Friday, August 30, 2002
Applications get close scrutiny, site visits from ConsCom
The conservation commission considered two problematic applications at their August 22 meeting. The first concerned a project that straddles the Concord-Carlisle town line off Monument Street/River Road. The second has a long-running history that started under developer Theodore Treibick and has continued under the present owners, Field Crest Real Estate Trust, in an area off East Street.
River Road/Monument Street
In the first instance, developer David Valchuis is seeking approval for demolition of an existing house and barn to make way for construction of a new home, septic system and associated grading. One complication is the fact that the town line runs smack through the house, but since the front door opens into Concord, it is assigned a Concord address on Monument Street. However, two commissions share jurisdiction over certain wetland issues.
Stamski and McNary engineer Ron Ferrignolo noted that the new septic system would reside outside the wetland buffer zone in Carlisle, but the leaching field is in Concord. Although the house is 27 feet from the resource area at its closest point, the haybale line is shown within five feet of the wetland, a matter of concern to the commission. There is also a small pond on the property with an emergency spillway, and chair Chris Kavalauskas indicated she wants to confirm the wetland delineations as presented by David Crossman of B & C Associates.
The commission agreed that issues to be deliberated by the Concord Natural Resources Commission could also affect Carlisle. The last time there was activity on the property, the two boards conducted a joint site walk, a distinct possibility this time around. Therefore, the hearing was continued until such time as the Concord commission opens its deliberations.
Off East Street
The Field Crest hearing was a continuation from the August 1 meeting in which Crossman was asked to re-flag part of the wetland boundary and revise specifications for a replication area. Engineer Drew Garvin described the revised replication plans that call for 6,300 square feet of wetland replacement for the 4,700 square feet of fill slated to be deposited in the wetland. Conservation administrator Sylvia Willard warned that "only clean fill is legal, and this requirement must be complied with."
Kavalauskas asked if there were any way to reduce the large amount of fill (now within 300 square feet of the state limit). Willard and commissioner Roy Watson indicated uneasiness at the steepness of the slope off East Street and the resultant threat of sediment buildup.
Turning to another concern, Kavalauskas asked about the planting plan for the replication area. Crossman agreed to supply one "roughly along the lines of the original submission." Still unsatisfied, Kavalauskas continued, "I want to make sure that you put in only native species and non-invasives." Smiling, Crossman promised, "No poison ivy, no buckthorn and no loostrife."
Commissioner Tom Brownrigg observed that he had been uncomfortable with the original filing which had later become invalid due to a boundary change. The August 1 Notice of Intent, he felt, was "not quite honest" when it was presented as a new plan, which it really wasn't. He, therefore, indicated some reluctance to approve. At the recommendation of Kavalauskas, the commission voted to make another site visit at 6 p.m. on August 28.
A final submission was a Request for Determination of Applicability from home owner Simon Platt. He was informed that he would not need to provide a Notice of Intent for landscaping and minor alterations to his driveway and patio. The only conditions were that he use native plantings and not stockpile grading materials in the buffer zone.
© 2002 The Carlisle Mosquito