Printer Friendly Layout

News/Events - Meeting Minutes

Meeting was called to order 6:15 at p.m.

Members Present: Mr. Snow, Chairman, Mr. Breitenstein, Mr. Greenbaum, Mr. Jones, Mr. Parys, Ms. Scott-Pipes

Also Present: Paul Shea, Agent, Jim O’Connell, Agent, and Carol Logue, Secretary,

Agenda: Motion to accept the agenda Ms. Scott-Pipes. Second Mr. Parys. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Show Cause Hearing: Holt, 38 Hatherly Rd (cutting)
Mr. Holt was present at the hearing. Mr. Shea: complaint about cutting in the 100’ buffer zone. Found a letter from Mike Clark dated September 12, 2005 for work done in the buffer zone requiring a filing. Sent letter and talked, has been doing some clearing. Nothing in the wetland itself, wants to do additional work. Will need a filing for work done in the past. Doing winter clean up. Doesn’t remember the 2005 letter, but wants to be in full compliance. Outline the work done and proposed work. No urgency for the additional work. Primary purpose is to make the property safe. On the map, the dots signify trees removed. Town removed an oak tree that had died due to some type of fungus. Removed an apple tree, half leaning on telephone wires and other half leaning over Stuart Place. Two other trees topped by the winter winds that hung over the cul-de-sac, and a hydrangea uprooted. Stopped work when letter was received. Ms. Scott-Pipes: where are the wetlands in relationship to all this? Wetland close to the cul-de-sac; off to the right and left; showed photo of house. Don’t believe wetlands are on site, but buffer zones are. At least come talk to the agent. Had arborist go out to the site. Only indication of wetlands: a neighbor mentioned a wetland in back and intermittent stream. The Commission has to address these violations.

Frank Snow introduced 2 associate members: Allan Greenberg and Howard Mathews. Howard does trail work, usually files a report on condition of trails at the Ellis property: someone had been doing this as a volunteer, but he left the area. Bates Lane is behind Howard’s house, and there is a Maxwell Trust parcel. Commission appreciates the work Howard has done. Alllan has worked hard on land acquisitions. He has also worked hard putting hundreds of files in order downstairs. He was chair of the Commission for 4 years and on the Commission for 9, and associate member since. Maybe within a month or so there could be a working meeting to brainstorm, acquiring more property, trail networks on additional property, including Hubbell, Wheelwright, and Crosbie. Couple of members interested? Not only trails, but different programs. Within a month try to get started. We thank them both for all their hard work.

