EASTHAM CONSERVATION COMMISSION
14 April 2009
MINUTES
PRESENT: Steve Smith, Glenn Collins, David Hoerle, Dennis Murley.
STAFF PRESENT: Deputy Natural Resource Officer Amy Usowski.
ALSO PRESENT: J. Holden Camp, Katelyn Siddell of East Cape Engineering, Inc., Alix Heilala, Bob Erickson, Carl Ericson, Attorney Sarah
Turano-Flores, Peter Rosen, Chris Athorn, Bob Perry of Cape Cod Engineering, Inc., Rocky Melchiorri, Peter Markunas of The Woods Hole Group, Inc., Attorney John P. McCormick.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was determined that only 3 of the 4 Commissioners who were present at the last meeting were present at this meeting, so the approval of the Minutes of 24 February was tabled until the next meeting.
7:02 P.M. Enforcement Order
Deputy Usowski reviewed this matter for the Commissioners. The neighbors have a view easement on the property which has two conditions: that they let the owners know they will be trimming and that they get approval from the Conservation Commission before doing any work. She said that nine trees were topped and when the owner came home she had no idea what happened to the trees.
Deputy Usowski said this is civil matter, but from a conservation standpoint, what she would like to do is issue an Enforcement Order to the people who did the cutting and require them to file an after-the-fact Notice of Intent because they were supposed to get Conservation Commission approval to do the work. She said there will be a fine of $200 at minimum.
Deputy Usowski said she has prepared the Enforcement Order and a letter which she reviewed for the Commissioners. She showed photos of the site and asked for the Commission’s vote to approve the issuance of the Enforcement Order and fine.
Mr. Collins MOVED and Mr. Smith SECONDED the Motion to approve the issuance of the Enforcement Order and fine for cutting of trees at 95 Herringbrook Road without Conservation Commission approval.
SO VOTED UNANIMOUSLY.
7:10 P.M. Request for Certificate of Compliance, Daigle, DEP SE 19-977, 1415 Samoset Road, Map 13, Parcel 120 & 122.
Deputy Usowski explained to the Commissioners that a Certificate of Compliance had been approved for this project in 2003 and a letter was supposed to be sent out with it saying that there should be no mowing near the wetland. Apparently, the letter was never written, so the Certificate of Compliance was never issued. She said the owner is requesting a Certificate of Compliance in order to clean up his deed. She said they are planning to do another project and would like this removed before they start it.
Deputy Usowski went on to say that there is a stone, laid-in patio which is fairly established but was not on the approved plan. She said she doesn’t know if it was there when the Certificate of Compliance was approved in 2003 and if the Commissioners have a problem with this they should deal with it separately as the actual work completed was less than what was approved. She said she has spoken with the owner about mowing near the wetland.
Mr. Collins MOVED and Mr. Hoerle SECONDED the Motion to grant a Certificate of Compliance for DEP SE 19-977 and that the letter be written regarding mowing near the wetland.
SO VOTED UNANIMOUSLY.
7:15 P.M. Request for Determination of Applicability filed by Daniel Elliott, 110 Ellis Road, Map 22, Parcel 012.
Chairman Murley announced this hearing on a proposal to install a new water line from an existing building to the existing Town water main approximately 70' away from the Coastal Bank at the above-mentioned property.
Katelyn Siddell of East Cape Engineering, Inc. was present for the Applicant. She said that in November 2008 and RDA was filed with the Conservation Commission for the septic system on 100 Ellis Road for which a Negative Determination was issued. She said that as part of that project the well on 110 Ellis Road was to be abandoned and a water line was to be put in connecting to Town water on 110. She said that there was a note on the approved plan that did say that, but due to mis-communication on their part, it was not shown on the plan and it was not described in the RDA to be part of that application. She said that Deputy Usowski responded and had the workers backfill the trench and that an RDA be filed in order to get permission to install the water line. So, Ms. Siddell said that something which
was supposed to be part of the RDA back in November is now before the Commission as a new RDA.
She said that included with the request for the water line they are asking permission to install a gas line as well as direct roof runoff to an existing cesspool.
Deputy Usowski said that the water line has not been connected. She said it is about 70' from the Top of the Coastal Bank. She said that the gas line is on the opposite side of the building and almost mirrors what the water line looks like. She said that also on the plan is the note that the roof runoff will be directed into a cesspool which is right on the property line of 100 and 110. She said that all the activities are pretty much the same distance from the Top of the Coastal Bank.
