The Conservation Commission held a meeting in the Mural Room, Lower Level of Town Hall on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 beginning at 7:30 p.m. Members present were Chairman Samuel Butcher, Dianne Hearn, Barbara Kelley, Donald Merry, Joseph Messina, and Holly Morris. Joe Grady, Conservation Administrator was also present. Thomas Gill was absent.
PH, DUXBURY CONSTRUCTION CO., 63 ST. GEORGE ST., POOL, SE 18-1280
Representing the applicant was Freeman Boynton. The proposed project is to remove and replace the existing pool and decking in the buffer to salt marsh. The existing pool is located 41 feet from the wetlands; the proposed pool would be 42 feet from the wetlands. Mr. Grady commented that the existing pool predated the regulations requiring a 50-foot setback for pools. Ms. Hearn made a motion that was seconded to issue Orders of Conditions. The vote was 6 – in favor; 0 – opposed. Motion passed.
PM, DUXBURY CONSTRUCTION CO., 623 ST. GEORGE ST., 33 & 40 ANCHORAGE LN., UTILITIES
Representing the applicant was Freeman Boynton. The proposed project is to remove the overhead utilities and place them underground. Ms. Kelley made a motion that was seconded to issue a negative determination that a Notice of Intent is not required for the project. The vote was 6 – in favor; 0 – opposed. Motion passed.
PM, WINSLOW, 66 MARSHALL ST., PHRAGMITES CONTROL
The applicant, Richard Winslow explained the project which was to use an herbicide treatment of Round-Up to control the phragmites encroaching on the salt marsh. Mr. Grady commented the site would be a good place to monitor effective treatments to control phragmites; he asked that the Commission consider waiving the filing fee since the property owner has given permission for monitoring. Ms. Morris raised an issue with the time of application; she did not want the work to be done during lunar high tide cycles, or during windy or rainy days. The applicant agreed to notify the Conservation Administrator in advance of the spraying date. Mr. Merry made a motion that was seconded to issue a negative determination that a Notice of Intent is not required with the understanding that no herbicide treatment be done during lunar
high tides and unfavorable meteorological conditions; that the Commission be notified in advance of application; and that the Commission be granted access to the site for monitoring purposes and that the filing fee is waived because of the community benefit of the monitoring program. The vote was 6 – in favor; 0 – opposed. Motion passed.
CONT’D. PH, STRIEBEL, DINGLEY DELL, SUBDIVISION
The applicant was not present. Mr. Butcher explained the history of the project. He indicated the applicant had failed to properly notify the abutters; had not provided drainage calculations; or submitted a revised plan showing the revised wetland line as requested by the Conservation Administrator. It was reported the applicant’s engineer had agreed to pay for hiring a consultant for the Commission to review the project, however a letter from the applicant, Roman Striebel indicated he did not want to pay. Mr. Grady indicated that under M.G.L. Chapter 44, section 53g the Commission had the authority to collect money for review of projects. The above-mentioned failures by the applicant may allow the Commission to deny the project as administratively incomplete. Mr. Messina made a motion that was
seconded to issue Orders of Conditions that deny the Notice of Intent application of Roman Striebel to construct a roadway and make site improvements because of lack of information and for administrative incompleteness as outlined previously, and as authorized under Wetlands Protection Act Regulation 310 CMR 10.05 (6) (c). The vote was 6 in favor; 0 – opposed. Motion passed.
PM/PH, DENYER, 321 BAY RD., DELINEATION
Representing the applicant were Steven Denyer, Susan Johnson, and the applicant’s engineer Chris Gallagher. Mr. Gallagher explained the wetlands delineation on the plan. The Conservation Administrator agreed with the delineation. Ms. Kelley made a motion that was seconded to issue a positive determination, under the Town Wetlands Bylaw, that the area described on the site plan with a revision date of 9/14/04 is an area subject to protection and any removing, filling, or altering of that area requires the filing of a Notice of Intent and to accept the delineation of the wetlands line as shown on the above-mentioned site plan. The vote was 6 – in favor; 0 – opposed. Motion passed.
