DRAFT CONSERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES
MAX SCHENK, CHAIRMAN
|
MEMBERS
PRESENT Max Schenk, Chairman Elizabeth Steele Charlie Anderson Arthur Socolow Robert Gulla |
MEMBERS
ABSENT Ann
Jo Jackson Bill Febiger |
STAFF
PRESENT Nancy Ryder, Conservation Agent Carol Gray, Recording Clerk |
NOMINATION/VOTE
ON COMMISSION CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
Mr. Schenk asked all Commission members present for a vote
and all were in favor.
Vice Chair: MOTION: Ms. Steele moved to nominate Ms. Ann Jo
Jackson
SECOND: Mr. Gulla VOTE: 5-0 all in favor
Chairman: MOTION: Mr. Socolow moved to nominate Mr. Schenk
SECOND: Ms. Steele VOTE: 5-0 all in favor
CLOSURE
OF HEARINGS, REVIEW OF FINAL INFORMATION, AMENDMENT AND SIGNING
PERMITS/DECISIONS
VARIAN: Negative 3
checked off in red pen on the paperwork, reference positive 5
This should be Chapter 12, no other changes.
Two typos to correct.
This is under appeal with DEP.
PUBLIC
COMMENT
None
AGENT’S
Enforcement Order:
Pending photos regarding this matter were submitted today
to the Agent.
Complaint: a shed
was built on the property, not just working on the lawn.
Ms. Ryder also noted that the complaints regarding this
issue were far different from what the owners have stated.
COMMISSION
BUSINESS
Continued Requests for Extension Permits
This is in regards to rebuilding of a stream culvert.
The plan was viewed by the Commission. Ms. Ryder stated that she couldn’t tell
exactly what was done or being done, but no sign of work going on but work had
been done.
Mr. Socolow inquired as to this being a matter of moving
rock and Ms. Ryder stated that this would be done by hand and carried out. Mr. Gulla asked why we would allow that and
Ms. Ryder stated that it was in regards to a wall collapsing into the
stream.
Mr. Socolow asked how long is the extension and Ms. Ryder
stated: (1) one year at a time.
Ms. Ryder noted that the letter states that 50% of the work
is completed and a note about reseeding.
Ms. Steele asked if there were any work restrictions and Ms. Ryder noted
the months of March and May.
MOTION:
Mr. Socolow moves to extend
SECOND:
Mr. Gulla VOTE: 5-0 all in favor
CONTINUED
REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
14R
Mr. Schenk would like to hold on this issue for the time
being.
PUBLIC
HEARINGS
Lauren and Ted Suchecki to demolish and rebuild home.
The applicants submitted an updated and revised plan and
construction schedule.
The Agent conveyed the applicants have met everything. DEP called for as close to 2 to 1 mitigation
as possible. 25 sq. ft. minimum
vegetation buffer. Owners proposed
Winterberry Holly. Planting plan is good
but there needs to be more 2 to 1 mitigation and the Agent stated this was
slightly under the buffer zone. Mr.
Gulla agreed with the Agent stating we should stick to the rules of the
game. The applicant stated that the area
in question is a part of the yard that is used often and also stated that they
only use one part of the yard and could plant on the other side. Ms. Ryder submitted photos to the Commission
and also suggested a rap around the buffer zone. The owner stated to the Commission the lawn
is 4300 sq. ft.
Mr. Gulla inquired as to whether or not there would be a
stipulation of a certain width and Mr. Schenk asked about 10 sq. ft.
Ms. Ryder in regards to the holly, asked if it was 7 ft.
wide.
The owner stated the holly grows really well on that side
of the property. Ms. Ryder asked about
15 ft. and rap rest of the buffer on the property the applicants use.
Vegetation buffer would be good for the property. Mr. Gulla’s only concern at this point is a
stipulation to notify the Agent when the planting is done. All that we are asking for is volume and that
the applicant applies the 1 to 1.
PUBLIC COMMENT: none
Conditions: no altering of the foundation, no soils
*missing info*, a retaining wall/coastal bank, 1000 sq. ft. of planting within
a 100 ft .buffer, stone walkway,
permitted to stockpile.
MOTION:
Mr. Gulla moves to approve
SECOND:
Ms. Steele VOTE:
5-0 all in favor Signed by all members present.
