Laserfiche WebLink
had the project manager's name and phone number which the Chairman says it would be not be <br /> possible to duplicate this project-with the sane specific conditions. <br /> Mr. Bates statesthat the reason he is here was because they are sending out an RFP and had <br /> included the Conservation Commission as a factor in which the consultant would have to go by the <br /> conceived guidelines. Mr. Bates says that he thought the Commission would review it and come up <br /> with statements that would be added to the RFP to protect the town, Conservation Commission and <br /> Waterways Commission. Mr. Sweet mentions that an order of Conditions can state ghat the property <br /> should look like when finished. Agent McManus says that an order of Conditions only apply to the <br /> wetland jurisdiction and not upland areas. Mr. Gurnee states that it is undeterminable of what will <br /> become of the area or what it will look like if the project were happen. The Chairman says that he does <br /> not think it would be possible to determine that because it is unmown if the muck is tonic or odorous. <br /> The land was given to Conservation as a Trust to take care of it and not be spoiled by muck. Ms. <br /> Jarlo pry asks if there is town water through there.and Mr. Bates says he believes that there i not; all <br /> private wells. �s. Jalowy states that there could be the possibility of contamination to the private wells. <br /> Chairman Fitzsimmons asks the Board members if they are supportive or not supportive: <br /> John Rogers— Neutral. <br /> Brad Sweet— Not supportive but says he does not feel there is enough of ar demand from the town <br /> or the residents that would warrant the project. Subsequently, thea are a lot of conservation issues <br /> still open for the disposal site. <br /> Clark Gurnee— Does not support it. <br /> Chairman Fitzsimmons asks for a motion. <br /> Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to not support using the conservation land as <br /> a disposal for dredge p i is <br /> 5) Regulatory Subcommittee (Mitigation Regulation)tion — Mary LeBlanc attended the last meeting to <br /> assist/consult with the mitigation requirements. Agent McManus explains that one of the things that <br /> were missing was specific wording to different scenarios. <br /> • Fie-numbering of sections. <br /> • The formatting was revised to show sections A— K to separate the different sections as a point <br /> of reference. <br /> Sections: <br /> • Section F — if the mitigation requirement exceeds the land available for plantings than an option <br /> for the applicant could be to pay fees In lieu of offsite mitigation. other alternatives would be to <br /> revise the plan to a smaller scope project or possible denial of project. Fees would be paid to a <br /> Conservation Trust Fund dedicated for improvements of conservation lands in Mar hpee. Fees <br /> will be calculated at $3.50 per square foot and would be paid at the time of recording of the <br /> Order of Conditions. Such payments will be non-refundable. <br /> • Section H --The Commission encourages the removal of invasive species from wetland <br /> resource areas and associated buffer zones. Requests to remove invasive species shall require <br /> site visit with the agent to evaluate the presence of knave species and to determine the <br /> filing based on the size and scope of the removal and the proximity to wetland resource areas. <br /> • Section I — Hazardous tree removal. Permitting is required but no mitigation. <br /> • Section J - Best practices which is based on residential feedback. The Commission shall <br /> exercise the preference of pervious surface type of hard cape wherever possible and practical <br /> within the '-100' buffer bort shall be located no closer than 10' from the landward Iimit of the <br />