Ms. Siddell said they did not show a Limit of Work on the plan as they think the work will be completed fairly quickly and backfilled within a half day so she did not think a limit of work was necessary.
Deputy Usowski said there should be no need to bring any equipment past the back of the garage. Ms. Siddell agreed. Deputy Usowski said this proposal is going through various Town departments right now, not just the Conservation Commission.
Chairman Murley commented that an immediate problem which occurs to him is that out of most septic upgrades the Conservation Commission usually asks that old cesspools be filled and he would have thought that it was part of the septic upgrade. He said he has never heard of an old cesspool being used for anything. It was determined that there was a note on the plan for the previous RDA for the septic upgrade which stated that the cesspool was to be filled and abandoned. Ms. Siddell said this was not done.
Alix Heilala, an abutter to the site, spoke from the floor. She said her question is that it is a garage with no plumbing which is being talked about and isn’t there some process this has to go through? She said that she believes the septic system which existed was abandoned back in 1950 when the house which was there was removed.
Deputy Usowski said that as far as what the building is being used for is not up to the Conservation Commission to determine. She said the Commission is only looking at whether putting a water or gas line within 100' of the Top of the Coastal Bank will effect the resource. She said that the Conservation Commission is working with other Town departments to figure out the solution.
Ms. Heilala said that the property has been divided into two lots and she didn’t know if that impacted Conservation or not. Deputy Usowski said it did not.
Chairman Murley asked if Ms. Heilala had a problem with the trenching aspect of this project and she said only if they were trying to make liveable space out of something which is not habitable. Mr. Smith commented that water and gas is not an unreasonable request for a garage.
Mr. Hoerle asked the dimensions of the building and Ms. Siddell said that it is approximately 25' x 25'. Ms. Siddell said this is just a garage and they are just asking for a connection to water and whether that will effect the resource. She said that any further development would have to come back in front of the Conservation Commission.
It was determined that a backhoe went in from the road and the trench was about 4' wide. Chairman Murley said that the smallest machine should be used to go into the area and thinks that this is a reasonable request under an RDA. Chairman Murley pointed out that as part of the original upgrade the cesspools were to be abandoned and filled. Ms. Siddell said she will talk to the Applicant to make sure that is done and Deputy Usowski said she would speak with the Health Agent also.
There were no further questions or comments and Chairman Murley closed this hearing. Mr. Hoerle MOVED a Negative Determination for Reason #3 and Mr. Collins SECONDED the Motion. Chairman Murley asked Ms. Siddell to make a notation about the on the plan that the roof runoff will be directed into dry wells or leaching trenches.
SO VOTED UNANIMOUSLY.
7:34 P.M. Notice of Intent filed by Derek Reicherter, 345 Harmes Way, Map 01, Parcel 110.
Chairman Murley announced this hearing for a proposed new septic system and well for an existing dwelling on a Barrier Beach at the above-mentioned property. As in the past, Mr. Murley recused himself from this hearing as an employee of the abutter, Wellfleet Bay Audubon; thus, there would be no quorum for a vote on this matter.
Deputy Usowski told the Applicant’s representative, David Lajoie of FELCO, Inc., that she had checked all the regulations and because this is a resource area they will need Conservation Commission approval to do the perc test.
Mr. Hoerle MOVED and Mr. Collins SECONDED the Motion to continue this hearing until 28 April 2009, if possible.
SO VOTED UNANIMOUSLY.
Deputy Usowski told the Commissioners about a wind workshop on Friday, the 17th in Yarmouth, presented by the Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve about how to educate towns relative planning systems in environmentally safe places and in places where it is applicable.
7:45 P.M. Notice of Intent filed by Silvano & Lillian Melchiorri, 1140 Kingsbury Beach Road, Map 10, Parcel 332.
Chairman Murley announced this hearing. This is a proposal for the construction of a single-family dwelling in a Coastal Dune area. Present for the Melchiorris were Attorney Sarah Turano-Flores, Dr. Peter Rosen a geologist, and Bob Perry of Cape Cod Engineering, Inc., who surveyed the actual elevations on site and drew the plan which was submitted.
Ms. Turano-Flores went on to say that what they are proposing is to construct the elevated dwelling shown on the plan with a treated septic system to the rear and the well 100' from the neighbors existing soil absorption system which is toward the seaward end of the property. They came before the Commission almost a year ago to get permission for a pilot well in that location and they discovered very, very good water. So, based on those tests, the plan before the Commission was developed.
