2017-09-05-CONCOM-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

The commission stated that because there is an existing pump and pipe directly to the town drainage pipe on the site that will not be changed, they will not require infiltration prior to the connection to the town drain, as would be required if this were a new installation. The commission requested that at least two FENO markers be added to the property line to better demarcate the boundary, one at the property corner near the pump and another at the corner with the neighbor to the right as one faces the house from the street. Motion to close the hearing made by Mr. Langseth and seconded by Ms. Ladd. Vote: 6-0 in favor. 8:16pm DEP 201-1069, BL 1026 NOI, 167, 173, 177 Cedar Street Lot 6 Owner: Peter Staecker Applicant: 167, 173, 177 Cedar Street LLC Project: New single family home and associated site work Mike Novak- Meridian Associates, Ben Finnegan- Finnegan Development, John Farrington- Attorney, Fred Gilligan- attorney Mr. Novak explained that this lot is part of a larger subdivision project. They are proposing a new house and infiltration system. Trees to be removed are labeled as well as the limit of work line which ties into the limit of work line for the entire subdivision. They are proposing to put a restrictive covenant over a portion of the lot—all of the wetlands and the uplands from the 25' do not disturb line behind the house to the rear of the property. They will stay under the 50% buffer zone disturbance buffer for the site and will come back with some minor plan changes to tweak the threshold for the entire subdivision. Questions and comments from the Commission: The commission asked for clarification regarding the amount of trees that are to be taken down. Mr. Novak explained that they are going to try to save as many trees as possible even if they are marked to be taken down. The commission asked if the applicant would consider a tree well for two large trees behind the house. The applicant stated that he could consider that. The commission asked if it was possible to lower the buffer zone disturbance. Mr. Novak explained that they could not lower it further. The commission asked why the patio was encroaching within the 50 ft. buffer. Mr. Novak explained that patios are not considered structures and would not be subject to the 50 ft. buffer rule.