2021-01-04-CONCOM-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

rebuild a single family dwelling, portions of which are within the 100 foot buffer zone to Bordering Vegetated Wetlands, and is proposing to install erosion control, stormwater management, and wetland and buffer zone restoration. Questions from the Commission: — Why don't the Feno markers continue to the northern property boundary? — Why don't the Feno markers continue to the property boundary to the west, along the 25 foot buffer zone? Responses from the Applicant: — Extended the Feno markers to the northern property boundary and stopped them at the existing lawn edge. If the Commission would like to continue them along the existing lawn edge to the southern property boundary the applicant could do that. — Can do that as well, extend to the 25 foot no disturbance zone, however that could give the owner the false impression that they could clear beyond that. Mr. Bitsko, who was not present during the site visit, asked other members of the Commission their opinion on the location of the Feno markers. Ms. Dohan responded that, if anything, it would be to the south along the limit-of-work line, which isn't a requirement but it would make more sense to protect the area. Ms. Mullins added that the Commission does have the ability to require this because of the 50 percent rule. Mr. Kirby responded saying that they can add three more. Ms. Kathy Pan, abutter and property owner of 22 Ingleside Road, was present and had questions for Mr. Kirby and the Commission. Ms. Pan asked what the purpose of the infiltration system (PSIS) along the driveway was. Mr. Kirby responded that, with a new house, the Conservation Commission requires the applicant to collect the rainwater that runs off the impervious area and put it into the ground to imitate a more natural system through a series of pipes and treatment trenches underground. Ms. Pan also asked if she will have more water flow on her side of the property and Mr. Capachietti responded that his job is to make sure there is no additional runoff to adjacent properties. He noted they cannot take credit for the existing surfaces. Lastly, Ms. Pan asked if the removal of the tree on the northern part of the property will create more runoff, to which Mr. Kirby responded that the existing tree is pretty much dead and that a lot more runoff will be collected by the infiltration system. Mr. Langseth mentioned that there is a line labeled "PTEC" on the site plan, and requests that this be referenced on the legend as "Proposed Telephone Electric Cable". Ms. Samuels would like to see something more substantial than the Feno markers, perhaps a wall or stone, as it is tempting to keep the lawn a nice, rectangular area. Mr. Capachietti responded that he did add additional grading as a 3:1 slope from the edge of the existing lawn, and a small depression will overflow into the wetland. There won't be mowing in the area as it will be at a lower elevation. On a motion by Ms. Dohan and seconded by Mr. Langseth, the Commission voted 7-0 by roll call vote to close the hearing.