The Conservation Commission provided feedback on the stormwater peer review reports for the proposed Charleswood Elementary School project during its meeting Tuesday.

“This is an opportunity to gain additional input from commission members before issuing formal responses [to peer review comments],” said Claire Hoogeboom of LEC Environmental Consultants.

Michelle Kayserman of Samiotes Consultants took the commission through recent comments on the plan, the resulting responses and proposed changes.

As part of the larger approval process, the Charleswood project was required to submit its stormwater management plan for peer review. Samiotes has been working to prepare responses and provide plan revisions.

Kayserman explained that one of the peer reviewers requested a sequencing plan for soil erosion. Her team can provide a draft of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), which includes phasing for soil erosion, but not a finalized version.

“Our question to the commission is if we can follow up with the sequencing plan while we are submitting the overall soil erosion plan,” Kayserman asked.

Kayserman’s request would make the sequencing plan for soil erosion a condition of approval for the Charleswood project. This would allow for changes as a contractor is chosen and plans to begin development are finalized.

Chris Eberly of Vertex provided additional context. He explained that while the Conservation Commission might have a preferred approach to project phasing, contractors have to factor how they approach a project as part of their cost analysis.

A prescriptive phasing plan, Eberly argued, likely could drive up costs.

“I’d rather provide a performance standard for the plan and measure [the contractor’s plan] against the standard versus prescribing how they can move through the site,” he said.

Added Eberly: “I’m trying to guard against overly saturating requirements to the point it limits contractors’ ability to tackle this in the most economical manner possible.”

Members discussed the merits of the condition of approval. Kim Ciaramicoli — who has resigned from her position as the town’s conservation administrator but still is providing assistance to the commission during the transition period — advocated for seeing phasing plans early.

“It allows us to have a little more assurance that the entire site isn’t open at once,” she said.

Kayserman assured members that once the plan is finalized, it would come back to both the Conservation Commission and the Planning Board for review.

The commission’s primary concerns related to site stability. Members expressed a desire to provide a general contractor the leeway to do their work, but worried about the size of the work area.

“We don’t want to open up 18 acres on one day and have to manage that throughout the duration of construction,” said co-vice chair Matt Moyen.

Through further discussion, members of the commission agreed to support the use of performance standards in the draft of a sequencing plan, provided enough detail was given to the contractor.

“Anything [the team] can do that will help the contractor in understanding this is a difficult site for stormwater,” said chair Melissa Recos.

Commission talks next steps for Elmwood Farms III violation

Ciaramicoli brought the Conservation Commission up to speed on the latest updates to the violation of an order of conditions for the Elmwood Farms III subdivision off Blueberry Lane.

She showed members an updated map of a runoff trench the developer had agreed to build through a lot in which a conservation restriction had been placed.

The map, which had been requested in a previous meeting, displayed the location of improperly removed trees, along with their size, caliper and species identification.

As part of the new development, Toll Brothers — the company developing the property — agreed to install the trench behind a handful of lots on Blueberry Lane. It had agreed to a 15-foot-wide limit of work for installation and maintenance of the trench.

However, workers clearing the area cut more trees than were allowed. According to the map, crews cut 15 trees that were out of the defined work area.

Commission members had questions about how the trees were felled when the developer alleged the area had been clearly laid out.

“Did the party doing tree removal just go off and do what they wanted?” asked member Ed Harrow.

“I’m pretty sure standard practice is to flag or paint a tree that is going to be removed,” member Jim Cirello added.

Ted Merchant, director of land development for Toll Brothers, was in attendance to answer the commission’s questions. He explained that it was industry standard to mark a line around the work limits rather than marking individual trees.

Ciaramicoli backed up Merchant, saying that she felt the marking was clear. She surmised it most likely was a communication issue.

“Somewhere along the line, communication broke down,” she asserted.

With this information provided, the commission discussed next steps. Members directed Merchant to put up a silt fence, continue work on the trench and come back with a mitigation plan.

Moyen advocated for the developer contracting a landscape architect as part of developing the mitigation plan.

“That way, we’re not putting burden on the commission and Kim to determine whether plantings are going to survive and are appropriate,” he said.

Merchant was open to Moyen’s suggestion and agreed to return to the commission once the plan was complete.