Request for Determination: Dow, 298 Central Ave. (replacement of 2 deck supports)
Greg Webb on behalf John Dow was present at the hearing. Seeking to replace a couple of concrete deck supports that got destroyed in the December storm. Replace with two 12” concrete piers. In this particular case the only option is concrete. Dig down and remove what is there and put in new ones. Motion for a negative 3 determination – “The work described in the Request is within the Buffer Zone, as defined in the regulations, but will not alter an Area subject to protection under the Act. Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent, subject to the following conditions (if any).” Ms. Scott-Pipes. Second Mr. Greenbaum. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Request for Determination: Motyl, 48 Oceanside Dr (repair existing concrete seawall)
Allan St. Peter, property manager, was present at the hearing. Existing seawall had been patched numerous times, major chunks came out in the December 2010 storm. Town planning to replace wall, but it might not be for a while. Need alternative methods to repair a section of the wall. Replace a section of concrete, existing deck repair and one section of stairway that originally came down from the deck. Restoring to past condition. There may be some future work that would require a NOI. Mr. Greenbaum: The Town put in a new higher wall. Will match height of wall to the left. Removed all the big boulders and removed any loose concrete. Motion for a negative determination “The work described in the Request is within the Buffer Zone, as defined in the regulations, but will not alter an Area subject to protection under the Act. Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent, subject to the following conditions (if any).” Ms. Scott-Pipes. Second Mr. Greenbaum. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Show Cause Hearing: Gardner, 88 Country Way (cutting)
Brian Harrington, owner. Received a couple of complaints regarding removing, cutting, and burning trees in the buffer zone, possibly in the wetlands. Sent a letter to Mr. Gardner who appeared as the owner on the Assessor’s information. Also got Mr. Harrington’s name and received a response. Met with Mr. Harrington today. Copied on a letter from Neil Duggan regarding junk storage. Needs to file for work in the 50’ or 100’ buffer zone. Septic system repair, no wetlands shown on that plan. Wetlands show on the GIS system. Explained he needs an updated wetland line. Orchard of 35 apple trees, just cleaning up, dangerous for kids who play there. Will have to get a plan together and come back. Problem: neighbors always complain. Mr. Greenbaum: pulled the dead trees out and tried to burn in the area; saw no stumps--looked like some of the trees were burned in place; saw some small trees with collars. Apple trees have been there 60 years; not been active. Mr. Jones: only confusion is who owns it. Not required to have name on the deed. Mike Lesher, abutter: the reason some of the trees came down is because he pulls them down; on a Sunday, the fire department had to come at 7:00 p.m. and Harrington was not around. This has been going on the last 10 years. Whole back lot clear shot to Jenkins Place, which he never had. Slowly clearing it out. Over the winters the water is coming up to the house. Cited by Neil Duggan for storing batteries. Don’t know where he’s getting the debris. Every neighbor is tired of it. Stacey Lesher, 10 Berkshire Road: Filed for an addition in 2003 and were told could not put a deck any further out than it was; land behind was wetlands, and there is a high water table--have two sump pumps; with all this disruption, we have ducks in the backyard; taking down the trees is a real concern to us. Bill Good, 9 Berkshire: echo everything that Michael & Stacey have said. Pulled car out the last couple of months. Left flames unattended. Loretta Paul, 82 Country Way: the water comes into that parcel and runs into their land. Joe Pauly, 2 Country Way: Also built a deck, and was told he had to be 100’ away from wetland. Shed shouldn’t even be there. He didn’t put it there. Could never build anywhere near the shed. Feeds the birds and all the finches are gone; no birds in the yard any more. Jack Norton, 87 Country Way: saw him tie a tree to his bumper at least 2 or 3 times. Linda Norton: takes trees from anywhere he can and many other things. Deal with wetlands, but what about emptying his rubbish onto our side. Will take a further look at this. He will be made aware of what can and can’t be done there. The next step would be an Enforcement Order, then to court. Obviously there is a group of interested abutters. Mr. Harrington: Doesn’t think he has done anything in the wetlands. Did pull some trees out. After discussing with Paul Shea, hired someone to put a plan together. Phil Spath said there weren’t any wetlands. Phil is not a wetlands scientist. Intend to file a plan. Mr. Shea: Need wetlands flagged, proposed activities might be outside the 100’ buffer zone, but need a better idea. You do have the right to use your property. Have there been any similar situations to see what the Commission has done in the past? Would like to enhance the value of the property. Commission wants to hear back in 60 days. Nothing should be going on in the wetlands. You understand now? Yes.

