afLink DP-N1B: Wilson Street Primary=6.89 cfs 0.576 af Total Runoff Area = 3.953 ac Runoff Volume = 0.576 af Average Runoff Depth = 1.75" 100.00% Pervious = 3.953 ac 0.00% Impervious = 0.000 ac Type III 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.10"Existing Conditions North Road_Bioretention8_rev Printed 9/5/2018Prepared by VHB Page 6HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 01038 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment N1B: EX-N1B Runoff = 6.89 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.576 af, Depth= 1.75" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.10" Area (sf) CN Description * 12,092 92 Agricultural Access/Roads 4,038 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 156,041 86 Pasture/grassland/range, Poor, HSG C 172,171 86 Weighted Average 172,171 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 3.8 50 0.0416 0.22 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 3.10" 2.0 171 0.0416 1.43 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 1.1 146 0.0175 2.13 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 0.5 119 0.0535 3.72 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 1.2 160 0.0176 2.14 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 2.3 220 0.0521 1.60 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 10.9 866 Total Type III 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.10"Existing Conditions North Road_Bioretention8_rev Printed 9/5/2018Prepared by VHB Page 7HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 01038 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcatchment N1B: EX-N1B Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 3029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Type III 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.10" Runoff Area=172,171 sf Runoff Volume=0.576 af Runoff Depth=1.75" Flow Length=866' Tc=10.9 min CN=86 6.89 cfs Type III 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.10"Existing Conditions North Road_Bioretention8_rev Printed 9/5/2018Prepared by VHB Page 8HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 01038 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Link DP-N1B: Wilson Street Inflow Area = 3.953 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.75" for 2-Year event Inflow = 6.89 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.576 af Primary = 6.89 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.576 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link DP-N1B: Wilson Street Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 3029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=3.953 ac 6.89 cfs 6.89 cfs Type III 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=4.50"Existing Conditions North Road_Bioretention8_rev Printed 9/5/2018Prepared by VHB Page 9HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 01038 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-30.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 3001 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=172,171 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.00"Subcatchment N1B: EX-N1B Flow Length=866' Tc=10.9 min CN=86 Runoff=11.74 cfs 0.989 af Inflow=11.74 cfs 0.989 afLink DP-N1B: Wilson Street Primary=11.74 cfs 0.989 af Total Runoff Area = 3.953 ac Runoff Volume = 0.989 af Average Runoff Depth = 3.00" 100.00% Pervious = 3.953 ac 0.00% Impervious = 0.000 ac Type III 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=4.50"Existing Conditions North Road_Bioretention8_rev Printed 9/5/2018Prepared by VHB Page 10HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 01038 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment N1B: EX-N1B Runoff = 11.74 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.989 af, Depth= 3.00" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=4.50" Area (sf) CN Description * 12,092 92 Agricultural Access/Roads 4,038 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 156,041 86 Pasture/grassland/range, Poor, HSG C 172,171 86 Weighted Average 172,171 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 3.8 50 0.0416 0.22 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 3.10" 2.0 171 0.0416 1.43 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 1.1 146 0.0175 2.13 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 0.5 119 0.0535 3.72 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 1.2 160 0.0176 2.14 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 2.3 220 0.0521 1.60 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 10.9 866 Total Type III 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=4.50"Existing Conditions North Road_Bioretention8_rev Printed 9/5/2018Prepared by VHB Page 11HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 01038 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcatchment N1B: EX-N1B Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 3029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Type III 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=4.50" Runoff Area=172,171 sf Runoff Volume=0.989 af Runoff Depth=3.00" Flow Length=866' Tc=10.9 min CN=86 11.74 cfs Type III 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=4.50"Existing Conditions North Road_Bioretention8_rev Printed 9/5/2018Prepared by VHB Page 12HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 01038 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Link DP-N1B: Wilson Street Inflow Area = 3.953 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.00" for 10-Year event Inflow = 11.74 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.989 af Primary = 11.74 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.989 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link DP-N1B: Wilson Street Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 3029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=3.953 ac 11.74 cfs 11.74 cfs Type III 24-hr 25-Year Rainfall=5.30"Existing Conditions North Road_Bioretention8_rev Printed 9/5/2018Prepared by VHB Page 13HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 01038 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-30.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 3001 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=172,171 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.75"Subcatchment N1B: EX-N1B Flow Length=866' Tc=10.9 min CN=86 Runoff=14.55 cfs 1.234 af Inflow=14.55 cfs 1.234 afLink DP-N1B: Wilson Street Primary=14.55 cfs 1.234 af Total Runoff Area = 3.953 ac Runoff Volume = 1.234 af Average Runoff Depth = 3.75" 100.00% Pervious = 3.953 ac 0.00% Impervious = 0.000 ac Type III 24-hr 25-Year Rainfall=5.30"Existing Conditions North Road_Bioretention8_rev Printed 9/5/2018Prepared by VHB Page 14HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 01038 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment N1B: EX-N1B Runoff = 14.55 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 1.234 af, Depth= 3.75" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 25-Year Rainfall=5.30" Area (sf) CN Description * 12,092 92 Agricultural Access/Roads 4,038 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 156,041 86 Pasture/grassland/range, Poor, HSG C 172,171 86 Weighted Average 172,171 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 3.8 50 0.0416 0.22 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 3.10" 2.0 171 0.0416 1.43 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 1.1 146 0.0175 2.13 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 0.5 119 0.0535 3.72 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 1.2 160 0.0176 2.14 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 2.3 220 0.0521 1.60 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 10.9 866 Total Type III 24-hr 25-Year Rainfall=5.30"Existing Conditions North Road_Bioretention8_rev Printed 9/5/2018Prepared by VHB Page 15HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 01038 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcatchment N1B: EX-N1B Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 3029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Type III 24-hr 25-Year Rainfall=5.30" Runoff Area=172,171 sf Runoff Volume=1.234 af Runoff Depth=3.75" Flow Length=866' Tc=10.9 min CN=86 14.55 cfs Type III 24-hr 25-Year Rainfall=5.30"Existing Conditions North Road_Bioretention8_rev Printed 9/5/2018Prepared by VHB Page 16HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 01038 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Link DP-N1B: Wilson Street Inflow Area = 3.953 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.75" for 25-Year event Inflow = 14.55 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 1.234 af Primary = 14.55 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 1.234 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link DP-N1B: Wilson Street Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 3029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=3.953 ac 14.55 cfs 14.55 cfs Type III 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.50"Existing Conditions North Road_Bioretention8_rev Printed 9/5/2018Prepared by VHB Page 17HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 01038 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-30.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 3001 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=172,171 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.89"Subcatchment N1B: EX-N1B Flow Length=866' Tc=10.9 min CN=86 Runoff=18.76 cfs 1.609 af Inflow=18.76 cfs 1.609 afLink DP-N1B: Wilson Street Primary=18.76 cfs 1.609 af Total Runoff Area = 3.953 ac Runoff Volume = 1.609 af Average Runoff Depth = 4.89" 100.00% Pervious = 3.953 ac 0.00% Impervious = 0.000 ac Type III 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.50"Existing Conditions North Road_Bioretention8_rev Printed 9/5/2018Prepared by VHB Page 18HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 01038 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment N1B: EX-N1B Runoff = 18.76 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 1.609 af, Depth= 4.89" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.50" Area (sf) CN Description * 12,092 92 Agricultural Access/Roads 4,038 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 156,041 86 Pasture/grassland/range, Poor, HSG C 172,171 86 Weighted Average 172,171 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 3.8 50 0.0416 0.22 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 3.10" 2.0 171 0.0416 1.43 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 1.1 146 0.0175 2.13 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 0.5 119 0.0535 3.72 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 1.2 160 0.0176 2.14 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 2.3 220 0.0521 1.60 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 10.9 866 Total Type III 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.50"Existing Conditions North Road_Bioretention8_rev Printed 9/5/2018Prepared by VHB Page 19HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 01038 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcatchment N1B: EX-N1B Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 3029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Type III 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.50" Runoff Area=172,171 sf Runoff Volume=1.609 af Runoff Depth=4.89" Flow Length=866' Tc=10.9 min CN=86 18.76 cfs Type III 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.50"Existing Conditions North Road_Bioretention8_rev Printed 9/5/2018Prepared by VHB Page 20HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 01038 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Link DP-N1B: Wilson Street Inflow Area = 3.953 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.89" for 100-Year event Inflow = 18.76 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 1.609 af Primary = 18.76 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 1.609 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link DP-N1B: Wilson Street Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 3029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=3.953 ac 18.76 cfs 18.76 cfs N1-8P PR-N1 8P Bioretention Basin-8 DP-N1B Wilson Street Routing Diagram for Proposed Conditions North Road_Bioretention8_redesign_rev2 Prepared by VHB, Printed 9/5/2018 HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 01038 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Pond Link Proposed Conditions North Road_Bioretention8_redesign_rev2 Printed 9/5/2018Prepared by VHB Page 2HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 01038 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area Listing (all nodes) Area (acres) CN Description (subcatchment-numbers) 0.392 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C (N1-8P) 0.222 92 Agricultural Access/Roads (N1-8P) 0.455 98 Legacy Farms Road (North), Paved parking & roofs (N1-8P) 3.423 86 Pasture/grassland/range, Poor, HSG C (N1-8P) 0.205 98 Water Surface, HSG A (N1-8P) 0.077 70 Woods, Good, HSG C (N1-8P) 4.773 87 TOTAL AREA Proposed Conditions North Road_Bioretention8_redesign_rev2 Printed 9/5/2018Prepared by VHB Page 3HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 01038 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Soil Listing (all nodes) Area (acres) Soil Group Subcatchment Numbers 0.205 HSG A N1-8P 0.000 HSG B 3.891 HSG C N1-8P 0.000 HSG D 0.677 Other N1-8P 4.773 TOTAL AREA Proposed Conditions North Road_Bioretention8_redesign_rev2 Printed 9/5/2018Prepared by VHB Page 4HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 01038 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Ground Covers (all nodes) HSG-A (acres) HSG-B (acres) HSG-C (acres) HSG-D (acres) Other (acres) Total (acres) Ground Cover 0.000 0.000 0.392 0.000 0.000 0.392 >75% Grass cover, Good 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.222 0.222 Agricultural Access/Roads 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.455 0.455 Legacy Farms Road (North), Paved parking & roofs 0.000 0.000 3.423 0.000 0.000 3.423 Pasture/grassland/range, Poor 0.205 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.205 Water Surface 0.000 0.000 0.077 0.000 0.000 0.077 Woods, Good 0.205 0.000 3.891 0.000 0.677 4.773 TOTAL AREA Proposed Conditions North Road_Bioretention8_redesign_rev2 Printed 9/5/2018Prepared by VHB Page 5HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 01038 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pipe Listing (all nodes) Line# Node Number In-Invert (feet) Out-Invert (feet) Length (feet) Slope (ft/ft) n Diam/Width (inches) Height (inches) Inside-Fill (inches) 1 8P 420.50 420.00 25.2 0.0198 0.013 18.0 0.0 0.0 Type III 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.10"Proposed Conditions North Road_Bioretention8_redes Printed 9/5/2018Prepared by VHB Page 6HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 01038 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-30.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 3001 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=207,930 sf 13.84% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.83"Subcatchment N1-8P: PR-N1 Flow Length=833' Slope=0.0324 '/' Tc=10.6 min CN=87 Runoff=8.76 cfs 0.727 af Peak Elev=421.48' Storage=9,608 cf Inflow=8.76 cfs 0.727 afPond 8P: Bioretention Basin-8 Discarded=0.25 cfs 0.290 af Primary=4.13 cfs 0.436 af Outflow=4.38 cfs 0.727 af Inflow=4.13 cfs 0.436 afLink DP-N1B: Wilson Street Primary=4.13 cfs 0.436 af Total Runoff Area = 4.773 ac Runoff Volume = 0.727 af Average Runoff Depth = 1.83" 86.16% Pervious = 4.113 ac 13.84% Impervious = 0.660 ac Type III 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.10"Proposed Conditions North Road_Bioretention8_redes Printed 9/5/2018Prepared by VHB Page 7HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 01038 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment N1-8P: PR-N1 Runoff = 8.76 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.727 af, Depth= 1.83" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.10" Area (sf) CN Description * 19,829 98 Legacy Farms Road (North), Paved parking & roofs 3,337 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 149,091 86 Pasture/grassland/range, Poor, HSG C 17,061 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C * 9,670 92 Agricultural Access/Roads 8,942 98 Water Surface, HSG A 207,930 87 Weighted Average 179,159 86.16% Pervious Area 28,771 13.84% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 4.2 50 0.0324 0.20 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 3.10" 2.9 216 0.0324 1.26 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 3.5 567 0.0324 2.70 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 10.6 833 Total Type III 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.10"Proposed Conditions North Road_Bioretention8_redes Printed 9/5/2018Prepared by VHB Page 8HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 01038 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcatchment N1-8P: PR-N1 Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 3029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Type III 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.10" Runoff Area=207,930 sf Runoff Volume=0.727 af Runoff Depth=1.83" Flow Length=833' Slope=0.0324 '/' Tc=10.6 min CN=87 8.76 cfs Type III 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.10"Proposed Conditions North Road_Bioretention8_redes Printed 9/5/2018Prepared by VHB Page 9HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 01038 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 8P: Bioretention Basin-8 Inflow Area = 4.773 ac, 13.84% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.83" for 2-Year event Inflow = 8.76 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.727 af Outflow = 4.38 cfs @ 12.39 hrs, Volume= 0.727 af, Atten= 50%, Lag= 14.4 min Discarded = 0.25 cfs @ 12.39 hrs, Volume= 0.290 af Primary = 4.13 cfs @ 12.39 hrs, Volume= 0.436 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 421.48' @ 12.39 hrs Surf.Area= 7,255 sf Storage= 9,608 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 117.4 min calculated for 0.726 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 117.4 min ( 941.9 - 824.5 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 420.00' 21,892 cf Custom Stage Data (Irregular) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Perim. Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (sq-ft) (feet) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) (sq-ft) 420.00 5,741 327.4 0 0 5,741 421.00 6,751 346.3 6,239 6,239 6,809 422.00 7,819 365.2 7,278 13,518 7,936 423.00 8,943 384.0 8,375 21,892 9,118 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 422.00'8.0' long x 8.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.43 2.54 2.70 2.69 2.68 2.68 2.66 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.65 2.65 2.66 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.74 #2 Discarded 420.00'1.020 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 417.00' Phase-In= 0.01' #3 Primary 420.50'18.0" Round Culvert L= 25.2' RCP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 420.50' / 420.00' S= 0.0198 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Concrete pipe, bends & connections, Flow Area= 1.77 sf Discarded OutFlow Max=0.25 cfs @ 12.39 hrs HW=421.48' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.25 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=4.13 cfs @ 12.39 hrs HW=421.48' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 3=Culvert (Inlet Controls 4.13 cfs @ 3.37 fps) Type III 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.10"Proposed Conditions North Road_Bioretention8_redes Printed 9/5/2018Prepared by VHB Page 10HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 01038 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 8P: Bioretention Basin-8 Inflow Outflow Discarded Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 3029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=4.773 ac Peak Elev=421.48' Storage=9,608 cf 8.76 cfs 4.38 cfs 0.25 cfs 4.13 cfs Type III 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.10"Proposed Conditions North Road_Bioretention8_redes Printed 9/5/2018Prepared by VHB Page 11HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 01038 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Link DP-N1B: Wilson Street Inflow Area = 4.773 ac, 13.84% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.10" for 2-Year event Inflow = 4.13 cfs @ 12.39 hrs, Volume= 0.436 af Primary = 4.13 cfs @ 12.39 hrs, Volume= 0.436 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link DP-N1B: Wilson Street Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 3029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=4.773 ac 4.13 cfs 4.13 cfs Type III 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=4.50"Proposed Conditions North Road_Bioretention8_rede Printed 9/5/2018Prepared by VHB Page 12HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 01038 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-30.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 3001 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=207,930 sf 13.84% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.10"Subcatchment N1-8P: PR-N1 Flow Length=833' Slope=0.0324 '/' Tc=10.6 min CN=87 Runoff=14.71 cfs 1.233 af Peak Elev=422.09' Storage=14,211 cf Inflow=14.71 cfs 1.233 afPond 8P: Bioretention Basin-8 Discarded=0.30 cfs 0.330 af Primary=8.30 cfs 0.899 af Outflow=8.59 cfs 1.229 af Inflow=8.30 cfs 0.899 afLink DP-N1B: Wilson Street Primary=8.30 cfs 0.899 af Total Runoff Area = 4.773 ac Runoff Volume = 1.233 af Average Runoff Depth = 3.10" 86.16% Pervious = 4.113 ac 13.84% Impervious = 0.660 ac Type III 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=4.50"Proposed Conditions North Road_Bioretention8_rede Printed 9/5/2018Prepared by VHB Page 13HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 01038 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment N1-8P: PR-N1 Runoff = 14.71 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 1.233 af, Depth= 3.10" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=4.50" Area (sf) CN Description * 19,829 98 Legacy Farms Road (North), Paved parking & roofs 3,337 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 149,091 86 Pasture/grassland/range, Poor, HSG C 17,061 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C * 9,670 92 Agricultural Access/Roads 8,942 98 Water Surface, HSG A 207,930 87 Weighted Average 179,159 86.16% Pervious Area 28,771 13.84% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 4.2 50 0.0324 0.20 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 3.10" 2.9 216 0.0324 1.26 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 3.5 567 0.0324 2.70 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 10.6 833 Total Type III 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=4.50"Proposed Conditions North Road_Bioretention8_rede Printed 9/5/2018Prepared by VHB Page 14HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 01038 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcatchment N1-8P: PR-N1 Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 3029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Type III 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=4.50" Runoff Area=207,930 sf Runoff Volume=1.233 af Runoff Depth=3.10" Flow Length=833' Slope=0.0324 '/' Tc=10.6 min CN=87 14.71 cfs Type III 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=4.50"Proposed Conditions North Road_Bioretention8_rede Printed 9/5/2018Prepared by VHB Page 15HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 01038 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 8P: Bioretention Basin-8 Inflow Area = 4.773 ac, 13.84% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.10" for 10-Year event Inflow = 14.71 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 1.233 af Outflow = 8.59 cfs @ 12.32 hrs, Volume= 1.229 af, Atten= 42%, Lag= 10.5 min Discarded = 0.30 cfs @ 12.32 hrs, Volume= 0.330 af Primary = 8.30 cfs @ 12.32 hrs, Volume= 0.899 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 422.09' @ 12.32 hrs Surf.Area= 7,915 sf Storage= 14,211 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 87.5 min calculated for 1.229 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 85.7 min ( 895.1 - 809.5 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 420.00' 21,892 cf Custom Stage Data (Irregular) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Perim. Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (sq-ft) (feet) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) (sq-ft) 420.00 5,741 327.4 0 0 5,741 421.00 6,751 346.3 6,239 6,239 6,809 422.00 7,819 365.2 7,278 13,518 7,936 423.00 8,943 384.0 8,375 21,892 9,118 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 422.00'8.0' long x 8.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.43 2.54 2.70 2.69 2.68 2.68 2.66 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.65 2.65 2.66 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.74 #2 Discarded 420.00'1.020 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 417.00' Phase-In= 0.01' #3 Primary 420.50'18.0" Round Culvert L= 25.2' RCP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 420.50' / 420.00' S= 0.0198 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Concrete pipe, bends & connections, Flow Area= 1.77 sf Discarded OutFlow Max=0.30 cfs @ 12.32 hrs HW=422.09' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.30 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=8.30 cfs @ 12.32 hrs HW=422.09' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 0.51 cfs @ 0.72 fps) 3=Culvert (Inlet Controls 7.79 cfs @ 4.41 fps) Type III 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=4.50"Proposed Conditions North Road_Bioretention8_rede Printed 9/5/2018Prepared by VHB Page 16HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 01038 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 8P: Bioretention Basin-8 Inflow Outflow Discarded Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 3029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=4.773 ac Peak Elev=422.09' Storage=14,211 cf 14.71 cfs 8.59 cfs 0.30 cfs 8.30 cfs Type III 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=4.50"Proposed Conditions North Road_Bioretention8_rede Printed 9/5/2018Prepared by VHB Page 17HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 01038 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Link DP-N1B: Wilson Street Inflow Area = 4.773 ac, 13.84% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.26" for 10-Year event Inflow = 8.30 cfs @ 12.32 hrs, Volume= 0.899 af Primary = 8.30 cfs @ 12.32 hrs, Volume= 0.899 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link DP-N1B: Wilson Street Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 3029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=4.773 ac 8.30 cfs 8.30 cfs Type III 24-hr 25-Year Rainfall=5.30"Proposed Conditions North Road_Bioretention8_rede Printed 9/5/2018Prepared by VHB Page 18HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 01038 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-30.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 3001 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=207,930 sf 13.84% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.85"Subcatchment N1-8P: PR-N1 Flow Length=833' Slope=0.0324 '/' Tc=10.6 min CN=87 Runoff=18.14 cfs 1.532 af Peak Elev=422.30' Storage=15,926 cf Inflow=18.14 cfs 1.532 afPond 8P: Bioretention Basin-8 Discarded=0.31 cfs 0.346 af Primary=12.02 cfs 1.180 af Outflow=12.34 cfs 1.525 af Inflow=12.02 cfs 1.180 afLink DP-N1B: Wilson Street Primary=12.02 cfs 1.180 af Total Runoff Area = 4.773 ac Runoff Volume = 1.532 af Average Runoff Depth = 3.85" 86.16% Pervious = 4.113 ac 13.84% Impervious = 0.660 ac Type III 24-hr 25-Year Rainfall=5.30"Proposed Conditions North Road_Bioretention8_rede Printed 9/5/2018Prepared by VHB Page 19HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 01038 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment N1-8P: PR-N1 Runoff = 18.14 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 1.532 af, Depth= 3.85" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 25-Year Rainfall=5.30" Area (sf) CN Description * 19,829 98 Legacy Farms Road (North), Paved parking & roofs 3,337 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 149,091 86 Pasture/grassland/range, Poor, HSG C 17,061 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C * 9,670 92 Agricultural Access/Roads 8,942 98 Water Surface, HSG A 207,930 87 Weighted Average 179,159 86.16% Pervious Area 28,771 13.84% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 4.2 50 0.0324 0.20 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 3.10" 2.9 216 0.0324 1.26 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 3.5 567 0.0324 2.70 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 10.6 833 Total Type III 24-hr 25-Year Rainfall=5.30"Proposed Conditions North Road_Bioretention8_rede Printed 9/5/2018Prepared by VHB Page 20HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 01038 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcatchment N1-8P: PR-N1 Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 3029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Type III 24-hr 25-Year Rainfall=5.30" Runoff Area=207,930 sf Runoff Volume=1.532 af Runoff Depth=3.85" Flow Length=833' Slope=0.0324 '/' Tc=10.6 min CN=87 18.14 cfs Type III 24-hr 25-Year Rainfall=5.30"Proposed Conditions North Road_Bioretention8_rede Printed 9/5/2018Prepared by VHB Page 21HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 01038 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 8P: Bioretention Basin-8 Inflow Area = 4.773 ac, 13.84% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.85" for 25-Year event Inflow = 18.14 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 1.532 af Outflow = 12.34 cfs @ 12.27 hrs, Volume= 1.525 af, Atten= 32%, Lag= 7.6 min Discarded = 0.31 cfs @ 12.27 hrs, Volume= 0.346 af Primary = 12.02 cfs @ 12.27 hrs, Volume= 1.180 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 422.30' @ 12.27 hrs Surf.Area= 8,150 sf Storage= 15,926 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 77.1 min calculated for 1.525 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 74.4 min ( 877.8 - 803.4 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 420.00' 21,892 cf Custom Stage Data (Irregular) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Perim. Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (sq-ft) (feet) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) (sq-ft) 420.00 5,741 327.4 0 0 5,741 421.00 6,751 346.3 6,239 6,239 6,809 422.00 7,819 365.2 7,278 13,518 7,936 423.00 8,943 384.0 8,375 21,892 9,118 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 422.00'8.0' long x 8.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.43 2.54 2.70 2.69 2.68 2.68 2.66 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.65 2.65 2.66 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.74 #2 Discarded 420.00'1.020 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 417.00' Phase-In= 0.01' #3 Primary 420.50'18.0" Round Culvert L= 25.2' RCP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 420.50' / 420.00' S= 0.0198 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Concrete pipe, bends & connections, Flow Area= 1.77 sf Discarded OutFlow Max=0.31 cfs @ 12.27 hrs HW=422.30' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.31 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=12.02 cfs @ 12.27 hrs HW=422.30' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 3.29 cfs @ 1.37 fps) 3=Culvert (Inlet Controls 8.73 cfs @ 4.94 fps) Type III 24-hr 25-Year Rainfall=5.30"Proposed Conditions North Road_Bioretention8_rede Printed 9/5/2018Prepared by VHB Page 22HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 01038 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 8P: Bioretention Basin-8 Inflow Outflow Discarded Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 3029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=4.773 ac Peak Elev=422.30' Storage=15,926 cf 18.14 cfs 12.34 cfs 0.31 cfs 12.02 cfs Type III 24-hr 25-Year Rainfall=5.30"Proposed Conditions North Road_Bioretention8_rede Printed 9/5/2018Prepared by VHB Page 23HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 01038 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Link DP-N1B: Wilson Street Inflow Area = 4.773 ac, 13.84% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.97" for 25-Year event Inflow = 12.02 cfs @ 12.27 hrs, Volume= 1.180 af Primary = 12.02 cfs @ 12.27 hrs, Volume= 1.180 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link DP-N1B: Wilson Street Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 3029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=4.773 ac 12.02 cfs 12.02 cfs Type III 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.50"Proposed Conditions North Road_Bioretention8_red Printed 9/5/2018Prepared by VHB Page 24HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 01038 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-30.