Conservation Meeting
Town Hall - 25 High Road
Tuesday, September 21, 2010 at 7:00 pm
Meeting opened at 7:00 pm
Present: Chairman Doug Packer, Jim Cunningham, John Hartnett, John O’Connell, Dan Streeter, Les Jones
Excused: Worthen H. Taylor III
Fred Jackman (68 Green Street) – A continued NOI for roadway maintenance, drainage, ditches, utility pole installation and wetland mitigation at the junction of Emery Lane/Plummer’s Lane/Low Street. Mr. Jackman is still in litigation with regard to this parcel and Chairman Packer recommends continuing this hearing to the next meeting date. Mr. Jones made the first motion, all in favor.
Michael Kellan (8 39th Street) – A continued NOI to construct a single-family home and to extend driveway on the ROW to provide access to the subject property. On August 11, the applicant’s Representative Brian Buia from Apple Associates, requested to continue this hearing to the next meeting date. Mr. Jones made the first motion, all in favor.
Leonard Dobson (38 Old Point Road) – A continued NOI to construct a two-story addition over existing deck. Mr. Dobson is still in litigation with regard to this dwelling and Chairman Packer recommends continuing this hearing to the next meeting date. Mr. Jones made the first motion, all in favor.
Brian Abt (9 16th Street) – A continued NOI to replace existing retaining wall and posts supporting an existing deck. There is still no DEP File# assigned/ applicant needs to resubmit locus map and plans to DEP. Applicant has requested a continuance until October 19th meeting date. Mr. Jones made the first motion, all in favor.
Peter Matthews (4 47th Street) – A continued NOI to replace existing garage. Mr. Matthews requested that his application be withdrawn w/o prejudice; so moved.
John & Edith Drinkwater (27 Annapolis Way) – A continued NOI to raze and –re-construct a single-family home. Representative Mr. Gary Litchfield indicated new plans were placed on file about a week or so and also brought them to the meeting. The proposal should address the Commission’s concerns; moving the house back further and thus the pilings from the existing dune. Applicant is proposing a cantilever for front beach/coastal dune deck, move pilings and house thus increasing the setback from the beach by 4-feet. Spoke with the pile driver; they are willing to assess abutter’s dwelling foundations prior to work commencing, in an effort to ensure no damage is done during the pile driving for he project. If necessary they will also place a seismic gauge to measure the level of activity
during pile driving. Has proposed 374 square feet of re-vegetation and they are doing 17% versus 20% lot coverage. Mr. Litchfield mentioned that there may still be an active lawsuit with regard to the ROW. Chairman Packer verified that there is a lawsuit surrounding the ROW and Abutter at 25 Columbia Way (Meinhart) shared that they have access rights to the ROW Path, they are part of the decision) The hearing was opened to the audience and abutters for questions, there were none, thus, Chairman Packer made a motion to closed the public hearing. Mr. Hartnett made the motion to accept and Mr. Streeter made the second motion; all in favor.
John Feather & Dorothy Brooks (56 Fordham Way) – A continued NOI to replace/repair existing fence and create driveway access to external storage area. Ms. Brooks shared that they built an addition a couple of years ago with pilings, the proposed storage will be under the pilings. They would also like to create a driveway on left side of the house. There are very few alternatives due to the elevation; the retaining wall is about 4-feet high. Chairman Packer asked what they had planned for the vegetation; Ms. Brooks stated that there is a little bit of an area to the left of the proposed gravel access. Chairman Packer suggested a site visit to identify an appropriate re-vegetation area and check the elevations; the site visit will take place on Wednesday October 6th at 5:00.
The hearing was opened to the audience and abutters for questions, there were none, made a motion continue the public hearing to the site visit and then to the October 19th meeting date.
Plum Island Foundation (on behalf of Coastal Property Owners south of State groin #1) – An RDA to add compatible sand to existing dune system and move sand washed from dune/beach during pedestrian traffic and storms back to previously existing dune system. PI Foundation submitted a letter dated 9/21/10 outlining the erosion history (attached letter from Undersecretary Griffiths) and what they feel are the appropriate steps necessary to implement preventative steps as part of the dredging project. The homeowners desire to maintain/protect their property. There is up to 30-feet of beach along with a slope that is identified (but not destroy the grade); want to restore dune that has been taken away and protect them at least for the winter.
- Chairman Packer; would need a letter from the homeowners with limits of work. Packer also asked if this is the same or different filing than that presented by Vine Associates on behalf of the Town? Different, along with the fact that Homeowners will likely approach this contiguously and as financially possible.
- Mr. Streeter stated that he was uncomfortable with this request being an RDA, asking us to vote for a negative determination when it is clearly not.
