Printer Friendly Layout

News/Events - Meeting Minutes

Meeting was called to order 6:30 at p.m.

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

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

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

Request for Determination: Duval, 25 Mill Wharf Plaza (raze/rebuild marina building/remove sheds)
Atty. Adam Brodsky, Ken Duval and David Ray, Surveyor and Engineer were present at the hearing. Replace existing marina building with a 25’ x 17’ building and eliminate sheds; roughly same footprint. AE flood zone, land subject to coastal storm flowage. Storm damage prevention – will be built according to state building code, with appropriate elevation and smart vents in the foundation. No occupancy on the 1st floor, just bathrooms; office on second floor. Requesting a Negative 2 determination with special condition for compliance with building code; language from David Ray provided. Ms. Scott-Pipes: Square off, make a little bigger, get rid of 3 sheds. Two weren’t put on the plan. Sort of joined together. Mr. Breitenstein: no elevation requirements? Have to meet the state building code. Will have to submit an elevation certificate. Mr. O’Connell: Under local bylaw, needs to be 1’ above base flood. No occupancy on the 1st floor. Any activity should be 1’ above the flood elevation. Plan doesn’t show square footage. Few square feet larger, but tighter together. Mr. Greenbaum: what is the elevation in the AE flood zone? Elevation 12 NGVD. All asphalt. Motion for a negative 2 determination with the condition building is 1’ above base flood Ms. Scott-Pipes. Marine Park doesn’t comply with it. Designing for the state building code, which is at or above base flood; no human occupancy. 5’ to 6’ above for the 2nd floor. Utilities will be 1’ above the 100-year storm tidal impact. Motion for a negative 2 determination comply with the building code - “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.” Ms. Scott-Pipes. Second Mr. Greenbaum. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Request for Determination: Columbia Gas, Jericho Road (gas line replacement)
Joshua Bows, Merrill Associates, was present at the hearing. Requesting a Negative 2 determination to replace existing gas main from Beaver Dam Road north to Turner Road. 4” bare steel gas main, replacing with 4” and 6” plastic gas mains. BVW across from boat ramp within 100’ of proposed work. Delineated wetlands, flags on plan. Other resource areas not within 100’ of work. Portion of project is located in the flood zone. Dig a trench 2’ to 3’ wide x 4’ deep, close, and patch pavement at the end of day. Any excavated material will be trucked off at end of day. Erosion control measures will be installed. Mr. Greenbaum: couple of culverts under Jericho Road, and 1 near Turner, digging 4’ deep, what will happen if you run into them? Gas Company has a design team; they coordinate all work with DPW. Will bring the message back, but existing gas main already in place. Concern from a resident - Gas shutoff is in the flood zone. Happy to send a response back by e-mail. Motion for a negative 2 & 3 determination - 2. “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.” and 3. “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 subject to answers to the 2 questions. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Request for Determination: Proctor, Lot 57 & 58 (86) Crescent Ave. (relocate existing drain line)
Request for Determination: Proctor, Lot 57 & 58 (86) Crescent Ave. (allow existing paved swale/reduce grading)
Barbara Thissell and Fern Proctor were present at the hearing. Filed 2 separate RDAs. Can be heard together, but act on separately. 2009 received Order of Conditions to develop a vacant lot next to Proctor’s home. Open grassed area with abandoned septic system. Mostly cleared out the hedges and built retaining walls. Pipe was found on lot 57 that services Lot 58. Proctor would like to replace the pipe in kind with a new 4” pipe on the property that it serves. Taking downspout from existing house, bringing to own property. Flow is clean, from roof and deck. Rip-rap at the end of pipe, silt fence, no sediment into the paved swale.
Paved swale was not talked about in 2009. Proposed a grass swale going across the backs of the properties. Asphalt swale was buried and not visible. Subsequently they cleaned out their own swale which was buried under 4” to 6” of loam. Asking for approval to allow existing paved swale to remain, would reduce grading. Ms. Scott-Pipes: grassed swale would be better. The asphalt swale is working well since it has been cleaned out and Mrs. Proctor has taken on the task of keeping it clean. Mr. Greenbaum: at the end of the swale there is a catchment device that goes out to the ocean. Grassed swale will slow down and absorb some of the water. Mr. Shea: biggest question is where does the water go and what is happening at the end and underneath. Mr. O’Connell: don’t know the condition of the concrete box at the end. Interest is in reducing the flow, because there is a major problem at the bottom on someone else’s property. Mr. Snow: house above them had to deal with their runoff; they have a pipe to the swale also. Mr. O’Connell: as properties come in, that’s when you try to make things better. Mr. Snow: The reason the swale was built was to pick up water from all the lawns so it didn’t just run over the cliff. Level spreaders were proposed in the previous projects. That’s before we knew the paved swale was working. Delicacy of the cliff, would like to go with the tried and true swale the Army Corps put in, installed in the ‘40s; pros and cons with both. No water from the paved swale gets to the down gradient abutter. Mr. O’Connell: Army Corps would never do that today. Rip-rap is collapsing. Who’s responsible if the revetment collapses? Who would be responsible for fixing it? It wasn’t a water quality issue; it was just to reduce the volume. Mr. Snow: The other drainpipe is a weep hole for the retaining wall; doesn’t go to anything. The question is, does this work require a filing, or can we allow under an RDA. Ms. Scott-Pipes: Tried to get the neighbor to the south to direct water toward the street. Mr. Shea: Previous application was for a grassed swale. It’s a change to the design that was approved. Discussed filing an Amendment to the Order of Conditions. Motion for a negative 3 determination on relocating the drain - “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.
Motion to continue the RDA hearing to allow existing paved swale to January 23, 2012 at 6:50 p.m. Ms. Scott-Pipes. Second Mr. Jones. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Wetlands Hearing: Radzevich, 68 Glades Road (septic and raze/rebuild garage) (cont.)
Paul Mirabito, Ross Engineering, Inc. was present at the hearing. Project consists of a septic system upgrade and raze/reconstruct existing garage. Decided not to raze and reconstruct garage, just add room above for storage. North side stairway to the upper floor, exposed to the weather. Proposing to extend outside wall on left side of house up where there is a one-story covered addition and put in an enclosed stairway. No ground work, all interior work. As-built plan for the septic and photo of garage. Garage is not being altered in any way. Motion to close the hearing Ms. Scott-Pipes. Second Mr. Jones. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Discussion: Martin/Grady/Armstrong, 24 Ocean Front Street (revetment)
Motion to continue the discussion of the above-referenced property until after the appeal for 20 & 22 Ocean Front Street has been settled. Today’s on-site with DEP might affect the outcome.

