Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-4-3Minutes for April 3, 2013, adopted Oct. 2 CONSERVATION COMMISSION 2 Bathing Beach Road Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 www nantucket- ma.eov Wednesday, April 3, 2013 4:00 P.M. 2 "d Floor Training Room, 4 Fairgrounds Road Commissioners: Ernie Steinauer (Chair), Such Oktay (Vice - chair), John Bmginton- Smith, Jennifer Karberg, Andrew Bennett, Ian Golding, Michael Glowacki s o Called to order at 4:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Jeff Carlson, Natural Resources Coordinator; Terry Norton, Town MinuteMakeN 7Z) Attending Members: Steinauer, Oktay, Karberg, Braginton- Smith, Bennett, Golding, Glowackim M Absent Members: None r"r m Early depart=: Glowacki 5:26 p.m. Agenda adopted by unanimous consent i -3 m z F o *Matter has not been heard p O I. PUBLIC MEETING cn A. Public Comment— rb Williams Congdon house Tuckemuck: Tris Dammin, neighbor & Andrea Pease, abutter —Asked if the ConCom office had received any application in regards to the structure. Carlson —No. Dammin —The Congdon house on north side of Tuckemuck recently collapsed on the beach and there are polluting materials that washed up down the beach. Emily MacKinnon, Nantucket Land Council — Stated her office was also contacted about the situation by the Nantucket Environmental Association. The Land Council is concern about the materials now scattered on the beach. Submitted 2007 aerial photos of the house and photos taken in February by Andrea Mansfield. A portion of the roof blew back onto Land Council property. Had hoped the structure would have been moved before this happen. Carlson — A course of action is to send an enforcement order to the land owner for pick up and removal of debris. Will bring the enforcement order to the special regulations meeting for ratification. IL PUBLIC HEARING A. Notice of Intent 1. Eel Point Beach LLC — 121 Eel Point Road (33 -16) SE48- _ Sitting Steinauer, Oktay, Karberg, Braginton - Smith, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative Arthur D. Gasbarro, Blackwell and Associates Inc. — Second hearing regarding installation of sand drift fencing and sand covered coir tubes. Reviewed materials and format as presented at the last hearing. Believes the rate of erosion from this point forward will be less than one foot per year. Committed to providing 700 cubic yards (CY) of sacrificial sand. By adding stability to the toe, can plant beach grass above. Working with Nantucket Islands Land Bank to gain permission for construction access via 40th Pole area. Offer an escrow in the amount of $20,000 for removal of all materials in the case of failure. Reports will be submitted to ConCom on the amount of sand used and affect on abutting properties. Supplemental report addresses concerns expressed by ConCom: report in the event of a significant stone event, quarterly report, approval ofmaterial to be used, and vehicular tmtftc along the beach between April I and September 15 per Massachusetts Natural Heritage. In response to Ms MacKinnon's comment, stated in the opinion ofthe applicant's representatives this is not a coastal engineering structure due to the ability to both absorb wave energy and transfer sediment back out through the openings in the tubes. The mason this is for bio- degradable materials is to not reach the level of a coastal engineering structure. Asked for recommendations on planting plan. Concerning establishing a track record, we did provide a post storm report on 93/99 Eel Point Road project that provides before and after photos; the bottom tube did sacrifice sand. Explains why this project has an overall net benefit. Request continuance. Arthur Reade, Reade Gullicksen Hanley & Gifford LLP — The more such projects are out them, the more information for the track record in different environments. In regards to the net benefit issue, we are talking about the stability of the coastal banks which is in the best interests of the area. Page 1 of 9 Minutes for April 3, 2013, adopted Oct. 2 Page 2 of 9 Eel Point Beach LLC Public Emily MacKinnon, Nantucket Land Council— Believe the proposal of assemblage of materials by current definition is a coastal engineering structure; previous ConCom determinations on similar assemblage of materials defined them as coastal engineering structures. Performance standards coastal beaches and coastal banks prohibit coastal engineering structures for post -1978 houses that are not in imminent danger; this house is neither a pre-1978 dwelling nor in danger, and understand the structure is not being proposed to protect the house. Without a clear waiver justification, do not think this should be permitted under local regulations. Bruce Perry — These tubes are acting like a coastal engineering structure. The coin tubes are preventing a natural rate of erosion which makes this a coastal engineering structure by definition of local regulations. Discussion (4:01)Golding — Inevitably there will be a peninsular