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 3001 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=207,930 sf 13.84% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.00"Subcatchment N1-8P: PR-N1 Flow Length=833' Slope=0.0324 '/' Tc=10.6 min CN=87 Runoff=23.27 cfs 1.988 af Peak Elev=422.53' Storage=17,815 cf Inflow=23.27 cfs 1.988 afPond 8P: Bioretention Basin-8 Discarded=0.33 cfs 0.365 af Primary=17.78 cfs 1.613 af Outflow=18.12 cfs 1.978 af Inflow=17.78 cfs 1.613 afLink DP-N1B: Wilson Street Primary=17.78 cfs 1.613 af Total Runoff Area = 4.773 ac Runoff Volume = 1.988 af Average Runoff Depth = 5.00" 86.16% Pervious = 4.113 ac 13.84% Impervious = 0.660 ac Type III 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.50"Proposed Conditions North Road_Bioretention8_red Printed 9/5/2018Prepared by VHB Page 25HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 01038 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment N1-8P: PR-N1 Runoff = 23.27 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 1.988 af, Depth= 5.00" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.50" Area (sf) CN Description * 19,829 98 Legacy Farms Road (North), Paved parking & roofs 3,337 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 149,091 86 Pasture/grassland/range, Poor, HSG C 17,061 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C * 9,670 92 Agricultural Access/Roads 8,942 98 Water Surface, HSG A 207,930 87 Weighted Average 179,159 86.16% Pervious Area 28,771 13.84% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 4.2 50 0.0324 0.20 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 3.10" 2.9 216 0.0324 1.26 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 3.5 567 0.0324 2.70 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 10.6 833 Total Type III 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.50"Proposed Conditions North Road_Bioretention8_red Printed 9/5/2018Prepared by VHB Page 26HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 01038 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcatchment N1-8P: PR-N1 Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 3029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Type III 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.50" Runoff Area=207,930 sf Runoff Volume=1.988 af Runoff Depth=5.00" Flow Length=833' Slope=0.0324 '/' Tc=10.6 min CN=87 23.27 cfs Type III 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.50"Proposed Conditions North Road_Bioretention8_red Printed 9/5/2018Prepared by VHB Page 27HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 01038 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 8P: Bioretention Basin-8 Inflow Area = 4.773 ac, 13.84% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.00" for 100-Year event Inflow = 23.27 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 1.988 af Outflow = 18.12 cfs @ 12.23 hrs, Volume= 1.978 af, Atten= 22%, Lag= 5.5 min Discarded = 0.33 cfs @ 12.23 hrs, Volume= 0.365 af Primary = 17.78 cfs @ 12.23 hrs, Volume= 1.613 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 422.53' @ 12.23 hrs Surf.Area= 8,405 sf Storage= 17,815 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 66.2 min calculated for 1.978 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 63.2 min ( 859.4 - 796.1 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 420.00' 21,892 cf Custom Stage Data (Irregular) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Perim. Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (sq-ft) (feet) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) (sq-ft) 420.00 5,741 327.4 0 0 5,741 421.00 6,751 346.3 6,239 6,239 6,809 422.00 7,819 365.2 7,278 13,518 7,936 423.00 8,943 384.0 8,375 21,892 9,118 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 422.00'8.0' long x 8.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.43 2.54 2.70 2.69 2.68 2.68 2.66 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.65 2.65 2.66 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.74 #2 Discarded 420.00'1.020 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 417.00' Phase-In= 0.01' #3 Primary 420.50'18.0" Round Culvert L= 25.2' RCP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 420.50' / 420.00' S= 0.0198 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Concrete pipe, bends & connections, Flow Area= 1.77 sf Discarded OutFlow Max=0.33 cfs @ 12.23 hrs HW=422.53' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.33 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=17.77 cfs @ 12.23 hrs HW=422.53' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 8.15 cfs @ 1.92 fps) 3=Culvert (Inlet Controls 9.62 cfs @ 5.45 fps) Type III 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.50"Proposed Conditions North Road_Bioretention8_red Printed 9/5/2018Prepared by VHB Page 28HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 01038 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 8P: Bioretention Basin-8 Inflow Outflow Discarded Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 3029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Inflow Area=4.773 ac Peak Elev=422.53' Storage=17,815 cf 23.27 cfs 18.12 cfs 0.33 cfs 17.78 cfs Type III 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.50"Proposed Conditions North Road_Bioretention8_red Printed 9/5/2018Prepared by VHB Page 29HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 01038 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Link DP-N1B: Wilson Street Inflow Area = 4.773 ac, 13.84% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.05" for 100-Year event Inflow = 17.78 cfs @ 12.23 hrs, Volume= 1.613 af Primary = 17.78 cfs @ 12.23 hrs, Volume= 1.613 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link DP-N1B: Wilson Street Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 3029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=4.773 ac 17.78 cfs 17.78 cfs MEMORANDUM BETA GROUP, INC. www.BETA-Inc.com BETA Group, Inc. reviewed the submitted documents to address the stormwater management issues on Wilson Street north of Legacy Farms Road North in Hopkinton, Massachusetts. This letter is provided to document BETA’s findings, comments and recommendations. BASIS OF REVIEW BETA reviewed the following supplemental/revised documents: •Plan CSK-19 Basin 8 Regrading Legacy Farms Road North Hopkinton, Massachusetts dated August 2018 prepared by VHB •Plan CSK-19 Basin 8 Regrading Legacy Farms Road North Hopkinton, Massachusetts dated August 2018 prepared by VHB •Plan Fig-1 Existing Conditions Drainage Figure Legacy Farms Road North Hopkinton, Massachusetts Basin Redesign dated August 2018 prepared by VHB •Plan Fig-2 Proposed Conditions Drainage Figure Legacy Farms Road North Hopkinton, Massachusetts Basin Redesign dated August 2018 prepared by VHB •HydroCAD Calculations with Peak Discharge Rates Table summary dated August 3, 2018 prepared by VHB FINDINGS,COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The proposed improvements include resizing the stormwater basin to control peak rate of runoff from the Legacy Farm project parcel onto Wilson Street. 1.Existing catchbasin at southeast corner of Wilson and Rafferty/Legacy Farms Road North captures the south portion of the watershed, revise both pre and post development watershed plans to remove this area from the analysis. 2.Historical Google Earth maps indicate the surface within the watershed area is closer to “good” than “poor”, revise models accordingly. 3.Proposed infiltration rate of 2.00 inches per hour is between hydrologic group ratings of A and B while proposed basin is located with NRCS mapped Montauk fine sandy loam with a hydrologic group rating of C, use infiltration rate of 0.27 or provide in-situ saturated soil conductivity tests. 4.To avoid double counting infiltration in basin, model basin surface as “water surface” with a CN of 98. 5.Provide riprap erosion protection at outlet. Date:August 29, 2018 Job No.: 6035 To:Georgia Wilson, Principal Planner Cc:Roy MacDowell, Wayne Amico, Eric Monkiewicz From:Philip Paradis, Jr., PE Subject:Wilson Street Drainage Analysis Ref:O:\6000s\6035 - Hopkinton - Wilson St Drainage\Engineering\Reports\Wilson Street Drainage Memo 8-29-18.docx Wilson Street Drainage Review – Historical Surface Conditions Photos 1 of 7 8/29/18 July 2007 Wilson Street Drainage Review – Historical Surface Conditions Photos 2 of 7 8/29/18 June 2010 Wilson Street Drainage Review – Historical Surface Conditions Photos 3 of 7 8/29/18 September 2014 Wilson Street Drainage Review – Historical Surface Conditions Photos 4 of 7 8/29/18 May 2016 Wilson Street Drainage Review – Historical Surface Conditions Photos 5 of 7 8/29/18 October 2013 Wilson Street Drainage Review – Historical Surface Conditions Photos 6 of 7 8/29/18 Catchbasin at southeast corner of Rafferty Road and Wilson Street – October 2013 Wilson Street Drainage Review – Historical Surface Conditions Photos 7 of 7 8/29/18 Vegetation screening prior to clearing 3/28/2018 Town of Hopkinton, MA Mail - legacy farms north https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=6d686bf915&jsver=Z-grDj2gpow.en.&view=pt&search=inbox&th=162695bf10d4fcee&siml=162695bf10d4fcee&mb=1 Cobi Wallace <cobiw@hopkintonma.gov> legacy farms north 1 message KATHLEEN TOWNER <towners@comcast.net>Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 5:27 PM Reply-To: KATHLEEN TOWNER <towners@comcast.net> To: cobiw@hopkintonma.gov These photos are of the water draining on to Wilson St going north from the intersection. The first pictures are of the ditch they put in to collect and control the drain off. I am trying to show that it overflows it banks and then goes down Wilson 3 attachments IMG_0756.jpg 4815K IMG_0754.jpg 5333K IMG_0766.jpg 5037K 3/28/2018 Town of Hopkinton, MA Mail - Legacy Farms North https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=6d686bf915&jsver=Z-grDj2gpow.en.&view=pt&search=inbox&th=162696e1b7a31053&siml=162696e1b7a31053&mb=1 Cobi Wallace <cobiw@hopkintonma.gov> Legacy Farms North 1 message KATHLEEN TOWNER <towners@comcast.net>Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 5:47 PM Reply-To: KATHLEEN TOWNER <towners@comcast.net> To: cobiw@hopkintonma.gov these photos show the water coming down from the gas co missing the drain and going down Rafferty Rd 3 attachments IMG_0758.jpg 4666K IMG_0757.jpg 3749K IMG_0767.jpg 5232K 3/28/2018 Town of Hopkinton, MA Mail - Legacy Farms North https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=6d686bf915&jsver=Z-grDj2gpow.en.&view=pt&search=inbox&th=1626975dea7f9e2b&siml=1626975dea7f9e2b&mb=1 Cobi Wallace <cobiw@hopkintonma.gov> Legacy Farms North 1 message KATHLEEN TOWNER <towners@comcast.net>Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 5:55 PM Reply-To: KATHLEEN TOWNER <towners@comcast.net> To: cobiw@hopkintonma.gov This is a photo of a possible 2nd entry. It was put there initially for that purpose, as shown on the original land use documents and now used to dump trash. This is near the wet lands IMG_0775.jpg 2369K 3/28/2018 Town of Hopkinton, MA Mail - Legacy Farms North https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=6d686bf915&jsver=Z-grDj2gpow.en.&view=pt&search=inbox&th=1626983d522f2539&siml=1626983d522f2539&mb=1 Cobi Wallace <cobiw@hopkintonma.gov> Legacy Farms North 1 message KATHLEEN TOWNER <towners@comcast.net>Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 6:11 PM Reply-To: KATHLEEN TOWNER <towners@comcast.net> To: cobiw@hopkintonma.gov Lastly these are other concerns about their ability to do things right the first time. This is a manhole cover down the street from the 2nd possible entrance going east. There is always water coming out of it such that the road is looking rusty. These are signs that weren't put in properly and haven't been fixed yet. and they are going to fix the water on Wilson St for the second or third time depending on how you count. Also how do these drains they are going to put in react to being filled with LNG in the event of a gas leak. Thank you,Rod 4 attachments IMG_0768.jpg 3572K IMG_0760.jpg 4042K IMG_0761.jpg 2750K IMG_0762.jpg 1618K 3/28/2018 Town of Hopkinton, MA Mail - Legacy Farms North https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=6d686bf915&jsver=Z-grDj2gpow.en.&view=pt&search=inbox&th=1626983d522f2539&siml=1626983d522f2539&mb=1 To be distributed to Planning Board re: Heritage Properties public hearing Tuesday 5/1/18 April 29, 2018 Dear Board Members, I am writing to provide comments on documents that Heritage Properties and Beta Group, Inc. provided in support of the Trails at Legacy Farms public hearing. Document #1 Drainage Report for Heritage Properties, prepared by Bohler Engineering, January 3, 2018 Comment #1: This report refers to an existing storm water collection and drainage structure on Wilson Street, denoted as DP-N1B in the report, and asserts that it provides the required storm water control and drainage for the Trails at Legacy Farms at its northern border. This is the same drainage structure that regularly discharges storm water onto Wilson Street. Pictures of this structure with water overflowing from its spillway structure were included in the 3/26/18 public hearing packet. This untreated storm water travels to the wetlands on Wilson Street and ultimately to the waters of the Hopkinton State park. This water flow has eroded Wilson Street to a depth of several inches and has undermined the road. This discharge of untreated storm water is in violation of Town of Hopkinton bylaw and State of Massachusetts Environmental Law. In summary, the assertion made by Heritage Properties that the existing drainage structure on Wilson Street is adequate for the Trails at Legacy Farms is false and the planning board needs to take action to order the applicant to remedy this deficiency to provide for public safety (the untreated storm water flowing on to Wilson Street regularly creates dangerous icing conditions) and limit the liability of the Town for damage to wetlands and state of Massachusetts Water Resources. In addition, the planning board needs to require that the applicant remedy the deficiency on site so as not to further damage Wilson Street, a scenic road with a paved width of 18 feet and an unpaved width of 4 feet from the pavement to the stone wall. The Drainage Report for Heritage Properties already acknowledges the deficiencies of the existing drainage structure at the southern boundary of the Trails at Legacy Farms and includes a proposed design to split it into two new structures on site. The planning board needs to order the applicant to remedy the deficiencies to the existing Wilson Street drainage structure as a condition of asserting that it provides storm water control and drainage for the Trails at Legacy Farms. Document #2 Peer Review by Beta Group, Inc. of the Heritage Properties Drainage Report Comment #2: The peer review included 34 recommendations including a redesign of a concentrated flow from twin 30 inch pipes directed to Wilson Street. The planning board needs to add a condition that this redesign be accomplished on site as required by the Town bylaw and not via the installation of swales on Wilson Street which will further destroy its scenic value and impact public safety by eliminating the 4 foot buffer between the pavement and the stone wall. Sincerely Yours, Kathleen Towner 9 Kruger Road 3/26/2018 Town of Hopkinton, MA Mail - To be distributed to Planning Board re: Heritage Properties public hearing Monday 3/26/18 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=6d686bf915&jsver=lr-NdqmOTUs.en.&view=pt&search=inbox&th=1625a36b3fa57a60&siml=1625a36b3fa57a60&mb=1 Cobi Wallace <cobiw@hopkintonma.gov> To be distributed to Planning Board re: Heritage Properties public hearing Monday 3/26/18 1 message Julia Linnell <therealpinky@mac.com>Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 6:52 PM To: Cobi Wallace <cobiw@hopkintonma.gov>, Shannon Soares <ssoares@hopkintonma.gov>, John Ferrari <jferrari@hopkintonma.gov>, Muriel Kramer <mek922@gmail.com>, Frank D'Urso <fdurso@hopkintonma.gov> To be distributed to Planning Board re: Heritage Properties public hearing Monday 3/26/18 Re: Heritage Properties proposal, Wilson Street March 24, 2018 Dear board members, We are a group of concerned neighbors living in close proximity to the proposed Heritage Properties development. On April 10, 2014 a public meeting was held at the firehouse and was hosted by developer Roy MacDowell. The meeting was held to address any concerns from neighboring residents involving the proposed 55 plus development. At this meeting we were all assured by Mr. MacDowell that there would be no access road from the proposed development directly onto Wilson St. We were told that all traffic would funnel onto the Legacy Farms North Rd. We were also told that the large buffer of trees located across from the end of Kruger Rd. would not be disturbed or removed, and that construction vehicles would not be using Wilson St. We are upset that these considerations and promises are being dismissed in favor of unplanned modifications to site development. Other concerns and questions we have include: • Drainage of soil, sand and water down Wilson St. from the intersection of Legacy Farms North Rd. to the water treatment plant on Howe St. The current drainage conditions resulting from Legacy Farms North Rd. construction is causing unwanted erosion along Wilson St. and particularly hazardous conditions in freezing temperatures. Many trees were also removed along Wilson St. during Legacy Farms North Rd. construction before a scenic road hearing could be, and should have, been held. It is unclear when those trees will be replaced. • There is concern that the property may not reasonably allow 180 units as proposed. It is unclear if a complete engineering study was done when that number was approved. Intrusion into wetland buffers makes it difficult if not impossible to relocate the second access road onto Legacy Farms North Rd. There is no other access to our neighborhood other than Wilson St. Any access road from the development directly onto Wilson St. would present significant traffic and safety concerns for those coming and going from Kruger Rd. • We have questions about the traffic estimates given, in light of the numbers of units. The estimated numbers do not seem sound and do not support what we know about over 55's. Only one member of the household is required to be 55+ and many still work, volunteer or have family members living with them. Not to mention service vehicles, deliveries, etc. Additional traffic can also be expected when Legacy Farms North Rd. is used as a diversion during the downtown intersection projects. On top of that there will be continuing growth in our town population via developments in the pipeline. Have these exacerbating factors been taken into account? • Does the multiplier used (Senior Adult Housing) mean 55+ or 65+? That is a significant difference. • Is 20% of the development exempt from this requirement? • How is the over 55+ requirement enforced? Could the 55+ limitation be removed when the market conditions change? • Is there a reason why this area is exempt from ordinary residential height restrictions as are implemented in the neighboring areas? As planned these houses will tower over the neighboring homes, especially as they are on a hill. Will there be a serious discussion of the effect on the viewsheds from Wilson Street and the state park? Originally a balloon test was promised. 