EASTHAM CONSERVATION COMMISSION
27 January 2009
MINUTES
PRESENT: Steve Smith, Glenn Collins, David Hoerle, Dennis Murley, Judith Williams, Lorraine Giovinazzo, Leah Dower
STAFF PRESENT: Deputy Natural Resource Officer Amy Usowski.
ALSO PRESENT: Jason Ellis of J.C.Ellis Design Company, Inc., Richard Bryant, Mike Cole, Brian McGowan, Katelyn Siddell of East Cape Engineering, Inc., Stephanie Sequin of Ryder & Wilcox, Inc., Robert Hayden, Peter McDonald, Seth Wilkinson.
Chairman Murley opened the meeting at 7:00 P.M.
7:00 P.M. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Regarding the Administrative Review for Bunnell on 13 January 2009 at 7:04 P.M., Commissioner Giovinazzo questioned whether the Conservation Commission has jurisdiction over work which is within the same footprint but goes beneath the foundation of a dwelling. Mr. Collins said he thought this was a valid concern. This question had never come up before and Deputy Usowski said she will investigate it further.
After a few minor corrections Mr. Collins MOVED and Mr. Hoerle SECONDED the Motion to approve the Minutes of 13 January 2009.
SO VOTED UNANIMOUSLY.
7:10 P.M. Emergency Order of Conditions, Amato, 95 Harmes Way.
Chairman Murley and Ms. Dower recused themselves as employees of MA Audubon, an abutter to this property. Deputy Usowski told the Commission that in 2005 the owner
had gotten an Emergency Order to place approximately 500 cu. yd. of sand in front of their cottage. She said that to the South is a Coastal Bank, most of which is armored and to the North on Harmes Way is a sand dune.
Deputy Usowski said the structure is pre-1978 and the erosion is going under the decking for the stairs. She said the contractor wants to complete this within thirty days. She said they are proposing to put 250 cu. yd. of sand and she said she told him it needs to be extremely clean, pristine sand. She said there is already a Staging Permit in place for South Sunken Meadow and if the Commission agrees that this is an emergency then they can proceed. She said that one of the Conditions which she included in the Order is that the owner must file a Notice of Intent for nourishment within the next year and that maybe the owner could put a bench mark in to determine when it needs to be done instead of asking for an Emergency Order every time.
Deputy Usowski showed the Commissioners photos of the site. She said they had a sand-drift fence at the property for several years which finally got taken out and she suggested to them that they might want to try that again.
There was some further discussion about erosion in this area and what might happen if this cottage was lost to erosion and the possibility of armoring it with a sandbag installation. Deputy Usowski pointed out that armoring was not a possibility because this area is a dune. She said that the owner has had a sand-drift fence in the past and the waves took it out. She said she did speak to the engineer about it and he said he would talk to the applicant about giving it another try. She said the engineer said it might buy some time and they wouldn’t have to put sand down so often.
Mr. Collins asked if the applicant files a Notice of Intent will there be a specific nourishment amount required annually. Deputy Usowski said that probably they would set a bench mark and calculate a definite amount based on the length of the property. She said it is a large section and the 250 cu. yd. they are asking to place seems like a large amount but it is probably pretty accurate. She said that with the filing of a Notice of Intent the Commission could figure out exactly how much sand they needed to put down and how much they need to keep on the beach at a certain time.
There was no further discussion and Mr. Collins MOVED to approve the Emergency Order. Ms. Giovinazzo SECONDED the Motion.
SO VOTED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Murley and Ms. Dower rejoined the meeting.
7:22 P.M. Notice of Intent filed by Roslyn LaPorte, 70 McGuerty Road, Map 07,
Parcel 437.
Chairman Murley announced this hearing for a proposed septic system upgrade and deck replacement within the 100' Buffer Zone to a Bordering Vegetated Wetland. Jason Ellis of J.C. Ellis Design Co., Inc. was present for the Applicant.
Mr. Ellis explained the proposal to the Commissioners. He said there will be no increase in the size of the deck and it will be replaced in the same location. He said that this part of the proposal will take place in the Summer but the immediate concern is the septic system as the existing system has failed.
