EASTHAM CONSERVATION COMMISSION
10 October 2006
PRESENT: Glenn Collins, Steve Smith, Leah Dower, Judith Williams, David Hoerle, Dennis Murley.
STAFF PRESENT: Deputy Natural Resources Officer Katelyn Merrill, Conservation Clerk Kay Stewart-Greeley.
ALSO PRESENT: Attorney Duane P. Landreth, Marianne Simmel, Cathy Sanders, Josephine Mines, Neil Allen, Peter McDonald, Tom & Beth Cafro, Larry Greeley.
Chairman Collins opened the meeting at 7:00 P.M.
7:10 P.M. Request for Extension, Simmel, DEP SE 19-267, 225 Sparrow Road, Map 04, Parcel 190.
Deputy Merrill reviewed this site for the Commissioners. Ms. Simmel was present. There was no discussion and Mr. Hoerle MOVED to grant an Extension for DEP SE 19-267. Ms. Williams SECONDED the Motion.
SO VOTED UNANIMOUSLY.
7:15 P.M. Notice of Intent filed by Cathy Sanders, 670 State Highway, Map 21, Parcel 066.
Chairman Collins announced this hearing. Cathy Sanders was present and told the Commission that the deed for her property, 75 South Eastham Street, contains a right-of-way to Town Cove and she would like to clear a 12' right-of -way to the cove. She said there is a lot of brush, poison ivy, chokecherry etc., and she would like to clear it for access.
Deputy Merrill told the Commissioners that the right-of-way is off an existing drive on the Mines property. She said everything is getting choked out by the Asiatic Bittersweet and the Commission will want to make sure that the access way is maintained as approved. She said that Ms. Sander’s deed does give her right of access.
Chairman Collins asked Ms. Sanders what exactly the intent was and what she was intending to do. Ms. Sanders said she would not disrupt any landscaping on the Mines property. She said they would like to put a top on the foundation of the fish shack if the Town allows them to and the access would be as wide as the Mines’ driveway.
Mr. Hoerle said he, personally, would refrain from a Bobcat to do the work and would use a Gravely brush cutting machine. He asked Deputy Merrill if there is any valuable flora at this site. Ms. Merrill said that the site is all invasives and she could not get in there. She said that Ms. Sanders would not be taking down any trees and she doesn’t think there will be removal of any native species. She said she thinks the best bet is to remove the invasives and that may be enough. Mr. Murley asked exactly what the intent was as far as vehicles and how far they would be going. He said that once it gets within 50' of the 100' Buffer it is under the jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission. Ms. Sanders said that as far as she knows there is clamming and all sorts of activity in the
area. She said the shack foundation is rather in the woods, not close to the water. Mr. Murley asked if Ms. Sanders knew when this was last used as an access.
Neil Allen of 45 South Eastham Road spoke from the floor and said that he has lived there for sixteen years. He said that Luther and Red Eldredge used the site for their shellfish grant off this property. He said they walk down through the cottages to the north.
Mr. Murley said he has no problem with re-establishing foot access but has reservations about vehicle access. Deputy Merrill said the foundation is about Thirty Feet (30') from the Buffer.
Attorney Duane Landreth, representing Josephine Mines, spoke from the floor. He said that Ms. Mines does not concede that the right-of-way is on her property. He said that her property is bounded by the road to the north and as far as he can tell this access is in the Bliss property not on her property. He said that he thinks that before the Commission proceeds they should have a surveyed plan to know what they are talking about. He went on to say that the Mines purchased their property in 1984 and when they bought their property the right-of-way had not been used. He said there is a doctrine at law that even a deeded grant can be abandoned. He said that one can see that this right-of-way has been abandoned. He said it is very unclear as to what the purpose of this application is and Ms. Mines
objects and strenuously argues that the right-of-way is not on her property.
Deputy Merrill pointed out that a Notice of Intent can be filed on anyone’s property. Attorney Landreth said that all activity seemed to stop around 1960.
Chairman Collins said he thinks that from a conservation standpoint they would like to know what the path is going look like and how wide it is going to be. He said he would like to be able to go to the site and see some stakes etc. Ms. Williams said she would like to know exactly what they intend to do with the foundation.
Chairman Collins said, again, that he thinks the Conservation Commission needs a plan with more specifics and Mr. Hoerle said he would like to back up what Mr. Murley said about vehicle use. Mr. Collins suggested that the applicant continue this hearing.
Attorney Landreth asked if the applicant was going to be required to provide an engineered survey as this is a classic survey problem.
Ms. Sanders requested a continuance. Chairman Collins closed this hearing. Mr. Hoerle MOVED and Mr. Smith SECONDED the Motion.
SO VOTED UNANIMOUSLY.
7:50 P.M. Request for Determination of Applicability filed by Peter McDonald, et al., 390 State Highway, Map 21, Parcel 081B.
