Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-5-14Mmates for May 14, 2014, adopted May 28, 2014 CONSERVATION COMMISSION 2 Bathing Beach Road Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 Wednesday, May 14, 2014 4:00 p.m. Training Room, 4 Faugmunds Road Commissioners: Ernie Sminauer (Chair), Sarah Oktay (Vice - chair), Jennifer Karberg, Andrew Bennett, Ian Golding, Michael Glowacki; Barn LaFarge Called to order at 4:04 p.m. Staff in attendance: Jeff Carbon, Natural Resources Coordinator; Terry Norton, Town Minutes Taker Attending Members: Stemmer, Oktay, Karberg, Bennett, Golding (remote participation), Glowuddi LaFarge Absent Members: None dgenda adopted by unanimous consent = — 'Matter has not been heard 1. PUBLIC MEETING A. Public Comment None t7, C tv > m IL PUBLIC HEARING A. Notice of Intent - " 3 m 1. Town of Nantucket /SBPF — 85 -107A Baxter Road SE48 -2610 (gemube structure) _ N Sitting Steinauet, Okmy, Karberg, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki �l r s Recused LaFarge � Documentation Supporting documents and plans. s " Repmma[ative Kara Buosaoski, Die DPW, for Town of Nantucket Steven Cohen, Reside, Gallicksen, Hanley, Gifford & Cohen LLP, fot'Scomet Beach Preservation Fund Public Dirk Roggeveen, for Quidnet /Squaw Association (QSA) Emily MacKinnon, Nantucket Land Council (NCL) Catherine Stover, 5 Liberty Street D. Anne Atherton, 48 Squaw Road Sharon Van Lieu, Kendrick Street Barn LaFarge Discussion (4:05) Cohen — Stated that a response to questions has been submitted into the file; also submitted a brief summary of the regulatory analysis. Bumnoslri — Stated they are looking for an approval of the existing stmctare with monimting to see what the effects will be and conditions for triggers and make a commitment to address those. Would like returns included if the commission so chooses. No commissioner questions. Roggev se r — Reiterated that his clients, down drift of the project, are concerned about the impact of the project on their properties to the north. Stated that his chents have also adopted mncems expressed by others which includes failure and triggers for removal. In regards to the temporary status of the project, this project was represented to the commission and the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) as a temporary project due to the emergency to secure Baxter Road while the Town found ways to secure the road. Now it is being presented as a temporary pemtit for a permanent structure; all permits are temporary. That is not what was being discussed at the beginning. ing. Contends that this project can't be permitted under the Stare regulations; those regulations protect only pre -1978 buildings, not roadways and infrastructure. The local bylaws protect structures, which are defined to include accoutrements people put on their lots. Doesn't believe that is IegaL Local bylaws can be stricter than state regulations, not water them down. Public infrastructure protection is only on coastal banks only, this structure is on a coastal beach. In regards to impact, comments by Michael Bruno, PhD, and Jim O'Connell, Coastal Geologist, were supposedly included in the record for this matter; stated he has not been able to find those continents. They both talked about down -shore impact and for sediment transport. He and the commission have asked for that and were told it would be supplied, but that has not happened. The commission will have to make a finding that there is no adverse impact down -draft beaches and will have to have the evidence to support that that evidence is not in the file. The only way to permit this structure is for ConCom to grant a waiver. First ConCom will have to find that the project as proposed and permitted will have a negative impact on down -drift beaches. The coast bank is being stopped from providing sediment to down drift beaches; mitigation to offset that is permitted through a waiver. He does not believe there is a sustainable, long -term mitigation plan that will work. Responsibility for mitigation is proposed to be transferred to the Town. COaCOm has not assurance on how the mitigation will be continued in perpetuity. Pave 1 Minutes tot May 14, 2014, adopted May 28, 2014 Granting a waiver could be a problem in regards to setting precedent; this structure will set precedent in the sense that if the CoeCom approves this project and a second application comes forward with the exact same project, ConCom can be found to be arbitrary and capricious for not permitting the second application. Also a procedural precedent might occur; listed some of those procedures: lack of an independent review, lack of a written waiver request specific to applicable performance standards, and allowing protection