Printer Friendly Layout

News/Events - Meeting Minutes

Meeting was called to order 6:17 at p.m.

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

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

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

Request for Determination: Clancy, 66 Williamsburg Lane (removal of trees)
Edward Clancy was present at the hearing. Big pine trees came down in the yard. Six should be removed. One that borders wetlands split, part fell toward the street and the other toward wetlands; 3 more the arborist expects to die within the next couple of years, each about 90’ tall. Carriage house, gazebo in range, could threaten house. Pine tree infested with insects. Would like permission to remove the fallen tree, which ruined an oak and will need to come down also; it is a matter of safety. Caution tape marks trees in question. Mr. Breitenstein: no issues, just plant more. Need to be cautious in the 50’ buffer zone. Boom out the one that’s fallen into the buffer zone. Motion for 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. If any problems get in touch with the agent.

Request for Determination: Santiano, 123 Turner Rd (repair existing deck)
Michael Ball, contractor, was present at the hearing. December 2010 storm damage. Built after ’91 storm. Deck sits on wood pilings, no removable panels. Waves broke the middle. Catwalk to the seawall will be removable, 8’ separation from seawall. No ground work, no stairs down, simple rebuild. Couple trash barrels full of debris. Motion for a neg. 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: Sullivan, 173 Turner Rd (reconstruct existing deck)
Michael Ball, contractor, was present at the hearing. Same as above, no removal panels, deck caved in. No intention to replace piles. Existing pad for stairway remains. Simple rebuild with removable panels. 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: TEC Associates/Fair, railroad right-of-way (vegetation control)
Kyle Fair was present at the hearing. This project is for herbicide application. Sensitive areas about 100% of the line. Yellow area on plan is a no-spray zone. The wetlands are within 10’ of proposed work. Spraying is done from a track vehicle at a 10’ extension of the boom off the center line. A few spray areas within 10’ on left, but center and right side remain 10’. Controls can be shut off either one side or the other. The rest of the plan is the light blue zone, wetlands, water and other sensitive areas that fall within 100’. Only do the right-of-way application, there will be no brush spraying in the sensitive blue area, use DEP sensitive area products. YOP received a couple of weeks ago. Switch products every couple of years. Spray sensitive areas every 12 months. Dark blue areas toward the end of line are drinking water areas, sprayed once every 2 years. Act stipulates that spraying needs to be done with an approved Vegetation Control Plan. Actual chemicals regulated by Department of Agriculture, state and federal entities. No spraying in wet or wind conditions. Treating with a derivative of Round-Up. 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. Parys. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Request for Determination: Columbia Gas of MA, Hatherly Rd (gas main replacement)
Joshua Bows, Merrill Associates, was present at the hearing. Submitted an RDA for gas main replacement for Hatherly Road. Portion of project is within 100’ buffer zone of Musquashicut Pond. Columbia Gas has been working, but stopped last week to allow hearing. Closest is about 8’ to flagged wetlands. Proposed staked haybales and silt fence, can’t barricade driveways. Requesting negative determination. Mr. Greenbaum: further down the road would need more protection. 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. Parys. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Wetlands Hearing: Lilly, 147A Border St. (new build & septic) (cont.)
Applicant’s representative requested a continuance to June 13. Motion to continue the hearing to June 13, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. Ms. Scott-Pipes. Second Mr. Greenbaum. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Wetlands Hearing: McLaughlin, 234, 238, 240 Central Ave. (rip-rap) (cont.)
Mark McLaughlin was present at the hearing. Revised plans were submitted today. Plans shows placed revetment. New wall at Mr. Keys, 236 Central about 1-1/2 years ago and Brenda Roche, 232 Central Ave. has a pending application. Mr. O’Connell: two comments: continue the hearing because revised plans were just submitted and any new information needs to be submitted 7 days prior to the hearing; 2) asked for a surveyed plan, from this plan we know how far out the seawall goes, but need a cross-section. Mr. Shea: work was done under an emergency permit, base of all the walls were undermined and rip-rap was installed. The day work was done, racing against a storm that was forecast, but didn’t arrive; probably would have lost the wall if the storm had come and the work wasn’t done. Motion to continue the hearing to June 13, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. Ms. Scott-Pipes. Second Mr. Breitenstein. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Wetlands Hearing: Boyle, 254 Central Ave. (repair damaged seawall)
Applicant requested a continuance to June 13. Motion to continue the hearing to June 13, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. Ms. Scott-Pipes. Second Mr. Tufts. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Wetlands Hearing: Kessinger, 154 Jericho Rd (repair & extend asphalt drive/replenish bank/repair stairs) (cont.)
Robert Kessinger was present at the hearing. Damage as a result of the December 2010 storm. Revised plans were submitted. Working only on his property. Hearing about a month ago. Submitted some amendments and additional information. Primary amendment is simply asphalt limited to 154 Jericho. Mr. Shea: property boundaries were questioned by one of the abutting property owners. According to the plan looked like some of the work was over the property line. They have to be part of the Notice of Intent. Jane Analetto, 152 Jericho: Talked with Brian Taylor from Stenbeck & Taylor, sent a retainer for a survey. Thought perhaps survey 152, 154, 160 all at the same time. Need to find out from the residents if they agree. Need to amend the NOI to have all the correct information and description of work; needs to match the plan. At 154 we are doing the work as explained in the narrative. Shared property lines need fine tuning. Not intending to do work with 152. Need all information in by June 6. Brian Taylor couldn’t get to the survey till the middle of June. Mr. Snow: not the time or place to design your project, nor go over surveys with abutters. Rosemary Analetto, represents her brother at 148 Jericho: No placement of asphalt – a Town ordinance or state issue? Mr. O’Connell: part of the Town of Scituate’s bylaw. No new asphalt can be placed to the high water mark. Asphalt will change the flow characteristic in the floodplain. Motion to continue the hearing to June 27, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. Ms. Scott-Pipes. Second Mr. Greenbaum. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Wetlands Hearing: Kirby, 2 Oceanside Dr (deck)
Chris Kirby, representing Mr. Gormley, was present at the hearing. Revised plans submitted. Cutting deck back to the face of the seawall. The plans were revised to show deck with removable panels at the rear face of the seawall. Footings moved 1’ closer to house. Only question was the 10’ section closest to the seawall and setback. Neil Duggan does not believe there is any law governing setback from a seawall. DPW is requesting a legal opinion from Town Counsel. Mr. Snow: if they chose to build up to the seawall and there is an issue with the seawall, could possibly remove the deck at applicant’s expense. Building the first 10’ only for the first phase. Motion to close the hearing Ms. Scott-Pipes. Second Mr. Greenbaum. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Mr. Shea: Kamman, 31 Candlewood thought project had been worked out with Brad Holmes. Adam Brodsky back into the mix. Restore buffer zone. Don’t know how we deal with this at this point. Issue Kamman a letter. The issue isn’t the wetlands: they don’t want to pull out of the 50’ buffer. Now we are in the growing season. Start all this replanting at the end of April. Need a plan to restore the 50’ buffer zone and BVW, remove the trees, take fill out, and put in wetland plantings. Very small portion of lot not in the buffer zone. Told Brad Holmes to talk to his client. Atty. Brodsky is protecting his rights in the buffer zone, because it was lawn, which is not a natural buffer zone. This is a landscape architect who fills wetlands. Could issue a new Enforcement Order to restore the BVW and 50’ buffer zone, plant the 50’ buffer zone with native species and come up with a good fine. Denied Notice of Intent, issued a decision and wanted it replanted by the end of April, but needed final plan. He chose to go out and do what he wanted and still does. No idea of what the fine should be. Look into what is consistent with other enforcements. Needs to stand up in court. Evidence from Mr. Kalishes indicates this problem goes back to 1999. Fine should be consistent with violation. Vote at next meeting. This issue is one we should take a stand on. Possibly find out how much it would cost to restore the buffer.