Request for Determination: Tamuleviz, 38 Peggotty Beach Rd (raze/rebuild farmers porch)
Mr. Tamuleviz was present at the hearing on behalf of his mother. Farmers porch is in need of repair. Best would be to tear it down. Cement block foundation. It is a safety issue. Exact dimensions as existing, rebuild to the current code. Motion for a negative 3 determination - “The work described in the Request is within the Buffer Zone, as defined in the regulations, but will not alter an Area subject to protection under the Act. Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent, subject to the following conditions (if any).” Ms. Scott-Pipes. Second Mr. Breitenstein. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Request for Determination: Downs, 28 Lighthouse Rd (repair/replace driveway)
Paula Downs and Jeff Beardsley were present at the hearing. Driveway needs repair from the storm of December 2010. It will be the same dimensions. Minimal cement between rocks to hold together. Mr. Greenbaum: driveway was previously held in place by railroad ties--why can’t you use the timbers? Force of the water disengaged them. Cemented prior looked like they put 2’x4’ boulders in front. By putting boulders for a low wall (2 boulders high, 10” to 12”) back in and re-cementing, thinks it will hold and not wash out again. Good sized rocks where the driveway is and cover with finished surface. Cement will be in between the rocks, so each individual rock won’t be loose. Other driveways are asphalt. Replaced gravel a couple of times. Motion for a negative 3 determination - “The work described in the Request is within the Buffer Zone, as defined in the regulations, but will not alter an Area subject to protection under the Act. Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent, subject to the following conditions (if any).” Ms. Scott-Pipes. Second Mr. Jones. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Request for Determination: Brennan, 4 Oceanside Dr (replace deck)
Tom Brennan, owner, was present at the hearing. Hired Tom McCarthy to build a new deck on the existing footprint (original was destroyed in the December 2010 storm). Mr. Breitenstein: it is in your best interest to have it removal or blowout panels. Mr. Greenbaum: That’s where the seawall failed; hate to see something built and the town have to tear it down; the whole deck should be removable. Would think new footings are advisable. Would like to hear from an engineer. The footings are there, but ideally would like to install new. Mr. Shea: DPW has asked to see plans when a deck is adjacent to a seawall. Spoke to John Boyd in January, was going to use the existing footings; if replacement footings are required, will need to file a Notice of Intent. Could have deck removable or flip up. Time frame is extremely tight. Hinged decks can rip the side of the house off. Mr. Shea: If you are going to invest the money, it should be done right; should put in footings; what if we allowed him to start construction with Herb Kuendig’s plan and file an after-the-fact NOI? Mr. Snow: dwelling is inaccessible from the front. It will be a positive determination and file a NOI in the meantime, because of inaccessibility will allow to start. Reasonable approach. Talk to Kevin Cafferty in DPW. Motion for a positive determination - “The area described on the referenced plan(s) is an area subject of protection under the Act. Removing, filling, dredging, or altering of that area requires the filing of a Notice of Intent.” Ms. Scott-Pipes. Second Mr. Greenbaum. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Wetlands Hearing: Boyle, 254 Central Ave. (repair damaged seawall)
Rosemary Boyle and Kevin Stacey, contractor, were present at the hearing. Added detail of where the rebar goes into the wall. Replacing what was there. Issue was to not tie into neighbor’s wall and these plans do not. Coming into the face of existing wall, on the applicant’s property. Took the question of the property line out of the equation. Mr. Shea: Combine plans. Need a stamped surveyed engineered plan. Motion to continue the hearing to May 23, at 7:00 p.m. Ms. Scott-Pipes. Second Mr. Greenbaum. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Wetlands Hearing: Perry, 105 Gilson Rd (raze/rebuild) (cont.)
Joshua Bows, Merrill Associates, Adam Brodsky, Environmental. Lawyer, George Perry and Peter Rosen were present at the hearing. As the result of a site visit, made a number of changes. Three primary changes: moved the house back to the west 19’ from top of coastal bank, main box of house is 21’. Behind retaining wall, planting double staggered row of rugosa rose, and proposed other native plantings to replace manicured lawn and added more detail for the construction sequence. Brad Holmes observed and inspected the bank and supplied letter and recommendations for additional plantings and suggested leaving knotweed for stabilization. Peter Rosen sent a report Friday with several diagrams. Commission is concerned about stability of bank. Seawall at bottom is at elevation 21’ and is overtopped; shallow flooding. There is concern with runoff from this site, flows toward the west – the divide over the bank is shifted a few feet inland, toward road and west. Any surface runoff would be directed to the vegetated buffer, and rosa rugosa, would prevent human intrusion. Found subsurface information from several other sites. All info is consistent, 30’ of glacial till, with underlying sands and silt. Ample space for infiltration for any flow below the surface. Concern of loading of the slope with the building. Common analysis done, Figure 4, cross-section of the bank. The building itself will not provide any forces to the bank, runoff will be improved by going into drywells and a rain garden. Resource is coastal bank, project within buffer zone of the coastal bank. With the information found, confident it will not be impacted. Ms. Scott-Pipes: thought at the last meeting borings were asked for, not other properties’ results. Discussed moving the building back, only went 19’, you have 30’ from the street. The house could move back 30’ from where it sits right now. Not at all sure agree with a wall at the top of the coastal bank; serious concerns. Seen the bank, hard pressed to believe that it is stable. Mr. Rosen’s opinion, borings didn’t have to be done; wouldn’t obtain any new information; cost factor. With respect to setback, have to rely on consultants; demonstrated how project meets the performance standards. Mr. Shea: If the new house was in the exact location and foundation, it would be different, but it could be 30’ more toward the street. Clearly bank is eroding, would want it as far back as possible. If they move it back 25’ from the coastal bank could probably approve. Only saw Rosen’s information today. Met with Josh Bows briefly, thought soil borings could be eliminated if brought back 25’. Any project on such a coastal bank or within 100’ of a coastal bank, shall not have an adverse impact. Would like to see approval of payment for a 3rd party review. Want someone to certify that this coastal bank is stable. The property right next door is coming in for bank stabilization. Josh Bows: the wall is for limit of disturbance. Water is channeled in a concentrated manner, will flatten out valley to create more of a gentle flow. Moving grading as far back as possible. GZA report done in the 1970’s indicated the surface water created the problems with the banks. As far as construction of wall, ready rock wall, 12” of excavation, install crushed stone base, clay compactor by hand and build up. The work would be done from west side with a mini-excavator, material stockpiled outside the 100’ buffer. Existing stonewall to the south that’s holding the slope. Jim O’Connell: concerned about saturation. Shed runoff more toward the rain garden; trying to eliminate the wall. Better if a slab on grade and not a full 8’ foundation. Coastal geologist is not qualified to look at the stability of the bank. Suggest do need a geotechnical engineer. Mr. Snow: got all the information late; Commission’s consensus, need an independent consultant. Don’t think we should suggest the type of foundation. Suggest we continue the hearing, come up with an independent evaluation. Take a look at the wall, typically we would need a structural engineer’s foundation plan. Should have a geotech look at the removal of the old foundation. Submitted a stormwater application. Look at alternatives for the 2’ wide wall. Motion to continue to the hearing to June 13, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. Ms. Scott-Pipes. Second Mr. Greenbaum. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Wetlands Hearing: Kessinger, 154 Jericho Rd (repair & extend asphalt drive/replenish bank/repair stairs) (cont.)