3/26/2018 Town of Hopkinton, MA Mail - To be distributed to Planning Board re: Heritage Properties public hearing Monday 3/26/18 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=6d686bf915&jsver=lr-NdqmOTUs.en.&view=pt&search=inbox&th=1625a36b3fa57a60&siml=1625a36b3fa57a60&mb=1 • Have the effects of light pollution, noise and odors been studied? Many of these ongoing concerns have been voiced repeatedly during a high level presentations of the project. We were told that detailed discussions would take place later as the plans were developed. We are now concerned that the project is moving so swiftly that the concerns and issues affecting our neighborhood and town will not be properly discussed, addressed and responsibly vetted. We are aware of the lack of oversight during the course of the south side build out, and issues they are having with drainage, screening, density, traffic, etc. We want safeguards to put be in place, in writing and in advance of planning approval. We need a clerk of the works, or other town representative to monitor what is being done on behalf of the town, before and after build out, and are asking for this person's time to be paid by the developer, and a bond to cover what is not done properly. Kathleen Morse-Villa John Villa Gail Fawson Andrew Cybulski Roderick & Kathleen Towner Heidi & Ken Abrahamsen Terry Anthony Dennis Katz Dave & Barbara Wlydoka Nancy & James Smith Caitlin Smith Julia Linnell Chris Small Tori Trincia-McGowan Ed McGowan John Bush Linda (Ruby) Machiz ************** 4/30/2018 Town of Hopkinton, MA Mail - legacy farms north https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=6d686bf915&jsver=OeNArYUPo4g.en.&view=pt&search=inbox&th=16311ec24f4d44a6&siml=16311ec24f4d44a6&mb=1 Cobi Wallace <cobiw@hopkintonma.gov> legacy farms north 1 message KATHLEEN TOWNER <towners@comcast.net>Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 11:01 AM Reply-To: KATHLEEN TOWNER <towners@comcast.net> To: cobiw@hopkintonma.gov these are google street map images of Raferty rd and Wilson st before the road was constructed and foliage removed 3 attachments legacy farms north.jpeg 109K legacy farms north 1.jpeg 112K legacy farms north 2.jpeg 127K Georgia Wilson <gwilson@hopkintonma.gov> Wilson St. Legacy Drainage John Westerling <jwesterling@hopkintonma.gov>Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 1:15 PM To: Georgia Wilson <gwilson@hopkintonma.gov> Cc: Mike Mansir <mikemansir@hopkintonma.gov> Georgia My observations during a heavy rain indicate that there is little runoff from the south side of Wilson Street (relative to Legacy Farms Road) impacting the water runoff challenges on the north side. The majority of water from the south side either gets captured in the catch basins or heads down Rafferty Road. My observations show that the existing drainage infrastructure is capturing the runoff as best as possible considering the contours of Wilson Street.The DPW will continue to clean and monitor the existing infrastructure to ensure that it does not contribute to the water runoff challenges on the north side. Thank you. Sincerely, John K. Westerling, MPA Director, of Public Works, Hopkinton Department of Public Works President, New England American Public Works Association 83 Wood Street PO Box 209 Hopkinton, MA 01748 Email: jwesterling@hopkintonma.gov Phone: 508-497-9740 Fax: 508-497-9761 [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] All email messages and attached content sent from and to this email account are public records unless qualified as an exemption under the Massachusetts Public Records Law. Visit us online at www.hopkintonma.gov. All email messages and attached content sent from and to this email account are public records unless qualified as an exemption under the Massachusetts Public Records Law. Visit us online at www.hopkintonma.gov. LNG Liquefaction Replacement Project 52 & 55 Wilson Street Hopkinton, Massachusetts Stormwater Management and Earth Removal Permit Application Prepared For: Eversource Energy 247 Station Drive, SE270 Westwood, Massachusetts July 2018 53 Southampton Road • Westfield, MA 01085-5308 • Tel 413.562.1600 www.tighebond.com E-0755-25-04 July 20, 2018 Town of Hopkinton Planning Board Town Hall 18 Main Street Hopkinton, MA 01748 Re: Stormwater Management and Earth Removal Permit Application LNG Liquefaction Replacement Project 52 & 55 Wilson Street, Hopkinton, Massachusetts Dear Members of the Planning Board: On behalf of Eversource Energy, Tighe & Bond respectfully submits this Stormwater Management Permit application for the Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) Liquefaction Replacement Project at the existing Hopkinton LNG facility located at 52 and 55 Wilson Street in the town of Hopkinton in Middlesex County, Massachusetts. The proposed project includes replacement of the Facility’s existing natural gas pretreatment and liquefaction system. The Project is proposed to be constructed on a currently undeveloped portion of the Facility Site located adjacent to the existing LNG storage tanks on the 55 Wilson Street parcel. The majority of this area is previously disturbed, and includes spoils piles from the construction of the adjacent facility. Excess soils resulting from the construction of the proposed replacement equipment, infrastructure, and roads are anticipated to be required to be temporarily stockpiled and removed from the site. Work will also occur at the 52 Wilson Street site entrance to replace the existing pipes on sleepers, at the 55 Wilson Street site entrance to improve vehicular movements and to install a permanent guard building, and additional areas of the site are proposed to be temporarily cleared for construction period staging and storage, for a total of 10.75 acres of project-related disturbance of which, 5.40 acres have been previously disturbed. This Stormwater Management and Earth Removal Permit application is being filed under the Town of Hopkinton Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Bylaw (Chapter 172 of the Town of Hopkinton General Bylaws), the Town of Hopkinton Earth Removal Bylaw (Chapter 96 of the Town of Hopkinton General Bylaws), and the Town of Hopkinton Stormwater Regulations. Enclosed, please find the original completed application package and six copies for your review. A copy of the completed application package will be concurrently filed with the Town Clerk. A check in the amount of $1,000.00 is enclosed for the review fee deposit and a check in the amount of $300.00 is enclosed for the SMP application fee. The Stormwater Management Permit application package includes the following information: • Table of Contents • Town of Hopkinton Stormwater Management Permit application form • Application and review fee checks • Project Narrative • Appendix A Certified Abutters List and Pre-paid Envelopes • Appendix B Stormwater Management Plan - 2 - • Appendix C Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (SWPPP and signed eNOI) • Appendix D Operation and Maintenance Plan We believe the attached materials are sufficient to allow the Planning Board to approve the Stormwater Management Permit application, confirming that the proposed project will adequately protect the water resources of the community and is in compliance with the requirements set forth in the Town of Hopkinton Stormwater Management Bylaw and Regulations. Please advertise this matter for public hearing at the next regularly scheduled Planning Board hearing on August 27, 2018. We look forward to discussing this project with you. If you have any questions or need additional information please contact me at 413-572-3256 or TJAdamski@TigheBond.com. Thank you for your attention to this request. Very truly yours, TIGHE & BOND, INC. Tracy J. Adamski, AICP Vice President CC: Town Clerk Denise Bartone, Eversource Energy Jim Blackburn, Eversource Energy J:\E\E0755 - Eversource L&P\E0755-25 Hopkinton LNG\Permitting\Town SWM Permit\1 - SWM and Earth Removal Cover Letter.docx CONTENTS Table of Contents Tighe&Bond Stormwater Management and Earth Removal Permit Application Hopkinton LNG Liquefaction Replacement Project i Section 1 Required Forms Section 2 Introduction Section 3 Existing Environment 3.1 Existing Conditions .........................................................................3-1 3.1.1 Facility Site ......................................................................... 3-1 3.1.2 Existing Facility .................................................................... 3-1 3.1.3 Adjacent Land Uses .............................................................. 3-1 3.2 Wetland Resource Areas..................................................................3-2 3.3 Rare Species..................................................................................3-3 Section 4 Proposed Liquefaction Replacement Project 4.1 Anticipated Construction Sequence ...................................................4-1 4.2 Construction Methodology and Mitigation ..........................................4-2 4.2.1 Source Control Measures ....................................................... 4-2 4.2.2 Erosion and Sediment Control Measures .................................. 4-3 4.3 Site Access ....................................................................................4-3 4.4 Site Stabilization and Restoration .....................................................4-3 Section 5 Regulatory Compliance 5.1 Town of Hopkinton Stormwater Regulations .......................................5-1 5.1.1 Abutter Notification .............................................................. 5-1 5.1.2 Stormwater Management Plan ............................................... 5-1 5.1.3 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan ......................................... 5-1 5.1.4 Operation & Maintenance Plan ............................................... 5-2 5.2 Other Pertinent Regulatory Programs for Stormwater .........................5-2 5.2.1 Town of Hopkinton Wetland Protection Regulations ................... 5-2 5.4.1 U.S. EPA NPDES Construction General Permit NOI and SWPPP ... 5-2 Appendix A Abutters Information Certified Abutters List Addressed Envelopes with Pre-paid First-Class Postage Appendix B Stormwater Report / Management Plan Project Narrative Attachment A – MassDEP Stormwater Checklist Attachment B - Figures Attachment C - Soils Information Attachment D - Stormwater Calculations Attachment E – Operation & Maintenance Plan (provided as Appendix D) Attachment F – Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (provided as Appendix C) Table of Contents Tighe&Bond Stormwater Management and Earth Removal Permit Application Hopkinton LNG Liquefaction Replacement Project ii Attachment G – Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement Appendix C Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (SWPPP) SWPPP Narrative Appendix A – Locus Map & Project Plans Appendix B – Link to NPDES 2017 Construction General Permit Appendix C – Eversource Best Management Practices Manual Appendix D –eNOI Appendix E – Monthly Report and Observation Logs Appendix F – Corrective Action Form Appendix G – SWPPP Amendment Log Appendix H – Subcontractor Certifications/Agreements Appendix I – Grading and Stabilization Activities Log Appendix J – Training Log Appendix K – Delegation of Authority Appendix L – Hazardous Materials Spill Log Appendix M – Additional Information Appendix D Operation & Maintenance Plan J:\E\E0755 - Eversource L&P\E0755-25 Hopkinton LNG\Permitting\Town SWM Permit\3 - SWM Narrative.docx SECTION 1 Tighe&Bond Stormwater Management and Earth Removal Permit Application Hopkinton LNG Liquefaction Replacement Project 1-1 Section 1 Required Forms • Hopkinton Stormwater Management & Earth Removal Permit Application Form • Application and Review Fee Checks Planning Department Use Only SMP Number Submission Date: Town of Hopkinton, Massachusetts Stormwater Management Permit Application The undersigned hereby applies to the Town of Hopkinton Planning Board to issue a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Chapter 172 of the Bylaws of the Town of Hopkinton, Stormwater Management and Erosion Control, and the Stormwater Regulations adopted by the Hopkinton Planning Board, for the herein described premises. Applicant: Denise Bartone, Eversource Energy Mailing Address: 247 Station Drive, SE270, Westwood, MA, 02090 Daytime Telephone: (781) 441-8174 Fax: Email: Denise.Bartone@Eversource.com Owner: Hopkinton LNG Corporation c/o Eversource Energy Mailing Address: P.O. Box 270, Hartford, CT 06141 Daytime Telephone: Fax: Email: Representative (if any): Tracy Adamski, Tighe & Bond Mailing Address: 53 Southampton Road, Westfield, MA 01085 Daytime Telephone (413) 572-3256 Fax: Email: TJAdamski@tighebond.com For additional applicants, owners and representatives, attach additional sheets as necessary. All owners of record of the property must be listed. Total land area of project (sq. ft.): 3,341,052 sf (76.7 ac) Total estimated land area to be disturbed by construction activity (sq. ft.): 468,102 sf (10.75 ac) Total land area with 15% or greater slope (sq. ft.): 425,930 sf (9.78 ac) Total land area with 15% or greater slope to be disturbed (sq. ft.): 87,866 sf (2.02 ac) Percent of lot which will be impervious surface after construction: 14.5% (based on area of 55 Wilson Street parcel only) Is the proposed project an expansion of an existing use present on the site? Yes No Address of Subject Property: 52 & 55 Wilson Street, Hopkinton, MA 01748 Tax Assessors Property ID Numbers (list all Map, Block & Lot nos.): R8 35B & 33-0 2 Brief description of the proposed construction activity: The project involves replacing the existing Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) Liquefaction facility in the area south of the existing fenced LNG storage tank area. This project will support an improvement in plant reliability and maintainability associated with ensuring an economical supply of natural gas during periods of high demand or transmission pipeline restrictions in the region. Construction will involve clearing and grubbing of trees, re-grading the expanded site limits and access road, excavation, earthwork and sub-grade preparation, installation of stormwater management treatment and detention systems, placement of crushed stone, paving of site access driveways, roads, parking lots and sidewalks, landscaping, placement of concrete, structural steel fabrication and installation, piping fabrication and installation, mechanical equipment installation, specialized welding, testing, and other non-destructive examination of completed works, and the use of typical industrial construction practices for process plants. The construction project is anticipated to result in the removal of surplus earth from the site. Construction is expected to last about 20 months. Are waivers of specific provisions of the Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Bylaw or Stormwater Regulations requested? Yes No If yes, attach a list of requested waivers with a reference to the specific section of the bylaw or Regulations and supporting documentation which explains why each waiver is allowed by federal, state and local statutes and/or regulations, is in the public interest, and is not inconsistent with the purposes of the Bylaw or the Regulations. See Stormwater Regulations, Section 8.0. List all zoning district(s) in which the property is located, including overlay districts: Agriculture, Water Resources Protection Overlay District (WRPOD-1) Are all real estate taxes and other assessments to the Town current? Yes No List other permits and approvals required of the Town of Hopkinton and the status of each: Hopkinton Conservation Commission – Wetland Non-Zoning Bylaw filing (Notice of Intent), filed concurrently with the Stormwater Management Permit application Low Impact Development (LID) Measures: Indicate what environmentally sensitive design and LID techniques were considered during the planning and design of the project. No disturbance to any Wetland Resource Areas* Site Design Practices (e.g. clustered development, reduced frontage setbacks, fit the development to the terrain) Reduced Impervious Area (Redevelopment only) Minimizing disturbance to existing trees and shrubs Use of “country drainage” versus curb and gutter conveyance and pipe Preserve and use natural drainage systems Bioretention Cells (includes Rain Gardens) 3 Treebox Filter Water Quality Swale Grass Channel Green Roof Porous pavement or pervious pavers Other (describe): *Proposed project will result in disturbance to Isolated Vegetated Wetland buffer zones only. Fee Schedule Fees are required to be submitted at the time of application. SMP Application Fee: The larger of $200.00 or $0.0040 per square foot of land area that will be disturbed by activities authorized by the SMP, up to a maximum of $1,000.00. Review Fee: Initial deposit of $300.00. After submission, the Planning Board will obtain an estimate from its consultant as to the total estimated cost of review of the submitted materials. If the amount is greater than the initial deposit, the applicant shall deposit the remaining balance with the Planning Department. Consultant review will not begin until the full estimated amount has been provided. I agree to these terms: Signature of Applicant Submission Requirements No application will be considered complete until all the required materials listed below are submitted to the Planning Department. For a detailed description of each item below, see the Stormwater Regulations. Application Form – 6 copies List of abutters certified by the Assessor’s office, issued within 30 days of the date of application One envelope for each abutter on the list of abutters and postage sufficient to send the hearing notice by first class mail to each. Application and Review fees Stormwater Management Plan Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Operation and Maintenance Plan List of requested waivers, if any, and required documentation. Stormwater Completion Surety estimate, if applicable. In addition to the submission of materials to the Planning Department, one copy of the application form shall be filed by the applicant simultaneously with the Town Clerk. 