|
Lexington Home Page
|
Help
|
About
|
Browse
Search
2020-08-10-CONCOM-min
Breadcrumb Navigation:
TownOfLexington-Public
>
WEB PUBLISHED-PUBLIC DOCUMENTS
>
MINUTES-REPORTS-COMMITTEES ARCHIVE
>
Conservation Commission-ConCom
>
Minutes
>
2020
>
2020-08-10-CONCOM-min
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/24/2021 12:03:07 PM
Creation date
3/11/2021 11:08:26 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Archives
Department
Town Clerk
Keywords or Subject
Minutes - CONCOM - Conservation Commission
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Previous Meeting Date: 7/27/2020 (Applicant No Show) <br /> Supplemental Documentation Submitted: None <br /> Sonny Ferrante presented before the Commission. He stated they moved the shed to the back and <br /> then realized they needed a permit. They did not think Conservation approval was needed but a <br /> neighbor re-delineated the wetland and that moved the buffer zones so now they need approval. <br /> The shed abuts a detention basin. <br /> Concerns of the Commission: <br /> - The detention basin is full of wetland vegetation, there was indication that it has been <br /> abandoned. <br /> - Is the detention area connected to anything else? <br /> - What is the purpose of the shed and what does it hold? <br /> - Why can't the shed be moved outside the 50 foot no build zone? <br /> - Did engineering sign off on this? <br /> - Water off the roof of the shed. <br /> - Not comfortable letting the shed stay within the 50 foot buffer just because the <br /> applicant already put it there. It sets a bad precedent. <br /> - The concrete pad has to be removed. <br /> Responses of the Applicant: <br /> - The idea of that detention basin was to take the runoff from the parking lot. The owners <br /> do a poor job of maintaining it. <br /> - The applicant is not sure but it never has had standing water. <br /> - The shed holds hand tools, barrels, etc. <br /> - They poured a pad for the shed to sit on but it could be moved to another area. The <br /> neighbor to the right might not be happy with that. <br /> - Could put drainage back into the detention area. <br /> The Conservation Administrator stated this did not need Engineering review because it did not <br /> have any engineering calculations, but it is over the 100 square foot threshold &thus does need a <br /> permit. <br /> The Commission stated even though this was an innocent mistake, the judgment they need to <br /> make is they would be permitting something that is in violation of their performance standard. <br /> They would be in favor of it if it was moved outside the 50 foot buffer zone. <br /> Mr. Ferrante stated if the shed sits on the parking lot, the storm water will come off the shed roof <br /> and go into the drain. <br /> Concerns of the Abutters: <br /> - Doesn't oppose the shed's current location, but if the shed doors open facing their <br /> property then they would oppose it. It would be disruptive to them with the owner rolling <br /> their equipment in and out of the shed. They eliminated all bushes that block the view of <br /> the back end of the parking lot. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.