Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 30 Rocco Drive topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission orders peer review for 30 Rocco Drive after concerns about steep grades and retaining wall
Summary
After a presentation by Goddard Consulting and engineering responses, the commission voted to send the 30 Rocco Drive proposal for peer review to confirm wetland delineation, mitigation and erosion controls; the peer-review work will follow the Wetlands Protection Act and the local bylaw.
The Conservation Commission voted Nov. 21 to send the proposal for 30 Rocco Drive to peer review after hearing a presentation from Goddard Consulting and technical questions from commissioners.
Tom Schutz, wetlands consultant with Goddard Consulting, described the site plan: a duplex in the northwest portion of the lot, grading, and a retaining wall adjacent to a bordering vegetated wetland and an internal intermittent stream. Schutz said the team modeled the 100-year flood profile and showed that the flood extent would not reach the limit of the proposed development.
Engineer Mike Scott of Land Design Collaborative told the commission their calculated 1% (100-year) flow equated to roughly 65 cubic feet per second. Commissioners raised concerns about steep existing grades, the potential for grading to change underground flows to abutting houses, and the adequacy of erosion and slope-stabilization measures. One commissioner described the site as "dropping off like a rocket" and emphasized the need for an additional set of eyes on the design and retaining-wall details.
The conservation agent said his review found the plan met state and local regulations and noted the project is exempt from state stormwater standards because it involves fewer than four families. Despite that, commissioners voted to require a peer review focused on wetland delineation, performance standards under 310 CMR and the local bylaw, and the reasonableness of proposed mitigation measures. The commission continued the matter and suggested scheduling peer-review work and applicant responses for January.