Wetlands Hearing: Doherty, 89 Edward Foster Road (wetland delineation)
Paul Mirabito, Ross Engineering was present at the hearing. At previous meeting was asked to add information, made minor revisions to the wetland line and revised the plan accordingly. The applicant is aware this is an ANRAD and no work is being approved. Any other proposal will require a filing. Mr. Shea: Added additional information. Brad Holmes originally flagged wetland line; based on soils we agree on the line and it is verified. Motion to close the hearing Mr. Greenbaum. Second Mr. Jones. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Wetlands Hearing: Lilly, 147A Border Street (new build) (cont.)
Atty. Stephen Guard and Kristen Lilly were present at the hearing. Thanked the Commission for allowing NOI to remain open. Proposing a single-family home on a divided lot. Located within 200’ of the Gulf River. All work outside the 100’ inner reparian zone. Have Zoning, Planning and Board of Health approval. This project was opened in April and in all these months Commission has pretty much lost everything. No changes were required to the original plan. Mr. Greenbaum: dead trees might be within the first 100’. If you want to add anything about trees it should be done now. Commission might ask for appropriate mitigation. Would like to close the hearing. Would the Commission allow the removal of trees that are down already, and the other dead trees that have to come down? Run by the agent. Probably will ask for new plantings. Mr. Snow: any sort of detention area? Couple of proposed catch basins. Just drywells? Yes. Ed Stone was the engineer. Seem to remember he had some elaborate thoughts on how to deal with the water. At the back of the house there is a deck with drainage underneath. Mr. Jones: talked about moving the house outside the 200’ riverfront area. Don’t think that is possible. Mr. Snow: don’t remember anything about moving the house, just drainage, plus roof leaders to the basins as well. Proposed some rain gardens as a form of mitigation. Are we getting sufficient mitigation for the 200’? Mr. O’Connell: Don’t see any delineation of coastal bank; probably wouldn’t affect anything, but would like it delineated. We have a new agent, in all fairness to Jim and us 9 months have gone by; pull the minutes; and define what trees have to come down. Ed Stone could come in and meet with Mr. O’Connell. Motion to continue the hearing to January 23, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. Ms. Scott-Pipes. Second Mr. Jones. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Wetlands Hearing: Connolly, 0 Seamore Road (lawn expansion)*
Greg Morse, Morse Engineering, was present at the hearing. Abutters notification was submitted. Currently a vacant lot. Seamore is an unconstructed road. Property is 50’ x 100’ and the project is to clear the majority of the lot for a lawn. Wetland line delineated by Brad Holmes; 50’ and 100’ buffer shown on plan; proposing silt fence. Provided BVW data sheets. Spoke with Paul Shea a couple of weeks ago, hope to walk the site with him; Brad Holmes is fairly confident of the line. Mr. Shea: originally it was filed as an ANRAD application, supposed to have had a hearing, but received calls from abutting property owners they hadn’t been notified and Mr. Connolly said there was no work being proposed. Then it came in as a filing for a lawn. Told them early in the process that he didn’t agree with the line and he marked up a plan. Mr. Morse had said he might have someone else look at it. Moved flags 15 to 20 about 10 feet, which changed the 50’ and 100’ buffer. Believe it is an approvable project. Need to see what data he has for support. Herb Kuendig, 46 Richfield Road: Lived there for 10 years. Seen former plans, believe the wetland line should be moved. Meet on-site Friday morning at 9:00 a.m. Mr. Greenbaum: mature buffer changing it to lawn. Client might want to consider mitigation. Motion to continue the hearing to January 23, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. Ms. Scott-Pipes. Second Mr. Jones. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Wetland Hearing: Mitchell, 62 Surfside Road (22’x 49’ elevated deck/extension of roof dormer)*
Terry McGovern and Donald Mitchell were present at the hearing. Abutters notification had previously been submitted to the office. Colored plans submitted. Westerly side of Surfside Road backs up to Musquashicut Pond. Paved patio 30’ from the edge of the pond. Proposal is to construct a deck over the pervious area, with dormer over a portion of it. Entire deck and dormer is over asphalt. Stairs will probably be the difference in the square footage; there will be no grade change. No closer to the buffer zone or edge of pond. Ms. Scott-Pipes: going to leave the asphalt down. Yes, but saw cut where columns go. All in an area previously disturbed. Mr. Greenbaum: if open for a while might require erosion controls. Why not take the patio out? Could be storage. Mr. Snow: Sonotubes? A series of footings at the corners closest to the house. All excavated material should be moved off-site. Mr. Shea: put erosion controls on the plan. Motion to close the hearing Ms. Scott-Pipes. Second Mr. Jones. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Wetlands Hearing: Lazaris, Trustee, Lot 1, 77 Border Street (new build)*
Wetlands Hearing: Lazaris, Trustee, Lot 2, 77 Border Street (new build)*
Greg Morse, Morse Engineering was present at the hearing. Abutters notification was submitted. Subdivided into 2 lots. Lot 1 to the north, Lot 2 to the south. Take existing house and relocate onto Lot 2, then construct a new home on Lot 1. Lot 1 will utilize a new driveway. Shared septic outside the 100’ buffer zone. Gulf River approximately 700’ off the plan. FEMA elevation 8.50’. Two separate DEP file #s. Lot 1: majority of lot is already cleared, clearing approximately 20’ more. Approximately 51’ away from the wetland line; retaining wall and lawn maintained behind the house. About 200 sq. ft. of work in the 50’ buffer. One significant tree to be taken down, rest is scrub brush. Hoping we can offset by planting 2 : 1 ratio = 400 sq. ft.

