The Notice of Intent filed by Ben Bailey, a member of both the Rochester Conservation Commission and Planning Board, seeking approval of his plan to construct a 700-foot-long roadway to access a single-family house lot at Gerrish Road received the Conservation Commission’s approval on October 5 in the form of an Order of Conditions.
Already vetted by the Planning Board, the case continued from September 21 was heavily scrutinized by Conservation Commission Vice-Chairman Dan Gagne. ConCom members Maggie Payne and Kevin Thompson expressed for the record their disappointment in the plan vetted by the Planning Board.
Aware of the negative reaction the plan had previously received in Planning Board and Conservation Commission meetings, ConCom Chairman Chris Gerrior came to the meeting prepared with a list of conditions 11 items long and some detailed.
Gerrior’s list addressed the impacts to adjacent properties, requiring that all reasonable measures shall be taken to prevent flooding.
“All reasonable measures, including any wetlands or watershed area above or below the project site, the applicant is fully responsible for such conditions that may occur due to improper construction or engineering or for any other reason. The applicant shall take immediate steps to correct any such adverse conditions; the commission shall be notified of all preventive or corrective measures,” he read. “That should help the abutters be a little bit more assured that all measures will be taken to keep water flowing not onto their property and on the applicant’s property.”
Other conditions require that the commission be provided with pre-construction photographs of the access staging area, route, and project focus, that a Department of Environmental Protection sign be posted, that siltation control barriers be installed and inspected by the Conservation Commission and/or the conservation agent, that either be notified at least one week prior to the beginning of construction, and that an onsite meeting be held prior to construction including the owner, contractor, engineer, and the commission and/or the agent.
“This meeting is to review the orders of conditions and to satisfy the commission that work will be done as specified, and inspection of the limit of work and wetland markers will be conducted,” said Gerrior.
In addition, all sediment shall be removed from stormwater basins before construction is completed. All excavating material shall be removed from the site or placed beyond the buffer zone. Any plan changes made or are intended, no matter how minor, shall require the applicant to inquire of the ConCom in writing whether the change is substantial enough to require a new filing.
Another condition is post-construction documentation. Upon the completion of work, ConCom will be provided with an as-built plan as well as photographs of the access staging area, route, project focus as well as final vegetation plantings.
The final condition is inspection by ConCom and right to request any materials or information associated with the project.
All but Gagne voted in favor of the order of conditions.
Gagne said that despite multiple requests, his stormwater questions have not been addressed. He said calculations he requested to show the amount of stormwater were not provided.
“The calculations provided by the applicant showed that every bit of stormwater on Longbow Lane that goes into their little basin they’ve got back there, but if you look at the contour grading and the first, I believe, 150 feet of this road, is graded to send the water into the existing stormwater basin,” said Gagne. “So that existing stormwater basin is not only taking the existing stormwater flows from the road but is also taking these new, impervious flows from their roadway.
“My concerns are that, since there’s been no analysis of this showing that it won’t impact the roadway, it’s going to end up flooding the roadway; it’s going over the top of this basin here, and it’s going to, rather than go into the treatment basin they’re showing … it’s going to go directly into the wetland resource areas. … At this point, I don’t think they’re putting in what they need to prove their case.”
Brian Grady of G.A.F. Engineering, representing Bailey, who recused himself from his ConCom seat, told ConCom that the Planning Board approved the project after a third-party review by Field Engineering.
The existing drainage area is more than 100 feet outside the wetland area, so it’s outside the purview of the commission, according to Grady. He said the applicant, Bailey, only needed to address erosion controls and has gone above and beyond requirements of the Wetlands Protection Act.
Grady said that the issues raised by Gagne were resolved by the Planning Board and the board’s peer-review engineer. Grady noted that Rochester Highway Surveyor Jeff Eldridge was involved with the project.
While Grady asserted that a definitive subdivision to serve one single-family lot is exempt from satisfying stormwater management guidelines, Gagne asserted that the applicant is only exempt from filing a stormwater management report and that whether the applicant has satisfied the guidelines is still within the purview of the commission.
Gerrior asked Grady if he believes that any of the concerns raised by Gagne are valid. “Yes, they’re very legitimate questions, and we believe we’ve addressed them through the Planning Board process and through their review engineer,” said Grady.
Asked for further questions, Gagne said, “My response is that there’s been no engineering to show that this meets those standards. Three guys looking out in a field is not the same as an engineer doing an analysis and showing that this is going to work.”
Asked for comment, Payne said, “I’d just like to comment for the record that I feel like we’ve been kind of put in a corner by the Planning Board on this here … I’m disappointed that we weren’t able to see any plans that involved trying to reuse the existing gravel road when we were out there,” she said. “I know we’ve been over this before, but when we were out on the site, there is an existing bog road that apparently was not suitable for the Planning Board to use.”
Payne said the commission had expressed a willingness to work within the 25-foot buffer zone because of that road, but the road was never brought up as a proposal.
“Personally, I’m disappointed that this is the plan we’re working with,” she said. “We’re impacting a large portion of the buffer zone where there’s mature forest that has to be cut down in order to put in this road whereas, if we had gone a little bit closer to the wetland, it would have been, in my opinion, less impactful to the wetlands area.”
Grady confirmed for Thompson that the clearing for the road is between 50 and 60 feet. In response, Thompson agreed with Payne’s perspective on the plan itself. “I know there’s plenty of roads in town that are nowhere near 50 feet and they’re new,” he said. “I feel that we’re stuck in a corner again, based on what’s been given to us as the accepted plan from the Planning Board. Clearing 50 feet for one dwelling … I think is an awful lot to be doing. I’m a little disappointed in how this was brought up and put before us.”
Gerrior invited Grady to discuss plantings that might in some measure mitigate the clearing work.
“We did discuss that at the second on-site (visit),” said Grady, noting that the width of the road is 18 feet, and that Bailey intends to preserve as many of the trees as possible. “It will just come down to what his contractor is able to do with the physical improvements that are necessary and the grading that’s necessary to get the road built and to construct the drainage area. … Mr. Bailey does intend to minimize that clearing as much as (is) feasible.”
After Grady confirmed Gerrior’s attempt to clarify the clearing plan of up to 50 feet in width to accommodate an 18-foot-wide road of recycled asphalt, Bailey asked to speak as the applicant.
Given the floor, Bailey told the commission that a careful look at the staking of the road revealed that the majority of adjacent trees are white pine. “I know from personal experience that they can survive a good amount of root cut on one side, and they can also survive being buried a bit, too,” he said. “Some trees don’t tolerate being buried; white pines don’t seem to care. … There’s no reason we can’t do a lot of that grading and still leave the trees in place. I’m not going to let a contractor come through there and clear-cut that thing just so I can get some grading in.”
After the vote, abutter Bob Mogilnicki, 20 Bishop Road, asked for a forum and challenged the commission’s decision against its mission to preserve the town’s rural character. Gerrior told Mogilnicki that his comments had been heard during prior meetings, that the 11 conditions are “pretty high surveillance” for the project, and that the matter is closed.
The next meeting of the Rochester Conservation Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, October 19, at 7:00 pm.
Rochester Conservation Commission
By Mick Colageo