00:03:13,669	S1:
Attention, everybody.

00:03:20,300	S1:
Ladies and gentlemen. Ladies and gentlemen.

00:03:23,530	S2:
Every single year. Make up.

00:03:27,770	S2:
Every minute as well.

00:03:29,729	S1:
Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. Well, I need my gavel. I didn't bring my gavel.

00:03:38,330	S2:
Thank you for the laughter.

00:03:42,099	S1:
I have a gavel. I didn't bring it. Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.

00:03:48,469	S3:
We'll just start to start the meeting.

00:03:50,469	S1:
It's 7:03 p.m. and I'm calling the February 22nd, 2024 Planning Board meeting to order. I'm going to call roll as a first step in our meeting process. So members of the Planning board, when I call your name, would you please indicate that you're present? Jonathan.

00:04:12,530	S4:
Poor Jonathan, poor present.

00:04:14,370	S1:
Bill Wheaton.

00:04:15,229	S5:
Bill Wheaton present.

00:04:16,269	S1:
Emil Dahlquist.

00:04:17,730	S3:
Was present.

00:04:18,529	S1:
Beth.

00:04:18,829	S6:
Herr Beth. Herr present.

00:04:20,600	S1:
Rick Mitchell.

00:04:21,730	S2:
Here.

00:04:22,329	S1:
And Marty Crouch present. And I know for the record that Pat Norton and Matt Hamill are absent. They have children and they're involved with, um, their kids because in school vacation week. So, uh, if, uh, if people were bare with me, I am going to take the A and R request for 25 Gardner Street out of order, because I think it will take just a ten minutes or so, so I do have to read the notice that's pertinent to this A&R request. So, um, in accordance with Mass General Law, chapter 41, section 81, the applicant, Jeffrey Alsop, 587 Bay road, Hamilton. Um, who is, I think, a representative of the owner of 25 Gardner Street nominee Trust of Hamilton, mass. Is seeking a formal approval not required endorsement from the Planning Board for multiple parcels at 250 Cutler Road Assessor's map 24 lots 26 and 30 for the existing 57 plus or minus acres acre property is to be divided. The collective property is located within the R-1, B zoning district. So, Mr. Alsop, if you could step to the microphone and explain what the applicant is seeking through this A&R request?

00:05:51,629	S2:
Yes.

00:05:55,129	S7:
So we are here to, um, with a PB and R plan to be endorsed. And I've been asked to provide a narrative about my intentions for the property I am. I do have it under agreement and plan on closing, uh, shortly. The property is at 25. Gardner. And I certainly welcome providing all this information. Um, first, just a little introduction to myself and family. We want to point out that we've lived and worked in Hamilton, having moved here in 1988. So I've been around a while. Uh, my wife and Kim and I raised children here. Our daughter and her husband returned to Hamilton and are raising two of their boys here, and my son and his wife are raising his family, one town over in Essex. But, um, I'm blessed that he works with me. um, daily next door where the stewards of the post office and have restored the original building. Our offices are upstairs. We're always available and willing to openly discuss our projects. In fact, a gardener street neighbor came by when we're doing the CBA hearing and asked what our plans were, and she left fully informed and actually pleased with what she saw. Um, how we have gotten here. 25 gardener is a property of approximately 63 acres. We found, um, close to five more during the survey work that we performed. Um, it is non-conforming present presently because it has three residences on it. So, um, the entire property is then this is a very critical issue or concern. The entire property is subject to a conservation Observation restriction. That leaves two building envelopes, one approximately five acres, which presently has the main house and the pool house and stable. The other at the corner of Moulton Street, Bay Road and Gardner, has two dwellings, a barn and a garage. There is no prohibition in the KRT to dividing the property, and that's pretty critical. So, um, roughly 57 acres of the property are under the KRE, and that prohibits any additional buildings. Construction is only allowed on the building envelopes. Um, the property is also subject to an extra trail that loops from Gardiner Street to Moulton Street. Um, the property sort of into my intentions. The property languished on the market for well over a year. The buildings are in a state of decay. The grounds, while gorgeous, are immense. The maintenance costs are prohibitively expensive and there were no offers. Um, the concept to divide the property into five parcels represents a solution to the situation, makes the elements more affordable, more manageable, and therefore more marketable. So the original concept was to create five conforming form eight lots, and that proposal necessitated the demolition of all the structures existing on the building of slope one at the corner. Um, we had a great series of meetings with the Hamilton Historic District Commission, and they expressed that they would really like to see the building saved. So at that point, I reconfigured the lots to save the buildings, at least two of them, the gray building and the barn. And, um, and so we went through that process and reconfigured the lot lines and therefore had to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals, because now there are two nonconforming lots at the corner. So we did that, um, and we got a decision in favor. And so there are going to hopefully be which sign this, uh, maybe not tonight because we don't have all the sheets here. Um, there'll be a single family lot for sale on Moulton. Um, a lot be with two family house and barn. And then lot C is a nine acre lot with approximately 2.5 acres buildable. And that's by dividing building envelope two. And that would be for sale. And then approximately a 20 acre lot with a house and barn. The main house, two and a half acres buildable. And that would be for sale as well. And then approximately e e, which is an unbelievable lot. 34 acres will be retained by myself. So the sort of overall global view is that my daughter and her husband owned. 139 Gardner. I owned a parcel called Zero Gardner. Very auspicious. And that is a budding lady. So I'm looking to create a larger parcel and perhaps go into farming in my old age.

00:11:10,070	S1:
So that's what we always like to see.

Equestrian. 00:11:16,570	S1:
Uses for property here in Hamilton. And certainly I think Missus Sears had horses there for a really long time. So it would be wonderful if some aspect of that use could remain. Um, so, um, I open it up to any questions from board members for Mr.

Alsop. 00:11:43,529	S1:
Hearing none. I think I will entertain a motion from the board to approve the ANR request filed by Mr.

Alsop. 00:11:55,500	S4:
So moved.

00:11:56,970	S5:
Seconded.

00:11:58,470	S1:
So when I call your name, would you please indicate that you approve? Jonathan.

00:12:03,169	S4:
Poor, Jonathan poor.

00:12:04,399	S1:
I will Wheaton.

00:12:06,000	S5:
Bill Wheaton, I.

00:12:07,000	S1:
Am Dahlquist.

00:12:08,299	S3:
And Will Dahlquist.

Die. 00:12:09,470	S1:
Beth Herr.

00:12:10,169	S2:
I.

00:12:11,269	S1:
Rick Mitchell and Marni Crouch, I. And I apologize for the mix up and the absence of the mylar. I will ask the planning board members to go to Mary Ellen's office and sign the mylar at their earliest convenience, and I will, as soon as I am able tomorrow, sent her an email to expect you. And do you all know where her office is?

00:12:40,730	S6:
Just ask that.

00:12:42,100	S1:
I don't.

00:12:42,629	S6:
Is it in Peyton Peyton homestead?

00:12:45,029	S1:
No, it's not here. No, it's actually behind the Council on Aging building. There's a little red building behind the Council on Aging, and there's a set of kind of rickety steps. And there's a door that says staff only. And if you go in there, Barry Ellen has a very nice office, actually.

00:13:07,830	S2:
And and she goes through.

00:13:09,929	S7:
To you go through the.

00:13:11,769	S2:
Major.

00:13:12,200	S1:
You can go through the Council on Aging. So she has all the maps that you would ever want to see. And the most amazing printing machine I've seen in a, I think, ever an enormous printing machine, so she can print all these huge maps that that are much easier to read than the little copies that we sometimes get. So I will try and arrange that and send around emails so that you can get your requisite signatures as soon as possible.

00:13:40,870	S7:
Fantastic. Thank you very much.

00:13:42,370	S1:
Oh, you're more than welcome.

00:13:43,200	S2:
Appreciate it.

00:13:47,100	S1:
So the next item on our agenda is a continued hearing on the applications of the Hamilton Regional School District for a site plan review and a stormwater management permit.

Um. 00:14:11,200	S1:
In Patrick's absence, in an exercise of caution, I will read the notice. Um, he could advise me whether it was necessary, because it's a continued hearing. Um, so, uh, due to my uncertainty on this regard, I think I'll read it. Uh, so this is, uh, the Hamilton Planning Board will continue their review of a site plan application and a stormwater management application for a project proposed at 7.75 Bay road by the Hamilton Wenham Regional High School. The applicant is Superintendent Eric Tracy and represented by consultant Kathleen Herbold, Director of Athletics Gail Associates, Inc. The site plan review shall be as per the Hamilton Zoning Bylaw and state regulations, in addition to the Hamilton Stormwater Management Bylaw. Article 29 as recently amended as well, it's no longer under review by the Mass Attorney General. It's now in effect. The subject property is located at the rear of 7.75 Bay road, and is also known as a separate assessor's map for the lot number 11. In map 41, lot number one. The proposed plan is to add small structures and facilities related to the athletic facility and artificial turf fields, artificial turf, tennis courts, lighting grandstands, press box, amenities building and Ada access improvements. Plan and reports are available electronically or can be viewed at the Planning Office. Patent homestead, 650 Asbury Street, Hamilton math 01982. All wishing to speak on the matter should attend the hearing, either in person or electronically via zoom. So what that said, uh, is, uh, Mr. Houston available on zoom? And I believe Miss Harville was also going to appear by zoom this evening.

