DRAFT CONSERVATION
COMMISSION MINUTES
KYROUZ AUDITORIUM, CITY HALL
MAX SCHENK, CHAIRMAN
|
MEMBERS PRESENT Max Schenk, Chairman Elizabeth
Steele Charles Anderson William Febiger Robert Gulla |
MEMBERS ABSENT Ann Jo Jackson Arthur Socolow |
STAFF PRESENT Nancy Ryder, Conservation Agent Carol Gray, Recording Clerk |
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Continued to a date in December. Ms. Ryder reminded the Commission that the
minutes
can be viewed online.
MOTION: Ms. Steele moves to continue the approval of
previous minutes.
SECOND: Mr. Gulla VOTE: 5-0 all in favor
CLOSURE OF HEARINGS REVIEW OF FINAL INFORMATION,
AMENDMENT AND SIGNING PERMITS/DECISIONS
Certificate of Compliance
(COC)
It was noted that Mr.
Anderson performed a site visit at
Ms. Ryder noted that the
applicant requested this as, as built.
Mr. Anderson discussed the as
built on the plan and further stated that he was happy with the end
results. He further discussed the shed
not being there at the time, but there now.
Mr. Schenk inquired with the
Commission if they had any further questions or comments.
MOTION: Mr. Anderson
SECOND: Mr. Febiger VOTE: 5-0 all in favor
18 HODGKINS STREET RFD (Map
102
(Michelle Sweet)
RDA reviewed at a previous
meeting.
The construction detail plan,
dimensions and topography plan have all been submitted.
It was noted that the
existing deck and lawn – exempt from riverfront activities.
Ms. Steele noted 8 ft from
the street, with one truck going in and everyone going behind the house, how is
the erosion control affected re blocking construction traffic and foot traffic.
Ms. Ryder noted re: the RDA
Negative 3 Positive 2A and 5 w/ conditions, 2 conditions, #11 and #12, others
are standard.
MOTION: Ms. Steele moves to approve.
SECOND: Mr. Gulla VOTE: 5-0 all in favor Signed by all members present.
Enforcement Order
Ms Ryder noted the
application of adding to the home adjacent to the Wetland.
COC was checked by Ms. Ryder
and a change of Wetland was noted.
A discussion was had
regarding the removal of the existing chicken coop.
A Cease and Desist order
issued through the Building Insp. and the Commission.
Mr. Anthony Topo:
Anthony stated that
everything has been cleaned up.
He further stated that he had
started the chicken coop and didn’t finish it.
Ms. Ryder suggested the
applicant call her office to set up a date and time for a meeting. She further noted to the applicant that a
new NOI would have to be filed and asked if he understood that. The
applicant reiterated that he started the chicken coop, got the floor down and
then going for the permit.
Mr. Schenk noted that he
should move forward and do what needs to be done, filing the NOI.
Mr. Schenk further noted that
the map the Commission has is sufficient to use for that filing.
The applicant stated pigeons,
not chickens would be housed in the coop.
The existing is too small for the pigeons and that he is losing birds.
Ms. Ryder told the applicant
he needs to contact Bill Sanborn re: the building permit, with NOI and building
permit needed. It was further stated
that the enforcement order would automatically be removed when the filings are
made and approved.
Also noted: stockpiling was
done in the Wetland. Blueberry bushes
were planted with a few more to go and that would be done.
(Cal McCarthy)
Notice of Intent (NOI)
The Agent noted this was in
regards to the septic repair, construction sequence and cross section of the
wall. She further stated that this was
approved by the Health Dept but that she was not happy with it at all. If this is approved conditions should be
listed.
Ms. Steele inquired as to the
construction sequence and that it be dated and time stamped.
Ms. Ryder noted that it was
emailed on
Mr. Schenk asked the
Commission if anyone had any further questions or concerns and the Commission
had none.
PUBLIC COMMENT: none
Ms. Steele asked if this was
already approved and Ms. Ryder stated no and that they were waiting for further
details.
MOTION: Ms. Steele moves to approve the NOI
SECOND: Mr. Anderson VOTE: 5-0 all in favor
Further discussion: Ms. Ryder noted that (5) five conditions are
listed before the Commission signs off on this.
Mr. Gulla inquired as to condition 2, regarding 2 to 1 mitigation and
further commented on not inviting a violation.
