The Conservation Commission held a meeting in the Basement Mural Room of Town Hall on Tuesday, May 7, 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 7:35 p.m. Mr. Butcher made a motion, that was seconded 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 was taken and the motion passed unanimously. At 7:50 p.m. Mr. Butcher made a motion that was seconded to reconvene into open session. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously.
2. CONT’D. PH, DUXBURY CONSTRUCTION CO., AMEND OC SE 18-1104, 260 TEMPLE ST.
The applicant sent a written request to continue the public hearing. Mr. Mahoney made a motion that was seconded to continue this public hearing to June 4, 2002 at 9:30 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.
3. PH, DUXBURY CONSTRUCTION CO., 131 WASHINGTON ST., SE 18-1141, PIER
Representing the applicant were Freeman Boynton and the contractor Ed O’Donnell. The proposed project was to replace an existing pier in the exact footprint and dimensions except for the float which would be downsized to meet current regulations. Mr. Mahoney asked if the location of the pier could be shifted to shorten the distance over the salt marsh. Mr. O’Donnell responded that moving the pier would impact a popular clamming area and obstruct more people’s view of the water as well as decrease the tide time the pier is accessible. Mr. Mahoney made a motion that was seconded to write the Orders of Conditions. The motion passed unanimously.
4. PH, TAYLOR, 128 BAY RD., SE 18-1136, SEPTIC
Representing the applicant were Beth Taylor, the realtor, and Joe Webby of Webby Engineering Co. Mr. Webby explained the project which was a septic system repair that located the leaching field 38 feet from the wetlands and the septic tank 9 feet from the wetlands. Mr. Webby indicated the location was the only suitable one for the system. Mr. Grady questioned why more test pits weren’t done and if there were any alternatives to move the system farther from the wetlands. Mr. Mahoney commented that before the Commission could approve the project it had to be sure that every avenue had been exhausted to move the system farther from the wetlands. The Commission asked for input from the Board of Health. Mr. Mahoney made a motion that was seconded to continue this hearing to June 4, 2002
at 7:50 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.
5. PH, DUXBURY CONSTRUCTION CO., 72 GOOSE POINT LN., SEAWALL REPAIR
Representing the applicant was Freeman Boynton who described the project. The proposed project was to rebuild a stone riprap and to make the slope of the seawall less vertical. The existing slope was causing erosion of the salt marsh. All work would be done on the landward side and the toe of the existing wall would be the same. The Commission had no problem with the project but a DEP file number had not been issued. Mr. Mahoney made a motion that was seconded to continue this hearing to June 18, 2002 at 8:10 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.
6. PM, JSB REALTY TRUST, 18 MIDWAY RD., SEPTIC
Representing the applicant was Paul Brogna of Seacoast Engineering Co. The proposed project was a septic system repair. Mr. Brogna submitted a revised plan. The only work within the buffer to the wetlands was the pumping and filling of the existing septic tank. Mr. Mahoney made a motion that was seconded to issue a negative determination that a Notice of Intent is not required.
7. PM, HOPKINS, 84 SOUTH STATION RD., SHED & DRIVEWAY
Representing the applicant was Paul Brogna of Seacoast Engineering Co. The proposed project was to construct a shed on sonotubes, 35 feet from bordering vegetated wetlands and to create a crushed-stone parking area, 25 feet from the wetlands. Mr. Grady mentioned that the wetland line on the plan was off by 10 feet so before the project was started Mr. Brogna was to make sure the setbacks were accurate. Mr. Butcher made a motion that was seconded to issue a negative determination that a Notice of Intent is not required for the construction of the shed and the enlarging of the driveway for parking. The motion passed unanimously.
8. CONT’D. PH, BRICK REALTY TRUST, VALLEY ST., SE 18-1132
Representing the applicant were Gerry White and Alan Vautrinot of Vautrinot Land Surveying. Mr. Weiler read a letter from Tom Sexton of Mainstream Engineers who was the town’s consulting engineering for this subdivision. Mr. Sexton had approved the drainage system. Mr. Butcher made a motion that was seconded to write the Orders of Conditions. The motion passed unanimously.