Deputy Usowski said that right at the edge of the garden is almost where the Bordering Vegetated Wetland is. She said she is aware that this is not a very highly manicured area at all. There is not much of a Buffer Zone between the wetland and what they have as lawn right now. She said she doesn’t know if the applicant would be open to it or if the Commission would want an enhanced Buffer Zone if possible. She said this is not in the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species area and the work limit looks fairly tight around the septic tank.
Mr. Ellis said he has located the septic tank and pump chamber as he did in order to avoid the huge, old Oak tree situated at the end of the driveway which the owner definitely wants to save.
Chairman Murley said that when he went to the site he observed that there has been a modest amount of trimming in the resource area and he would like to see a “NO MOW” Zone established at the back line of the garden going along where the fir/spruce trees are and the present owners or any future owners are to be reminded that this is not an area to be trimmed back. He said this can be included in the Order of Conditions with the usual language.
David Sheptyck spoke from the floor for his brother who is an abutter to the property. He said that his concern is that any development might impact his brother’s ability to build on the lot. He said it might impact where his brother would have to put his well. He said the lot is vacant at present but he is trying to make sure that this proposal will not impact his future with this lot.
Mr. Ellis said he could not guarantee that this proposal would have no impact what could potentially be constructed on the lot next door. He said this is the only place he can put the components as required by Title 5.
Chairman Murley said he appreciated the concerns of the abutter and Mr. Ellis’ comments, and that the Commission’s concerns are with the wetland resources. He said that these issues will be addressed at the Board of Health hearing on Thursday.
There was no further discussion and Chairman Murley closed this hearing. Mr. Hoerle MOVED and Mr. Smith SECONDED the Motion to approve this proposal with Order of Conditions 1-18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 33 including that staging of all materials for the deck will be from the driveway, 35, 37.
SO VOTED UNANIMOUSLY.
7:38 P.M. Notice of Intent filed by Thomas & Linda Cimillo, 445 Turnip Road, Map 07, Parcel 491.
Chairman Murley announced this hearing for a proposal to upgrade the septic system, including abandonment of the cesspools. The soil absorption system, septic tank, and pump chamber are proposed within the 100' Buffer Zone to the Top of the Coastal Bank.
Jason Ellis was the applicants’ representative for this proposal and explained that the proposal was very similar to the previous one but they had to wrestle with this one a little to squeeze it in.
He said that the plan before the Commissioners is the option he finally came up with. He said that in dealing with Title 5, they prioritize the setbacks in terms of wells, wetlands, and lot lines etc. He said that wells are the most prioritized setbacks. He said they want the 100' setback to the well as the top priority and wetlands as the second priority. He said that Title 5 has only a 50' setback to the leach field from the Top of the Coastal Bank; so, they meet the requirement for the leach field but they don’t meet the 100' setback that the Board of Health has to the Top of the Coastal Bank. Mr. Murley stated that this is also an Eastham Conservation Bylaw.
Mr. Ellis said they have tried to design this with what they call “maximum feasible compliance” in mind and that’s what the proposed plan provides.
Deputy Usowski said that this is another case where a letter will be written to the applicants telling them that no cutting is allowed without prior Conservation Commission approval. She said the area is fairly level and she doesn’t know if doing this work at over 50' from the Top of the Bank would alter the stability of the bank.
There were no comments from the floor. Deputy Usowski showed photos of the site. Mr. Hoerle commented that this is an “honored” bank. Mr. Ellis said he thinks there is a defunct rock wall at the bottom of the bank which looks like it’s been over washed for a long time.
Mr. Murley stated that the lot is Coastal Heathland and it is a low-maintenance cover which is quite desirable. He said that maybe when the first bulldozers go in, they could try to pick the vegetation up in mats. He said some have had success with this method and some have not. He said it is very hard to grow and if anyone wanted a view without maintenance that would be the perfect vegetation.
Chairman Murley asked for comments from the Commissioners.
There was discussion about access and it was agreed that there was no other way to access the area and human need has precedence over regulations about distance from a resource.
