12/13/1990 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

Conservation Commission December 1 , 1990 Page 20 Mr. Coffey stated, given the cost to dispose of concrete, the obvious temptation would be to bury it -site; he did not feel this site would be suitable for. this. Mr. Holmes advised it is in Mr. Sullivan's contract with Bonito to remove it. Mr. Coffey was comfortable with the construction techniques proposed. Mr. Sherman felt disposal receipts should be requested and M . Sullivan stated he had no problem with that. Mrs. Sons stated if fill is to be stored on the property it should be contained until put where it belongs. She suggested it be ringed with a silt screen or hay- bales. Mr. Holmes stated it will be within the double haybales and the silt screen. Mr. Sullivan asked the Comission to sign off on the amended order tonight in order to start the appeal period going. The Chaff ranan agreed. VOTE: Motion rade and seconded to amend the Order of Conditions for William Sullivan, SE 4 -794, to include demolition. 7: POC , JR., 38 Wheelhouse Lane, continued from .July 12, 1990. BRAWN WITMUT PREJUDICE AT T RST F APPLICANT. 7:45 ANTMO PULSOM, bots 48 & 49 Horseshoe Bend Way, continued from Nov. 1, 19909 Jack Landers-Cauley, Mark Lowland, Joe Pine and Mr. Pulsone were present for the hearing. Mr. Cauley advised at the meeting on September 6 there were 3 or 4 issues: Now to classify this area; whether connected to another wetland; submission of engineering calculations. separate issue was the timeliness of the filing. 1. Isolated Land Subject to Flooding: A plan was dome by William Richardson. His conclusion was it is a small area and is not connected to another wetland. He de- lineated the maximum water level for that area. Ir. Cauley and others from Benchmark travelled the area and came to the sane conclusion. His impression, after the last meeting, was reluctance by the board as to the accuracy of that. Mr. Pulsone retained Mark Lowland for an analysis of the site; his report is before the commission tonight. This report basically draws the same conclusion as RMA, that it is indeed an isolated land subject to flooding, it is a wet hole. Mr. Cauley stated he, as a civil engineer, went through the calculations. The water shed area is smaller than the allowable thresholds as defined in the engineering calculations performed. Namely, a minus mm water shed area of 10 acres i.s needed; the water shed for this area is closer to -1/2 to 3. This means there is a small k amount of water that is drained to this area; there is not much standing water. Even if this area were to fill up to meet the level of the road, it would still not contain a quarter-acre foot, only 4-5,000 cu. ft. , i it could fill up. The observe- able High water line never reached that level.. The vegetation that exists in there, there are plants haat are identified as wetland plants, are well below those thresholds that he would have calculated.