Ms. Turano-Flores went on to explain the makeup of the subdivision which consists of postage-stamp size lots. She said that the proposed house is surrounded on all four sides. To the rear is Longstreet Lane to the South is Kingsbury Beach Road to the North is an existing dwelling and to the West there is also an existing dwelling and an existing concrete sea wall which extends for the first 64' of the property line. She said the remainder of the property line is not revetted and that is the only portion of the lot with coastal exposure. She said the dune formation resulting from that has largely dictated what is on the ground today. She said they are proposing a raised dwelling and a treated system that they feel will meet the Performance Standards in the function of the coastal resource. She then turned the
presentation over to Bob Perry.
Chairman Murley asked what the square footage of the combined lots were and Ms. Turano-Flores said they measure 18,000 square feet. Mr. Perry said it is actually a bit more than that as the property runs out into the bay but that is not figured as part of the 18,000 square feet. Mr. Murley said that he was trying to determine if the square footage represents today’s conditions. Mr. Perry said they are not measuring the beach or the flats. Mr. Perry said there is a scarp on the property which is about 25' back from the sea wall face.
Mr. Perry said that what is proposed is a single-family house on a typical timber pile foundation which would be open and only closed in very slightly with a lattice to calm the wind down.
Mr. Perry said the land within the Limit of Work would only be subject to foot traffic and a little bit of machine work on the Longstreet Lane side to set the piles which would be hammer driven. He said the septic system is a fairly standard subsurface sewage disposal system with an IA component and a septic tank. The primary reason for the IA component is that the lot is under 20,000 square feet and they are proposing a
two-bedroom home so they are taking advantage of the nitrogen reduction of the IA component to get the two-bedroom capacity. He said the septic system will be fully embedded in the soil so it is below street level and will not be subject to scour or anything else.
Mr. Perry went on to say that it is actually in a very sparsely vegetated segment of this lot. He said there is a plan which shows significant vegetation restoration to be undertaken by the Applicant to do two things; one is to restore the work area and the resulting vegetative cover will be much better than it is today; also, he said there are areas on the property which could use management with regard to the wind. He said there is a blow out on the West side and the Landscape Plan shows that it would not only be grassed in with American Beach Grass but likely some snow fence would be installed.
Mr. Perry said he submitted a Notice of Intent which is the product of his input, Mr. Rosen’s input and Attorney Turano-Flores’ input. He said that as they move away from the water they are not subjected to any realistic flood zone. He said they are not in an “A” Zone at all and are several feet above the elevation of the “A” zone. He said that they have a Velocity Zone map line on the plan but it appears not to take into consideration the development of the land to the West with the sea wall and in their evaluation they don’t believe they are going to have a complete dissolution of this lot. He said the foundation variety meets the Performance Standards for a dune that is determined to be significant to storm damage prevention and flood control.
Mr. Perry said it would take about six months to complete the work, with interior work being done after that. He said the landscaping component would occur, weather permitting, as soon as possible. He said that the project could even be timed so that the vegetative aspects of the project could be done first or simultaneously. He said that any underground utilities would be moled through.
Peter Rosen, Coastal Geologist told the Commission this is a vegeted, regulatory dune. He said the site is somewhat unusual in that it is bound by streets on two sides, a house in dunes on the other side and half of the seaward face has a vertical, concrete seawall. He said the proposed structure is largely behind the vertical, concrete seawall which is the best place to put any structure on this property.
Mr. Rosen said the most distinctive feature on this property is the enormous mound on the North side of this property, what he likes to call a “lot line dune”. He said that these are not that uncommon when you have developed properties and between the properties sand forms a linear feature, perpendicular to the shoreline; but, this is particularly large for a dune of that type. He said this is an unusual situation because you have a vertical sea wall on the South side, a drift fence and well managed foredune on the North side and about a 50' gap of natural foredune. He said that this is the connection of the property with the beach and water. He said the managed foredune is being held in place with vegetation and the drift fence creating a notch. He said that notches are not good in dunes. They
funnel wind and waves and make the area very susceptible.
