DRAFT CONSERVATION
COMMISSION MINUTES
CATA CONFERENCE ROOM
MAX
SCHENK, CHAIRMAN
|
MEMBERS PRESENT Max Schenk, Chairman Elizabeth
Steele Charlie Anderson William Febiger Robert Gulla Ann Jo Jackson |
MEMBERS ABSENT Arthur Socolow |
STAFF PRESENT Nancy Ryder, Conservation Agent Carol Gray, Recording Clerk |
APPROVAL
OF MINUTES
- Tabled.
CLOSURE
OF HEARINGS REVIEW OF FINAL INFORMATION
AMENDMENT
AND SIGNING PERMITS/DECISIONS
28-1528
The Commission issued a CoC in May of 2005, the applicant
is now asking for a duplicate, issued and signed by all members present.
RIGGS
POINT NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION
Ms. Barbara Lambert, Chairman and rep. the assoc.
Ms. Lambert stated that the assoc. would like to schedule a
meeting for discussion re: a new development.
She had further comments regarding that the Riggs area being a
historical area, that this is a discretionary project, mentioning a NoI re: Wetland
crossing and a sewer permit. She further
commented on preserving the open space, the Historical Riggs space, noting
absence of growth control, giving examples and noting that the sewer does not
work properly at present. She also
mentioned a ˝ time frame when traveling from Riverdale to the rotary. Ms. Lambert stated that the landowners have
degraded the pasture and the property is listed as unbuildable. Further stated was a tax issue and taxes not
being paid for the past 18 years, leaving a huge profit for the speculators of
the property. Asking on behalf of the
Assoc. she would like a public discussion re: the recommendations from the
Planning Board.
She had two further requests: that the public be made aware of and
contribute to the tag meetings re: Goose Cove, stating this should be a
democratic process and open to the public.
Mr. Schenk made mention of this being precedent setting
with Ms. Ryder stating no public comment and/or participation re: the tag
meetings. Her recommendation is for a
Commission review with Mr. Schenk noting the NoI process.
Ms. Ryder reiterated that there is no public participation.
Mr. Anderson noted that the Commission does not usually
submit anything to the Planning Board and that he feels the Commission gives
everyone a fair hearing and that not being a waste of time, but
extraneous.
Mr. Schenk noted that a 45 minute time frame given for the
NoI, allowing time for the presentation and comments, also to be in writing as
an official document for filing.
He further noted that he lives on
Mr. Gulla noted environmental issues and Wetland issues,
with other issues not being within the Cons. Comm. jurisdiction.
Ms. Steele asked if permission from DEP was given re: the
sewer extension and Ms. Ryder stated yes.
Mr. Schenk noted the DEP comments to be in writing as there
is public interest and it would allow for further and additional discussion of
the matter.
Mr. Febiger noted that he can see both sides of the issue.
Ms. Jackson stated that she could not fully comment on the
issue until the application is seen by the Commission, waiting until the NoI
comes in or when the Commission is asked to comment.
Ms. Ryder noted the Atty. Gen. Office and staff review: tag meetings are not a public forum.
A member of the public spoke out and stated this is a whole
democratic issue.
Ms. Ryder replied that anyone can schedule a tag meeting
through the Planning Board and to speak with Greg C. about that.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Mr. James Groves,
Mr. Groves comes before the Conservation Commission reading
from prepared documents commenting on the active policies of the Commission.
He quotes the Cons. Comm. website re: hearings from
Specifically a document that was submitted on 1/17/07, it
being not in hand and not submitted the previous Wednesday (1/10/07), as
required, it being not delivered until after 12:00 PM and date-stamped
01/11/07, further stating that although the documents were a day late the Cons.
Office still accepted them, stating that the Cons. Comm. violated its own
policies. He further stated that he was
told by the Chairman of the Comm. that this would be looked into and was further
told that the submission policy is correct, but some are allowed.
Mr. Groves quoted his letter to the Chairman re: the
submission of documents to the Commission and read the letter in full, to the
attn: of Mr. Magoon and the City Council/ to file a complaint. He further stated that this complaint is out
of frustration.
Mr. Schenk noted that there have been no exceptions to the
case.
Ms. Ryder stated that the timeframe regarding Mr. Groves’s issue
is intended to make a fair and adequate time frame, to meet the mailing packets
sent out Wednesdays, as this is an arbitrary time, this particular one going
out ˝ day late. She further stated that
the Riggs documents came in late as well.
