Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutrequest to continue 6.3.2021 Grant, Kelly From:Sweetser Engineering <sweetsereng@aol.com> Sent:Thursday, June 3, 2021 3:23 PM To:Grant, Kelly Subject:Re: 15 Wadsworth NOI - Agent Notes Kelly In response to your earlier email, we request a continuance of the project at 15 Wadsworth Lane, Yarmouth to the next hearing date on June 17. Thank you Regards, Gail Alger-Wilcox Office Manager Sweetser Engineering 508-385-6900 -----Original Message----- From: Grant, Kelly <KGrant@yarmouth.ma.us> To: 'Sweetser Engineering' <sweetsereng@aol.com> Sent: Thu, Jun 3, 2021 10:18 am Subject: RE: 15 Wadsworth NOI - Agent Notes Hi Robin I recommend that you continue the hearing to allow review of the updated plan and to prepare the alternatives analysis, and a narrative that references the RA regulations specifically. I should receive any updates by COB th Thursday June 10 to allow them to be included in the Commission packets. Thanks Kelly From: Sweetser Engineering \[mailto:sweetsereng@aol.com\] Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 4:07 PM To: Grant, Kelly <KGrant@yarmouth.ma.us> Subject: Re: 15 Wadsworth NOI - Agent Notes Attention! This email originates outside of the organization. Do not open attachments or click links unless you are sure this email is from a known sender and you know the content is safe. Call the sender to verify if unsure. Otherwise delete this email. 1 KELLY, TOO LATE TO GET YOU REVISED PRINTS, BUT AT LEAST THIS WILL GIVE YOU SOMETHING TO LOOK AT. ROBIN Regards, Gail Alger-Wilcox Office Manager Sweetser Engineering 508-385-6900 -----Original Message----- From: Grant, Kelly <KGrant@yarmouth.ma.us> To: 'Thiago Paraguay' <thiago@eastbaycompanies.com>; 'Sweetser Engineering' <sweetsereng@aol.com> Sent: Wed, Jun 2, 2021 12:01 pm Subject: 15 Wadsworth NOI - Agent Notes Hi Thiago As discussed, here are my notes on this project. 6/3/2021 MassDEP comments: Demonstrate compliance with 310 CMR 10.58(4), 310 CMR 10.58(4)(c), 310 CMR 10.58(4)(d), 310 CMR 10.58(4)(d)1., 310 CMR 10.58(4)(d)1.a., and 310 CMR 10.58(4)(d)1.c. Agent Comments: 310CMR(4)(c)(3) Evaluation of Alternatives- The applicant shall demonstrate that there are no practicable and substantially equivalent economic alternatives... Such as reduced footprint, layout change, reduced 310CMR(4)(d) 1. No Significant Impact. The work, including proposed mitigation measures, must have no significant adverse impact on the riverfront area to protect the interests of the Act. Within 200 foot riverfront areas, the issuing authority may allow the alteration of up to 5000 square feet or 10% of the riverfront area within the lot, whichever is greater. Total Riverfront Area: 36,809 SF Total alteration within Riverfront area: 11,883 SF Percentage alteration of riverfront area: 32% 310CMR(4)(d) 1. (a) At a minimum, a 100 foot wide area of undisturbed vegetation is provided. This area shall extend from mean annual high- water along the river unless another location would better protect the interests identified in M.G.L. c. 131 § 40. Proposed work which does not meet the requirement of 310 CMR 10.58(4)(d)1.a. may be allowed only if an applicant demonstrates by a preponderance of evidence from a competent source that an area of undisturbed vegetation with an overall average width of 100 feet will provide equivalent protection of the riverfront area, or that a partial rebuttal of the presumptions of significance is sufficient to justify a lesser area of undisturbed vegetation; 310CMR(4)(d) 1. (c) 2 Proposed work \[shall\] not impair the capacity of the riverfront area to provide important wildlife habitat functions. For work within an undeveloped riverfront area which exceeds 5,000 square feet, the issuing authority may require a wildlife habitat evaluation study under 310 CMR 10.60. d. Proposed work shall not impair groundwater or surface water quality by incorporating erosion and sedimentation controls and other measures to attenuate nonpoint source pollution. 310CMR(4)(d) 1. (c) Notwithstanding the provisions of 310 CMR10.58(4)(d)1. or 2., the issuing authority shall allow the construction of a single family house, a septic system if no sewer is available, and a driveway, on a lot recorded before August 7, 1996 where the size or shape of the lot within the riverfront area prevents the construction from meeting the requirements of 310 CMR 10.58(4)(d)1. or 2., provided that: a. The lot can be developed for such purposes under the applicable provisions of other municipal and state law; and b. The performance standards of 310 CMR 10.58(4)(d) are met to the maximum extent feasible. In difficult siting situations, the maximum extent of yards around houses should be limited to the area necessary for construction. Except where the lot contains vernal pool habitat or specified habitat sites of rare species, a wildlife habitat evaluation study shall not be required. Fromm MACC handbook: For any activity proposed in the Riverfront Area, there must be a presentation by the applicant to prove that there is no “practicable and substantially equivalent economic alternative” to the project with “less adverse effects” on the interests of the Wetlands Protection Act (310 CMR 10.58(4)(c), before an Order of Conditions can permit any work within a Riverfront Area. Until the proponent proves there is no better alternative, the commission need not go on to apply the next test: whether the work would cause significant adverse impact. It is essential that the commission not be pressured into the analysis of impact (much more familiar territory) before the first question is fully addressed: Can this project be moved/designed/redesigned to avoid encroachment on the Riverfront Area? Both tests are explained extensively in the regulations. The purpose of the alternatives analysis is to avoid or minimize impacts to the Riverfront Area. This is accomplished by keeping the portion of the