08/10/2023 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

several deficiencies with the application – no site plan showing flood zones or anything else. The applicant responded he was ignorant of the requirement. Mr. Cook noted it is under Regulation 25. Mr. Cook also noted that the proposed dock was within a velocity zone, questioning the construction durability in a storm. Mr. Cook went on to note that the railing does not meet the building code and the need for Chapter 91 documentation. Mr. Kent went on to note that the building code would apply but was unsure as to the building code requirements for the pier itself. The applicant was comfortable adding guardrails as needed. Mr. Cook stated he wanted to see a site plan (flood elevation) and a plan to secure the dock to keep it from floating away. In response to Mr. Colombo, the applicant will be appearing thnd before the ZBA September 13. (2 week in September) Mr. Kent confirmed that the application to ZBA hearing has been scheduled. Regarding engaging an engineering firm, the applicant indicated some difficulty but was willing to get a site plan. Ms. Zollo suggested st a continuance (September 21). Mr. Cook reiterated the need for the securing of the dock in case of a flood event and meeting Regulation 25. Mr. Colombo noted it would be smoother th to hold the hearing on September 7 in case of any changes – otherwise the applicant would need to appear again before the ZBA duplicating a step. th September 7 @ 6:09 pm. Ms. Zollo made a motion for a continuance which was seconded by Mr. Cook. Roll Call Vote: Steven Cook (Yes) Alexandra Zollo (Yes) Erin Copeland (Yes) Sandra Godfrey (Yes) Paul Colombo (Yes) 5 – 0 (unanimous) 6:15 167 Timberlane Drive, George K. Regan, Jr. Proposed septic system upgrade. RDA Representative: Engineering Works, Inc. (continued from 7/27) Regarding the nitrogen calculation, Mr. Kent confirmed that this has been received in response to Mr. Colombo. Ms. Godfrey expressed disappointment that the applicant did not stake out the property (Applicant indicated it was due to his workload) noting it was a deficiency. Mr. Colombo asked if the plans were accurate as to the placement of the tank et cetera. Ms. Zollo asked about the proposed placement not being in front of the house. The applicant noted the tank could be closer to the house, but such a placement would require rerouting the water line. Mr. Colombo noted the extensive root system and questioned if some of the trees would survive and where mitigation would go – upper northwest corner. Mr. Cook suggested having a condition dealing with the tree removal and mitigation to work with staff. Mr. Colombo noted that debris would be removed as part of the work which was an improvement to the site. Mr. Kent noted the proposed septic upgrade was to I/A system. Nitrogen loading calculations must be provided as per Reg. 30 – received. (Nitrogen loading calculations will be verified as part of the condition) Mr. Kent went on to note the area of proposed hemlock mulch should be planted with native groundcover in lieu of mulch. Mr. Kent recommended a negative determination issuance pending revised plan showing planting of native groundcover and confirmation of the nitrogen loading calculation. Regarding whether the current system was a cesspool, the applicant clarified it was a leach pit. Regarding phosphorous removal, the applicant brought information to better inform the Commission about the I/A systems effect. The applicant noted the difference in phosphorous was significantly reduced than from a conventional system – causing the Commissioners to express approval. In response to Ms. Zollo, the applicant noted the operational costs were