Statement of reason from the last meeting for the
Commission to review.
Joseph Amicone requests the Commission to determine the
applicability after the fact of the Wetlands Protection Act and the local
Wetlands Ordinance to replace failed septic system.
Mr. John Judd representing the applicant.
Mr. Judd stated that this is a 1 acre lot with only half of
that being useable.
The replacement of the septic system in the same location
and stated that there are not a lot of options on this site. There is an application with the Board of
Health.
Mr. Schenk abstained.
Mr. Gulla stated that he may have a possible conflict as he did some
work on the house, but not in regards to the septic system. The Commission agreed this would not be a
conflict as this issue is only in regards to the septic system on the property.
Ms. Ryder stated that this is a failed Title 5. It was noted that the septic system would
be in the same location but raised up with sand.
Ms. Ryder conveyed to the Commission she had no concerns.
Condition: no
sediments are allowed to migrate off the site.
Ms. Steele inquired as to when the work would be done and
Mr. Judd stated the work is to be done as soon as possible.
PUBLIC COMMENT: none
Ms. Ryder wanted to know what kind of birdhouse would be
over the vent and Mr. Judd stated it was strictly decorative.
MOTION:
Mr. Gulla moves to approve
(positive 2A, positive 5, negative 3A)
SECOND:
Mr. Socolow VOTE:
4-0 all in favor and signed by voting members.
This matter is to be continued until December 6th
at
Ms. Steele took photos of the site which are to be filed
with the Agent for the Commission.
Mr. Gulla stated that he made attempts to go out to the
site but was unable at the time.
MOTION:
Ms. Steele moves to continue the matter to the above date.
SECOND:
Mr. Anderson VOTE: 5-0 all in favor
Carrigan Enterprises requests the Commission to determine
the applicability of the Wetlands Protection Act and the local Wetlands Ord. to
make improvements to
Mr. Gulla recused
himself. Michelle Harrison, Esq.
representing Carrigan Development.
This is a public hearing continued from the previous Cons.
Comm. meeting.
Ms. Harrison discussed the reasons for seeking the RDA, in
regards to two sections of the plan. The
plan is to try and stay out of the buffer zone.
She felt this could be done and would not alter the resource area. She further stated they would through further
scheduled discussion follow any erosion control needed, pre construction
conditions, etc.
The Notice of Intent is scheduled for discussion on November
1st.
Peter *missing info* of Carrigan Enterprises spoke
regarding the first area on the plan up for discussion: the
buffer zone: within 100 ft of isolated
Wetlands, work within 100 ft. of vegetative Wetlands with the culvert. He wants to widen
7000 sq. ft. of new disturbance. An upgrade of a 12 inch waterline on
Mr. Socolow inquired as to the widening of the roadway and
what would be the involvement of fill and/or excavation. Peter stated yes to the question but it would
be minor. He stated there is a sharp
curve as you enter which needs to be excavated.
The areas to be excavated are in green on the site plan. Further discussion was had regarding a second
slope, and an embankment to the roadway.
Mr. Schenk stated more details are needed regarding the steep hill.
2nd Presentation: Site Map shown. This is in regards to the bypass which is in
relation to bypassing the steepest section. Peter felt this would be used by
many during inclement weather. It was noted by the Agent that this part of
the discussion of the plan is outside of areas we are discussing.
A member of the public, Noel asked if an explanation could
be given, using the site plan present as to what Peter was just discussing, she
also inquired as to the vernal pool on site.
Ms. Ryder stated there are no resource I.D.’s noted on the
map. She further stated that s/e of a
small Wetland area, only one small area, to sustain a vernal pool. Graded not containing water. Ms. Ryder spoke in defense of the plan, first
stating that it is a fairly large project, to leave 100 to 150 ft. buffer zone,
incorporating all LID and leave as much of the buffer as possible. She further stated she would sign off on that
with a Letter Permit.
She further stated in this case the level of the buffer
zone is unheard of and would encourage others to do the same in the
future. Mr. Schenk asked Peter to
describe the sections on the site plan presentation. Peter went on to explain that the drain
manhole needs the catch basins to create a level spread and disperse the flow
into a channel that comes down to the Wetland and that the Wetland is created
by the flow from the road. Mr. Anderson
asked if there would be any Wetland disturbance. Peter stated no disturbance and would be
treated with Storm captor and small level spreader. Mr. Schenk inquired as to the maintenance and
operation of this and Peter and Michelle stated that the Association would be
handling that.