Mr. Schenk noted a printed document of the communication
between him and Mr. Groves and would be happy to answer any further questions
further stating Mr. Groves could go to the City Counsel, Mr. Magoon or whomever
he pleases and discuss the issues at that time.
Mr. Schenk further noted that the intent of the filing procedure is to
get the information in time for the packets, for review.
He further noted that there seems to be an insinuation made
that this was favoritism, stating this procedure is open to everybody and is
just a matter of convenience.
Mr. Anderson stated that this is either a misunderstanding
and/or his broad interpretation.
Ms. Steele stated that it was her understanding that this
scheduling is to help by trying to make it fairer for the Commission and the
public in general, in order to review and have the time to do so. This is an administrative approach with
fairness being the most important issue.
Mr. Febiger noted that the set time was for submissions.
Ms. Ryder noted that the day of Wednesday by
Mr. Gulla noted that we may want note: at the discretion.
Mr. Groves stated that he appreciates the forthright
approach.
RE: this discussion Mr. Groves gave a bank closing as an
analogy. He feels this is a fairness
issue and that there is no ill will, just an issue to be clarified so that
everyone is on the same footing.
CLOSED
Mr. Schenk noted to the Commission and the general public
that this will be the last meeting for Ms. Steele as a Commission member. He further stated that they have appreciated her
sense of humor and her presence at the meetings have been a gift and a
treasure.
He noted that her stewardship over the environment was and
is exceptional.
A plaque was read and given to Ms. Steele in appreciation,
as well as a gift certificate from the Commission. Mr. Schenk thanked Ms. Steele for all her
efforts on behalf of the Conservation Commission.
Ms. Steele noted that the members were all very good
friends of hers and she would still be around, thanking the Commission.
Carrigan Enterprises, Inc. to make improvements to Hutchins
Court and construct a driveway off Hutchins Court to access residential
buildings to be located outside of the buffer zone.
Recused: Ms. Jackson and Mr. Gulla
Mr. Peter Forbach, Rubin and Rudman co counsel rep. the
applicant.
Mr. Peter Ogrin, Hayes
Mr. Forbach presented what he called some small items: 3
revisions.
He started by discussing the culvert replacement with the
Commission wanting Option B,
Replacement culvert, 36 inches round, further mentioning
the culvert and soil content within. He
further stated that in working with Hayes
He noted the proposed Wetland replication, being a little
over 2 to 1, 175 ft of Wetland replication.
Plan shown: close to the basin.
Mr. Seacamp present.
Mr. Forbach stated he would like to close the hearing and vote on the
Order of Conditions with the Commissions standard conditions and special
conditions re: location of replication agreeable.
Ms. Steele noted that the site visit was helpful for
clarification purposes, and had no further comment.
Mr. Anderson mentioned the new specs. of low impact
technology and regulations re:
Ground water runoff.
Michael Carrigan,
Mr. Forbach noted that if DEP issues new standards Mr.
Carrigan would be willing to come back.
Mr. Febiger no further comments.
Mr. Schenk noted open space and additions and Mr. Forbach
stated: modification:
In area far from Commission jurisdiction, allow elimination
of road connection re:
Mr. Schenk noted test holes on the site and stated that the
applicant and reps. would have to meet with the Agent 72 hours before work to
be started.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Mr. James Groves re review of the project, further stating
that Mr. Geisel was unavailable for the meeting this evening. Mr. Groves proceeded to read from a letter of
response from Mr. Geisel outlining issues:
DEP would look favorably on low impact techniques and the
applicant should be encouraged to use these techniques.
Inlet and outlet:
104.8/ 104.2 respectfully. It was
noted that the City lists significantly lower water levels.
Sheet 2 of 5: water level 103.0 and noted the topographical
plans from 1957. 1993/102.7 and
1998/101.5. Water receding from the
stream.
Further noted: Current culvert lacks capabilities,
hydrology analysis needed.
RE: Snow storage areas: will not work affectively with a
more appropriate area for snow storage needed.
Mr. Forbach noted this is on the agenda and submitted in writing.
Mr. Schenk stated it can be read and submitted but he would
rather have it submitted and then read.
Noel Mann stated that the snow removal area is close to the
buffer zone and vernal pool.
