Laserfiche WebLink
i + <br /> 4A <br /> contacted to inspect the system. Ms. Waygan inquired whether BSS had taken photos and Mr. <br /> Rowley responded that he hand not yet spoken with Torn Bunker at BSS. The Chair referenced <br /> the Pastore letter noting that they were on site to inspect the soil conditions and inquired whether <br /> they had something that would support the contractor's claim of inspection. Nick Pastore <br /> responded that there was an inspection protocol miscom Unica on, and noted his belief that <br /> BSS would be-conning out. Mr. Pastore indicated that test pits been completed during the <br /> design process when fill was discovered., miring.farther review. Mr. Pastore reported that they <br /> excavated the leach pits 5 feet deeper due to the sand. <br /> Mr. Rowley Arley described the inspection protocol, noting that the leach pit 'mspection was <br /> condition of approval. her. Rowley expressed concern that neither Pastore nor BSS were staating <br /> that the work was completed in accordance with the plan. Mr.Pastore clarified that he stated in <br /> his letter that the work was completed according to the plan- It was recommended that BSS <br /> return with more substantial correspondence indicating#hat the work was completed in <br /> accordance with the p in order to wisfy any concerns. Mr. Falacci stated that he had spoken <br /> with Mr. Bunker earlier in the day regarding the over-dig due to the sand, and a letter would be <br /> forwarded to the Board. lir. Rowley stated that the inspection process had been in place in order <br /> to be compliant with the Subdivision Rules&Regulation � which had been overlooked in this <br /> case, and the Planning Board should not be asked to overlook the requirement. Mr. Rowley <br /> noted that the top course of pavement, berm, and street signs still needed to be completed, <br /> though the loam and seed had been completed on the road shoulders. <br /> There was further discussion regarding work not yet completed. Mr. Fala c; suggested <br /> reduction to use the funds for the Cottages. Mr. Flaci stated that they had always addressed <br /> any issues and was confident h would letter from BSS Design. Mr. Falacci suggested <br /> o°/a. The Chair calculated $701,3 49 the adjusted base, times 1.5,totaling 105,523.50. The <br /> security would be.reduced by $317,250. <br /> MOTION: Ms.Waygan made a motion that the Planning Board reduce the above <br /> guarantee in the amount of$105,523.50. Mr.Cummings seconded the motion. All voted <br /> unanimously. <br /> Planning Board members signed the do ument. <br /> BOART IT MS <br /> New Business <br /> C. Rowley Expense Vouchers- <br /> MOTION: Ms. wayg n made a motion to pay Mr. Rowley S527.50 for his services for the <br /> mouth of September induding New Seabury and Bridges at 1 l shpm lir.Koohatrian <br /> seconded the motion. AU voted unanimously. <br /> MOTION: Ms.Waygan made a motion to pay Mr. Rowley $190 for his services for the <br /> month of September for inspections at Southport. Mr. Kooharian <br /> dF <br /> seconded the motion. All voted unanimously. <br /> 5 <br />