Mr. O’Connell: Harbor Walk--wonderful public project, but not being constructed properly. Need to keep in mind for future projects. Small section of revetment under the ConCom jurisdiction rebuilt and reset. When contractor removed the rip-rap seaward, a very large plume of silt extended into the intertidal zone in several areas. Coffer dam already in place, unauthorized. Required him to put out a boom silt curtain. Curtain came from the state ramp, thanked him for complying with half the request. Attached silt curtain 2 days later. Additional fill and revetment construction extends seaward beyond the permitted design. Boom going out into the harbor. Major change in the construction sequence. Erosion control measures were not taken. Met with Vine Assoc., DPW rep., and Frank Snow. Need an effective boom. Material from excavation was supposed to go in the parking lot, decided differently in the field. Never have seen a revetment built this way. Make sure boom is out there tomorrow, keep material out and when everything settles, then take it out. Mr. Snow: when excavating, there was a lot of rock, made the assumption that it was fine for fill on the water side; instead of using clean stone, they used the excavated material, unfortunately at this time, not a winning situation. Mr. Shea: Order of Conditions becomes part of the project, definitely in violation of the Orders. Town Engineer is doing nothing, Jim stepped up to the plate, probably should have filed a new Notice of Intent, at least should have come back to the ConCom with the changes. Not the way to build a coffer dam. Mr. Snow: They have agreed to give us construction sequence. Boom needs to be correctly installed, the full length, and will be left there until we say it is OK to take out. Led to believe it was a minimal amount of work. Mr. Shea: Technically, if Vine is comfortable, they could submit an as-built plan, but structurally there was a much better way to build it. Need a revised site plan. Put together what we want and give to Selectmen, Town Administrator, and DPW. Do a preliminary letter and sit down with Town Administrator. This is a liability for the town. Can’t believe engineers. The town hired an engineer to design the project, and their engineer should monitor the project, and DPW engineer was out there also, but now it is between ConCom and town. If engineer won’t stamp as-built plan, will have to pull out revetment and rebuild it.