00:16:12,629	S1:
So, Mr. Houston, if you could start the ball rolling, what I'd like. Well, actually, I apologize before, uh, before I turn to Mr. Houston, uh, for the benefit of some of the people that are here tonight who may not be aware of the process. I wanted to just go go ahead and review the timeline, because I think there's some misconception that this process is dragging on, and the fault lies with the planning board. When I would respect respectfully disagree. So the funding for the Athletic Fields project was approved at town meeting on April 1st, 2023, but Gale associates did not file its site plan, review application and stormwater management permit application until November 16th, 2023. And I note that the vote to fund the athletic campus redevelopment was not the equivalent of approval of a site plan review application or a stormwater management permit application with respect to the site Plan review application pursuant to Mass General Law 40 a section 11, there has to be a 14 day notice for the hearing. So that would have delayed the actual hearing until sometime in December. We had a hearing scheduled on December 19th on this project, but the peer reviewer was not approved until one day later. And the plans for this project are exceedingly complex, and the package of materials that were submitted were, I think, well over 250 pages. And I didn't bring the maps that I have, but I have a huge roll of maps. So the engineering aspects of this project far exceed the expertise of the planning board to evaluate in any reasonable fashion, and therefore a peer reviewer, and that is Mr. Thomas Houston of Professional Services had to be engaged. And so that happened on December 20th, 2023. So Mr. Houston fought his first report with respect to the site plan review application on January 8th, 2024, and noted 44 items in his with respect to the site plan review application that required correction or clarification. Gale Associates responded to those comments on February 8th, and Mr. Houston followed up with that. And uh, uh, on February 6th, at our planning board meeting, he reported that most of the items had been resolved. On January 23rd, Mr. Houston submitted 43 comments with respect to the stormwater management permit application, and Gail Associates responded, uh, again with the 247 page document on February 13th, 2024. In addition, an a butter Miss Angelo filed comments on February 9th, 2024, and both Gayle Associates and Mr. Houston have addressed her comments and concerns. So. In addition, on note, on February 12th, the Superintendent of Schools submitted a proposed schedule pursuant to which the Hamilton Wenham School District would utilize the lights and the PA system uh, until 8:30 p.m. on Sunday through Thursday, and until 9 p.m. on Friday through Sunday. There was no indication that the number of days for that schedule would be less than 365 on February 20th. Then, Mr. Houston submitted a 14 page document in response to Gale associates and a 13 page document in response to Angelo's comments. So in addition, on February 20th, Gail Associates submitted written responses. So here we are. This is a complicated process and it's it's ongoing. And the planning board is doing its very best to review all the materials that are submitted and listen to our peer reviewer as to how to proceed. So now I will turn to Mr. Houston, and I would ask him to review where we are in this process and in particular address any outstanding issues from his perspective. And then, of course, Mr.. Miss herbal will have a chance to address the planning Board as well.