Mr. Socolow inquired as to the delineation of the steep
area and a question of bedrock.
Peter stated yes on the bedrock and they will probably have
to deal with that which would involve some blasting regarding the new roadway.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Mr. Fred Giesel, Civil Engineer representing
Annisquam Bayview Woodland Assoc. He stated that a 12 inch water main is not
shown on the present plan, the existing water main and the existing pressure
sewer line.
With all being proposed he is astounded that the Commission
would consider this huge type of involvement of work to be done. He feels all areas would be disturbed not
just the green areas on the map. He went
on to state that there is no construction sequence, an overkill on the RDA,
should be a Notice of Intent. He felt
with the current proposal 10,000 to 15,000 sq. ft. of roadway would be torn up
and the entire roadway would have to be rebuilt. He feels that control needs to be taken and
should be a N of I.
Peter noted that the utilities in the roadway: existing
water line will be used. Utilities have
been installed already.
In regards to the stream and the Notice of Intent, in
coming back to the Commission, the Commission can condition the
determination. He feels it would not be
a problem regarding controlling the project.
Mr. Giesel stated that with the construction, it is very
difficult for cars to operate on the roadway properly.
Peter stated that in regards to the existing water main,
will put in temporary pipes.
Mr. Schenk then asked how cars will come and go during the
process of construction.
He further asked where the materials would be stored. Peter stated that the process would be to dig
out and truck away or used as backfill. He
further stated that during construction the roadway would have to be blocked at
times with notice given.
Mr. Schenk stated it would be good idea to file a narrative
with the Agent in regards to the handling of materials and Peter said he would
make a submission.
A member of the public, Noel Mann inquired as to thoughts
on blasting being done within 400 ft. of wells in the area. She further stated that segmentation of the
plan is unacceptable.
She went on to say that 2 specific areas will be affected
by this project, a vernal pool at one end and a stream at the other end. She also stated that spotted turtles are in
that area and they winter there as well as feed from the vernal pools. She asked what effect all the construction
will have on the turtle migration. She
further went on to say that most of all adequate information is needed in
regards to the turtles and sited the Sierra Club Bulletin re: spotted
turtles. She felt that she as well as
other concerned residents need to depend on the Commission for adequate
information. Further, this is a core
habitat for other species, some of which are unknown at this time and felt that
the applicant should provide how species in that area use the habitat.
Mr. Socolow asked if the spotted turtles were
delisted. Mr. Golden, a resident of
PUBLIC COMMENT: Closed
Ms. Steele stated regarding the process, she applauds the
applicant but is concerned about the fact she is unable to discuss the issue
regarding storm water, not being under a N of I. Stating this is her personal preference to
have this issue addressed. She felt this
plan is being done piecemeal.
Ms. Ryder noted that the bridge crossing was altered and
restricted by the DPW and we cannot have the applicant take full
responsibility. The Agent went on to
tell the Commission that they will not see any further information to work
on. The (2) two issues discussed now are
the issues at hand before the Commission and no more information re: the N of
I.
She felt a full detention basin would be excessive.
Mr. Schenk inquired with Peter as to curbing in place. Peter stated they would be curbing some areas
and some areas are not to be curbed. He
wanted to keep this project low impact on the area. Mr. Schenk noted that having lived in the
area, frogs cross the roadway all the time, and would that migration still be
possible. He further asked if
alternative and/or suggestions were possible.
Peter stated that specific areas of migration could have an oversized
culvert so as to be a migration path.
The Agent stated that she spoke to Mike Hale regarding a
Mr. Anderson asked if we issue a negative determination
would it moot the Commissioners comments in the discussion. The Commission agreed that they would address
issues in terms of Commission knowledge of open spaces.
The Agent asked the Commission, if you go to a N of I what
additional statements would you make to the Planning Board. She further stated that only areas to
evaluate are in regards to the roadway, other areas not in the jurisdiction of
the Commission.
Mr. Anderson noted that if you read the guidelines even a
small puddle can be considered a vernal pool.
Mr. Socolow stated that he for one will not vote for a negative
determination.
