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