03/23/2023 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

6:21 Joseph J. & Kathleen C. Ciullo, 65 Redwood Circle. Proposed septic system upgrade. RDA Representative: Engineering Works, Inc.(Continued from 3/9/2023) Applicant presented a revised plan and sought to address the question of the impact on the Beech trees as presented by the Mr. Colombo, Chair. Mr. Colombo noted that it was a tight area for the work. The revised plan shows revised septic components outside the 75 ft setback to top of inland bank with the later possibility of an upgrade to IA system/sludgehammer upon promulgation of BOH regulations requiring IA systems for all properties within 300 feet of a waterbody. Mr. McManus noted BOH approved requested Title 5 variances at 3-7-23 meeting; septic design plans to be reviewed upon online submission to BOH. In response to Ms. Zollo, the applicant stated that if an I/A system were added it would not require coming back before the Commission since it would just be dropping the system in. Mr. Cook made a motion for a negative determination which was seconded by Ms. Zollo. Roll Call Vote: Alexandra Zollo (Yes) Steve Cook (Yes) Marjorie Clapprood (Yes) Erin Copeland (Yes) Paul Colombo (Yes) 5 – 0 Unanimous 6:24 Jonathan J. Selame, 202 Daniels Island Road. Proposed in-ground pool. Representative: NOI Marsh Matters Environmental (Owner of record: MC Massachusetts Nom) The applicant went through the history of the property noting it was non-conforming and that the property was mitigation constrained (not able to meet mitigation requirements under the Commission’s required calculation) although he was proposing some mitigation. Mr. Colombo, Chair, noted the presence of topped White pines. The representative was unaware of this but noted the property has not been reviewed in quite some time with the possibility of “midnight landscaping.” In response to Ms. Zollo, Mr. McManus did not find prior mitigation plans regarding the property and the regulation for mitigation of the coastal bank was from 2006 coming after previous approvals. Mr. McManus clarified that some of the work was revegetation (a violation being dealt with as part of the NOI) and not part of the overall mitigation plan. Ms. Zollo and Mr. Cook expressed concern about the distance of the proposed pool to the top of the coastal bank. Regarding a concern of mitigation by the Commissioners, Mr. McManus noted there was an opportunity for more mitigation although still not meeting the Commission’s required amount in response to Ms. Zollo’s mitigation concern. Mr. McManus comments noted portion of proposed activities lie within the 50 ft buffer zone to top of coastal bank; however entire area is previously disturbed, thus a waiver of standards is requested. Site is mitigation constrained, thus cannot accommodate a portion of required mitigation as per the mitigation calculation chart under the waiver section. Coastal bank is a vegetated stable bank that functions as a vertical buffer to storm damage. It is not an eroding/sediment source coastal bank. Staff believes there are opportunities to implement additional mitigation in some landscape areas as well as existing lawn to further meet the mitigation requirements. The pool could also potentially be shifted/redesigned to reduce mitigation requirements. Mr. Colombo noted there was not a compelling need for a swimming pool under his reading of Regulation 12 even though the change was to a previously disturbed area that the Commission had approved.