She further stated that changes in grade are not shown well
on the plan. In regards to the effects
of blasting, there is a profile but most of the blasting is in an area, which
she pointed out on the plan.
Mr. Peter Ogrin, Hayes
DEP policy to the extent that you can go to, then storm
water management, picked because of DEP writings.
Mr. Febiger asked of blasting would be done and Mr. Ogrin
stated that there would be some blasting.
He also asked of the catch basin and storm drains are in both directions
and Mr. Ogrin stated: yes and points to the plan re: blasting.
Water line to be replaced and hoping it would be done in
the old trench.
Ms. Mann pointed out that there is no trench and it would
have to be constructed.
Mr. Ogrin stated that a trench would be constructed.
Mr. Steven Golden: Mr. Golden questioned this as being a
limited/redevelopment project and stated that under state and local, we don’t
have enough information. He mentioned
He further stated he finds this insulting, no studies were
done and it is in his opinion of the highest priority. With spotted-turtles being de-listed, he
feels the delisting is strictly political.
Mr. Anderson asked Mr. Golden if he knew it was political
and Mr. Golden replied stating in his opinion it was political and stated that
they superseded every decision the Commission made.
Mr. Anderson went on to state that he has worked with the Fish
and Wildlife for over 40 years and this would not be in character with how they
work. They are not appointed by the
Governor and further stated that the individuals affiliated with the Fish and
Wildlife are as far removed from politics as you can get and he strongly
disagrees with Mr. Golden. Mr. Golden
stated that the spotted turtle de listing may be legally challenged, with no
studies and stated that Mr. Schenk’s previous testimony re: turtles and
owls. He feels that no true studies have
been done yet for a most highly sensitive area.
Mr. Seacamp: A 2
page study was done.
Mr. Schenk noted to the Commission and general public that
we should wrap this up as other issues are scheduled for this evening as well.
Mr. Golden stated that he would finish but further noted
that when the applicant spoke he was not cut off like this. He went on to say that there is a real
question as to whether or not this project will be built as he feels there is
insufficient information and would like 3 things to happen: Continue the
hearing, require a Wildlife Habitat Study and hire an independent consultant to
review all the information.
Mr. Seacamp stated that he was required to submit an impact
study with photographs in November. 22
acres will be preserved as open space.
No endangered species were identified on the site including no spotted
turtles.
Mr. Febiger inquired as to the inlet and outlet elevations,
and asked about 103 being an elevated Wetland.
Mr. Ogrin noted that the water level is within the Wetland
being controlled by 104.8 culvert setting.
He further stated that they are willing to work to restore original
elevation, at lower elevation, he can do that.
He further noted it has been at this elevation for years and mentioned a
satellite survey.
Mr. Febiger noted that the elevation on the plan,
topography, at 105 and inlet 104.8.
Ms. Steele noted that this was discussed during the site
visit. She further noted that Mr. Geisel
was most valuable at that time re: discussion of impact and solution, going with
a natural bottom.
Mr. Ogrin noted a sketch of the culvert, water levels, etc.
and
Mr. Febiger asked will it fill to that elevation then spill
and Mr. Ogrin stated: yes.
Mr. Anderson inquired as to the plan and the revision re:
Mr. .Schenk noted work to be proposed: none to be done
during times of first rain re: the vernal pool.
Seemingly that could be part or all of the month of March.
Barbara Lambert stated that she has concerns about the
Wildlife re: this project.
She is appreciative of the Commissions work but would like
to know what the species are. Mr. Golden
noted that how would one know about the spotted turtles if no real studies were
ever done.
Mr. Schenk asked the Commission if they had further
comments or inquires.
Ms. Steele felt all questions at this time were answered
and that she is open to options.
Mr. Anderson stated that he understands this to be a
complex issue and stated that we expressed our concern to the Planning
Board. He further noted that if the
developer wants to build a road to nowhere, its his choice.
Mr. Febiger asked if a date for construction to begin has
been chosen.
Mr. Carrigan noted fall then stated pushed up to spring.
Mr. Schenk noted the conditions:
Culvert reconfirmation, elevations at either end be
appropriate, no work to be done from the 2nd week in March to mid
April.
Mr. Seacamp asked for a clarification re: roadwork or
actual construction of structures and Mr. Schenk noted: no work.
Mr. Schenk noted that a very good job was done regarding
test pits.
