|
Minutes, 5 September 2007 Final
Present for the Commission: Chair-pro-tem. Pam Goff, Russell Maloney, Ray Kellman, Virginia Dyer, and Russell Walton as Assistant pro tem.
Also present: Chris Alley (Schofield Barbini & Hoehn), Eric Shenholm (Builder), Peter Darling (abutter) , David Klemperer (with an inquiry)
!. The meeting started at 1:30 PM, but was adjourned for site visits to Windy Gates, addressStreetGreenhouse Lane, the Howland subdivision, and Tea lane.
2. The meeting re-started at 3:05PM with the opening of the Public Hearing on a proposed addition to the “Carriage House” at Windy Gates. (AP 30-106.1, SE -12 - 539) Chris Alley and Eric Shenholm presented a proposal for a music studio to be added to a corner of the Carriage House, replacing a portion of the deck and some lawn and planted shrubs.
The proposed foundation is a slab at grade, then a “frost wall” to bring the level up to match the existing floor or deck, another slab, and music room designed “to keep the appearance of the old house”. The addition extends to about 27 feet from a wetland which was described as isolated.
There followed a half-hour of discussion of the Chilmark reluctance to allow construction within the Buffer Zone, questions as to what “Interests of the Act” would be affected, reading of sections of our By-Law by chair Pam Goff, and the difference between Chilmark’s and the State’s treatment of “buffer”. Mr. Walton stated that there had been over-ground flow at the time of his original wetland delineation on the property. Mr. Kellman pointed out that, even if the overland flow was no longer to be seen, that did not mean that there was no sub-surface flow. The question of what mitigation would be possible for the addition of impermeable surface was raised, with an offer made by the proponents to collect and infiltrate rainwater.
The Hearing was closed at 3:33 PM. Findings were stated: The Conservation Commission can not place conditions on this proposed construction which will protect the interests of the Act, specifically protection of groundwater, of private water supply, of wildlife habitat, and prevention of pollution.
>> A motion was made, seconded and approved unanimously to deny the application under both the Mass. DEP Regulations and Chilmark By-Law.
{Editorial note: There was some question as to whether the existing deck had been approved at the present size. A check of the records shows that the deck was shown at the present size in 1996, SE12 - 289.]
3. At 3:38 the Public Meeting was started for discussion of a Request for Determination presented by Chris Alley on behalf of Susan Power (Howland). (AP34 - 1.2) The proposal is for clearing of brush for the purpose of sale of the lot - to allow soil testing, to expose the shape of the land, and to demonstrate views. Part of the area proposed is simply the minimum needed to reach the (small) area on the lot which is both within the building envelope and outside the buffer zones of three wetland areas. An additional area, whose nearest edge lies 79 feet from the isolated wetland, 50 feet from the sideline of the subdivision road, was proposed for clearing. This second, triangular section, approximately 2100 square feet in area, became the subject of a long argument, most of which related more to house
construction than to the proposed clearing activity. As was noted by Mrs. Goff, the Conservation Commission does not allow house construction in buffer areas; if an area not useable for construction is cleared there will be an expectation that the area can be used. There was discussion of the actual isolation of the inner wetland, which Mr. Walton and Mr. Alley both identify as isolated, but larger than it was before the subdivision road.
>>A motion to allow the mowing as proposed was made, seconded, and voted upon, but this resulted in a tie: 2 in favor, 2 against. This was declared denied due to the tie, requiring filing of a Notice of Intent if the mowing of the entire area is to be pursued.
>> An immediate revision was made by Mr. Alley, to include as mowing within the buffer only an access lane approximately 6 feet wide by 10 feet long. This revision was accepted and all voted in favor.
4. At 4 PM Mrs. Goff opened the Public Hearing for Lauren Walters (AP 33 - 32). This was presented by Chris Alley. The proposal is for coastal bank erosion reduction, by placement of a Coir roll along the toe of the sand slope, applying jute fabric to most of the slope, and planting Beach Grass though the jute.
>> Mr. Peter Darling, whose property abuts to the west -and which property was originally included in the application - said that he had not received notice. He heard of the Hearing from another source, asked the Post Offices both here and in placeCityStratham, StateNew Hampshire to search - without result. As he was able to attend, he did not demand a re-hearing. Mr. Darling did withdraw his property from the application, stating that the entire bank system is too fragile, with erosion both rapid and inevitable, to allow any disturbance, including the proposals. He said also that the material of the bank is not really sand but is finer, silty. Any disturbance, even a dog running along the base of the bank, can cause slippage.
>> The hearing was closed at (around) 4:18. Several conditions were discussed: no artificial change in slope, all work is to be done by hand, any effects on the slope are to be minimized - possibly by the use of a ladder laid against the face, the Conservation Officer is to supervise & work with the contractor (Steve Yaffe) to minimize adverse effects on the bank.
>> The motion to approve with conditions was voted unanimously.
5. David Klemperer (AP 25 - 85) came to enquire whether trees on the Fulling Mill Brook Preserve could be cut, topped, or at least pruned, to restore some of the water view lost to normal tree growth over the last many years since his family bought a site off addressStreetOcean View Farm Road. After brief discussion of the ownership, restrictions on, and management of the Preserve, Mr. Klemperer was referred to Matt Dix, the Property Manager for the Land Bank, as that organization has contracted to manage the Preserve for the Town.
6. David Steere came to enquire what needed to be done, what papers filed, etc, as his Order of Conditions had expired two years ago (AP 8 - 23, SE12 - 420). A part of the Order included the placement of a septic system (believed done several years ago), as well as lying of underground cables to replace an overhead line. Mr. Steere complains that he has been waiting for NSTAR to relocate a roadside pole. He recently trenched from the knoll (house site) to a transformer pad location near addressStreetTea Lane, including a “pull box” at 300 feet from the transformer site. The trench crossed a small wetland & intermittent drainage line. Sometime in the last five years, Mr. Steere filled much of a shallow pool at the edge of the driveway, leaving a 3' wide trench from the edge of
wetland shrubbery to a new culvert, thus widening and stabilizing the driveway. He has recently “re-dug the pond” down hill from the house site, at the edge of (and possibly within) wetland.
>> After brief discussion it was agreed that a new NOI will be filed for the work recently done which was covered by SE 12-420, with the Town waiving its portion of the fee.
>> Mr. Steer is also to file anew NOI to cover the re-digging of the pond and any other activities proposed in wetland or the buffer. In order to do this he will have to have a wetland map of the property prepared. (placePlaceNameVineyard PlaceTypeLand Surveying may have the needed data for the wetland edge, but probably not for the newly re-dug pond.)
7. There was a brief discussion of the requested Certificate of Compliance for Judith Herman (SE 12- 470, AP 8 - 23). The property is in the process of a sale. Mr. Walton reported that the construction was fine and as proposed, but that a colony of Salt-Pond Pennywort (Hydrocotyle verticillata), a State-listed rare plant, is where everyone using the pier walks. He suggested that the Certificate could be issued, but with a requirement that the pier be relocated.
>> The Commission voted unanimously to deny the Certificate due to the presence of the Pennywort.
8. The Minutes of August 15th were approved unanimously, without amendment.
9. Noted correspondence: Conservation Commission Day, Sept. 19th- at the State House; Letter from NHESP requiring a search for Sea-Beach Knotweed before the Phragmites treatment begins; MACC Fall Conference, Oct. 20th at PlaceNameplaceMassBay PlaceTypeCommunity College, Wellesley Hills.
The Bruce application for a Certificate of Compliance was not heard before the Commission adjourned at 4:50 PM
Respectfully submitted,
Russell R. Walton,
Assistant pro tem.
| 