Mr. Rosen said that added to that there is a well-trodden path and that path has created a blow out in the top of the dune and a notch on the seaward side of the dune. He said he thinks that path is one of the reasons that so much sand is blowing into this perpendicular form. He said it is elevation 24' at the back of the dune. He said that is a lot of sand in an unusual shape. He said that for the most part that sand isn’t providing the function thought of as dunes. In addition to placing the proposed house behind the seawall, he recommends that the foredune undergo management which is as simple as installing and maintaining sand fencing, maintaining vegetation, and maintaining the pathway with fencing and perhaps hay bales to at least prevent further growth of the blowout.
He said that another of his suggestions relative to the house is to see a layer of shell or gravel laid underneath an elevated structure. He said he doesn’t know how the Commission feels about this but he thinks it would prevent scour which sometimes happens and sand that is moving landward with the wind over a hard surface moves well and very efficiently and one function is to keep the sand moving. He said that this way the house will not cause scour and the house will not trap the sand as well.
Attorney Turano-Flores said that the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program has determined that the project, as currently proposed, does not occur within Estimated Habitat or Rare Wildlife or Priority Habitat so they are meeting those Performance Standards.
Bob Perry said that relative to the Performance Standards there is really no realistic propensity for waves to remove sand from the area around the house. He said they certainly acknowledge and want to foster this dune function closer to Cape Cod Bay which is where the dune has the ability to send sand back and exchange it with the beach. He said that right now he thinks the sand is blowing into Longstreet Lane where it gets plowed up and salvaged and taken somewhere else possibly. He said they are stating that while they will disturb the vegetative cover they will also incorporate wind safeguards which are temporary measures during a temporary effect. He said that when the job is complete the vegetation will have been enhanced.
Mr. Perry went on to say that follow-up stewardship by the owner is one of the key ingredients to safeguarding proper vegetated cover which allows this dune to function normally. He said they don’t propose any modification of the dune form which would cause for storm damage or flood threats. He said the site anywhere near the house does not confine flood waters and the vegetative enhancement project also serves the interests of storm damage and flood control and does not detract from it. He said the vegetative cover will increase the sediment exchange that is available with the beach. He said they do not propose to interfere with the landward or lateral movement of the dune. He said that the proposed house meets the Performance Standards for projects in dunes in that it has an open foundation. He
said the lot line dune appears to be threatening to bury the house to the North and he doesn’t think too many homes in this neighborhood were built with the Performance Standards in mind. He said he believes that enhancing the existing groves of shrubs and managing them in groups will create shelter, and habitat of the general wildlife variety will be enhanced. He said the context of this proposal is intended to blend in with the existing neighborhood on a vacant lot with significant regulatory controls.
Deputy Usowski said that in the past, this project was denied twice with the reason being that the septic system at that time was within 100' of the FEMA Flood Zone and the Commission felt that should a big storm event occur the leach field would be in the water and that there would be leaching from that getting into Cape Cod Bay and the surrounding waters. She said the “A” Zone elevation is at elevation 12' and the “V” Zone is at 16'. She said the proposed septic is approximately at elevation 16' and she asked Mr. Perry if they had taken into account the elevations on the East side of the lot as well.
Mr. Perry said they have taken into consideration all of the terrain features. He said there were some problems with the previous proposal in the late ‘90s. He said that elevations have been studied and studied and studied and they are very accurate. He said that he believes that they were shown to be lower previously. He said that all the elevations are at least 2' above 12' so they could not think of showing the “A” Zone because it did not fit. The “V” Zone clearly didn’t consider the elevations or volume of land here or the seawall. He said they are honoring the “V” Zone line and it is shown on the plan and the foundation is not only a foundation which is set up for dune Performance Standard functions but also for flood control.
Mr. Perry said that the septic system is at elevation 13' which is 1½’ below Longstreet Lane and Kingsbury Beach Road, so if the land were ever to erode back to that location the septic system might be revealed. He said they will be 2' above the “V” Zone with their lowest structural point but they will be almost at the ground elevation on the North with about a 3' reveal on the South and the same on the West.
Chairman Murley asked for comments from the floor and there were none.
The type of pilings were discussed and to what depth they would be embedded. Commissioner Hoerle reminded Mr. Perry that the Conservation Commission is concerned with leach from treated piles and Mr. Perry said he had not considered that. He said that untreated piles would be used if that is what the Commission requires.
