DRAFT CONSERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES
CATA CONFERENCE ROOM
MAX
SCHENK, CHAIRMAN
|
MEMBERS PRESENT Max Schenk, Chairman Elizabeth
Steele Charlie Anderson Arthur Socolow William Febiger Robert Gulla |
MEMBERS ABSENT Ann Jo Jackson |
STAFF PRESENT Nancy Ryder, Conservation Agent Carol Gray, Recording Clerk |
I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Tabled
CLOSURE
OF HEARINGS, REVIEW OF FINAL INFORMATION, AMENDMENT AND SIGNING
PERMITS/DECISIONS
June Sutherland, applicant.
The Agent states that this was approved at the last
meeting,
PUBLIC
COMMENT
Steven Golden reiterated information regarding the last
meeting and his discussion with the Commission.
He still feels that the public has not had there full right to speak
regarding the project involving Carrigan Enterprises, the
He further stated that
residents, the Massachusetts Audubon Society as well as botany
studies in relation to the
habitat should be heard and information gathered.
An environment impact
statement had no studies on it.
He stated that adequate wildlife
studies need to be done. He further
stated that Chairman Max Schenk had lived in the area and felt that he viewed
similar observations regarding the habitat in that particular area. Mr. Golden further stated that he felt the
residents have been shut out and this situation is not being handled well.
PUBLIC
COMMENT: Closed
Mr. Socolow inquired with Mr. Golden as to his knowledge of
Carrigan Ent. going before the Planning and/or Zoning Boards. Mr. Golden replied no, to his knowledge they
had not. Closed
OTHER
COMMISSION BUSINESS
~LNG is back on the permitting track.
Coast Guard, The Wale Center and committees
meeting,
Meetings scheduled for
There is a meeting with the Mayor on Friday to
strategize. This information will
continue on to the Governors Office
~MA
NHESP CD was sent to the Commission but no new map. One is being requested
This request is backordered. Ms. Steele offered to make copies for the
Commission members.
~Watermark
2006-2
A newsletter of interest the Agent offered to the
Commission members.
~
Notice from Atty. Johnstone re (owner),
Ms. Ryder states that abutters to the property are opposed
to the project.
Initially opposition was withdrawn regarding the project as
Mr. Barletta offered to share the deck with abutters then after the permit was
issued, Mr. Barletta withdrew his offer.
Mr. Anderson inquired as to the sharing being part of a
condition with the Agent stating no, not a condition, and based on DMF’s
response it would not have gone through.
~Brooks
Road Docks
1 Year Temporary permit
Ms. Ryder conveyed that in
regards to the standoffs, they sunk 7 inches into muck.
This is on city land and the
neighbor built without a permit, pre granted easement
to utilize, not to build.
~DEP response statement to the Sam Park
MEPA-DEIR
Copy of information from the
Agent additional info:
A letter of response from the
EPA was read by Mr. Schenk. A copy of
this letter is to be mailed out to the Commission members on Friday.
~Summary information re: the new mulch sock
product and other innovative erosion control technologies
The Agent stated she had a
packet of information regarding the erosion control technologies. Mr. Schenk asked who was offering this
innovative product and the Agent stated that the agency is called Pro Bark Ms. Steele stated that information can be
mail-ordered.
AGENTS REPORT ON VIOLATIONS
This is in regards to a
patio. The Agent stated that this is not
under the umbrella of the Gloucester Wetlands.
This looks to be close to the stone wall but actually the measurement is
180 ft. from the wall. Letter Permit
issued.
The Agent conveyed this is within 100 ft. of the buffer
zone.
The owner did not understand
the coastal bank. The Agent explained
and the applicant got everything done and permitted. The Agent felt this was all very positive.
Notice of Intent due today or
fines to be issued by the Commission.
Fred Giesel – a 2 week
extension for the NOI’s to be filed.
Nothing being done on site at this time.
