The Conservation Commission held a meeting in the Mural Room, Lower Level of Town Hall on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 beginning at 7:30 p.m. Members present were Chairman Samuel Butcher, Thomas Gill, Barbara Kelley, Donald Merry, and Holly Morris. Dianne Hearn and Joseph Messina were absent. Joe Grady, Conservation Administrator was also present.
PH, PORTER, addressStreet18 OCEAN RD. SOUTH, DRIVEWAY, SE 18-1329
The applicant, Donald Porter explained the project, which was to install two parking areas on the property. The project conforms to the regulations that permit only 500 square feet of pavement. Ms. Kelley commented that she is not happy with asphalt. Dr. Gill suggested the applicant consider gravel. Dr. Gill made a motion that was seconded to issue Orders of Conditions. The vote was 4 – in favor; 1- opposed (Kelley). Motion passed.
CONT’D. PH, CityplaceCONWAY, addressStreet683 FRANKLIN ST., SE 18-1327
Since the DEP file number had been issued, Mr. Merry made a motion that was seconded to issue Orders of Conditions. The vote was 5 – in favor;0 – opposed. Motion passed.
CONT’D. PH, HYLAND, addressStreet181 MYRTLE ST., SE 18-1326
Since the DEP file number had been issued, Mr. Merry made a motion that was seconded to issue Orders of Conditions. The vote was 5 – in favor; 0 – opposed. Motion passed.
CONT’D. PH, SHEA, addressStreet435 BAY RD., SE 18-1324
The applicants, John and Anne Marie Shea were present for the discussion. The applicants submitted a revised plan that showed the wetland flags as requested at the last meeting and the revised coverage calculations. The proposed project conforms to the regulations. Mr. Merry made a motion that was seconded to issues Orders of Conditions. The vote was 5 – in favor; 0 – opposed. Motion passed.
PM, HOLDEN, 350 & addressStreet362 POWDER POINT AVE., RETAINING WALL
The applicants, Frank and Donne Holden were present for the discussion. Mr. Holden explained the project which was to replace storm damaged riprap and timbers near their boathouse. Mr. Merry made a motion that was seconded t issue a negative determination that a Notice of Intent is not required for the proposed project. The vote was 5 – in favor; 0 – opposed. Motion passed.
CONT’D PH, WHITE, addressStreet45 WADSWORTH LANE, SE 18-1322
The applicant submitted a written request to continue the public hearing in order to revise the plans. Dr. Gill made a motion that was seconded to continue the public hearing to September 27, 2005 at 9:15 p.m. the vote was 4 – in favor; 0 – opposed; 1 – abstention (Merry). Motion passed.
PM, WILLIAMS, addressStreet91 GURNET RD., FOUNDATION MODIFICATION
Representing the applicant were Paul Williams, Attorney David Blackmar from Murtha Cullina LLP, and Stanley Humphreys and Timothy Hillier from Ocean and Coastal Consultants Inc. Mr. Humphreys explained the project and referred to the plan and narrative included with the Request for Determination (RDA) application. Mr. Humphries indicated that all work would be done from inside the structure. Mr. Blackmar commented that he felt a RDA was appropriate rather than a Notice of Intent. Mr. Grady gave his review of the proposal. He asked the applicant when a permit for the footing on the west side of the structure was issued and referred to the existing conditions plan dated 8/7/04. Mr. Williams agreed that the footing on the west side had not been on previous plans and asked that it be included as
part of this RDA application. Mr. Grady also questioned when permission was granted to demolish a majority of the structure. Mr. Grady displayed photographs of all four sides of the dwelling in its current condition and described how little remained of the existing dwelling. He noted that the roof has been removed, the entire second floor has been removed, only small portions of the first floor outer walls remain and they appear to have new studs. The dwelling has no interior walls. The west photo shows work that was subject to Order of Conditions SE 18-1271. Mr. Grady read from the Town of CityplaceDuxbury Wetlands Bylaw, Chapter 9 and highlighted sections 9.1.1 Purpose & Scope , section 9.1.2 Jurisdiction and section 9.1.5 Definitions, particularly under alter and cumulative adverse effect. Mr. Butcher indicated the difficulty with this project is that the applicant has presented one project in prior applications, but the scope of the
work is completely different; the applications are not consistent with what is being constructed. He finds it difficult to characterize this project as just a foundation modification and with the past changes to the scope of work it is difficult to police the project without a Notice of Intent. Dr. Gill commented he felt the project is a complete reconstruction and not a renovation. He indicated the precedence of the Commission for similar projects on a barrier beach was to require dwellings be on open pile foundations. Other dwellings on the same street were required to be put on pilings. Mr. Blackmar asked where in the regulations it requires that an applicant must put the structure on piles and commented the proposed project is in conformance with the State Building Code. Mr. Edward Carroll, the property owner explained that the project was to convert a summer house to their retirement home and that if pilings were required then there would be no
room for storage. He also questioned why he was never informed in writing about a violation. Mr. Grady reported that he heard from Attorney Robert Galvin, who indicated he was representing Mr. Carroll, and said that the work would stop and asked that an enforcement order not be issued. Mr. Humphries commented that FEMA has revised the flood zones and that the site is now in a V zone rather than an AO zone as was the flood zone when the project was first filed with the Building Department. Dr. Gill made a motion that was seconded to issue a positive determination that a Notice of Intent is required for the proposed foundation modification project. The vote was 5 – in favor; 0 – opposed. Motion passed.
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
The Commission reviewed a request for a Certificate of Compliance for SE 18-831, addressStreet777 Bay Road. Dr. Gill made a motion that was seconded to issue a Certificate of Compliance for SE 18-831. The vote was 5 in favor; 0 – opposed. Motion passed.
The Commission reviewed a request to release the Orders of Conditions for SE 18-1277, addressStreet105 Gurnet Road. The applicant is not planning to do the project. Dr. Gill made a motion that was seconded to issue the Certificate of Compliance that indicated the work was never started and if the project went forward a new Notice of Intent would be filed. The vote was 5 – in favor; 0 – opposed. Motion passed.
The Commission reviewed an emergency certification to breach a beaver dam in the box culvert at the old Fineberg bog property. Dr. Gill made a motion that was seconded to recertify the issuance of the emergency certification to allow the breaching of the box culvert. The vote was 5 – in favor; 0 – opposed. Motion passed.
The Commission reviewed a proposed conservation restriction as part of the Planning Board’s requirement for the Andresen subdivision off addressStreetCongress St. The Commission indicated it was interested in a trail linkage to the placePlaceTypeCamp PlaceNameWing conservation parcel.
Meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
| 