Ms. Ryder stated to the Commission that a Notice of Intent
will increase the impact of this property.
Peter stated that he wants to see less impact with alternative
methods. He further stated that he wants
the project to have a very small impact to the environment. He would like the Commission to support the
low impact design.
Mr. Socolow inquired as to a Request for Determination.
Mr. Giesel asked why can’t the RDA impact issues be
incorporated into a N of I, with impact limited to certain areas, but also
noting there is impact. He further
stated that insofar as the DEP, he felt they would not override the
Commission. He inquired with the
Commission as to a what if, what if there is not enough water to support a
vernal pool.
Ms. Harrison, Esq. stated that if we have to file a N of I,
we have to follow DEP storm water management requirements and will have to use
a traditional detention basin.
Mr. Giesel spoke and stated he completely disagreed and
that this is a hybrid design before us.
Ms. Ryder noted the RDA and whether work will impact natural resources.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Closed
Mr. Schenk noted that this is a lot of information brought
before the Commission.
Mr. Socolow noted that all of this is difficult to
understand with a lot of questions to be answered. He further stated if a vote came up he will
not vote for a negative determination.
Mr. Anderson stated that this is a large project and he
doesn’t the idea of cutting it up into pieces.
Ms. Steele stated she would stand by her previous statements.
Mr. Schenk stated the hard part for him was that he lived
in the area, felt it was a fantastic area of
Mr. Socolow stated he would like clarification of possible
determination is voted.
It was noted that an LID cannot be used because DEP will
supercede and have to use those designs accordingly which would impact the
area. She further noted that storm water
treatment LID = more impact. Detention
basins would have to be used and a tremendously large area of woodland would
have to be removed.
Peter noted that DEP drove everyone to use one design and
that they are working on standards. He
further noted a perforated pipe, in stone, pre-treat everything, form of storm
water mitigation. With no standards
there are no numbers. A submission of a
report will be given to Mike Hale regarding the affects of this.
He further pointed out detention ponds (3 or 4), and that
the numbers all work.
Ms. Steele noted that the DEP comments were fairly
significant and she didn’t have the answers and information regarding that.
The Agent stated she had the drainage analysis and a copy
is available in her office.
MOTION:
*missing info*
SECOND:
Ms. Steele
Mr. Anderson asked if time was needed and Ms. Harrison
stated yes, 21 days from the filing, with an extension to November 1st
for vote tonight and to be signed at the next meeting.
Mr. Anderson abstained
Mr. Gulla recused.
VOTE: 2 yes for positive determination Ms.
Steele and Mr. Socolow
1 no Mr.
Schenk Motion does not pass.
Mr. Anderson inquired with the Commission as to who would
like more information regarding this plan.
It was asked why Mr. Gulla was not taking part and he stated that this
was up for discussion with a former partner while he was in the office.
Mr. Schenk inquired as to where the Commission goes from
here on this matter and felt that the vote would not change with further
discussion. Ms. Harrison stated she had
no problem continuing the matter so that the Commission could have further
information and discussion.
Mr. Anderson stated he felt there was not enough
information to date to vote on the matter and would like further information
regarding the N of I, this being the RDA.
Ms. Harrison noted that this discussion this evening is in
regards to RDA not the N of I.
Mr. Socolow asked if she felt the DEP requirements were
excessive and Ms. Harrison stated no, not excessive when filing a N of I it
triggers storm water management.
The Agent noted that TSS can be quantified in many states.
MA DEP as of yet has not taken up those numbers. Mr. Giesel quoted quantified parts of the
project noting all can be quantified.
Peter read the DEP requirements and felt it was most beneficial to talk
with DEP
and get further
input making a decision from that.
Mr. Schenk stated there was no decision, will be
split. The desire of the Commission is
to have more information to work with re: DEP comments, looking for a
continuation for DEP info and the Agent.
Ms. Steele inquired as to the timeframe re: DEP
recommendations and comments.
Mr. Schenk stated that the only way we would be able to
know is to contact DEP and find out.
Peter suggested the Commission contact DEP in regards to the above
timeframe for information. Further MOTION: Mr. Anderson moves to continue the matter
until November 1st at
City of
Mr. Schenk recused and stated due to time restraints he
would waive the background information.