Mr. Schenk inquired with the
Commission as to granting a continuance and Mr. Socolow said yes on the
continuance with Mr. Febiger asking possibly 7 days? The Agent stated that this would have to be
for
Mr. Gulla agreed as well as
Ms. Steele.
MOTION: Mr. Gulla moved to for a 2 week extension for
the NOI to be filed.
SECOND: Mr. Socolow VOTE: 6-0 all in favor
5 HOMAN’S COURT (Map
219
NEW: Re opening the request
from Joseph Sanfilippo to construct road, drainage system and dwelling as part
of a 4 unit subdivision.
Mr. Sanfilippo has come
before the Commission wanting a Wetland delineation on paper.
He stated that Ms. Ryder,
himself and a representative from Hancock marked the area.
He feels the Planning Board
may approve the project. He conveyed to
the Commission that time was taken re: the storm water management plan.
He spoke with the Commission
regarding a continuance in order for the Commission to access any questions
and/or concerns they may have re: the turn around, the **hammerbed**, the swale
and/or anything else they may question or have concerns about. Mr. Schenk inquired as to a re-opening and
continuance regarding the decisions being made by the Planning Board.
Ms. Ryder noted that to re
open the whole presentation would have to be done again and scheduled. She further stated that Engineering and the
Planning Board and they conveyed that the storm water is at a level of
complication, the construction review is barely done and the delineation is
noted but not on paper. The Agent
further discussed a whole new NOI as well as not changing the whole scope of
the project. Should this be brought to
the Commission first or to the Planning Board first.
She further stated that the
storm water management is not easy but a burden of proof to be met. Mr. Sanfilippo stated that an endless amount
his time has been spent researching this.
He spoke in regards to the different boards being more lenient than others
and felt that the Conservation Commission decisions may be the hardest to meet.
Mr. Schenk noted that this
matter could be continued by the Commission but that the Planning Board may not
have made a decision at that time as well the suggestion of the applicant going
through the Planning Board process then scheduling a time for the next upcoming
Cons. Comm. meeting. Mr. Gulla noted
that the applicant should bring to the Agent any substantial changes and noted
a new NOI.
Ms. Ryder noted that the
applicant having the same project can ask for a re opening, if the Commission
agrees. If anything is to change then a
new NOI is to be filed.
Mr. Schenk inquired with the
Agent as to the delineation being o.k. when discussed at the previous meeting
and Ms. Ryder stated yes, o.k. at that time.
Site plan, delineation
information
MOTION: Mr. Socolow moves to approve
SECOND: Mr. Anderson, for delineation only, no work
to be included, no approval of storm water or construction. The Applicant noted landscaping within 100ft
of the buffer zone, cannot excavate. VOTE: 6-0 all in favor Continued:
Carrigan Enterprises requests
the Commission to determine the applicability of the Wetlands Protection Act
and the local Wetlands Ordinance to make improvements
Ms. Ryder and Mr. Gulla –
recused.
Michelle Harrison, Esq.
present and states to the Commission that this is a continuation of a public
hearing. An application filed, Request
for Delineation as well as information regarding low impact techniques. Positive
determination 2 positive, 1 negative and 1 *missing info*.
It was noted there was confusion
about the vote and its meaning. Section
210 SMR 10 was noted in regards to a particular action to be taken. It was further noted that 3 votes of positive
determination were necessary and there were only 2 at that time.
The Commission noted that the
vote was a denial and an irregularity for it to be continued. 3 votes were needed and that didn’t’ happen.
There was further information
regarding withdrawing the Request for Determination of applicability and go
forward with the NOI this evening. Ms.
Steele noted that the Commission asked about the comments from DEP re: the
RDA. Ms. Harrison stated that there was
no response re: the RDA. Mr. Schenk
stated that with a withdrawal no motion is needed. The applicant withdraws the RDA for
applicability for work proposed at
The City of
Mr. Schenk recused
himself.