Chairman Murley commented that with some of these applications the systems have failed in the same location so this is a big improvement. There was no further discussion and Chairman Murley closed this hearing. Mr. Collins MOVED and Ms. Williams SECONDED the Motion to issue Order of Conditions 1-18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 29 try to save the existing vegetation and if that does not work 4-6" pots of bearberry to be put in and a review about a year later to see if something has popped up there; perhaps give one growing season to the mat approach, 33. Chairman Murley said the existing vegetation is very sensitive to sand so he doesn’t want to see a sand build up behind the silt fence; also any additional pruning must come before the Commission and a note about stockpiling materials.
SO VOTED UNANIMOUSLY.
8:00 P.M. Continuation of Hearing on Notice of Intent filed by Susan Scribner, 290 Windjammer Lane, Map 19, Parcel 080.
Chairman Murley announced this hearing. Katelyn Siddell of East Cape Engineering was present for Ms. Scribner, and recapped for the proposal for the Commissioners. This project came before the Commission for the construction of a deck and an addition and at that time an addition, deck, and pool were constructed. The pool was never shown on any approved plan; so, when the Certificate of Compliance was requested, the pool was found. They then filed a Notice of Intent to try to get the pool permitted.
Ms. Siddell went on to say that the last time they appeared before the Commission there was discussion about the existing chain-link fence and pool equipment and their proximity to the wetland. She said they revised the plan to show where the chain-link fence is around the property, where the 50' Buffer Zone comes into the property, and they have also included an
8'-wide strip of mitigation plantings along the southeastern property line to mitigate against the pool. She said she knows the Commission was concerned about the existing fence being a wildlife corridor barricade; however, in speaking with the applicant, she says the fence was put up when she purchased the property in 1996. She says the then Conservation Commission visited the property in 1997 and seen the fence. She said the applicant does have a small dog and that’s the reason for the fence. She said she hopes the mitigation plantings are sufficient enough to get a new Order of Conditions to permit the pool and the deck around it. The Commission has already issued a Certificate of Compliance for the deck and the addition, and now they are looking to get an Order of Conditions for the un-permitted
structures.
Deputy Usowski said the applicant is proposing an 8' strip of plantings. She says it’s shown on the plan as an 8'-wide swath and not a specific planting plan because it was the feeling of the Commission that they did not want a manicured-looking area, so they just showed an area which will be planted. She said she knows there are still some questions about the fence. She said the plants will be put inside the fence so she doesn’t know if this is contributing to habitat, and also she knows that the ACEC weaves itself in and out of the planting strip there and there were some questions about possibly moving the fence.
Discussion continued about the fence and about the concerns regarding the pool.
Mr. Collins said these are all important issues and they were brought up at the last meeting and he doesn’t see anything in the proposal which explains what they intend to do about it. He said it is something which really needs to be addressed in a serious manner.
Chairman Murley commented that none of the present Commissioners were there in 1997. He said the fence is not a complicated fence and it wouldn’t be a lot of work to move it.
Mr. Hoerle commented that the only way he could approve of the pool is if there were some sort of pipe running out to Windjammer Lane for drainage of the pool and somehow take it away from the property.
Ms. Siddell said that vegetation could be worked around if the Commission decides they want the fence moved. She apologized for not having any details about operation and maintenance for the pool; she thought it would be something that would be contained in an Order of Conditions that the pool got drained outside of the Buffer Zone. She said they can develop an Operations & Maintenance Plan for the pool to be included in the Order of Conditions.
Chairman Murley said he has a feeling that if this pool proposal came before the Commission today, it would be in either the front yard or it wouldn’t be there at all. He said that Ms. Siddell has heard the issues to take back to the applicant and come up with some remedies which are palatable to the Commission.
There was more discussion about pool maintenance and the initial installation of the pool and Ms. Siddell said she can absolutely see the concerns of the Commission. She said she has no answers for the Commission as to how this occurred when it happened. She said the applicant is willing to work with Commission.
