09/21/2023 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

Colombo also noted the effect of migratory birds. Mr. McManus coming back to mitigation required – 2:1. (The new revision) was required without a waiver. Regarding waiver, encroachment of a wetland is required – not in this case. Mr. Colombo asked if a continuance was requested given the concerns. Mr. Colombo also noted paver blocks not gravel on plan – the applicant responded stating the pavers were used in the Nitrogen Loading Calculation. Mr. Colombo raised Bylaw 172 land subject to coastal flow area as a resource area – does not meet mitigation criteria and the size of the house is larger than Mr. Colombo was comfortable (Mr. McManus stated that Regulation 25 should be considered – and not applied to an existing structure. Mr. McManus noted that the high maintenance lawn that could be used for mitigation and the large benefit to the environment should be considered as well.) Regarding moving forward, Mr. McManus stated if the applicant came up with a revised plan with mitigation 2:1, converting high maintenance turf to current standards, moving mitigation planting closer to the resource area, the applicant could come back to the Commission through a continuance. Returning to Ms. Godfrey’s concern about removing the tree, the applicant noted that Mr. McManus concurred that the trees presented a hazard structure – not native (not adapted to the environment and subject to disease) and setback from house is a hazard. Regarding the Arborvitae, the proposal could have privacy using Emerald Green. Mr. McManus also noted that a concern of loss of habitat could be conditioned/addressed with a habitat wildlife study to see what benefit the vegetation provides or requiring planting of trees and not just shrubs. Summing up, Mr. McManus thought “vetting out” the opportunities was the best approach. The applicant concurred the 2:1 mitigation needs to be addressed and suggested the Arborvitae could be replaced with a native species – Winter Berry – that would provide the required privacy and a wildlife food source. Mr. Cook raised the issue of separation of groundwater for the tanks proposed noting nothing on the plan. The applicant indicated the tank is at groundwater level. Mr. Cook followed if a waiver from BOH would be requested – the applicant noted the tank is watertight. Regarding the fan for the septic system, it would be placed above flood elevation. Mr. Colombo noted the lack of information on groundwater separation. Mr. McManus noted that the BOH would address the groundwater issue. Mr. Colombo asked the groundwater elevations to be delineated on the revised plan as well. The applicant asked for a continuance. th October 19 @ 6:09 Mr. Cook made motion for a continuance to address the 2:1 mitigation with more tree strata, Nitrogen calculations, septic tank details, and work with Conservation Agent to address footprint if there is an opportunity to do so, which was seconded Ms. Copeland. Ms. Clapprood stressed that footprint reduction was important and should be undertaken in good faith. Roll Call Vote: Steven Cook (Yes) Erin Copeland (Yes) Sandra Godfrey (Yes) Marjorie Clapprood (Yes) Paul Colombo (Yes) 5 – 0 (unanimous)