Mr. Febiger inquired with the
Commission to vote on a continuation
MOTION: Mr. Gulla moves to continue the matter until
SECOND: Ms. Steele VOTE: 5-0 all in favor
Mr. Schenk discussed grants
received, Environmental Affairs Water Shed Project
**Dunfudgen**, Boat
Ramp. This was a saltwater swimming pool
used in the late 1960’s. It is to be
restored to its natural elevation, a salt pan area, natural vegetation.
Many organizations are
involved in the project. An assessment
of the site was done with students on
The grade: silt clay. Students will return to see results.
Ms. Ryder stated that 5
Marine Biologists were at the site as well.
Mr. Socolow inquired as to a
write up being done as to what will be done on the property and Mr. Schenk
stated this had previously been approved.
Mr. Gulla inquired as to the square footage and if a timetable was
available and Ms. Ryder stated it was under 1000.
Mr. Schenk inquired as to
trash and rock in the area. He further
stated that ground work would be done in the spring.
Small Flow Quarterly Ms.
Ryder noted the quarterly and its content:
Articles related to Title 5
Limited impact and storm
water issues
Open Space Project
Ms. Ryder stated that the
project is going forward and a presentation is being put together.
KEYSTONE ROAD (Map
237
Mark Hubbard to install
approximately 580 feet of water and sewer service pipes.
Mr. Gulla –recused as he is
an abutter.
Mr. Hubbard spoke to the
Commission regarding a couple of changes and will have a new plan for the next
meeting. He is adding electrical in the
roadway and spoke about the sewer pipe, the water pipe and the electrics. He stated that the NOI is related to all being
done in the road. He further stated that
the land is subdivided into 4 lots. NOI
will be filed for each lot.
The Wetlands have been
tagged. Mr. Febiger asked if the tagging
was anything different from what is on the plan.
Mr. Hubbard stated that the
tags were noted even better and will be on all 4 lots. Ms. Ryder noted that the Wetlands comes right
to the road and that there were not a lot of changes. Mr. Hubbard noted that the road is in the
buffer zone.
It was also noted that this
is just for the utilities in the street.
Further noted was a change in the silt fence. Mr. Febiger further asked about changes made
and Mr. Hubbard stated that Engineering was not going to give the permits,
didn’t talk a lot about the plan and this is moving forward with permits from
the state. Mr. Hubbard stated that state
approval is needed regarding the extension of the sewer line
and that the extension stops
but the connection can go forward.
Mr. Schenk inquired as to the
4 lots connecting to that extension and Mr. Hubbard stated that each lot has
frontage to the connection.
Mr. Hubbard is asking for a
continuance and will be ready for the next meeting with his revisions to the
plan. The plans are to be submitted to
the Agent a week from today (Wednesday), and scheduled before the Commission
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Steven Golden stated that
sewer extensions need dual permits and in checking with the Engineering Dept.
he was told there is still a freeze on granting extensions particularly in
undeveloped areas. He felt the
Commission should be checking with the Engineering Dept. as this issue is being
debated by the City Council. He
requested that there be no decision by the Cons. Comm.
Mr. Schenk inquired as to any
changes in writing and Ms. Ryder stated there was nothing in writing.
Ms. Ryder in response to Mr.
Golden stated that several years ago when NOI was brought to the Commission it
should’ve triggered MEPA filing and didn’t, the project was approved and can’t
trigger MEPA for each project.
Mr. Hubbard stated that a 30
day period was available for any submissions of public comment and the period
has now lapsed. The Permit is effective
for 5 years quoting Chapter 83 10.
Further discussed was a Sewer
Task Force meeting and that the Eng. Dept. reached out beyond there authority
and that will be taken away later.
5 Minute Recess
Meeting resumes:
The meeting resumes with Mr.
Golden stating that he felt Mr. Hubbard can’t speak for the Legal Dept. and/or
The City of Gloucester.
Mr. Schenk noted that any
paperwork is to be submitted and Ms. Ryder requested that requests can be made
to the Eng. Dept as well as the Legal Dept.