9. CONT’D. PH, RICHMOND, 233 MARSHALL ST., SE 18-1128
The applicant Bill Richmond, a landscape contractor, presented a revised plan that reconfigured the pathway, downsized the area to view the salt marsh and specified the trees to be cut. Mr. Butcher commented that the project has been downsized but he still has trouble with the idea of mowing wetland vegetation. The Commission asked the applicant to minimize the actual cutting of flagged wetland area, to narrow the path, to minimize areas to be mowed and the Conservation Administrator was to oversee the work when it begins. Mr. Mahoney made a motion that was seconded to write the Orders of Conditions. The vote was 4 in favor, 2 against (Butcher, Halligan), and one abstention (Bartlett). The motion passed.
10. CONT’D. PH, SULLIVAN, 307 BAY RD., SE 18-1130
Mr. Mahoney recused himself from this hearing. Representing the applicant were Paul Brogna of Seacoast Engineering and the property owners. Mr. Weiler read a letter from Harbormaster Don Beers regarding his review of the project. Mr. Beers had concerns about the narrow channel and asked for a plan that showed the other side of the channel. Mr. Butcher made a motion that was seconded to continue the hearing to June 18, 2002 at 8:20 p.m. in order for the applicant to submit a revised plan to the Harbormaster for his review. The motion passed unanimously.
11. CONT’D. PH, QUINLISK, 55 HICKS POINT RD., PIER, SE 18-1131
Representing the applicant was Paul Brogna of Seacoast Engineering Co. and the property owner. Mr. Weiler read the comments from Harbormaster Don Beers. Mr. Beers asked if the pier could be moved northward to alleviate an issue with navigation. Mr. Weiler spoke in favor of the pier if it was moved as suggested by the Harbormaster. Mr. Butcher commented that moving the pier would not change the issues of cumulative effects and the environmental impacts to the isolated marsh. Mr. Mahoney and Ms. Bartlett agreed with him. Mr. Brogna pointed out that the abutting town landing was underutilized. Mr. Quinlisk commented that he is only asking for access to the bay and that there exists potholes in the salt marsh that make it unsafe for his children. Mr. Butcher made a motion that was seconded to write
the Orders of Conditions. The vote was 3 in favor and 4 against (Bartlett, Butcher, Mahoney & Vautrain). The motion failed and the project was denied.
12. CONT’D. PH, BAYSIDE MARINE, 433 WASHINGTON ST., SE 18-1126
The applicant asked for a continuation of the hearing. Mr. Butcher made a motion that was seconded to continue this hearing to June 6, 2002 at 8:30 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.
13. PH, DUFFY, 273 TREMONT ST., AQUATIC WEED TREATMENT, SE 18-1140
Representing the applicant was Keith Casalle of Aquatic Control Technology Inc. who explained the project which was treatment of the weeds in a pond. Mr. Casalle indicated the flow of water would be blocked during treatment of the pond. The Commission also asked that no lawn be permitted to the edge of the pond and that no fertilizers be permitted within 100 feet of the pond. Mr. Mahoney made a motion that was seconded to write the Orders of Conditions. The motion passed unanimously.
14. PM, TOWN OF DUXBURY, TOWN LANDINGS, MAINTENANCE
The Conservation Administrator explained the project which was routine maintenance of the town landings. The Commission asked that all work be approved by the Conservation Administrator prior to the work commencing. 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.
15. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
The Commission discussed a request for an extension permit for SE 18-568 for construction of a pier. It was noted that the project has previously been extended twice. Mr. Butcher made a motion that was seconded to issue a one year extension with the condition that the site work including pile driving be initiated prior to December 31, 2002. The vote was 6 in favor and one against (Bartlett). The motion passed.
The Commission reviewed a request from Mr. Paul Brogna to modify the project SE 18-1064. Mr. Butcher made a motion that was seconded to approve the modification. The vote was 6 in favor and 1 abstention. The motion passed.
Mr. Mahoney made a motion that was seconded to expend $43.75 from the Conservation Fund for legal services related to land acquisitions. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Butcher made a motion that was seconded to issue Certificates of Compliances for SE 18-388, SE 18-427 and SE 18-1083. The motion passed unanimously. It was noted that the project under SE 18-427 was never done and the applicant would have to file a new Notice of Intent if the project was to go forward.
Meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
| 