(John O’Brien)
The Agent reports that this
plan was reviewed at the last meeting and waiting for the dunes to be noted on
the plan as they actually exist. The
secondary coastal dune has been listed now as well. She has one copy present at the meeting. Ms. Steele and Mr. Febiger reviewed the plan.
It was noted that DEP stated
this was in
Mr. Febiger inquired as to
what map was used and the Agent noted The Coastal Barrier Beach Map. Ms. Ryder noted the conditions and asked if
the Commission wanted to approve with conditions or continue the matter.
MOTION: Mr. Gulla moves to approve conditions and
updated material
SECOND: Mr. Anderson VOTE: 5-0 all in favor
(Joseph Sanfilippo)
Approval of delineation only.
Ms. Steele asked if the storm
water was before the Planning Board and Ms. Ryder noted that the Engineering
Dept. covers storm water.
Mr. Febiger asked what action
is to be taken tonight.
MOTION: Mr. Anderson moves to approve delineation
only
SECOND: Mr. Gulla VOTE: 5-0 signed by all members present.
COC request for continuance.
The Agent notifies the
Commission that she and Mr. Gulla made a site visit and that more information
is needed.
MOTION: Ms. Steele moves to continue the matter until
SECOND: Mr. Anderson VOTE: 5-0 all in favor
Closures due to abandonment: (held more than 2 years can
close due to abandonment)
All three issues have open
submittals with action never taken.
MOTION: Mr. Anderson moves to close for abandonment
SECOND: Mr. Gulla VOTE: 5-0 all in favor
informed him and
the Commission members that they wanted a temporary crossing for soil tests.
David Williams, closed then
re-opened it then never did anything with it.
PUBLIC COMMENT: none
Closed.
Angelo Zakas and Matthew
Donaghy to construct a single family home with associated grading and
utilities. There is a request for
continuation until
Mr. Gulla inquired as to what
the Commission is waiting for on this project and Ms. Ryder stated she had no
idea and further noted something about a revised plan and the Zoning Board
comments.
MOTION: Mr. Febiger moves to continue the matter
until
SECOND: Mr. Anderson VOTE: 5-0 all in favor
KEYSTONE ROAD (Map 237
Mark Hubbard to install
approximately 580 feet of water and sewer service pipes.
A request for continuation
was submitted for this project.
Ms. Steele inquired as to
this being filed a year ago and Ms. Ryder noted that was true. At the last meeting the Commission was
waiting on Water & Sewer. The
delineation is not correct and off by 20 ft.
Ms. Ryder will perform a site visit next week. Mr. Gulla -
recused.
MOTION: Ms. Steele moves to continue the matter until
SECOND: Mr. Anderson VOTE: 4-0
45 ROCKY NECK AVENUE
Certificate of Compliance
Applicant Mike Faherty
Mr. Anderson informed the
Commission as to no mitigation plantings, the site has been cleaned.
He further stated he felt it
was ok to issue the permit. Rebuilding
the home.
This was on the agenda a
couple of months ago and just not signed at that time.
Mr. Anderson further stated
he felt a nice was done at the site.
MOTION: Mr. Gulla moves to approve the COC
SECOND: Mr. Febiger VOTE: 5-0
The Agent notes this has been
approved and signed. Ms. Steele asked
that it be e mailed to her and it was stated that it was sent. Ms. Steele inquired as to when the original hearing
was and the Agent noted,
Ms Ryder note 2 conditions,
the porch shifting and mitigation planting.
Ms. Steele asked if any other
Commission members would like to review the plan and Mr. Gulla and Mr. Febiger
reviewed it as well.
Ms. Ryder noted a condition
to shift the house far enough away from the river.
The statement of reason, page
2 or 3 which explains sections of the Wetland Protection Act.
Mr. Gulla stated that you
can’t push a deck back under these circumstances legally.
Ms. Ryder also noted pg. 8
conditions, statement of reason pg. 3.
Commission members reviewed
notes and plans.
Mr. Schenk noted no further
action needed at this time.
Campbell Edlund to construct
addition, pier with float, re point seawall and conduct landscaping activities.
Request for continuation
submitted.
Ms. Ryder noted that needed
feedback from either Dave Sargent or Jim Caulkett has not been filed as of yet.
MOTION: Mr. Gulla moves to continue the matter until
SECOND: Mr. Febiger VOTE: 5-0 all in favor
Certificate of Compliance
site visits are not conducted between mid-October and mid-March. CoC reviews
will begin again in mid-March. Taking
into account snow, etc. An accurate
review of the site is needed upon the discretion of the Agent.
