2021-09-27-CONCOM-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Questions and Comments from the Commission: a) Where is the riverfront area measured from? It appears to be measured from the center of the stream as opposed to the bank. b) The plan shows a 20-foot wide access road around the perimeter of the proposed garage and proposed building. The Fire Department has previously approved a smaller access route for earlier filings. Is that possible here? c) What is the material of the pedestrian path? d) Why is there such a large number of cultivar plantings being proposed? Why is the applicant proposing to put herbaceous species and not woody species next to the wetland? e) What methods were used to assess groundwater elevations? Were the soils highly permeable or tight when the test pits were dug? Did you compare the elevations of the test pit to those of surrounding wetlands? f) Is there a plan to remove invasive species on the bank around the edge of the site? Was the extent of the invasives limited to the edge? Responses from the Representative: a) The riverfront area was not delineated in the field, but rather through aerial imagery. It was digitized onto the plan for safety reasons. b) Have explored all options for the access route; however certain distances need to be accommodated due to the dimensions of the building and fire code. c) Beyond the paved surface the pedestrian path is a stone dust path. It will be relatively compact but still substantially more permeable than any other manmade structure. d) The proposed cultivars are not within the restoration area and only in areas 100 feet away from wetlands. Willing to look at the use of non-cultivars closer to the building and to reference the suggested plant list. The concept was to provide herbaceous material and a selection that has the most durability for areas with invasive plants. Trying to find a balance. e) Test pits were performed a few weeks prior to submittal. The groundwater elevation was lower than what was assumed. Historically, the location is a filled wetland site. The project team has not reviewed the soil logs yet. The elevation of the wetland flag that was located is at 117. The elevation associated with the outfall is a good indicator of the location and that is at 116. f) Will put together a protocol to remove the invasive species that includes a licensed applicator. There is a marsh that surrounds the invasives along the edge. Most are growing on the slope and won't be found within the wet areas. Mr. Langseth is proposing that the Commission engage a consultant to act on behalf of the Commission. Mr. Langseth raised his concern that it is hard to justify a groundwater elevation that is lower than that of the surrounding wetlands. Ms. Ladd requested an updated plan to include the test pit data and locations. On a motion by Ms. Ladd and seconded by Mr. Beuttell, the Commission voted 6-0 by roll call vote to continue the hearing to the October 25, 2021 meeting at the applicant's request.