|
|
|
|
MEETING: Conservation
DATE:
May 27, 2009 - 07:00 PM |
Printer Friendly Page
Email Meeting
|
| VIEW:
Agenda |
Minutes
|
Minutes of Conservation Commission
May 27, 2009
Present were: George Kingston, Chair; Martha Hamilton, Vice Chair; Jody O’Brien, Clerk; Sheron Williams, Michael Salvon, Colleen Foerster and Mary Swords.
Continuation of Public Hearing – Keller’s Way
Mr. Kingston continued the public hearing for Keller’s Way.
Applicant Mark DiFranco asked the Commission if they had any questions for him. Mr. Kingston said that the only reason the Commission asked for someone to show up was because the filing was received in January and the matter has been continued a few times and the Commission has not seen any new plans. Mr. Kingston said that the Commission was just wondering what the status of the project is because it’s been on hold for so long. He said that it’s their understanding that Mr. DiFranco has submitted the check for the consultant and the Commission has chosen Tighe & Bond but nothing can be done with them until a new plans are submitted.
Mr. DiFranco said that he received a letter dated February 17, 2009 that the Commission deemed it necessary to utilize an expert engineering and consultant service to review the project. He said they waited for all of the consultants to send back their quotes and Tighe & Bond took about two months to send theirs back. He said once he received the letter on who the Commission chose he brought a check to the office. He said it was his understanding that the Commission was waiting for the peer review. Mr. Kingston said that actually that the Commission was waiting for new plans. He said comments from Department of Environmental Protection were received and the Commission requested that Mr. DiFranco’s consultant provide the Commission with a written reply to those comments. Mr. Kingston said that the Commission did an on site and had some questions about their delineation in the riverfront area and the type of fill they were going to use. Mr. Kingston said that Mr. DiFranco’s consultant said that they would address it and get back to the Commission. He said that the Commission doesn’t want to waste the applicant’s money by going to an outside consultant until the Commission received a final plan.
Mr. DiFranco said that he thought it was the other way around and thought they were waiting for the Commission’s concerns to come back from the engineering peer review. He said that he knows that a couple of lots have been eliminated and a whole bunch of other things were done. Mr. Kingston said basically DEP and the Commission questioned certain assumptions about the original filing and asked Mr. DiFranco’s consultant and engineer to go back and look at their alternative analysis. He said and also asked them to add the stormwater management plan because there were some inconsistencies. Mr. Kingston said that the Commission has not seen anything back from them that either said that it was ok as originally filed or they would be making changes to it. Mr. Kingston said that there is no sense in taking the original plans to the Commission’s consultant and have them look at them and then come back with new plans and have them look at them again. He said that he spoke with Heather Comee from Pioneer Environmental and she indicated that they are developing new plans and that they have changed the delineation, were looking at the potential of eliminating certain lots and that they were redoing the alternative analysis but the Commission hasn’t seen any of that. Mr. Kingston said that until the Commission sees revisions nothing can be done and that they would have to act on what was presented. Mr. DiFranco said that Ms. Comee mentioned to him that she was going to call to get more questions from the Commission or answer any other questions the Commission might have. Mr. Kingston said that he did talk with her but they haven’t heard anything new and that she has all of the Commissions and DEP’s concerns about the original plans. He said that they haven’t seen anything since the original meeting and can’t proceed with just something said over the phone. Mr. Kingston said that the Commission needs revised plans or at least written responses to the Commission’s and DEP’s concerns, Ms. Comee understands that. Mr. Kingston said that he wanted someone present at the meeting that evening because the Commission hadn’t heard anything until yesterday when Ms. Comee called him and that the Commission really didn’t know if the project was going forward. He said that he is concerned with the abutters who keep showing up for the continuances and no one is present. Mr. Kingston said like wise that the Commission doesn’t want to continue it forever and would like to know what the time line is and whether it’s really going forward or not.
Mr. DiFranco said that he believed it was going forward when the project was started three years ago but now it seems like it keeps getting delayed and doesn’t understand why it hasn’t gone forward. Mr. Kingston said that the Commission cannot act unless they see a new plan. He said that the Commission is not delaying it and they are not going to get the consultant involved and look at the old plans and have them give their comments and then have them do it again for the new plans. He would rather have them review the final plans and said that Ms. Comee is very aware of what the Commission is looking for.
Mr. DiFranco said so he understands that the Commission’s consultant will review the plans once they are received and knows that the plan shows eleven lots and that the road was reduced and moved over. Mr. Kingston said that the Commission has not seen that plan. Mr. DiFranco asked if the consultant was going to do just the bare minimum review of the water that goes in because each consultant gave different prices also. Mr. Kingston said personally he was concerned with them reviewing where the stormwater was going. Mr. DiFranco said most of the people in that area are really upset because they already have water that comes into their basements and there is all that land to the west that is not usable and wouldn’t it make sense to put some kind of basin there. Mr. Kingston said that the Commission is not there to design it for them. Mr. DiFranco said that he brought that question up and he was told that it was a conservation question. Mr. Kingston said that they would have to approve it, but it’s up to their engineers to decide what is needed. With no further discussions and upon motion duly made and seconded, the Commission voted unanimously (7-0) to continue the hearing until June 24th at 7:00 p.m.
Continuation Public Hearing - 228 Mapleshade Avenue, Charles & Shirley Mannheim
Mr. Kingston continued the public hearing for Charles & Shirley Mannheim, 228 Mapleshade Avenue.
Mr. Petronino submitted the revised plans prepared by Paul Smith and two copies of a revised Notice of Intent and explained the changes that were made.
Mr. Kingston said that he didn’t want to get technical and slow things down but in the future don’t say by flagging, he is not determining it by flagging he is determining it by locating the top of bank. Mr. Petronino said that he still flags it. Mer. Kingston said that he flags it but it’s not how he tells it is. Mr. Petronino said oh yes. Mr. Kingston said what they are looking for is how did he know that was in fact the mean annual high water mark.
Mr. Petronino said that DEP questioned the disturbance prior to 1996 and whether the house existed and what the value is in there that says it was the existing house, patio, garage and shed. He said the mitigation would be a silt fence placed around the disturbance area and the drainage system is adequate.
Mr. Kingston addressed the Commission for any questions.
Ms. Forester asked whether they were only going to put asphalt where the hatch marks are. Mr. Petronino said yes.
Ms. Williams asked where the monuments will be. Mr. Petronino pointed them out on the plan and they will be about 40 feet apart.
Mr. Salvon asked if the monuments are on the edge of the wetlands. Mr. Petronio said it’s on the edge of the restored area.
Mr. Kingston addressed the audience for any questions. Being none and upon motion duly made and seconded, the Commission voted unanimously (7-0) to close the public hearing. Upon motion duly made and seconded the Commission voted unanimously (7-0) to issue the Order of Conditions with Special Conditions. A deed notation will also need to be recorded with registry of deeds identifying the plot plan of the property and the deed restriction that permanent limit work markers are permanent.
Request for Partial Certificates of Compliance - Halon Terrace DEP#150-326 for the following lots:
Lot 2 - 8 Halon Terr
Lot 8 - 34 Halon Terr
Lot 9 - 32 Halon Terr
Lot 10 - 24 Halon Terr
Mr. Kingston said that they could not vote on the certificates because there is no letter from the Engineer saying that there are no permanent markers.
There being no further business and upon motion duly made and seconded, the Commission voted unanimously to close the meeting at 7:40 p.m.
For the Commission,
George Kingston, Chair
| |
 |