00:21:14,799	S8:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I can go through this verbally. If you wanted me to share the screen, I can, but it's not not critical. Um, with respect to the, uh, 43 comments, uh, that we had with respect to, uh, stormwater, uh, Gale associates was highly responsive, and I believe all but a very few of those have been, uh, completely resolved. So, uh, let me just touch maybe the three things that are, uh, kind of critical in the whole process. Uh, the first is our comment number one. Uh, we had asked for five, uh, test pits, uh, in the, uh, softball field, uh, because there is no test information available there that serves as the basis for the, um. Uh, for the, uh, synthetic turf field, which infiltrates stormwater. So Gale associates proposal, uh, is to perform that testing prior to construction. That's obviously most critical that it be done before construction. Some boards prefer to be done during the approval process, but deferring it as long as it's done prior to construction. Uh, that's the critical thing. So in our report, we included a recommended condition of approval of any favorable decision, which would be prior to construction, that they excavate the five test pits. And we went into a bit of detail as to the technical requirements for doing that. Uh, our. Comment number two was very similar. We had requested two test pits that will serve as the basis for the design of the infiltration trench that will drain the tennis courts. So the same process would apply there. Gael Associates proposes to defer those tests until prior to construction. And again, that's the most critical. We included some technical requirements for doing that. The only downside of deferring it is that there may have to be design revisions, sort of during construction. If the test pits don't show what we anticipate they'll show, which is fairly deep groundwater and fairly permeable soil. I can say that the soils that have been tested are pretty consistent. There's no reason to believe the soil in either of these locations would be different. But at any rate, that's the current proposal is simply to defer the defer the testing until, uh, prior to construction. So. The other thing I wanted to mention this is just, uh, ongoing discussion. And this is, I believe, our comment number 42, sort of at the end of the report, uh, this was on our original comment, which is that we requested that Gail associates, uh, engage a person with specialized expertise to assist in specifying the appropriate requirements for the synthetic turf. So Gale associates, in their response said that they are requiring free installation testing, but the testing would be in compliance with current standards. So I believe they are referring to drinking water standards because they're the only standards that I am aware of that apply to Fez. And there are probably two standards that we should talk about. One of them is the current mass DEP standard for PFAS in drinking water, which is 20 nanograms per liter, or that is 20 parts per trillion. so it's a very tiny value. There is a proposal by US EPA to set the standard at four nanograms per liter, not 20. And my understanding is that the four nanograms per liter was set because it's the minimum detection limit. They can't test or finely than that. So I my understanding of Gail's proposal is that they propose to set the standard of acceptability at the 20 nanograms per liter. If the board wanted to discuss the issue of four nanograms per liter, you could. I also included, and I know the board members probably know this, but other people may not. Uh, there are requirements from the Conservation Commission in regard to their Conservation Bylaw chapter 17 permit, where they are also requiring testing of various PFAS compounds prior to construction, and they're also requiring sampling of the miles river up gradient from where this flow would enter, at the point where it enters, and then down gradient where it enters the Miles River swamp. So there is testing otherwise required. Gale Associates is proposing it as part of their construction documents, and is also testing of PFAS compounds that is required by the Conservation Commission, uh, under their stormwater permit. Uh, the other document that we had submitted. The board had asked us to address, uh, a number of kind of outstanding issues or issues that hadn't been responded to. So, uh, we did issue a memorandum on February 20th, sort of addressing the outstanding issues. One of them, we'd been asked to provide some guidance on on noise and with respect to noise. Uh, we believe that the noise from the athletic fields and the noise from the public address system can best be addressed by limiting the hours of use. And as the chair mentioned, the school department's current proposal is to shut off the lights and the public address system at 830 on Sunday night and on weeknights, and to shut them off at 930 on Saturday, Friday and Saturday nights. So clearly, the school department needs to keep the lights on to make their athletic program work. Clearly, the neighbors I'm sure, would prefer it if the lights go off as early as possible. So the school department's current proposal is 830 and 930. But we did suggest maybe the board might want to discuss that issue with the school department and see if there's any flexibility in terms of the hours for lights and the hours for the public address system. The other issue with respect to noise is whether or not a noise barrier would be helpful in reducing noise for the butters. Well, a noise barrier fundamentally works if you block the line of sight between the source of the noise and the receptor, and the sensitive receptor is usually a residence. And it is in these cases. So the tennis courts, which I understand may also be used for pickleball. Uh, they're fairly far from the residences. They're 300ft away. But, um, if a noise barrier is considered that, uh, there are fabric types of noise barriers that could be just hung on the fencing of the tennis courts, and that would effectively shield the residences from that noise. It's more difficult with the, um, with the football multi-use field and the associated grandstand, because a noise barrier that would block the field and the grandstand would be more of a significant structural issue. It would be, uh, a substantial structure and fairly expensive to construct. The idea, again, would be to block the line of sight between the football field, the bleachers, and the adjacent residences. So those are just our thoughts on, um, on noise. Uh, we wanted to also respond, and I know Gale associates also responded to these. We responded to the, um, uh, issues raised by the Ipswich River Watershed Association in two sets of, uh, comments that they submitted. The first comment was they suggested that a bond be posted to make sure that the fields are maintained. Our comment was that a bond is an instrument usually used for one time expense. So I think the way to handle that, and I know Gail Associates is working with the school district to develop a maintenance budget for these facilities. My suggestion would be that the maintenance be included as a planning board condition of approval for any favorable decision, so that there'd be a mechanism of enforcement to make sure that the maintenance is continuously carried out because it would be a condition of approval. Uh, the uh, Watershed Association second comment, uh, they suggested that, uh, there be backup systems to the underground, uh, infiltration, which occurs underneath the synthetic turf fields, making the comment that underground facilities fail frequently. Well, that is generally true, but the reason that they fail is that they they have total suspended solids or Particulates that start choking up the stone layers and facilities. Well, that's not going to happen here for a few reasons. First of all, to get into the stone layer, the runoff has to pass through the artificial turf, which sort of, uh, filters it. But secondly, the sources of suspended solids are typically, um, automobile traffic and, uh, runoff from landscaped areas. Well, these fields don't have any automobile traffic. And there's actually a raised curb around them which prevents any runoff from any landscaped areas. So it's not going to be really ts getting into these fields. So we don't feel there's really the requirement to have, uh, a redundant backup system for them. I think these should continue to operate well. Uh, their third comment was sort of a follow on in the same area. And again, we feel that the, uh, permeability of the synthetic turf is not going to be prone to degradation by TS because they can't get on the, uh, get on the fields.