Seawall Work at Edward Foster: Mr. Snow and Mr. O’Connell were out at Edward Foster Rd. Northern Construction and Mr. Carey, 138 Edward Foster Rd, made a deal that Northern could have access over his property to repair a revetment. However, the access was over a dune with vegetation. Met this morning, but the dune was already ripped up. Town and owner have been back and forth about who would pay for it. Met again with engineer from Vine regarding change in access; they will get back to us on that one. DPW contract. Need a revised access plan and dune restoration plan. Think we need a plan from DPW for restoration. Need a Show Cause Hearing for the owner of property for the work that has gone on and then also want an amendment to the orders from the engineers and who will be liable for the restoration. Again the town is the owner of the work. Stored heavy equipment on the dune; in bad shape at this stage. Claimed they tried to set up a preconstruction with Conservation, but no one came to the meeting. Motion to send a show cause letter to the owner of 138 Edward Foster Road Ms. Scott-Pipes. Second Mr. Greenbaum. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Mr. Shea: 339 Hatherly Rd/Costello/McLaughlin - Access roadway/paper road from Hatherly to Mann Hill. Clearly property owner has been doing something back there for a long time. Not sure he is in the resource area. ANRAD done on property – creek runs through, therefore, there is riverfront area, and BVW. They own all the way past the creek. Want to install a water service. Will file an RDA. Ms. Scott-Pipes thinks there is a vernal pool too. Mr. Greenbaum: some work done on property probably needed haybales, there is some pretty nasty stuff out there. Whoever did the work on the road, recently dug going over the stream; about 10’ wide. Mr. Breitenstein: looks like a bulldozer was out there. Mr. Snow: pull out ANRAD and try to piece together some things. But in the meantime there are infractions. Issue an Enforcement Order, or if nothing else hold a Show Cause hearing. Let them tell us.

Wetlands Hearing: McNamara, 83 Surfside Rd (replace boulders/bldg. deck/concrete patio & fence) (cont.)
Kevin Grady, Grady Consulting, was present at the hearing. Abutters notification was submitted. Gary Walcott was the designer. Proposed deck; started without permits, Mr. Shea gave permission to finish. This is an after-the-fact filing that includes the deck. Fence along northerly line, lawn at 81 is in terrible shape. Concrete patios on right and left of properties. Having erosion problems, believe these patios will aid in keeping the land from washing away. Mr. Shea has spoken with Rick Grady and Gary Walcott about this project. Discussed drain grates in 10% to 15% of the patio. Pavers have been allowed. Ms. Scott-Pipes: water will rush right to the road, over all that concrete. Mr. Breitenstein concurs with Ms. Scott-Pipes. Mr. Greenbaum: would like to know why the deck is significantly larger than what was shown on Google earth. Any permit to put Jersey barriers in? Classifying as an existing deck, want to know what was existing and what has been added since the December storm. Don’t believe the concrete meets the definition of the WPA. Neighbors have concrete; goes back a long time. Deck should have removable panels. Beautiful lawn in front, perhaps it has been over-fertilized. Mr. Grady: at the street end of the patios, discussed putting in rounded beach stones the last 10’ to dissipate the water and intercept it from going across the street. Ms. Scott-Pipes: don’t see any benefit of the concrete. Everybody’s yard had more cobble. Mr. O’Connell: concrete in the V zone is not in compliance with the regulations. Time to start looking at impervious surfaces. DEP also put a comment on the DEP File # - “It appears that the proposed concrete patios would not meet the performance standards for coastal dune (310 CMR 10.28) and barrier beach (310 CMR 10.29). Motion to continue the hearing to June 13, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. Ms. Scott-Pipes. Second Mr. Greenbaum. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Wetlands Hearing: MacDonnell, 292 Central Ave. (revetment)
Kevin Grady, Grady Consulting, was present at the hearing. Abutters notification was submitted. Numerous rip rap walls in the area. Bring in new boulders, replace the ones that have been removed to shore up the wall. Leave boulders that are on the beach now and bring in new. Just adding rip rap, not fixing the concrete deck. Kenneth MacDonnell and Peter Armstrong filed an emergency request, put a mat down and put rocks on top of that. This filing is a after-the-fact response. Only top of rip rap is showing at this time. For future filings would like to have a cross section. Motion to close the hearing Ms. Scott-Pipes. Second Mr. Greenbaum. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Agents Report: Bike Racks – 8 locations – 1 at Ellis property and 1 at Driftway Park. Commission only responsible for Ellis. The TA has to OK all locations. Ms. Scott-Pipes: possibly Indian Trail and Mr. Jones had brought up the Spit area. Mr. Greenbaum: Peggotty Beach? Except 3” to 4” of sand on the parking lot after winter storms.