Lot 2: The house itself is approximately 95’ away from the wetland. No grading in the 50’ buffer. Retaining wall to make up some of the grade differences. Walk-out in back for both dwellings. Ms. Scott-Pipes: Grading in the back on Lot 1 (new house)? Top of foundation is at 38.9’, walking out at 28.9’; elevation at back of house is 28’. Significant exposed ledge, but will be attached to the ledge. Take the main box of the old house and move to Lot 2 and build a garage. Existing structure on Lot 1 in the 100’ buffer is 1112 sq. ft., proposed is 1700 sq. ft. Lot 2 reducing structure area from 1560’ down to 130’ in the buffer. Between the 2 lots approximately 800 sq ft less of impervious surface. Mr. Greenbaum: Lot 1 right up to the 50’ buffer zone, very limited area to build or maintain the corner of house, and that isn’t a preexisting disturbed area; we have asked people to provide enough space to build and maintain without having to go into the undisturbed buffer zone; needs to be addressed. Lot 2: the drainage swales that run between the houses quite frequently have BVW with a constant flow of water; another resource area that has not been identified. Both of these lots need storm water review. Mr. Parys: excessive clearing, more than seems necessary. Tried to maintain the clearing; blasted ledge with fairly new growth. Could have a site walk if the Commission is interested. Mr. Jones: Has the wetland line been approved? Been put in as part of the NOI. Can’t you move the house on Lot 1 a bit? Existing house is 56’ away from the wetlands. Trying to maintain the vistas. Concerned about growth in the 50’ buffer over time, since you mentioned vista. Mr. Shea: supposed to file for the Stormwater permit at the same time as the NOI. Difficult without knowing where these houses are located. Mr. O’Connell: 100 year flood plain within the BVW. Stan Humphries delineated the coastal bank. Bill Smith, 87 Border Street, and westerly side: 20’ grade change from his place to this house. Whatever can be left for major trees on the northwesterly side might help, otherwise runoff will come right down to his property. If Commission wants a site visit, will stake the corner of the house. Motion to continue the hearing to February 6, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. Ms. Scott-Pipes. Second Mr. Jones. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Wetlands Hearing: Devine, 117 River Street (raze/rebuild)*
Paul Mirabito, Ross Engineering was present at the hearing. Abutters notification was submitted. Raze and rebuild dwelling and put on wood pilings; move back from street; both front and back have open decks. Received approval from Zoning Board. Elevations will remain the same. Not expanding footprint. Ms. Scott-Pipes: lot of beach grass established. May be going into it by a few feet. Try to be real careful. Deck off second floor; lower deck 2 –1/2’ above ground; not a very big yard. Could add more dune grass in areas where there isn’t any. Grass is not on the plan, don’t know how much of the grass will be altered. How many feet are you going out toward the ocean? Proposed deck off the new deck is 8’. About 120 sq ft of beach grass will be disturbed. Can state in orders: Vegetation plan shall be submitted to and approved by the agent. Motion to close the hearing Ms. Scott-Pipes. Second Mr. Greenbaum. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Agent’s Report: Mr. Shea: Harrington, 88 Country Way: in June asked Mr. Harrington for delineation, took a long time. Brook Monroe’s delineation came in about 2 weeks ago, not yet verified. Much correspondence with Mr. Harrington who said nothing was going to take place. Seems to be ongoing activities. Mr. Harrington is not the owner of the property. Notifying Mr. Gardner. Michael Lesher, abutter: cleared outside the 100’ buffer zone. When he’s clearing, he dumps in the culvert, the property owner across the street sees him working 11:00 / 11:45 p.m. He can see properties that he couldn’t see before. Mr. Lesher had to shorten his deck because of the wetlands. Trees are dropped in the field; request replacement of 2” to 2 –1/2” caliper trees. Biologist pointed out mature apple trees – Harrington claims it was an apple orchard. Hopes the fining process is in effect and he can’t go and get approval for any other projects, like a sewer connection. The piles of debris grow. Mr. Shea: bring Mr. Harrington in; plan is a base plan. Mr. Snow: What if we turn it over to DEP enforcement? Do they tend to be more or less aggressive? In a case in Cohasset neighbors were upset about all sorts of violations. It was handed over to the northeast region, they fined the violator $25,000. They held him to it, but instead of the fine he restored $25,000 worth of wetlands. It’s time to hand this to the state. Notify Mr. Gardner and have him come in. Let’s find out what DEP will do. Document the late hours; call the police.

