FINAL
Present for the Conservation Commission and attending the meeting were: Richard Steves, Chair, Pam Goff, David Flanders, Pam White, Bruce Bartels, Ray Kellman, Associate Commissioner Russell Maloney, Rusty Walton, Conservation Officer and Chuck Hodgkinson.
Also attending: Camille and Raymond Shea, Doug Cooper, Richard and Susan Winickoff, Barbara Thorpe, Jonathan Winickoff, Russell and Mary Ann Hoxsie, George Sourati and Moira Fitzgerald.
Mr. Steves opened the meeting at 1:30 PM and announced the Commission would make two site visits: Shea 11 Hammett Lane and Labaree 78 Menemsha Inn Road.
SHEA NOI SE 12 – 501; AP 8,43: Mr. Steves opened the public hearing at 2:11 PM. Mr. Shea summarized the plans and differences from the prior application that was denied in 2002. He pointed out that Doug Cooper developed a new wetland delineation that used more scientific methods including soil samples. He added that Conservation Officer Rusty Walton, who performed the original delineation, was also consulted.
Mr. Shea pointed out the entire disturbed area is less than 10,000 sq. ft., most of which is in an existing field, and that only 4000 sq. ft. of this area is within the 100-foot buffer zone. The well and trench are the only elements that are within the first 50-foot section of buffer zone – 25 feet from the wetland edge. He added the disturbance caused by the well installation would be revegetated. Mr. Shea has reviewed these plans with the Board of Health twice and is scheduled to meet with them again on January 18, 2006 to review the minor requested changes.
Mr. Shea continued that he plans to have a deed restriction that does not allow for any house expansion beyond the planned two-bedroom structure.
Mr. Kellman asked for the location of the first 50-foot buffer zone. Mr. Shea pointed out this line and said the house is 75 feet from the wetland. Ms. Goff asked if a cellar would be installed. Mr. Shea said the seasonal high water is three feet and added he planned to have six feet of fill above grade and only drop two feet below grade to create a walk out basement. Ms. Goff asked for the Board of Health’s required setbacks. Mr. Shea summarized there is 130 feet between the septic and well and 150 feet of separation is required; there is 20 feet between the leach field and property line – versus the 30 foot requirement. The leach field will be a raised system. The distance between the leach field and the wetland is 115 feet versus the required 150-foot setback. Mr. Shea
mentioned the Board of Health has accepted the plan with these dimensions.
Mr. Steves summarized Chilmark’s Wetland Protection By-Law Section 3.02 and its prohibitions and added that pursuant to Section 5.01 the Commission can approve a project if the applicant convinces them the resource will be sufficiently protected. Mr. Steves read six abutter letters of objection for the record.
Susan Winickoff asked whether or not a second wetland delineation that is different than a prior analysis is normal. Mr. Steves added the Commission could accept a new delineation. Mr. Walton pointed out the new delineation uses recent DEP procedures that specify more scientific methods of wetland delineation that include soil samples. He added that his 2002 survey that relied upon vegetation assessment combined with Mr. Cooper’s soil samples resulted in a different delineation.
Ms. Goff asked how often the Board of Health (BOH) allows variances to the setbacks when new construction is involved. Mr. Cooper commented that the BOH variance procedure for new construction is more rigorous than for upgrading failed septic systems. Mr. Shea’s proposal meets all of the State’s Title V requirements. The more stringent variances are Chilmark-specific. Mr. Cooper continued that based upon his experience Mr. Shea’s variances are not extraordinary.
The Commission asked if the proposed house is more than 200 feet from Paint Mill Brook. It was affirmed.
Mr. Steves opened the hearing to comments from the audience.
Dick Winickoff: Mr. Winickoff outlined the reasons he is opposed to the project, which largely dealt with the adverse impact it will have on the environment. He added the only substantial change from original denied proposal of 2002 is the new wetland delineation. Specific concerns included the fill’s impact on the grade and resulting drainage runoff into the meadow, woodland and marsh. He continued that the proposed construction and subsequent use may impact the breeding grounds for the Bluebird, Wood Thrush, Northern Parula Warbler, Screech Owl and Cooper’s Hawk.
Barbara Thorpe: Ms. Thorpe commented that this lot has always been a problem lot for the environment and did not think it is a buildable lot.
With no further comment from the audience Mr. Steves closed the hearing at 3:05 PM and opened the meeting for Commission discussion.
The Commission did not accept the new wetland delineation. Ms. Goff added the Commission could ask the applicant to have a third delineation prepared by an objective third party engineer. Ms. White commented she would not approve this plan even if a third delineation confirmed Mr. Cooper’s.
Mr. Steves commented he would consider approval if the proposed house location could be moved out of the Commission’s jurisdiction and the septic plan was changed accordingly. Mr. Shea said he could probably eliminate the porch, which would reduce the house’s buffer zone encroachment from 15 feet to about eight feet. He added that the footprint is only 830 sq. ft. and believed this is a reasonable proposal.
A motion to deny the Notice of Intent was introduced and seconded. The reasons for the denial referred to the regulations outlined in the Town’s Wetland Protection By-Law Sections 3.02 and 5.01 that include: 1. The adverse impact this construction will have on wildlife and wildlife habitat, water supply, flow and runoff into the wetland resource. 2. The applicant did not clearly and convincingly demonstrate the construction will not adversely affect the interests protected in the By-Laws. 3. The Commission questions the validity of the more recent wetland delineation.
With no further discussion the motion to deny the Notice of Intent was voted and carried with six in favor of denial and one against.
LABAREE NOI; (NO DEP FILE #) AP 21, 36: Mr. Steves opened the public hearing at 3:15 PM. Ms. Fitzgerald and Mr. Sourati summarized the plans to demolish and replace an existing detached bedroom with outdoor shower that is located 28 feet from the coastal bank. The new structure’s footprint will match that of the existing one. Mr. Sourati commented the outdoor shower was approved in 2001.
Mr. Sourati asked if the Commission would not close the hearing and continue it to February 1, 2006 @ 2:30 PM because the owner may ask for changes to the application. A motion to continue the hearing to Wednesday, February 1, 2006 @ 2:30 PM was made seconded and unanimously approved.
MINUTES DECEMBER 21, 2005: The minutes for the December 21, 2005 meeting were reviewed. A motion to approve the minutes as presented was made seconded and unanimously approved.
RUSTY WALTON UPDATES: Mr. Walton informed the Commission that Bill Elbow cleared some fallen trees along a stone wall that is in the buffer zone at 55 Hammett Lane. He added that he did not think there was any serious disturbance. The Commission agreed no action was necessary.
The Commission approved Mr. Walton’s request to attend the MACC Annual Conference in Worcester this March and looks forward to his report.
With no further business to conduct the meeting adjourned at 3:35 PM.
Respectfully submitted by Chuck Hodgkinson; C.A.S.
| 