of structures so far removed from the coastal bank as to be outside ConCom jurisdiction. Stated his opinion that ConCom does not have a good grasp of what constitutes an "imminent threat" The Town of Nantucket has found, as voted upon by the Board of Selectmen, the 25 feet from bank to road is danger What constitutes and imminent threat needs to be addressed by the commission. The 2013 NOI filed by SBPF /TON says that replacement of the geombes will be required once or twice annually. ConCom has received no protocols for replacement of geombes. It is his clients opinion that if the geombes need to be replaced that communes a project failure as it would cause harm to the bank. McKinnon — Stated that NLC has submitted a substantial technical review and information into the file. She submitted at the table a letter addressing State and Local Performance Standards which NLC feels have not been met DEP and ConCom were very dear that at some later point, a review would be necessary of the project under the emergency certification requirements in regulations. NLC feels that there are Performance Standards that aren't met and require waivers for a permit to be issued. Also, NLC doesn't feel there is a way to make a determination that there will be no adverse impact on down -drift beaches. Stated she also believes that removal of the geombes will become more complicated as titre passes. Stover —Asked that Mr. Roggeveen share his list of items that might slip by with the public. Atherton — First point, this is not a small pilot project According to one of the co-applicants, this is the first phase of a larger, longer hard screening structure. She submitted into the record and email from Josh Posner and Hans Weimar, sent in February 2014 addressed to "Dear Nantucketers" which outlines the plan to expand this project. Second point, that in the event of a real emergency in Baxter Road, the Town has adopted an emergency plan titled, "Emergency Monitoring of Baxter Road" dated November 19, 2013. In her opinion, implementing this emergency plan is a preferable alternative to dealing with any emergency should arise. Third point, in the words of one of the co- applicant SBPF, "Geo- textile robes aze not well suited to a high - energy environment like Siasconset." This was contained in the alternative NOI for the rock revelment submitted July 2, 2013. Fourth point, on November 20, 2013, the commission found in an informal vote within the public hearing of this NOI, there are reasonable alternatives to geo- textile tubes. Fifth point, asked the commssion to please consider adverse impact to the public beach. Van Lieu — Asked that the commission deny the application for this project. Stated that photos were submitted at the last heating that shows significant erosion still occurring at the top of the bluff. Feels this project will be harmful otherwise mitigation wouldn't be necessary and that the project is already failing. Asked that the board look into the allegations that the bluff experienced 40 -feet erosion in one year, she asked for data proving that loss. Cited a letter from Maria Harnett to Josh Posner which lacks comparative maps from 2012 and 2013 and refers to endangerment of two pre-1978 structures. One of those structures, 97 Baxter Road, was moved off in 2010; the structure there now was moved back on; she questions whether or not it actually qualifies as a pre -1978. Also, the impact of the project on the wetland scenic mew is horrible; it is just a big pile of dirt and destroyed the face of the bluff. Grass will not stay on the bluff, it is too vertical. This area is a geological wonderland and if it is destroyed, it will be gone forever. Lafarge — At a lecture on May 13, 2014 by Robert Young, PhD Coastal Geologist, he referenced a fact that there aren't very many natural beaches left on the East Coast; the things that grow and feed other things aren't there anymore. They are being lost due to over nourishing. Stover — Questions how much heavy rucks going over -the -road to take sand to the project and how much lawn watering by residents along the bluff are affecting erosion at the top and undermining the bluff. Roggeveen — Reminded the ConCom that the wetland scenic view is protected under the bylaws. The headlands are naturally beautiful. A graded and vegetated bluff might be pretty but is not natural. He supports protecting the wetland scenic mew. Oletay — At the found, Robert Young, who monitors all coastal erosion structures in the Central States, confirmed that geombes kill any invertebrates in front of them. Asked Ms Bwanoski about the status of moving of the road and providing access. Buxarosld — Andrew Vince, Planning Department Director, has been working with Sankaty