Mr. Anderson noted that he did a site visit and was pleased
with the post grading.
MOTION:
Mr. Febiger moves to approve in accordance with revised plans and
subject to the aforementioned conditions and standard conditions.
SECOND:
Mr. Anderson VOTE: 4-0 all in favor
Mary Ann Wenniger to construct a single family home.
Mary Rimmer, rep. the applicant.
Ms. Rimmer states that this a ˝ acre site, prev. approved
most recently 1/03 and the order has expired.
This is similar development but with a better buffer zone area.
In her brief summary she states that the sod roof has been
eliminated from the plan and no lawn is being proposed. Noted was the Wetland edge, 10 and 25 ft.
buffer. Coastal bank, Goose Cove, elevation 10.
Green area noted on the plan.
Extent of grading, S. Sawyer
There was a question noted regarding the depth of
excavation and a question regarding a particular tree located by survey and
noted on the plan. The current distance 4
to 5 ft. to the face of the wall.
Mr. Schenk asked if the branches were in or away and Ms.
Rimmer replied that they were in. Ms.
Rimmer further noted that the tree noted on the map is almost dead. 2 White Ash trees are to be removed.
Mr. Schenk noted, planting in kind and Ms. Rimmer replied,
not so much in kind as natural with 2 to 1 mitigation. A list of proposed plantings and Suzanne
Birch 8 Granite Street Rockport, MA were noted.
Ms. Rimmer informed the Commission that rather than 1
single retaining wall she is proposing to terrace the area with natural
plantings. The wall 4 ft. in height with
masonry wall 2 to 2 ˝ ft. in height. On
the map is noted low growing, slow spreading plantings.
Steve Sawyer discussed the storm water flow, sheet flow and
from the terrace ˝ percent grade. Stand
pipe noted, 12 ˝ inch diameter perforated pipe.
Mr. Schenk asked if there was operational maintenance
needed.
Mr. Sawyer stated no, tidally influenced, detain and treat
any possible flow.
Mr. Schenk inquired as to chemicals, pesticides and/or
fertilizers on site.
Flow discharge and rain garden were discussed and wanting
to keep the storm water technique as simple as possible.
The drainage calculations were submitted to Mr. Mike Hale
on
Ms. Ryder asked of a copy had been mailed to the
Conservation office and Mr. Sawyer was not sure and submitted a copy at this
time.
Mr. Gulla inquired as to gutters and was told that no
gutters are proposed.
Ms. Ryder noted her serious concern re: ground water separation. With 2 ft. it seems like you have an inch
with no 2 ft clearance, not enough separation.
BVW: 9 She further
stated that the site is tremendous in size as well as building that close to
the trees, would take 20 to 30 years for the trees to recover and develop.
She also noted issues with the impact to the habitat.
The Agent noted that the project could be done and in a
reasonable fashion by removing the studio and porch bump out and that the storm
water in the back could work.
Ms. Rimmer noted that there are different standards for
single family re: storm water and runoff.
Regardless of what it is being used for, its 2 ft.
Mr. Sawyer notes the plan re: infiltration and
discharge. It will detain and treat slowly
percolating into the ground. We went for
low impact noting the pervious driveway.
Ms. Buchanan noted that plantings are important and the
plantings proposed are better than what exists now. With water going into the plantings it offers
a richer site than exists now.
Ms. Rimmer noted that it is proposed that 2 trees would be
removed.
Andy Stevens, the builder noted that other trees had been
taken down many years ago. There is no
choice re: the removal of some trees because of the driveway. He further stated
that regarding the studio and the tree, he will try to work away from the tree
but it is a 50-50 proposition.
Ms. Wenniger notes that at an existing home she occupied in
Mr. Schenk noted that either way the roots would be
impacted.
Ms. Wenniger noted top root and ash trees. Photos were shown to the Commission members
re: trees to be removed.
Mr. Anderson inquired as to the patio materials and Ms.
Rimmer noted fieldstone and cobblestone.
Ms. Rimmer notes on the plan an area that was already
disturbed, noting removal of materials, revegetate and re-stabilize the area.
Mr. Febiger questioned an area on the plan that notes the
outline of the studio as a double line.
Ms. Rimmer notes this as being the foundation wall.
Mr. Febiger inquired as to an area between the house and
studio.
Ms. Wenniger states that it is a storage unit and pre-fab
greenhouse.