Um. 00:35:19,530	S9:
Okay.

Us. 00:35:27,130	S8:
More, uh, the general contractor will conduct third party testing. Uh, the required testing we specified in the construction documents. But Gael Associates again mentioned this would be in accordance with current standards. And we've discussed UST what are the what the current standards are? Maybe something to further discuss whether it's the 20 or the four, uh, nanograms per liter as the standard of acceptability.

Um. 00:36:07,170	S8:
The fifth comment was that a party other than, uh, the school department, uh, be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the stormwater facilities? Well, uh, our suggestion there was simply that the planning board discussed with the school district, what are their plans? Who do they plan to select to do the maintenance of the stormwater facilities? Is it an in-house function, or do they plan to engage one of the many firms that do that, uh, professionally. Uh, the sixth comment again relates to testing requirements. And again, we pointed out pursuant to the conservation bylaw permit that, uh, the Conservation Commission is requiring, uh, testing for various, uh, PFAS components. Uh, and their final comment, which was actually in a separate January 5th letter, uh, they had requested fluorine testing. And fluorine is is a test which, uh, if fluorine is present, it indicates that PFAS is president. This is kind of a testing element. So in addition to the other tests that the Conservation Commission already requires, uh, the watershed association is requesting a test for total organic fluorine or total fluorine, uh, kind of as a indicator of the presence of PFAS. So we, um, also, uh, commented on the comments from, uh, attorney, uh, in Giraud. Uh, the first comment that was made, uh, had to do with these dark skies compliance. And it is our opinion that dark skies compliance is beneficial in terms of having a lighting system that is energy efficient and is not. It doesn't have higher levels of illumination than is required. Um, and the only issue here, I believe, and a part of the certification process that Gale associates is applying for, part of that process relates to the cutoff time for the lights. So again, that's the eight 3930 issue that we suggested might be discussed, uh, with the uh, school department. Uh, there was also a comment about, uh, light trespass across property lines and light trespass, uh, into the wetlands, which was also a concern to the Conservation Commission. So we did take a look at the photometric plans. And there is some light trespass right behind the home bleachers when it gets to the property line. The illumination level is about 6/10 of a foot candle that drops off to zero in about 25 additional feet. The illumination level that is greater than zero is about 50ft from the nearest residence on Longmeadow Way. With respect to the wetlands, the photometric plan indicates that they were pretty effective in cutting off the light levels right at the edge of the athletic field. There's not much extension into the wetlands at all in terms of the, um, of the lighting level. So that responded to the concerns about light trespass, both in terms of the neighbors and the wetlands. Uh, the next comment related to noise seeking information on the uh, public address system that is being proposed. And we understand that Gale associates is currently working with the, um, with the school district in terms of selecting a, um, uh, selecting a particular model or manufacturer of the public address system. So that's kind of an open item in terms of providing the detail that was requested about the system. Uh, comment here on the, um, uh, the tennis pickleball courts. Uh, and uh, the comment was again requesting, uh, shielding or a noise barrier effect specifically stating the suggestion was mass loaded vinyl sound mitigation material on the two sides of the tennis court that face most directly Longmeadow made way. We had suggested actually material be placed on on three sides. Um, to be sure that the sound is absorbed. Uh, there also comments on the Drainage and stormwater issues. Uh, the I mean, there's kind of a. Three elements of the stormwater system that are sort of all mentioned in this, uh, first comment under, uh, stormwater. Uh, the first one, again, is an issue of total suspended solids. Uh, again, we feel fields aren't subject to se, uh, degradation. And even if there was some SE gale associated, specifies the minimum flow rate through the synthetic turf as 16in per hour, whereas the flow rate through the underlying in-situ soil is only about one inch per hour. So the, uh, the turf is much more permeable than the underlying soil, which ultimately determine how much infiltration takes place. So again, we don't we don't think the degradation by TS is really an issue. The next issue related to stormwater is that of the synthetic turf fibers. Synthetic turf does shed fibers over time. What will happen to them because of the way the synthetic turf and the drainage is constructed here? Uh, the only way for water to leave the field is to flow downwards. So if there are any fibers that come loose, they'll be washed downward And rest on the synthetic turf itself. Now, those fibers are fairly light. They could be displaced by wind over time. They could be displaced by athletes using the fields. So some of these loose blades of grass may find their way into the stormwater system eventually. But the primary direction for the deposition of these loose fibers simply downward towards the turf itself. Uh, there was also a concern about, uh, microplastics