Golf Club on an easement along their property line for the new roadway that tern itu tes at an etosting paper road. Reviewed some the grading that would be necessary for the road. No money for the work will be sought until all the legal documentation is complete Steimmer — Prior to the last meeting, two weeks ago, a SBPF /Town submitted a letter to Ocean and Coastal Consultants, dated April S, 2014, "Coastal Analysis Summary at'Sconset" focuses on the wave dimate at the site and conditions within the realm of a 100 -year storm and makes the case supporting the need for a fourth geotube. The chances for 100- yeao-stmen conditions are increasing and are likely to occur within the 5 -year life of this project. The problem is that if that there is a problem with having mitigation in place in that event proposed mitigation is insufficient to protect the interest of the down drift propertv 1 "," 2 nil 9 Minutes for May 14, 2014, adopted May 28, 2014 pa, -1 of9 owners. The amount of mitigation to be available during the event required cant be put on the beach beforehand. Cohen — Asserted that a lot of the public comments heard at this hearing are factually or legally incorrect or taken out of context Feels the commission has the information necessary to move forward and make findings and granting the necessary waivers. Bon aro ski —Asked for a sense of the commission in regards to dosing. Steinaver — The normal course of events is to dose the hearing fast. Oktay — Stated that not all the questions have answers but attempts were made to answer them. In situations where SBPF didn't have and couldn't get the data, they were very clear about that. Cohen — Stated the applicant will be available to the commission for clarification during the discussion of Order of conditions. Formally request the hearing be closed. Discussion about a special meeting date for discussion of the Order of Conditions: Wednesday, May 21, 2014, 4 p.m. with Town Counsel present. Staff If the commission is comfortable with the record and feels there are no other outstanding questions or issues. Otherwise he recommends keeping the hearing open. Motion Motion to Close. (made by: Golding) (seconded by: Bennett) Voice vote Carried: Golding — aye, Karberg— aye, Oktay — aye, Steimue,— aye, Bennett— aye, Glowadd — aye 2. Nantudret Islands Land Bank — 17 & 19 N. Liberty St; 8 Wesco Place (42.4.3 - 1,48,47) SE48- 2649(mnt to 5/28) 3. MASSDOT — 4 Goose Pond Lane (55407 & 415) SE48 -2660 Sitting Sminaueq Oktay, Karberg, Bennett, Golding, Glowa ki, LaFarge Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative Mike Bums, Transportation Planner Gene Croudt, Senior Environmental Scientist VHB Matthew Hayes, Senior Project Engineer VHB Kam Buzanoski, Director Department of Public Works (DPW) Public Emily MacKinnon, Nantucket Land Council Discussion (5:05) Burns —At this point request closure of public heating and approval of the Order of Conditions. Bennett — Heard the HDC is pushing for wider banks rather than steel. Bums — Steel sheeting is proposed to prevent filling of wetlands, which they feel is more important. HDC has submitted a letter to MASDOT; MASSDOT was instructed to minimize the sheeting and f an mg. Oktay —Asked for clarification on the material to be used for the path. Burns — Hot-mix SuperPave is recommended with an additive to address color coucems. Steinauer— Asked if percolation in through the top or path has been looked at Concern was addressed as to whether or not water if my is flexing through the berm Bums — That was addressed by the Senior Environmental Engineer, of VHB, horizontal movement of water through the berm is minimal. Boring and soil samples were taken earlier today that will be used to verify that assertion. Okmy —That should be in the record; that was a big question for her. Sminauer — Agrees, the comrssion needs in know if the sheeting will inmtmp[ water flow between the up -land wetlands and the creek. If so, an improved culvert system would help mitigate that effect Bums — Stared those concerns were addressed in a letter from VHB indicating that the water -table depth probably wouldn't be affected. Glowaeld — Stated this was discussed at the last heating and there was a slide showing water flowing through the culvert. Karberg — Water through the culvert does not mein there is no water moving through the berm. She recalls that at the last meeting, the statements about no water movement through the berm was speculation. The soil test will help verify that Glowacki — Seems that was they were hearing then was that if there appreciable flow through the bem, the water levels on both sides would be more level. Karberg —Not necessarily. Bums — Don't recall a study being proposed to look at