Discuss: Kamman, 31 Candlewood Dr
Mr. & Mrs. Kamman were present. Received several letters by e-mail and mail from Brad Holmes that he is longer working for Mr. Kamman. Mr. Kamman: did not receive anything from Brad Holmes. Computer was down, fax was not working, etc. March 2010 established silt fence with haybales, highlighted on Google maps. Following November letter met with Mr. Shea. Decided would put another fabric filter at end of the lane. Have 20’ wide strip of wood chips; sent photos. Submitted letter on the 19th; which was distributed to members. Requests the fines stop for the winter. Moved the soil piles out. Now open pools of water. Lower portion 30% completed. Order of Conditions ends the summer of 2013, thought he had 3 years to complete. Ms. Scott-Pipes: this project should have been done, completed, and plantings should have been finished this fall. More excuses than anybody. Should have hired someone and gotten the work done. Mr. Shea: Orders are for 3 years, but Wetlands Restoration is under an Enforcement Order. It is stabilized for the winter, but we want to get this done. Brad Holmes did the restoration plan, he is supposed to be giving guidance to you on that plan. When you do a restoration project for a client, you are sort of married to that project. We requested a consultant advisory fee to make sure this work is being done. Mr. Snow: Not being done the way it was supposed to be; you will have to get another environmental person; Commission has been more than fair, serious wetland violation, ready to give to the state, have been more than willing to work with you--don’t want to spend any more time on this. Mr. Kamman: Paid a fee of $2500 to cover the expense of reviewing the design and possible monitoring of the restoration area. Mr. Shea has been babysitting the project. Paul Shea is the consultant. Nothing is being done on this project because Brad Holmes is not involved any longer. Mr. Shea has been out at the site; didn’t want erosion problems. If the plantings had been done last summer, we wouldn’t be in this mess. Only been going actively since last year. Violations go back to 1999. Mr. Greenbaum: as of now we have a violation in place, a Notice of Intent filed; an Order of Conditions; an approved Wetland Restoration Plan, but plantings for the 50’ buffer zone have not been done; fining does not have to do with NOI, but with the Enforcement Order; to take care of the fining, it is in your best interest to get the work done. I would have trouble suspending the fining. Did not get the work done this fall; fining is still an open issue. We don’t have a completed project, haven’t cleared the Enforcement Order. Mr. Shea: the way these projects work is the biologist is supposed to be involved, but we can’t force Brad Holmes to work on this project. Can’t put a machine in there in the winter. Mr. Greenbaum: Mr. Kamman is responsible. The next step in the spring is to plant according to Brad’s plan. The Orders were issued a long time ago, should have hired an excavating company to remove the fill. Mr. Kamman: Brad did not explain that. Financially, not capable of hiring anyone. Nothing in the Orders about getting work done right away. Kindly asking for elimination of the fines. Asking for reasonable common sense. Nothing ever stated in the Order of Conditions that work had to be done by 2011. Stated at several hearings and written in the Memorandum. If he knew it was Enforcement Order he would have been working on it. Mr. Snow: do not want to deal with this any more. Mr. Shea: he can’t do anything this winter. If you perform, we can review the fine. Encourage Mr. Holmes to come back to the project, because it is his plan you need guidance from him. Need specific dates of when things have to be done.