4 Signatures I hereby certify that the foregoing Stormwater Management Permit application and accompanying plans, documents and supporting data are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. Signature of Applicant Date Signature of Owner Date Attach additional sheets if more than one owner – all owners must sign. Signature of Representative Date 7/25/18 7/25/18 7/25/18 SECTION 2 Tighe&Bond Stormwater Management and Earth Removal Permit Application Hopkinton LNG Liquefaction Replacement Project 2-1 Section 2 Introduction This Stormwater Management and Earth Removal Permit Application is being submitted on behalf of Eversource Energy for the Hopkinton Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Liquefaction Replacement Project. Eversource Energy, through its subsidiary Hopkinton LNG Corp (HOPCo), operates an existing LNG vaporization and natural gas liquefaction facility (Facility) located at 52 and 55 Wilson Street in Hopkinton, Massachusetts (Facility Site). The Facility Site is comprised of two parcels, one on the west side of Wilson Street (55 Wilson Street) and the other on the east side of Wilson Street (52 Wilson Street). The Facility provides a backup supply of independent natural gas for Eversource’s customers, and helps to maintain seasonal natural gas price stability for consumers. As the largest natural gas supply system peak-shaving plant facility in New England, the Facility supplements natural gas supply about 20 to 30 days per year through the process of liquefying pipeline natural gas and placing the LNG into storage tanks during low demand seasons (spring, summer, and fall) for re-vaporization during peak demand season (winter). The proposed project includes replacing the Facility’s existing gas pretreatment system, liquefaction system, and boiloff gas (BOG) compressors, and installing necessary supporting utilities and equipment (potable water, fire suppression water, electrical service, nitrogen storage, stormwater management, access ways, overhead and underground conduits, security, operations and maintenance facilities). The proposed project will support improvements in plant reliability and maintainability needed to ensure an economical supply of natural gas during periods of high demand or transmission pipeline restrictions in the region. The Project is proposed to be constructed on a currently undeveloped portion of the Facility Site located adjacent to the existing LNG storage tanks on the 55 Wilson Street parcel. The majority of this area is previously disturbed, and includes spoils piles from the construction of the adjacent facility. Work will also occur at the 52 Wilson Street site entrance to replace existing pipes on sleepers, at the 55 Wilson Street site entrance improve vehicular movements and to install a permanent guard building, and additional areas of the site are proposed to be temporarily cleared for construction period staging and storage, for a total of 10.75 acres of project-related disturbance, of which 5.40 acres have been previously disturbed. The construction of the proposed replacement liquefaction system and associated infrastructure, internal roads, and utilities is anticipated to result in the removal of surplus earth from the site; the site plan review that would occur per Section 4.A.(6) of Chapter 96, Earth Removal, of the Town of Hopkinton General Bylaws has been superseded by the Department of Public Utilities review process. SECTION 3 Tighe&Bond Stormwater Management and Earth Removal Permit Application Hopkinton LNG Liquefaction Replacement Project 3-1 Section 3 Existing Environment This section provides a site description and resource area characterization for the project area. Wetland resource areas and land use in the general vicinity were determined based on direct observations made during site inspections and a review of information available through the Massachusetts Geographic Information System (MassGIS). 3.1 Existing Conditions 3.1.1 Facility Site The Facility Site is comprised of two parcels of land, one on the west side of Wilson Street (55 Wilson Street) and the other on the east side of Wilson Street (52 Wilson Street). Most of the components of the existing Facility are located on the east side of Wilson Street (52 Wilson Street), including the operational facilities for the gas liquification, security offices, and parking areas. The storage tanks associated with the Facility are located on the west side of Wilson Street (55 Wilson Street), along with distribution pipes and appurtenant facilities, and are enclosed with chain linked fencing with forested land to the south of the tanks. Legacy Farms Road North is located to the north of the Project Site. Surrounding off-site land use is primarily undeveloped forest. 3.1.2 Existing Facility The Facility was initially constructed and placed into operation in stages beginning in 1967 and ending in 1974 with the completion of the last of the three storage tanks. The Facility serves as a peak shaving unit, liquefying and storing pipeline gas during the summer and re-vaporizing during the winter heating season to supplement pipeline supplies. The Facility performs functions in four operational categories: • Liquid storage in three above-ground storage tanks • Truck loading/off-loading • Liquefaction: the Facility includes a liquefier with ancillary systems and piping; the liquefier, which was designed for a 30 to 40 year service life, is approximately 45 years old. The total liquefaction capacity of the plant is 17 million standard cubic feet per day (“mmscfd”). • Vaporization in four submerged LNG vaporizers, which are used to vaporize LNG for send-out to the local distribution systems during the winter months. In addition to these four operational categories, the Facility includes the underlying infrastructure systems necessary to operate the plant, including the electrical system, emergency generator, security system, gas-detection system, fire-detection and suppression systems, and a control system. 3.1.3 Adjacent Land Uses The Facility Site is divided into two parcels of land by Wilson Street, a Town-designated Scenic Road. The 52 Wilson Street parcel is abutted by Wilson Street to the west, Tennessee Gas Pipeline parcels to the north and south and the Legacy Farms subdivision property to the east. The 55 Wilson Street parcel is abutted by Wilson Street to the east, Section 3 Existing Environment Tighe&Bond Stormwater Management and Earth Removal Permit Application Hopkinton LNG Liquefaction Replacement Project 3-2 an undeveloped wooded parcel owned by Wood Realty Trust to the south, an undeveloped wooded parcel that is part of the Hopkinton State Park to the west, and Legacy Farms Road North (Rafferty Road) and undeveloped wooded parcels owned by HopCo to the north. 3.2 Wetland Resource Areas The wetland resource areas identified within the project area are subject to jurisdiction only under Town of Hopkinton Chapter 206 Wetlands Protection Bylaw (WPB) and Wetlands Protection Regulations (WPR). No wetlands subject to jurisdiction under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (MA WPA) (M.G.L. Chapter 131 § 40) or the MA WPA Regulations (310 CMR 10.00) were observed on either property. The wetland boundaries were confirmed through an Order of Resource Area Delineation (ORAD) dated December 14, 2016 (HCC File No. 29). The following resource areas were encountered: • Isolated Vegetated Wetlands (IVW) • Buffer Zone to IVW. The project plans in Appendix C depict the delineated IVWs and associated buffer zones. Photographs representative of the resource areas are provided in Appendix C. Descriptions of jurisdictional wetland resource areas per the Hopkinton WPB are provided below. Table 3-1 Summary of Resource Areas by Flag Series Wetland ID Series Flag Numbers Resource Area Type Area (sf) 1 1A-1 through 1A-8 Isolated Vegetated Wetland 1,680 2 2A-1 through 2A-17 Fire Pond -- 3 3A-1 through 3A-6 Isolated Vegetated Wetland 430 4 4A-1 through 4A-13 Isolated Vegetated Wetland 948 5 5A-1 through 5A-11 Isolated Vegetated Wetland 757 Flag series 1A, 3A, 4A, and 5A delineate the limits of small IVWs. According to Section 3.4.2 of the Town of Hopkinton Wetlands Protection Bylaw, IVWs are “are freshwater wetlands that do not border on creeks, rivers, streams, ponds or lakes. The IVW boundary was established within the survey area in accordance with the criteria outlined in the Wetlands Protection Bylaw as well as Army Corps methodology. Wetland boundaries were determined based on the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and signs of wetland hydrology, and were confirmed by the Hopkinton Conservation Commission in the ORAD) issued on December 14, 2016. Flags 1A-1 through 1A-8 delineate an IVW adjacent to Wilson Street and directly adjacent to a chain link fence and pipes on sleepers near the entrance to 52 Wilson Street. The wetland is situated within a low-lying topographic position in the landscape that receives overland flow from adjacent developed areas and has intercepted the seasonal high groundwater table. In addition, this wetland likely receives stormwater runoff emanating from the directly adjacent compact gravel base associated with an aboveground pipeline. Section 3 Existing Environment Tighe&Bond Stormwater Management and Earth Removal Permit Application Hopkinton LNG Liquefaction Replacement Project 3-3 Flags 3A-1 through 3A-6 delineate the limits of a small IVW located south of the LNG tanks and to the east of an unimproved cart path. This wetland is approximately 430 sf in size and has a forested perimeter and is relatively devoid of vegetation within the actual isolated depression, which is located atop a small rise. The wetland boundary coincides with a distinct and observable break in slope around the wetland perimeter. Flags 4A-1 through 4A-13 delineate the limits of an isolated vegetated wetland that is located immediately west of Wetland 3A. This wetland is confined by a distinct break in slope and is sparsely vegetated within the isolated depression, with trees and dense shrubs along the perimeter. Flags 5A-1 through 5A-11 demarcate the limits of an isolated depression located south of the existing LNG facility within the parcel. The wetland appears to be isolated in nature and receives overland flow from the surrounding upland forest. Shrubs and trees line the periphery of the wetland, and the interior of this isolated depression is relatively devoid of groundcover. Sequentially numbered pink flags 2A-1 through 2A-17 demarcate the limits of a fire pond, actively maintained by the LNG facility for fire protection. The Hopkinton Conservation Commission confirmed in the ORAD issued on December 14, 2016 that the fire pond is a man-made, non-jurisdictional resource area and is not subject to regulation under the Town of Hopkinton Wetlands Protection Bylaw. 3.3 Rare Species The Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) Atlas, 14th Edition, effective August 1, 2017, was consulted during preparation of this application. According to this source, the project is not located within the designated Priority Habitats of Rare Species and Estimated Habitats of Rare Wildlife and therefore will not require review pursuant to the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act. SECTION 4 Tighe&Bond Stormwater Management and Earth Removal Permit Application Hopkinton LNG Liquefaction Replacement Project 4-1 Section 4 Proposed Liquefaction Replacement Project The primary public benefit and need for the project is the continued reliability of gas supply for the local distribution systems during periods of high demand and/or transmission line constraints. Additional benefits include providing a modernized and more maintainable design at the Facility with enhanced safety features that will require a shorter annual operating period and allow the ability to supply supplemental LNG as needed to the Company’s LNG facility in Acushnet at a more favorable cost. The preferred solution to address the identified need is the construction of a replacement liquefaction facility located in Hopkinton, on a parcel of land owned by the company. The proposed Project Site is on Eversource-owned land across the street from the existing Liquefier, adjacent to the existing storage tanks, and can be developed with minimal impacts to the surrounding environment. Given the lack of space on the same side of the street as the existing facility, the proposed project site across Wilson Street is a better location to construct the proposed project. 4.1 Anticipated Construction Sequence The work at the Project Site will include replacement of the Facility’s existing 17 million standard cubic feet per day (mmscfd) natural gas pretreatment and liquefaction system with a new 21 mmscfd pretreatment and liquefaction system, as well as upgrades to supporting auxiliary systems. The Project will include the following activities and addition of equipment: • Installation of erosion controls prior to site clearing and grading within a defined limit of disturbance; • Construction of a site access driveway and application of gravel base to support construction activities; • Installation of fencing to contain the Project Site area; • Establishment of cleared areas at a defined distance from the security fence; • Construction of approximately 2,100 feet of 8-inch diameter piping from the existing feed gas pipeline on the east side of Wilson Street, extending under Wilson Street to the Project Site on the west side of Wilson Street; • Construction of a 6-inch boil-off gas (BOG) line which will extend under Wilson Street adjacent to the existing piping, and a BOG compression system; • Installation of a feed gas metering skid with coalescing filter; • Installation of pipe racks, supports, conduits and cable trays; • Construction of a natural gas pretreatment system and a single liquefaction train with nominal capacity of 21 mmscfd; • Conversion of the existing flaring system to act only as an emergency backup, and construction of a new flare with necessary supporting equipment; • Addition of several small natural gas-fired process heaters; Section 4 Proposed Liquefaction Replacement Project Tighe&Bond Stormwater Management and Earth Removal Permit Application Hopkinton LNG Liquefaction Replacement Project 4-2 • Installation of controls and instrumentation to monitor process conditions, fire detection systems, and fire suppression systems including a new fire water loop, monitors, hydrants, clean agent suppression and sprinkler systems; • Modifications to the truck loading area, including replacement of the existing truck scale, addition of a defined receiving area, installation of a new security office and overall improved access; • Construction of six buildings, including the gas turbine and nitrogen compressor building, BOG compressor building, control building, two power distribution buildings, and a security office; and • Landscaping, including installation of screening plantings. Construction is expected to last approximately 20 months and will involve clearing and grubbing in areas to be graded, re-grading of the expanded site limits and access road, excavation, earthwork and sub-grade preparation, installation of stormwater management treatment and detention systems, placement of crushed stone, paving of site access driveways, roads, parking lots and sidewalks, landscaping, placement of concrete, structural steel fabrication and installation, piping fabrication and installation, mechanical equipment installation, specialized welding, testing and other non-destruct examination of completed works, and the use of typical industrial construction practices for process plants. Eversource expects that construction will generally be conducted using a five-day per week schedule, during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on select Saturdays, as needed, to aid in reducing overall construction duration. These construction hours conform with those allowed by the Hopkinton General Bylaw Chapter 141. Some work tasks, once started, may require continuous operation until completion and may need to be performed on a limited basis outside of normal work hours, including Sundays and holidays. The total area expected to be disturbed by construction activities is 10.75 acres, with those areas to be grubbed and cleared for the construction-period access, laydown, and staging to be allowed to revegetate post-construction. It is expected that the project will require the removal of surplus earth as a result of the construction of the infrastructure, roadways, driveways, utilities, stormwater system, buildings and other facilities associated with the proposed liquefaction replacement project. 