2007-05-22-CONCOM-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

MINUTES — LEXINGTON CONSERVATION COMMISSION May 22, 2007 8:23 p,m. Board of Selectman goal setting: Commission will work with Land Stewarts to develop list of goals to forward to Board of Selectman by June 29th. 8:30 p.m. Cont. Hearing: NOI, 24 Ingleside Road, Present for the applicant: Scott Smyers - Wetland Specialist from Oxbow Associates, Walter Hatfield- Contractor, Tom Christopher- Resource Management Inc. Scott Smyers presented the revised site plan showing a reduction in driveway size, installation of a stone trench to infiltrate driveway runoff and installation of cultec chambers to infiltrate roof runoff. He also submitted the original letter dated May 22" that was previously faxed and emailed, for the record, responding to issues identified at the last continued hearing. Phil Hamilton read into record the Town Engineer's Memo of May 22 evaluating the stormwater management system design and drainage, calculations. Administrator Mullins pointed out Mr. Flamang's response that he could not adequately evaluate the peak rate standard because the engineer did not provide the calculations however Mr. Flamang strongly felt that the drainage as designed did meet the peak rate standard requirement on the merits that the proper volume of storage was being met. She informed the Commission that she had forwarded this response to Mr. Hatfield earlier today so that he was prepared to follow up at tonight's meeting. Mr. Hatfield responded that his engineer was not able to make it tonight to respond. Administrator Mullins also identified that she identified a discrepancy between the project engineer's cross section detail for the cultec chambers installation and the revised site plan, in that the revised site plan does not show grading per the cross section detail. The Commission noted that a revised site plan reflecting the proposed grading needed to be submitted and conditioned as a requirement in the Order. Comments from the Commission were as follows: Mr. Langseth stated that he had been persuaded by clear and convincing evidence the project will secure interests due to the numerous mitigation measures proposed. Tom Christopher, Resource Management Inc., was present to discuss the proposed soil amendment for the wetland restoration area, which he has been using for gravel reclamation sites for the last four years, and he has used for a wetland soils in Leominster. Mr. Christopher conveyed that the soils Ph level was at 7.2 -8.0 but suggests that ammonium sulfide could be added to the soil to help lower its ph level. Mr. Hamilton asked for some kind of security, such as a performance bond, in case the wetlands restoration fails. He would also like to see a more proven method of wetlands restoration used opposed to one less tested. He also appreciated that the project included removing the phragmites on abutting properties as well. Ms. Miller said that she was not convinced that phragmites removal is adequate mitigation for a project Page 3 of 4