Applicant requested a continuance. Motion to continue the hearing to May 23, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. Ms. Scott-Pipes. Second Mr. Jones. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Wetlands Hearing: Kirby, 2 Oceanside Dr (deck)
Chris Kirby was present at the hearing. Submitted revised plans, same footprint. The whole deck will be removed for the winter, but the framing will stay. Do not have to abide by the 2’ above flood elevation. Build deck surface as stage 1 and once seawall is repaired we will extend the deck. Requesting approval of footprint as shown. The original deck was over the seawall. Commission is trying to keep the deck back from the seawall. Mr. Greenbaum: tying the back of the deck to the house makes it part of the structure. Spoke to Mr. Duggan, not a regulated structure and there is no regulation, it is a request from DPW, cannot be made to keep deck back 10’. Need clarification. Deck is over the seawall, preventing anyone from walking on it. Can move the deck to the rear face of the seawall. Talk to DPW, Chairman, and Agent to see what they need. Not going to get to stage 2 this year. Just dealt with stage 1. Mr. Snow: need to have a design that is acceptable; may need town counsel; just trying to do things right. Either continue or get a deck now that is 9-1/2’ out. Shouldn’t close this hearing. Resolve with DPW and building. Motion to continue the hearing to May 23, 2011 at 7:30 p.m. Ms. Scott-Pipes. Second Mr. Breitenstein. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Wetlands Hearing: Bulman, Satuit Waterfront Club, 20 Jericho Rd (new build)
Christine Player, CLE, and Michael Bulman were present at the hearing. Two-story house, based on comments, submitted revised plans as well as narrative of changes. Located top of bank, top of revetment, adjusted 50’ & 100’ buffer zones, and high tide line. Commission requested more mitigation: 2,245 sq. ft. vegetative buffer strip with salt-tolerant native species along the top of the existing revetment and extending to the 5’ wide walkway. Off-site mitigation 984 sq. ft. vegetative buffer strip along top of existing revetment for a total of on-site and off-site mitigation within the 50’ buffer zone of 3,229 sq ft. Within the 100’ buffer proposing two vegetated areas of salt-tolerant native species for a total of 2,622 sq ft. Structure is about 2,900 sq. ft. Grade for runoff toward back of house and into the harbor. Submitted stormwater application. Reduced impervious surfaces by 55%. Modified stone walkway, will be flat stone, very natural. Ms. Scott-Pipes: asked for a spreader – vegetated swales to stone traps that will slow water going into ground with some treatment of solids. Elevate as much as possible without exceeding the 35’ height requirement. Mr. Bulman will discuss height with architect, no architectural plans yet. Motion to close the hearing Ms. Scott-Pipes. Second Mr. Greenbaum. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Wetlands Hearing: Flynn, 107 Gilson Rd (reduce slope of cliff/reinforce/plantings)*
Joshua Bows, Merrill Associates, and Kerry Flynn were present at the hearing. Abutters notification was submitted. Reconstruct bank to stabilize the existing slope. Steep slope and the vegetation has eroded over time, actually void of vegetation. Proposing to take back slope and regrade to a 2 : 1 slope, take edge of yard back further into property. Only alternative would be to fill and that isn’t feasible. Proposed cross-section shown on plan. Curlex sediment log, staked in with duckbill anchors, anchor gets driven into the ground. Knotweed will be removed, loam and seed the area with salt tolerant plantings and a mat covering, mat stabilizes the soil until the root structure takes hold. Does not meet the stormwater bylaw. Mr. Greenbaum: how are you going to do the grading? There will be a small machine that pulls back the material. It will be either disposed of offsite or somewhere else on-site. Plant more deep-rooted plants. Supplement areas. Could accept more plantings on the left-hand side. Jim O’Connell: Keep an eye on the end so you don’t scour the area. Brad Holmes is familiar with management of knotweed. Motion to close the hearing Ms. Scott-Pipes. Second Mr. Breitenstein. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Wetlands Hearing: Devine, 71 Surfside Rd (replace seawall/patio)
Peter Rosen and Matt Devine were present at the hearing. Abutters notification was submitted. More or less everything is concrete, entire area is in a V zone. Until December there was an elevated wooden deck that served as a wave wall. Neighbors on both sides have elevated concrete patios at first floor level, which serve as substantial wave walls. During major storms overtops seawall and second wall, and goes directly into house. In looking for an answer consulted with structural engineer came up with a compromise, know we can’t stop the ocean, that’s why it is called a wave wall. Proposing to rebuild the patio, enclose 15’ landward of the seawall a 14’ x 50’ section and build a 3’ to 4’ wave wall half way back landward of this patio area, with stairs up to 1st floor. The water will be diverted laterally, around house, major storms it will overtop the wall. Wall will dissipate the energy, will have to step down to the patio, still is going to flood, hope the lower magnitude floods go around the house, and larger storms go over the splash wall. Ms. Scott-Pipes: wisest to take the first sections against the seawall out to disperse between the rocks. One of our objectives is to have less impervious surface on the beach. Concrete facilitates more damage. Will pump concrete in. Mr. O’Connell: interesting design. Face will be recurved and protects the house. Mr. Snow: in this area the earth has been sucked out and there are voids 4’ to 5’ deep, with most of the material lost moving onto the neighbor’s property. Motion to close the hearing Ms. Scott-Pipe. Second. Mr. Greenbaum. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Wetlands Hearing: Stone/Dealy, 28 Dartmouth St (deck/sonotubes)*
Chris Dealy, Excel Remodeling, was present at the hearing. Abutters notification was submitted. Installing 20 sonotubes. 15 sonotubes pictured on the plan. It is in fact 15 sonotubes. Ms. Scott-Pipes: how high are the sonotubes? 4”-6”, 5’ deep. Piers without footings. Submit for the record how deep they are and how large. State code is 4’ and Neil Duggan likes 5’, which accounts for scouring. Condition. Mr. Shea: Deck was to be removed in sections by November 1 to April 30. It was approved as not attached to the building. Design shows you are not attached to the house. Will not be attached to the building. Include in orders: Construct in sections and do not attach to building when deck is put on sonotubes. Motion to close the hearing Ms. Scott-Pipes. Second Mr. Greenbaum. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Wetlands Hearing: McNamara, 83 Surfside Rd (replace boulders/bldg. deck/concrete patio & fence)
Applicant requested a continuance to May 23. 2011. No abutters notification. Will need to readvertise.