affect and want m know how that would be prevented and repaired. Steinauer— If sand starts piling up on the fence, will have to come back for an amended order. Oktay —Asked if there is a planting scheme for the upper side of the co¢ tubes. (Answer: beach grass) Steinauer —Asked how far the house is currently from the bank. (Answer: estimated over 100 feet) Bennett — Asked if there was a history of permits. (Answer: 2008 for double row of snow fencing which was constantly replaced and didn't work) Glowacki — Asked where the commission had defined this sort of thing as a coastal engineering structure. Oktay — Will allow two rows of fencing and nourishment; but once the coir bags and a row of fencing of this type, the commission has been calling that a coastal engineering structure. Steinauer — Have been putting that in the order of conditions. Oktay — Would like to understand if there is a long -term net benefit. Steinauer— Stated the belief that this was one of the more innovative designs that this commission has seen, but there is no track record as to how it will stand up to a winter such has Nantucket has been having. Not sure how good of ajob it will do. Thinks in a couple of years, might have a better idea how it will work and the durability of these projects. Staff It is important that the board discuss how this project protects the interests of this commission; need to ask for what use the commission is permitting this. It appears at this point it is protecting open space. Motion Continued to April 17 without objection. Vote N/A 2. Elizabeth Bagley Descendents Trust -123 Eel Point Road (33 -16) SE48 -2547 Sitting Steinauer, Oktay, Karberg, Braginton- Smith, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative Arthur D. Gaid arro, Blackwell and Associates Inc. — It is as described for the abutting property. Provided supplemental information on erosion rate, which is similar to 121 Eel Point Road. Has its own construction access. Proposing the $20,000 escrow account and the same list of conditions. Have the same letter from Massachusetts Natural Heritage in regards to beach traffic. There will be a means for pedestrians to pass the project in the event of an extreme tide. Maintaining a 15 -foot gap at the terminal ends on both projects; it also allows someplace to place additional sand. Will provide up -date photos. There was an order of condition from when a foundation was dug and a snow fence was installed. The continued loss of snow fencing in a marine environment is not beneficial. A portion of the house is pre - 1978, but would have to look into that as it has been expanded. Request continuance. Public Emily MacKinnon, Nantucket Land Council — In the interest of brevity, the concerns are the same as for 121 Eel Point Road: this is a coastal engineering structure that should not be permitted under local regulations. Discussion (4:41)Oktay — Asked why this proposal references only 500CY of sacrificial sand. (Answer: the lot is narrower and the bank not as steep) Staff Similar concerns as for 121 EPR. Motion Continued to April 17 without objection. Vote N/A Page 2 of 9 Minutes for April 3, 2013, adopted Oct. 2 3. Corry -33 New Hampshire Ave. (60.3.1 -86) SF48 -2551 Sitting Steinaueq Oktay, Braginton - Smith, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki Recused Karberg Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Photos submitted at the table. Representative John Stover, Stover Engineering— Was charged with resolving the issue of an orange cable that turned out to be an abandoned hose. Presented photos taken after the last storm which show further accretion. The estimate for replacement sand might be less but not so much as needing to be changed in the NOL Submitted a narrative on how the tank would be maintained. Public None Discussion (4;52) None Staff Have everything to close Motion Motion to Close. ( Oktay) seconded Vote Carried unanimously 4. -Lilly —55 & 57 Hulbert Ave. (29- 12 &11) SE48 -2552 Sitting Steinaueq Oktay, Karberg, Bmginton- Smith, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative Arthur D. Gasbarro, Blackwell and Associates Inc. — Repair in kind of a damaged bulkhead. There is open access and won't have to cut brush. Have not yet heard from Massachusetts Natural Heritage. Only the bulkhead, not the groin, the height will not change. Need to research the preservative to be used and will report that to the commission. Request continuance. Arthur Reade, Reade Gullicksen Hanley & Gifford LLP Public None Discussion (4:55) Steinauer — Asked about the preservative to be used. Staff Have done some work with Greenheart and there were construction issues with warping and twisting; and ConCom has also had discussions about using ACQ as part of the Washington Street projects. ConCom definitely prohibits the use of CCA. Also been dealing with a protocol that if the material needs to be retreated, that is limited to once a year. Motion Continued to April 17 without objection. Vote