Chairman Murley said that the previous maps showed that Longstreet Lane was a resource area under the Eastham bylaw and asked Mr. Perry if that was not so. Mr. Perry responded that he shows a 14.5' elevation there. Chairman Murley continued that under the bylaw passed January 31, 1995, it states that “no leaching component of a septic system shall be located within the 100' Buffer Zone of a resource area as defined by the Wetlands Protection Act” and asked Mr. Perry if he believed there was a leaching area within 100' of a resource area. Attorney Turano-Flores reminded the Commission of the Gedrich case and that the court ruled that there had to be a variance mechanism to the 100' setback for leaching components. Mr. Perry said that the soil absorption system is 190' from a location which is approximately
equal to Mean High Water on the submitted plan. He said the plan represents current conditions. Deputy Usowski said she would research the bylaw and make sure she had the most up-to-date one.
Deputy Usowski asked where the sand which goes underneath the proposed house is intended to go and deposit itself. Mr. Perry said lattice is mentioned to slow things down and the objective of the fencing is to stop sand. Mr. Perry said there will be some adjustment to the ground in the dune area where the fencing is placed. He said that nobody wants to see more of this dune migrating to the East and they don’t want to physically alter the dune with machinery. He said he thinks they will see a building of dune sand closer to the water and everywhere they enhance the vegetation which keeps the dune building on this lot and not on Longstreet Lane or Kingsbury Beach Road.
Mr. Collins commented that he’s not enough of an expert to know what will happen to the dune if they put a house there.
Deputy Usowski said it would be helpful and appreciated if Mr. Rosen could draft a short summary of his comments to be entered into the file.
Mr. Smith said that from his recollections he’s seen water lapping at the concrete wall around the existing house and Mr. Murley agreed that it happens regularly. Mr. Smith said that he has seen runoff all the way down Kingsbury Beach Road all the way back to Longstreet Lane in really run-of-the-mill Nor’easters and if that’s the case, then a bad storm will cause really deep flood water to rise above the 16' elevation. Mr. Smith said that the Limit of Work is too big and the driveway is three times the size it needs to be. He said that the Applicants’ representatives made a good presentation but the proposal is for another structure to be put where maybe it shouldn’t.
Mr. Perry said that’s why he mentioned the emotional component of putting a house in a dune, but when it is analyzed as they have and have looked specifically at the regulations and the Performance Standards, it’s not even marginal. He said it is much farther landward than any of the other homes that run along that shoreline and they are trying to show how they can do it.
Attorney Turano-Flores said she thinks that the past is certainly something they can learn from and there are a lot of soil absorption systems in the immediate vicinity and the Keto one is directly in front of the subject property and a lot closer in terms of separation from the bay. She said that septic system hasn’t been exposed and it has been there for quite a few years.
Mr. Perry said that based on their topographic map he doesn’t see any saturation caused by floods in the location of the septic system. He said he doesn’t want to diminish the impact a flood would have on the area, but a septic system functions by a much more concentrated departure of the effluent into the ground. If a flood were to course over the area, it would be a very transient event and it would be a very large amount of water and a tremendous impact to the vegetation. He said a 4" rainfall would be more of a distribution function for the septic system than any kind of flood that would happen here.
There was some discussion about global warming and additional treatment of leachate. Mr. Rosen said this is not a typical Coastal Dune project and it is a fairly conservative proposal compared to other projects he has seen in other towns. He said this project has a lot of mitigating factors.
Chairman Murley said he was on the Commission both times this proposal was denied over the last ten years. He said that nobody was happy about denying it and there have been very few denials over the time he has served with the Commission. He asked the engineer to re-check all the elevations on the plan as they are very different from the elevations shown when the proposal was heard previously, to check the Wetlands Bylaw, and to investigate more stringent septic treatment.
Mr. Collins asked that a Construction Protocol be submitted and that the Applicant make sure that this plan is what they want.
Attorney Turano-Flores requested a continuance until 26 May 2009.
Mr. Hoerle MOVED and Mr. Collins SECONDED the Motion to continue this hearing until 26 May 2009.
SO VOTED UNANIMOUSLY.
10:00 P.M. Continuation of Hearing on Notice of Intent filed by Victor Arruda & Anne Marie C. Beaudoin, 51 Longstreet Lane & Town of Eastham’s half of Liberty Ave. at Crest Ave., Map 10, Parcel 344.
Chairman Murley announced this hearing. Peter Markunas of Woods Hole Group and Attorney Jack McCormick were present for the Applicants. The plan has been revised and the scope reduced in order to address the concerns raised at prior meetings.
