FINAL
Present for the Conservation Commission and attending the meeting were: Richard Steves, Chairman, Pam Goff, Bruce Bartels, Russell Maloney, Ray Kellman, Virginia Dyer, David Flanders, Rusty Walton, and Chuck Hodgkinson. Also attending were Glenn Provost, Carol Magee, Chris Horiuchi, Jay Walsh, Chris Alley, Debbie Hancock, Reid Silva and Marcia Cini.
Mr. Steves opened the meeting at 1:30 to announce two site visits: 2 Stone Ridge (LoRusso/Lochridge) and 18, 20 Crick Hill Rd. (Hancock/Kenney).
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING CHRIS ALLEY FOR 9 AZALEA NOMINEE TRUST: NOI SE 12 – 532; AP 29-8: Mr. Steves asked Ms. Goff to Chair this hearing. Ms. Goff opened the continued hearing at 2:09 PM and reminded the applicant that she and Messrs. Kellman, Bartels and Maloney would vote on this case. Mr. Alley summarized the comments raised at the last meeting and presented a revised site plan dated 4/3/07 for relocating the current house out of the 100-foot shore zone but within the buffer zone of a bordering vegetated wetland. Mr. Alley added that he tried and failed to obtain permission from the abutting neighbor for a different location that is farther from the wetland edge and would require zoning setback relief. The zoning regulations require written permission for setback relief
from abutters within 100 feet of the proposed structure. The proposed new location is 28 feet from the wetland edge. The locations of the proposed new garage and septic system have not changed from the prior plan. He pointed out that all construction is within the buffer zone while explaining the coastal bank erosion is affecting the pre-existing structures on a very sensitive site.
The Commissioners agreed this current proposal addresses their prior requests to move the house farther away from the wetland. The proposed new garage is still a problem as it is not a pre-existing structure affected by the erosion. Mr. Alley asked if an outside storage shed might be permitted instead of the garage. Ms. Goff responded it might be allowed if the entire structure and foundation are above grade. Mr. Bartels added however, that many times sheds expand into detached bedrooms over time and he is not inclined to allow it. Mr. Alley understood and said a separate application would be filed if a shed were desired. With no further comment from the audience the hearing closed at 2:18 PM.
A motion to approve the plan as presented and dated 4/3/07 was made with two conditions: 1. The two sections of the main house are approved but the new garage as shown on the plan is not approved. 2. No coastal engineering structure shall be allowed as outlined in 310 CMR 10.30(3) of the Wetlands Regulations, promulgated under MGL c. 131 s. 40. The motion was seconded and voted unanimously with four in favor.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING GLENN PROVOST FOR PACER NOMINEE TRUST – BARBARA FOSTER TRUSTEE: NOI SE 12 – 532; AP 35-1.15: Ms. Goff opened the continued hearing at 2: 20 PM and reminded Mr. Provost that she and Messrs. Kellman, Bartels and Maloney would vote on this case. Mr. Provost introduced Carol Magee of the Vineyard Open Land Foundation who read a letter outlining the history of the subdivision for the record. Ms. Goff explained that the laws have changed since the subdivision and building envelopes were created. Mr. Walton reported that he inventoried the wetland vegetation and added there is enough water traveling down the drainage swale to maintain the vegetation along the swale. Mr. Walton recommended altering the building envelope by
10 % as allowed in the subdivision to reduce the activity in the buffer zone resource. Mr. Walton distributed notes of his site visit observations dated 3/21/07.
Mr. Provost read a report on the options that were evaluated since the last meeting for the record. He also referenced four prior Orders of Conditions that included construction in the buffer zone – 1994 Madoff AP 21-7,9; 1995 Hale AP 35-44,45, SE12-246; 2000 Lombardi AP 31-5, SE12 – 381; 2001 Berger AP 27-15.1, SE12 – 404. Mr. Provost concluded by stating in his opinion the by-law regulations do not specifically prohibit construction in the buffer zone and believed the Commission does not have the ability to prohibit the proposed work in this area but may place conditions on the work.
Ms. Goff explained that the by-law considers each buffer zone a resource just as a wetland is a resource. She added that each application is evaluated on its own merits and that this lot has a substantial wetland -- not an insignificant, isolated wetland. This fact is further supported by Mr. Walton’s site visit and vegetation inventory. She continued by stating in this case there are other options on this site that would not put so much new construction in the buffer zone. The plan as proposed would be detrimental to the resource. As suggested earlier the Commission would support a change in the building envelope that would relieve pressure on the resource.
Mr. Walton asked if the entire project could be taken completely out of the buffer zone. Mr. Provost responded this is not possible because it would not accommodate all of the proposed construction.
Mr. Provost explained that no changes were made to the proposed plan since the last meeting because he tried to prepare an application that was eligible for a permit while reiterating his earlier comment that he sees no regulations in the buffer zone that prohibit this work. He added that he would like to discuss this with the owners and possibly modify the plan and asked if the Commission might agree to a certain setback distance from the wetland edge. The Commission responded that they visited the site several times and described it as magnificent while adding it had no problem reducing the views to protect the resource. Mr. Provost asked for guidance in making revisions. Ms. Goff suggested concentrating the construction activity outside the buffer zone and installing a bridge over the drainage swale.