Agents Report: Cole Parkway; Top Financial LLC, 8 Dunbar Lane; Kamman, 31 Candlewood; Bike Racks;
Mr. O’Connell re: 8 Dunbar Lane Certificate of Compliance request. Mike Jambretro, license supervisor, was present. Single-family home razed and rebuilt. Some discrepancies in relation to the plans. Two sheds were supposed to be removed along with a concrete pad. Engineer went back and revised the as-built. Went to site with the second plan, saw concrete stairs, cinder blocks, debris of all kinds, wheelbarrows, vegetative debris, all in the wetland itself. Don’t know when it was put there. The wetland fill is a violation and it doesn’t matter when the wetland violation was done, it will transfer to the new owners. Didn’t go past the line of disturbance, the haybales. New buyer asked if the shed could remain and would like to keep the concrete pad. Have a closing on Friday. Project was a mess. Some of the junk is recent. Buyer is buying a wetland violation and would have to file another Notice of Intent to clean it up. Remove debris and could give a Certificate and issue a Show Cause for the material in the wetlands. Motion to issue a Certificate of Compliance and issue a letter to existing owners for a Show Cause Hearing at the next meeting May 23, 2011 Ms. Scott-Pipes. Second Mr. Breitenstein. Motion passed by unanimous vote. Could issue an Emergency Certificate to hire someone to remove the debris.