Ms Siddell requested a continuance. Chairman Murley asked if there were any other concerns at this time. Mr. Hoerle MOVED and Ms. Dower SECONDED the Motion to continue this hearing until the next available meeting.
SO VOTED UNANIMOUSLY.
8:20 P.M. Continuation of Hearing on Notice of Intent filed by Peter & Joyce Weinman, 40 Rogers Lane, Map 21, Parcel 071.
Chairman Murley announced this hearing for a proposal to renovate an existing single-family dwelling; raising the dwelling on a new foundation in the same location; removing an existing deck and constructing a new deck with a new footprint; and installation of a new septic system and removal of an existing system within 100' of a Salt Marsh and Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage at property at the above-located property.
Stephanie Sequin of Ryder & Wilcox, Inc. was present for the Weinmans and introduced Brian McGowan of Wilkinson Ecological Design who will be discussing the planting mitigation and invasive management plan.
Ms. Sequin said the Commission’s main concerns at the last meeting were the size of the proposed deck which they asked the applicant to make smaller. She said they did, and pulled the southern section in 4' closer to the building. Also, on the southeasterly section of the deck rather than continue it the full length, they pulled it in about 4½’ and in place of that they are showing a shower enclosure. She said there is already an outdoor shower on the deck and they thought it would be a good spot to replace that outdoor shower. She said the other thing the Commission had requested was a planting plan which they have provided and which Brian McGowan will address.
Ms. Sequin said that a few other things they have revised after looking at the plan. They previously showed a bulkhead where they are now proposing a full foundation under the building, and extending the existing retaining walls. She said that since this house is proposed to be lifted up about 3' above it’s existing level, they want to be able to put fill on the westerly side of the foundation between the existing retaining wall and the foundation to bring that grade up to the first floor level, and in order to do that they are proposing to extend the existing retaining wall.
She said the Limit of Work is now shown just a foot off the proposed deck and what she’s specified is that the hay bales be staked in place after the existing deck is removed, but prior to any excavation. She said the other question which was raised was the need to have a full foundation under the entire building and would it be possibly to maybe have crawl space under a portion and a full foundation over one section.
She said she spoke with the Weinmans and they had intended to attend the meeting, but they’re coming from New York and because of the weather forecast they decided to abandon those plans but they did send a letter which explains how they came to own the property, how they intend to use it and the fact that it has been a two-unit rental property which they have had to rent out in order to make it financially feasible for them to have it. Now they are looking forward to making this a year-round home for themselves. So, in answer to the question of whether the Weinmans are interested in limiting the extent of the full foundation the answer is “No”. They are looking for a full basement for the entire building. She said that with the exception of a small shed on the property, there is no garage and no
other storage and the basement would provide this for them.
She said there was discussion with the architect, the builder and Bob Hayden who will raise the building about the logistics of how this will be accomplished, and whether there is any advantage to excavating a partial basement as opposed to a full basement, and came to the conclusion that it would actually be more work than to do one excavation and pour the foundation and be done with it.
Ms. Sequin pointed out that the footprint of this house is 1,500 sf. and the amount of excavated material would be about 190 cu. yd. She said the owners would prefer to have the full basement under the entire house.
Chairman Murley commented that extending retaining walls and adding fill within the 50' Buffer is not typically what the Commission looks for and asked how much the addition to them would be.
Deputy Usowski agreed that maybe hay bales would be overkill before the existing deck is removed; but, thinks there should be some type of a marker so things don’t’ accidentally end up farther away than they should be. She suggested perhaps a silt fence could be used. She said she hesitates to have no work limit that clearly designates to people who are working there where they are not supposed to go. She said she did not see a 50' line on the plan. She said she did a rough estimate and the retaining walls appear to be roughly 60-75' away from the Salt Marsh there; but, in the future the 50' line needs to be shown on the plan.
Discussion followed about whether or not additional fill was necessary and how deep the excavation for the foundation would need to be. Ms. Sequin said the groundwater elevation is just below the depth of the excavation and the footings would definitely not be poured if groundwater was encounter upon excavation.
Ms. Giovinazzo wondered whether there would be a pumping system if groundwater was to come into the basement during an unusually high tide.
