CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Town of Monterey, Massachusetts
Minutes from an additional Conservation Commission meeting.
MEETING: 27 June 2006
Present: David Dempsey, Chair, Judy Bach, Tim Lovett, Chris Blair,
Absent: Rick Andrus
Public Meeting began at 6:07pm.
This meeting was held to discuss the ConCom site visit to the Alpert project, Mt Hunger Road, to review conditions and changes in project scope, which we believe is a violation of the Scenic Mountain Act, over what was approved in the recent Amended OOC. Since there are 5 members now in office a quorum was present. The Amended OOC is dated 13 March 2006. The project location is Map 9 Lot 50, Book 1673 Page 21.
D Dempsey announced the purpose of the meeting as a discussion among the commission to digest and act upon the site visit. He said it was the ConCom intent to not allow participation from the public in attendance, but that he may allow comment from the public at this meeting.
We discussed the 20 June 2006 site visit to the Alpert project on Mt Hunger Road. Stephen D’Alessio was the Applicant and is the contractor for Alpert the owner. The whole commission was present at the site visit. Applicants representatives present at the site visit include D’Alessio, Shanon Boomsma – White Engineering, David Potter-architect, Carl Schneller – EDM Engineering, Craig Okerstrom-Lang-Okerstrom-Lang LTD, LA, and a site representative of Tryon Construction-site contractor.
We reviewed the Amended OOC dated 13 March 2006, and the referenced drawings: i) Master Plan, rev 13 March 2006, ii) Planting Plan, rev 17 Mar 2006, and iii) Plan Section, 3 Mar 2006.
The discussion was aimed at determining what violation of the Scenic Mountain Act has occurred. One item was that the approved retaining walls were relocated and raised in height: these changes were not approved in the current OOC nor discussed at any time with the ConCom prior to our site visit.
A 75-foot no build zone, a deed restriction which is our jurisdiction, was discussed. We discussed the septic system (SAS) change from a naturally graded mound to being move upslope and behind an addition of retaining wall.
Concerns expressed by the ConCom regarding the wall are i) stability, ii) life of the wall, iii) visibility of the wall now, in the future, during winter, during the process of covering it with the proposed vegetation, in the event the southern property line trees die, and to the western neighbor Jackson, iv) the changed height, and v) the larger footprint. A clear ‘No Disturb Zone’ fence seems to be missing as called for in the drawings; damage has occurred to trees at its boundary due to excavation and undermining and exposure of roots. The southern most wall was approved at a 13 foot height (Top of Wall elevation ??) with a uniform height for the top of wall; the wall on site is now 34 feet (TOW elevation ??) at an observed point with a uniform height. On top of the wall is a wire safety fence, not yet
installed.
The ConCom was not clear if we were provided with the proper abutter notification documentation for our file at the time of application.
Solutions suggested were i) replanting of damaged trees in kind, in place, after construction, ii) stopping work, iii) changing the wall to the approved configuration, iv) painting the wall during the beginning period of screening vegetation, v) revoking the Amended OOC, and vi) adding additional trees and/or vegetative screenings and plantings. Some discussion covered the willingness of the Applicant and Owner to remedy the problem through the Enforcement action as a result of the current violations.
The public was given an opportunity to speak. S D’Alessio the GC spoke noting he placed the wall in the rear setback of the property and could not do so. Sydney Smithers –Cain Hibbard Myers Cook spoke representing the neighbor Jackson. S D’Alessio read a letter admitting changing the project scope above the permitted Amended OOC. The letter was added to the job file. C Okerstrom-Lang discussed mitigation measure that are being discussed with neighbor Jackson. He said that proposed ivy cover requires 5 – 10 years to establish a thick, robust wall cover. C Schneller said i) the wall, by Versa-Lok wall by Kiltie Corp, Oakdale, MN was installed according to manufacturers specifications and instructions, ii) that EDM had calculated a safety factor of 2.0, iii) performed construction administration
regarding the construction of the wall, and iv) felt the wall was designed for a long life. S D’Alessio spoke of the ongoing mitigation discussion with neighbor Jackson.
The ConCom discussed the options of Enforcement, whether stop work was mandatory, how best to engender cooperation and achieve the goals of both the SMA and the Town of Monterey.
The ConCom decided to send a letter to the Applicant and Owner identifying the violations, what the ConCom wants them to do to resolve the violation, and what revised and new documentation will be required at the next meeting when they will be required to demonstrate compliance. The requested changes to the project as a 2nd Amended OOC will not be discussed until the current violations are corrected. This 2nd Amendment request must be submitted in writing for action at a Public Hearing.
Meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
David Dempsey Chair, Conservation Commission
(F:\CONCOM\Concom06\Minutes06\060628minutes.doc)
| 
