Printer Friendly Layout

News/Events - Meeting Minutes

Also Present: Vincent J. Kalishes, III, Agent, Carol Logue, Secretary, and Rick Murray, Selectman

Agenda: Motion to accept the agenda Mr. Jones. Second Mr. Greenbaum. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

CORRESPONDENCE
October 2, 2007 – October 15, 2007
1. Environmental Resource Management re: Mass Electric Pole Replacements Projects Town Way Ext. & Gannett Rd.
2. Board of Health re: 2 Seagate Circle – Emergency Repair.
3. Recording of Order of Conditions for 29 Tenth Ave. (in file)
4. Revised plans re: 66 Williamsburg Lane (in file)
5. The Beacon
6. Notice to abutters re: 133 Kent Street
7. Klein e-mail & letter re 542 Hatherly Road – Construction of Stonewall.
8. Revised plans for 92 Thomas Clapp Road (in file)
9. Structure on corner of Pondview Ave. Ext. & Mitchell Ave. – pictures enclosed.
10. From Atty. Toomey re: Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration (134 Humarock Beach Road)
11. Complaint re: 168 Stockbridge Road – Haybales inadequate.
12. Cali Corp proposal to complete Hughey Road Rain gardens, Country Way Bank Stabilization $9,985.00
13. Waterways License Application for the Town of Scituate – 30 days subsequent to Notification Date of Sept. 27, 2007.
14. Request to continue Oceanside Village to Nov. 26 or the first hearing in December.
15. Recording of OofC for 256 Central Ave. (in file)
16. Recording of OofC for 114 & 118 Edward Foster Road (in file)
17. MassWildlife News
18. Recording of CofC for 54 Garrison Drive (in file)
19. DEP File #68-2056 – 106 & 108 Stockbridge Road (in file)
20. DEP File #68-2057 – 8 Dunbar Lane
21. DEP File #68-2058 – 265 Central Ave. (in file)

Correspondence: Revised plans for 66 Williamsburg Lane.
Complaint re: haybales not at 168A Stockbridge Road. Ms. Scott-Pipes observed haybales on driveway side, nothing in back.
E-mails from Dias twice a week, talked to engineer 3 times; will be doing more surveying. Jeff Carver, 168R Stockbridge Road: concerns about haybales and fill - water on driveway, plastic on wrong side of haybales. Correct as fast as he can. Not fair to take a lot of testimony while Mr. Dias is not here. Mr. Bjorklund will go out tomorrow morning. Paula Carver, 168 Stockbridge: Dias was asked to submit new plans the last meeting and has not. Working under an EO. Based upon conversation with engineers, moving ahead to produce that plan, locate piles, check haybales. Will be put on agenda for discussion. Hoping to have a draft plan by next meeting. Requirement is to file NOI - abutters will be notified. Will have a full public process. Present concern is with the fill; has been a long-term concern. ConCom works with limited time and limited budget. Carvers can take legal action. Failure to adhere to the Orders, process is in motion.

Agent’s Report: James Landing project regarding revetment to stabilize the trail, one order said finish by Oct. 2007, they haven’t started the project yet; starting now. Within the scope of the project to change that order to Oct. 2008 Mr. Bjorklund. Second Ms. Scott-Pipes. Vote carried with one abstention.
Cali Corp rain gardens. Need report from Mr. Stewart.