Discussion continued about the retaining walls and the top of the foundation elevation and Ms. Williams wondered if the structure could be moved back from the Cove. Ms. Sequin said they had looked at that option but there are zoning setbacks which limit how far they could move it. Ms. Williams said she would be interested to see if it could be moved back somewhat.
Rich Bryant of Cape Associates addressed the Commission from the floor and said that with respect to excavation and the angle of repose, if you do slide the structure to the West, then what they would be getting into is an undermining of the retaining structure and having to dig back farther. If it is left where it is now and dig under it, they will have the breathing room to allow for the excavation.
Chairman Murley asked for Mr. Hayden’s thoughts on the matter. Mr. Hayden said that if they decide to make the foundation 6', that means they will not excavate down as far; therefore, in order to get frost protection in any wall you would have to come up 4' so you have to put some fill between the retaining wall and the house to achieve frost protection. Mr. Hayden continued that it seems that there must be some way to do this, achieve frost protection and maybe put some fill between the retaining wall and the wall which was just built. He said it is standing grass there now so the only difference is that it would be brought up another 3' or so.
Chairman Murley noted that this is the second hearing on this proposal which is requesting to remove the tight tank, which is the best thing for the environment and probably the worst thing for the owner. There is presently a crawl space and they are asking for a full cellar. He said that a couple fo feet have been knocked off the deck and some plantings have been added,
and they haven’t even addressed the septic system yet. He said that Weinman’s letter say that these are all reasonable requests; but, when they are all totaled it is a considerably large project. He said that it has not been move back when there is a chance to move it back and this is where the Conservation Commission is trying to get some balance with these projects.
There was some further discussion about the possibility of moving the house.
Ms. Giovinazzo said that if the basement gets water in it, it will need to be pumped; and, if the elevation is raised, there may be more be more water drainage into the basement.
Ms. Sequin said they could install perimeter drains so that the water does not drain into the basement. There was additional discussion regarding water elevation.
Ms. Dower commented that more than the impact of the basement, she is concerned about the work being done carefully.
Ms. Wiliams commented that the proximity of this house to the Cove is shocking and maybe getting it moved a little farther back and perhaps a bit smaller might make the proposal more palatable; but, there is already too much going on in this area so close to the Cove and now they are requesting more. She said that she thinks that in a sense, the Conservation Commission sees it as an opportunity to ask for some cooperation in these area.
Ms. Sequin said the Weinmans are getting the same house they have now, going from a two-family to a one-family, from seven bedrooms to three bedrooms and she thinks this is an improvement. Chairman Murley said the septic which is there now is better than what they are proposing and the structure is being raised up considerably and adding a dormer and it will be a bigger structure than what is there now and at the closest spot it is only 15-20' away from the resource. He said that normally when an applicant comes before the Commission in this type of instance, there would be a septic upgrade. He said the existing system might not be the best for the neighbors or the owners, but it the best for the environment.
Ms. Sequin said the leaching system is 70' from the marsh which is well over the 50' which the State requires. Chairman Murley reiterated that they are proposing to add a dormer and to go from a tight tank which is the best thing that can happen for the environment. Ms. Sequin said that for the time being the removal of the tight tank can be taken out of the picture and they will stay with the existing system. She said if the new septic system is viewed as a detriment, it can be taken out of the picture. Peter McDonald, from the floor, said that the dormer is low and will not create much square footage, but is being installed mostly for some light in that area. Ms. Sequin said she feels that the proposal is almost a maintenance of the existing building, raising it up onto a proper foundation so they can get
heating equipment into the basement and they certainly don’t have any intention of using the basement as living space.
Mr. Hoerle said that with the septic system taken out of the picture he really doesn’t have a problem with the dormer or the basement, but he would like to explore the possibility of moving the dwelling a little bit farther away from the Cove. Mr. Hayden said if the building were to be moved back two or three feet then the tight tank is going to have come out because he would not be able to get the beam up and it’s going to go through the tight tank.