Ms. Rimmer notes at the site, Goose Cove and **** water, tidewater came up to the limit of
coastal bank.
Mr. Febiger noted lift 2 inch to coastal bank, this needs
to be noted correctly,
Ms. Rimmer does not agree and further stated that she has
been working closely with the Agent to meet the owner’s needs at the same time
being sensitive to the Commission and that she does not want to disregard
anything the Commission has to say.
Noted: 11ft 6 inches
on 12/4 @
Mr. Schenk noted that it needed to be represented on the
plan.
Mr. Sawyer noted that he would get the topography of the
entire bank.
Ms. Rimmer stated not so much the bank elevation as to
where the tide measures.
Mr. Schenk stated to the applicants and representatives
that the reason for going over all of this is because the Commission does not
want the applicants home in the water.
Based of the Agent’s field observations a better idea would
be to have water creep onto the property.
One extra step that should be noted on the plan.
Communication in the form of a letter submitted to the
Commission:
David Christian, M.D.
To summarize the letter submitted stated that the applicant
should not be exposed to chemicals used as they can cause a flair up of
asthma. Recommendation that the
applicant not be exposed to such chemicals in her living space.
Ms. Wenniger further noted in re: to the letter noted above
that an additional ailment prevents her from being exposed to such chemicals as
well. She noted it was ironic and Mr.
Schenk inquired as to the chemicals she uses as an artist, are the same
chemicals that harm her.
Ms. Jackson stated she was very uncomfortable with the
project and noted some concerns she had with the project as a whole. She felt the applicant and representatives
should consider some of the suggestions made by the Commission.
Now added: a deck to the front of the studio, a move closer
to the resource area, a storage shed added and the physicians letter and the
chemicals issue she reiterated that she was very uncomfortable with this.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Mr. Steven Golden:
Mr. Golden stated that he appreciates Ms. Ryder’s need for protection. He further stated that this is the applicants
life as an artist and painting and urged the Commission to continue this matter
and that the Agent work with the applicant although he appreciates Ms. Ryder’s
frustration and felt more work needed to be done.
This is a human issue and a difficult situation.
Mr. Bob Oston:
abutter to the applicant
He stated that he had a concern re: the fact that so many
trees have already been destroyed on the site already.
The builder then discussed trees and a rock that exists on
the property and stated that he was afraid that the tree would be damaged
during construction and understands the concerns noted.
Ms. Wenniger stated that the good intentions are reflective
of the concern of the neighbors. O’Brien
Tree Co. was noted and the high price of linking together two trees at a cost
of $1500.00 and that the tree by the turnaround is almost gone and another tree
is alive and leaning.
Ms. Rimmer stated that low quality trees could be replaced
with high quality trees.
Ms. Rimmer further stated that it has never been her nor
the applicants intention to ignore Ms. Ryder’s comments or the Commission.
Mr. Schenk stated that it all seems to be heading in the
right direction. Information is needed
from the Eng. Dept., an opinion needed.
Ms. Ryder noted re the land that Goose Cove at high water
needs to be reflected on the plan. Mr.
Sawyer noted Section EE >BVW at that section.
Mr. Schenk inquired with Ms Ryder as to the water level on
site and Ms. Ryder stated:
Approx. 20 ft from back corner, right where coastal bank
line is indicated on the plan.
Mr. Schenk noted concern re: the artist space and
especially the deck.
Mr. Febiger asked if rotation was an option, moving the
side toward the street and
Ms. Ryder noted it was wedged as far back as possible.
Mr. Febiger further inquired as to a possible combination
of shrink and rotate.
Ms. Rimmer stated that was a question of redesigning. She feels the way the plan is now there is no
impact and areas disturbed would be restored.
Mr. Anderson asked if the deck would be a work area.
Ms. Wenniger stated essentially this would be a one story
home and in answering Mr. Anderson she stated that she has frames made and she
paints, decorates and drying on the deck.
She also makes handmade paper.
The fact that there is no yard, no lawn, but there are bird loving
trees.
Mr. Anderson inquired as to toxic materials being used.
Ms. Wenniger stated if the deck is such a big deal it can
be eliminated.
Ms. Steele noted the design could be kept but just pulled
back. She further stated she will be abstaining
when it comes time to vote.
Mr. Gulla noted that there is a possibility of saving the
trees and that the turnaround is cumbersome, which was discussed at the
site. He sees no need for the deck, set
back the studio to save the trees, feels this is a possibility and not
unreasonable.