percolation. That was data collected in regards to the path itself. Feels ConCom can rely on VHB comments, which are in the record. Oktay — The been is still probably more permeable than an asphalt road. Feels that water will sheet off much faster with the impermeable paved path. Feels the commission needs to assure that the 2 -foot shoulders will be able absorb water coming off the top. Listed other materials that are permeable than what is proposed. Also different asphalts have different chemicals that will trickle off into the wetlands. LaFarge — Stated that his son feels the surface along the berm is fine as it is. Finds it hard to believe this is being proposed without addressing the rebuilding /re- engineering of the culverts. Bums — Due to the scope of required work, the culverts need to be addressed separately. Discussion about the work that needs to be done on the culvert system. Glowaekl — Stated that he can't see a significant difference the proposed paving would have on hydrology. pa, -1 of9 Minutes tot May 14, 2014, adopted May 28, 2U14 rage 4 of V MacKinnon — Recalls the applicant stated at the last hearing that the study, about the future placement of the culvert to the size that was scaled, was done without any consideration to the sheeting. NLC is concerned if the sheeting gap will be of approptiate size and where that gap is shown in the plan. Oktay —Asked if the MASSDOT letter should be taken into account. Staff - The MASSDOT letter states the project is susceptible to the State Wetland Regulations under Chapter 131, Section 40; it argues the project is exempt from Town and local bylaws but that is debatable. They will be asking for a waiver. This is filed as an NOI that makes it susceptible to both State and Local regulations; but MASSDOT only as far as it does not have a greater than negligible effect on the project. It is a question of whether or not the project as proposed is meeting the Performance Standards or if the project as designed is providing enough protections to meet those standards or if additional conditions need to be added that relate to the State act. Steinauer —This is on Town property; the Town as the owner with DOT more the contractor. This is on property of the Town. Staff — MASSDOT is accepting full regulatory compliance for the project and the Town is essentially giving the land to the state to perform the project. A comparable situation is Milestone Road, which is a State highway on Town /County land. Bums — The Town is a co- applicant on this project and signed the application. Okmy — Asked if this is the best idea monetarily or what was looked into before proposing this project. Burns — Reviewed the alternatives that were looked at and explained why those options were not viable. Steimmer — Reviewed concerns from the perspective of a bike rider. Bums — This is the first piece in a larger project to get cyclists off Union and Francis Sheets. MacKinnon — Looking at the details of the plans the only place that is marked out is the two existing 18- inch culverts. It doesn't show anything reflecting the ability to put in a resized culvert. It should be reflected on the plan whether or not there will be a hole left in the sheeting or a removable section that allows installation of reamed culverts. Staff— Replacing the culvert will require extensive pernutt ng; cutting the sheeting will be a minor part of that larger project That can also be addressed through the Order of Conditions. Bums — Request the heating be dosed and asked for support of the project Staff Waiver request has come in. Have determination from Massachusetts Natural Heritage of no take and no effect. An aspect of replacing the culverts is the dredging of Goose Pond due to funding availability. Motion Motion to Close. (made by: Bennett) (seconded by. Glowadd) Voice vote Carried: Golding — aye, Karberg — aye, Okt ay — aye, Stcuumet — aye, Bennett —aye, LaFarge — aye, Glowacki — aye 4. Weed Realty Trost — 41 Almanac Pond Road (46 -11.2) SE48 -2662 Sitting Steinaueq Oktay, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki, LaFarge Recused Karberg Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative Arthur D. Gasbarro, Blackwell and Associates Inc. Arthur Reade, Reade, Gullicksm, Hanley, Gifford & Cohen LLP Public None Discussion (5:37) Gasbatro —Did receive the Massachusetts Natural Heritage signoff with a letter of no take. Have submitted plans showing where the utilities will can and an existing utility pole. Request heating be closed. No comnussioner, questions or further comments. Staff Were waiting for a response from Massachusetts Natural Heritage and applicant had requested a continuance to supply the design for coming utilities from the locus to the edge of the road. Have everything needed to dose. Motion Closed by unanimous consent. 