4.2 Construction Methodology and Mitigation All construction will be performed in a manner that limits the impact to the area to the maximum extent practical. 4.2.1 Source Control Measures Throughout all the phases of construction, the contractors will follow the procedures outlined in Eversource’s Massachusetts Best Management Practices (BMP Manual, September 2016). The following Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be implemented related to dust, air quality, and construction noise in and around the active construction zone: • Stabilize stockpiles with seed if left in place for more than 30 days, to minimize release of dust and soil migration. Section 4 Proposed Liquefaction Replacement Project Tighe&Bond Stormwater Management and Earth Removal Permit Application Hopkinton LNG Liquefaction Replacement Project 4-3 • Installation of anti-tracking pads and regular sweeping of the pavement of adjacent roadway surfaces to minimize the potential for construction traffic to release dust and particulate matter. The following BMPs will be implemented to minimize air emissions and construction noise: • Retrofit any diesel-powered, non-road construction equipment rated 50 horsepower or above with emission control devices (oxidation catalysts). • Require the contractor to use ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel. • Limit vehicle idling to no more than five minutes. There are exceptions for vehicles being serviced, making deliveries, and operational needs. 4.2.2 Erosion and Sediment Control Measures Erosion control barriers will be incorporated as a construction-phase Best Management Practice (BMP). Erosion control barriers will consist of silt fence and/or straw wattles or mulch logs staked in place along the limits of work to minimize the potential for migration of disturbed soil. The contractor(s) will be required to maintain the barriers in good working order and to repair and replace sections, as necessary. These barriers will be inspected daily during construction and until disturbed soils have become stabilized. The sediment forebay of the proposed stormwater detention basin will be used during construction-period activities as a temporary sediment basin. Any stockpiles of gravel or other construction-related materials and equipment will be stored away from the Buffer Zone to prevent impacting the resource areas. Soil stockpiles will have protective measures (e.g., siltation fence and/or hay bales) around the perimeter of the stockpile. 4.3 Site Access Access to the site will be from the existing 52 and 55 Wilson Street entrances. Stone track pad(s) will be installed as necessary at the construction entrance(s) to prevent construction machinery from tracking soil onto paved roadways. 4.4 Site Stabilization and Restoration The areas of construction will remain in a stable condition at the close of each construction day via the use of appropriate erosion and sedimentation control measures. Erosion control measures will be inspected at the close of each construction day and maintained or reinforced as necessary. All erosion and sedimentation control measures will be inspected, cleaned, or replaced during construction and will remain in place until such time as stabilization of all areas is permanent. Upon completion of the construction, the site will be landscaped in a manner appropriate to the surrounding neighborhood and vegetative plantings will be included in strategic locations to increase screening of the project from adjacent properties and Wilson Street. SECTION 5 Tighe&Bond Stormwater Management and Earth Removal Permit Application Hopkinton LNG Liquefaction Replacement Project 5-1 Section 5 Regulatory Compliance 5.1 Town of Hopkinton Stormwater Regulations The Town of Hopkinton has established a Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Bylaw (Chapter 172 of the Town of Hopkinton General Bylaws) and associated Stormwater Regulations, which per Section 172-2 of the Bylaw are applicable to construction activities that will result in land disturbance of one acre in area or more. The following sections summarize the proposed project compliance with the requirements of the Bylaw and Regulations. 5.1.1 Abutter Notification Appendix A contains a certified list of abutters within 300 feet of the property line and addressed envelopes with pre-paid first-class postage, in accordance with the Town of Hopkinton Stormwater Regulations, Section 6 part B. 5.1.2 Stormwater Management Plan Required contents of a Stormwater Management Plan are described in Section 6, part J and Appendix B of the Town of Hopkinton Stormwater Regulations. Information required to be included in the Stormwater Management Plan is provided in a Stormwater Checklist and Report for the project prepared in compliance with the performance standards of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) Stormwater Management Standards and additional post-development criteria outlined in the Town of Hopkinton Stormwater Regulations (Appendix B of this permit application). The Stormwater Report includes a narrative describing the existing and proposed site hydrology, drainage area maps, proposed stormwater controls, and attachments that include soils information and hydraulic and hydrologic design calculations for pre- development and post-development conditions. A current locus map and project plans are provided in Appendix A of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which is located in Appendix C of this permit application. The proposed project is anticipated to result in changes to existing drainage patterns and create additional impervious surfaces. A stormwater detention basin with a sediment forebay is proposed to be installed west of the proposed replacement equipment. No wetland or waterways will be temporarily or permanently impacted by project construction and operation of the project. 5.1.3 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Required contents of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan are described in Section 6, part K and Appendix C of the Town of Hopkinton Stormwater Regulations. Section 6, part K, subpart 2 of the Regulations states that if a project requires a SWPPP per the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges from Construction Activities, then the permittee is required to submit a complete copy of the SWPPP. Accordingly, the SWPPP for the proposed project, including a locus map, project plans, and narrative are included as Appendix C. Section 5 Regulatory Compliance Tighe&Bond Stormwater Management and Earth Removal Permit Application Hopkinton LNG Liquefaction Replacement Project 5-2 5.1.4 Operation & Maintenance Plan Required contents of an Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan for the proposed stormwater management system are described in Section 6, part L and Appendix D of the Town of Hopkinton Stormwater Regulations. The O&M Plan included in Appendix D of this permit application includes the required information, including contact information, a map of the system, and a maintenance agreement. 5.2 Other Pertinent Regulatory Programs for Stormwater 5.2.1 Town of Hopkinton Wetland Protection Regulations The Town of Hopkinton has established a Wetland Protection Bylaw (Chapter 206) and implementing regulations, the Town of Hopkinton Wetlands Protection Regulations regarding activities within their jurisdiction as well as administrative procedures relative to proposed projects. The resource areas identified within the project area are only jurisdictional under the Town of Hopkinton Wetland Protection Bylaw. No temporary or permanent resource area impacts are proposed. As the existing IVWs are located on a private site in an elevated location with no apparent inlets or outlets, they likely do not provide significant flood control, erosion and sediment control, storm damage prevention, or prevention of water pollution. Similarly, as the project site is an LNG facility, recreational use of the IVW areas is not permissible due to safety concerns, and would likely be limited based on dominant vegetation conditions. There are no public or private water supply sources located in the vicinity of the IVWs and their associated buffer zones, and per the NHESP Natural Heritage Atlas 14th edition, there are no identified Priority Habitats of Rare Species and Estimated Habitats of Rare Wildlife within or near the IVWs and their associated buffer zones. Functionality and values of the IVWs and their buffer zones are not anticipated to be altered due to the proposed project as the IVWs are not proposed to be directly impacted, the temporary disturbance areas will be revegetated, and new site features such as the control building are proposed to be located downgradient of the IVWs. 5.2.2 U.S. EPA NPDES Construction General Permit NOI and SWPPP Construction Activities will result in the cumulative disturbance of one or more acres of land. A Notice of Intent NOI) will be submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) for coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit (CGP). The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) included with this application will be finalized prior to submittal of the NOI with EPA. J:\E\E0755 - Eversource L&P\E0755-25 Hopkinton LNG\Permitting\Town SWM Permit\3 - SWM Narrative.docx 14 Earth Removal Bylaw excerpt § 96-3. General requirements. The following requirements shall apply to all earth removal activities, whether or not a permit is required. The Board shall have the authority to waive any of the requirements listed below, on a case-by-case basis: A. Grades at the conclusion of the earth removal operation shall not be in excess of one foot in vertical rise for every three feet of horizontal distance (3:1). Grades in excess of 3:1 may be allowed only with a waiver from the Board. When reviewing waiver requests, the Board will consider the final appearance of the lot and surrounding areas with the intent that a natural appearance, natural drainage patterns and sufficient erosion control will be maintained or established. B. Proper and reasonable surface drainage of the land affected by earth removal operations shall be assured during and after the removal operations. The applicant shall provide assurance that earth is kept out of streams and drainage-ways and that accumulated earth shall be removed at periodic intervals during and upon the conclusion of the earth removal operation. If the erosion control system includes any structural devices, these structural devices shall be in place and stabilized before excavation can begin in the affected area. All structures shall be inspected and maintained by the owner in accordance with the approved plan and the capacity of the structural device. C. At the conclusion of the earth removal operation, or of such portion thereof as the Board deems appropriate, the whole area where removal has taken place shall be covered with not less than eight inches of loam and seeded with a suitable cover crop, except where ledge rock is exposed, and all large stones and boulders which protrude above the finished grade shall be removed or buried. Alternatives to this method of restoration shall be subject to the prior approval of the Board. D. In no event shall any loam be stripped and/or removed from any land in an amount which exceeds the eight inches of loam required by Subsection C of this section. E. The depth of excavation for any earth removal operation shall not be closer than seven feet above the spring high-water table, as determined by observation of soil profiles or test wells. F. All earth that is stripped and piled, and that which will be left exposed for a period of greater than 60 days, within 200 feet of a wetland, stream, river or other body of water, shall be stabilized. Such stabilization may consist of temporary seeding, anchored mulch or other method approved by the Board or its Agent. G. Provisions for dust control shall be provided for any earth removal operation. H. A buffer strip of undisturbed land not less than 100 feet wide shall be maintained at all boundaries of the lot, including at all street lines, on which an earth removal operation occurs. In the event that an earth removal permit is issued for adjoining lots under the same ownership, the Board may waive the buffer strip requirement in such locations as it deems appropriate. I. No earth removal permit shall be issued for a period in excess of 24 months. The duration of the permit, including dates of commencement and termination, shall be set forth on the permit. Civil Engineers + Landscape Architects +Land Surveyors + Planners +Environmental SpecialistsBEALS AND THOMAS, INC.Reservoir Corporate Center144 Turnpike RoadSouthborough, Massachusetts 01772-2104T 508.366.0560 | www.bealsandthomas.comB E A L S + T H O M A S HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD Monday, July 23, 2018 7:00 P.M. HCAM-TV Studio A, 77 Main St./Lower Level, Hopkinton, MA MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Muriel Kramer, Chairwoman, Fran DeYoung, Vice Chairman, David Paul, Deborah Fein-Brug, Mary Larson-Marlowe, Gary Trendel, Carol DeVeuve, Amy Ritterbusch, Frank D'Urso Present: Georgia Wilson, Principal Planner, Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant Ms. Kramer opened the meeting and welcomed new Planning Board Carol DeVeuve who is returning to the Board after a number of years absence. Mr. Trendel and Ms. DeVeuve stepped of the Board at this time. 1. Continued Public Hearing - 90 Hayden Rowe - Bus Parking Lot - Major Project Site Plan Review Application - Town of Hopkinton School Department Mr. DeYoung moved to open the public hearing, Ms. Fein-Brug seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Susan Rothermich, Director of Finance & Operations, and Tim Persson, Director of Buildings and Grounds, Hopkinton Public Schools; and Bill Mertz, WorldTech Engineering, engineer, appeared before the Board. Mr. Mertz distributed copies of the revised plan, and it was noted the Board received these electronically as part of the meeting packet. Ms. Ritterbusch arrived at this time. Mr. Mertz noted the parking lot layout and circulation pattern for the buses have not changed, and plan revisions are mainly the result of comments received regarding stormwater management. He noted they have changed the grading of the parking lot, and everything now drains to the middle. He noted they have added 2 double-grated catch basins which discharge via a stormceptor into the detention basin and ultimately into the wetlands. He noted with respect to concerns about snow removal, they have been informed by the DPW Director that they will plow this parking lot along with the other school facilities and grounds and the snow will not be stockpiled. Mr. Mertz stated the Board had asked about the possibility and consequences of lowering the light poles from 25 ft. to 15 ft. He noted this would mean 3 additional poles, 2 of them to be located inside the parking area to get the necessary lighting level, and the concern is that this will limit the internal movements and throw off the circulation pattern, and therefore the applicant still wants a waiver. It was noted the sidewalk from the parking lot to the loop road was eliminated due to inability to meet ADA standards. Mr. Mertz noted Board members felt there was a need for additional landscaping between the back of the building and the new parking lot, but in his opinion from the loop road people will not be able to see the buses given the existing vegetation back there. He stated he thinks the School Dept. is committed to additional plantings in the future, but at this point there are budget constraints and costs have already gone up significantly to address the drainage issues. He noted there is a letter from the Police Dept. indicating that all-night lighting on campus is necessary for safety reasons, and that applies to the new parking lot. Mr. Mertz stated they are still working with the Conservation Commission to address the issues with the existing detention basin, but this is the design they plan