The Conservation Commission held a meeting in the Mural Room, Lower Level of Town Hall on Tuesday, May 4, 2010 beginning at 7:00 p.m. Members present included Chairman Joseph Messina, Samuel Butcher, Thomas Gill, Dianne Hearn, and Corey Wisneski. Barbara Kelley and Holly Morris were absent. Also present was Conservation Administrator Joe Grady.
PH, ADAMS, 273 BOLAS RD., REVEGETATION PLAN
The applicant Douglas Adams was present for the discussion. The Notice of Intent application was filed in response to an enforcement order that was issued for the cutting of trees and vegetation within the buffer to a pond and on town-owned property behind the applicant’s property. The proposed project is a revegetation plan which includes sprout maintenance of some of the cut trees and the planting of new trees and shrubs. The Commission asked that the applicant show on the plan the specific location of the new plantings and to specify what type of trees and shrubs. No DEP file number had been issued. Mr. Butcher made a motion that was seconded to continue the public hearing to May 18, 2010 at 7:50 p.m. The vote was 5 – in favor; 0 – opposed. Motion passed.
CONT’D. PH, MCLAUGHLIN, 685 WASHINGTON ST., PIER, SE 18-1530
Representing the applicant were Paul Brogna from Seacoast Engineering Co.; Robert Gray from Sabatia, Inc.; Attorney Paul Driscoll from Driscoll & Gibson; and the property owners, John and Doreen McLaughlin. Mr. Brogna reviewed the letter he had submitted to the Commission on April 27, 2010 in response to the Division of Marine Fisheries review of the project; and presented new material to the Commission. The first handout was a copy of the Duxbury Zoning Map showing the Waterfront Scenic Area (WSA). Mr. Messina noted that map applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals regulations not the Conservation Commission’s regulations and asked applicant to focus on wetland issues. Mr. Brogna presented a section of the Assessors Map for the area which he had marked to show existing properties with piers. Mr. Brogna
also presented a revised plan of the site that moved the walkway approximately 17 feet to the south, shortened it by 2.5 feet and added a hand-rail on one side. The location of the platform and float remained the same. Mr. Grady noted that the submittal deadline is the Tuesday before a meeting, but Mr. Brogna claimed that the revisions were only minor changes. Mr. Brogna noted that the separation between the float and the sides of the guzzle is approximately 16.5 feet on the north side and 15.5 feet on south side. In response to the Commission’s concern about the stability of the salt marsh, Mr. Brogna presented photographs of piers in other areas of Duxbury; and reported that there are two construction companies that have routinely installed piers in Duxbury that have complied with the Orders of Conditions; and as the applicant’s engineer he performs site inspections during construction. In response to the Commission’s concern with
regard to movement of the float, Mr. Brogna presented a photograph of an alternative design. Mr. Butcher asked for clarification as to whether this alternative is being proposed and Mr. Brogna responded not at this time. With regard to shellfish habitat, Mr. Brogna referenced the Harbormaster’s letter that indicates at this time no harvesting of shellfish is allowed in this area. Attorney Driscoll presented several past deeds and preservation restriction documents that don’t exclude a pier from this property. Mr. Driscoll also presented a copy of the Duxbury Pier, Access and Shoreline Study Committee Final Report that does not prohibit piers in a WSA. Mr. Messina noted that WSA regulations were zoning issues and that aesthetics is only one of the many interests that the Commission consider when evaluating a proposal. In response to a question raised from the last meeting regarding an easement to the abutter’s float,
Mr. Driscoll indicated that the ramp only crosses the air rights of the property. The Commission asked about the location of the property lines and whether the McLaughlins own to mean low water. The Commission requested a statement from a registered land surveyor acknowledging whether the property extends to mean low water. The Conservation Administrator, Mr. Grady presented photographs of the site that show significant numbers of linear cracking of the salt marsh on both sides of the guzzle. Mr. Grady asked about the carrying capacity of the mudflat under the proposed float and how the skids of the float function in a soft environment. Mr. Gray acknowledged the substrate was softer in the guzzle than in rest of the Bay. Mr. Grady noted that the Division of Marine Fisheries has indicated the area is a significant shellfish habitat. Mr. Gray responded that shellfish could be relocated, but presented no specific plan. The Commission had
