Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWetlands Review Comment Responses 3-17-26RE: Inland Wetland Application 24 IWC 7 339 Chesterfield Road – Response to Comments Dear Ms. Radford, Thank you for your review of the submitted materials and for providing comments regarding the application for 339 Chesterfield Road. We have reviewed the comments provided by CLA Engineers and o&er the following responses: Plan / General Comments 1. Plan Stamp The revised Wetland Compliance Plan have been updated and stamped by the undersigned prior to resubmission. Specific Comments 2. Stone Wall within Upland Review Area The plan has been revised to include a note indicating: “Wall within the upland review zone to remain,” along with the corresponding linear footage. 3. Stone Walls at Wetland Crossing The rationale for the existing stone walls at the wetland crossing is as follows: The reasoning for the stone walls is for safety of the property owner to cross the creek during icy conditions. The walls must be a minimum of 15’ apart for emergency access. The walls do not significantly impact the function of the wetland and serve as a visual guide to the location of the crossing during snow events. 4. Unpermitted Fill within Wetland (Approx. Flags 113–117) We acknowledge the comment regarding fill placed within the wetland area. The plan has been revised to show removal of the unpermitted fill and restoration of the a&ected wetland area. However, it is the request of the property owner that the Commission consider allowing the driveway to remain as constructed. The basis for this request is as follows: 1. The extent of impact is minimal relative to the overall wetland resources on the property. The site contains approximately three (3) distinct wetland systems across roughly 50 acres. The area of encroachment represents approximately 0.002% of the total wetland area on the property. 2. The driveway configuration was constructed to provide improved access for emergency vehicles, reducing the need for multiple turning movements and improving overall site safety. 3. The impact consists of gravel placement only and extends approximately four (4) feet into the edge of the flagged wetland boundary. The work does not encroach into the watercourse itself, but rather into the outer limit of the flagged wetland area. We respectfully request that the Commission consider these factors in evaluating whether the existing condition may remain. Should the Commission determine that removal is required, the applicant will proceed with restoration as shown on the revised plan. 5. Erosion & Sedimentation Controls The plan has been revised to include erosion and sedimentation control locations and details appropriate for the proposed work. 6. Reserve Septic Area The reserve septic system area has been added back to the revised plan. 7. Notification Requirement A note has been added to the plan stating that Town sta& will be notified a minimum of 48 hours prior to the commencement of any work. 8. Soil Scientist Oversight The property owner or contractor will coordinate this service directly with the soil scientist. Closing We trust that the above responses address the comments provided. Revised plans incorporating the noted updates will be submitted accordingly. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or would like to discuss any aspect of the proposed work. Sincerely, Ryan E. Thompson, PE, LS Torchlight Engineering LLC