Request of the Commission to continue the matter until
November 1st at
No discussion
MOTION:
Mr. Gulla moves to continue the matter to the above date
SECOND:
Ms. Steele VOTE:
4-0
June Sutherland to construct a single family home.
W. Manuell and the applicant present.
Ms. Ryder stated that the only issue at this point is the
date of the subdivision and is the said property common ownership or not.
Mr. Manuell stated that the subdivision plan was submitted
in 1991 Plan no 50 which is prior to 1996 and feels the common ownership issue
is a moot point. He further stated that
the entire lot is encumbered by riverfront and the construction of the home has
been moved as far back as possible.
4000 sq. ft + total impact.
Ms. Steele inquired with the Agent regarding information
from the Legal Dept.
The Agent noted that Suzanne Egan stated although a
subdivision prior to 1996 if ownership is identical for both lots it is
considered common ownership.
Mr. Manuell stated that he was opposed to the above comment
made by the Agent.
Ms. Steele noted that DEP has no comments on this project.
The Agent looking up regulations (1058, 4, 3, D) and noted
that if the lot is owned by the same people then its one lot. The Agent then read from the regulations
before
Mr. Gulla stated that if the house is shifted it will run
into other land.
Mr. Manuell stated that it is not common ownership its (2)
two lots, 10,000 sq. ft. and felt there were no other alternatives. Ms. Steele stated that one alternative is a
no build.
Ms. Ryder asked where the evidence of (2) two lots exist
and further stated that what was submitted was not readable.
Mr. Manuell stated that the lot lines cannot be altered and
no alternative analysis is needed and further stated he felt it was self
evident. He further reiterated that the
plan for the home is as far from the riverfront as possible.
Ms. Ryder suggested the deck be moved and put on a
different side of the house.
Mr. Manuell asked about the difference between the deck and
the house stating that the entire lot in the riverfront area, that it’s still a
house and deck, the impact is the same and that this is the preferred design of
the applicant. He further stated that
the river is on the opposite side of the street and as far away as possible
from the construction.
Ms. Steele inquired as to mitigation. Mr. Manuell noted it was under the threshold,
minimal ground disturbance with vegetation in the front and northerly.
It was suggested that maybe an Order of Condition would be
more plantings although it is fairly well vegetated already. Ms. Steele inquired as to trees removed in
the footprint.
Mr. Manuell stated possibly and added that the applicant is
a member of the National Arbor Society.
Ms. Ryder asked if there was any mitigation on the northerly side.
Mr. Manuell stated that the driveway would be
bituminous. Ms. Steele inquired as to
the sewer. It was further noted that it
is (2) two trenches instead of (1) one, better with waterlines under paved
area. It was asked that a clarification
be given regarding mean high water. Mr.
Manuell noted it was taken off the project plan from (2) two years ago.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Ms. Dawn Carpenter
Noted city hookup in the 1990’s and assumed because of that
it was build able land and mandated to pay sewer fee. The vegetation on the property she planted
with her father (35) thirty five years ago. In regards to the current project, aside from
the pumping station does not see any problem with home being placed there.
Ms. Steele stated that Mr. Golden had submitted a written
comment to the Commission and proceeded to read from that.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Closed.
The Agent noted she was not opposed to the project but
every time a riverfront plan comes before the Commission, either asking for a
continuance or denial of the project, burden of proof has to be met and
paperwork does not support a yes vote by the Commission.
Mr. Manuell stated that he felt it was stating the obvious
in having to submit an alternative analysis as a condition for approval. He further stated that it would delay the
ordering and delivery of the modular home.
He feels it is an approvable project.
The Agent feels there is still room for mitigation of the
impact this project will have and feels it is a small burden to be met and will
not change her opinion.
Ms. Steele stated she would like a mitigation plan
submitted.
Dawn Carpenter asked the Commission what evidence they have
as to common ownership or not. Ms. Ryder
stated that the property triggers a red flag regarding common ownership.
She further stated that it needs to be shown that Ms.
Carpenter and other land owner that they are not the same owners of both
properties.
Submissions agreed upon:
alternative analysis in writing and mitigation planting plan
Mr. Gulla mentioned squeezing tighter to the line if
possible.
Ms. Ryder is to draft Order of Conditions for the next
meeting.
