FINAL
Present for the Conservation Commission and attending the meeting were: Pam Goff, Vice Chairman, Dick Smith, Sandy Broyard, Andrew Fischer, Caitlin Jones, Virginia Dyer, and Todd Christy. Also attending were Chris Alley, John Garrahan, David Handlin, Debbie Hancock, Everett Poole, Donald Poole, Stephen Stimson (landscape architect), Joe Wahler, Frank LoRusso and Lynn Bauk. Richard Steves, Rusty Walton and Bruce Bartels were absent.
Ms. Goff opened the meeting at 12:30 PM as acting Chairman. Caitlin Jones was appointed a voting member for the day’s agenda. The site visits for today’s meeting took place on February 16.
CHRIS ALLEY FOR JAMES HARRISON NOI SE 12 – 599; AP 33-114; 18 Point Inner Way: Ms. Goff opened the public hearing at 12:30 PM. Mr. Handlin explained that he did not expect the Commission to close the hearing and vote on this application today. He added the abutters to the fresh water pond have exchanged letters about its maintenance and will present their proposal later. Ms. Goff read abutter Ken Iscol’s letter for the record.
Mr. Alley summarized the site plan and stated the current footprint of altered terrain is 5300 sq. ft. – 3100 for the house (which has 4100 sq. ft. of living space on two floors) and approximately 2200 sq. ft. for the parking area and terrace. He outlined the resource areas that would be impacted with the proposed development plan as the top of the bank to Quitsa Pond and 100-foot buffer zone; the perennial stream that is protected by the Act’s 200-foot riverfront area, the fresh water pond and 100-foot buffer zone and the 100-foot buffer zones for two bordering vegetated wetlands that drain into the coastal great pond. All of the planned activity is in a buffer zone except about 2700 sq. ft. for a proposed de-nitrifying septic system. A 1700 sq. ft. barn with toilet and play court is
proposed in the riverfront area. The new driveway and parking area is approximately 40 feet from a wetland edge and also in the riverfront area. The existing asphalt drive will be replaced with a permeable surface. The 10’ X 50’ pool and stone terrace is near the top of the coastal pond bank. The shed on the bank is in the 100-foot buffer zone of the coastal pond.
Landscape designer Stephen Stimson proposed three categories of work. 1. Planting native species to restore the site. They will be added above the bank of the pond and along the walkway to the pond. This will increase the amount of woody vegetation in the area. The bittersweet, privet, honey suckle and a large section of bamboo would be removed from round the fresh water pond. 2. The existing edge of manicured lawn would be pulled back from Quitsa Pond to encourage more native vegetation growth to the pond’s edge. The lawn area will be defined with a stone retaining wall which will also define the limit of mowing. The hill top near the septic will be contoured and as much as 10 inches of top soil will be added to reduce the amount of watering for the grassy area. The meadow will be replanted with little blue stem. 3. They will make on-going maintenance recommendations for plant care and water management which may include dry wells or cisterns to reuse roof water runoff.
The tennis court will be repaired to collect water runoff. They would like to remove the Norway maples and discussed the merits of grinding (preferred) over digging out the tree stumps near the fresh water pond’s edge.
Direct abutter Everett Poole read a letter into the record from a previous project from 1988 to which he objected and added this proposal is much worse. He pointed out the denning areas for the otters in the neighborhood. Donald Poole testified the lot contains diverse wildlife and the proposed structures seem to create a wall that will impede the movement of the wildlife. Everett Poole added that the price for the property should not be a consideration in evaluating this proposal. Ms. Hancock commented the selling price is $ 8 million and that the house has been on the market for 2.5 years. She then asked if the present house could be replaced if the new house remained in the existing footprint. The consensus seemed to indicate that would be a possibility.
With no further comments from the audience the Commission discussed its impressions of the proposal. A request was made to continue the hearing to March 3. A subsequent motion was made to grant the request. It was seconded and unanimously approved.
ADMINISTRATION:
The January 6 and February 3, 2010 meeting minutes were reviewed and adopted as presented.
With no further business to conduct the meeting adjourned at 1:45 PM.
Written from Pam Goff’s notes and respectfully submitted by Chuck Hodgkinson, C.A.S.
| 