Mr. Schenk noted the footprint now and the footprint
previously discussed.
He asked for dates and times for a continuance.
MOTION:
Mr. Febiger moves to continue the matter until
SECOND:
Ms. Ann Jo Jackson VOTE: 5-0 all in favor ABSTENTION: Ms. Steele
124R
MOTION:
Ms. Ann Jo Jackson moves to continue the matter to above date at
SECOND:
Ms. Steele VOTE: 6-0 all in favor
Matthew Murray to amend OoC 28-1727 for clearing and
planting activities and request to determine the applicability of the Wetlands
Prot. Act and the local Ord. for a previously constructed deck.(Map 100
REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE TO
MOTION:
Ms. Jackson moves to continue the matter to above date at
SECOND:
Ms. Steele VOTE: 6-0 all in favor
Mr. Anderson noted that the Comm. was waiting for
delineation re: coastal bank.
Ms. Ryder stated nothing had come in as of yet.
A filing und the City of Gloucester Wetlands Ordinance by SAM PARK to
construct mixed use development and access road off Rte. 128 Extension (Map 262
Lots 13 & 14, Map 43 Lot 4).
Ms. Amy Green representing the applicant did a recap of the
site walk.
Walk around: Area C then Area D. Ms. Green noted the site plan pointing out
where the site walk had taken them.
A discussion was h ad re: the worth of reforestation in
relation to the power lines.
Ms. Ryder mentioned 2 issues: The Commission to submit comments re: the
site visit, and a 3rd party.
Conflict: Different 3rd
party needed. The Commission has to
decide what they want the 3rd party to review.
Ms. Steele noted storm water, mitigation and Wetland
delineation.
Ms. Ryder noted that information has already gone to Greg
Sargent
** Green: Army Corp. sign off was mentioned as well.
A resubmission after 3rd party review. (EIR)
Mr. Anderson noted the power lines and cutting it to grade
leaving the pool. He further stated that
depending on what National Grid has done.
We don’t want any habitat exposed to chemicals as well as not wanting
any birds eating toxic berries. He feels
this is something to consider.
Ms. Ryder noted that meadow habitat was discussed rather
than trees.
Mr. Schenk agreed re: the open space and foraging area to
wildlife.
Wetland mitigation and restoration areas, pretty satisfied
with making sure of adequate flow between one and another vernal pool area –
proper wildlife species corridors.
Ms. Jackson noted the biggest concern being utility poles
and revegetation.
Ms. Ryder noted: the
3rd party draft, storm water, replication, elevation of chemicals,
National Grid use or not, City
CDM is a fairly large firm.
Ms. Green noted she was not sure of a timeframe and Ms.
Ryder noted that a meeting can be had before the 7th of February.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Mr. Steven Golden:
Mr. Golden feels that the important issues are the vernal pools on the
site and using a large amount of uplands.
He noted the Federal Clean Water Act, having jurisdiction over any illegally
destroyed Wetland. Code jurisdiction, doing some joint consultations, re: the
Planning Board and the City, have to talk about habitat preservation not just
corridors. He further discussed the
Clean Water Act, Local and State Wetland Protection Acts, City Council
w/special permits. He stated that each
of these Acts has
citizen enforcement.
He further mentioned the State Act, due process and appeal rights.
He closed by stating that studies are needed and agencies
need to take responsibility as we pay taxes for this.
MOTION:
Ms. Steele moves to continue the matter until
SECOND:
Mr. Febiger VOTE: 5-0 (Mr. Anderson not present at this time)
Ms. Harrison noted a request of two times, local.
The Commission voted re: the 3rd party review.
MOTION:
Mr. Gulla moved for the above
SECOND:
Ms. Steele VOTE: 5-0
Ms. Harrison addressed Ms. Steele noting that it was a
pleasure working with her and that she would be missed.
Deborah Holland to remove existing dock and construct new
dock.
REQUEST FOR CONTINUATION TO
MOTION:
Mr. Febiger moves to continue the matter to the above date at
SECOND:
Ms. Steele VOTE: 6-0 all in favor
Heights at
Request for Determination
Ms. Steele – recused.
Chi Mann representing the applicant. Mr. Mann noted that after a discussion with
the Agent, application now to determine if tree pruning is applicable, noting
the plan.
