2022-09-06-ConCom-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Mr. Rich Kirby, LEC Environmental, Mr. Mike Novak, Project Engineer, and Mr. Jamie Osborn, applicant were present at the meeting. Mr. Beuttell stated that the Commission typically doesn’t allow runoff to flow from impervious pavers to permeable pavers, referring to the proposed driveway. Mr. Beuttell asked if the entire proposed driveway would be made of pavers and also if it would be possible to keep the area of porous pavers the same but change the arrangement because he is concerned about the increased sediment load from pavers to porous pavers. Mr. Osborn responded that the intent was that visually one wouldn’t see the difference in pavers but he is open to changing the configuration. Mr. Novak responded that the intent is to have the entire driveway as pavers. Mr. Bitsko stated that the site plan calls out the permeable pavers as porous pavement, and asks if that was a mistake. Mr. Bitsko asked if the detail is permeable pavers and not porous pavement, if the applicant is proposing the same type of maintenance? Mr. Novak responded that the maintenance will remain the same, with sweeping in place to keep the joints clean, but can adjust the plan to make it more specific for the property owners. Mr. Bitsko asked that this be added to the construction and long term checklist. Concern was raised for the 12-inch oak tree in close proximity to the rear infiltration system and Mr. Novak responded that it shouldn’t be a problem to shift the infiltration system farther away to prevent damage and/or removal of the tree. Later in the discussion Mr. Kirby clarified that the applicant actually intends to remove the 12-inch oak by the infiltration system and Mr. Osborn added that a replacement tree can be planted elsewhere on the property. Mr. Abira Ramakrishnan, owner of 43 Churchill Lane, asked if any chemicals would be used in the construction of the patio and deck, and if there would be any wildlife impact. Mr. Kirby responded that pressure treated wood will be used in the construction of the deck and that no cleaning chemicals are proposed for the deck and patio. Mr. Osborn added that no chemicals would be used for construction purposes. Additionally, Mr. Ramakrishnan raised concern on the dozen trees removed along the property boundary and asked if the builder would be open to planting a natural screening along the property boundaries. Mr. Kirby responded that, although these trees are outside the jurisdictional 100-foot buffer zone, he will discuss the option of replacement trees with the builder. Chairman Hamilton added that the Commission does not have the authority to require the applicant to plant trees along the shared property boundary with Mr. Ramakrishnan. Mr. Kirby stated that the continuance request will allow the applicant time to update the site plan and stormwater report with the following: reference pervious pavers throughout the plans and stormwater report, revise the Operation & Maintenance plan to address how the pervious pavers will be maintained, reconfigure the driveway porous pavers, add two sapling oak trees and indicate that the 12-inch oak is to be removed. On a motion by Mr. Beuttell and seconded by Ms. Dohan, the Commission voted 7-0 by roll call vote to continue the hearing to the September 19, 2022 meeting at the applicant’s request. Record of Vote as Follows: