2017-10-02-CONCOM-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Fred King- Schofield Brothers Mr. King explained that the Fire Department has requested that a stone dust path be built to the field from the gym exit to the existing bridge and into the field. Mr. King explained that in case of a fire, it is better to have a defined path to lead people away from the building. There are also some handicapped students who would benefit from the path to the fields. The grading is very flat and spot grades have been added to the plan. Motion to approve the insignificant plan change made by Mr. Beuttell and second by Mr. Wolk. Vote: 6-0 in favor. 6:56pm Request for Insignificant plan change: 18 Constitution Road, DEP 201-884, BL 843 Venkata Bhupatiraju- homeowner Mr. Bhupatiraju explained to the commission that they originally had proposed to add a two car garage to the property. However, the scope of the work has changed and they are now proposing to just add a parking pad. The same stormwater plan will be implemented. Additionally, they are proposing to put a small retaining wall in the yard rather than grade yard as originally proposed. Engineering has signed off on the retaining wall, but no test pits have been done in the area of the infiltration system. The commission stated that test pits would need to be done before this can be approved. 7:03pm Request for Insignificant plan change: 430 Concord Ave, DEP 201-938, BL 897 Rich Kirby, LEC Environmental Mr. Kirby explained that they are proposing three changes to the approved plan. The first is that they have to implement a remediation plan do to some contamination found on site. The second change is that there are a few overhangs that extend within the 50 ft. buffer that were not originally approved. They have submitted revised plans showing the relatively minor change. Additionally, as mitigation for the addition roof area, they are proposed to restore an additional 1700 sq. ft. This mitigation area is proposed on the town owned land adjacent to the property. Questions and comments from the Commission: The commission asked for clarification regarding the location of the mitigation area. Mr. Kirby explained that the area is directly next to the property. It was an area that was formally part of the property but was taken by eminent domain by the town. Mr. Kirby explained that the state does allow for offsite mitigation, but it has to be done at a 2:1 ratio. The commission asked what the status of the project is. Mr. Kirby explained that they are currently implementing the RAM plan. The rough grading of the restoration area will be next as well as the construction of the retaining walls. The planting is anticipated to be done next spring.