CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Town of Monterey, Massachusetts
MEETING DATE: 12 December 2005
Present: David Dempsey, chair, Chris Blair, Rick Andrus, Judith Bach
Absent: Tim Lovett
The meeting convened at 6:00 p.m.
6:04 pm – 6:20 pm Informal discussion, Leavitt, existing WPA OOC for project 64 Worth Lane
Shannon Boomsma, White Engineering and Pam Sandler, project architect followed up on written request informing us of an intention to change the project. The question was whether we could provide an Amended OOC or whether they would have to refile. The change in scope of work was to demolish both the existing house and foundation and rebuild the project as new. We are required to re-advertise the deliberation and they are required to re-notify the abutters. We informed them we could probably produce an Amended OOC and would hear them at the next meeting 9 January 2006.
6:20 pm – 6:50pm continuation Public Hearing, D’Alessio, SMA06-07 NOI –Mt Hunger Rd, for new house construction
Shannon Boomsma, White Engineering appeared with Stephen D’Alessio, contractor. They provided the requested information of areas and elevations. They re-described the project for the commission. The project components had remained the same: house, drive, drainage system, septic system. All large trees on site were identified on a revised drawing (submitted). They request removal of all 1-2” ‘scrub’ trees. The question arose as to what will happen to the denuded lot. We were reluctant to OK this activity without a proposed landscape plan. Mr D’Alessio proposed to supply the commission with such a plan. We approved the project as submitted. The conditions were: 1. Maintenance of the drainage structure will be the responsible in perpetuity, of the property owner. 2. The applicant will submit a
post construction landscaping plan showing a.) the planting of vegetation to stabilize the disturbed and cut areas of the project and b.) the planting of additional trees restoring lost canopy to the lot and intended to produce a uniformly distributed tree population in both the short term and long term; meaning planting of small and large caliper trees.
6:50pm – 7:00 pm Informal discussion, AHYE, SMA NOI – Main Rd
Shannon Boomsma, White Engineering informing us of an intention to change the project. She explained the house was to be moved east, away from the western property line and that the path of the drive would be changing to allow for a lesser sloped drive. The drive had become too steep as it approached the house. The change in house location was to revise the drive-house connection. Ms Boomsma explained the revisions would not decrease the capacity of the drainage system. The increase of distance to the property line would allow a better planting of post-construction trees. We asked that she revise the documents and submit them to us with a cover letter.
7:00 – 7:50pm Friends of Lake Garfield present consultant #2 for Town NOI
Janet Cathcart introduced Lee Lyman, Lycott Engineering. He discussed the scope required for analysis, public intake, and submission of a NOI for the L Garfield draw down. This project is required to bring the L Garfield NOI into conformance with the state’s new guidelines for lake draw down and to improve the impact and benefit to all interested parties. Mr Lyman has conducted successful projects at L Stevens for weed control and wildlife improvement. Mr Lyman will be submitting a proposal to the Selectboard for their review. M Miller and M Storch were in attendance.
7:50 pm – 8:10pm Public Hearing, Sternberg, SMA06-08 NOI – 92 Mt Hunger Rd, for garage construction
Mr + Mrs Sternberg appeared representing their application. They propose to construct at 24’ x 24’ post and beam, 2-car garage at the edge of their existing parking area. (2) trees will be removed. We believe the project will not create new detrimental drainage flows nor impose on the visual qualities of the area. Access to the project will be over an existing drive. We approved and conditioned the project. The condition is: 1.) All disturbed areas to be seeded and mulched.
8:10 pm Public Meeting, Blaskey, WPA RDA – 578 Main Rd Continued
From the original meeting: “The public meeting was continued until the 14 November 2005 meeting at which time we hope to obtain confirmation from the applicant of Board of Health permitting of the project.” We received a notice from the BOH saying the project had been approved for a Disposal Works Construction Permit. We could now issue the Determination of Applicability and should do so at the next meeting. We should review the application to see all data was submitted.
General discussion:
1. Howitt, Beartown Mt Road. It was reported the silt fence had been stood up but not dug in. The silt fence also had not been extended towards the north east side of the house. The BOH had been made aware of the erosion that occurred to the SAS. It was reported that wood chips were placed on top of the eroded area. It was suggested we ask P Kolodziej and/or the BOH about off lot drainage directed at the SAS. Puntin of B+B Landscaping of Lee was the site contractor and needed to be notified about the incomplete work.
2. We had a general discussion about raising fees for applications under both the WPA and SMA. The current fees are: Wetlands Protection Act Request for Determination of Applicability $55, Scenic Mountain Act RDA $25, SMA NOI $25. The WPA NOI fees are set by the state and shared with the local concom per their formula. We did not review the WPA NOI fee schedule, but should. After reviewing advertising costs and application processing times we determined that a fee increase was in order and necessary to cover costs of processing applications. We noted in a recent letter received that Great Barrington had raised their fees to $75 for the same applications. The
commission determined that $65 would be a modest increase and still cover our costs. A motion was made to create a new fee schedule as follows: WPA RDA $65, Scenic Mountain Act RDA $65, SMA NOI $65. The motion was seconded and approved.
3. We discussed the need for the near future to conduct site visits under the SMA. We felt it was important for the whole commission to visit sites of applicants. A diversity of opinions could then result in a more fully considered application at the time of the public meeting or hearing.
4. We were reminded that we possibly had not notified the Selectboard of the outcome of the request for extension of OOC for the L Garfield draw down during the October 2005 meeting. A letter would be sent.
5. We discussed the possible permitting sequence that might result in site work occurring before issuance of ZBA decision (if required). There are requirements of the various town boards that the applicant obtain permits that are obtainable at the time. C Blair discussed a project that obtained a SMA OOC before a possible ZBA hearing. The ZBA issues may have been out of our comprehension. To prevent this from happening we are going to discuss the sequence with our Zoning Official and see if the process may be improved to protect the residents of the town.
6. We reviewed the current mail.
7. We approved minutes of the last two meetings.
Meeting adjourned at 8:45p.m.
Christopher Blair
Cc: Conservation Commission Board Members
| 