N/A 5. -Oak Hill Investments LLC — 2 Franklin Street (41 -268 & 269) NAN -112 (4:59) Sitting Steinauer, Okoy, Karberg, Braginton- Smith, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative Mark Rits, Site Design Engineering — The orginal application was for construction of single - family resident, detached garage and driveway. This client has a history with this commission: there was an enforcement order for un- permitted clearing of vegetation by prior owner in an isolated wetland. The client is working to repair that wetland's buffer zone. Have had discussions with staff about the garage, so revised the plan to relocate the garage entirely outside the 50 -foot buffer zone. There is a small stoop adjacent to the driveway that is still in the 50 -foot buffer. Driveway was reconfigured to allow turn- around space. All utility connections are outside the 50. Propose as part of the restoration to plant red maple, winterberry, high -bush blue berry and native seed mix. Also proposing restoration of the 25 -foot buffer zone and a portion of the 50 -foot buffer zones. The new configuration will disturb 65% of the buffer wit 35 undisturbed; ultimately with the restoration work, the buffers will be better off than presently. There is change of grade from 22 to 17 elevation where there is a clay layer causing the perched wetland; the rest of the lot and neighbors are dry, so do not believe de- watering is necessary. Stated they will do a small bore hole to determine if a waiver is necessary for the 2 -foot separation. The property is served by Town sewer. Planting plan calls for native seed mix in the buffer zones. Willing to exclude the woody plants in the wetland buffer zones. Will provide specific native seeds for the wetlands and ground water depth for the next hearing. Request continuance. Ryan Wagner— Structure will be set on a full basement if possible. Public None Page 3 of 9 Minutes for April 3, 2013, adopted Oct. 2 'Oak Hill Investments LLC Discussion (4:59) Bennett —Asked about de- watering for the house. Oktay — Asked if they are requesting a waiver in regards to the 2 -foot ground water separation. Steinauer — Asked about the proposed plants are for the buffer zones. Karberg —Not sue trees are a good choice for this lot; it would historically have been grass or shrubs. Thinks it might be a good idea not to use red maple because this is not a swamp; it is more a meadow. Golding— Asked about existing monitoring wells and where the perc is if the plan is for a full basement. Glowacki — Page 88 of the packet states it will be planted with a "native, wetland seed mix "; that is too vague. Would like a more specific planting plan. Staff The wells were installed to help identify where ground water was located and coming from. The water table has not been definitively identified. Motion Continued on April 17 without objection. Vote N/A 6. • 13 Monomoy, LLC — Lot 1 John Adams Lane (30- 170.1) NAN -111 Sitting Steinauer, Oktay, Karberg, Braginton- Smith, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative Mark Ries, Site Design Engineering— Previous request was for driveway access adjacent to a Nantucket jurisdictional isolated wetland; the wetland in question is a small replication area created during the bike path project. This is for construction of the house, garage, pool and shed outside the 50 -foot buffer to that isolated wetland. Septic is outside the 100 -foot buffer and site is on Town water. A small amount of grading adjacent to road way. 50% of the buffer between 25 and 50 is undisturbed and will be marked off with a silt fence during construction. There is native vegetation in the buffer that will not be touched. In regards to rain runoff, typically the pipe would be put into the ground and infiltrated; do not have any proposed infiltration. The wetland in question is at elevation 17 -19 and the house is in the 20s; the wetland is basically in a ditch at the side of the road. The adjacent lot dug down and found no perched water or groundwater issues; it's all sandy soil, well drained. The test for the septic on this site found the same, sandy soil which drains well. Public None Discussion (5:14)Golding — Asked what will happen to the rain from the roof. Glowacki — Noted that this plan illustrates the discussion this commission is having with the regulations about the 50 percent. We are saying the undisturbed buffer has to be larger than 25 feet. Staff Proposal is in compliance with the regulations. Everything to close. Motion Motion to Close. (Braginton- Smith) seconded Vote Carried unanimously 7. *Rupp & Butswinkas — 6 Harbor Terrace (55 -51) SE48 -2553 Sitting Stelnauey Oktay, Karberg, Bmginton- Smith, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative Mark Rits, Site Design Engineering— A recent application involved a large deck and hot tab in place of a water feature and different shower configuration. Have removed hot tub; reconfigured shower outside the 50 -foot buffer; scaled back the deck to