Laserfiche WebLink
Conservation Commission <br /> December 14, 1989 <br /> Page 8. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated he has reservations with the project and did not agree with <br /> the staking for the top of the bank, it is further away from Santu i t Pond than <br /> is shown on the plan. Performance standards for an inland bank indicated work <br /> should not impair the physical stability of the bank. He felt putting the <br /> foundation over the edge of the bank will impair the stability of the bank. <br /> He was also concerned with wildlife habitat. He was unsure whether calculations <br /> had been done to show the extent of area that constitute the deck and stairs <br /> coverage. <br /> Mr. Thorng asked if' Mr. Sherman would agree that under the deck is very flat and <br /> the top of the bank is the first major break in slope. Mr. Sherman agreed, but <br /> stakes on the site are below that Point. <br /> Mr. Thorng stated he had ,not checked the survey crew but on the plan i t is <br /> clearly shown. <br /> Mr. Sherman agreed with the Plan but felt Mr. Thorng should check the site <br /> staking to resolve the matter. <br /> Mr. Thorng stated there will be no structures on the bank; the wall is on the <br /> edge of the flat spot. <br /> Mrs. Simmons stated this is not indicated in the staking. <br /> Mr. Throng stated the supports for the deck will be angled into the wall so <br /> there will be no posts in the bank supporting the deck. <br /> Mrs. Simmons suggested that the proposed addition go out no further than the <br /> railroad ties. The staking is incorrect and the Commission feels there is <br /> a considerable amount of land that could be used. She requested that the lot <br /> be restak d and Mr. Thorng agreed to restake and make an overlay. When asked <br /> if steps would be exactly where they are presently, M . Thorng stated they <br /> would. <br /> Steven van Tot presented a landscaping plan. <br /> Mr. Sherman questioned the nature of the charges approved in the septic system, <br /> Mr. Throng advised a decision was to be rade, working with the Board of Health, <br /> as to whether to keep the laundry and wet bar downstair or half bath and wet <br /> bar. The decision was rude tonight by his client that the laundry will be <br /> going uptairs and they will apply to the state for low-flow ejectors for the <br /> wet bar and half bath. <br /> Mrs. Simmons asked how long this will take and was told thirty days. Mr. Thorng <br /> asked to continue. <br /> CONTINUED TO JANUARY 25, 1990 - 8: 15 p.m. HEALTH AGENT To BE CONTACTED. <br /> 7:45 Bradgate Builders, 80 Noisy Hole Road, Continued from 8110189. George <br /> Thorng of Arrow Engineering presenting. Regarding drainage calculations and the <br /> area map submitted to the Town Engineer, Mr. Rowley sited that the necessary <br /> methods for calculating the log year flood according to the Mass Wetland Act is <br /> the SCS method and their method and drainage area should be reviewed. His Client <br /> had taken notes at the previous hearing which they felt allowed the use of the <br /> rational method, widely used in engineering. <br />