Cole Parkway Walkway: Called Kevin Cafferty--boom is not correct. Mr. Cafferty was going to talk to the contractor. He has no problem stopping the project. Not going to give them any money. It doesn’t matter if it’s the town project or any other project. Wasn’t supposed to be excavated the way it was. Stopped the one at Hollett Street; they corrected it. Talked to Dan Smith, DPW on-site engineer.

TK O’Malley’s and Quarterdeck: Floats and docks for TK’s not in the correct location. Quarterdeck wanted to put their floats out. TK’s pulled 4 pilings out from Quarterdeck’s property. If there is a spawning season, fish won’t spawn if piles are driven. Pier is still in violation.
Issue an Enforcement Order to TK O’Malley for constructing pier and floats on the wrong property Ms. Scott-Pipes. Second Mr. Jones. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Bike Racks – Ellis property and Driftway,
Between now and the next meeting, draw up different responsibilities and see who best fits what.

Order of Conditions: Wall, 12 Oceanside Dr (rebuild deck/repair garage)
Still waiting for revised plans showing deck away from seawall.

Order of Conditions: Kelly, 47 Lighthouse Rd (replace existing open deck & stairs)
Motion to condition the project Ms. Scott-Pipes. Second Mr. Jones. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Order of Conditions: Seoane, Cavanagh Road (new build)
Motion to condition the project as amended – place concrete bounds along the 50’ buffer zone line, as determined by the Conservation Agent, protruding 8” above the ground; as well as a fence of split rail or similar design with a minimum of 4 signs on 4” x 4” posts reading “Wetland Non-disturbance Zone”. Ms. Scott-Pipes. Second Mr. Jones. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Order of Conditions: Wannop, Lot 2 Glades Rd (new build)
Motion to condition the project as amended: Remove #38. #37. The structure has to be 10’ off the 50’ buffer. #38. In addition to on-site mitigation, the owner shall be responsible for stormwater runoff, pollution and sedimentation control at the Bailey’s Causeway public parking lot. #39. The mitigation around the isolated wetland is not part of this approval, the area will be left in its natural state, as referenced in the Secret Gardner’s Mitigation Plan dated April 3, 2011. However, the proposed 500 +/- square foot rain garden/detention area and vegetated slope with native grass mixture, approximately 3,000 sq ft shall be built as proposed on the plan. Ms. Scott-Pipes. Second Mr. Jones. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Order of Conditions: Scituate Harbor Yacht Club, 84 Jericho Rd (r/r outbuildings, etc. + snack bar)
Motion to condition the project as amended: Submit a planting plan including new salt tolerant native shrub species planted at a ratio of 2:1 to replace the mature trees being removed. Ms. Scott-Pipes. Second Mr. Jones. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