MOTION: Ms. Steele moves to approve SECOND: Mr. Gulla VOTE: 5-0 all in favor
Ms. Steele inquired as to the
rewriting of the bylaws.
Ms. Ryder asked when that
would be and Ms. Steele noted possibly 2 to 6 months.
Ms. Ryder stated that it was
no hardship to wait and Ms. Steele agreed and further stated it was worthwhile
to wait.
Discussion of CoC Request for
Kettle Cove Industrial Park
The Agent noted that the
Kettle Cove file cannot be located.
Ms. Steele noted that there
was no indication that DEP has reviewed this and that it is stated on the
website as under review. Ms. Ryder
indicated that it was approved and done, with Engineering signing off on it.
Mr. Febiger, Mr. Anderson and
Mr. Schenk made a site visit.
They noted the comprehensive
lay of the land, the grading, catch basin placement, etc.
Mr. Schenk noted sediment
issues with the stream that may be on the adjacent site and not part of this
property. He noted one area in
particular. Further noted was a raised
stone retaining wall where some soils can escape as well as the catch basin
area, stockpiled and which could go into the screen. An area offsite further towards the
Mr. Febiger noted that there
were different tributaries. Mr. Schenk
stated that one stream had lots of sediment.
Going upstream and down
Mr. Febiger noted washout
from the Mother’s Day storm and flooding associated with it.
Mr. Schenk noted that across
the street during major storms the flooding washed out and into the catch
basin. In regards to snow removal,
Mr. Anderson noted that there
are particular problem areas and not the ones asking for the CoC.
Ms. Ryder informed the
Commission that the area in discussion is owned by a Trust and the property is
owned in common. The Trust was the
applicant but separate owners, broken up into condominiums.
Mr. Schenk noted that it’s
making it sound like they are not responsible for anything in the lower area
and asked the Commission if holding off on the CoC might be the way to go.
Mr. Anderson stated that the
upper part is not the problem.
Mr. Febiger felt that more
information is needed regarding the drop off and stonewall and further noted
that they had a weed barrier. Mr. Schenk
stated that John Judd was on site at the time and a condition was noted as to
plantings to be done.
Ms. Ryder noted condo units
sold but no closed of them until the CoC.
The Agent further noted the
approval of plantings and stabilization would be in Spring 07 as the area needs
to be stable. Mr. Schenk noted that the
upper area seems to be ok.
Mr. Anderson noted sediment
against the barrier.
Mr. Febiger inquired as to
the location of the culvert and Mr. Schenk stated that it was back towards
MOTION: Mr. Febiger moves to continue the matter for
more information is needed.
SECOND: Mr. Gulla VOTE: 5-0 all in favor
5 minute recess requested
MOTION: Mr. Anderson
SECOND: Mr. Febiger VOTE: 5-0 all in favor
Meeting resumes
Alexander Ziolkowski to raze
and construct dwelling with associated driveway, utilities and landscaping
improvements.
Bob Griffin representing the
applicant.
Mr. Griffin stated to the
Commission, no plan changes proposed from 4 weeks ago.
A Memo was read from Dave Sargent
who raised some comments.
Noted was the razing of the
garage and wanting to maintain the garage.
Mr. Gulla noted that this information
was not received in the packets and asked if a few minutes could be taken so
that the Commission members may review, with that the Commission members
reviewed the information.
Ms. Ryder asked if any
Commission members had been out to see the site and Mr. Gulla stated yes and
also asked if ZBA was on this and he was told no, that would be next.
Ms. Ryder noted that what is
shown as an existing drive is not reflected on the plan, not an existing
driveway.
Lily Pond lends to the
significance as it is a habitat. This is
a spawning area for Alewife which is largely funded. This being a worthwhile resource area
including the entire watershed.
The railroad goes through
Lily Pond.
Mr. Febiger noted drainage
and easement. Mr. Griffin noted that
there is no recorded easement for the drain.
Mr. Gulla stated that documentation is needed for the file.
Ms. Steele stated she would
be willing to leave the area as a vegetative path and restrict work up to and
around the erosion control area and demarcation.
Ms. Ryder noted that this is
not an existing driveway. She further
noted that this needs to be listed as a revised plan. Ms. Steele stated that it should be carefully
written.
Mr. Griffin stated that
neighbors would be allowed to use the path.
The Agent noted that they can
gravel and be exempt from 2 laws.
