Laserfiche WebLink
16 Great Neck Road.7Vorth <br />.Mashpee, .Massachusetts 02649 <br />Mr. Lehrer is unsure of the cost but he noted this is above and beyond but he wanted to <br />provide it in response to the comments. <br />Mr. Fulone thinks this is too much. <br />Mr. Balzarini noted storm water management is more important for those bays. <br />Ms. Waygan will strike that, and she thanked him for double checking the requirement. <br />Mr. Lehrer moved on to the next item, 174-27.2: storm water management. They recently <br />updated their storm water management requirements two years ago to include phosphorus as <br />a pollutant we want to remove to improve water quality. The suggested implementation for use <br />of storm water low impact development. He modified the final sentence, "to better achieve the <br />aforementioned purpose of this section, storm water low impact development planning and <br />development strategies shall be required". <br />Ms. Waygan commented when it first went in as `encouraged' it was new technology. Now <br />there are more engineers that are comfortable with it. The Planning Board's Consulting <br />Engineer is comfortable with it. Low impact development is vegetative swales, which pulls out <br />nutrients from storm water. There are other techniques used like submerged woodchips. If <br />storm water filters through them there is nitrogen removal. It is time to make this a <br />requirement. She mentioned as Ms. Sweet stated, sewering is now, storm water is next. We <br />will be ahead if we put this in now. <br />Ms. Waygan asked for Public Comment on this matter and recognized Joseph Binette. <br />Joseph Binette- He asked if mitigation planting was part of the storm water and run off in <br />development required, when you cut down trees, is it required to plant so many trees back in <br />that area once that area is developed. There are already towns that require that. <br />Ms. Waygan stated the Conservation Commission might require that, and the new tree bylaw <br />might be headed in that direction. <br />Mr. Richardson asked about the costs of this additional requirement. <br />Mr. Lehrer commented the cost would be negligible in consideration of engineering which is <br />different than a. conventional storm water facility. <br />15 <br />