Laserfiche WebLink
said he supports the project but wants to make sure there are no adverse effects on their <br />abutting property. <br />Agent had a letter from someone who is not an abutter, it pertains to matters not of the <br />purview of the Commission but wanted to acknowledge receipt of this letter. No other <br />comments. <br />Mr. Colombo asked if both driveways are to be paved, Mr. Sweet said the new one is <br />pervious but the old one is paved. He said that it could potentially cause a drainage issue <br />and thinks it should be required that they put in a berm to retain all runoff on their property. <br />Agent said if that’s a concern, the Commission can make a condition. <br />Leo Silva, the homeowner, said he spoke with the neighbor Paul Thurston already. Also, <br />he was hoping to put some sort of pervious surface to help resolve the issue. <br />Mr. Sweet motioned for a negative determination with the conditions that any <br />disturbed lawn conforms with lawn standards, there will be changes to the plan so <br />that there will be no runoff on the adjoining property on the right side, and that the <br />new driveway on the left side of the property will be pervious and the old driveway <br />on the right of the property be modified to be pervious. <br />Mr. Dalton seconded the motion. <br />Vote: 7-0-0 <br />Roll Call Vote: <br />Mr. O’Neill; yes <br />Mr. Colombo;yes <br />Mr. Sweet; yes <br />Mr. Smith; yes <br />Mr. Weeden; yes <br />Ms. Zollo; yes <br />Mr. Dalton; yes <br />In favor, 7; Opposed, 0; Abstentions, 0 <br /> <br /> <br />6:06 Flat Pond Homeowner’s Association, 3 Great Field Landing (New Seabury Dunes NOI <br />Golf Course) Proposed treatment and eradication of aquatic invasive species. Continued LERP <br />from 12/09/21, 01/06/22 for DEP number <br />Keith Gazielle from Solitude Lake Management presented plans. <br />Agent asked about the methodology of backpack spraying. Will it only be used on the <br />phragmites, will there be any collateral damage so to speak? Keith answered no, we use <br />that technique often where there are mixed species. Confident that we can maintain direct <br />contact with the invasive species. Agent also asked if the follow up spot treatment is more <br />of a cut stem swab method, Keith Gazaille said yes. Agent said no other comments, he <br />recommends close and issue. <br />Ms. Zollo asked about the mulching of the phragmites. She’s concerned it could re-root <br />itself. Why not cut the stems and remove them from the site? Keith answered that reason <br />we leave the material on site is it is difficult to remove the material without offering more <br />disturbance to the wetland area. Also, literature suggests leaving the mulch in place <br />provides an increase in soil temperature that helps promote the native germ bank that may <br />be dormant and expedites the recolonization of native species. <br />Assistant Agent clarified that they are relying on the native seed bank to recolonize the <br />area, Keith said that is correct. <br />Mr. Sweet motioned to close and issue. <br />Ms. Zollo seconded the motion. <br />Vote: 7-0-0 <br />Roll Call Vote: <br />Mr. O’Neill; yes <br />Mr. Colombo;yes <br />Mr. Sweet; yes <br />Mr. Smith; yes <br />Mr. Weeden; yes <br /> <br />