It was further noted that the
plan should reflect what is really on the property.
Mr. Griffin explained that he
disagrees with the Agent but considers it a moot point at this time.
Ms. Ryder that a
cross section and planting plan is required.
Mr. Griffin agreed.
Mr. Febiger
inquired as to what needs to be done at this time and Mr. Griffin replied
stating this
Needs to go to the
Zoning of Appeals in the spring.
The Agent noted
that spawning of the Alewife is during the spring months.
Mr. Griffin felt
that as an inconvenience and that there would be no impact in regards to
the
Alewife. Ms. Ryder noted this is adjacent to within
100 ft of a vernal pool.
She further noted to the
Commission that this is a consistent application of policy and not just for
this plan. The time element noted was
late March to late April.
Mr. Griffin stated that this
is causing a tremendous hardship for the applicant. He feels there would be no impact whatsoever
and that this is not appropriate at all.
He further stated that this is far enough away and most of the project
is outside the buffer zone. He felt
these issues could have been raised by the Commission a month ago.
Ms. Steele noted that the
Commission may have other issues to address that have not been addressed as of
yet. She had further concerns as to the
drainage running into the house.
Mr. Griffin noted it is a
city drain. Ms. Steele stated there was
not documentation and she is unaware of that.
Mr. Febiger noted a subdivision across the street and Mr. Griffin stated
single family homes.
Ms. Steele felt more
information was needed for the Commission’s review.
Ms. Ryder inquired as to the
storm water review and Mr. Griffin stated no not as of yet.
Ms. Schenk stated his opinion
in regards to the spawning of the Alewife, April was not a problem but strict
guidelines need to be met.
Engineering review needed in
regards to the slope. It also needs to
be as to the drainage being either City ownership or the subdivision. A time restriction was noted as well
especially in regards to the slope being 100 ft from the vernal pool. The Agent noted two other projects on
Having a timing restriction
is consistent with this type of habitat in the area.
Mr. Gulla inquired as to this
being the City’s problem or the applicant, and further stated that it would be
considered a moot issue if found to be owned by the City of
Mr. Schenk inquired with the
Agent as to whether or not Dave Sargent wanted restrictions on the time work is
to occur. Ms. Ryder noted the timing is
based on consistent decisions regarding spawning and the time frame as it is a
sensitive time.
Mr. Febiger felt that
precautions should be taken in regards to any areas being disturbed.
It was further asked if
anything can be done in regards to any disturbance above the hay bale line.
Mr. Griffin responded stating
that a second set of erosion controls could be put in place at the comfort of
the Commission. He further stated to the
Commission that every property is unique and in his opinion someone could pour
a foundation February then having them stop the project only to resume again at
a later date could cause more impact.
Ms. Ryder stated that it
could be noted: no exposed soils, without ceasing work entirely.
Ms. Ryder noted to the
Commission that if you stray from the consistent policy she has been aware of
for the past 2 ˝ years, you need to justify this project as being a different
case. The Commission needs to justify
changing a consistent ruling.
Mr. Griffin stated something
to the affect of, the Agent stating this would be consistent at the same time,
and the Agent stated she did not say that.
Mr. Griffin stated that he felt in the past the Commission has not shut
down work in these Watershed areas.
Erosion controls to be in place as well as secondary erosion
controls. He felt that it is better to
have the contractor at the site and continuing than continually coming in and
stopping and starting.
Mr. Schenk stated that the
concern is that the site be stabilized and everything staying on the site. He further stated work should be allowed to
continue as long as there is stabilization and that Mr. Griffin should work it
out with the Agent to make sure the soils are stable at all times.
Mr. Griffin noted that the
septic system is to be replaced not the leeching field.
Noted: Verification of
drainage issue/catch basin as to responsibility of maintaining.
Path not shown as an existing
path, needs to be verified re: access to the septic system.
Stabilization maintenance at
all times, with no mitigation of soils.
Mr. Ryder also noted: The cross section of the planting plan as
well and Mr. Schenk agreed.
MOTION: Mr. Febiger moves to continue the matter
until
SECOND: Ms. Steele VOTE: 5-0 all in favor
Carrigan Enterprises, Inc. to
make improvements to Hutchins Court and construct driveway off Hutchins Court
to access residential buildings to be located outside of the buffer zone.
Mr. Gulla and Ms. Ryder –
recused.