to go with. Phil Paradis, BETA Group, Inc., the Board's consultant engineer, stated he has seen the newest plans and there are a number of previously outstanding and newly identified issues. He stated the grade change from the edge of the lot to the middle is only .5% at the most, which will likely result in ponding, and icing problems in the winter, because of the type of surface and use. He stated the slope should not be less than 1% in order to promote a positive drainage pattern. Mr. Paradis noted the current lighting plan indicates a real dark spot in the middle but he feels it can be addressed by moving the poles around. He noted he concurs that reducing the pole height to 15 ft. would make it necessary to double the number of poles. He noted the landscaping requirement is also still an outstanding issue. Mr. Paradis stated he is concerned about the ability to meet stormwater standards, and expects some changes are needed but unfortunately the type of soils will make it difficult to use infiltration to solve the problem. Mr. DeYoung asked if runoff potentially could reach the loop road, and Mr. Paradis noted today’s stormwater standards are different compared to when the system was originally designed, but existing conditions appear to show the peak elevation for a 100-year storm right at the rim of the basin, and the applicant’s proposed solution just passes the issue further downstream. Ms. Larson-Marlowe asked about the difference in elevation between the field and the lawn coming up from the school. Mr. Mertz noted they originally were going to raise the elevation of the field itself, but it will now be shifted down in the middle while raising the site somewhat to address stormwater drainage issues. Ms. Larson-Marlowe asked if the area around the outside is going to be cleared during construction, and Mr. Mertz stated approximately half of the vegetation will be removed but it is just mature weeds which will grow back quickly. Ms. Larson-Marlowe expressed concerns about idling buses and exhaust fumes, and Ms. Rothermich noted there are laws regarding idling around schools. Ms. Fein-Brug stated she believes people will be able to see the buses from the loop road, based on the plan. She noted she would like the applicant to verify whether the existing access road will be able to handle the additional bus traffic, and it was noted the road has sufficient pavement and is designed to handle emergency vehicles. Ms. Fein-Brug questioned whether the turn radii for the buses are adequate, and she suggested additional pavement markings in the area proposed for potential future plantings to make sure buses won’t hit the curb. She noted she feels an environmental study should be done because as designed the project will create a little bit of a valley and she has concerns about health and safety due to smoke and smog getting trapped there. Ms. Ritterbusch stated she would prefer shorter light poles, but understands they would need more of them which will make it difficult for the buses to maneuver. She noted she would like to see more landscaping but understands the cost aspect and it may have to wait. She referred to the decision to eliminate the 2nd walkway, and Mr. Mertz noted the walkway between the schools going down to the lot is fully ADA compliant. Mr. DeYoung followed up on Mr. Paradis’ recommendation to increase the slope from .5 to at least 1%, and Mr. Mertz stated they will have to look into it but are actually more concerned about the detention basin, and there is not much they can do other than installing underground stormwater chambers which would raise the site even more and cause additional problems. Gary Trendel, 31 Chamberlain St., speaking as a resident, asked if there are any other school properties that have to be plowed when there are vehicles parked on it, and how they would go about it. Mr. Persson stated this would be the first, and he assumes the DPW will start with clearing around the buses and finish the lot while the buses are out on their routes. Mr. Trendel stated that means snow will be cleared while the students are in school, and he thinks that it is problematic. It was noted that it will require an increased effort, but the School Dept. and the DPW usually work hand in hand to make sure the school lots and roads are safely cleared. Mr. D’Urso arrived at this time. 2. Continued Public Hearing – Minor Project Site Plan Review Application – 84, 86, 88 and 92 West Main St. – Global Companies Mr. DeYoung moved to open the public hearing and continue it at the conclusion of the discussion of the school bus parking lot. Ms. Fein-Brug seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor. 3. Continued Public Hearing – Stormwater Management Permit Application - Bucklin St. – Wall Street Development Corp. – Request for Continuance Mr. Paul moved to continue the public hearing to August 27, 2018 at 7:50 P.M., extend the time to file the decision with the Town Clerk to September 28, 2018, and inform the applicant the Board may not be prepared to set aside a full hour if the necessary materials are not in by August 20, Ms. Fein-Brug seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. It was noted the Board will be meeting in the Board of Selectmen’s meeting room at Town Hall that evening. 4. Continued Public Hearing – Major Project Site Plan Review Application – 90 Hayden Rowe – Hopkinton School Dept. Ms. Rothermich stated they are meeting with the Conservation Commission next week and hope that the Planning Board will be able to approve the application tonight. It was noted the Conservation Commission decision usually comes first. Ms. Rothermich noted she feels in this case the Planning Board has more jurisdiction, and Ms. Kramer stated BETA has not yet signed off on the project, and she is not comfortable going forward with a decision tonight. Ms. Wilson referred to the Conservation Administrator’s comments indicating that the Commission did not have enough information to make an informed decision and continued the hearing. Ms. Kramer suggested continuing the hearing at a special Planning Board meeting to be held on August 1. Mr. D’Urso stated he has been a proponent of local bus parking for a long time, as it will save thousands of dollars, mean more excise tax revenue, and reduce the overall environmental impact. He noted the Board usually waits for the Conservation Commission to approve a project, but this is a Town project and perhaps the Board can approve the application conditionally. Ms. Kramer noted she does not think Mr. D’Urso can vote on this proposal since he missed the last meeting and a substantial part of this discussion. After further discussion, Mr. Paul moved to continue the public hearing to August 1, 2018 at 7:00 P.M. in the High School Library. Ms. Larson-Marlowe seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Mr. Trendel and Ms. DeVeuve returned to the Board at this time. 5. Continued Public Hearing – Minor Project Site Plan Review Application – 84, 86, 88 and 92 West Main St. – Global Companies Peter Barbieri, Fletcher Tilton, attorney, Jesse Johnson, Bohler Engineering, engineer, David Avery, Global Partners, Sr. Designer, Jason Adams, McMahon Assoc., traffic engineer, and Thomas Daniel, Global Partners, Sr. Project Manager, appeared before the Board. Ms. Larson- Marlowe moved to open the hearing, Mr. DeYoung seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. It was noted the new members can participate in the discussion but are not eligible to vote. Mr. Barbieri noted remaining issues include hours of operation and making sure the applicant is all set with the other parties in Town. He noted the Conservation Commission is in the process of issuing an Order of Conditions, the Design Review Board has signed off on the plans, and the Board of Appeals voted in favor from their perspective. He noted with respect to hours of operation, other area businesses including Cumberland Farms and Price Chopper have 24-hour operations. He noted he could not find the Dunkin’ Donuts decision although according to the Minutes there was a lot of discussion, but under the Site Plan Review bylaw the Board does not have the authority to deal with this issue. He noted the applicant is spending millions of dollars between acquisitions and redevelopment costs, and they are requesting to be open 7 days a week 24 hours a day based on fairness and from a competitive standpoint. Ms. Kramer stated she understands but as far as she is concerned the impact of that decision on the neighborhood is definitely within the Planning Board’s purview. Mr. Barbieri presented an aerial photo showing there is more than 300 ft. of separation between the facility and the nearest residential property. Board members in general understood the applicant’s arguments, but expressed concerns about screening the facility year-round from the nearest residential neighborhood and wished there was a moratorium on 24/7 business uses. Ms. Fein-Brug stated she still has questions about the overall design of the structure and lighting plan. Mr. D’Urso stated he feels that allowing yet another business to be open 24 hours a day would put the Town on a slippery slope with more and more businesses asking for the same thing. He stated if the Board decides to grant the request, he would like to see something in return that could benefit the plan, or the Town, such as solar panels on the roof of the building. Mr. Trendel asked if a moratorium would need a change to the Zoning Bylaw, and Ms. Kramer noted this would be a valid ZAC issue and to her knowledge this has not yet been really discussed or vetted. Mr. Trendel stated it would be difficult to deny in this case, but in his opinion 24-hour operations should not be allowed in the Rural Business district. Mr. Barbieri noted technically this could also be addressed through a general bylaw. Ms. Larson-Marlowe stated a potential zoning change would not affect existing situations. Mr. Paul noted as far as Mr. D’Urso’s quid pro quo suggestion is concerned, he feels eliminating the detention pond on the Lumber St. (Ext.)/Elm St. corner would qualify. Mr. D’Urso noted the Town is losing a historical home due to this project. Ms. Kramer stated it appears there is no overwhelming support for restricting the hours of operations, and she feels this issue is settled. She stated she appreciates the applicant's efforts to contain lighting, but it essentially is a facility driven by the need for light with a big impact, and she would not be averse to seeing something positive coming out of this in return, as suggested by Mr. D’Urso. Mr. Daniel noted they have a grant to evaluate the possibility of installing an electric charging station and solar panels. It was noted the Board cannot force the applicant to include these features, but it would take care of some of their concerns. Ms. Fein-Brug asked if the panels would be exposed or concealed, and Mr. Daniel stated they would be installed on the canopies because there is not enough room on the building itself. Ms. Fein-Brug noted the pictures of the lighting perspective are nice but a little deceptive because they try to show the night scene and don't show the back lighting in the building itself. She noted she is not necessarily concerned about the halo lighting but wondered if the lighting behind it could possibly be obscured. Mr. Trendel noted this may not look desirable at night, but it will let in more natural light during the day and create a more open feel. Mr. Avery stated any surface visible through the window from that perspective would essentially be a painted, nearly black surface. Ms. Fein-Brug thanked Mr. Avery for the explanation. Ms. Fein-Brug asked what can be done to mitigate damage to the wetlands in terms of maintenance and snow removal. Mr. Johnson noted this issue is being addressed through the Conservation Commission approval process, and the contractors will be required to follow the procedures based on state guidelines as outlined in the Operations & Maintenance (O&M) Plan. Mr. Johnson noted because this concerns a filling station the stormwater management system includes 2 considerably oversized oil grid separators as the first line of defense, and there is a long train of treatment phases before the runoff goes into wetlands. Ms. Kramer she would like the decision to include language referencing the applicant's commitment to explore the possibility of solar panels and an electric charging station, understanding that there is no guarantee. Ms. Ritterbusch stated she would like confirmation that the associated utilities will be screened from the ground, so that they don't have to change the conditions in that respect. Ms. Kramer noted the applicant has indicated the panels would be flat on the canopies and therefore not be obtrusively visible. Ms. Ritterbusch asked if additional site plan review would be required for the electric car charging station, and Ms. Wilson noted they would have to come back for a minor change only if it is not screened from view. Ms. Fein-Brug noted the applicant at one point had indicated the canopy was not structurally strong enough to hold solar panels, and Mr. Daniel noted the building permit application would include the necessary engineering plans. Mr. D'Urso noted he is encouraged to hear about the applicant's plans for solar panels and an electric charging station, but he is still reluctant to allow a 24/7 operation and is interested in possible additional tradeoffs. The Board reviewed the draft decision. Ms. Wilson clarified a possible condition with respect to additional review by the Fire Dept., and noted this has now been addressed. Ms. Kramer referred to an additional condition recommended by BETA but not included in the draft decision, requiring an emergency procedure plan to be provided for the record. Mr. Barbieri stated he has no objection. Ms. Kramer referred to BETA's recommendation regarding the positioning of the sign in the island in the easterly West Main St. entrance to make sure emergency access there is not impeded. The Board discussed the restrictions on turning movements from the westerly West Main St. exit, and it was decided that between 6:00 and 9:00 A.M. and 4:00 to 7:00 P.M. only right turns will be allowed. Ms. Wilson asked if the plans reference the exact times, and the applicant stated yes, and these are the hours referenced in the traffic report but they can update the plans. Mr. Barbieri indicated he had a chance to review the draft decision. Ms. Kramer referred to the conditions recommended by BETA, including a recommendation for a road audit. Ms. Wilson noted she believes the Board of Appeals in its decision asked for a traffic analysis if safety improvements are not realized after implementation of the proposed changes, and Mr. Barbieri stated they are willing to do the audit if needed but will not commit to any additional remedial work. Mr. Adams noted the specifics of what would trigger an audit were not discussed, but typically it involves a review of the crash history perhaps 6 months to a year after the facility is occupied and operating. Ms. Kramer recommended asking for a status update in 12 months after opening and require an audit if the actual situation deviates from the projected results. She noted she wants to be fair but there are some concerns and the Board would be hard pressed to ignore BETA's recommendations. Mr. Barbieri stated he is ok with the condition with the understanding there is no obligation to corrective action. Mr. D'Urso stated he feels he wants to see the audit no matter what. The Board suspended the conversation pending a vote to open and continue the public hearing on a minor site plan application for 52 South St. 6. Public Hearing - Minor Project Site Plan Review (After the Fact) - 52 South St. (EMC Corporation) - Parking Lot Modification Ms. Ritterbusch moved to open the public hearing and continue it upon the conclusion of the hearing on 84, 86, 88 and 92 West Main St., Ms. Larson-Marlowe seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. 