The Conservation Commission held a meeting in the Mural Room, Lower Level of Town Hall on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 beginning at 7:30 p.m. Members present were Chairman Samuel Butcher, Thomas Gill, Dianne Hearn, Barbara Kelley, Joseph Messina and Donald Merry. Holly Morris was absent. Joe Grady, Conservation Administrator was also present.
PM, DUXBURY DPW, addressStreetBAY POND ROAD, WATERMAIN
Representing the applicant was Brian Giovannoni from Amory Engineers. The proposed project is to install a new water pipe within the paved area of the roadway. Mr. Giovannoni indicated the old pipe would be abandoned. Ms. Kelley made a motion that was seconded to issue a negative determination that a Notice of Intent is not required. The vote was 6 – in favor; 0 – opposed. Motion passed.
PH, DUXBURY CONSTRUCTION, 71 CANDLEWICK CLOSE, SEPTIC, SE 18-1333
Representing the applicant was Freeman Boynton. The proposed project is replacement of a failed septic system. The soil absorption system is as far from the wetlands as possible and is farther from the wetlands than the existing system. Mr. Merry made a motion that was seconded to issue Orders of Conditions. The vote was 6 – in favor; 0 – opposed. Motion passed.
PH, JOHNSON, addressStreet100 PATTEN LN., POOL, LANDSCAPING, SE 18-1335
Representing the applicant was Richard Johnson from Stevenson, Stinson Associates. The proposed project is to replace the existing pool and deck and perform landscaping in the buffer to a coastal dune, salt marsh, bordering vegetated wetlands, stream and pond. Mr. Johnson indicated that some of the existing lawn would be replaced with native plantings. Mr. Merry made a motion that was seconded to issue Orders of Conditions. The vote was 6 – in favor; 0 – opposed. Motion passed.
CONT’D. PH, TOWN OF placeCityDUXBURY, addressStreetMATTAKEESETT COURT, BOAT RAMP, SE 18-1328
The applicant requested a continuation of the public hearing. Mr. Grady indicated the DPW wants to hold a public forum to get input from the users of the boat ramp. Mr. Merry made a motion that was seconded to continue the public hearing to November 15, 2005 at 8:00 p.m. The vote was 6 – in favor; 0 – opposed. Motion passed.
PH, LEESE, 50 MERRY AVE., ADDITION, SE 18-1334
Representing the applicant were Gordon and Maureen Leese and Paul Brogna from Seacoast Engineering Co. The proposed project is construction of an addition and garage in the buffer to bordering vegetated wetlands. The project conforms to the regulations. Mr. Merry made a motion that was seconded to issue Orders of Conditions. The vote was 6 – in favor; 0 – opposed. Motion passed.
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
The Commission reviewed five requests for Certificates of Compliances. The Commission postponed action on the requests for a Certificates of Compliances for SE 18-1243 and SE 18-1233 since Mr. Grady indicated that there is some erosion occurring along the driveway.
Mr. Merry made a motion that was seconded to issue a Certificate of Compliance for SE 18-1228 (addressStreet50 Partridge Rd.). The vote was 6 – in favor; 0 –opposed. Motion passed.
Ms. Kelley made a motion that was seconded to issue a Certificate of Compliance for SE 18-1221 (addressStreet30 Wendell Pond Rd.). The vote was 6 – in favor; 0 – opposed. Motion passed.
Mr. Merry made a motion that was seconded to issue a Certificate of Compliance for SE 18-650. The vote was 6 – in favor; 0 – opposed. Motion passed.
The Commission reviewed a request from the Conservation Administrator to pay the taxes for the Mackenzie land gift parcel from the Conservation Fund. Dr. Gill made a motion that was seconded to pay $66.91 from the Conservation Fund for the taxes on the Mackenzie parcel. The vote was 6 – in favor; 0 – opposed. Motion passed.
Mr. Grady reported on the negotiations for the Andresen conservation restriction.
The Commission reviewed the minutes of the meetings on 7/26/05, 9/13/05 and 9/27/05. Ms. Kelley made a motion that was seconded to approve the minutes of the meeting on 7/26/05 as written. The vote was 5 – in favor; 0 – opposed; 1- abstention (placeCityMessina). Motion passed.
