SRA Construction Kick-Off Meeting:
Senior Center—27 Maple Street
September 10, 2007
Sandi Wolchansky, SRA’s Development Manager introduced Joe Curro the SNAC Chairman and Kevin Nigro, the Designated Town Representative. Sandi also introduced SRA representatives and consultants
Sandi Wolchansky: SRA Development Manager
Michael Salguero: JPI Development
Jake Upton: SRA Development
Mark Theriault: JPI Construction
Josh Davis: JPI Legal Counsel –Freeman Davis and Stearns LP
Brent Morgenstern: Abatement Contractor-DEC-TAM
Jeff Mt Pleasant: Environmental Consultant-BlackStone Consulting
Sean Dundon: Environmental Consultant-BlackStone Consulting
Chris Erickson: Geotechnical Consultant-McPhail Engineering
Joe Curro started off night with comment: SNAC was built to encourage communication between neighbors and developers. The SNAC is in need of 2 more members. Beth Ann Friedman just applied, but still need 2 more. Also, there is a yellow sign-up sheet for people interested in hearing announcements only, this allows people that do not want the extra email a chance to get announcements
Sandi Wolchansky of SRA started the meeting with an explanation of the NPP. The NPP is attached as part of specifications for every subcontractor. When JPI joined with EA Fish, they also joined in all responsibilities. Sandi also explained the scope of the project has not changed from what was permitted, there would still be five 4 story townhouse clusters (A,B,C,D,E) and 54 in number. There would also be 146 units in building 3 and 4, which would be 4 story buildings over a parking structure. Sandi explained that per the NPP SRA is required to have meetings on a regular basis, and that they must mail out notices to the mailing list. This list is managed by SNAC, so if someone did not receive a notice, they should talk with the SNAC to update.
Sandi explained that the power point has the primary contacts for the job, and that these can also be found on the website: www.symmesconstruction.com. However, if there is an emergency, Sandi asks that residents of the town please call 911.
The first question from the audience: “If Hospital Road is public, how can you close it”? Sandi explained the road is in fact private, and that as the property owner, SRA will be allowed to close it. Closing the road improves JPI’s construction management and minimizes safety concerns. In explaining the pre-demolition survey, Sandi showed a chart with the proposed houses to be surveyed. She explained that the map was preliminary, however, if someone’s name is not on the list, then they should talk to Kevin Nigro. Sandi explained that the pre-demolition survey will provide a record of a property’s exiting conditions prior to the work so that both SRA and the Property Owner are protected in the event any issues arise.
Sandi was asked “when did you make your notification for abatement?” Sandi indicated that notification was made in a meeting on August 6th, and also was included in a mailing announcing the meeting, mailed August 7th. Sandi was asked “when trucks are backing up and beeping as well as idling, will they do this before 7AM.?” Sandi indicated that this is possible, but that there is an enforcement mechanism in the NPP that requires SRA/JPIC issue a warning to the subcontractor and to impose a fine of $500 for the 2nd infraction. A member of the audience pointed out that State Law is for 5 minutes or less of idling for a non-working vehicle. JPIC Representative Mark Theriault indicated that they fully plan to be within state and local laws.
A member of the audience asked how long the intense blasting will last. Mark replied that blasting would happen for 3 months, but that the actual blasts could be as far as 2-3 days apart, and there could be subsequent smaller further apart blasts for 6-8 months.. Sandi stated that SRA is working to develop a system to easily indicate when blasting is to occur. One idea is to hang a Red Piece of paper on the information boards to make it clear which days blasting will occur.
A member of the audience asked if there was an industry standard for how far away houses are that need to be surveyed? Mark answered he knew there was a standard, he thought it was 200-250 feet, but could not recall exactly, and that JPIC and their consultants would be sure to follow the standards.
A member asked if there would be a good place to watch the demolition work. Mark suggested there is a top knoll on the Woodside lane side of the site that is the highest point on the site, that it will be accessible, and outside the construction fence line and might make for good watching.
A member of the audience asked why blasting was planned adjacent to Woodside Lane and Hospital Road, Mark replied that this was to reposition the road and to allow for proper grading and drainage.
A member of the audience asked when blasting was scheduled per the phasing plan. Mark said it was anticipated to be in early to mid- March.
A member asked if all goes well, is March a good time to do blasting? Mark replied that it was a good time because it was wet, and dust would be more minimal than in drier months.
A member pointed out that early on the process, the town was told there would be a lot of rock processing on site, and asked will this still happen, and if so, where will the rock processor be located? Mark replied yes, a good deal of the rock will be processed on site, and will be reused on site as structural fill. However, there would be a need to export some of the materials off-site. Mark indicated that the rock processing location had not been decided yet, but that he assumed it would be somewhere in the middle of the upper portion of the site.