5. Kathy Gallagher Rev. Trost — 2 Hom Beam Road (21- 118.5) SER8-2667 Sitting Steinauu, Oktay, Berrien, Golding, Glowadri, LaFarge Recosed Karberg Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative Don Bracken, Bracken Engineering Public None Discussion (5:40) Braclo:n — Was continued to hear from Massachusetts Natural Heritage; have received an approval letter of no take. Submitted additional information to support the waiver request; due to changes in the definition of a wetland since construction, the house is now 47 feet from the bordering vegetated wetlands. Proposal is for an addition with a 4 -foot crawl -space foundation, relocation of the septic. To mitigate the impact of the foundation, are proposing a dry wan system. Request hearing be dosed. No commissioner questions or further comments. Staff Have everything needed to close. Motion Closed by unanhnous consent. rage 4 of V Minutes tot May 14, 2014, adopted May 28, 2U14 6. Gifford — 22, 24, & 26 Rabbit Run Road (43 -180; 28 -8 & 9) SE48 -2664 Sitting Suanaver, Oktay, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki, LaFarge Recused Karberg Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative David M. Haines, Haines Hydrogeologic Consulting Public None Discussion (5:43) Haines — Explained what is happening with MISA and that is a house - keeping issue. Request hearing be dosed. No commissioner questions of further comments. Staff Was continued to he. from Massachusetts Natural Heritage; received a letter which stated they are satisfied there is no impact order the Wetlands Protection Act. However, there is an em going MISA review process of work outside ConCom jurisdiction and have asked that work not begin until that study is complete. Have everything needed to dose. Motion Closed by unanimous consent. 7. Monetary Creek RT. —12 Monomoy Creek Road (5454.1) SE48 -2665 Sitting Stemmer, Oktay, Bemen, Golding, Glowadd, LaFarge Recused Kaeberg Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative Arthur D. Gasbarro, Blackwell and Associates Inc. Arthur Reside, Reade, Gullicksen, Harley, Gifford & Cohen LLP Public Bruce Perry Discussion (5:45) G"Immo — Provided revised plans and supplemental information based upon the technical consultants report and comments of the fuse hearing. Reviewed aerial photographs which reflect the existing structures and the cutting around the structures since 1938, 1971, and 2005. The cutting pre -exist the regulations. Proposing the establishment of a 15 -foot vegetated buffet and vegetation be allowed to grow back. Structural area is moving completely outside the 25 -foot zone. There is structural area within 50 -Feet of the coastal bank but not the bordering vegetated wetlands. This provides a long term net benefit. Perry — Believes that the fact that it was mowed back in 1938 does not give it a grandfather status. There are aerials that indicate it was not mowed between 1998 and 2005; that negates any grandfather status. Feels the commission should requite the 25 -foot minimum and wetlands buffer. Reade — From what they have seen, the area has been maintained dear steadily. Discussion about land management and a program for maintaining the clearing. Swimmer — Feels the wetland buffer distance is more important than the coastal bank Gasbarm — Looking at the 1938 photo, it is very wide open. Stated he has been told by the property owner that this is what has been maintained. Explained the aerial photos he chose were all from the same angle. Bentett— Asked about irrigation. Gasbarm — Suspects it will be a maintained lawn; however, at this point irigation is not part of the application. Perry —At the last meeting, he noted that there is dump of Japanese Knotweed on the salt marsh side; suggested that the commission have them treat that. Gasbarro — Would welcome that as part of the condition. Would do that in compliance with best management practices. Request heating be closed. Staff When the commission looks at the evidence presented, it can be seen as activity; ConCom can permit the revegetadon of areas in the amount that is there and possibly memorializing a specific area through the pemut and establishment of an undisturbed buffer zone that they will maintain and can he enforced going forward. The applicant is proposing 15 feet, regulatory is 25 feet. Have everything needed to dose. Motion Closed by unanimous consent. 