MOTION:
Mr. Schenk moves to continue the matter until
with Conditions:
alternative analysis submitted, mitigation plan and proof of separate
ownership
SECOND:
Mr. Anderson VOTE:
5-0 all in favor
Campbell Edlund to construct addition pier with float, re-point
seawall and conduct landscaping activities.
Mr. Manuell present for the applicant.
20 scale plan shown as well as 10 scale (easier to read)
River Road is at the top of the plan with Lobster Cove at
the bottom.
Chapter 91 license re: fill and structure Chapter 91
revision is needed.
Ms. Ryder suggested a site walk may be order for pre filing
of comments.
Comments were made re: D. Sergeant and J. Kocquel and
formal comments.
Things to be done regarding this plan: provide a bump out on foundation
Existing porch East and South, additional small bump out,
the portion over the water.
Part of the home is pressed against the roadway. To get to the grass area of the lot you have
to go out into the street which is a logistical hurdle. A repair to the existing wall is to be done
as well as supports that support the home.
The Commission was told a recreation float and gangway out to the float
is heavily used. D. Sergeant
recommendation for the location of the float and pier is to pull the ramp over
to an area where there is less of a shellfish habitat.
Sub straight/ hard bottom.
A further discussion was had regarding the bump out: concrete
foundation, hand dug and a vertical barrier.
The wall would have increased stability in being repaired. Prepared but not submitted are the photos
regarding the wall repair and notes from the site visit with the Engineer. The stones along the wall will be re-pointed
and repaired.
Fabric and backfill would be grass like it is now along
with a substantial repair of stone and granite pier. Work to be done at low tide with natural
materials remaining.
At this time only one parking space exists. There is no legal parking space for this lot
and a (2) two car parking area is proposed.
Paver stone will be used if possible, not blacktop. A custom built storage is proposed as well as
a terraced landscape design. There will
be significant planting and a landscaping plan will be submitted.
Benefits of this were noted: The use of a quasi public area will remain
and lobster pots will be accessible in tidal zone at all times.
It was noted that DEP issued comments. Re: Chapter 91 Ordinance, Erosion Controls,
at this time none are shown on the plan.
A possible barrier proposed is a silt fencing wall, sticks up above
grade 3 to 4 inches. To install the new
piles a barge will be floating in for 2 to 3 days.
This is for easy access to the water instead of going
around the whole house.
The Agent noted that 2 letters were received from abutters
and another couple (not present) who are deaf are in favor of the project with
the exception of the location of the shed.
A larger font for viewing the plan was suggested.
D. Sergeant is interested in a site visit but as of yet he
has not received the plan.
Ms. Ryder stated that the coastal bank and mean high water
levels need to be noted on the plan. She
further stated regarding the shed that the cross section of the ramp design
needs to be submitted for the Agent and D. Sergeant.
100 Year Flood: elevation 10, this plan: 11.6 It was noted that sometimes water creeps up
over the wall in certain locations. The
flats on the plan = beach resource area.
Mr. Socolow inquired as to the repair of the seawall and
where would workman stand to accomplish this.
Mr. Manuell’s response *missing info*.
18 inches off the flats and pretty flat in that area.
Mr. Gulla inquired as to the materials to use regarding the
deck and Mr. Manuell stated that non-toxic materials would be used, possibly
composite. Ms. Ryder noted this was
based on the flushing characteristics.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Closed
The Commission agreed to a site visit which would be
conducted individually, not as a group.
Ms. Steele inquired as to the site being used for anything other than a
home. It was noted that in the past this
was a Post Office as mail was delivered by boat at that time.
Mr. Gulla inquired as to the stockpiling of materials and
where they would be stocked. He further
noted that this should be on the plan.
Mr. Schenk inquired as to the plantings and Mr. Manuell
stated he would submit a planting plan.
MOTION:
Mr. Socolow moves to continue the matter until
SECOND:
Mr. Gulla VOTE: 5-0 all in favor
Angelo Zakas and Matther Donaghy to construct a single
family home with associated grading and utilities.
A request for a continuance in this matter was noted.
MOTION:
Ms. Steele moves to continue the matter until
SECOND:
Mr. Anderson VOTE: 5-0 all in favor
Alexander Ziolkowski
to raze and construct dwelling with associated driveway, utilities and
landscaping improvements.