Peter Forbach, Esq.
representing the applicant
Mr. Carrigan, Ms. Michelle
Harrison and Mr. Peter Ogrin present.
Mr. Forbach noted that Mr.
Arthur Socolow, Commission Member was not present at this meeting and further
noted the need for 3 affirmative votes to approve the plan.
He further noted that the
City of
Mr. Schenk noted that all
present at this particular meeting were present at previous meetings when this
plan was discussed.
Mr. Forbach further recapped
information pertaining to this plan, stated that there were a couple of
outstanding items, the process of the plan and information for the Commission
as well as the Planning Board, information to submit and approve.
Update since November 1st: Mr. Forbach thanked the Commission for making
a site visit and submitted letters to the Commission. Ms. Harrison noted a letter from Hayes
Engineering along with a detailed response re: DEP issues.
A revised plan was submitted
and 3 possible culvert options,
Wetland replication shown. 1.5 to 1 replication.
Mr. Forbach went on to
discuss the test pit done: water
elevation a little higher than they thought.
Slight modifications to be done re: the basin, not on the footprint but
to accommodate the higher elevation, with just 60 to 65 sq. ft caused by
culvert work.
The Commission needs to
concentrate on the 2 areas that are pertinent to the plan and the
Commission. The Planning Board is
involved and the applicant will be working with them on these particular
issues. It was stated that the applicant
will submit consistent plans to each Board and Commission.
Mr. Forbach further listed
information to be discussed: 1. location
and nature of Wetland replication. 2.
culvert replacement. 3. A letter from
Ms. Harrison dated
A report from Seacamp
Environmental indicates the Wetland replication to be 1.5 to 1, arrow-wood
shrubs and a seed mix in the final plans.
Mr. Febiger asked about
access to that location for work to be done.
Mr. Forbach noted that hand
tools would be used.
Ms. Steele asked if that
would be done before or after construction.
It was further noted that
after may be better as unintentional changes may be made that cannot be
predicted.
Mr. Febiger asked if there
were changes in the design of the retention basin and Mr. Ogrin noted an
alternative plan that was studied and not going any further with it.
Soils were not characteristic
of soils in the area. The Board of
Health stated no standing water in the basement. Sub straight and under drain in place.
Outflow and floor of basement
would change.
Mr. Forbach asked if the
Commission was ok with the well replication, location being on the front of the
plan, and the timing of it being either before or after, all of which in order
of conditions to be met.
Ms. Steele noted that if the
streambed changes we may have to make changes at a later date.
Mr. Seacamp liked that idea
and further noted that they want to keep it as flexible as possible.
Mr. Schenk noted the
replication site as flexible making mention of the hydrology and changes.
Mr. Forbach felt the final
issue is the replacement of the culvert.
2, 12 inch culverts under
Mr. Forbach noted a
correspondence on
Mr. Schenk noted that
abutters to the area remember an old fashioned culvert, granite which you could
walk through. It was noted that 2, 12
inch culverts are restricting to some degree and there was a question of
clogging. Preference: go with either B
or C, and maybe B is best.
Ms. Steele took photos of the
site and submitted them to the Commission.
It was further noted that the
Commission needs more detailed information in order to defend a position on
this. Mr. Ogrin pointed out areas on the
plan re: the culvert and discussed.
He further stated that 2, 12
inch culverts can cause more disturbance than (1) 18 inch.
He also noted that the length
doesn’t change and with 2, 12 inch you need space in between as well. It is possible that an 18 inch culvert with
have to be buried approx. 9 inches.
Re: the sub straight,
concrete would be used. Mr. Ogrin stated
that if we use the curbstone method then it is proposed that no washout on the
sides. Mr. Forbach mentioned a layer of indigenous
soil with pipes.
Mr. Febiger inquired as to
Option B, 36 inches wide? Mr. Ogrin
stated yes, 36 inches.
Mr. Febiger further noted
that Option C is 24 inches wide. Mr.
Ogrin noted that a U section cast was suggested and Mr. Schenk stated that was
an option.
Mr. Seacamp noted that from a
Wildlife standpoint wider is better.
Mr. Forbach asked that he
have an opportunity to respond to any public comments made.
Ms. Steele asked if any of
this would be moving the direction of the flow and Mr. Forbach stated no, just
want consistency and include Option B.
Wanting to include the final designs.
Comments were submitted in
writing re: DEP.
Ms. Steele noted the finger
like projections. Mr. Ogrin stated he
does not agree with DEP comments regarding that.