Chairman Collins announced this hearing. Peter McDonald was present and told the Commission that they were looking at doing several improvements to the property including: 1. A fence between the property to the north and this property; 2. Constructing an 8'x20' shed on sonotubes for storage; 3. Installing a gravel parking area for four cars and containing the gravel with landscape timbers; 4. Laying a 12' brick terrace for each cottage arcing to 14'; and 5. Removing the Oak tree at the corner of the southern cottage.
Deputy Merrill reminded the Commission that they had seen this property for vista pruning in an Administrative Review. She said that the driveway itself is pretty much located out of the jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission and as long as it stays a pervious driveway she doesn’t see any impact at all. She said that the contour line doesn’t really give a good idea and she would like to see a little more space. She said the fence would be dependent on how high it is. She said she thinks the Oak should be taken out and drainage should be maintained.
Ms. Dower said she thinks the shed location is OK. Ms. Williams asked if the terraces would be raised and Mr. McDonald said the terraces would not be raised and they proposed to lower the grade.
Mr. Murley said he thinks that for this area a fence a foot high off the ground would be good. He said it looks like the gravel parking area is 100' long so it looks a little big and he doesn’t see why it cannot be completely removed out of the resource area.
Mr. Smith said that when he visited the site the stakes for the shed seemed to interfere with both of the trees. He said that lowering the grade around the cottage is extensive excavation so he is looking for some clarification. He said he would like to see some drawings and plans, etc.
Mr. Hoerle said there is a berm behind one of the cottages to hold the soil from going into the shingles and it seems to him that raising the cottages instead of excavating would be a heck of a lot better choice. He asked why the applicants chose a fence and why they couldn’t choose some planting that will eventually become a living fence. Mr. McDonald said there is no privacy from the neighbors, but he can see installing less fence where the neighbors are less annoying.
Mr. Murley asked about the possibility of a slight movement of the shed and Mr. McDonald said if he moves it any which way it will hit more trees.
Chairman Collins asked the Commissioners if they could agree to go ahead with approval of the fence, shed, and pruning under the RDA? Ms. Williams said she would like to see more definition.
Mr. Smith pointed out to Mr. McDonald that if they went with a 10'x18' shed they could get away from the trees completely. Mr. McDonald said that the shed needs to be long and skinny to keep the appropriate distance from the cottages.
There were no further questions and Chairman Collins closed this hearing. Mr. Hoerle MOVED and Ms. Dower SECONDED the Motion for a Negative Determination for Reason 3 for the fence, shed, and vista pruning and that for anything else the applicant will need to make further application.
SO VOTED UNANIMOUSLY.
8:20 P.M. Continuation of Hearing on Notice of Intent filed by W. Daniel Delea, Jr., 40 Freeman Way, Map 01, Parcel 072.
Chairman Collins announced this hearing. Tim Brady of East Cape Engineering, Inc. was present for the applicant and explained that there is an existing house and cottage and the proposal is to remodel the cottage. He said there is a second story over the first floor and the roof will be removed and the second story will be remodeled. He said the walls will stay where they are. He said there will be excavation on the side of the building to remove the concrete pad and waterproof it and re-pour it. He said that the Board of Health is requiring that an alternative system be retrofitted to the existing system. He said the septic tank and pump chamber will both be excavated out and replaced by the alternative system. He said the area is heavily vegetated and they will try to transplant any existing
vegetation back into this area.
Deputy Merrill said she doesn’t see anything extremely unsettling about the project but said that the limit of work needs to be really tight. She said she met with the applicants and they are just going to let the vegetation grow and the drainage needs to be addressed. She said that double staked hay bales and silt fence should be used.
Mr. Smith asked if the external walls were staying and Mr. Brady said they were. Ms. Williams commented that the applicants have kept the site in a natural state and it is very nice.
There were no further questions and Chairman Collins closed this hearing. Mr. Hoerle MOVED approval with Order of Conditions 1-19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 33, 35. Mr. Smith SECONDED the Motion.
SO VOTED UNANIMOUSLY.
8:40 P.M. Continuation of Hearing on Notice of Intent filed by Gregg Healey, 365 Harmes Way, Map 01, Parcel 111.
Chairman Collins announced this hearing. Tim Brady was present for the applicant. Mr. Murley and Ms. Dower recused themselves from this hearing.
Mr. Brady outlined the project and said he had two reports, one from Attorney Landreth and one from Don Schall of ENSR. He said the shed which was proposed on the original application has been taken off. He said he met with Don Schall and looked at the wildlife habitat and A.C.E.C. issues and that Mr. Schall thought it would be a good idea to extend the existing dune and plant it with beach grass. He said the intent would be to provide a little better flood protection, habitat and sand to the Coastal Dune and also to supplement the plantings which are there now.
He went on to say that under DEP guidelines one of the recommendations was for the use of ACQ timbers and that this is exactly the situation here; they are not in direct water contact. He said he feels that ACQ would be appropriate for this site. He said that the size of the decks and landings has been reduced from the original proposal, but not the footprint. He said there are no particular guidelines or formulas for construction on a Coastal Dune or Barrier Beach lots. He said he thinks that there are enough improvements here.