Mr. Hubbard stated that the
legal document is the permit and that the state governs the extensions and he
has that permit.
Mr. Golden felt that the
legal quotes made by Mr. Hubbard, be investigated. He further asked the Agent if she had any
information from the Eng. Dept and that she should speak now about it. The Agent stated that she can but she is not
going to as the information should be in writing.
MOTION: Mr. Socolow moves to continue the matter
until
SECOND: Mr. Anderson VOTE: 5-0 all in favor
Campbell Edlund to construct
an addition, pier with float, re point the seawall and conduct landscaping activities.
This is a request for a
continuance with no one appearing at the meeting.
MOTION: Mr. Febiger moves to continue the matter
until
SECOND: Ms. Steele VOTE: 6-0 all in favor
Alexander Ziolkowski to raze
and construct a dwelling with associated driveway, utilities and landscaping
improvements.
Request for continuance
submitted.
MOTION: Ms. Steele moved to continue the matter until
SECOND: Mr. Febiger VOTE:
6-0 all in favor
COMMISSION BUSINESS
Requests for Certificates of
Compliance
141R
The address is: 101R
Mr. Anderson spoke of the
site visit and noted pipes in the marsh
It was further noted that
more information is needed regarding the purpose and that the Commission can
review the information and either approve or deny at that time.
MOTION: Mr.
Socolow moves to continue the matter
SECOND: Mr.
Gulla VOTE:
6-0 all in favor
Mr. Anderson and the Agent
made a site visit.
The request is as built
The Agent is recommending a
Certificate of Compliance.
Mr. Schenk asked if the
Commission needed further discussion on the matter and the consensus was none
was needed.
Positive COC
Mr. Gulla asked the Agent if
any cutting was going on and her reply was a no and that everything permitted
except the *missing info*.
MOTION: Mr. Febiger
SECOND: Mr. Socolow VOTE:
6-0 all in favor and signed
Mr. Anderson commented on his
site visit stating everything was in order.
Photos were submitted to the
Commission.
Mr. Schenk inquired as to any
Commission members needed further discussion on this matter and it was the
consensus that none was needed.
MOTION: Mr. Socolow moved to approve
SECOND: Mr. Gulla VOTE:
6-0 all in favor and signed
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.
This is a Notice of Intent
filing.
Ms. Ryder and Mr. Gulla –
recused.
Mr. Peter Forbach, Esq.
(co-counsel with Ms. Harrison)
Mr. Forbach noted others in
attendance in relation to this matter: David
Tufts, Mike Kerrigan,
Peter Hogan, and Mike
Seacamp.
Mr. Forbach stated to the
Commission that re: the buffer zone there will be a small amount of Wetland
filling re: the culvert, 60-65 sq.ft..
He felt that it was unavoidable with limited impact to the Wetland.
He further mentioned the
original filing of ANRAD.
He went on to tell the
Commission that a conscience effort has been made to stay out of the Wetland
and buffer zone, producing low impact to the delineation. Sensitive areas and the buffer zone are being
considered. There is a need to improve
the access road as well as widening it.
The culvert has to be widened
a bit with a small amount of Wetland filling.
He feels this is an approvable project.
Mr. Hogan will be submitting comments.
Mr. Seacamp noted no signs of
habitat in that area.
Mr. Hogan stated that DEP has
issued a file number. He further stated
that with small buffer zone activity it would be impossible not to impact these
certain areas. The 65 sq. ft. of Wetland
filling abuts an intermittent stream.
The road would be widened to 20 ft.
A culvert extension with a burm is needed.
On the plan it was
noted: The buffer zone is listed in red
and actually in the buffer zone is listed in green. There is a need to replace a 6 inch water
line which is insufficient at present.
From
There is 9000 sq. ft. of
isolated vegetated Wetland. The new
driveway would be used as a bypass.
18 6 20% grade The new
driveway chosen would be through the Tufts property.
