2004-02-12 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINU'TES OF PLANNING BOARD -2- 2/12/04 talked about adding another sign - but Board tom him he wouM have to come back to the Board fi~r approval of an additional sign as he did not have the paperwork with him at this time. Mr. Alfonso made a motion to approve the use of the property and also the proposed sign sign must be limited to 6fl. in height colors and size same as last moth motion seconded by Mr. McCormick. Unanimously carried WENLISS TERRA CE/STUART A VENUE - 12 LOT SUBD1VSION Next on the agenda was the proposal for a 12 lot subdivision at Wenliss Terrace Stuart Avenue. Applicant stated since the last meeting in December it was discussed that applicant shouM look into an alternate drainage scheme to handle the stormwater from the subdivision. Applicant has since submitted the preliminary drainage report which was revised '.the drainage report contains three things: (1) - downstream drainage study which attempts to identify the four storm events' as' it relates to the watershed - the results indicate that the one year and water quality volume have to be addressed because it is an increase ~f more than 5% but the l O year and l OO year fall within approximately 5% or less qf pre-development flow. Applicant stated they are still requesting waiver fi'om those requirements. The first scheme they presented was a pocket pond which was presentedatthe Decembermeeting. Thatpondwasinitiallypresentedverypreliminary- the design was. not graded out fully in this report but now it is fully graded out and the volumes are fidly accounted for. It was stated that the pond size has been reduced in size. In consideration to the fact that recreation area was being taken away - the applicant proposed an underground sand falter and detention pipe which basically is a concrete box with sand inside of it. Water is diverted to that unit - it is treated and discharged to the wetland Unfortunately with an underground sand filter it is not able to handle the o,e year storm event so it wouM have to be supplemented with underground storage chambers which is also exited into the wetland. The other measure underground that couM be used but cannot be used in this case is infiltration. The underground sand .filter ia' presented and sized it for all volumes. The applicant would like for the Board to discuss the underground sand filter. Applicant also stated he was in receipt ora letter from Paggi, Marlin and DelBene dated February 9, 2004 which he has discussed with Charlie DelBene. This letter is on file in the Planning/Zoning offices. Letter was discussed at meet#kg with Board. After the two options were explained- applicant asked Board to consider which op#on they would like to pursue. Applicant did say that the sand filter only has 1.5 feet of head. Typically the state requires that a sand filter shouM have 4ft. of head The reason why there is so little head is that the bottom of the sand .filter has to be 2ft. above the water table they are very bruited in depth. He also feels that maintenance attd operation of this type of system would be a "nightmare." In compariso, the pocket pond it is like "one stop shopping" all of the ,storm events would be handled within o,e situation. Not only that but it also provides mitigation for the amount of wetland that they are removing and possible enhancing the amount of welkmds that are there by providing that pond Applicant also stated that the pond may be able to be reduced m size keeping in mind that the Board wants to keep as much of the recreational area as passible. Applicant stated he did provide both scenarios but feels the pocket pond is' the most fimctional method. Mr. Morris asked about the