11/29/1990 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

Conservation Commission November 29, 1990 Page 7. Ms Behrman asked if they removed any fill that was dumped and was told they did not; it is their intention to only remove the stumps. Mr. Coffey asked if the work impacting the commission is on the southwest shoulder of Noisy Hole Road and was told that would be the portion, as well as possibly across the street. He further asked, the catch basin structures in the undisputed wetland areas, are they going to be addressed in any way? Mr. Falacci stated they were asked to mortar doom to grates; they did not bury them. Anthony Ferragamo, present for another hearing, advised the planning board will hold some performance security on the work being completed. His concern would be that we had a mild fall and they will be faced next spring with a need to reseed and nurture. What will happen with top soil left subject to erosion all winter? Another concern is that it is not the planning board's role to research wetland resource areas subject to protection. It was not apparent to the planning board that their policy requiring loaming and seeding is not appropriate stabilization near a resource area. The planning board is entitled, by statute and subdivision regulations, to hold security for proper completion of roadways to planning board standards. Legal action can be brought against the planning board for the release of the money. They do not have the ability to encumber a deed and cannot use the commission's test of stability. Mr. Sherman asked under normal circumstances at what point would the planning board have sufficient information to know whether to release the money. Mr. Ferragamo advised the applicant would look for a partial release and negotiate a hold-back; this is up to the board and the applicant. If 10,000 to loam and seed, the board would look for 15,000 security. Mr. Sherman asked if that would not be released until established and Mr. Ferragamo stated that is correct, but advised pressure can be brought to bear on the planning board to release that money. Mr. Sherman asked if Sarakummit would be willing to give a letter that the planning board would be allowed to consult with the commission before releasing that money? Mr. Ferragammo questioned whether they have that ability. The question is whether he should be allowed to complete the work. Is there a due process that applies here; the planning board would be different from the commission's due process. Ms Behrman stated the commission can request an after-the-fact filing that requires the maintenance of vegetation. Mr. Sherman stated an RDA would suffice. Mrs. Simmons added, unless there is some fill to be removed. Ms Behrman asked how the stumps were removed? Air. Falacci stated they were picked up and put in trucks. She suggested that area be inspected. Mr. Coffey did not see any benefit to hydroseeding tomorrow. Mr. Falacci stated it would prevent erosion of the loam. When asked the content of the hydroseed . for fertilizer, he was unsure but stated documentation could be provided. It is 4 feet from actual pavement, he was not sure it was abutting an actual wetland. Ais Behrman advised it is a wetland. Ms Behrman made the motion to issue an enforcement order to require the filing of an after-the-fact Notice of Intent within two months to condition maintenance and look at the amount of fill deposited and where deposited.