FINAL
Present for the Conservation Commission and attending the meeting were: Sandy Broyard, Chairman, Pam Goff, Chris Murphy, Maureen Eisner, Joan Malkin, Bob Hungerford, Wesley Cottle and Chuck Hodgkinson. Reid Silva, George Sourati, Matt Merry, Tara Marden, Greg Berman, Richard Nylen, George Brush, Carole Hunter, Scott Bermudes, Neil Weisman, Edward Miller, Monina VonOpel, Kent Healy, Graeme Flanders, John Abrams, Remy Tumin and John Clarke also attended. Candy Shweder was absent.
The meeting came to order at 12:30 PM. Ms. Broyard appointed Alternate Commissioner Ms. Eisner as a voting member for the day’s agenda. Having visited the site earlier in the morning with the applicant Ms. Broyard asked Ms. Marden if she would mind allowing the Commission to conduct the other business on the agenda before opening her NOI public hearing for Fool’s High Tide. Ms. Marden agreed.
NOI SE 12 – 703 REID SILVA FOR DAVID FLANDERS NOMINEE TRUST I; off State Rd./Access to Quitsa Pond; AP 33-103: Ms. Broyard opened the public hearing at 12:31 PM. Mr. Silva summarized the history of the existing timber-frame pier in Nashaquitsa Pond that the owners would like to license and maintain in perpetuity. After brief discussion about the site visit the letter from the Division of Fisheries was read for the record. With no comment from the public a motion was made to close the hearing at 12:35 PM. The motion was seconded and unanimously approved. A subsequent motion was made to approve the plans as presented with the following special conditions: 1. Perpetual maintenance of the existing timber-frame pier is
allowed provided the maintenance plans are reviewed with the Conservation Agent before work begins. 2. Pressure-treated piles may not be used. Greenheart piles are preferred. 3. A Chapter 91 license is obtained for the pier. 4. No floating docks are allowed. The motion was seconded and with no discussion passed unanimously with seven in favor.
RFD KENT HEALY FOR DOUGLAS STEWARD; 4 Molly’s Way; AP 27.1-54: Mr. Healy described the plan to upgrade the existing septic system by removing the septic pits one of which is 55 feet from a perennial brook and wetland with a leach bed system that is approximately 75 feet from the edge of the brook which is also within the first 100 feet of the Riverfront Zone. He added a small parking area with a retaining wall that will be installed on the south side of the house and will be outside the 100-foot buffer zone. He said there may be a minor amount of work space within the buffer zone for the retaining wall installation. After brief discussion a motion was made for a negative determination with the following condition: Hay bales and silt fencing shall be installed between the work
area and the wetland and approved by the Conservation Agent before work begins. The motion was seconded and with no further discussion passed unanimously with seven in favor.
NOI SE 12 – 704; REID SILVA FOR THE NORTH STAR REALTY TRUST; 4 Tucker Trail; AP 33-55: Ms. Broyard opened the public hearing at 12:40 PM. Mr. Silva reviewed the plan hand-dated 6/4/14 to remove an existing dwelling within the buffer zone of a coastal bank and bury the existing overhead utility lines. The closest house demolition activity is approximately 80 feet from the flood zone limit of the coastal bank. A portion of the trench and the buried utility lines is within the 100-foot buffer zone of a salt marsh and there is a section of approximately 150 feet that runs along the edge of the marsh. The pros and cons of several options for digging the trench and installing the
utilities were discussed at length to determine which method would do the least amount of harm to the buffer zone performance and abutting salt marsh. Mr. Silva added the owner would like to add a left-hand corner to the driveway for access to his other property. This is not shown on the site plan and would be about 40 feet from the wetland edge. The letter from the NHESP was read for the record that indicated the work as proposed would not adversely affect habitat and will not result in a prohibited take of state-listed rare species. After more discussion on the entire plan and with no comment from the public a motion was made to close the hearing at 1:05 PM. The motion was seconded and unanimously approved. A subsequent motion was made to approve the plan as presented including the left-hand corner to the driveway with the following special conditions: 1. Hay bales and silt fencing shall be installed as shown on the site plan hand-dated
6/4/14 and approved by the Conservation Agent before work begins. 2. All construction debris shall be stored in a covered dumpster outside the resource area or buffer zone or removed from the site daily. 3. The Conservation Agent shall be notified when the utility trench and the utility work will be done. A mini-excavator with a one-foot bucket will be used. 4. Hay bales and silt fencing shall be installed and maintained along the edge of the buffer zone during all construction and landscaping for the new house which will be located outside the buffer zone. The Conservation Agent shall be notified when the new house will be built. 5. There shall be no underground storage of fuel oil. The motion was seconded and after brief discussion passed with six in favor and one opposed (Mr. Murphy).