Michael Johnston, 218 Clapp Road re: 214 Clapp Road – subdivision? They filed an ANRAD application showing where they thought the wetlands were. No proposal as of now. As an abutter you will be notified.

31 Candlewood Drive: Sticky area with Paul Shea being the consultant. Brad Holmes is supposed to be overseeing; will discuss at a later date.
The problem is he only has a small bobcat – went into a huge wetlands area and poked around and doesn’t have the resources to hire someone. Issued the Order of Conditions November 15, 2010 with a 3-page memorandum explaining the denial.

Agents Report: Mr. O’Connell: Shirley Musto, 111 Glades Road cleaned up the dune. 4 pilings required, but they will be put in concrete to hold up existing dwelling, considered a minor change.

Bailey’s Causeway Parking Lot: We received the RDA; the plan impacts the wetland area. Going out next Tuesday or Wednesday with DPW.

101 Ann Vinal Road: Landscape company filling a wetland; needs a Show Cause letter. Should have the wetlands flagged.
Whatever happened to the after-the-fact RDA for 147 Hollett Street. Fell off the radar.

Order of Conditions: Depperman, 103 Thomas Clapp Road (septic repair)
Motion to condition the project Ms. Scott-Pipes. Second Mr. Jones. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Order of Conditions: McDermott, 60 Chittenden Road (septic repair)
Motion to condition the project Ms. Scott-Pipes. Second Mr. Jones. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

Mrs. McDermott offered a piece of property across from 60 Chittenden Road. Hearsay from a neighbor that cars had been parked in the area. First level of pollution assessment will not tell much.

Mr. Snow recused himself from the discussion of the Order of Conditions for 214 Thomas Clapp Road and left the room.

Order of Conditions: Fern Properties, 214 Clapp Road (wetland delineation)
Motion to accept the wetland delineation except for the front ponding area Ms. Scott-Pipes. Second Mr. Jones. Motion passed by unanimous vote.