CORRESPONDENCE
April 26, 2011 – May 9, 2011
1. Frank Colpoys e-mail approving extension in setting OofC for Scituate Yacht Club, 84 Jericho Rd (in file)
2. Carmen Hudson’s e-mail approving extension in setting OofC for Lot 2 Glades Rd (in file)
3. Recording of OofC for 68-2307 – Hand, 264 Central Ave. (in file)
4. Revised plans for Cavanagh Rd – 68-2284 – Septic Plans, Stormwater Plan, Landscape plan (in file)
5. Recording of Extension Permit for 68-2077 – Wood, 123 Country Way (in file)
6. H&S Environmental – Peer Review Services – Michael Clark
7. Recording of CofC for 68-2265 – Ford, 790 Country Way (in file)
8. Minor deviation of approved plans – 68-2307 – Hand, 264 Central Ave. – Reduce the wall and slab reconstruction on the northerly end by 2’ to 10’-9”; prevents wall footing from extending over property line (in file)
9. Request for CofC for Top Financial LLC, 8 Dunbar Lane – 68-2057 (in file)
10. Planning Board Memo re: Bike Racks
11. Burek re: Lot 2 Glades Rd – Request to be e-mailed if a “Special Meeting” is called to set orders. (in file)
12. Revised RDA for Bailey’s Causeway to include 2 existing municipal parking lots. (in file)
13. Planning Board re: Wilson, 246/248 Old Oaken Bucket Rd – Approval of Stormwater Permit for excavation, site work and construction of dwelling.
14. Recording of OofC for 68-2298 – Coleman, 163 Glades Rd (in file)
15. Satuit Waterfront Club re: allowing off-site mitigation for dwelling within the 50’ buffer strip at 20 Jericho Rd. (in file)
16. DEP File #68-2325 – McLaughlin, 234, 238, 240 Central Ave (in file)
17. DEP File #68-2326 – McNamara, 83 Surfside Rd – Appears the proposed concrete patios would not meet the performance standards for coastal dune and barrier beach (in file)
18. Recording of CofC for 68-1659 – Lauberstein, 17 Dartmouth St (in file)
19. Recording of CofC for 68-2283 – Lauberstein, 17 Dartmouth St (in file)
20. Stormwater Magazine
21. Revised plans for 107 Gilson Rd (in file)
22. Revised Site Plan and Stormwater Permit Application – 68-2322 – 20 Jericho Rd (in file)
23. Change for 68-2220 - 89 Lighthouse Rd – Instead of crushed stone using pavers (in file)
24. Brodsky re: 31 Candlewood Dr – letter, aerial photo – believe Mr. Kamman’s garden pre-dated the adoption of the Scituate Wetlands Protection Rules & Regs. (in file)
25. EPA re: Marine Sanitation Device Standard – Determination required by the Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA, that adequate facilities for safe & sanitary f sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for the Outer Cape area.
26. TECAssociates re RDA along Mass Bay Commuter Railroad Right-of-Way
27. Recording of CofC for 68-1744 & 68-2299 - 34 Ocean Dr (in files)
28. Recording of OofC re: 68-2294 - Fiorini, 198 Central Ave. (in file)
29. Recording of OofC re: 68-2294 – Grenier, 200 Central Ave. (in file)
30. Recording of OofC re: 68-2294 – Hogan, 204 Central Ave. (in file)
31. Recording of OofC re: 68-2294 - Cormay, 206 Central Ave. (in file)
32. 48 Oceanside Dr. – Pictures submitted, Picture from DPW and Narrative (in file) (e-mailed narrative to members & DPW pic)
33. Complaint letter re: 6 Marshfield Ave. –Expansion of said hair salon’s parking lot onto the marsh/wetlands.
34. Pictures and Contractor: Wood, 18 Hatherly Rd - Gibraltar Pools Corp., 978-887-2424 (in file)
35. Annual Appointments
36. Geaman, 86-87 Lighthouse Rd – 68-2115 – using same pavers instead of gravel as 89 Lighthouse Rd
37. Request for CofC for 36 Brunswick – 68-1838
38. Revised plans for 20 Jericho Rd (in file)
39. 31 Candlewood Drive info e-mailed to members (in file)
40. Pearson Pilings (information packet)
41. Woodard & Curran Directions Newsletter
42. Attorney’s letter re: 8 Dunbar Lane – 68-2057 – re: debris in wetlands (in file)
43. Planning Board Agenda
44. Boyajian, 43 Oceanside Dr – 68-2222 - Recommended Final Decision on Reconsideration (in file)
45. Eisenhaure – 68-2230 Lot 61, 172 Cornet Stetson Rd plan
46. Board of Health - Emergency sewer connection for 35 Tilden Rd
47. Quarterdeck pier plan
48. The Beacon
49. Wildlands News
50. FEMA re: Updated Coastal Flood Insurance and Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) for the town of Scituate
51. Request for CofC for 68-2293 – 5 Ocean Dr (in file)
52. Town of Scituate – appointment of new CRS Coordinator
53. Building Inspector - 88 Country Way – Junk Storage violation
54. Revised site plans for 105 Gilson Rd; construction sequence & planning plan (in file)
55. Request for continuance for Kessinger, 154 Jericho Rd (in file)

Meeting adjourned 11:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Carol Logue, Secretary