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

Order of Conditions: Bulman/Satuit Waterfront Club, 20 Jericho Rd (new build)
Motion to condition the project as amended (remove second line out of #35 - Fertilizers used for landscaping and lawn care shall be of the low nitrogen content or slow release variety) Ms. Scott-Pipes. Second Mr. Parys. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Order of Conditions: Flynn, 107 Gilson Rd (reduce slope of cliff/reinforce/plant)
Motion to condition the project Ms. Scott-Pips. Second Mr. Parys. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Order of Conditions: Devine, 71 Surfside Rd (replace concrete wall & patio)
Motion to condition the project as amended (continuing conditions 9 & 31 only) Ms. Scott-Pipes. Second Mr. Greenbaum. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Amendment Order of Conditions: Stone/Dealy, 28 Dartmouth St (install sonotubes for deck)
Motion to condition the project Ms. Scott-Pipes. Second Mr. Breitenstein. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Spit Meeting tomorrow 10:00 A.M. at the Police Station: Harbormaster, Police, Environmental Police, etc. will be there. Discuss: Dunes, wildlife and the Spit as a whole. Brainstorming proper verbiage for the signs. Meeting was very helpful last year. Spit is a great recreational place and needs to be respected.

Mr. O’Connell: Decks seem to be a real issue, but pile supported walkways are allowed in dunes. Mr. Greenbaum: if vegetation was under deck and sun is blocked out, vegetation would be wiped out. If going to destroy vegetation, not in compliance. Mr. Parys: every situation is different; Humarock is already a developed barrier beach. Mr. O’Connell: removing sand from under a house and putting back on beach is actually diminishing the resource’s ability to function.

8 Dunbar Lane: All the big stuff is removed. Told them not to remove debris that would impact vegetation, but they could have taken some of the debris out by hand. New owner was thrilled that the Commission made them remove the debris.

Duxbury: Entire colonies of Plovers were wiped out - 80 chicks.

Mr. Snow: Start to break up some of the projects that the Commission is working on. Bridges, open space, and areas in town that need to be looked at. Not everyone is getting to all the sites. Give certain areas to different people. Look at some of the things that are up and coming. Make a list of what area someone thinks would work for them. Send Kevin Tufts contact for Allan Greenberg and Howard Matthews.

CORRESPONDENCE
May 10, 2011 – May 23, 2011
1. TEC Associates re: Massachusetts Bay Commuter Railroad and 2011 Vegetation Control Program
2. Recording of OofC for 77 Elm St – 68-2303 (in file)
3. Recording of OofC for 117 River St – 68-2312 (in file)
4. North River Commission re: 103 Neal Gate St – Complaint also to ConCom (anonymous) NRC has jurisdiction within 300’ from the natural bank and a 15’ foot wide path is allowed to access the river, but no other trees or vegetation may be cut within 100’ of the natural bank.
5. DEP File #68-2327 – Devine, 71 Surfside Rd (in file)
6. Recording of OofC for 68-2308 – 126 Edward Foster Rd (inn file)
7. Massachusetts Wildlife magazine
8. Revised plans for 2 Oceanside Dr (in file)
9. 2011 Wildlands Trust Annual Meeting, Saturday, June 18 Great River Preserve, Bridgewater 8:00 a.m. or Photo workshop starting at 5:30 A.M.
10. Town of Scituate Memorial Day Program May 30, 2011 8:30 a.m. Town Marina; 10:30 Parade start at Town Hall
11. DEP Final Decision on Reconsideration re: Boyajian, 43 Oceanside Dr (in file)
12. Recording of OofC for 68-2308 – 126 Edward Foster Rd (in file)
13. Request for continuance to June 13 for Boyle, 254 Central Ave. (in file)
14. Planning Board Agenda for May 26, 2011
15. Recording of OofC for 68-2286 – 161 Summer St – planting 6 mitigation plants – requests preconstruction (in file)
16. Form A application – Livingstone, Thomas Clapp Rd – Discussing 5/26/11, and must make a decision on that date.
17. Planning Board re: All departments liaisons and meeting schedule.
18. Notification to Abutters 172 Gannett Rd (in file)
19. Revised plans for 154 Jericho Rd (in file)
20. Existing Conditions Plan for 236-240 Central Ave. (in file)

Meeting adjourned 9:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Carol Logue, Secretary