Deputy Merrill said she has reservations about applying a dune on top of a revetment which was installed as part of an old Consent Order. She said revetments hinder the movement of sand dunes so that they don’t function as they should, so putting dune on top of it doesn’t mitigatethe current proposed project, however it would be a benefit to the resource area.
Deputy Merrill said she doesn’t feel that any vegetation would be able to live under something of the proposed dwelling size even if it’s on pilings. She referred to 310 CMR Section 10:28 and said that she does not see how something this size cannot adversely impact this resource. She said she thinks that the existing footprint is moderate and can go up in elevation . She said she thinks that the project has too many impacts to mitigate and that the proposed footprint is too large.
Mr. Hoerle said he agreed with Deputy Merrill and that she has “hit it on the nose”. He said that instead of attempting to add a dune to the top of a revetment a more efficacious approach would be to install a sand-drift fence to try to build up a natural dune again.
Ms. Williams commented that this kind of increase in footprint is impacting a lot of resources and she feels the applicant has a long way to go in terms of size. Mr. Brady responded that he realizes the house is big, but asked by how much it’s too big. Ms. Williams said that if they are limited to the footprint which is there then they could leave the foundation and simply build on top of it.
Mr. Smith said there would be a huge area of barren sand underneath the dwelling and asked if there would be scouring behind the pilings. He said it’s hard to tie size back to regulations but the proposal seems five to six hundred feet too large. Mr. Brady said the pilings would have some sort of screening on them.
Peter McDonald, the architect for the project, said there is a very large reverse osmosis system in the basement so if they take the existing footprint and put it on pilings and put the system in the dwelling there will be a loss of square footage. Mr. Smith asked if it could be moved into the attic space and Mr. Brady said they are looking at that but the system is rather noisy. Mr. McDonald said that there is a lot of equipment and it will not fit in the attic.
Mr. Hoerle proposed having a partial basement for part of the building and Mr. Brady said he was not sure if this would solve the dilemma.
Chairman Collins said he felt OK with the dune addition as it might add a little bit of habitat and catch some sand. He said he feels that it would be an improvement to get rid of the foundation and add a little more building on piles. He said there is also the latitude to pull the project back from the resource. Mr. Brady said part of the reason for the location is for the view.
Mr. Smith said that even though the proposed decks are raised, nothing will grow underneath them and Chairman Collins suggested cantilevering the decks. Mr. Brady said they could look at that. Deputy Merrill said they could also look at spacing the timbers so that the light can get through.
Deputy Merrill continued that she would rather see ACQ pilings installed once rather than having to go back and install them again and again over time. She said she has been researching this and does not think the concentration is enough to be detrimental. She said she will look into the concentrations and the numbers.
In response to inquiry from Mr. Hoerle, Mr. Brady said that concrete pilings were not considered because they will not work structurally here.
Ms. Williams said she will not approve of anything which doesn’t have a definitive landscape plan, that the driveway should be minimized and that the proposed house is too large.
Deputy Merrill said that she did visit the site with Jim O’Connell of WHOI and a report from him will be forthcoming.
Mr. Brady requested a continuance of this hearing. Chairman Collins CLOSED the hearing.
Mr. Smith MOVED and Mr. Hoerle SECONDED the Motion to continue this hearing.
SO VOTED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Murley and Ms. Dower returned to the meeting.
9:18 P.M. Continuation of Hearing on Request for Amended Order of Conditions filed by Thomas Cafro, 13 Nycoma Way, Map 10, Parcel 237.
Chairman Collins announced this hearing. Tim Brady was present for the applicant who was also present. Mr. Brady submitted a revised plan and told the Commissioners the applicant was willing to build the garage on pilings. He said it also makes more sense to put the garage on the other side of the house and there will be less cutting into the dune than there would be on the other side. He said that the corner closest to the house on the southwest will be about six inches high and the rest will be about two feet above the ground with a ramp to the front of the garage. He said they are also proposing a wooden walkway on the ground from the top of the stairway to the building.
Mr. Hoerle and Mr. Murley agreed that the ramp to the garage should not be concrete.
Chairman Collins said he thinks the garage is fine but asked about the second-floor deck which was approved. He said a first-floor deck would increase the footprint.
Mr. Brady requested a continuance. Chairman Collins closed this hearing and Ms. Williams MOVED to continue SECONDED by Ms. Dower.
SO VOTED UNANIMOUSLY.
Deputy Merrill reviewed three Administrative Reviews with the Commissioners, two for tree removal - Orman and Whispering Pines, and one for a shed, Kilgrow. Chairman Collins ratified the ARs.
There was no further business and Mr. Murley MOVED adjournment. Mr. Smith SECONDED the Motion at approximately 9:45 P.M.
SO VOTED UNANIMOUSLY.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kay Stewart-Greeley,
Clerk
cc: Town Administrator
Town Clerk
Board of Selectmen
Building & Health
Planning Board
Library
| 