With no further discussion Mr. Provost requested a continuance to April 18, 2007 @ 2:30 PM. A motion to accept the request was made, seconded and unanimously approved with four in favor.
PUBLIC MEETING RFD MARCIA CINI FOR LORUSSO/LOCHRIDGE, AP 25-130: Mr. Steves opened the public meeting at 3:03 PM. Ms. Cini summarized the request for placing a 12’ X 50’ area for parking two cars in a buffer zone and installing two 10-foot sections of split rail fencing along both sides of Tilton Cove Way to keep cars from accidentally driving into a drainage culvert under the roadway. Mr. Steves discussed the earlier site visit and commented the Commission allowed an expanded parking area in the buffer zone several years ago and this is asking for more parking in the buffer zone. The Commission concurred and a motion was made for a positive determination on the parking spaces and a negative determination for the split rail fencing. The motion was seconded and voted
unanimously in favor. Ms. Cini asked if the Commission would reconsider its vote and continue the meeting to April 18th. There may be a better solution for the parking spaces. After brief discussion a motion to retract the earlier motion and vote was made seconded and unanimously approved to give the applicant more time to develop a better solution.
PUBLIC HEARING REID SILVA FOR DEBBIE HANCOCK AND JEROME KENNEY; NOI SE 12 - ?; AP 27.1-119, 120: Mr. Steves opened the public hearing at 3:14 PM and explained the Commission may open the hearing for discussion but cannot vote until it receives a file number from the DEP. Mr. Silva summarized the site plan and design for a bulkhead, revetment along the water’s edge of Menemsha Basin to protect the coastal bank and stall its erosion. Mr. Silva added that he is aware of the prior Orders of Conditions that specified a condition of allowing no bulkheads or revetments along the coastal bank. He explained that this proposal is intended to protect the activity allowed in the prior Orders and keep the house from potentially falling into the harbor. He described the proposed system as a
4-foot high composite wall; the supporting piles will not be pounded into place but driven by a vibrating hammer. The sheathing will be placed behind the piles. The sheathing will not be driven into place because that would disturb the bank even further. The backfill will be clear sand, topsoil and planted with rosa rugosa or other, better vegetation to stabilize the slope. He added that a stone revetment is not an option because this would become a coastal structure in the water – not on the bank.
Ms. Goff cited a recent coastal erosion workshop that demonstrated other, more natural solutions that were admittedly more for beach erosion rather than for preventing the erosion of a coastal bank. Mr. Silva thought the bank was too steep to allow a soft solution to take root and stabilize the bank. This bank is exposed to ice and storm surges that further compound the problem. Ms. Hancock produced several historic pictures of the site while pointing out prior attempts of using burlap and planting rosa rugosa failed. Mr. Silva commented that they must get the elevation up to meet the natural slope and said they would have plantings that would drape over the wall to screen its appearance.
The Commission agreed something must be done and suggested taking time to research alternative solutions. Mr. Maloney commented that he would not be comfortable living in the house with the bank in this condition and thought time is somewhat urgent. Ms. Hancock added that bittersweet, while an invasive species has historically succeeded in stemming bank erosion. After brief discussion Mr. Silva asked for a continuance to April 18th @ 2:15 PM. A motion to accept the request was made seconded and unanimously approved.
MIDDLE LINE ROAD COMMUNITY HOUSING PROGRAM – FORM B SUBDIVISION AP 13-43: Ms. Goff recused herself from the discussion as an abutter to the plan. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the proposed Form B subdivision. Mr. Provost summarized the parts of the plan that might be in the Commission’s jurisdiction -- the section of Middle Line Road that abuts a wetland and the area around the man-made clay pits. He added that a Notice of Intent would be filed at a future date for the required roadwork. The Commission thanked Mr. Provost and deferred comment until it has an opportunity to walk the site.
CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE SE 12 – 346 (RE-CERTIFICATION) AND SE 12 – 441; AP 13-6.1: Mr. Provost summarized the work performed for these two Orders of Conditions and that the first Order was issued a certificate in 1998 (SE 12 – 346) but was never filed. Mr. Walton added that the work performed for the Wiggins Order (SE 12 – 441) has been successfully completed. After a brief discussion a motion to approve both Certificates of Compliance was made seconded and unanimously approved. Both documents were signed and notarized.
RUSTY WALTON UPDATES: Mr. Walton summarized his report of an on site meeting with Gary Maynard, the contractor for Rosemallow Farm Trust SE 12 – 526; AP 24-36. He said an amended Notice of Intent will be filed as instructed by the Commission and he recommended allowing the work to proceed as outlined with the understanding that an amended notice will be filed for review. The Commission accepted and agreed with Mr. Walton’s recommendation.
Ms. Goff signed Ms. Dyers’ expense report for attending the MACC Annual Conference.
MINUTES: The review of the 3/7/07 meeting minutes was postponed to the next meeting.
With no further business to conduct the meeting adjourned at 4:00 PM.
Respectfully submitted by Chuck Hodgkinson, C.A.S.
| 