Bob Griffin, Griffin Engineering present.
Plan was viewed noting a 20,000 sq. ft lot triangular in
shape.
Old *missing info* wood bed on the property.
A small camp structure was noted to be 49 x 29 ft.
Mr. Griffin will go to the Zoning Board of Appeals in
regards to the relocation of the home.
To utilize the garage a gravel driveway to the southwest is
proposed.
It was noted the roof runoff, to a drywell. The existing septic tank is to be replaced
from 1000 to 1500.
Mr. Gulla inquired as to this particular house being the
one that was condemned and it was confirmed that it is. He further asked about tree removal on the
site and Mr. Griffin stated that some overgrowth would be removed within the
Wetlands line (30ft), as well as an Elm tree that looked dead. Mr. Socolow inquired as to how we would know
if the tree was dead or not. Mr. Griffin
pointed out that in looking at it, it is obviously dead. Mr. Socolow further inquired as to the
utilities and was told, reusing water service and overhead power. He further
asked if a dumpster would be used, and was told that one would be used during
the process.
Ms. Steele noted that the front door and roadway drop off
approximately 15 ft. and asked if the existing garage would remain. Mr. Griffin stated that the existing garage
would remain at this time for convenience sake.
Ms Ryder noted a couple of site visits and further stated
D. Sergeant has not made any written comments as of yet because he has not
received the plan. She feels his
feedback is critical.
Concerns: destabilization of the road bank, spawning
habitat, Lily Pond impacted as well as erosion control being a concern.
The existing septic design is for a (3) three bedroom home.
Ms. Ryder stated that the area is densely vegetated now but
alewife run needs to be maintained. She
further stated that in regards to the Lily Pond, pond mussels are evident.
Ms. Ryder suggested that one or two Commission members get
together for a site visit. Mr. Gulla
stated he would attend and Mr. Schenk asked if any other members would like to
attend the site visit. Ms. Ryder stated
that D. Sargeant would be in attendance with Mr. Gulla. Ms. Steele said there was a possibility she
may be able to attend.
MOTION:
Mr. Socolow moves to continue the matter until
SECOND:
Mr. Gulla VOTE:
5-0 all in favor
Carrigan Enterprises, Inc. to make improvements to
Request for continuation until
MOTION:
Mr. Anderson moves to continue the matter to
and the N of I to
SECOND:
Ms. Steele VOTE: 5-0 all in favor
This is a continued request for an Extension Permit
This is an amendment to the original plan.
Jeff present and states that 2 plans previously proposed
and amended.
The square footage of the house is the same, its just be
redistributed.
The guest cottage has been eliminated and a pool house has
been added.
The pool house to have a green roof.
Naomi C. presented a landscape plan: The driveway and entry would be asphalt.
In regards to the lawn steel slopes according to the slope
analysis with quite a bit of erosion. The lawn to be flattened out for
infiltration. She also went on to say
there would be a heavily planted buffer.
Mr. Schenk inquired as to the planting being natural. Naomi stated that a planting plan
(submitted), are: beach plum, low bush
blueberry bushes, Virginia creeper and salt tolerant vegetation. The existing plantings are hedgerows of
pines.
Mr. Gulla inquired with the Commission as to whether or not
a complete redesign is a problem. Ms.
Ryder stated that it would be considered a minor amendment if the intent is
still met. This would result in less
square footage.
An automatic pumping system was also discussed.
Ms. Ryder asked Naomi about porous pavement, and Naomi
noted less maintenance and allows for water to pass through. Ms. Ryder stated that is has been
outperforming other systems.
It was further discussed that this is also an historical
issue as a writer had used the property at one time. The writer’s nephew will be taking the
building off site to preserve it.
Mr. Socolow asked if the Commission wanted to move forward
on this plan.
Ms. Ryder noted that the proposal before the Commission
this evening reduces the impact to the buffer zone.
MOTION:
Mr. Gulla moves to approve the amendments and the extension
SECOND:
Mr. Anderson VOTE:
5-0 all in favor
Submission of written comments from concerned citizens
regarding a matter discussed this evening.
Conservation Commission Business Meeting scheduled for
MOTION:
Mr. Gulla moves to adjourn
SECOND:
Mr. Socolow
VOTE:
5-0 all in favor