8. *Salisbury — 18 Brant Point Road (29 -152) SE48 -2669 Sitting Stemmer, Oktay, Karberg, Bamett, Golding, Glowadd, LaFarge Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative David Salisbury, owner Public None Discussion (6:01) Salisbury — Proposal is to replace an at -grade brick patio with a raised deck and create a brick patio on the east side. Request heating be dosed. No commissimer questions or further comments. Staff A 100 -1oot buffet crosses the very comer of the property but not neat the proposed work areas. Only resource is land subject to coastal storm flowage. Have everything needed to close. Motion Closed by unanimous consent. rage a or Y Minutes for May 14, 2014, adopted May 28, 2014 9. *Cooney — 65 Wanoma Way (92 -19) SE48 -2670 Sitting Steinaueq Oktay, Karberg, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki, LaFarge Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative Elizabeth Maury Public None Discussion (6:04) Maury _ Welland delineation was done in 2010. Proposal to modify exterior. Approximately 18 square feet is within the 50 -foot buffer. Removing steps and patio door within the 25 -foot no- disturb zone. All the work area is in pre disturbed lawn. A first -floor deck under an existing 2's -story deck within 25 feet. The proposed covered porch is about 30 feet. Air conditioning units are not within the 25 -foot buffer. Request hearing be dosed. Clarification of the proposed work and proximity to resource areas. Okmy — Asked if there had been monitoring associated with the previous Order of Conditions. (No) Staff They have applied for waivers under no adverse impact /no reasonable alternative. Resource areas include: bordering vegetated wetlands, barrier beach, coastal dune, land subject to coastal storm flowage, and coastal bank. Have everything needed to close. Motion Closed by unanimous consent. 10. *12 Oak Hollow N.T. —12 Oak Hollow Lane (56 -128 portion) NAN -116 Sitting Steimaue; Okmy, Karberg, Bemett, Golding, Glowadti, LaFarge Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative Don Bracken, Bracken Engineering Public Mace Henke, 14 Oak Hollow Discussion (6:12) Henke — Pointed out extensive wedand in the area per the GIS maps. No additional questions or comments. Staff This is lost the local bylaw. Explained how the GIS maps are not adequate for identifying resource areas under ConCom jurisdiction. Mr. Bruce Perry, Third -party Consultant Conservation Commtission, identified the resource areas which are accurately indicated on the submittal plans. Have everything needed to close. Motion Closed by unanimous consent. 11. *Cosay —141 Cliff Road (30 -1) SE48 -2671 Sitting Steamier, Oktay, Karberg, Bennett, Golding, Glowadd, LaFarge Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative Paul Santos, Nantucket Surveyors Public None Discussion (6:16) Santos —There is a permanent set of beach stairs for which an Order of Conditions and Cernficate of Compliance has been issued. Resource areas include: one vegetated wetlands is located at the top of the coastal bank, coastal bank, coastal beach, and land subject to coastal storm flowage. Proposing to construct a 10X12 platform at the head of the existing starts and replace the stain with seasonal aluminum removable stairs: two 20 -foot sections with side rails with two supports at the junction which would remain in place. There is presently no plan to revegetate the bank. Are awaiting Massachusetts Natural Heritage review of the project so will have to continue. Oktay — Asked if there was an existing platform at the head of the stairs. Santos — It is a small one, not nearly the size of the proposed. Also pointed out that there a Fence that discourages public use of the stairs by people approaching from the Nantucket Islands Land Bank property Golding — Would like to see a larger scale drawing of what the piers will look like, where they will be, how they will be installed into the bank, and how the stairs will be attached. Oktay — Would like a profile drawing of the supports. LaFarge — Would like see how the platform will be anchored and what happens in the face of erosion. Staff None Motion Continued to May 28 by unanimous consent. Voice vote N/A rage o or y Minutes for May 14, 2014, adopted May 28, 2014 B. Amended Order of Conditions 1. *Fong - Eyman /Reiskin — 34 Codfish Park Road (73.1.3 -53) SE48 -2512 Sitting Sminamr, Oktay, Karberg, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki, LaFarge Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative Paul Santos, Nantucket Surveyors Public None Discussion (6u) Samara — Order of Conditions issued for septic repair on a small lot. Since then the property has been sold. At time of the original Order of Conditions, had asked for septic repair but an IA component was required due to location of the coastal done. This is to do away with the IA requirement. Explained the new system minus the IA Sep 6 -tech component The Board of Health (BOH) has recommended that can be done. Ground water is at elevation 2 per