project that is in the Riverfront Area to a minimum and as far from the river as possible, providing no other resource area is damaged by this. In requesting and evaluating an alternatives analysis, a commission must consider the scope of the project and the practicability of alternatives. The purpose of evaluating alternatives is to locate activities in such a manner to avoid impacts to the Riverfront Area to the extent practicable. As much of a project as feasible should be located outside of the Riverfront Area, or as far from the river as possible. The most obvious application of the alternatives analysis is to require that the project be redesigned to keep it out of the Riverfront Area. This may involve reduction in the size or intensity of the proposed use. The regulations allow such a reduction to be imposed so long as it is consistent with the “project purpose.” The footprints of projects can often be reduced if the only other choice is to build elsewhere. A reduction in the intensity of the proposed use (fewer lots in a subdivision or reduction in the scale of the activity such as the size of buildings or appurtenances) may be included as long as it is consistent with the project purpose and proposed use. The interior space of buildings (such as the number of rooms or bedrooms) cannot be limited. Interior space allotments indirectly impact the resource areas e.g., when a development, of other than single family homes, has a septic system with leaching area requirements based on the proposed interior area of offices, manufacturing facilities, etc. However, when the size or placement of an on-site sewage disposal system for these proposals may cause excessive impacts to resource areas, the commission should ask that alternatives (with less interior space) be reviewed. Specific conditions to limit these spaces may be included in the subsequent Orders of Conditions. Costs. The regulations state bluntly that “higher or lower costs taken alone will not determine whether an alternative is practicable.” Costs include expenditures for land acquisition, site preparation and construction – but not anticipated profit. Loss of value adduced from the setback itself e.g., loss of a river view, is not to be taken into account. In assessing the relative costs of alternatives and the proposal the commission should consider two factors: Costs must be reasonable relative to the project purpose. More cost can be expected from an industrial subdivision proponent than from a small builder. The poverty or wealth of a particular landowner or proponent is not supposed to count. The commission can require documentation of costs but not the financial records of the applicant. 3 The lowest cost is not the sole reason to choose an alternative with more impact. As long as the costs associated with various alternatives are substantially equivalent overall, the alternative with lesser impact must be chosen. The cost of each alternative must take into account incremental costs for changes in length of access, utilities, excavation conditions, erosion controls, stormwater treatment options and other variables. Sometimes increases in some factors are offset by decreases in others. In comparing costs of the proposed location and the alternative, the commission should keep in mind that “costs” are different than value or profit. The added value or profit to the proponent because of waterfront amenities is not to be considered in the cost analysis. The builder may strongly suggest that the commission consider the selling price and the profit in determining which alternative to approve. The alternative preferred by the proponent may be the one with the highest profit on sale, even if the construction is more costly. Commissions have the authority to require documentation of costs and should do so. This is valuable in assessing alternatives in a given case, and also provides a basis for comparison of future projects. Determinations should be based on documented rather than anecdotal information. The assessment needs to be rigorous enough to determine if costs are reasonable or prohibitive. Existing Technology. This means the best available measures should be used in project design and construction based on current technology, designs, measures, or engineering practices so long as they are commercially available. Logistics. This term refers to the presence or absence of physical or legal constraints that may influence the development. When an alternative cannot be constructed (such as on a steep slope, or where there is a limitation on locations where the septic system is in compliance with Title 5) or when necessary permits cannot be obtained (not merely if it violates zoning or other legal requirements, because sometimes exemptions, variances and waivers can be issued) that alternative should be determined “not practicable.” An alternative is not practicable if it would require “special legislation” 310 CMR (10.58(4)(c)(1)(d)) \[PDF\]. This term presumably refers to town meeting, city council, state or federal legislative action. An alternative is not practicable if the applicant is unable to obtain consent of the owner of an alternate site to allow access for professionals to gather necessary information to complete the Notice of Intent form, or for the commission to conduct its site investigation. Other info - zoning side setback is 20 feet Septic side setback is 20 feet? A higher spec septic system could allow it to be constructed below the driveway area. A thorough alternatives analysis has not been provided. Should include reducing extent of alteration (footprint, regrading, septic system etc), adjusting layout to move outside the 100 foot riverfront area, moving footprint closer to the zoning setback line, requesting a variance to the zoning setback line. Combination of these? Regards Kelly Grant Conservation Administrator Town of Yarmouth 508-398-2231 Ext 1288 kgrant@yarmouth.ma.us 4