A drainage system is proposed
through storm water management.
It was noted that the state
raised some issues and a written response will be given to the Commission
tomorrow (Thursday). The storm cepter or
other suitable device is to meet storm water management.
Further discussion is needed
regarding the concerns of the state.
It was reiterated that this
project will have a very small impact on the Wetlands. This is a steel area
with the land dropping off rapidly with no guardrail. The area also has fingerlike
projections. Mr. Hogan further stated
that he felt replication was not necessary.
The stream is narrow and definitely not low flat topography. The M3 area was noted, in regards to
replication. Mr. Hogan stated he was
hoping to avoid the area so as not to cause more disruption to the buffer zone.
Mr. Forbach noted that this
would cause more harm than good. As a
limited project he felt this plan should qualify. Mr. Hogan stated that in regards to the state
concerns, test pit info., exploring other alternatives with LID, and didn’t
want to have to dig re: the whole design.
He is asking the Commission to allow digging of a test pit hole in one
particular area. The Watershed F and G
same direction with a slight difference in flow. Only discharge is in regards to the roof.
State concern re: MEPA
jurisdiction. Mr. Hogan stated he
doesn’t see any need for that. The
threshold is 5 acres and the project only has 2 ½ acres and felt this would not
qualify.
Mr. Forbach noted that a tree
or two may be in the way and it’s a catch 22 as the info is needed but has to
be done in the buffer to do so. He would
like verbal permission from the Commission to do so.
Mr. Schenk asked how deep the
test pit holes would be, 10 ft ? Mr.
Hogan stated that there is no specification but he would be looking for the
soil profile.
A back hoe or the like would
be needed and 3 test pit holes would be dug.
Ms. Steele asked if specific
sites on the property have been chosen.
Mr. Hogan stated that this would be done in the floor of the basin which
he noted on the site plan in pen.
Ms. Steele inquired as to the
dotted lines on the plan: the proposed
grade with numerals listed as the existing grade. Mr. Schenk noted that this is a very steep
area.
Mr. Hogan was asked if the
soc pits would be refilled and he stated, yes, they would be backfilled.
Mr. Schenk noted that this is
matter of working with the Agent re: staking off the area.
Agent recused.
Mr. Schenk stated a site
visit for the areas where the test pit holes would be done.
Ms. Steele noted that the
applicant should notify the Conservation Office 48 hrs. before this is to be
done. Mr. Socolow inquired as the
intermittent stream. He was informed
that it was dry now.
A member of the general
public spoke and stated that it is dry now because the culvert is blocked.
Mr. Schenk noted that a
number of people would like a site visit.
Individuals not supporting
the project would like a chance to respond during the public comment.
Mr. Schenk noted to all that
we must be mindful and focus on the issues that have Commission jurisdiction
and be respectful trying not to duplicate others statements. He further asked that statements be submitted
in writing.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Janice Chick of
Dan Sandy – stated that there
is a need for a real culvert for the stream to exist and flow.
Mr. Forbach stated that the
Cons. Comm. and DEP are involved with the delineation and further stated it is
what it is, and feels the blockage will be alleviated with the project in
place.
Mr. Hogan inquired with Ms.
Chick as to any documentation of a larger pipe being in place at that location
at any other time and Ms. Chick stated yes there was documentation.
Mr. Schenk stated at a
previous meeting there was a discussion relating to the Commission wanting the
size of the pipe to change anyway. He
further stated that there is amphibian migration in that area.
Mr. Golden stated that there
is a wildlife habitat in the area and cited woodpeckers and owls. He further stated in relation to the wildlife
habitat that spotted turtles were identified but de listed by Natural
Heritage. He felt that because of the de
listing that should give the Commission even more reason to protect the area.
He further went on to say
that what was needed is a Wildlife Habitat Study and a 3rd party
review. He stated that the stream bed is
a migratory route, he again stated information about the spotted turtles and
further stated that there are vernal pools in and/or near the area as
well.
