The Conservation Commission held a meeting in the Mural Room, Lower Level of Town Hall on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 beginning at 7:30 p.m. Members present were Chairman Samuel Butcher, Dianne Hearn, Donald Merry, Joseph Messina, and Holly Morris. Thomas Gill and Barbara Kelley were absent. Joe Grady, Conservation Administrator was also present.
PH, STANTON, 62 POWDER POINT AVE, ADD’T. SE 18-1310
Representing the applicant was Shawn Dahlen. The proposed project is to remove a section of the existing dwelling and construct an addition in the buffer to bordering vegetated wetlands. The existing coverage is greater than 15% so in order to have no net gain the applicant proposed to remove 655 ft2 of tennis court and replace it with plantings. The proposed project conforms to the regulations. Mr. Merry made a motion that was seconded to issue Orders of Conditions. The vote was 5 – in favor; 0 – opposed. Motion passed.
PH, HORNBEAM ROAD REALTY TRUST, 95 HORNBEAM RD., PIER,
SE 18-1309
Representing the applicant were Attorney Paul Driscoll, Paul Brogna of Seacoast Engineering Co., and Paul Shea from Environmental Consultants. Mr. Driscoll indicated that the proceedings would be recorded by a Court Stenographer. Mr. Brogna explained the project, which includes a 142’ walkway, 6’ x 8’ platform, 3’ x 18’ gangway and one 10’ x 20’ float. He noted that the pier width is 3.5’ rather than the 4’ originally proposed in the old Notice of Intent. Mr. Butcher commented that the pier previously denied was 3.5’ wide. Mr. Brogna noted the closest existing pier is 200’ from the proposed site and the proposed pier complied with the Town’s zoning bylaw. Mr. Brogna also stated that 15 property owners, as part of a Beach Association,
have access to a private beach located 200’ from the proposed pier. Mr. Shea presented his report on the environmental impacts of the proposed project. Mr. Driscoll reported on the status of the appeal for the previous application for a pier that was denied by the Commission. Mr. Driscoll referred to the minutes of the meetings for the old application (SE 18-1110) and submitted a copy of the special permit issued by the Duxbury Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Grady gave his report on the proposal and commented that the normal procedure was to solicit review from the Harbormaster, Shellfish Advisory Committee, Waterfront Advisory Committee, and MA Division of Marine Fisheries. Also under the Duxbury Zoning Bylaw the Commission is required to solicit comments from the Baywide Commission. Mr. Grady also noted that the Conservation Commission is responsible for reviewing and issuing permits under the Duxbury Wetlands Protection Bylaw and MA
Wetlands Protection Act and not under the Town’s zoning bylaw. In reviewing the letter submitted from Mr. Shea, Mr. Grady asked the applicant to double check the calculations and indicate the number of pilings to be located in each of the resource areas. Other information requested included: whether the site was located in a wetland restriction area as defined under M.G.L. Chapter 105; distance the proposed pier is from the Harden Hill town landing; distance to other piers in the immediate vicinity and across the inlet; and more detailed information with regards to the Beach Association, such as what are the rights of the Association, activities and uses permitted, and copy of the legal document for the Association. Mr. Grady also questioned the distance, indicated by Mr. Brogna, between the Association’s beach and the proposed pier. When asked the significant changes to the new proposal from the original pier, Mr. Brogna indicated only the
addition of legs to the bottom of the float as recommended by the Army Corps of Engineers. The Commission felt it would be beneficial to hire a consultant on behalf of the Commission to review the project. The applicant agreed to that. Mr. Merry made a motion that was seconded to hire a consultant under the provision of M.G.L. Chapter 40, section 53G. The vote was 5 – in favor; 0 – opposed. Motion passed. Mr. Merry made a motion that was seconded with the applicant’s permission to continue the public hearing to June 7, 2005 at 7:50 p.m. The vote was 5 – in favor; 0 – opposed. Motion passed.
PH, PAYTON, 137 GURNET RD., AMEND OC, SE 18-1106
Representing the applicant was Mark Casey from South Shore Survey Consultants and William Payton. Mr. Casey explained the revisions to the plan which included downsizing the dwelling and installing a pool with an apron of either stone of turf. Other changes include grading on the southern side in order to direct water into a grass swale. The abutter, Michael Carr voiced concern about water flowing onto his property and asked if the Commission could require as part of the Order of Conditions an engineer’s certification that no water would fall on the abutting property. Mr. Butcher questioned the mechanics of following up with enforcement of that certification once a Certificate of Compliance has been issued for the project. Mr. Payton agreed to work with the abutter with regard to the water issue. Mr.
Messina made a motion that was seconded to amend the Orders of Conditions for SE 18-1106 as proposed on the revised plan dated 5/5/05. The vote was 5 – in favor; 0 – opposed. Motion passed.
PM, GRIFFIN, 210 BIANCA RD., SHED
The applicants, Bart and Susan Griffin explained the project which was to replace an existing shed located 60 feet from the wetlands. Ms. Morris made a motion that was seconded to issue a negative determination that a Notice of Intent is not required. The vote was 5 – in favor; 0 – opposed. Motion passed.
PH, CULLEN, 97 STOCKADE PATH, S.F. DWELLING
Representing the applicant were Mr. & Mrs. Cullen and Darren Grady from Grady Consulting Co. The proposed project is demolition of a dwelling and construction of a new single family dwelling located farther from the wetlands. The resource area is an isolated land subject to flooding and vernal pool. This application was filed under the Town of Duxbury Wetlands Bylaw only since DEP indicated it did not fall under their jurisdiction because of the size of the resource area. Existing lawn and a stone wall are located between the limit of work line and the wetland. The project conforms to the regulations. Mr. Merry made a motion that was seconded to issue Orders of Conditions under the Town Wetlands Bylaw. The vote was 5 – in favor; 0 – opposed. Motion passed.
PM, MAGNUSON, 10 HIDDEN ACRES DR., SHED
The applicant, Gary Magnuson described the project which is installation of a shed on 6 sonotube-footings located 35 feet from bordering vegetated wetlands. The project conforms to the regulations. Mr. Merry made a motion that was seconded to issue a negative determination that a Notice of Intent is not required. The vote was 5 – in favor; 0 – opposed. Motion passed.
CONT’D. PH, KNIES, 226 BAY ROAD, RESTORATION PLAN, SE 18-1311
Since a DEP file number had been issued, Mr. Messina made a motion that was seconded to issue Orders of Conditions. The vote was 5 – in favor; 0 – opposed. Motion passed.
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
The Conservation Administrator updated the Commission on the project at 91 Gurnet Rd.
Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
| 