be entirely outside the 25 -foot buffer, proposing a pervious wooden deck in and area of lawn, removing two brick and mortar stoops, and removing the existing water feature. Request continuance. Public None Discussion (5:21) Discussion about the existing water feature. Staff Need to continue for public review, but will draft a positive order. Motion Continued to April 17 without objection. Vote N/A 8. Water's Edge N.T. —16 Medouie Creek Road (20 -26) SE48- 2417(cont to 4/17) Glowacki departed. Page 4 of 9 Minutes tot April 3, 2013, adopted Oct. 2 B. Amended Orders of Conditions 1. -21 Lincoln Ave. N.T. — 21 Lincoln Ave. (30 -43) SE48 -2541 Sitting Stemmer, Oktay, Karberg, Braginton - Smith, Bennett, Golding Revised None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative Bob Emack — Under the previous application failed to ask for the full foundation under the 400 square foot (SF) deck and to replace the beach stairs. Everything is outside the 50 -foot buffer from a coastal bank. Public None Discussion (5:25) None Staff Have everything needed to close. Need a motion to close the hearing. Have a draft order Motion Motion to Close. (Oktay) seconded Motion to Issue. (Oktay) seconded Vote Carried unanimously Carried unanimously HI. PUBLIC MEETING A. Requests for Determination of Applicability 1. Collins -22 & 24 Fulling Mill Road (27- 21&22) Sitting Stelnaueq Oktay, Braginton- Smith, Bennett, Golding Recused Karberg Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative Paul Santos, Nantucket Surveyors — This RDA is to establish on -site resource areas. No work is proposed at this time. There is a bordering vegetative wetlands, two isolated wetlands on either side of an existing gravel driveway for 24 Fulling Mill and an isolated wetland in the center of the 24 Fulling Mill property; there are wetlands on the outskirts of the properties. Flagging of the wetlands has been done based upon a Laurentide Environmental, LLC reviews. LEC questioned whether or not one of the bordering wetlands is isolated; it is bordering connected by a pipe culvert. The two Banking the driveway are isolated except possibly under extreme conditions and heavy rain. In the event of potential construction on lot 24, the client is looking at the possibility of relocating driveway and allowing the wetlands to re- vegetate. David M. Haines, Haines Hydrogeologic Consulting — When he had delineated the wetlands originally, the soil was not hydrated. Two weeks ago it had 6 inches of water. Public Bruce Perry, Third-party Consultant Conservation Commission — Six weeks ago, there appeared to be a third wetland; two weeks ago it was full of water. Discussion (5:30)Oktay — Confirmed the lack of connection of the two isolated vegetated wetlands to drainage. Staff Explained how the two lots can be covered by one RDA; RDAs are not recorded. An NOI is different. Recommend issue as a positive 2A. Motion Motion to Issue as a Positive 2A. (Oktay) seconded Vote Carried unanimously 2. "The Braes, LLC — 23 Baxter Road (49.2.3 -12) Sitting Steinaaer, Oktay, Karberg, Braginton- Smith, Bennett, Golding Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative Bob Emack — The structure is outside 50 -buffer to coastal bank. There is an existing deck that would be roofed. Public None Discussion (5:36)None Staff Recommend issue as a negative 3 Motion Motion to Issue as a Negative 3. (Oktay) seconded Vote Carried unanimously Page 5 of 9 Minutes t'or April 3, 2U13, adopted Oct. 2 3. - Hughes, Trustee —107 Squam Road (12 -60) Sitting Steinauey Oktay, Braginton- Smith, Bennett, Golding Recused Karberg Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative David M. Haines, Haines Hydrogeologic Consulting— An RDA for filling and creation of a lawn and installation of a fence inside the buffer zone. A previous determination allowed conversion of the area into a lawn; it sits between two septic mounds which create a bowl. Current owner wants to raise that area 3 or 4 feet to level the area and install a wire -mesh fence. It's all outside the 50 -foot buffer and there would be a vegetated hedge on the outside of the buffer zone. Explains the location of the fence. Public None Discussion (5:38) None Staff Central point of the area is elevation 30 so the lawn is actually coming up only about 2 feet. A little Instanter head section which is not their property contains one of the septic systems. Recommend issue as a negative 3. Motion Motion to Issue as a Negative 3. (Oktay) seconded Vote Carried unanimously 4. *Jonathan Way N.T. —12 Jonathan Way (7543) Sitting Steinaueq Oktay, Braginton- Smith, Bennett, Golding Recused Karberg Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative Arthur D. Gasbarro, Blackwell and Associates Inc. — RDA for a wetland boundary and work within the buffer zone. No work is proposed closer than 50 feet to the resource area. Work is to crush and fill an existing distribution box; trenches will be abandoned. The new septic will be outside the 100 -foot