FINAL
Present for the Conservation Commission and attending the meeting were: Sandy Broyard, Chairman, Pam Goff, Wesley Cottle, Joan Malkin, Chris Murphy, Bob Hungerford and Chuck Hodgkinson. Chris Alley, Doug Liman, David Damroth and Wendy Weldon also attended. Candy Shweder was absent.
The meeting came to order at 12:30 PM. The Commission left to make a site visit to 33 Lake Rd. to review the proposed roadway relocation. The meeting reconvened at 12:57 PM.
PUBLIC HEARING NOI (NO DEP FILE # - LOCAL ZONING ARTICLE 12) CHRIS ALLEY FOR 33 LAKE ROAD REALTY TRUST; 33 Lake Rd.; AP 36-6: Ms. Broyard opened the public hearing at 12:58 PM. Mr. Alley explained this application is being heard under the Commission’s authority as outlined in the Town’s Zoning Bylaw Article 12 for the Squibnocket Pond zoning district. He added that Section 12.3 C states: “The buffer zone within which the Conservation Commission may claim jurisdiction is increased from 100 feet to 200 feet for streams or wetlands draining into the (Squibnocket) Pond”. Mr. Alley reviewed the site plan to relocate an existing roadway a portion of which is within the 200-foot buffer zone of a Bordering Vegetated Wetland that drains into Squibnocket
Pond. There will be approximately 5,000 sq. ft. of disturbance in the buffer zone. The closest activity is approximately 120 feet from the wetland edge.
The Commission asked why the new road could not be moved to the north and go through the existing opening in the stone wall. This would push the new road further from the wetland edge and may reduce the amount of fill needed in the low swale. Mr. Alley said if the location moved further north the road length would not change and the disturbance in the buffer zone may be slightly reduced. He projected the area of the fill would remain the same; the volume of fill may be reduced.
Mr. Damroth said the proposed location was a family group decision and places the road as far down the slope as possible and away from the house. About ½ of the cherry tree that is next to the proposed new opening in the stone wall will remain in place. Immediate abutter Doug Liman said he prefers moving the roadway further north for safety reasons – the resulting “S” curve would calm traffic flow and preserve the entire cherry tree.
The Commission asked how the water collects and drains in the swale. Mr. Damroth said the water collects in the road next to Doug Liman’s house. He added the field absorbs water as it flows down grade toward the swale which is man-made. Mr. Liman asked how the water will funnel down the new roadway. Mr. Damroth said that while not shown on the site plan he could add water bars to direct the water flow toward the field.
The Commission asked if an archaeological survey will be performed. Ms. Weldon said this was discussed at length among the Site Review Committee and Squibnocket Pond District Advisory Committee (SPDAC). It was decided the roadway does not merit a survey because it only requires surface work—as opposed to digging a house foundation or septic system. Ms. Goff added an archaeological survey is not within the Commission’s jurisdiction. Article 12 Sections 12.C 1, 2 and 3 were read for the record. Mr. Alley said the Planning Board has endorsed the plan. The NHESP report was then read for the record which indicated the proposal will not adversely affect the Resource Area Habitat of state-protected rare wildlife species and will not result in a prohibited “take” of
state-listed rare species. After brief discussion a motion was made to decline jurisdiction over the extended wetland buffer zone – the area between 100 to 200 feet from the wetland edge. The motion was seconded. In discussion it was stated the proposed project will not materially affect the wetland resource which is 120 feet from the roadway. While the land at the area of the proposed roadway slopes down toward the wetland, it slopes back up creating a swale that collects the water before the wetland. This feature minimizes any impact on the wetland resource. Additionally, the NHESP has determined the project is not a threat to endangered species or habitat. For these reasons, the Commission thought it unnecessary to assert jurisdiction to protect the wetland resource. The motion came to a vote and passed with five in favor and one abstention (Mr. Murphy).
ADMINISTRATION:
The September 18, 2013 meeting minutes were reviewed and approved as presented with five in favor and one abstention (Mr. Hungerford).
The two RFD applications for the October 16th meeting were reviewed. The Commission unanimously agreed that site visits will not be necessary for either of the applications as the properties were recently visited for previously issued permits.
Ms. Weldon explained the SPDAC has traditionally had a Conservation Commission member as a part of the Committee. She explained the majority of the meetings take place with the Site Review Committee. There will be additional meetings if and when a plan is developed for the Squibnocket Beach project. Ms. Weldon left the meeting. After discussion no decision was made because of scheduling conflicts.
Ms. Malkin explained she and Mr. Murphy are spearheading a proposal with the MVC to see if the Board of Health in all six Towns would adopt a regulation requiring each Conservation Commission to oversee and issue an Order of Conditions or Determination of Applicability for the use of fertilizer within a 100-foot buffer zone. In discussion the Commission asked how the proposed regulation would be enforced. Ms. Malkin said this regulation would require an awareness campaign and thought neighbor objections would most likely tip off each Town to violations. She added this is just an early draft and she will provide a tighter version for consideration when it’s available.
The next meeting will be Wednesday, October 16, 2013 @ 12:30 PM. With no further business to conduct the meeting adjourned at 2:03 PM.
Respectfully prepared by Chuck Hodgkinson, C.A.S.
| 