Mike Cole of Cape Associates spoke from the floor saying that if the house were to be moved the project would become expanded because the retaining wall would also have to be removed. He said what they think is that picking the house up and putting the foundation directly under it would be so much easier and moving it would create much more disturbance even though it would be farther away and he’s not sure the Commission would want that.
Ms. Sequin said that without moving the structure back from the Cove, they are creating a planted Buffer where there is none now and isn’t that worth something? Chairman Murley said it is and thought it would be a good time to address this.
Brian McGowan of Wilkinson Ecological Design addressed the Commission and told the that this area is actually a fairly environmentally degraded area and is a who’s who of invasive plants even though it is quite small. He said the plan is to manage the Phragmite and explained the process. He said there will be some invasive control on the northeast side of the property line going all the way up to the road.
Mr. McGowan said that there is a pretty detailed management plan which includes an aggressive re-planting plan as the whole slope which goes down to the marsh is pretty terrible habitat so after they control the Phragmites they will be planting right up to the marsh with native grasses and indigenous shrubs, and two different plantings of herbaceous plants. He said the plan is to continue the healthy maritime herbaceous community that is growing to the south and the plan is to continue that community right to the bottom where it probably floods sometimes at high tide. He said that on the bank they will be planting a combination of shrubs and herbaceous plants so the idea is to greatly increase the buffer area along the Cove.
He continued that on the north side of the house the plan is to plant up the side with a mixture of native shrubs and Red Cedar going along the side of the house and on the south side to have another border of native plants. He said it is a comprehensive invasive control plan to take care of the invasives on the whole lot and replace them with native plants so it should be a great improvement with regard to habitat.
Ms. Sequin reviewed the requests of the Commission. There was brief discussion about when and why the tight tank was installed initially. Ms. Sequin said as she recalls it was because of a combination of Variances needed when the property was transferred in 2000 that DEP said they would need to install a tight tank.
Seth Wilkinson of Wilkinson Environmental Design addressed the Commission. He said in listening to the comments during the hearing he wished to touch on three quick points:
A Phased Construction Protocol In such a sensitive area a good Construction Protocol is needed;
Regarding the flooding issue in the basement, fortunately, it is outside of the Flood Plain so that they are not replacing any sort of flood storage and if some water were to come up in the basement, clearly it would be water on it’s way to Town Cove whether the house was there or not. He said the concern would then be could the water pick up contamination in the basement and that is a valid concern. He said he took a poll and this will be a gas-heated structure so there wouldn’t be an oil tank in the basement and oil is usually the biggest source of groundwater contamination in a basement. He said there may well be other safeguards which could be put in place however; and
They have been working with the owners for a while and their goal is to restore or create a Buffer Zone using very indigenous plants, many of which are from local seed which the grow in their native plant nursery. He said they really want to recreate the critical Buffer Zone between the Salt marsh and the upland community and that is why they intend to bring the planting up along the property line as well to help the upland/wetland interface connection. He said that also goes along way to mitigate the runoff concern.
There was a bit of additional discussion relative to the foundation and frost protection. Ms. Sequin said at this time they are willing to eliminate the proposed septic system and remain with the tight tank and if she comes up with some other creative design which might be more acceptable to the Commission she can file for an Amended Order of Conditions.
There was no additional discussion and Chairman Murley closed this hearing. Mr. Hoerle MOVED and Mr. Collins SECONDED the Motion to issue Order of Conditions 1-18, 19, 20, 21, 22 a silt fence shall be installed for the preliminary work of removing the existing deck, then hay bales shall be installed for the remainder of the work, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29 to follow the planting plan which was submitted with the NOI, 33, 35, 37 “No Mow” Zone etc, 38 outdoor shower to have 6" of crushed stone for drainage, 39 tight tank to remain, 40 7' foundation, 41 construction protocol to be submitted prior to construction 42 daily log submitted monthly by the contractor.
THE VOTE WAS 6 IN FAVOR AND 1 AGAINST.
MOTION CARRIED.
The Commission took a 5-minute recess at this point.