buffer and elevated. Existing septic failed due to inadequate horizontal and vertical separation. Public None Discussion (5:42) None Staff Boundaries have been verified. Recommend issue as a positive 2 verifying boundaries & negative 3 allowing work in the zones. Motion Motion to Issue as a Positive 2 and Negative 3. (Bennett) seconded Vote Carried unanimously 5. -Widget, Trustee— 9 Marsh Hawk Larne (56 -172) Sitting Swinauer, Oktay, Karberg, Bmginton- Smith, Bennett, Golding Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative David M. Haines, Haines Hydrogeologic Consulting — A new septic system, leach field and tank are outside the buffer zone. The existing leach field is in lawn area within 100 -feet of a bordering vegetated wetland but outside of 50 feet; plan to pump out the tank and either crush it in place or remove then restore the area to driveway/lawn. Public Bruce Perry, Third -party Consultant Conservation Commission — There is an old lined pond on the property, but it is high and dry. Discussion (5:45)Oktay — Ideally the old tank should come out, but that could create greater disturbance. Discussion about whether crushing in place or removing is the better option. Staff Removing the tank is better; however the work involved in excavating a tank could be very intense; it leaves a pretty big hole. Recommend issue as a positive 2 verifying resource boundaries & negative 3 allowing work in the buffer zones. Motion Motion to Issue as a positive 2 negative 3. (Bennett) seconded Vote Carried unanimously Page 6 of 9 Minutes tot April 3, 2013, adopted Oct. 2 B. Orders of Conditions (If the public hearing is closed — for discussion and/or issuance) 1. -Blue Shutters R.T. — 4 Hulbert Ave. (42.1.4 -2) SE48 -2504 (Amended) Sitting Steinaueq Oktay, Braginton- Smith, Bennett, Golding Recused Karberg Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative Enclose stars and lifting building to be in compliance with flood zone. Public None Discussion Oktay — Asked if it drastically changes of enclosed structure space within the 25 -foot buffer. Carlson - No, just the exterior stairs. There is no new disturbance or structural area being proposed. Suggested over the next couple of years, requests to raise homes will become very common. Paul Santos, Nantucket Surveyors — Explained how FEMA is calculation the flood level by accounting for wave action. No other questions. Staff Reviewed conditions discussed at previous hearing. It is very close to the vegetated wetlands, but there aren't a lot of options. Spoke to a representative from a company that lifts houses; he was very confidant the work could be done without extra disturbance. Referenced the new plan of record. Included ability to raise but not demolish the structure. Motion Motion to Issue. (Golding) seconded Vote Carried unanimously 2. -34 Shawkemo LLC — 34 Shawkemo Road (27 -3) SE48 -2540 Sitting Steinauer, Oktay, Karberg, Bmginton- Smith, Bennett, Golding Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative Elevated walkway across a salt marsh. Public None Discussion (5:54) Discussion about soil surface versus substrate and use of anchors for walkways per performance standards. Golding — Bothered by the condition for a weekly inspection; believe monthly would be adequate. Discussion about the reason for requesting inspections weekly as opposed to monthly. Consensus settled on every me weeks; it will have gone through a tidal cycle. Staff Review of some conditions by the representative's protocols: 36" minimum height off the soil surface, all construction by hand, no material stored on salt marsh, monitoring report at the beginning and end of each season of representative plots 3 feet either side of and beneath the board walk in all the resource areas, show seasonal mean high -water location, no motorized vessels or watercraft shall be tied to the walkway or pulled onto the marsh adjacent to the walkway, no boats or boating materials will be stored on the marsh or the walkway, no cleats or tie -offs on the walkway, no utilizes or lighting. The monitoring reports are to be filed annually until the certificate of compliance is issued. Added that the walkway shall be inspected on a weekly basis and loose vegetation to be removed from around the posts. Motion Motion to Issue as amended with bi- weekly inspections. (Bennett) seconded Vote Carried 3- 2 /Oktay & Karberg opposed 3. *Cunningham — 103 Eel Point Road (32 -6) SE48 -2545 Sitting Steinauer, Oktay, Karberg, Braginton- Smith, Bennett, Golding Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative First of me coastal erosion projects with sand -drift fencing and thermal bags. Does not involve relocation of the house. Public None Discussion (6:02) Change to quarterly monitoring reports to include photographs and running total of amount nourishment if the photos show adverse impact must request modification of remove. Discussion about changes to Condition 23: add picking up or marking the material. Staff Massachusetts