Request for Determination: Zucker, 5 Priscilla Ave. (front porch & back deck)
Scott Valcourt, contractor, was present at the hearing. Poured concrete sonotubes to support cantilevered deck. 2’x2’ concrete base with 12” sonotubes, hand-dug. 10’ deck 2 stories high. Deck 14’ off the ground. Wetland resources: pond and flood zone. Add a deck to the front not porch. Small 4’x4’ entry with stairs now. Building raised in 1992, deck 7” down. Second story on existing footprint. Motion for a negative 2 determination - “The work described in the Request is within an area subject to protection under the Act, but will not remove, fill, dredge, or alter that area. Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent.” Mr. Bjorklund. Second Mr. Snow. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Request for Determination: Arseneau, 18 Sixth Ave. (deck addition)
Mr. Arseneau was present at the hearing. Flood zone; deck addition. Existing deck 6’-1/2” x 20’ go out 12’; 8 hand-dug footings. 5’6“ off of grade, add on to existing frame. Motion for a negative 2 determination - “The work described in the Request is within an area subject to protection under the Act, but will not remove, fill, dredge, or alter that area. Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent.” Mr. Bjorklund. Second Mr. Snow. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Wetlands Hearing: Gowdy, Hatherly & Tilden Roads (250 units) (cont.)
Applicant’s representative requested a continuance. Motion to continue to December 10, 2007 at 6:45 p.m. Mr. Jones. Second Mr. Greenbaum. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Wetlands Hearing: Bloomstein, opposite 242 Central Ave. (pier/steps/deck/gangway & floats) (cont.)
Applicant’s representative requested a continuance. Met with Harbormaster, dropped off plan. Motion to continue to November 13, 2007 at 6:45 p.m. Mr. Jones. Second Mr. Greenbaum. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Wetlands Hearing: Brown, opposite 238 Central Ave. (pier/steps/deck/gangway & floats) (cont.)
Applicant’s representative requested a continuance. Motion to continue to 11/13/07 6:55 p.m. Mr. Jones. Second Ms. Scott-Pipes. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Wetlands Hearing: Nielson/M.E.N., LLC, 106 & 108 Stockbridge Road (resource improvements)
Rod Gaskell, from SITEC Engineering, Atty. Ohrenberger, and Terry Nielson were present at the hearing. Abutters notification was submitted. Resource delineation approved in the spring. Came up with a plan to mediate ongoing issues. Site now cleaned up. ANRAD filed to determine wetland line, confirmed by Don Schall, ENSR, for the Commission. Proposing work consistent with old expired Order. Bank area to be improved, 20’ up and over bank; heavily vegetated; debris, stumps, tires, bricks will be removed, then loam and seed. Healthy vegetation will be left. Place stakes - 2” steel pipes, or 4”x4” stakes to mark the edge of the 20’ no touch area. Signs - No dumping 50’ apart. No other work is proposed at this time, objective is to do the work and get a Certificate of Compliance. No trees will be removed unless necessary to remove debris. Proposing to work up to 20’. Intend to continue work in the 100’ buffer. Install a silt barrier for added protection. Debris means trash, rebar, etc., mulch for landscaping purposes wouldn’t fit into the definition of debris. Silt barrier or sock is not practicable. 20’ is to provide the filtering and protection. If piling all that material right up next to it, rain will allow sediment down the bank. No real evidence of silting or runoff of material over the bank. Can do staked haybales around the piles. Haybale line is a lot of maintenance. SITEC walked the area 3 times over an 18 month period and the piles don’t seem to be causing any damage. Commission would like to see piles of materials moved back, and some kind of barrier to allow establishment of vegetation. Plant a 20’ buffer; 75% cover the first year; posts 30”- 36” high, then signs every 50’ indicating limit. Orders can stipulate requirement to inspect piles. Silt socks are organic and better than haybales. Commission needs to be notified if change of ownership from the Green Connection. Motion to close the hearing Mr. Bjorklund. Second Mr. Greenbaum. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Show Cause Hearing: Horton, 8 Buttonwood Lane (clear cut) (cont.)
Mr. Horton was present at the hearing. Showed current picture of the site. Subject of a filing 2 or 3 years ago. Razed and rebuilt. Driveway was the edge of a vegetated wetland. Vegetated wetland gone. Have site evaluated by a wetland scientist, preferably one that knew what the site looked like before. 49 trees on site, and planted a few more. If Mr. Horton agreeable to hiring a wetland scientist, get somebody on board in the next couple of weeks. Put on agenda in about a month. Sit down with a consultant (Mr. Ivas a possibility) and Mr. Kalishes to work out a solution. First need to establish what was there. Motion to continue to December 10, 2007 at 6:30 p.m. Mr. Jones. Second Mr. Greenbaum. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Wetlands Hearing: Woolf, 25 Julian Street (septic) (cont.)
No Board of Health. No revised plans have been submitted. Motion to continue to November 13, 2007 at 6:30 p.m. Mr. Jones. Second Mr. Greenbaum. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Wetlands Hearing: Wade Estates, 66 Williamsburg Lane (septic) (cont.)
Has Board of Health approval. Revised plans don’t show enough. Need to know where other bathroom is going on left hand side. Don’t know if they have to disrupt the buffer zone. Look at alternatives. Motion to continue to October 29, 2007 at 6:35 p.m. Mr. Jones. Second Mr. Greenbaum. Motion passed by a majority vote with one abstention.