9.1 sea level. He
stated that a Wetland scientist will outline the Wetland.
Determination to see if pruning would be under 10.02 Sec 1
re: pruning without NoI.
Ms. Ryder noted that everyone’s idea of vista pruning is
different.
Mr. Chi noted a professional pruning company. He further
stated that entire trees would not be cut, just pruning to be done. Ms. Ryder asked Mr. Chi to define pruning.
Mr. Gulla suggested that the Agent be present for
determining what is to be cut and what is being cut and what is considered
pruning in this particular case.
Mr. Schenk noted going along the existing road and prune
from there. It may be prudent to have
the Agent and/or the Agent’s assistant on site.
Ms.Ryder noted that the pruning needs to be defined before
the Agent views the process of pruning.
Mr. Gulla asked if the Commission could say no topping of
the trees when you use the term vista and is there a specific area;
specifically he asked Mr. Chi exactly where he is to cut.
Mr. Chi stated cutting would be done along the road.
Ms. Ryder noted that what Mr. Chi is discussing is not what
is being shown on the map.
She further notes the definition of pruning as defined by
The Dept. of Environmental Protection.
Mr. Febiger asked if there is a City by-law and Ms. Ryder
replied, only in upland ledge.
It was noted that the Commission does not have a problem
with vista pruning; the plan just needs to denote the allowed area for the work
to be done and only at 10%.
Ms. Ryder stated that the profile photo needs to note where
the pruning would be done.
Mr. Schenk suggested using the existing plan with new
photographs as well as the reach of the machinery to be used to accomplish the
pruning.
Mr. Gulla noted that you may have to pick and choose only
having 10%.
Commission members view the plan.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Mr. Steven Golden stated that he appreciated this discussion
being opened up to the public. He
further stated that the key here is the biological effect on the trees not the
percentage and that a Certified Arborist needed basically as a 3rd
party, which the Commission should determine.
Ms. Ryder said she agreed and would rather have a Cert.
Arborist rather than herself.
Mr. Anderson suggested a re-visit to the site and if
anything is destroyed beyond the determination, they need to put it back.
Ms. Ryder noted that panoramic views of the proposed area
to vista prune are needed for the next meeting.
It was further noted than an arborist should be on site, in
kind trees 2 to 1 replacement if necessary.
Ms. Jackson stated she would like to see it go higher than 2 to 1 and include a
canopy.
MOTION:
Ms. Jackson moves to continue the matter until
SECOND:
Mr. Febiger VOTE: 5-0 all in favor
An Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation
submitted by Dollivers Neck Realty
Trust. REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL
Mr. Schenk – recused.
No Commission Comments – No Public Comments
MOTION:
Mr. Febiger moves for withdrawal as requested
SECOND:
Mr. Anderson VOTE: 5-0 all in favor
BASS
AVENUE #’s 2,4,4R,6, 6A,8,10 & 14 (Map 50 Lots 22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29)
Rep: Bill Cox and
Paul Dewsnap
Richard Cretarolo to construct four duplex dwellings and
road.
At this point in time Ms. Ryder was unable to locate her
notes on the site visit.
Mr. Schenk noted testing for contaminants, further noting
the depth of the ground water from the Wetland to the street with a question of
change of the level of ground water.
Mr. Gulla inquired as to the planting plan regarding the
front and why is nothing growing there, further stating that some sort of
mitigation plan needs to be in place.
Ms. Ryder noted that a reconfirmation of the delineation
line is needed.
Mr. Schenk mentioned a soil check and every 5 ft.
Ms. Ryder noted it being a fairly preliminary soil test.
Ms. Steele noted the MCP (Mass Contingency Plan) for information.
(Re: ground water)
Ms. Ryder noted that this is not in one location but the
sheer quantity of sheet water; need a cross section of the ground water. C. Young to review this and discuss the
issues with the Agent.
Mr. Febiger inquired as to this being Lots 3 and 4 with Mr.
Schenk stating: Yes.
DEP gave the Comm. there interpretation of the storm water
with a submission to the Agent and the
FEMA flood line shown.
Ms. Ryder stated she was very concerned about major
flooding. She further questioned the
surface flow and made mention of the detention basin, 197 cubic feet. Planning - was 10 times the amount. A Report was previously given to the Agent.
Mike Hale submission as well.
