The Conservation Commission held a meeting in the Basement Mural Room of Town Hall on Tuesday, March 19, 2002 beginning at 7:30 p.m. Members present were Chairman Friend Weiler, Molly Bartlett, Samuel Butcher, Brendan Halligan Anne Hill, Mark Mahoney, Arthur Vautrain and Joseph Grady, Conservation Administrator.
1. LAND ACQUISITION (EXECUTIVE SESSION)
At 7:30 p.m. Mr. Weiler made a motion, seconded by Mr. Vautrain to go into executive session to consider the taking, purchase, exchange, lease or value of real property which, if discussed outside of this session could have a detrimental effect on the negotiating position of the governing body. A roll call vote (Bartlett, Butcher, Vautrain, Weiler) was taken and the motion passed 4 - 0. Mr. Halligan, Mr. Mahoney, and Ms. Hill arrived after the vote to go into executive session. At 7:58 p.m. Mr. Butcher made a motion, seconded by Mr. Mahoney to reconvene into open session. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously.
2. DUXBURY BEACH RESERVATION, INC. (DBR) – BEACH MAINTENANCE
Representing DBR was Al Vautrinot and Walter Amory. The Commission reviewed the maintenance work for this spring. The Commission discussed that Dr. Scott Melvin’s review of the work should be confirmed in writing. It was recognized that Dr. Melvin was short of staff, but Ms. Bartlett asked that in future years, everything should be put in writing. Mr. Weiler advised DBR that the sense of the Commission is that when the Orders of Conditions come up for renewal, the Commission may open the Orders for reexamination.
3. PH, PACKARD, 38 PINE POINT RD., SE 18-1124, ADD’T.
Representing the applicant were Attorney Robert Galvin, Dick Rockwood, and David Packard. The proposed project was to construct an addition on concrete piles and to elevate the existing house and put it on concrete piles. The applicant is also constructing a deck as shown on the proposed plan. The proposed project was located on a barrier beach and in the buffer to salt marsh. Mr. Mahoney made a motion that was seconded to issue Orders of Conditions for the construction of an addition, shed and deck, and new pile foundation under the existing house. The motion passed unanimously.
4. PH, REARDON, 74 PLYMOUTH AVE., SEAWALL, SE 18-1123
Representing the applicant were Michael Reardon, Attorney Robert W. Galvin, and Robert Gray of Sabatia. Attorney Galvin explained the project which was to remove the existing grout from the north and east faces of the existing seawall. The work will be done by hand and will be accessed from the top of the wall. Mr. Galvin indicated that the applicant wishes to withdraw the request in the Notice of Intent to grout a portion of the top of the wall. The proposed project also included depositing fill adjacent to the abutting property to mitigate flank erosion. The applicant and the Commission agreed that if stones fell from the wall the applicant would file a new Notice of Intent to correct the angle of the slope of the seawall. Mr. Gray reported that when the applicant received the Orders of Conditions, he
would withdraw his appeal of the Determination to DEP. Mr. Mahoney made a motion that was seconded to issue Orders of Conditions. The motion passed unanimously.
5. PH, BOYNTON, 47 ST. GEORGE ST., BOARDWALK, SE 18-1127
The applicant, Freeman Boynton explained the project, which was to construct a walkway and gangway to a float over salt marsh and tidal flats. Mr. Boynton explained the proposed walkway was to provide access to the water rather than walking on the salt marsh. The Conservation Administrator indicated there was a town landing abutting the property. He also reported that he had not sent a memo to the Harbormaster, Shellfish Advisory Committee or Waterfront Advisory Committee asking for their review. Mr. William Tenhoor, representing the Bay Preservation Committee submitted a letter of opposition to the project. Mr. John Hagerty of Water St. spoke about the proliferation of piers and the unknown effect of increased motorboat activity to the wildlife in the area. Mr. Weiler referred to letters from Holly Morris
of the Lands Committee of the Duxbury Rural and Historical Society and from Cap Kane of Harrison St.. Ms. Bartlett noted that Mr. Kane’s letter referenced a minimum height regulation in the Commission’s regulations, but in fact there is no minimum height requirement in the regulations. Mr. Mahoney made a motion that was seconded to continue the hearing to April 23, 2002 at 9:10 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.
6. PM, DOOLIN, AQUACULTURE GRANT
Mr. Grady excused himself from this public meeting. The applicant, Michael Doolin explained his aquaculture grant located on Round Flat. Mr. Mahoney made a motion that was seconded to issue a negative determination that a Notice of Intent is not required. The motion passed unanimously.