Wetlands Hearing: Covell, 9 Revere Street (septic) (cont.)
Has Board of Health approval. Motion to close the hearing Mr. Bjorklund. Second Mr. Greenbaum. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Wetlands Hearing: Ball, 92 Thomas Clapp Road (raze/rebuild) (cont.)
Revised plans were submitted. Added deck on back, with small deck between the garage and house. Did basically what Commission asked. Motion to close the hearing Mr. Snow. Second Mr. Greenbaum. Motion passed by unanimous vote. Condition: on the wetland side of the haybales want no disturbance area--post and rail fence is further away than the back of the haybales, want to recapture some of the buffer zone. Post and rail fence shows on the plan, but move more towards haybale line.

Wetlands Hearing: Lindberg, 265 Central Ave. (additions) check filing fee
Steve Ivas, Ivas Environmental, Julie Brown, architect and Ms. Lindberg were present at the hearing. Abutters notification was submitted. Proposing two additions: east – 6’x28’ covered porch on piers; 8’x15’ garage extension where bituminous asphalt driveway. Existing porch 10’x 6’ over which the covered porch will be constructed. West addition: living area addition 10’x 28’, a 12’x 16’ screened porch, and a deck. Existing deck 280 sq ft; new deck 372 sq ft. Resources: Mean annual high water of the South River/riverfront, coastal salt marsh, coastal beach/barrier beach, AE Flood zone, Zone X in another area, and BVW. No net increase of impervious surface, slight 1 sq. ft. decrease. Addition going on sonotube piers. Want some mitigation: plantings to be required in orders. Riverfront area impacts: 804 sq. ft less than 10%. Either 10% or 5,000 sq ft of alteration. Elevation 12’ to top of floor, 1 foot above federal flood zone. Haybales will be placed before construction. Proposed garage is on slab on grade. 4’ deep concrete walls. Elevations memo sent to members by Mr. Kalishes: Zone AE11 – Top of foundation AE12, for new construction. When it is that close doesn’t make sense to step up. New build, new foundation 1’ above FEMA flood zone. Motion to close the hearing Mr. Bjorklund. Second Ms. Scott-Pipes. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Wetlands Hearing: Meisterman, 769 Country (septic) (cont.)
No Board of Health approval, requires a hearing. Motion to continue to November 13, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Jones. Second Mr. Greenbaum. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Order of Conditions: McGrath, 14 Brunswick Street (septic)
Standard septic system orders for barrier beach. Motion to condition the project Mr. Bjorklund. Second Mr. Greenbaum. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Order of Conditions: Veneto, 38 Ocean Drive (septic)
Motion to condition the project Mr. Bjorklund. Second Ms. Scott-Pipes. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Order of Conditions: Howard, 81 Townsend Road (septic)
Change numbering. Motion to condition the project with correct numbering Mr. Bjorklund. Second Ms. Scott-Pipes. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Order of Conditions: Shellington, 37 Hawthorne Street (elevate)
Issues evolved after reviewing plans in depth. Driven pilings or concrete piers? Best practices treat A and V flood zones the same: would require driven pilings. Question of location to move house to drive the pilings; could be moved with cooperation of adjacent owner - in everyone’s best interests. When best practices are not adhered to, found building results unsatisfactory to owner. Recommend use of best practices, unless extenuating circumstances. Installing concrete piers would loosen the sand and it would all be washed away, concrete piers could be exposed. Sand gets its strength when compacted. Pull deck back and cantilever. When structure is finished it will be in the AO flood zone which allows for continuous foundations. To meet the performance standards 2’ of freeboard and 1’ above base flood. With certain reservations, could put in concrete pier foundation. Bearing weight of soil is an issue; all sand; requires structural engineer to go out and test sediments, need to be deep enough to deal with scour issue. The concern is, want the foundation to stay in place. If going with concrete piers, Commission wants certification. Subjected to 3’ waves. Make sure that engineer has stamped the plans and states that this foundation will work in this setting and design for potential scour. Not certifying the stairways, says nothing about actual sediments on the site; assumes no responsibility; says contractor will determine. Would be better if deck was left alone. John Queen should be responsible that the designed foundation is sufficient for this location. Remove sand and bring in packing gravel. They do have seawall protection. Can’t take sand out and put gravel in. Have a condition that has John Queen state that the load bearing capacity is there: if not, should be pilings. Mr. Kalishes: building codes are being changed, building inspectors don’t look at foundations from our aspect/barrier beach, they look strictly at building code; not sure that these plans haven’t been what we’ve been getting all along. Engineer does not certify anything on this plan. Piles are driven, piers are poured. Mr. Urbanski: onsite representation from FEMA and MEMA, went to site with Mr. Stewart; saw no problem with concrete piers. We need final plans of where the stairs are located and how they are designed. Motion to approve concrete piers Mr. Bjorklund and talk about conditions to keep John Queen involved. Second Mr. Jones. Motion passed by a 5 to 1 vote.