NOI SE 12 – 705; GEORGE SOURATI FOR ROBERT G. KEGAN AND BARBARA H. WOLF; 127 State Rd.; AP 33-15: Ms. Broyard opened the public hearing at 1:11 PM. Mr. Sourati reviewed a revised site plan dated 6/2/14 to renovate and add a 3-season porch to the existing single-family residence. The porch will have both screens and glass window inserts. It will not have HVAC. The expansions are within the 100-foot buffer zones of the top of the Nashaquitsa Pond Coastal Bank and Salt Marsh and within the buffer zone of a 5,480 sq. ft. Wetland. The existing flagstone patio will be raised six inches and squared off. The outside edge of the patio will be flush with the existing grade. The closest activity is approximately 82 feet from the Coastal Bank and Salt Marsh and 75 feet
from the wetland edge. The Commission asked if the wetland is an isolated wetland. Mr. Sourati said the wetland is isolated because it is not a part of a larger wetland system. Mr. Sourati added he would like to move the new 3-car parking area as shown approximately 10 feet upland. They will excavate for the new parking area but, no fill will be added. He continued and said no additional vegetation between the end of the new parking area and wetland will be touched. Abutter Mr. Weisman asked if additional screening will be added so he will not see the new parking area from his house. The Commission responded that they only regulate activity within a resource area or buffer zone and this end of the parking area is outside the Commission’s jurisdiction. With no further comment from the public a motion was made to close the hearing at 1:25 PM. The
motion was seconded and unanimously approved. A subsequent motion was made to approve the plan as presented with the following special conditions: 1. Hay bales and silt fencing shall be installed as shown on the site plan and approved by the Conservation Agent before work begins. 2. All construction debris shall be stored in a covered dumpster located outside the resource area and buffer zone or removed from the site daily. 3. The applicant must return to the Commission if a landscape or view maintenance plan is prepared and the activity is in a resource area or buffer zone. 4. A new site plan shall be given to the Conservation Agent showing the revised parking area and the added siltation barriers for this work before the Order of Conditions shall be released. The motion was seconded and with no further discussion passed unanimously with seven in favor.
NOI SE 12 - 707; REID SILVA FOR THE SUSAN H. PARKER 2000 TRUST; 9 Moses West Road; AP 32-46: Ms. Broyard opened the public hearing at 1:30 PM. Mr. Silva reviewed the plan dated 5/19/14 to abandon a failed well and remove the well house, well head and pressure tank all of which are in a Bordering Vegetated Wetland. A new well will be dug in the buffer zone of the Bordering Vegetated Wetland and will be approximately 17 feet from the wetland edge. Mr. Silva recommended adding a temporary water collection trench between the new well site and wetland as added protection from the well cuttings. With no public comment a motion was made to close the hearing at 1:34 PM. The motion was seconded and unanimously approved. A
subsequent motion was made to approve the plan as presented with the following special conditions: 1. Hay bales and silt fencing shall be installed as shown on the site plan and approved by the Conservation Agent before work begins. 2. All construction debris shall be stored in a covered dumpster located outside the resource area and buffer zone or removed from the site daily. 3. A temporary water collection trench is allowed between the new well and the wetland to further protect the wetland from the well cuttings. The trench shall be filled in and the area restored when the work is finished. The motion was seconded and with no further discussion passed unanimously with seven in favor.