Mr. Markunas explained the revised plan. The original plan showed the extension of the return 30' onto Town property. The Applicants decided to scale back and try to reconstruct the existing rock revetment and extend the return to meet the existing bank. He said they are also proposing to place a sand drift fence at the end of the return and additionally, the Applicants are proposing to nourish be beach annually with approximately 226 cu. yds. of sand. He said the Applicants are requesting to place most of the sand at the very end of the revetment which would end up on the Town property. Also, the proposed reconstruction of private beach access stairs has been removed from the plan.
Deputy Usowski questioned the fact that some of the proposed work will take place on 49 Longstreet Lane. She said that this has not been legally advertised and the Conservation Commission has no approval from the owners of 49 Longstreet Lane for the proposed work. Mr. Markunas said he is sure the owners of 49 Longstreet would have no objection to the proposal and if the Commission considers rendering a judgment at this hearing it can be predicated on receiving approval from these owners. Deputy Usowski said that if there is an association for the homeowners on Liberty Avenue then the Applicants should also get permission from the association for the work on association property. Attorney McCormick said there may be an informal association, but the title to the property is not held by the association.
Chairman Murley said that typically, with some exceptions to fill in gaps or whatever, the Conservation Commission asks for a return to be 10' back from the property lines on revetments which are not connected. He said this doesn’t apply to the South in this case but it does apply to the North. He went on to say that the Conservation Commission would greatly encourage the placement of all sand nourishment in that particular area.
Discussion followed about a sand-drift fence being placed on Town land by an association and whether that needed approval from the Selectmen. Mr. Markunas said he had spoken with the Town Administrator about this project and she voiced no objection and did not tell him he would need approval from the Selectmen for the
sand-drift fence.
Mr. Markunas said he was aware of the 10' setback, but this is an existing revetment which already extends over the property line and the greater the angle of the end, the greater the reflective energy of the structure will be.
Chairman Murley said he thinks it’s a great idea to put the sediment in that spot and asked if there was a triggering mechanism for when sand would be placed. Mr. Markunas said it would be to the Applicants’ benefit to keep the revetment covered.
Deputy Usowski said that if any work is to be done on 49 Longstreet Lane it would need to be legally advertised. Mr. Markunas said he could keep the work on 51 but he’s sure that 49 has absolutely no objection to this work going forward and they are totally aware that it is being proposed and is beneficial for them as well.
Chairman Murley pointed out that without this proposal there would be no sand nourishment and this amount is based scientifically on the erosion rate and the height of the bluff. He said that without this proposal there would be a failing revetment and no sand nourishment of the beach.
There were no further comments and Chairman Murley closed this hearing. Mr. Hoerle MOVED and Mr. Smith SECONDED the Motion for approval of this project with Order of Conditions 1-18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25 Cedar, 26, 27, 29, 31 226 cu. yds., 33, 34, 36, 39 pending approval of the Eastham Board of Selectmen, 40 work is to take place on 51
Longstreet Lane and Town of Eastham land only. No work shall take place on 49 Longstreet Lane, 41 Site shall be staked and an on-site meeting with the Applicants’ representative and the Deputy Natural Resource Officer prior to the commencement of work, 42 bedding stone shall be stored in a closed container, 43 the contractor shall check the site after two moon tides have passed to clean the beach of any debris or trap rock, 44 no trap rock or chink stone shall be used.
SO VOTED UNANIMOUSLY.
10:00 P.M. Continuation of Hearing on Notice of Intent filed by Frank & Janet Bianco, 290 Salt Works Road, Map 04, Parcel 005A.
Chairman Murley announced this hearing. The Applicants’ representative Peter Markunas, told the Commission that he had requested a continuance of this hearing until 12 May. Mr. Collins MOVED and Mr. Smith SECONDED the Motion to continue this hearing until 12 May 2009.
SO VOTED UNANIMOUSLY.
10:02 P.M. Notice of Intent filed by the Town of Eastham, 250 Salt6 Works Road, Map 04, Parcel 009.
Chairman Murley announced this hearing. Deputy Usowski told the Commission that the Tow is asking for a continuance until the next available meeting date. Mr. Collins MOVED and Mr. Hoerle SECONDED the Motion to continue this hearing until
12 May 2009.
SO VOTED UNANIMOUSLY.
There was no further business and Mr. Hoerle MOVED to adjourn at approximately
10:05 P.M. Mr. Smith 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
| 
