Laserfiche WebLink
Conservation Commission <br /> *January 17, 1991 <br /> 'age 11. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated when it gets to a smaller scale it may be subject to recalculation. <br /> Mr. Grotzke stated he wants to be able to include the vernal pool location on there <br /> as well. They would like it shown on the plan and have some convent, <br /> Mr. Sherman did not see how the commission could do that as they have not been provided <br /> with other than preliminary calculations of the 2.6 storm. It is not incumbent upon <br /> the commission to define the boundaries at that point because it is in the regs. <br /> Mr. Grotzke asked if he was stati-ng they coup not address the vernal pool in the RDA's <br /> Mr. Sherman had stated it could be called a vernal pool. Mr. Grotzke asked how it <br /> could be called a vernal pool if they cannot define it' <br /> Mr. Coffey stated this is going in circles. I there is an appropriate action pro- <br /> cedurely, this should be queried anti appropriate engineering should be pursued for <br /> presentation to the oui <br /> +ssion. It- is up to the Commission to decide whether or <br /> not they will accept that, however, they still have the option of an additional <br /> filing to further define it which may be procedurel.y less sticky. He would like <br /> to hear back from appropriate authority on the recommended course for this. <br /> Mr. Sherman asked if Grot ke is asking for a discrete vernal, pool boundary as <br /> part of our superseding determination under the bylaw? Mr. Grotzke thought that <br /> would be helpful. <br /> Mr. Desrosiers thought the drawing should be of accurate size and the commission <br /> should have the data of the survey in order to see where the interpolation came <br /> from. <br /> Mr. Sherman suggested the commission agree in principal to this and write it as a <br /> condition in the superseding detennination that further calculations shall be done <br /> on a more exact scale and asked if that would be satisfactory' <br /> Mr. Grotke stated that is what he said all along. <br /> Mr. Homeyer asked if this were somewhere between the 5.9 and 6.3 or maybe 6.5 and <br /> was told the vernal wool is at 2.6. Mr. Homeyer added that it has a loo foot buffer <br /> which is not to exceed the size of the isolated land subject to flooding. Mr. Grotzke <br /> stated yes, by the state, but it is loo feet period under the town. <br /> Ms L,annik felt two issues are being confused and it should be the subject of another <br /> filing, <br /> M Motion made and seconded to continue the hearing to a .date certain. <br /> CONTINUED To FEBRUARY 21, 1991 - 8:15 p.m. <br /> The chairrman advised the commission wrote an order- of Conditions based on suggested <br /> conditions by New seabury. The Agent was on vacation, New Seabury did not call or <br /> core in to pick up the order of Condi t i ons but did proceed with the Dune infill without <br /> them. There is come concern with the compatibility of the material used. <br /> . Gro t ke requested the engineer from BSC to look at the site and do a sieve analysis. <br /> s feeling is this material, used with the full, concurrence and knowledge and support <br /> f the State, including CZM, matches perfectly and the engineer from BSC agreed, it is <br /> at the 'ACOE recommends. The distinction here is the order of conditions states the <br /> teri l should be compatible with, that does not mean it should be equivalent to. <br /> t sloes the job and probably is superior when looking at the performance standards. <br />