05/01/2013 PLANNING BOARD Minutes

Home Browse Search

existing lots and a current road layout and included the consolidation to be combined into 1 house lots with one unbuildable lot. The area is part of Section 21 of New Seabury, subject to the Special Permit where zo requirements do not apply. The lots would be in the0 - 15000 foot range and all lots would be served by a private sever_ The four waterfront lots would include a beach maintenance easement m order to continue the beach nourishment program. An emergency access agreement will be provided for T idewatch Condominiums. Mr. Bunker stated that there were sewer and drainage easements 1 at the site and that the site was flat and the road at primarily a 2% slope_ lir. Bunker stated that there was no work proposed within 100 feet of the coastal bank_ Drdwage would feature 3 pairs of catch basins. Mr. Rowley confirmed that he had just received the plans and needed more time to review them, noting that they were similar to the original pian. Mr. Rowley referenced lots 1692, 1691, 1695 and 1684 noting that the total dimensions of the common line differed on one side from the other side. Regarding the drainage and fire apparatus access, Nor. Rowley inquired about the note to relocate it and Mr. Bunker responded that it was existing and would be relocated. Regarding,the road profile plan 1r. Rowley requested an explanation regarding compliance of the drainage design to the Subdivision Regulations and zoning provisions. Mr. Bunker stated that there would be no septic systems so nitrogen would be reduced and not enter the stonnwater. Mr. Rowley responded that septic nitrogen was a Board of Health issue and that stor m grater nitrogen removal should occur by means such as with vegetated swales or pre-Uvatment before entering the ground. 11r. Rowley recommended taking another loop because the Stormater Regulations did not allow direct infiltration without prratmnt. Air. Rowley also noted that the bottom of the leaching pits were well below the test pits, so there was no guarantee that they would not hit groundwater, requing another look Chairman Waygan stated that she would accept public comment but indicated that the hearing would be continued. Mr. Fudala referenced three documents including a letter for the ride aster attorney, an email from the Fire Department indicating no issue with the emergency access cross-section and Mr. Ioley's erna.il regarding the coal bank. Mr.Rowley referenced item##4 of the attorney's letter regarding the 100 foot naturaJ buffer zone required between the wetlands and developed properly, known as the NVSB (naturally vegetated buffer strip). 11r. Rowley-ley.stated that he was urge whether the Planning Board could require the NVSB from the applicant as it would typically be rewired by the Conservation Commission, who would determine the limit of the wetland and the location of the-coastal bank through recording in the Registry of Deeds. Mr. Rowley confw med-that Con. Com would typically coder an application c namendy or prig to review by the Planning Board to establish the coastal bank as a defined line. Mr. Bunker suggested that ColisConm had not considered the plan because development was far enough away from their jurisdiction but Mr. Rowley stated the coastal bank needed to be established in order to know how much of the lot would be encumbered by the 100 foot buffer, under the wetlands Act. Mr. Colasuonno stated that the 100 foot setback was out of the area of the buffer zone and that they planned to file when they planned to build on the lot. Mr. Rowley responded that the abutters had expressed the concern to the Manning Board so the issue needed to be considered and read the attorney's statement. Chairman Way recommended that the applicant consult with ConsCom. Mr. Rowley pointed out that the Planning Board was required to show the coastal bank line, not define it, and the applicant had indicated that it was e; adding-that he felt it was appropriate for C nsCom ton iirm that it was in fit an accurate fine, registered