Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission opens large Shingle Hill 40B review and authorizes peer review of stormwater and vernal‑pool impacts
Summary
Representatives for a 136‑unit, ~92,000 sq ft 40B project on Shingle Hill presented grading, riverfront and stormwater plans; commissioners authorized independent peer review focused on stormwater and certified vernal pools and continued the NOI to July 21 to allow technical review, after public commenters raised concerns about vernal‑pool watersheds and Sawmill Brook.
The Conservation Commission opened a Notice of Intent for a sizable 40B residential project at Shingle Hill (0 School Street) and authorized independent peer review of stormwater and vernal‑pool impacts after a lengthy presentation and in‑depth questioning.
Scott Goddard, a professional wetland scientist, and Carlton Quinn, principal engineer at Allen & Major, described a plan for a 3‑story residential building of approximately 92,000 square feet with 136 units on a 23‑acre site. They said the plan concentrates disturbance in a northern upland pad and leaves roughly two‑thirds of the property undisturbed; buffer‑zone work was estimated at about 29,000 square feet and riverfront‑area grading at about 4,318 square feet. The team described a stormwater system with infiltration basins, deep sump catch basins, proprietary separators, bioretention and exfiltration systems, and said the design exceeds DEP minimums and used higher precipitation rates for resiliency.
Commissioners pressed for details on cut and fill volumes, sequencing and temporary disturbance during material removal (an estimated large volume of excavation was discussed), the potential for soil and sediment to enter wetlands during construction, implications for vernal‑pool hydrology, and how the proposed sewer extension (which would require directional drilling under Route 128) might be handled in sequence with local and DOT approvals. The chair emphasized the commission’s jurisdiction is limited to state Wetlands Protection Act standards for this 40B matter, but asked for careful analysis because of the site’s steep slopes and proximity to outstanding resource waters.
After discussion, the commission voted to solicit and accept proposals for qualified peer reviewers (stormwater specialists and vernal‑pool/habitat experts) to evaluate the applicant’s stormwater management and potential effects on certified vernal pools and Sawmill Brook (a cold‑water fishery). Bethany Barstow, conservation agent, said the town has solicited a number of firms and expects to receive proposals soon. The commission scheduled the application’s continuance to July 21 and invited both applicant and intervenors to provide specific peer‑review candidate suggestions.
Public comment included an opening remark from Dan Hill representing the Manchester Essex Conservation Trust, which urged careful attention to vernal‑pool watersheds, water‑budget analyses, and Sawmill Brook’s temperature sensitivity for trout habitat. The commission closed for the night after taking the peer‑review vote and confirming the July 21 continuance.