Ms. Kelley made a motion that was seconded to approve the minutes of the meeting on 9/13/05 as written. The vote was 4 – in favor; 0 – opposed; 2 – abstentions (Hearn, placeCityMessina). Motion passed.
Ms. Kelley made a motion that was seconded to approve the minutes of the meeting on 9/27/05 as written. The vote was 4 – in favor; 0 – opposed; 2 – abstentions (Gill, Merry). Motion passed.
addressStreet91 Gurnet Road – Present for the discussion was Mr. and Mrs. Edward Carroll.
Mr. Butcher reported that the Determination issued by the Commission on 8/30/05 has been appealed. Mr. Butcher indicated that because of the legal matter the Commission has the option of discussing the project in executive session. Ms. Kelley made a motion that was seconded to enter into executive session to discuss strategy with potential litigation as such discussion may have a detrimental effect on the negotiating position of the governmental body. A roll call vote was taken: Ms. Hearn – nay; Ms. Kelley – nay; Mr. Messina – nay; Mr. Merry – aye; Mr. Butcher – nay; Dr. Gill – aye. (2 in favor; 4 opposed. Motion failed.
Mr. Butcher reviewed the history of the applications filed since April 2003 for addressStreet91 Gurnet Road. The first application was a Request for Determination of Applicability (RDA) for the remodeling of the existing dwelling. Mr. Butcher referred to the minutes of the meeting on 6/3/03 where the applicant was advised that any work on the foundation would require filing a new application requiring an open pile foundation.
On 6/28/04 Mr. Carroll filed a RDA to remodel the existing dwelling within the footprint, convert the existing porch to living space, construct two dormers, under pin a portion of the existing foundation, construct a new retaining wall under the existing porch and install two new footings for the porch. The minutes of the meeting on 7/13/04 indicated that the Commission voted a positive determination requiring the applicant to file a Notice of Intent (NOI) for the work on the driveway, expansion of the footprint and retaining walls.
On 7/26/04 Mr. Carroll filed a RDA to reinforce the existing cinder block foundation with footings and work would be done inside the dwelling and would be done by hand. The Commission issued a negative determination.
On 8/9/04 Mr. Carroll filed a Notice of Intent for construction of a deck, installation of pier supports for the deck, installation of pier supports for the street side of the dwelling and construction of drywells in the driveway. The Commission issued Orders of Conditions.
In November 2004 Mr. Grady issued a verbal stop work order for the project which extended beyond the scope of the projects previously presented to the Commission.
At the meeting on 7/26/05, the Commission met with Mr. Carroll, his Contractor Paul Williams, Attorney Blackmar and Stanley Humphries of Ocean and Coastal Consultants, Inc. for an informational discussion. Mr. Humphreys presented a revised plan and the Commission advised that a Notice of Intent should be filed because the proposed work extended beyond the scope of the existing Orders of Conditions and Determinations.
On 8/30/05 the property owner’s contractor, Paul Williams filed a RDA for the remodeling and reconstruction of the first and second floors and modification of the foundation. At the meeting on 9/13/05 the Commission votes to issue a positive determination that a Notice of Intent needs to be filed.
The Commissions reviewed a letter from Attorney Blackmar dated 8/30/05 and the minutes of the meeting on 9/13/05 and discussed whether the present project has gone beyond the scope of what was approved by the Commission. The Commission discussed whether an enforcement order should be issued. Mr. Messina argued that there has been a mischaracterization of the project and there has been a change to the scope of work since most of the structure has been demolished. He referred to Special Condition ‘h’ of the Orders (SE 18-1273) that requires any changes must be approved by the Commission prior to the work commencing. Several of the Commissioners indicated that the project as originally presented was a remodeling project but now it is a reconstruction project. Mr. and Mrs. Carroll argued that the project
was not in violation of the permits. Mr. Messina made a motion that was seconded to issue under the authority of section 10.08 (1) (a) and (d) of the regulations an enforcement order requiring the applicant, Mr. Carroll to file a comprehensive Notice of Intent for all the work that is being completed, proposed, and has been completed on the dwelling at 91 Gurnet Road within 90 days of issuance of said enforcement order. The vote was 6 – in favor; 0 – opposed. Motion passed.
Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
| 