He had concerns about traffic
in the area with the potential of 30 new homes both of which would impact the
buffer zone and resource area.
He felt this is an
extraordinarily important area. He
feels that this project should not have limited project status or be listed as
an improvement to
Mr. Golden further stated
that there is a real difference between environmentally sensitive and the legal
aspects of the buffer zone.
Mr. Schenk noted that others
may want to speak regarding this issue and that there should be a balance of
time for that to happen.
Mr. Golden stated he would
like rebuttal time to respond to Mr. Forbach’s rebuttal.
Mr. Forbach felt it was
irrelevant and should be writing.
Mr. Seacamp stated that the
habitat corridor, currently a road with potential for improving the habitat
with a bigger culvert, the invert determines elevation of the upstream Wetland.
Mr. Fred Giesel stated that
the original NOI was filed in July. He
stated that Mr. Forbach noted, redevelopment but its not being proposed as
that. The application is not for a
limited project and has not been amended as such. The fact that it was noted that DEP would
like favorably with the low impact design and redevelopment is not a correct
assessment. He further stated that this
connects two resource areas which doesn’t flow every day of the year but not
just an intermittent stream. A letter
was faxed to the Cons. Comm. today.
Mr. Schenk stated he has not
read the documents today and would like
the opportunity to discuss the content
at the next meeting.
Mr. Giesel stated he has as
of yet not seen a plan re: the buffer zone, the resource area and the
construction sequence. He stated these
things are missing, he feels frustrated and is looking for things to analyze
but there is nothing to analyze as of yet.
He further stated that it is
erroneous and slanderous for the Atty. to make comments about tactics of
delaying the process and felt that was outlandish. Mr. Giesel feels if anyone has delayed this
process it is the applicant and noted the canceling of an appearance at a
meeting because of the lack of some in attendance who just may be favorable to
the plan.
Ms. Steele inquired with Mr.
Hogan as to the waterline and pipe and Mr. Hogan stated it was 12 inches which
would be replacing a 6 inch.
Richard Crangle –
Mr. Crangle spoke in regards
to the retention area in the buffer zone.
He had a question regarding diking and the scope of that and how it
would affect the area. He asked for a
clarification as he feels some of the project is vague.
Mr. Schenk felt more details
were needed and proposed further discussion in regards to this matter for the
next meeting.
Mr. Hogan stated that the
grading shown in green with limited activity, which is noted on the plan at the
Cons. Office.
Mr. Schenk stated there
should be a review of information and a site visit.
Site visit: Saturday
A separate meeting for a site
visit to be had with Mr. Anderson who cannot attend on Saturday. He will contact Ms. Harrison in regards to a
date and time for his site visit.
Mr. Socolow asked if the
number of houses proposed was 30 and were they on the plan and Ms. Harrison
stated 24 structures proposed. Mr.
Schenk stated that was outside our jurisdiction.
MOTION: Mr. Socolow moves to continue the matter
until
SECOND: Ms. Steele VOTE:
5-0 all in favor
18 HODGKINS STREET (Map
102
Michelle Sweet requests the
Commission to determine the applicability of the Wetlands Protection Act and
the local Wetlands Ord. to construct addition and deck.
This is an extension to the
existing home and a deck. The existing
deck is to be removed.
Mr. Schenk asked about the
resource area and was told that
The plan was viewed by all
members present.
110 ft. from the property
line was noted.
Ms. Ryder stated that this is
outside the Commissions jurisdiction.
For submittal: topographical line noted on both sides of the
property is in the Commissions best interest for that to be shown. The high water mark is shown on the plan for
the Commission to view.
The Agent noted that the
elevation on the plan mean high water for the river. There is no mark as to the elevation on the
plan.
Mr. Gulla noted that possibly
the 110 ft. noted may be erroneous. Ms.
Ryder stated not necessarily, we just can’t tell. Construction details are not listed on the
plan.