NOI SE 12 – 702; TARA MARDEN FOR FOOL’S HIGH TIDE, LLC; 25 East Lane; AP 32-68.1: Ms. Broyard thanked Ms. Marden for being patient and opened the public hearing at 1:35 PM. Ms. Marden reviewed the proposed plan to create a cobble stone berm and to add cobble stone beach nourishment to stem the Atlantic Ocean coastal beach and bank erosion. The following outlines the amount of estimated resource impact of the proposal: 14,500 sq. ft. of Land Under Ocean; 24,021 sq. ft. of Coastal Beaches and 4,400 cubic yards of coastal beach + LUTO nourishment; 12 feet of coastal bank will be disturbed for construction and approximately 10,527 sq. ft. of rocky intertidal shores. She summarized this is a nourishment project for erosion control that will seek to mimic existing conditions.
They are proposing to truck in 3,300 cubic yards of cobble between 3-12 inches in diameter and 1,100 cubic yards of coarse to medium-grain sand. This is projected to equal 5 years of material erosion.
The added berm will run approximately level from the coastal bank for approximately 20 feet – 40 feet seaward to mean high water, at a height that is between one to three feet higher than the existing coastal beach. It will then extend approximately 120 feet from the end of the berm into the ocean at a slope of 10:1 and conclude beyond the current mean low water mark. Larger boulders will be added as currently exist in the intertidal zone. A veneer of sand will be added on top of the entire project -- approximately five years worth of sand -- and they are proposing to return annually for additional nourishment. The Commission asked how this is not a coastal engineering structure or why it will not perform as one. Beaches disappear because of these structures.
Ms. Marden said the berm is designed to withstand 25-year storm impact and will break up from wave energy. It was noted a Chapter 91 license may be required as the project extends to a footprint on land under ocean. She added it will end 100 feet (33 yards) from the west property line and 40 feet (13 yards) from the east property line.
The Commission asked about the impact on littoral drift and inquired about how the excavators will distribute the cobble in the water. Ms. Marden responded the cobble fill below mean high tide will build the intertidal area to a height above mean high tide for equipment access to the mean low water mark. The Commission posed a number of questions: why material is needed for the intertidal zone; whether the fact that the proposed work area is at a headland with unique current patterns, will have an adverse impact on the resource areas; how will the coastline and areas up and down drift of the proposed work area respond to the project; are there risks in trying to increase the headland and shoreline as nature is seeking to erode them; what alternatives were evaluated and why were they rejected; how will
the resource areas along the roads be protected? After discussion the Commission concluded they will need more time to digest what has been presented. In addition, the Commission considered it necessary to have a complete review of the issues raised by the filing. The Commission agreed that it would forward a list of questions to Ms. Marden for her consideration and response. The Commission asked for a continuance to July 2 @ 12:30 PM to provide ample time to get more information. Ms. Marden agreed. A subsequent motion was made to continue the hearing to July 2 @ 12:30 PM. The motion was seconded and unanimously approved with seven in favor.
ADMINISTRATION:
The May 21, 2014 meeting minutes were reviewed and approved as presented by consensus. The following documents were signed:
Order of Conditions SE 12 – 703 Flanders; AP 33-103.
Order of Conditions SE 12 – 704 North Star; AP 33-55.
Order of Conditions SE 12 – 705 Kegan, Wolf; AP 33-15.
Order of Conditions SE 12 – 707 Parker; AP 32-46.
Determination of Applicability Steward; AP 27.1-54.
The next meeting will be Wednesday, June 18, 2014 @ 12:30 PM.
With no further business to conduct the meeting adjourned at 3:10 PM.
Respectfully submitted by Chuck Hodgkinson, C.A.S.
| 