HWH map the site itself is amend elevation 15. Oktay — With IA, smaller leach trenches are adequate; asked if they have been resized for a standard system. Santos — The leach field will be the same size. Explained how that is allowed. This is just outside the 100 - foot setback Oktay — Disagrees with the statement that there is an infinite amount of capacity in the ocean to accept nitrates. The State can measure the impact away from the island and septics. Would like to see the current information supplied to the BOH. Bennett — The same issues apply to an IA as to a standard system. Staff It is appropriate that this be considered as an amended Order of Conditions. Motion Closed by unanimous consent. Motion Motion to Issue as an amended order. (made by: Bennett) (seconded by. Oktay) Voice vote Carried: Gol ding — aye, Karberg — aye, Oktay — nay, Steiruver — aye, Bennett — aye, LaFarge — aye, Glowacki — aye Ili. PUBLIC MEETING A. Certificates of Compliance 1. *Kaplan — 8 Harbor View Way (42.4.1 -28 & 29) SE48 -1826 Sitting Steinauer, Oktay, Karberg, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki, LaFarge Retuned None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Discussion (6:38) None Staff Everything appears to have been done in compliance with the plan of record and there are no on -going conditions. Recommend issue. Motion Approve issue by unanimous consent. (made by: Glowackr) (seconded by: Karberg) B. Orden of Conditions (If the public hearing is dosed —for discussion and /or issuance) 1. MASSDOT— 4 Goose Pond Lane (55 -407 & 415) SE48 -2660 Sitting Smin truer, Oktay, Kada rg, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki, LaFarge Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Discussion (6:41) Okmy — Concerned that about 50% of the path will have to removed when the culvert work begins. Another concern is the sheet piling restricting water flow through the berm and increasing runoff. Would prefer a permeable surface. Bennett — Would prefer gravel or something else for the surface. Steinauer — We don't have data that shows the amount of percolation. Oktay — This involves safety, transport of people, wetland scenic views, hydrology, and circulation all close to a high - concern area. Golding — Explained he abstained because the project is vague on the dynamics; them are a lot of things up to the air. Okmy— Concerned about the lack of sod cores and lack of flexibility on surfacing. Suggested drafting a positive order requiring permeable material. Glowacki — Asked if use of pavers would be better, than paving. Oktay — The MASSDOT has data that rate the percolation of materials. Asphalt contains chemicals that will leech off into the pond then into the harbor. Staff The original plan of record indicated Black Oak; conditioned there would be no Black Oak. Conditioned removal of material to be put through the digester because of invasive species. Conditioned photo inspection. The plans are up to date. The only question is what the actual size for the culver is going to be. After they look at hydrology, they might have to change the size of the opening. Another issue is the amount of material that will have to be removed from Goose Pond and what that will do to the hydrology. Pointed out that the project is technically in the buffer zone for the wetlands. Draft an Order of Conditions that includes a permeable surface and the scenic view. Motion Motion to Issue as drafted. (made by: Glowacki) (seconded by: Bennett) Voice vote Not Carried: Golding— abstain, Karberg — nay, Oktay — nay, Steinauer — aye, Bennett — aye, LaFarge — nav, Glow,&i — ar e rage r of v hLnutes for Alay 14, 2014, adopted May 28, 2014 2. Weed Realty Trust — 41 Almanac Pond Road (46 -11.2) SE48 -2662 Sitting Steinaveq Oktay, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki, LaFarge Recused Karberg Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Discussion (6:53) None Staff Attached the letter from Division of Fishenes and Wildlife to support Conditions 1 -5. Motion Motion to Iasue as drafted with the amended letter added. (made by. Oktay) (seconded by: Bermett) Voice vote Carried: Golding — aye, Oktay— aye, Steinamr— aye, Bennett — aye, LaFarge — aye, Glowacki — aye 3. Kathy Gallagher Rev. Trust — 2 Horn Beam Road (21- 118.5) SE48 -2667 Sitting Steinauct, Oktay, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki, LaFarge Recused Karberg Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Discussion (6:56) None Staff Did not condition. Waiver requirement for comer of addition 49 feet &mo the wetlands. Motion Motion m Issue as drafted. (made by: Oktay) (seconded by: Glowacki) Voice vote Carried: Golding — aye, Oktay — aye, St einauer — aye, Bennett —aye, LaFarge — aye, Glowacki — aye 4. *Gifford — 22, 24, & 26 Rabbit Run Road (43 -180; 28 -8 & 9) SE48 -2664 Sitting Steinauer, Oktay, Bermett, Golding, Glowacki, LaFarge Recused Kazberg Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Discussion (6:57) None Staff There are no waivers. Did not impose any additional conditions. hfotion Motion m Issue as drafted. (made by. Olm y) (seconded by: Betmett) Voice vote Carried: Golding — aye, Oktay— aye, Steinauer— aye, Bennett — aye, LaFarge — aye, Glowacki — aye 5. *Monomoy Creek R.T. — 12 Monomoy Creek Road (54 -54.1) SE48 -2665 Sitting Steinaves, Oktay, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki, LaFarge Recused Karberg Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Discussion (6:57) Oktay — Noted that evidence is rising against glycosides. Discussion about the proposed 15 -foot buffer as opposed to the standard 25 -foot buffer. Consensus is the 15 -foot is adequate in this case. Staff Need to add overview to the project for removal of]apanese Knotweed; it will include an amendment to Condition 19 requesting photos to include knotweed area. Also propose the standard knotweed permitting the use of the appropriate herbicide suite at the correct percentage. Condition 21 about markers along the no- disturb areas; have discussed options with the applicant. Motion Motion to Issue as amended. (made by: Bennett) (seconded by. Oktay) Voice vote Carried: Golding — aye, OkMy, — aye, Steinauer— aye, Bennett — aye, LaFarge — aye, Glowacki — aye 6. *Salisbury — 18 Brant Point Road (29 -152) SE48 -2669 Sitting Stemateq Oktay, Karberg, Bennett, Golding, Glowarki, LaFarge Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Discussion (7:03) None Staff No conditions. Motion Motion m Issue as drked. (made by: Glowacki) (seconded by: Oktay) Voice vote Carried: Gol ding —aye, Karberg — aye, Oktay—aye, Stammer —aye, Bennett — aye, LaFarge — aye, Glowacki — aye 7. *Cooney — 65 Wanoma Way (92 -19) SE48 -2670 Sitting Steam er, Oktay, Karberg, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki, LaFarge Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Discussion (7:03) Oktay —This is an example of cumulative impacts. Golding— Asked if the deck is being built on existing pilings. Caere is a second new deck.) Discussion about what the adverse impact would be if any and if the project approaches and /or exceeds the 50% rule. Oktay — Feels that if a positive order were to be issued, it should note the net benefit. Staff No conditions added. Waivem required. Should discuss whether or not the work will have an advent impact to the resource areas. The new second deck is inside a structural area, which makes it tricky. Indicated items are missing from the plan, but it is sufficient for permuting. As administrator be has to ask, "What is the adverse effect of the proposal?' For the record, the shed is outside the 50 -foot buffer. Motion Motion to Issue with inclusion of the removal of the shower and steps and tevegitating. (made by. Glowacki) (seconded by: Karberg) Voice vote Carried :Golding — aye, Karberg — aye, Oktay — aye, Steinauer — aye, Bennett — aye, LaFarge —aye, Glowacki — aye Page 8 of 9 6hnutes toe May 14, 2U14, adopted blay 28, 2014 8. *Giffoed — 12 Oak Hollow Lane (56 -128 portion) NAN -116 Sitting Steinamr, Oktay, Karberg, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki, Lafarge Recessed None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Discussion (7:15) None Staff No waivers, no conditions. Motion Motion to Issue as drafted. (made by: Oktay) (seconded by: Karberg) Voice vote Carried :Golding — aye, Karberg— aye, Oktay — aye, Steinauce — aye, Bennett —aye, LaFarge — aye, Glowacki —aye 9. *Cosay —141 Cliff Road (30 -1) SE48 -2761 (continued May 28) 10. Discussion of other dosed Notice of Intent hearings 'Sconset Beach Preservation Fund /TON: Asked what the commissioners would like available for the special meeting on Wednesday May 21: Mr. O'Connell initial presentation; Town Counsel rulings on some of the assertions by the Quidnet -Squvu Association attomey; applicable Performance Standards; Est resource areas and appropriate interests; Enforcement Action issues C. Enforcement Actions — Sent out certified letters can those discussed at the last meeting. Updated enforcement action on Pocono. D. Other Business 1. Reports: a. CPC, Golding b. Coastal Management Plan, Oktay - DONE 2. Commissioners Comment a. Bennett — On the Gardner property bobcat is puked in the middle of the wetlands. Staff win check the pemtit. 3. Administrator/Stiff Reports — Cautioned commissioners, now that the hearing is closed, not to take any information on the'Sconset Beach Preservation Fund /TON project. Motion to Adjourn at 7:30 p.m. Submitted by: Terry L. Notion