Laserfiche WebLink
• Conservation Commission <br /> Meeting of March 24, 1988 i <br /> Page 5. <br /> 8:30 - Donald Shapiro (Braman Engineering) Lot 4 Tide Run. Continued from 3110/88. <br /> Doug Cameron and San Sutter, Attorney, presenting. A revised Notice of Intent was <br /> submitted with revised plans. <br /> Mr. Cameron stated at the previous hearing concern was raised .with the fence prop- <br /> osed. Mr. Shapiro went to his landscape architect and they have devised a sol- <br /> ution. They incorporated a trellis railing built into the deck a minimum of 51 <br /> above existing -grade. That eliminates the need for a fence. <br /> Mr* Shapiro wishes to put in a pool which would use an ozone system eliminating <br /> the need for chlorine. This will be a closed loop system pool with a separator <br /> filter, rather than a back-wash drywe l l . I n the event the pool must be :drained, <br /> he would like to have a truck come in and pump it out and would prefer not to <br /> have a drywell . <br /> Ms Behrman stated he would have to arrange to have the truck come in but the dry- <br /> ell is always there. Mr. Cameron stated M . Shapiro would prefer not to have a . <br /> drywell put in as it would tend to allow someone to use it. <br /> Mr. Rosenberg asked how people would be prevented from pumping the pool into the <br /> marsh if there is no drywell and how this would be supervised. <br /> Mr. Sutter stated it is their feeling the leaching pit is not going to be the best <br /> solution for Mr. Shapiro or the environment. The pump truck is going to be the <br /> best for beth concerns. <br /> Mr. Cameron stated it is Mr. Shapiro' s conceal that -too much water will be put <br /> into the leaching pit too fast. 11 ,000 gallons would take a significant time <br /> to drain. Mr. Shapiro will settle for one, but he prefers not to disturb the <br /> area. <br /> Mr. Cameron provided the file for reference to the letter from John Lawrerl'ce <br /> of DEQE with a locus reap showing the area in the upper reaches of Sippican <br /> River. It is an area subject to coastal flooding. r. Lawrence' s statement <br /> was made 3/7/85. <br /> Mr. Rosenberg stated it is not in an AEC and there has been a complete change in <br /> regulations since that time concerning compensatory storage. <br /> Referring to Mr. Lawrence' s letter, Mr. Cameron advised the - statement was made <br /> that compensatory storage is not necessary in coastal flood areas. . i--le also <br /> Presented testimony from Scalbatia stating that this particular project is in a <br /> land subject to coastal flooding. <br /> Mr. Rosenberg stated, that project may be, but this is a different situation. <br /> Mr. Cameron stated it is a land subject to coastal inundation and also, the <br /> WEtlands Protection Act, coastal segs,, do not have any performance standards <br /> for flood storage. Re the ACEC issue, he stated he filed for the project with <br /> the secretary of tnv i ron-me to l Affairs and received comment back stating an <br /> EIR is not required. <br /> Ms Behrman pointed out that does not mean the Commission would not be concerned <br /> about the impact on the ACEC, only that this is not In a certain scale of things 5 <br /> that would automat Ically trigger. The storage of f l ood. water does sti 11 concern <br /> her and it is an ACEC. Mr. Sutter asked ed i f it is the Commission' s feeling that <br /> this lana is or is not in a coastal flood plain. <br /> Lisa stated it is within the - 100 Year flood plan. <br /> J <br />