CORRESPONDENCE
December 20, 2011 – January 11, 2012
1. Appeal re: 20 Ocean Front Street – 68-2366 (in file)
2. Appeal re: 22 Ocean Front Street – 68-2365 (in file)
3. Request for CofC 68-1519 – 57 Garrison Drive (in file)
4. Regarding 68-2300 – Martin, 24 Ocean Front Street – Maybe would be better to postpone discussion on the Martin property until after DEP’s on-site or issuance of a Superseding Order. (in file)
5. Revised plan for ANRAD 68-2354 – Fern Properties, 214 Clapp Road (in file)
6. Request for a CofC for 68-2371 – 5 Irving Street (in file)
7. Planning Board re: Workshop on Roles and Responsibilities of Planning Boards & Zoning Boards. 1/26/12 7:30 p.m. Selectmen’s Hearing Room. (e-mailed to members/Paul & Jim)
8. DEP File #68-2386 – Connolly, 0 Seamore Road (in file-2nd filing)
9. DEP File #68-2387 – McDermott, 60 Chittenden Road (in file)
10. DEP File #68-2388 – Mitchell, 62 Surfside Road (in file)
11. RiverWatch Newsletter
12. The Beacon
13. Revised plan for ANRAD – Doherty, 89 Edward Foster Road (in file)
14. DEP re: 68-2290 – Wannop, Lot 2 Glades Road – Recommend Final Decision of Presiding Officer (dismissed?) (in file)
15. DEP – On-Site 68-2365 22 Ocean Front Street & 68-2366 20 Ocean Front Street – 3:00 p.m., start at 22. (in file)
16. Notification of Class A-2 Response Action re: Former Proving Grounds, 137 Hatherly Road. No further action required. (in file)
17. Woodard & Curran Directions
18. Progress report dated 12/23/11 re: SHYC (in file)
19. Recording of CofC for: 68-2260 – Noble, 24 Riverview Place (in file)
20. Recording of CofC for: 68-1482 – Hopkins/Blake, 136 Cornet Stetson Road (in file)
21. E-mail re: Hunters Pond Dam letter of intent was favorably reviewed by GOMC-NOAA Habitat Restoration Partnership
22. Letter from ECR/Brad Holmes re: 31 Candlewood Drive – 68-2251 – Not working for Mr. Kamman (in file)
23. E-mail from Jason Burtner re: GOMC-NOAA’s response to Hunter’s Pond Dam, will work with Scituate for full application
24. E-mail re: GOMC/NOAA Habitat Restoration Grants Program. Committee recommended to move to application stage.
25. Gift of Land: Connelly – (45-10-4) property donation to Town of Scituate under Care & Custody of Conservation – (believes needs to be notarized)
26. Plan/Gill, 39 Surfside Road - Landscape & proposed timber wall for 41 Surfside Road (in file)
27, Abutter Notification re: Planning Board re: Stormwater Permit at 49 Booth Hill Road – parcel has been stripped of vegetation. Planning Board will review this application. All are welcome to attend.
28. Planning Board re: Stormwater Permit – 49 Booth Hill Road. COMMENTS by January 11, 2012
29. DPW re: Gift of Land 45-10-4 – 300’x100’ parcel of land located on paper street behind #42 Hatherly Road. DPW & Water Dept. foresees no immediate benefit accruing from the acquisition of this land.
30. Engineer’s Certification letter and As-built plan re: 68-2329 – 53 Lighthouse Road (in file)
31. Recording of OofC 68-2376 – Meehan, 16 Barry’s Landing (in file)
32. Request for ORAD Extension – 68-2072 – Fairbanks Trust, Lot 3, Glades Road (in file)
33. Request for CofC 68-2239 – Welby Builders, 14 Longmeadow Road (in file)
34. Request for CofC 68-2347 – Wood, 126 Captain Peirce Road (in file)
35. Question re: 68-1428 & 68-1631 re: CofC and if required. Sent e-mail to paralegal re: clearing title.
36. North River Commission approval for Meehan, 16 Barry’s Landing for 14’x 4’ deck & 20’x 6.5’ Float (in file)
37. Request to continue 56 Moorland Road from January 23 to February 22.
38. Ocean & Coastal Consultants Newsletter – The Current
39. Planning Board Agenda for January 12, 2012
40. Request for CofC for 68-2220 – 89 Lighthouse Road– waiting for check (in file)
41. MACC Quarterly
42. MA Congress of Lake & Pond Associations – Newsletter – Water Wisdom

Meeting adjourned 9:45 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Carol Logue, Secretary