Mr. Gulla stated that he would not want just token trees,
but real ones. He further stated that a
landscape plan would go a long way in regards to flooding, with Ms. Ryder in
agreement. Mr. Gulla further referred to
documents and Page 2.
Ms. Ryder inquired as to there being a 3rd party
report, and further asked, being based on the Planning Board. Answer: Yes
Commission checks to see if any of the members have
documentation re: 3rd party review.
Exhibit # 14.
Ms. Ryder notes that this is not really considered a 3rd
party review.
The applicant stated that he could get further information
to the Agent for review.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Edwin Leavitt 26 Bass Ave. /presenting a plan to the
Commission for viewing.
He submitted a satellite shot from 1995 for review to be
discussed at the next meeting.
He points out the Comm. in Red: where three homes had been
taken down.
He has concerns about flooding in the area and he noted in
a letter calculations re: the lots. He
deducted the area in back to the no disturb line: 51,825 sq. ft. of area, building and roadway
coverage, 46,025 sq. ft taken.
Mr. Gulla feels that the percentages are out of whack and
seem high.
Mr. Leavitt stated: 1
inch of rain: 28,691 gallons of water.
(
He further stated that the neighbors are concerned and feel
that no pit can handle that amount. Mr.
Leavitt further noted on the plan the neighbors who will be affected re: water and
flow.
Ms. Ryder noted the NS Reg. Cons. Comm. and an issue with
reduced salinity
Further stating that the creek flows and floods backyards,
too big an area for the Wetland to handle.
Mr. Cox noted to the Comm. a 5th house listed
previous to 1995
Ariel view in 1995 shows no particular growth in that
area. The area is being used by The Mass
Highway Dept. He conveyed to the Comm.
that at the next meeting he hopes to have other ariel maps going farther back
in time.
Rep 2: Mr. Paul
Dewsnap:
In regards to the storm water report, noting the plan he
explained the proposal for the catch basins and detention basin.
23,000 sq. ft. of impervious area, with all runoff from
roof to grassy swales noted on the plan.
Again he stated more ariel views to be presented at the next meeting.
Ms. Ryder noted that a construction sequence is needed.
Order of Condition, as built to show that the approved plan
was followed.
Mr. Golden: re: 1 inch,
does that meet standard? Ms. Ryder: yes
Mr. Golden noted this being defined as perennial stream and
riverfront, stating that was his opinion and in speaking with Ms. Ryder, that
delineation had run out.
He feels this needs to be addressed and revisit the
intent. Perennial stream subject to
tidal flow the entire Annisquam as being a perennial river.
He further noted Dave Sargent and measuring the fresh water
flow and stated that according to DEP a tidal makes it a river.
Ms. Ryder in reply stated that is partially true and part
taken out of context.
Legal agreement and settlement is for the life of the
property.
Mr. Golden: Inquired
as to there being enough of a tidal flow to be considered a perennial stream
and requests that the Commission get those facts.
Mr. Anderson made mention of salinity with Ms. Ryder
stating nearly 0, fresh water flow.
Restore between
Best that you can do is re create.
Mr. Anderson noted that there is a salt water wedge. Eric Hutchins is interested in restoration of
the Wetland.
MOTION:
Mr. Gulla moves to continue the matter until
SECOND:
Mr. Febiger VOTE:
6-0
Ms. Ann Jo Jackson exits the meeting.
Commission Business
Correspondence and Other Commission Business:
Closure
The Commission began a review with pertinent documents
being passed out to each Comm. member.
The Comm. takes time to read the above listed documents.
Mr. Gulla noted page 5 re: replication plan, and Ms. Ryder
stated she could reword the portion of concern that Mr. Gulla inquired about.
Mr. Febiger noted that answers were not addressed re:
suggestions made and DEP was not added as well.
Mr. Anderson stated that it looked O.K. to him. Mr. Gulla: O.K. as well.
Mr. Febiger addressed page 3 re: pilings under the home/
complete or partial?
It was noted that the Comm. can say part or all re: the
structure and Mr. Febiger inquired as to all or part. Line 3/3rd paragraph: re: soils:
may be different.
He further noted that the first 2 sentences should be
removed, and start with:
The Commission proposes... Ms. Ryder stated she was in
agreement and leave the 2nd reference.
MOTION:
Mr. Febiger moves to
SECOND:
Mr. Anderson VOTE:
5-0 all in favor