Laserfiche WebLink
Conservation Co m fission <br /> December 13., 1990 <br /> Page 3. <br /> Mr. Cauley stated this is a small area that the commission is interested in. Their <br /> thrust is, they have had a lot of people look at it and have all come to the same <br /> conclusions independently, there is a small area, it does have standing water, but <br /> it is below the ndnimum thresholds the wetland Protection Act adopts. He feels <br /> the board should view this project differently in that it's not a large area, it <br /> does have standing water on occasion. �H does not life to use the terra "mud hole", <br /> but that is what it is, He stated he cannot comment on the wildlife habitat value <br /> but RMA and ERC draw the sane conclusion that it has no wildlife habitat value. <br /> Mr. Homeyer stated a week ago Wednesday he was out there and the water was above the <br /> red flags. He asked, with a house in there, what do they plan to do with the water <br /> that comes in from the other kettle hole? <br /> Mr. Putsone advised he is not having a basement. <br /> Ms Behrman asked what would happen to anyone else's basement upstream., this is <br /> water storage area right here. <br /> Mr. Cauley stated they have an obligation, whatever the pre-existing water runoff <br /> conditions were prior to construction, they have to be maintained after construction. <br /> This is an issue they want to address and be open about.. They will do their best t <br /> achieve that goal. Whatever runs off prior to construction will be the same after <br /> construction. <br /> Mr. Homeyer asked what they plan to do with the water's Mr. Cauley stated it would <br /> have to be retained on--site or it would have to be diverted ie. , a culver under the <br /> road to Ashumet Pond, or a detention area in the back yard to retain water. Pouring <br /> it onto sorjeone else's lot is not acceptable. <br /> Mrs. Simmons asked if he felt Board of Health approval is 6btainable for the <br /> septic system and fir. Cauley did not ono . He thought it important how the <br /> commission judges this area. If judged as a kettle hole that's wet the Board of <br /> Health will view that differently than if it is viewed as a wetland. <br /> Mr. Sherman asked if Mr. Cauley did the calculations himself and was told he <br /> started the process. Mr. Cauley stated the Mimi urs threshold that he sees is <br /> to acres, this is well below that so he did not use that standard. There is the <br /> rationale method which calculates water runoff depending on permeability of the <br /> slope. Using that method, the water shed areas are too small. <br /> Mr. Sherman react from Marls Howland's report, page 16: "It is suspected this area <br /> i is not of a depth to support the quarter-acre foot of water needed for classification <br /> s an Isolated Land Subject to Flooding but only the calculations can verify that <br /> using C's flags as the bounds for the storage area'. He assumes Mr. Howland is <br /> calling for the calculations. <br /> Mr. Howland advised he is a commission member himself, from Freetown, and as <br /> botanist can only determine by field conditions, the extent of water levels, other <br /> water pockets. Technically, under D.E.R. , using his flags should be calculated by <br /> an .engineer to determine if it meets the quarter acre threshold. He suspects it <br /> does not hold a quarter acre foot, but it should be documented. <br /> Mr. Sherman asked, using his flags as the bounds, those flags are based upon what'd <br /> Mr. Howland advised from hydric vegetation and hydric soil characteristics. There <br /> are areas of observable water standing and water marks can be seen on the vegetation. <br /> However, if hydric soil cores- are taken, you can't find signs of hydric characteristics <br /> higher up slope than the readily observable water marks. The original flagging around <br /> the water pocket is more clown slope than theirs. That flagging was dome from surface <br />