Go out to site and test. Eastman on the corner of Gannett proposed concrete piers, not unlike this particular site; hit peat, could possibly be the case on this site. Until test is done can’t tell anything. Have a chance to do it the right way. Erosion rates have increased, beaches are not the same as they were. John Queen should certify the design plan. Need civil engineer to certify some elements and a structural engineer to certify that piers are deep enough and load bearing is sufficient. Commission has to set orders based upon the WPA. Mr. Urbanski: Don’t want to create an order that would be unacceptable with a project that we are trying to make happen. Mr. Greenbaum: whole coordinated plan that deals with all the resource issues – potential erosion, scouring of pilings; lot of things unclear. Mr. Kalishes: in all due respect, it is not the Commission’s duty to expedite a project, but to administer the WPA and bylaw; good project to elevate. Motion to have a set of plans that puts together the design of all the features, deck, house, concrete slab garage, staircases, with the correct sediments as a complete design, approved by a structural engineer and any other engineer that needs to stamp them Mr. Greenbaum. Second Mr. Bjorklund. Motion to accept conditions as read by Mr. Kalishes Mr. Bjorklund. Second Mr. Greenbaum. Needs to be designed to build in this location. Mr. Snow: in contrast to piers and multiple questions, pilings would be driven to refusal. Motion to accept the proposed wording regarding structural or civil engineer to place a note on the plans that the design for proposed foundation elements conform to the WPA Mr. Bjorklund. Second Mr. Greenbaum. Motion passed by unanimous vote.
Deck: if the deck stays where it is, wouldn’t have jurisdiction over it. Structural engineer should investigate piers and give a plan. Foundation plan that he can certify, designed to proper standards. Should certify that the deck is structurally sound. Mr. Kalishes read order relating to deck. Motion to accept language Mr. Greenbaum. Second Mr. Jones. Motion passed by unanimous vote.
Distance from the wall is arbitrary – elevated 3’ above the wall. Allow the deck as proposed Mr. Bjorklund. Second Mr. Jones.
Garage: proposed to cut garage floor out and pour back; slide 2’. If move garage forward to cover apron, remove concrete slab behind garage if it serves no purpose. Motion to condition to allow sliding garage forward and removing concrete slab behind garage Mr. Bjorklund. Second Mr. Jones. Motion passed by unanimous vote.
Problem with garage: Motion that new design for the garage area shall be submitted that meets performance standards Mr. Jones. Second Mr. Greenbaum. Motion passed by unanimous vote.
For a portion of the project can have the plan submitted after the fact. Not a good idea, but can be done. Motion to condition as amended and send to members before final issuance Mr. Greenbaum. Second Mr. Bjorklund. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Rosemary Dobie: things brought up at a recent seminar – issues not part of the hearing. New members not familiar with process, need advice. Always learning of new ways to accomplish projects. Mr. Kalishes advises them the best he can. Is everybody going to be scrutinized from now on? John Queen’s plans will be scrutinized.
Mr. Bjorklund: met Shellington’s wants as best we could.

Rick Murray: curious if these were the same plans seen. Asked John Queen to make numerous corrections. Still problems with the plans?
Issues cropped up all along.
Mr. Kalishes: not the job of the Commission to go scrutinize plans, expect an engineer to follow the rules and regs and give us correct plans. Not unusual to require revised plans and put in conditions.

Order of Conditions: Sprague/Gantshar, 58 Crescent Ave. (bank stabilization)
Mr. Snow abstained. Motion to condition the project Mr. Bjorklund. Second Mr. Jones. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Order of Conditions: Pollard, 50 Crescent Ave. (bank stabilization)
Motion to condition the project Mr. Bjorklund. Second Mr. Jones. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Meeting adjourned 10:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Carol Logue
Conservation Secretary