Ms. Steele further noted that
the culvert wording should be done carefully.
Mr. Schenk, having done a
site visit noted test pits, observed tree removal and a number of trees.
He felt a good job was done
re: cleanup. There was cooperation and minimal
impact when he was there. Mr. Anderson
noted disturbance but he also noted that there was cleanup done.
He was pleased with the
direct line and felt any damage was minimized as a result.
Mr. Schenk noted area filled
in so that machines could reach further with limited impact.
Ms. Steele inquired as to
erosion since the recent rains and it was noted that there was no mention of
that out there since then.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Mr. Fred Giesel, Civil
Mr. Giesel went to the site a
week ago and stated there was cleanup but within 100 ft. and maybe mulch should
be in place. Water from the street could
cause some erosion.
A comment was made regarding
no storm scepter on the plan. Mr. Ogrin
stated this was not on the original plan but added on. Details were submitted on
RE: the culvert crossing,
investigation of culvert present, and the proposal after rain on Monday
Inlet 104.8 outlet 104.2,
with existing culvert a 2 inch discrepancy in height. The flow was deeper from one culvert to the
other.
A 1957 ariel photograph was
noted and found that 104.8, on 1957 plan was at 103. Sewer plan 102.7 in 1957 and 101.5 in
1988. Summer months could be discounted.
It was further noted that on
Monday the water was artificially high and an area of water ponded over
leaves. More investigation should be
done re: elevation of pipes/culvert. He
agrees with the Commission and the applicant as to the best way being: sub
straight bottom, natural materials and replication on site by creating a stream
channel. The stream may be self leveling
and self correcting. Agreed that Option
B being the best approach, or something that would be similar.
Submissions were made to the
Commission in writing.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
closed
Mr. Ogrin noted that Mr.
Giesel seems to support the same theory in regards to the culvert. He further noted that if the Commission would
like a site visit and if the water is artificially high, it can be lowered.
Neighbors to the area noted
that the pipe is too small and too high.
Mr. Ogrin mentioned a box
culvert and problems associated with it.
It was further noted that if
the flow line needs to be dropped there is a concern as to the pipe being too
high, which seems like a discrepancy. He
further stated that 36 inch is the best having more hydrology capacity than 2,
12 inch.
Mr. Febiger inquired as to an
arch for Option B and Mr. Ogrin didn’t want to have to consider an arch. Mr. Schenk mentioned the need to dig for
footings, etc.
Mr. Forbach asked to come
back, with finals plans and noted the date of
MOTION: Ms. Steele
SECOND: Mr. Anderson VOTE: 4-0 all in favor
Ms. N. Ryder (Agent), and Mr.
R. Gulla return to the meeting.
Gus Demetri to construct an
addition. Walter Biney for the
applicant.
A site visit was done with
the Agent. Debris was found in the
Wetland and has now been taken out.
Further mentioned was the moving of the boundary of the Wetland, 5 ft.
Submission of photos as well
as a submission of the plan where John Judd moved the Wetland boundary
5ft. Construction sequence submitted as
well.
At this time the Commission
members review the plan.
The Agent noted that the
addition is separated by a well, pool patio and ferns.
She asked that the roof drain
be removed.
In the Wetland area the
debris is to be removed.
Abutters had questions
regarding the setback and this is not a Conservation Commission issue but a
Zoning Board issue. The shed being
removed would be rebuilt.
The existing driveway used
during construction.
Ms. Steele inquired as to the
shed on the right being in existence at this time and the Agent stated yes it
is. The Agent further noted that the
Wetland wraps around the back of the yard.
Mr. Febiger noted that the
driveway is noted on the revised plan.
Mr. Biney noted that the John
Judd revised plan has a drainage plan listed (two sides North and South).
Mr. Gulla inquired as to a
storage dumpster and Ms. Ryder stated having it on pavement would be a
condition. Mr. Schenk inquired as to the
length of the project and Mr. Biney stated it would be (2) two months. Mr. Gulla inquired as to the dumpster and
stockpiling.
The location of the dumpster
was discussed as well as erosion control and the use of an orange barrier, the
location was noted by the Agent.
Stockpiling: along concrete pad in backyard.
Mr. Gulla asked if the gas
meter would be relocated and Mr. Biney stated yes.
PUBLIC COMMENT: ---
Ms. Ryder stated that if
people have concerns regarding the construction they should contact the
Building Inspector.