Mr. Schenk noted that the
Engineering Dept can determine this and Ms. Ryder stated that the Engineering
Dept can assist with this important piece of information for the file as well
as for the Commission. Ms. Ryder further
stated that the erosion and sedimentation plan needs to be listed as well.
She further suggested a
meeting on site. The applicant will
contact the Agent’s office for more clarification.
Mr. Febiger inquired as to
any storm drains and the applicant stated there is a drain down the street.
Ms. Ryder stated that it
should be shown on the plan, under the Wetlands Prot. Act. it is considered
accessory use, not a problem, just needs clarification.
PUBLIC COMMENT: none
Mr. Febiger inquired with the
Agent as to this exceeding the storm water and the Agent stated no that is not
the case. The Agent noted that
submissions are to in by next Wednesday.
MOTION: Mr. Socolow moves to continue the matter
until
SECOND: Mr. Gulla VOTE: 6-0 all in favor
137 BRAY STREET (Map
247
Cal McCarthy to replace
septic system.
John Judd Gateway Consulting, for the applicant.
13,000 sq. ft lot surrounded
by Wetlands.
Mr. Schenk noted that he is
employed by the Health Dept but has had no exposure regarding this particular
issue.
The site plan was reviewed by
the Commission with variances listed on the plan.
Upgrade: Pre treatment, 24 ft. closest point to the
leaching field. 78 ft to the well.
Erosion control would
surround the project.
The existing system is tank
to cesspool.
Ms. Ryder noted that very
detailed constructions details are needed.
She further noted that this
should be a tight tank but waiting to hear information from the Board of
Health. It was further asked if a
retaining wall would be in place. Mr.
Judd noted that it would in fact be around the leaching field. 3 ½ ft. off grade. Infiltrator with plastic chambers.
Ms. Ryder stated that the
wall should be built first but that may not be possible given such a tight
area.
She further stated that a
sequence for the bulldozer driver is needed in relation to the erosion control
and specifications regarding the wall.
Mr. Febiger noted a Spruce
tree (24 inches) 10 ft. away. Mr. Judd
stated the intent for the tree to remain with access between the tree and the
property line.
Mr. Schenk inquired with Mr.
Judd as to whether or not there was room for the backhoe operator and Mr. Judd
stated there was approx. 18 ft on the side.
Mr. Schenk noted that it should be a condition that the tree stays with
Mr. Febiger stating that excavation would be done on both sides of the tree.
Mr. Schenk noted the mortality
clause for the tree is 2 yrs.
Mr. Socolow noted that the
tree should thrive in the new system.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Closed
Ms. Ryder noted she had no
issues with the project. The
construction sequence was noted as well the cross section of the wall.
MOTION: Ms. Steele moves to continue the matter until
SECOND: Mr. Febiger VOTE: 6-0 all in favor
19 DOLLIVERS NECK DRIVE (Map
201
An abbreviated Notice of
Resource Area Delineation submitted by Dollivers Neck Realty Trust
Mr. Schenk – recused
Mr. Manuell present for the
applicant.
He presented a plan and old
photographs to the Commission.
Mr. Manuell stated the
challenge with the project is the resource areas on site.
He further stated that the area is lacking in
vegetation except for the grasses.
Coastal bank where topography
becomes flatter, 4-1.
This is all noted on the
plan. He noted to the Commission that a
salt marsh is on the other side of the road.
He stated he is aware of the fact that there is pre dated fill re:
regulations. He further told the
Commission that there is noticeable change in vegetation to the west of
Also found, was a line of
distinct change in vegetation. There is
a rock that sticks out 3 ft. from the water and that elevation matched the
upland grasses and tirell. Using micro
topography and identifying grasses somewhere in the middle is a vegetative Wetland
boundary.
100 yr. flood elevation: 9
This plots along the edge of the old fill.
Water has come up higher than FEMA stated.
Jim Caulkett, Harbormaster:
His recollection is that flooding has come up to the garage.
