The Rochester Conservation Commission meeting on June 22 got off slowly as members straggled in. Commissioner John Teal used the opportunity to vent his frustration about the local deer population. ”There are way too many,” he said, frustrated. “They’re not giving the plants a chance to grow back.”
“We need more hunters,” said commissioner Michael Conway from the other corner of the table.
“We need better hunters,” Teal argued cheerfully.
Once the last of the board members had arrived, the commission turned to the agenda. First in line was a Request for Determination of Applicability filed by Willow Creek Builders for Lots 41 and 43 at property located at Forbes Road. The application proposed installation of two new private wells on the separate lots within a 100-foot buffer zone of two isolated vegetated wetlands. “We have two clusters of plots, and these two lots are having trouble meeting the requirements set by the Board of Health,” said Willow Creek Builders representative Tim Higgins. “So for these two lots, we’d like to install individual wells.”
Conservation Agent Laurell Farinon reported that the wells really were not very intrusive at all and could easily be installed without any ill effects. She recommended that the commission issue a negative determination so that a notice of intent would not need to be filed. The commission agreed with her determination.
A Request for a Determination of Applicability was filed by Deborah Boyd concerning her property at 5 Bennett Road. The application proposed installation of a new septic tank within a 100-foot buffer zone of an isolated vegetated wetland. Boyd’s representative, Rick Charon of Charon Associates, explained that the sewage system had initially been put in over 20 years ago, before more recent bylaws had been passed, and the system was roughly 25 feet from the leaching field. “Now that the property is being sold,” he explained, “the system needs to be fixed. We’ve gotten the max setback that we can on this.”
“This one’s really tight,” said Farinon. “It barely creates a 50-foot buffer.” Nevertheless, she again recommended a negative determination, and the commission agreed.
The third request of the night was a Determination of Applicability filed by Hipolito and Donna Almeida for their property at 464 Walnut Plain Road. Chairman Rosemary Smith noted that the silt fence had a large gap at the bottom, and in such a condition was really a useless fence. “If it rains, that’s not going to do a thing.”
“This was an after-the-fact filing,” said Rick Charon, who was also representing the owners. “Originally, the proposal was an addition outside the buffer zone, so there was no notice. Then it was decided to add a row of large stones and approximately fifty feet of cubic fill to a spot inside the buffer zone.”
“This is an after-the-fact filing. The silt fence isn’t in right, and the pre-existing grading is difficult to see,” said Farinon. She recommended continuing the public hearing at the next meeting, where updated plans with a clearer view of the grading could be shown.
The last hearing of the day was a Certificate of Compliance request from Andrea and Donald King for their property at 425 Neck Road. The representative, for the third time that night, was Rick Charon. “It’s like Groundhog Day!” exclaimed Teal.
“I didn’t notice any erosion on this property,” said Charon. “The outlet to the collection system was originally closer to the pond but was moved further away, and there were some other changes.”
“If the changes were so significant,” said Conway, “why weren’t new plans submitted to the board?”
“The changes came through the contractor,” Charon explained. “He felt his changes were right and went beyond my plans. He didn’t do the paperwork properly, but he did a beautiful job. I don’t want to see the Kings punished for contractor overstep when they’ve done such a good job with this property.”
“The contractor did well,” admitted Farinon. “When a contractor is hired, a certain amount of creativity comes into play. I went to the property, though, and there were some deviations I was concerned about.”
Other members were concerned about a driveway that had apparently been placed inside a 25-foot ‘no touch’ zone.
“There’s a lot of mulch here and the driveway was moved out of place into what looks like the ‘no-touch’ zone,” pointed out associate member Daniel Gagne.
“Well, the area used to be a lawn. I think it had some other functions too,” said Farinon.
“‘No-touch’ doesn’t mean virgin, though. It means no-touch,” Gagne replied.
“Well, it has been touched,” said Teal, surveying Farinon’s photos of the location.
Considering the debate, Smith questioned whether they should continue the public hearing at the next meeting.
Farinon paused to think for a moment before replying. “Yes. I’d like to take another look. I’d just like to make a few adjustments before next time.”
The next meeting of the Rochester Conservation Commission will be on July 6 at 7:00 pm in the Rochester Town Hall meeting room.
By Andrea Ray