Vertex project manager Chris Eberly will pursue a proposal for a risk mitigation strategy with nine neighbors closest to the Charleswood School construction site.

The Elementary School Building Committee gave the go ahead Tuesday following Eberly’s description of the process, which involves conducting a pre-existing survey of properties to understand their condition at the start of construction.

Eberly said the School Committee or town could offer the survey, whereby a third party (vendor) goes into the home with a video camera and does a review “like a simplified home inspection.”

The third party would do an audio notation of things like cracks in walls and flooring, water damage areas, separations, etc. so there is a record.

“It is so we can eliminate any misconceptions about what was or what was not caused by our construction,” Eberly said.

The cost at each home would run between $500 to $750, Eberly estimated.

The project manager said Vertex has worked in communities that used this practice as well as those that did not.

He said he had no preference either way, but the mitigation strategy had been used successfully elsewhere.

The inspections are voluntary and are met with two reactions, Eberly said. “One is, ‘I don’t want any stranger let into my house,’ and the other is a town not wanting to take on liabilities in an abutter’s home upfront.

“Some communities like it, and others don’t want any part of it,” Eberly said. The inspection report can be left with the neighbors themselves or put into the town’s custody.

Eberly said the vibrations from blasting (to break up rocks) is one part of construction that can have an effect, “as noted by staff at Hopkins School” for that renovation/addition project.

He said he could not envision claims of property damage from the use of a vibration compactor. However, “It can be a little unsettling when things shake a little. It’s not driving near your house, but it can feel like it.”

Eberly said if this property survey option is not used, claims will be handled on a case-to-case basis by insurance.

ESBC member Mike Shepard said a Toll Brothers project off Blueberry Lane involves extensive excavation and compaction close to the school, and he suspected the developer did not survey the rest of the neighborhood.

“Where do you decide who did what?” Shepard asked. “I don’t see the need for it. It may cause more problems.”

Shepard added, though, that he would go along with what most of the board wanted.

ESBC chair Jon Graziano said it would be best to limit the option to the immediate neighborhood but it would be worth asking the town if this practice was done with other roadwork projects.

Adaptive playground plans move ahead

The ESBC also looked at plans from landscape architect company Traverse to make the north playground at Charleswood School handicapped accessible.

Eberly described the changes to equipment as an “upgrade” to what previously was proposed, noting the “quality of play” was enhanced to include accessibility for children with disabilities.

The plans show ground level items where all students can interact, seating areas for all and the addition of shade structures not in the original proposal.

The changes amount to an additional $100,000, Eberly said, which in the context of the entire school project is “not that much.”

“[You’ll] get much better pricing if you incorporate it into the regular bid rather than waiting until afterwards. There are complexities to building a playground,” Eberly told the board.

Assistant Superintendent Susan Rothermich has been working on the subcommittee involved with an adaptive playground. Of the plans, she said, “What is nice about the structure is it provides multiple elements for all children to play, and that is just really having more touch points where kids can gather.”

Rothermich added, “It is well done now.”

Graziano noted the committee takes seriously any money that is added or subtracted on the Charleswood School project.

However, Graziano said, the playground changes “feel like the right way to go and something we should be striving for at an educational facility to carry us forward for the next 30 years.”

The board agreed to possibly add a turf field to the play area, with Eberly speaking on the difficulties of keeping the field “green.”

“There are three waves of 400 kids [at recess], and the grass will take a beating,” he said.

Eberly said the turf field would add “durability and longevity” and is like the turf area around the playground at Marathon School.

Tim Persson, the director of buildings and grounds, endorsed the idea. He said the fields are fine at first but then become “overwhelmed” by weeds, clovers and rocks, and the ground becomes uneven.

Persson said there are many reasons why turf makes sense and makes maintenance easier, because employees then are not “blowing grass clippings all over the playground.”

In addition, the turf makes a “smoother transition” for children with disabilities, as they would not have to go out to the pavement and down and around to get from one place to another, Persson said.

“It is a nicer, more usable space for longer periods of time,” he added.

Members decided to make the turf field a bid alternate, so when the price comes back, if the cost is too high, they do not have to commit to it.

Eberly noted that the project currently is $8 million under budget, so “small swaps are not as big a deal.”