CHICHESTER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES
AUGUST 10, 2005
Members Present: Edward Meehan, Chairman; Steve MacCleery, ex-offico; Mark McIntosh, David Dobson, Ben Brown, Lou Barker.
Voting Members: Ed, Steve, Mark, David, Ben
Case # 184 continuance from 8/3/05 public hearing Ronald Wroblewski/L & K Equipment, Map 3 Lot 29A located on Route 4 requesting an area variance to Article III, Section P-wetlands.
Applicant, Ronald Wroblewski, was not present. Jeff Burd from Brown Engineering presented the case.
Conservation Commission: Jeff Andrews, Bob Mann, Walter Sanborn
Jeff Burd showed plans of the proposed project. Ron would like to turn 6500 sq. ft. of wetlands into a parking lot for his truck sales. They have met with the Conservation Commission and a site walk has been done. The commission’s comments were submitted (on file). Jeff would like to do some final design drainage for the site. The 6500 sq. ft. is a conceptual plan. He would like to trim the number back when final grading it done. If the approval were to up to 6500 sq. ft. but not exceeding it and met the conditions of the Conservation Commission they would be satisfied.
Clearing the trees and not putting the parking area close to Route 4 was mentioned. Jeff stated that the CC feels cutting trees in the wetlands would be less intrusive than cutting the trees and filling in the wetlands. Ron would like the visibility since he is right on Route 4.
Mark-How much would you scale back?
Jeff B-Would like to get into the final design and see about the drainage. See what the actual grading for the parking lot looks like. These go hand in hand. Don’t see a problem with keeping it under the 6500.
David-Are you talking about a retention pond?
Jeff B-Maybe a treatment swale, some way to allow the sediments and salt settle out instead of going directly into the wetlands. Thinking about a catch basin with some kind of sump that will maybe allow the runoff to leach into the underlying soil. It is such a small drainage area. Maybe a treatment swale which would be more in line with the DES standards of Best Management Practice.
Several board members said they had visited this property.
Ed asked the board if they wished to go forward with just a conceptual plan before them or wait until a more formal plan is presented. He felt a more concrete plan was needed. The present plan doesn’t show the runoff.
Jeff commented that he had not heard anything yet from the state about the dredge and fill permit and wasn’t sure if Ron had either.
Steve asked if the plan before them were the same plan that was submitted to the Conservation Commission and if any changes had been made to it since they last reviewed it.
Jeff said it was the same plan and that no changes had been made to it.
Steve-According to the CC’s comments they were not going to object to the project but made suggestions to minimize the wetland impact such as removing trees to the extent possible instead of filling in the wetlands. If this is the same plan the CC has seen shouldn’t this plan be revised to reflect that you are not going to fill as much wetlands and cut some trees? I can see the CC giving its blessing in their comments but that is not reflected in the plan. I would like to see their suggestions reflected on the plan.
Ben-I tend to agree. You have some ideas on reducing the impact to the wetlands by cutting some trees and changing the size of the parking lot. If we approve this, there is no incentive to change it. Given that there are some other ideas to further reduce the impact I think that should be pursued before this were approved. I would like something we could see, agree to, and hold them to.
Lou-I would also be curious to see the dredge & fill permit and if there are any conditions on it. I feel our vote tonight would be premature.
Steve-I would really like to see the CC’s approval on the plans. Their comments would weight very heavily on my decision.
Jeff B-I think what Ron was trying to do is see if this would be acceptable before he went through the expense of final engineering. He has gone before the Planning Board, Conservation Commission and BOA to get their feel and suggestions to his proposal before final engineering. I would think you would want to see final engineering before rendering a decision.
Ben-I’m not sure I need to see final engineering documents but I think a concept is a little closer to what the CC suggestions or ideas were about reducing the amount of impact. There have been two ideas mentioned tonight that are not reflected in this present plan.
Steve-Revise conceptual plan based on the CC recommendations. We will then have paperwork from which the board can make its decision.
Jeff Andrews-The CC acts in an advisory capacity. We look at a project and make suggestions. We want to minimize the impact to the wetlands to the extent possible. DES will add additional comments in that same regard. As far as the CC is concerned we don’t have a problem with this project if possible, do some of the things we have recommended.
Bob Mann-The comments included in the minutes of the CC pertaining to this project went on to the wetland board. They usually consider local opinions on these matters.
MOTION - Steve MacCleery moved to postpone this public hearing until 9/7/05 at 7:00 PM at the Town Hall. Applicant will bring back an updated conceptual plan that should address the Conservation Commission’s suggestions which are in their minutes dated 7/11/05. Seconded by Mark McIntosh. Vote 5-0. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Holly MacCleery, Secretary
Chichester Board of Adjustment
| 