9:52 P.M. Request for Determination of Applicability filed by Joanne Lamar, 700 Shurtleff Road Rear, Map 07, Parcel 325 & 347.
Chairman Murley announced this hearing for the proposed installation of a replacement well and water line to serve an existing single-family dwelling within 100' of the Edge of a Wetland and Ditch at the above property.
Stephanie Sequin was the applicant’s representative and explained the proposal to the Commission. She said there will be a minimal amount of disturbance that’s going to take place and it’s all within the existing yard area.
There was no discussion and Chairman Murley closed this hearing. Mr. Smith MOVED and Ms. Giovinazzo SECONDED the Motion for a Negative Determination for Reason #3.
SO VOTED UNANIMOUSLY.
10:05 P.M. Request for Certificate of Compliance, Nordlander, DEP SE 19, 1338, 400 Mary Chase Road, Map 18, Parcel 068.
Chairman Murley read the letter from Stephanie Sequin of Ryder & Wilcox, Inc. dated
5 January 2009, requesting this Certificate.
Deputy Usowski said the silt fence is still up at this site, the work has been completed. Chairman Murley said he went by the site. He said the work limit was tight and all the Cedar trees were protected, and it’s hard to tell that a septic system was installed. He said he thinks the silt fence should stay up for a while until the area revegetates.
There were no further comments, and Ms. Giovinazzo MOVED to issue a Certificate for
DEP SE 19-1338. Ms. Dower SECONDED the Motion.
SO VOTED UNANIMOUSLY.
10:15 P.M. Request for Certificate of Compliance, Evans, DEP SE 19-1129, 15 Sander Lane, Map 01, Parcel 079A.
Deputy Usowski said this Order of Conditions was for the installation of an in-ground pool within the Buffer Zone to a Bordering Vegetated Wetland, Coastal Bank, and an ACEC. She said the only thing she found which was not exactly in compliance with the Order of Conditions was keeping the fence raised; however, upon thinking about it she asked what the point was to let animals under a fence which only goes to concrete and the pool. She said the applicants have done a really nice job with the Buffer Zone plantings according to what the planting plan was. She said this is a strange case scenario where they maybe don’t want migration under the fence.
There was discussion about whether the plantings were mulched and Deputy Usowski said she could investigate it further. Chairman Murley said there were several hearing relative to this property; one for the house, one for the basketball pad, and another for the pool. He said the Commission’s concern was mostly about the Buffer Zone and the way everything is set up it greatly augments the Buffer Zone for this particular area, which wasn’t there before the pool was installed, and he was quite happy with the thickness of the plantings.
Mr. Murley said he doesn’t think the owners were going against what the Commission wanted and they the mulch wasn’t being used to substitute for plants. He said the shrubs are growing very well and there is a split-fail fence and the activity is happening in the pool area and basketball in the driveway.
Mr. Hoerle MOVED and Ms. Williams SECONDED the Motion to issue a Certificate of Compliance for DEP SE 19-1129.
SO VOTED UNANIMOUSLY.
10:20 P.M. Request for Certificate of Compliance, Rakowski, DEP SE 19-1307, 15 Lee Court, Map 11, Parcel 179.
This Order of Conditions was for landscape renovations and vista pruning within 100' of a Bordering Vegetated Wetland. Deputy Usowski reminded the Commissioners that some had gone to a site visit after the retaining walls and the plantings were finished to speak with the applicants about vista pruning.
The Commissioners agreed that this project was a ‘success story” and was completed very well. Chairman Murley suggested the fact that the Commission appreciated the applicants cooperation be included in a letter to them.
Ms. Giovinazzo MOVED and Mr. Collins SECONDED the Motion to issue a Certificate of Compliance for DEP SE 19-1307.
SO VOTED UNANIMOUSLY.
There was no further business and Ms. Williams MOVED to adjourn at approximately 10:25 P.M. Ms. Dower SECONDED the Motion
SO VOTED UNANIMOUSLY.
Respectfully submitted.
Kay Stewart-Greeley,
Clerk
cc: Town Administrator
Town Clerk
Board of Selectmen
Building & Health
Planning Board
Library
| 