9.4 and 9.8 noted on the
plan.
It was advised that the
Wetland boundary is to be determined and submit a Request for Letter Permit for
soil test pit. A 16 noted on the site
plan for test pit.
Ms. Ryder stated she agreed
with most of the delineation. She stated
that there is so much fill on both sides of the road. It was noted that left west, driftwood burned
into the grasses.
5 to 10 ft of roadway not 20
ft.
This plan is waiting feedback
from Dave Sargent, Shellfish Constable.
It was undetermined as to
whether the soils are hydric vegetation and difficult to tell the Wetland area.
It was further noted that a
recommendation for approval of delineation cannot be done because of too many
unknowns.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Alicia Torrenzi – Ms.
Torenzzi stated that water goes close to the road and sometimes up to the
road. She feels the area is conducive to
natural Wetlands, vegetation and water fowl.
She further stated that the photo does not accurately portray the area
in its current state. Chunks of marsh
are falling in.
The Agent noted that the
stream through the salt marsh is tidal.
Mr. Golden stated that the
tidal stream runs with every tide and DEP speaks to the streams. We need to know what is high water mark and
what is riverfront.
CLOSED
Mr. Febiger inquired as to
the delineation on file for the property next to this.
Mr. Wolff stated that the
stamped plan is 1992. Mean high water
mark listed as 10 on plan.
Mr. Gulla inquired as to the
area to the east being a beach and Mr. Manuell stated it is in fact beach.
Ms. Ryder noted that as a problem
combination as in heavy storms this area is subject to wave action and FEMA
flood zones are shown. The Agent further
noted there being an authorization of test pits and the next step is to define
delineation.
Test Pits Location: 1 ocean side (east)
1 near A16 on
map between A17, A13 & A15.
Mr. Febiger asked the
Commission to approve a letter permit
MOTION: Mr. Anderson
SECOND: Ms. Steele VOTE: 5-0 all in favor
Re opening of PUBLIC COMMENT
Bruce Campbell spoke in
regards to erosion. During the storm of
1978 the building on the property with a boat inside was carried down the river
with quite a bit of erosion.
MOTION: Mr.
Gulla moves to continue the matter until
SECOND: Mr.
Socolow VOTE:
5-0 all in favor
Mr. Manuell representing the
applicant states this is an unusual application as this is a vacant piece of
land on the water side. Zoning
restraints are a consideration as the location of the barn is only 2 ft. away
from the drainage swale. It was stated
that the property may be at risk.
The Wetland system originates
just off site. This begins as swale and
*missing info*, contributes to this point then broadens out.
Flagged A1, A12 and B1, B9.
An intermittent stream
drainage channel is noted on the plan in Purple.
Proposed on site: construct a barn, possibly to be converted
into living space, small pea stone access driveway with minimum disturbance
with the work to be enclosed by siltation fence.
30 ft. from the front of the
structure, from the property line, 2 ft from the Wetland
Slab on grade, not a full
cellar.
To minimize the amount of
excavation, monitors will be on site for the site clearing and excavation.
Being so close this work may
impact some of the Wetland. It was
suggested the figure of 250 sq. ft. of impact to be restored at the same
elevation and to restore in place.
Further discussion was had
regarding the Wetland replication as well as the bank and flow capacity.
Hand tools if necessary as
well as competent personnel.
An area for a dumpster will
be provided as well as re watering corral, if need be to de water foundation
trenches. Ms. Ryder noted that the Notice
of Intent is not complete. Further, A 11
on the plan is shown as a barn but as soon as water and sewer come in this
could become a single family home. She
asked if this property was owned in common with any other lots.
Also noted were: B1D and E3
not being complete. The stream is noted
as being a drainage ditch.
The Notice of Intent is not
signed by the owner. Noted on the plan,
for the Commission should be the
longevity impact of a single
family home. # 40171 on the plan, the
Wetland is substantially larger than on the current plan. US Topo. -
intermittent and primary stream.