and synthetic turf. Uh, is plastic, and any type of plastic is going to generate microplastics. That's not to be confused with the loose fibers, because the the microplastics that are usually evaluated are as small as 100 nanometers in length. And to give you an idea of how small it is, they're 100 nanometers. It takes 100,000 nanometers to be the width of a human hair. So some of these particles, microplastics, are very small. Usually the upward, the upper limit on what's considered a microplastic is about five millimetres in length. The blades of grass are one millimetres in length, so the loose blades of grass aren't the same as microplastic because the turf is plastic. There's going to be some microplastic added to the runoff, which again will be directed towards the ground. It will become part of groundwater. Any plastic anywhere generates microplastics, as does the, uh, as does the synthetic turf. Um, there was another issue raised, which was that, um, the issue of stormwater trespass. And the issue raised was that the runoff from the site is going to contain contaminants which would enter onto adjacent property. And the thought was that, therefore an easement is necessary to authorize this, Underground infiltrated storm runoff to leave the property. Well, I don't know of a case where contaminated water was considered to require an easement. Usually, issues of stormwater trespass are surface water issues, and they occur when there's an increase in the volume or peak rate of stormwater runoff. Or stormwater runoff is collected in a pipe in a point source, and the increase of the point source is right near a property line. So it's a physical above ground water that relates to peak rates of discharge, not subsurface, uh, infiltrated runoff that contains certain contaminant that level's the general direction, though, of the underground infiltrated stormwater is sort of towards the wetland that's in the center of the site. It'll be flowing north from the football field and the south from the softball field, so the contaminated water would most likely stay on the school grounds for quite a distance before eventually making its way towards the Myles River wetland and the the watercourse itself. One issue I did want to mention in terms of underground water and any contaminants, uh, there was testimony given at the last public hearing that there were private wells along the Longmeadow Way and I suggested that the board may want to get information from the Board of Health. I don't see that there's an imminent health threat here. Again, there's there's PFAS and there's microplastics everywhere. But if there are private wells here, maybe the Board of Health might have an opinion as to whether there should be some reaching out to those property owners and perhaps asking if they might want to go on town water. And there could be a discussion of how all that works financially. But I don't think it's an imminent threat. But, you know, it is an issue if there are private wells there. And I think maybe discussing those issues with the with the Board of Health are probably the, the best way to handle it. So, um, There were various statements made here that artificial turf should be prohibited, and there are various sources documented that that support that position. We did not attempt to evaluate them, but just noted that there is documentation provided. I know there were different views on that. It was also a comment made about whether or not, uh, natural turf fields, uh, could be used in lieu of the synthetic turf fields in terms of hours of use and, and that type of thing. The there were examples cited of natural turf fields that might get more use than the fields here. We did not evaluate that other than to say that again, There were sources provided for the statements about the extent of use, which is possible from natural turf field. I know Gael associates and people in the school department have a different view of whether or not that's practicable. So, uh, there were additional comments made here about if artificial turf is permitted. And I think the the fundamental point was that, uh, if artificial turf is permitted, there should be testing for contaminants. Uh, we would agree with that. Uh, the infill material was another comment that it should be organic. Uh, I think an organic infill material has a lower potential, for many types of contaminants. I know Gale associates has said that the the school district is considering, uh, specifying a, uh, uh, a non tire based, uh, infill. Uh, it was a recommendation that, um, the school district develop a temperature based testing and use policy. Uh, synthetic turf does get, uh, hot in full sun conditions, more so than a natural turf field. So it does seem reasonable that the school district does develop a method for measuring the temperature and also a policy in terms of if it becomes too hot for the, uh, for the fields to be used in a full sun condition was a comment about a G Max rating, which is a rating for the impact that the artificial turf provides. Gale Associates does specify actually, uh, a uh a g Max rating, which is lower than uh, industry standards. So I think everybody agrees that's a valid issue. And the spec Gale associates has is more conservative or lower than the industry standard. So, uh, those are our, uh, comments on the comments that Attorney Drew made, uh, our comments on the noise issue and our comments on the Ipswich, uh, Watershed Association comments. So sorry. This was a bit lengthy, but I didn't want to go over everything in detail and be pleased to respond to any questions.