A member asked “Will you export the rock or the fill?” Mark said that they will process the rock they blast, and could not yet make a determination as to what would be exporting off-site. Sandi also noted that SRA would return to the SNAC to explain the blasting process as it gets closer
A member asked: “how are you going to monitor vibrations” Mark responded that the monitors would follow the work, a member pointed out that she does not trust SRA will comply with the bylaws when they already failed to comply with Article 11, the affordable housing bylaw. Sandi made the note that monitoring is done to help the GC (JPIC) manage its subcontractors and make sure they are within appropriate tolerances for noise, vibration, etc. If they are not, they will be required to adjust means and methods to get in line.
Another member pointed out that the fence around the buildings had a hole in it large enough for her to slip through, and that the fence in the back was still open. Sandi suggested that JPI would look into making this more secure so that the building was more safe.
When Sandi discussed Rodent control, she received a question asking whether dogs or cats could get into the bait traps. Mark explained that the hole to get into the bait traps was very small and that the boxes were designed so that large animals could not get in there.
A member asked who will be monitoring the rodent situation. Mark Responded that Waltham Services has been contracted, and that if they see a surge in rodent activity, they will have to put up more traps. A representative from the Board of Health, Christine Connelly also said that residents could help to protect their houses by limiting the amount of trash that was around as well as limiting the number of bird feeders around. This representative also said that Waltham Services’ work was in line with what was normal for a construction project such as Symmes.
When Sandi discussed communication, she received questions regarding her understanding of the NPP, One member pointed out the NPP is designed to protect town and developer, and that a procedure was in place so that calls can be logged. This member pointed out that calls are supposed to go to a Primary Contact at JPI, and then to the Town Rep. This member also asked Sandi if she had a logging plan, which she replied she does. Sandi then suggested to the member that if he had any issues with the way that SRA was implementing the NPP, that he should take it up with the town.
A member asked, “I want to sell my house and relocate, what happens if you blast and my foundation cracks and I cant sell?” Sandi replied that this was the reason for the video survey, and that this survey was done to protect the neighbors as well as JPI and to give the insurance companies a record of the condition of the houses beforehand. Sandi also pointed out that because JPIC was going to subcontract this work, those subcontractors were going to have to carry a lot more insurance than other subcontractors, and that SRA and the neighbor would be aligned in their fight to get money from the insurer.
A member asked Sandi if she was going to move the information boards so that people were not trespassing on the property, or suggested that the no trespassing signs be moved beyond the messages board.
A member pointed out that there have already been some discrepancies with dates, and how was this going to work with the blasting. Sandi suggested that SRA put up red pieces of paper on the project message boards when blasting was going to take place. Another member asked Sandi to post these on all streets around the site, Sandi said this would be too hard to coordinate, and that the members of SNAC needed to help SRA out by also doing their part to stay informed.
A member asked should only the abutters to the site be surveyed, Sandi replied that the homes to be surveyed will be determined based on industry standards and that it would probably include locations beyond the direct abutters.
A member asked if she was not selected to be a part of the blasting survey, but took video herself, and then her house was damaged, would she have a claim. Sandi said she thought it was a good idea to do this, as a record with dates would be established.
A member pointed out that earlier, SRA had said they were not planning on doing noise monitoring. However, the NPP makes SRA have a noise monitor for Phase 1, Sandi said that SRA planned to follow the NPP and that if this was required, SRA would make sure that it happened.
A member asked if there was a plan for the MOB. Sandi answered there was a plan that was permitted for the MOB, in an effort to market the property, Jake Upton explained that 7 plans have already been made for the MOB, and that SRA would not do any more plans until they had found a user for the site who could build what they wanted to. Jake also explained that the site would be graded and filled so that the user would better be able to visualize the site. Sandi explained they will revise the plans for the MOB and reopen the Special Permit process for the MOB Site. But that this would only happen once a user was found.
A member pointed out that in the ARB meeting, JPI had said there would be a retaining wall, and now they are saying there is no retaining wall, and asked which one was correct. Mark responded that there is a small retaining wall, but not the larger retaining wall that was previously contemplated.
A member pointed out that Brattle Street is a private road, and asked what SRA would do if they damaged it with their construction traffic. Sandi replied that SRA will review any issues that may arise from construction traffic and will handle it on a case by case basis.
Another member pointed out that JPIC’s plan to close the Woodside Lane and Hospital Road enterence was not in accordance with the NPP, and that this would cause a traffic bottleneck on Summer Street. There was also concern as to what types of vehicles would be allowed to enter and exit on which sides of Hospital Road. Jake suggested that SRA have another meeting with Kevin Nigro to figure this point out.
SRA and JPIC stayed around afterwards for questions from the community.
If there are any corrections or changes to this document, please contact Mike Salguero at Michael.salguero@jpi.com
|