7. CONT’D. PH, HORNBEAM REALTY, 95 HORNBEAM RD., SE 18-1110
Ms. Hill and Mr. Vautrain excused themselves from this public hearing. Representing the applicant were Dr. Russell Harrington and Paul Brogna of Seacoast Engineering. A revised plan was submitted on 1/23/02 that decreased the width of the walkway to 3.5’ and replaced the wooden handrail with nylon rope strung between the posts. Mr. Grady reported the walkway was narrowed but the applicant did not lower the walkway over the salt marsh. Mr. Brogna commented that the walkway was as low as it could be in order to meet the Army Corps regulations. He also indicated that EPA would be requiring a different preservative treatment for the pilings. Mr. Butcher reiterated his concerns about the project, particularly the issues of aesthetics, safety and cumulative effects. Mr. Weiler referenced the
comments from the Harbormaster. Mr. William Tenhoor of the Bay Preservation Committee referred to the Committee’s letter of opposition dated 2/2/02. Mr. Hagerty of Water St. spoke about the proliferation of piers in the area and the proximity of the proposed pier to a public landing. Mr. Mahoney also had concerns about cumulative impacts. Mr. Mahoney made a motion that was seconded to write Orders of Conditions for the construction of the proposed pier. The vote was 0 in favor and 5 against the motion. The motion failed.
8. CONT’D. PH, DUXBURY BAY MARITIME SCHOOL, 31 MATTAKEESETT CT., SE 18-1119
The applicant sent a written request asking for a continuation of the hearing since plans have not been completed. Mr. Butcher made a motion that was seconded to continue this public hearing to April 23, 2002 at 8:40 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.
9. PM. MCCLUSKEY, AQUACULTURE GRANT
Mr. Grady excused himself from this public meeting. The applicant, John McCluskey explained his aquaculture grant located near Snug Harbor. Mr. Mahoney made a motion that was seconded to issue a negative determination that a Notice of Intent is not required. The motion passed unanimously.
10. PM, SHAMMA, AQUACULTURE GRANT
Mr. Grady excused himself from this public meeting. The applicant, George Shamma explained his aquaculture grant located west of High Pines and north of Clarks Island. Mr. Mahoney made a motion that was seconded to issue a negative determination that a Notice of Intent is not required. The motion passed unanimously.
11. PH, HARRISON REALTY TRUST, 60 HARRISON ST., ADD’T., SE 18-1125
Representing the applicant were Richard Buccheri and Terence McGovern of Stenbeck and Taylor, Inc. The proposed project was to construct an addition to the garage, construct a stone wall and regrade and add crushed stone to the access behind the garage. The proposed addition was located 32 feet from the salt marsh and was to be constructed on a poured concrete foundation. Mr. Mahoney noted that the regulations do not allow a foundation wall closer than 50’ to wetlands or a structure on sonotubes closer than 35’. Mr. Mahoney recommended the applicant revise his proposal that moved the addition a minimum of 35’ from the wetlands and be constructed on sonotubes. The applicant agreed to the revision. Mr. Buccheri explained the proposed stone wall was to stabilize the area around the garage
and stop erosion. After reviewing the plan the Commission required the applicant to leave the access behind the garage in a natural state and not to regrade or add crushed stone. The applicant agreed. The applicant would also add roof drains and a drywell to capture roof runoff. The organic material adjacent to the wetlands would be removed from the site. Mr. Mahoney made a motion that was seconded to write the Orders of Conditions. The motion passed unanimously.
12. PH, BAYSIDE MARINE, 433 WASHINGTON ST., SE 18-1126
Representing the applicant was Jack Kent and Abdul Hamadeh. Mr. Butcher disclosed that the company he worked for did the 21E study of the site, but was no longer under contract with the applicant. Mr. Kent explained the project, which was to demolish several existing buildings and construct new buildings. One of the new buildings would be a boat storage building located within the 35-foot buffer to salt marsh. Mr. Kent explained that because of the size and design of the proposed building there was no alternative location to move it out of the 35-foot buffer. As proposed, the pilings for the storage building would be located at least 35 feet from the wetlands and only a portion of the building would be cantilevered within the 35-foot buffer. Mr. Grady reported that Tom Sexton of Mainstream Engineering is
doing the technical review of the project for the Town and went over Mr. Sexton’s initial review. The applicant is continuing to work with the Town representatives to address the issues, particularly with regards to drainage. The Commission discussed the issue of the location of the boat storage building. Mr. Mahoney commented that there is a distinction between this boat storage building and a proposed administrative building at the Duxbury Bay Maritime School. Mr. Vautrain agreed and noted that the proposed building on the abutting Maritime School lot would only lose a few parking spaces if moved outside the 35-foot buffer whereas the proposed Bayside Marine building would lose commercially valuable boat storage space. Mr. Weiler commented the proposed project was dramatically improving drainage issues at the site. The Commission agreed that because of site restrictions, economics and the fact that the proposed boat storage building was
water-dependent, the building could not be relocated outside the 35-foot buffer. Mr. Mahoney made a motion that was seconded to continue this hearing to April 23, 2002 at 9:20 p.m.
13. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
The Commission postponed action on the request for a Certificate of Compliance for SE 18-935. Mr. Grady reported a problem with the amount of impervious cover on the lot.
The Commission voted unanimously in favor of a motion to issue a 3-year extension to the Orders of Conditions for SE 18-955.
The Commission agreed the revised plan for the addition for SE 18-767 was within the scope of the original Orders of Conditions.
The Commission voted unanimously in favor of a motion made by Mr. Mahoney to spend $1271 from the Conservation Fund for legal services related to land transactions.
Mr. Vautrain made a motion that was seconded to accept the minutes of the meeting on 2/26/02, as written. The motion passed unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 11:05 p.m.
| 