Natural Heritage conditions imposed are Conditions 19 & 20. Condition 21, the applicant shall provide for a permission letter from Nantucket Land Bank to allow access to beach via their property. Added a Condition 24. Motion Motion to Issue as amended. (Bennett) seconded Vote Carried unanimously Page 7 of 9 Minutes for April 3, 2013, adopted Oct. 2 4. • 105 Eel Point Road Trust -105 Eel Paint Road (32 -5) SF48 -2546 Sitting Steinauer, Oktay, Karberg, Bmginton- Smith, Bennett, Golding Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative Second of coastal erosion project with sand -drift fencing and thermal bags. Includes moving the house which requires a waiver. Public None Discussion Change to quarterly monitoring reports to include photographs and running total of amount nourishment if the photos show adverse impact must request modification of remove. Discussion about changes to Condition 23: add picking up or marking the material. Add condition 24. Staff Added the waiver for net benefit from increasing the distance between the coastal bank and the structure; it is moving outside of ConCom jurisdiction. Conditions are the same as for 103 Eel Point Road, so it requires the same amendments. Motion Motion to Issue as amended. ( Oktay) seconded Vote Carried unanimously 5. -Cony — 33 New Hampshire Ave. (60.3.1 -86) SE48 -2551 Sitting Steinauer, Oktay, Bmginton- Smith, Bennett, Golding Recuwd Karberg Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative Covering a tight tank. Public None Discussion (6:08) Golding — Condition 22 should be changed to require the tight tank be pumped annually when the house is cleared for the season. Staff Included that between April 1 & September 15 requires beach manager's sign off for placement of material. The commission shall be provided documentation on maintenance and nourishment and a yearly report of the amount of sand used. Condition 22 requires tank be pumped out when house not in use and no one is there to monitor it. Motion Motion to Issue as amended. ( Brginton- Smith) seconded Vote Carried unanimously 6. *Lilly — 55 & 57 Hulbert Ave. (29- 12 &11) SFAS -2552 (not closed but order was drafted) 7. 13 Monomoy LLC— Lot 1 John Adams Lane (30- 170.1) NAN -1 I 1 Sitting Steinauer, Okay, Karberg, Bmginton- Smith, Bennett, Golding Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative Jurisdictional wetland created by Cliff Road bike path. Public None Discussion None Staff Condition 19: for pool adjacent to the 50 -foot buffer shall not be discharged or drained into an area subject to the jurisdiction of the commission. Not subject to wetlands protection. Motion Motion to Issue as drafted. ( Oktay) seconded Vote Carried unanimously 8. Discussion of other closed notice of intent public hearings — Oak Hill Investments at 2 Franklin Road, staff will prepare a draft, Rupp & Butswinkas at 6 Harbor Terrace, staff will draft positive order. Page 8 of 9 Minutes for April 3, 2013, adopted Oct. 2 C. Other Business 1. Reports: a. CPC — None b. NP &EDC - Bennett c. Mosquito Control Committee — Braginton -Smith d. Coastal Management Plan — Oktay c. Other: Civic League — Oktay 2. Approval of Minutes — None 3. Commissioners Comment —None 4. Administrator: a. Staff Reports — i. Prepared and issued an enforcement notice on a property on Almanack Pond Road that cut into a wetlands to the point the tire tracks are visible through the water; will bring the notice for ratification to special hearing on April 10. ii. Will issue the enforcement notice for the Congdon house on Tuckemuck and bring that one as well to April 10 hearing. iii. Following up on a couple of enforcement orders that were issued but have not had responses to. iv. Horse Pasture fencing, appears to have an additional violation in a different area of that lot. b. Bruce Perry — Noted that there a lot of violations due to landscapers work; suggest landscapers should be included on the violation notification; the owners at Almanack Pond have a history of wetland applications and landscapers created the violation. Discussion about following up on that recommendation and that precedent has been set in regards to other violations notifications involving work by landscapers. c. On a path in Polpis adjacent to the University of Massachusetts Field Station, a geo -grid was installed. Oktsy — Asked if ConCom could request the removal of the geo -grid from state protected land. The installation of the geo grid destroyed an endangered plant of which there are only three others known in the state. Massachusetts Natural Heritage is concerned about this incident. It was known that this plant was on that property. Carlson — Having trouble tracking down when the installation of the geo grid took place; does want to issue an enforcement order without that documentation. d. Last week the Town mailed out 157 copies of Article 68 BMP to landscapers. Also went out to distributors. Motion to Adjourn at 6:27 p.m. Submitted by: Terry L. Norton Page 9 of 9