PH, MORGAN, 170 LAKESHORE DRIVE, ADDITION
Representing the applicant was Peter Mrowka. The proposed project is to remove a section of the dwelling and rebuild a larger addition that included a garage, family room and deck. The closest point of the work to the pond is 60 feet. Since no DEP file number has been issued the hearing was continued. Ms. Kelley made a motion that was seconded to continue this public hearing to October 12, 2004 at 7:40 p.m. The vote was 6 – in favor; 0 – opposed. Motion passed.
PM, DUXBURY BAY MARITIME SCHOOL, WASHINGTON ST., PHRAGMITES CONTROL
Representing the applicant was Edward Lawson. The proposed project was to control the phragmites along the bulkhead. The work would be done by Aquatic Control Technology Inc. who would be treating the area with Rodeo. The applicant agreed to the same conditions as mentioned in the Winslow hearing, which was to only do application during favorable meteorological conditions, not during lunar high tides; and to allow access to the Conservation Commission to monitor the program. Mr. Merry made a motion that was seconded to issue a negative determination that a Notice of Intent is not required with the understanding that no herbicide treatment be done during lunar high tides and unfavorable meteorological conditions; that the Commission be notified in advance of application; and that the Commission be granted access to the
site for monitoring purposes. The vote was 6 – in favor; 0 – opposed. Motion passed.
CONT’D. PH, BAYSIDE MARINE CORP., 433 WASHINGTON ST., SE 18-1281
The applicant requested a continuation of the public hearing. Ms. Kelley made a motion that was seconded to continue this public hearing to October 12, 2004 at 7:50 p.m. The vote was 6 – in favor; 0 – opposed. Motion passed.
PM, GARRETT, 290 POWDER POINT AVE., 2ND FLOAT
Representing the applicant were James Garrett and Paul Brogna of Seacoast Engineering. Mr. Brogna gave a history of the project which was to request permission to install a second float, in response to an enforcement order issued by the Commission to remove the float. He indicated that in the past Mr. Garrett had gotten a Chapter 91 seasonal permit from the Harbormaster for a second float. Mr. Grady reported that the Commission’s regulations developed in 1997 allow only one float with a maximum size of 10’ x 20’ and he also referred to a memo from Town Counsel that was issued in 2001 regarding floats. Mr. Butcher explained the rational behind the regulation. Mr. Grady noted that the Orders of Conditions issued to Mr. Garrett in 1999 and the Zoning Board of Appeals special permit issued to Mr.
Garrett only permitted one float; therefore Mr. Garrett was in violation of those two permits. Mr. Garrett and Mr. Brogna replied they were under the impression that they only needed to go to the Harbormaster for a permit for a second float. The Commission indicated that in a memo issued in 2001 the Harbormaster and the Conservation Administrator clarified that any float that was connected to the land would require review by the Commission and that any freestanding float would only require a permit from the Harbormaster. The Harbormaster commented he has not issued any seasonal permits for floats since that memo. Discussion continued as to whether Mr. Garrett’s float would be grandfathered. Mr. Messina agreed to review the Chapter 91 seasonal permits. Mr. Garrett withdrew his RDA application and the Commission agreed to look into the matter further.
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
The Commission reviewed requests for Certificates of Compliances for SE 18-1065 and SE 18-1212. Ms. Kelley made a motion that was seconded to issue Certificates of Compliances for SE 18-1065 and SE 18-1212. The vote was 6 – in favor; 0 – opposed. Motion passed.
The Commission reviewed expenditures for the Conservation Fund. Mr. Messina made a motion that was seconded to approve the expenditure of $52 from the Conservation Fund for legal services. The vote was 6 – in favor; 0 – opposed. Motion passed.
Meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m.
| 