The proposed storm drain is
in place and will be maintained. It was
noted that it has never been maintained in the past.
April and May pumps going 24,
36 and up to 72 hours.
The storm drain is quite huge
with a steel barrier totally covered in debris.
The Agent inquired as to the
location of the drain and Mrs. *missing info* came forward with Mr. Schenk
inquiring as to her looking at the plan for the location. She then pointed out where the storm drain is
to the Commission members.
Further discussion was had
regarding the building, the previous pipe and the catch basin.
Mr. Gulla noted that there is
a need to separate the issues.
Conditions noted were re:
Stockpiling of materials as well as debris material, removal of the small shed,
rebuilt, access to the backyard and limited work barrier on side of the
dumpster.
Mr. Gulla inquired as to DEP
comments and Ms. Ryder noted that there were none.
MOTION: Mr. Febiger moved for approval with
conditions having to be met.
SECOND: Mr. Gulla VOTE: 5-0 all in favor
To be signed by Commission
members
In regards to PUBLIC COMMENT:
Drainage issue
Mr. Gulla inquired as to this
being a private or city road and was told it is a city road.
It was noted that water can
be seen in between both properties.
It has been dry for the past
10 years and it was noted that it should be checked in the next ten days to see
if it is filling up with water.
A contact with someone was
made regarding an agreement with R. B. Strong agreeing to maintain this. The year 1988 and
Mr. Schenk felt that this
should be investigated a bit further.
A copy of a document was
given to the Conservation office for filing, Lenny Sutera.
Mr. Giesel spoke and noted
that this started as an Enforcement action as Wetlands were filled.
Mr. Schenk asked if there was
a condition. Mr. Giesel stated that lots
of people in the area wanting to resolve this.
He further stated that he has records as a Commission member in his
basement that he would try to locate. He
will talk further with the Agent regarding any information found.
David Santomenna – Essex
County Greenbelt – presenting a Conservation restriction on the Johnson –
Shoucair property.
D. Santomenna presented the
plan to the Commission.
It was noting something to
the effect of a gift.
Commission members review the
plan.
There are (3) three existing
structures on the property at this time.
This area is subject to
Conservation restriction. The bank is
fairly, heavily vegetated and the Pond was noted on the plan as well for the
Commission members. This was discussed
as the Commission members reviewed the plan.
It was noted that
Conservation issues need to be monitored and enforced.
Nine Conservation issues in
regards to the abutters properties.
Abutters land, traits,
conservations restrictions, ownership and history of the property was
discussed.
The rep. for the applicant
stated that they would like to get this done before the end of the year. He feels the state may be picky and is
waiting for the comments from the state.
The Commission noted that
Conservation values regarding restrictions needs to be in place.
Ms. Ryder is in favor of
Conservation restrictions. It was
further noted to be within the document with one building and that it
envelopes, breaking laws, building a mansion and then no one can go on the
property. Further, it was stated that
there is huge potential for these types of structures, virtually a tax free
large dwelling. Ms. Ryder further stated
that re: building envelopes, you could put in a multi family and or condos in
that area.
Dave agreed regarding the
expansion but disagreed regarding any benefit and whether or not a studio
becomes something larger isn’t a Conservation concern.
Ms. Ryder also noted that
this is not legal frontage.
Mr. Schenk noted that all
issues need to be addressed regarding this matter.
Mr. Gulla noted that the
Commission does not have specific documentation regarding some of these
issues. Dave noted envelope C re:
building within restrictions.
Mr. Gulla further inquired as
to the parking situation for these structures and Dave stated that it is a
restriction re: Butternut access and is anticipating a change of use.
Mr. Gulla also noted that a
driveway cannot be put in without the permission of Green Belt and Dave agreed.
Ms. Steele noted that if
there is a pond there is there a buffer zone that will be jurisdictional of the
Commission and questioned re: the
Ms. Steele stated that there
are houses between the street and Lobster Cove, Lobster Cove being directly
across and probably outside. (3 acre
property)
Certification is required by
the State.
Mr. Schenk noted that if the
lot was smaller and re: the building envelope, there may be concerns.
Mr. Ryder informed the
Commission that she had documentation for all members to review.
Ms. Steele asked if the information could be posted online to read but that she will review it this evening as well in case there is a chance of a possible vote. She further noted that stipulations regarding the land and its restrictions should be in place. She informed the Commission and all present that the photos were very nice in reviewing t