concerns about propeller operation and impacts to the shellfish habitat and substrate. Mr. Brogna noted that the applicant is planning only to use non-motorized boats. Mr. Grady commented that it is unrealistic for the Commission to restrict and police the type of boat use. Mr. Butcher had questions with regards to the proposed hand-rail and whether it met MA Building Codes. People in the audience spoke about the natural vista and aesthetics of the salt marsh on the site. Ms. Shirley Jenkins from Fairway Lane commented that the Bluefish River is a fragile estuary and salt marsh and this site is not like other pier locations in Town. Mr. Robert Fawcett from Crescent Street presented photographs of piers over marshes in North Carolina. Attorney Driscoll presented a petition signed by some residents in favor of the Commission approving the Notice of Intent as presented; and a letter from Judith and Howard Hall supporting the proposal. Mr. Jeff
Palmer from Powder Point reviewed a letter he submitted regarding wetland values and the effect of the proposal on wildlife and waterfowl. Mr. Butcher reiterated his concerns with the proposal: fragmentation of habitat; effect on wildlife and birds; width of guzzle; restriction of water flow in guzzle; fragile ecosystem; and detrimental effect on public aesthetics. Mr. Driscoll requested a continuation of the public hearing. The Chairman asked what specifically the applicant would address with the additional time. Mr. Driscoll responded they would address recent letters from abutters and the Division of Marine Fisheries letter, a response to which had previously been submitted by the applicant’s engineer. The Commission indicated the applicant had sufficient amount of time to provide information and that these concerns had been raised previously. Mr. Driscoll summarized the applicant’s position. Mr. Messina commented that the proposed
site has unique features not present in other pier locations and one of the major concerns is the location of the float in the narrow guzzle and the deterioration of salt marsh on either side of the guzzle.
Mr. Butcher made a motion that was seconded to write Orders of Conditions for construction of a proposed pier at 685 Washington Street as presented by the applicant. The vote was 0 – in favor; 5 – opposed. Motion failed.
Mr. Butcher made a motion that was seconded to deny the proposed pier application at 685 Washington Street as presented by the applicant. The vote was 5 – in favor; 0 – opposed. Motion passed. The public hearing was closed at 10:05 p.m.
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
The Conservation Administrator asked the Commission to approve the expenditure of $308.48 from the Conservation Fund for two DPW workers who assisted the Open Space Committee with the clean-up of the old mill site on the Camp Wing conservation parcel; and the expenditure of $1728.00 for the recording fee at the Registry of Deeds for some parcels of land that are being transferred to the Conservation Commission. Mr. Butcher made a motion that was seconded to approve the above-referenced expenditures from the Conservation Fund for a total of $2,036.48. The vote was 5 – in favor; 0 – opposed. Motion passed.
The Commission reviewed a proposal for a shed at 25 Eli’s Lane, to be located in the 75-foot open space buffer for the subdivision. The Conservation Administrator reported that the conservation restriction on the property requires that any structures be approved by the Conservation Commission. Mr. Butcher made a motion that was seconded to allow the construction of the shed in the open space buffer. The vote was 5 – in favor; 0 – opposed. Motion passed.
The Commission reviewed meeting minutes. The Commission postponed action on the minutes of the meeting on 3/23/2010. Mr. Butcher made a motion that was seconded to approve the minutes of the meeting on 3/2/2010 as presented. The vote was 5 – in favor; 0 – opposed. Motion passed.
Mr. Butcher made a motion that was seconded to approve the minutes of the meeting on 2/2/2010. The vote was 4 – in favor; 0 – opposed; 1 – abstention (Wisneski). Motion passed.
Mr. Butcher made a motion that was seconded to approve the minutes of the meeting on 4/6/2010. The vote was 4 – in favor; 0 – opposed; 1 – abstention (Gill). Motion passed.
Meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
| 
