At the Conservation Commission meeting on August 22, Tim Ferwerda, a wetland scientist for Meridian Land Services, presented changes that were made to a Lymo Construction project, which had been presented at the Aug. 8 meeting.
At the Aug. 8 meeting, Ferwerda spoke about the buffer that was part of the landscaping plans for a building to be erected at 44 Wentworth. This project will cause 3406 square feet of wetland disturbance, but the recreation of the wetland will be bigger than the original and will serve a different function in the environment, said Ferwerda. It was believed by Ferwerda that the project had a conditional use permit (CUP), so he spoke about the different plants that were intended to be planted at the site – until Vice Chair of the Conservation Commission Eugene Harrignton pointed out that the commission had never received an application for the CUP.
A CUP is a zoning exception that allows the property owner or developer use of the land in a way not otherwise permitted within the particular zoning district. In order to obtain a CUP, Ferwerda would have had to fill out a separate application and brought it in to the Conservation Commission for approval. Ferwerda said he assumed the engineers would have submitted it, but since the commission didn’t have the application in hand they determined they could not vote on the project in any aspect until receiving the application.
Ferwerda brought the application for a CUP to the August 22 meeting, where he passed it out to the commission members and read it aloud. After the CUP application was read, Commission member Deborah Lievens asked if they were applying for a “dredge and fill” and how much of the wetland area they wanted to fill. They wish to fill the 3406 square foot area, but are planning to leave a small amount of wetland undisturbed – theoretically leaving a 50 foot buffer. Buffers are created to protect conservation area.
Board member Michael Speltz asked Ferwerda if Meridien Land Services would be willing to treat the area beyond the edge of the pavement as a buffer and post conservation protected area signs, to which Ferwerda responded that it was possible. The contention point is whether the buffer remains intact, because the size of the proposed building along with the planned parking spaces takes up more room than it should for the size of the lot.
Lievens stated that in her opinion there was nothing wrong with the project, except for the fact that the lot in question was really too small for the project and she “feels badly” for supporting it. She also stated that she wishes the recommendation from the commission acknowledges that the size of the lot is too small for the proposed project and that the commission does not continue to support it.
Speltz agreed, and amended that if the building was a quarter of the size planned, the project could probably stay out of the buffer.
Ferwerda pointed out that the building footprint has already been shrunk from its original size.
After discussing the parking plans, Lievens believed the project would need a variance for parking, and Ferwerda said that he would talk to the engineer about moving 6 of the parking spaces that line the wetland to a different parking lot.
Speltz then made a motion for the Conservation Commission to not recommend the approval of the plan as presented because “although it creates a mitigating permanent wet basin, it does not adequately protect the newly created basin with an adequate buffer.”
The motion passed unanimously and it was determined that if the Planning Board were to approve the plan, the Conservation Commission would recommend moving the six parking spaces which would increase the buffer by at least eight feet.