00:54:20,269	S1:
To members of the board. Have any questions for Mr. Houston at this time?

00:54:33,530	S3:
I've got I have one question, Mr. Houston, on, um, the discussion around, um.

00:54:44,199	S3:
I guess it was brought up by Miss Jarrod that, um, for and at what she referred to as an average field of 80,000ft². And actually, the the three fields in Hamilton will be more like 258,000ft². So it's, um, quite a bit larger. But she had cited the, um, the amount of shredded material plastic coming off that would amount to, I guess, get our number here.

Um. 00:55:19,070	S8:
I think.

00:55:19,429	S3:
You said the amount to 200.

00:55:21,000	S2:
To.

00:55:21,599	S8:
200 to £3,200.

00:55:23,829	S5:
But with a.

00:55:24,500	S3:
258,000ft that the plastic would amount to £129,000 of plastic on the fields, and that would yield at the same percentage as you was, citing, 600 to £10,000 per year. Uh, the question is because I think there's are there really two issues here? Because the infiltration, because what you said was the fabric would essentially filter any of the plastic from going downwards. So infiltration is not the real issue there. But um, migration would be an issue not only of the, um, the microplastic, but also of the infill. Uh, that has to go somewhere. And I think you mentioned it could get blown by the wind. It could, you know, it could be maybe washed over in a heavy a heavy storm washed off the field, off the surface toward, as you said, downhill going toward the wetlands area. So I think the the two issues, I think, um, are they being conflated with each other or are they really separate issues here? And what happens to the to the 600 to £10,000 of microplastic? If these numbers are correct? Uh, that what happens to it over the course of a year? What's the disposition of the the plastic?

00:56:48,829	S8:
Well, I'm not really sure that's been studied because the, uh, one mechanism to remove the blades that are shed is stormwater, but in this case, the only method for stormwater to leave these synthetic turf fields is downward. Even under major storms where there's a discharge of stormwater into the wetlands, it first goes through the artificial turf, through the gravel underneath it, and it's collected in drains, but then discharged under extreme storms. So any water that ever falls on these fields, it goes downwards. So the initial displacement by stormwater is to kind of leave it in place. The blades themselves are fairly light, so they may become embedded in the um In the turf itself, or some of them could be displaced by the wind. They could be displaced simply by sticking to the shoes of athletes or being tracked off. So there's not a clear path that I have been able to identify as to how this material would be ultimately removed from the air. As I say, some of it may simply stay in place, but there are two mechanisms. I can see where it would be moved. One of them would be wind and weather. The other would be use by the athletes who could track it off the field.

00:58:48,570	S3:
Thank you.

00:58:51,230	S4:
I had a question for Mr. Houston. You've talked pretty extensively about light trespass and the dark sky. Um, standards. Uh, actually, Amel previously had brought up the the consideration of glare as separate from light trespass, and it seems a little difficult to discern from the cut sheets on the on the luminaires, uh, whether there will be, uh, shielding from glare. And considering that the light poles are fairly high, that that cutoff angle seems fairly critical for the butters. So I just wondered if there's some more we could, more information we could have on the luminaires and the cutoff angle relative to the height of the poles.

00:59:41,300	S8:
Well, in terms of dark skies, the concern is upward projection of light. And the, um, the fixture information that they provided indicates that the upward projection of light is totally cut off.