7. Continued Public Hearing – Minor Project Site Plan Review Application – 84, 86, 88 and 92 West Main St. – Global Companies Ms. Larson-Marlowe noted it appears there is confusion regarding a traffic analysis vs. a road audit with corrective action as a potential 3rd step. Mr. Adams noted an audit is a formal process, and they propose to start with a review of the most recent crash data from the state, compared to conditions 12 months after opening of the new facility, and prepare a report with recommendations to be shared with safety officials to determine if an audit is needed. Mr. D'Urso noted they should have the audit either way, and Ms. Kramer stated she hopes the Board members can bring Mr. D'Urso around on this issue as she feels it would not necessarily be fair to the applicant, and approval would need all 5 eligible members to vote in favor. It was suggested changing the wording of the condition to also require BETA's input on the traffic analysis, and Mr. D'Urso noted that would address his concerns. Mr. Barbieri noted the applicant will cover the cost of the traffic analysis. Ms. Kramer noted BETA also suggested a condition implementing signal timing following construction and occupancy, and Ms. Wilson stated that is in the Board of Appeals decision. Ms. Kramer referred to a BETA suggestion with respect to stormwater management and maintenance, and noted she is comfortable with a requirement for annual reports signed and stamped by a civil engineer. Ms. Wilson asked if that is a Conservation Commission condition, and Mr. Johnson stated he believes it is. Ms. Kramer recommended a $10,000 performance guarantee, because even though the application was filed as a minor site plan, the project is substantial and the money will be returned if all goes well. Ms. Kramer read the draft decision including proposed conditions with changes made tonight and additional clarification. Ms. Fein-Brug asked for clarification of the plan as it relates to Elm St. where the sidewalk ends. Mr. Johnson noted there are big drainage issues there. He noted the plan shows new grass up to their property line but they obviously will not leave it that way and will go up to the edge of pavement. Mr. DeYoung moved to approve the minor site plan application for 84, 86, 88 and 92 West Main St. with the following agreed- upon conditions, Ms. Ritterbusch seconded the motion, and the Board voted 5 in favor (DeYoung, Paul, Ritterbusch, D'Urso, Kramer), and 4 abstentions (Trendel, Larson-Marlowe, Fein-Brug, DeVeuve), and the motion passed. 1. The Applicant shall be responsible for mitigating all construction-related impacts, including erosion, siltation and dust control. The Applicant shall maintain all portions of any public way used for construction access free of soil, mud or debris deposited due to use by construction vehicles associated with the project, and shall regularly sweep such areas as directed by the Director of Municipal Inspections in consultation with the DPW Director. 2. The Applicant shall regularly remove construction trash and debris from the site in accordance with good construction practice. No tree stumps, demolition material, trash or debris shall be burned or buried on the site. 3. All construction activity shall adhere to applicable local, State and Federal laws and regulations regarding noise, vibration, dust, sedimentation, and the use of, interference with or blocking of Town roads. 4. The parcels at 84, 86, 88, and 92 West Main Street must be combined prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. A sign reading “Right turn only between 6:00 AM – 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM – 7:00 PM” and visible to those exiting the site onto West Main Street shall be installed at the westernmost exit of the site. 6. 12 months following the commencement of business operations on site, the Applicant shall provide a Traffic Impact Analysis report comparing pre and post traffic incidents/conditions. The Applicant shall provide the funds necessary for the Board’s consultant to review the Traffic Impact Analysis for consistency with the proposed safety improvements, and to determine if a Road Safety Audit will be necessary. 7. A copy of the completed Emergency Procedure Plan shall be provided for the record. 8. Typical cut sheets of proposed mechanical equipment shall be provided to the Director of Municipal Inspections prior to construction to verify compliance with noise requirements. 9. The Director of Municipal Inspections inspects Site Plans under construction for compliance with the approved Decision of Site Plan Review. If the Director of Municipal Inspections determines at any time before or during construction that a registered professional engineer or other such outside professional is required to assist with the inspections of the Stormwater management system or any other component of the Site Plan, the Applicant shall be responsible for the cost of those inspections. 10. Construction may occur only between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM Monday through Friday and Saturdays between 8:00 AM and 4:00 PM pursuant to Chapter 141 Article 1 of the Town of Hopkinton General Bylaws. 11. In accordance with Section 210-138 of the Zoning Bylaw, the Applicant shall provide a performance guarantee in the amount of $10,000 to the Town prior to the commencement of construction pursuant to this Decision. The guarantee shall consist of a deposit of money or negotiable securities in a form selected by the Planning Board to guarantee that any unforeseen problems which arise, such as erosion and sedimentation, visual screening of abutting property and the correction of site lighting problems, are addressed. The funds will be held by the Town and returned to the Applicant upon completion of the project. Mr. D'Urso moved to close the public hearing, Mr. DeYoung seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Mr. D'Urso left the meeting at this time. 8. Continued Public Hearing - Minor Project Site Plan Review (After the Fact) - 52 South St. (EMC Corporation) - Parking Lot Modification Paul Fitzgerald, EMC Corporation, applicant, and Dan Feeney, Beals and Thomas, Inc., engineer, appeared before the Board. Mr. Feeney noted that last year they noticed that some of the Versalok blocks of the retaining wall at 52 South St. had started to come off and the material behind the wall started to slide. He noted they engaged GeoTech to assess the situation and came up with a design solution, which included replacement of a portion of the failing wall with a 2 to 1 slope, as well as other minor changes to the plan. He noted the modifications resulted in the loss of 11 parking spaces, from 519 to 508, but still in compliance with the minimum zoning requirement. He noted the work was done under an emergency order by the Building Inspector, received approval from the Conservation Commission as a minor project, and was completed in November last year. He noted as a requirement of the emergency order the applicant needed to file for minor project site plan approval because the work modified more than 5 parking spaces. Ms. Wilson stated the Design Review Board reviewed the plan and had no recommendations, and approval of the minor site plan as submitted will not be in conflict with the conditions of approval when the site was originally approved. There were no further comments from the Board or the public. Ms. DeVeuve moved to approve the minor site plan as submitted, Mr. Paul seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Mr. DeYoung moved to close the public hearing, Ms. Fein-Brug seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. 9. Zoning Advisory Committee - Discussion John Coutinho, 1 David Joseph Rd., John Ferrari, 6 Barbara Rd., and Ted Barker-Hook, 75 Grove St., joined the discussion. Ms. Kramer stated she received comments on this issue via email from Ria McNamara, 39 Oakhurst Rd., and Matt Kizner, 21 Curtis Rd., current ZAC members who are unable to attend tonight. Mr. Barker-Hook noted he has been a ZAC member for a couple of years, and just finished his first year as a member of the Conservation Commission. Mr. Ferrari noted he has been on the Planning Board and the ZAC for many years. Mr. Coutinho noted he has been on the Committee for 10 years, several years of which as the Chair. Ms. Kramer read the emails received from Ms. McNamara and Mr. Kizner with comments and detailed recommendations for potential changes to the ZAC with respect to structure, size of the Committee, and possible work items. Ms. Kramer noted she is considering a 7-member committee, with a representative of the Board of Appeals to be appointed on a yearly basis as one of the necessary slots, and multi-year staggered terms. She noted there were too many people last year and yearly appointments at the end of August probably don't offer an optimal time frame as far as preparation for town meeting is concerned. Mr. Ferrari, Mr. Coutinho and Mr. Barker-Hook, and the members of the Board provided input with respect to possible changes to the structure of the Committee, also as they relate to interaction with the Planning Board and other boards and committees, multi-year terms for better continuity, meeting schedules, and the possibility of providing training for new members. After further discussion, the Board reviewed the following proposed changes going forward: 1) Basic Membership - Ms. Kramer proposed having 9 voting and 3 associate non-voting members. Discussion followed, and it was determined 9 regular members would be ok with up to 5 associates. 2) Specific Slots for Representatives from the Chamber of Commerce, Conservation Commission, Planning Board, Board of Appeals - The item was discussed, and the issue of voting vs. non-voting status was left open. It was decided to stick with 9 members with slots for specific boards/committees as before, and 5 at-large members. 3) Balancing Diversity in terms of Age, History, Culture, New vs. Long-term Residents - Ms. Kramer stated she is not sure the Board will be able to solve that puzzle tonight but she feels experience in Town government has probably been addressed through 4 appointed members from other groups and access to professional staff. Mr. Trendel asked if this can be done other than via a grid or check list. Ms. Kramer stated there is opportunity to reach out to new residents in this respect and it would be nice to some recruiting. Ms. Larson-Marlowe stated the application form itself can be used for that purpose having check boxes for new vs. long-term residents, experience in Town government or not, etc. It was noted that the invitation should make it clear there is no particular background or education needed to participate. Mr. Ferrari stated they are potentially talking about a group of 14 people and the initial process will essentially be self-selecting with the main focus on the actual interview process. 4) Terms - Ms. Kramer stated she favors 9 members ultimately with 3-year terms. Ms. Ritterbusch stated Ms. Kramer's proposal makes sense, and Ms. DeVeuve stated 3 years is too long. Mr. DeYoung stated terms are needed as there as some issues that need more than 1 year to resolve, so perhaps there could be 1-and 2-year terms, but staggered. Ms. Ritterbusch noted she presumes the representatives from other boards are appointed just for 1 year anyway, and Ms. Kramer noted appointing associates for 1 year would make sense, so perhaps 5 of the 9 voting members would ultimately have 2-year appointments and the other 4 would be appointed for just 1 year so there is carryover. Mr. Trendel stated he is ok with this, and Mr. Paul stated they may be fixing something that is not broken. Mr. Trendel noted the challenge now is the short decision-making cycle, and a longer commitment with more continuity would address the issue. The Board agreed on 9 members, 3 members to be appointed for 2 years, 2 members for 1 year first, then for 2 years after that, and 4 members for 1 year, which this year will easily apply to the representatives from the other boards or committees. It was noted associate members will be appointed for 1 year only. Ms. Kramer stated the Board agrees that some formalized training would be beneficial before the appointment or at the first meeting, and Ms. Larson-Marlowe stated they should have both. Ms. Kramer stated she does not think people will be interested in training sessions without a formal appointment. It was suggested to consider this an introduction or interactive discussion to give prospective candidates a better understanding of what to expect. Ms. Ritterbusch suggested offering training in the form of a short 1 - 1.5 hour orientation session before or at the first meeting, or require applicants to certify they have watched the video of the meeting before they can be considered, especially as a voting member. Ms. DeVeuve stated the orientation should just be a simple "sales pitch" lasting no longer than 1/2 hour. She noted she agrees it is important to know the basics, but some type of cheat sheet may suffice. Ms. Kramer noted they will invite people to apply for the ZAC with appointments scheduled for August 27, 2018. She noted they could start off that night with a brief introduction or sales pitch for people new to the process, and a cheat sheet handout would be available for the first ZAC meeting. Ms. Kramer summarized the discussion. She noted they are looking for 9 regular and 5 associate members. She noted associate (non-voting) members will be appointed for 1-year terms, and 4 of the voting member slots will be for representatives of other boards and committees, also for 1 year. She noted the other 5 regular member appointments will include 3 with 2-year terms and 2 with 1-year terms to begin with. She noted at the appointment meeting there will be a 15-minute sales pitch/orientation session, and the Board will start working on a cheat sheet for use by the new members in time for the first Committee meeting, hopefully with the help from experienced Committee members. Ms. Larson-Marlowe offered to give the sales pitch. Mr. Coutinho noted the Committee typically holds a public forum at the 1st or 2nd meeting, and he asked if this should go through the Planning Board to flush out non-ZAC issues. Ms. Kramer thanked Mr. Coutinho for this suggestion and stated the Board will take it under consideration. Mr. Ferrari suggested following the sales pitch with a short recess to allow prospective applicants to reflect on their intent to apply. It was noted the evening could also include a Questions & Answers session. The Board discussed further details of the vacancy notification procedures and Ms. Wilson noted they will follow the Charter process. Ms. DeVeuve questioned the need for an application deadline and Ms. Kramer stated there was one last year but the Board did not stick to it, and it would feel too chaotic without one. It was determined to have a deadline but be somewhat flexible depending on the level of response, and it was set for Tuesday, August 21, 2018, the typical deadline for new information for the next meeting. Ms. Fein-Brug moved to issue the announcement for ZAC vacancies setting an August 21, 2018 deadline and schedule the appointments for the August 27 meeting. Ms. DeVeuve asked for clarification as to eligibility to join as a non-resident Chamber of Commerce member in a non- voting capacity, and Ms. Kramer noted they don't specifically have that contingency. Ms. Kramer stated it should not be a problem as there are plenty of Chamber members who live in Town. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. Ms. Kramer thanked the Board for working on this issue, and Ms. Larson-Marlowe for volunteering to do the sales pitch. 10. Wilson St. - Drainage and Scenic Road Issues - Canceled Discussion Ms. Wilson noted Roy MacDowell, Legacy Farms, LLC, canceled his participation in the discussion scheduled for tonight. It was decided to continue the discussion to September 17, 2018. Ms. Kramer noted Meena Barath is here tonight as the School Committee liaison. She stated Ms. Barath won't be at every meeting, but she is very excited to have the connection. Mr. DeYoung moved to adjourn the meeting, Mr. Trendel seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Adjourned: 11:05 P.M. Submitted by: Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant Approved: ___________________ Documents used at the Meeting:  Agenda for the July 23, 2018 Planning Board meeting  Memo from Georgia Wilson, Principal Planner, to Planning Board, dated July 19, 2018, re: Items of July 23, 2018 Planning Board Agenda  Site Plan Review Public Hearing Outline, 84, 86, 88, 92 West Main Street, Public Hearing Date: July 23, 2018; Site Development Plans for Proposed Global Montello Group Corp. – 84, 86, 88, & 92 West Main Street, dated October 11, 2017 revised through May 18, 2018; Plans entitled “Alltown Fresh, Elevations and Signage Details, dated May 22, 2018; Draft Decision 84-92 West Main St. Minor Project Site Plan Review, for 7/23/18 Meeting; Missed Meeting Certificate for Francis D’Urso (June 11, 2018)  Site Plan Review Public Hearing Outline, 90 Hayden Rowe, Public Hearing Date: July 23, 2018; Site Plan entitled “Town of Hopkinton, Hopkinton Public Schools, Bus Parking Lot at Hopkinton High School”, dated July 2018, prepared by WorldTech Engineering, for use at July 23, 2018 meeting; Plan entitled “Autoturn Template” for Hopkinton High School Bus Parking Lot, dated July 2018, prepared by WorldTech Engineering; Letter from William P. Mertz, WorldTech Engineering, Georgia Wilson, Principal Planner, dated July 19, 2018, re: Hopkinton High School Bus Parking Lot; Response from WorldTech Engineering dated July 17, 2018, to Comments Letter from BETA, Inc., to Georgia Wilson, principal Planner of the Hopkinton Land use, Planning and Permitting Department Dted July 5, 2018; Email from Don MacAdam to Georgia Wilson, dated July 19, 2018, re DEP File Number: 188-1662, 90 Hayden Rowe (School Bus Parking); Email from John Westerling to Georgia Wilson, dated July 19, 2018, re: New School Bus Parking Lot – snow removal; Memorandum to Hopkinton Planning Board from Officer Arthur Schofield-Crime Prevention Officer, dated July 18, 2018, re New Parking Lot Lighting;  Plan entitled “As-built Retaining Wall Repair Plan” dated October 10, 2017 revised through December 28, 2017, prepared by Beals and Thomas, Inc.  Email from Ria McNamara to Georgia Wilson, dated Monday July 23, 2018, Cannot attend tonite’s meeting to discuss ZAC; Email from Matt Kizner with comments regarding ZAC