2019-05-13-CONCOM-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Mr. Connelly stated that the proposed project included two patios, grading and a retaining wall. They had almost finished constructing the retaining wall when the construction was halted. Ms. Ladd pointed out the wetland data sheets from the presentation and noted that the wetland data provided needs more information. Mr. Connelly asked if the Commission assumed for purposes of discussion that the fence marks the wetland boundary, could the project be feasible? Chairman Hamilton stated that if the project had come before the Commission for approval pre-construction, it would not have been approved. Mr. Beuttell stated that stormwater calculations would need to be done if the applicant chose to apply for the project with porous pavers. He also stated that the applicant could bring an explanation stating that the project would be an improvement over current conditions. Ms. Dohan suggested constructing one patio as opposed to two. Mr. Connelly stated that he proposed a slope as opposed to the retaining wall as well as planting native plantings. Mr. Connelly confirmed that the first step to take is to obtain a more detailed wetland delineation with thorough data. Ms. Mullins suggested proposing a patio that is adjacent to the existing stairs. The Commission decided to conduct a site visit. If the applicant would like to propose an alternative plan then they will need to submit a plot plan and wetland delineation. If the applicant would like to abandon the project then they will be required to restore the area. Plan Change Request: 30 Oakmount Circle DEP #201-939 BL 898 Mr. Dan Orwig and Mr. Merek Franklin presented before the Commission Mr. Orwig reviewed the changes made during the construction process that differed from the proposed plans. The first was the installation of a propane tank which moved the driveway away from the property line. The second change was the relocation of the infiltration basin due to ledge. The third change was a relocation of a retaining wall. The fourth change was the relocation of a catch basin. In the rear yard, the proposed infiltration system was shifted to allow for an alternative location of the proposed wall in the rear. Mr. Orwig stated that the changes decreased the impervious surface area and retained the drainage calculations with the exception of one change. Chairman Hamilton asked if the proposed changes have been submitted to the engineering department. Ms. Mullins confirmed that they have not been submitted to the engineering department.