- Mr. Connors expects to have further discussions with EEA on this subject. Mr. Packer stated that since Mr. Connors stated that this is a separate and different project so it meets the criteria.
- Mr. Jones highlighted the third paragraph of Griffith’s letter, and stated that we had to do something.
- Streeter brought up the 2.5 to 1 slope; this matches the two prior RDA’s that were approved, how does that protect the habitat as highlighted by National Heritage? He also raised the plan of execution for the beach scraping; the MBRA has lost focus and not completed a definition of what a beach scraping plan would look like. Chairman Packer indicated that the homeowners would not execute the beach scraping; it would be at the discretion of the Town. It will be the Emergency Certificate that outlines the execution of moving the sand. The original petitioner for beach scraping with the PI Foundation and the Town helped move it forward.
- PI resident Tom Gorski asked about the sandbar, it seems to change seasonally. Could that be moved to the beach? It would be great, but without studies such a movement of that sand could be reckless.
The Commission discussed Special Conditions for this Determination; Conditions on Determination: Further information outlining scope of work and compatible sand to the Chairman prior to commencement of work. Slope of no less than 3 to 1. Snow fencing and plantings will go on/around the new dune/sand area. Beach scraping will only be approved by the Town of Newbury through an emergency certificate not-inconsistent with WHAT (Sec Griffiths letter). Existing beach profile to be maintained while placing sand (though it is a moving target) National Heritage does Not have an issue when placing above dune interface on properties.
Chairman Packer made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. O’Connell made the first motion to accept with Special Conditions and Mr. Hartnett made the second motion; all in favor.
Kathleen Levesque (103 Main Street) – An RDA to replace existing septic system for single-family dwelling. Representative Bill Holt from PLS stated that the wetland identified is an intermittent stream, we could go further back but did not want to impact the Wetland area. The old tank under deck will be pumped and filled. New leach area is 57 feet from end of wetlands. The BOH hearing is next week; will condition on BOH approval. The hearing was opened to the audience and abutters for questions, there were none, thus, Chairman Packer made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Jones made the first motion to accept and Mr. Streeter made the second motion; all in favor.
Tom Gorski & Robin Wigandt-Dure (12 6th Street) – An RDA to install roof over part of an existing deck and enclose approximately 1/3 of the coverage. Getting solar panels, and they want to add an awning to accommodate additional panels. The deck is existing as well as the sonar tubes. They have worked out the FAR with Building Commissioner, no problems. The hearing was opened to the audience and abutters for questions, there were none, thus, Chairman Packer made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. O’Connell made the first motion to accept and Mr. Jones made the second motion; all in favor.
Francis & Barbara Tobin (14 Northern Blvd) – An RDA to install two windows to second floor of existing home. Install dormers holding two windows facing Northern Blvd. The hearing was opened to the audience and abutters for questions, there were none, thus, Chairman Packer made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. O’Connell made the first motion to accept and Mr. Jones made the second motion; all in favor.
Alan Ward (12 Riverfront Dr) – An RDA to replace existing septic system. Rep Bill Holt from PLS stated that this is an existing 3-bedroom. Parker River is at the southern part of lot. All Title 5 setback requirements for this property and neighbor have been met. They are replacing system with presby, and the project was approved by the BOH two weeks ago. Will have silt fence installed at highest elevation to avoid runoff during project. The hearing was opened to the audience and abutters for questions, there were none, thus, Chairman Packer made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Jones made the first motion to accept and Mr. O’Connell made the second motion; all in favor.
William Edwards (25 Rolfe’s Lane) – RDA to clear shrubs in driveway overlooking pond. Weeds/swale growing (About 40-feet from pond) and obstructing view of pond; would like to take them down and plant turf lawn, shared photos for the record. The hearing was opened to the audience and abutters for questions, there were none, thus, Chairman Packer made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Streeter made the first motion to accept an Mr. Hartnett made the second motion; all in favor.
Geraldine Buzzotta (4 5th Street) – An NOI to replace a single-family home with a smaller single-family home. Rep Tom Hughes, Hughes Environmental, here to present an improved plan over the one presented a few months ago. Lost original home about 2-years ago, Approval was granted last year for new home, but applicant withdrew application due the delay of the dredging project. New plan home with wrap around deck Gravel walkway is now clamshell and the decking is now “thru flow” (40% light passes through) vegetation can grow underneath this type of decking.
Showing the number pilings on plan as a maximum, they hope that there will be less piling. The sand bags are at the end of their life, but have still respected their locations. There is a wrap around deck, to discourage access to the dune.
Keep deck off dune grass, and also use the new decking material and should encourage dune grass to grow under part of the structure and further stabilize dune.
The house was designed as if it was in the V zone. Dwelling will be on pilings at least 2-feet above grade. To alleviate possible dune scour under the pilings; suggest adding snow fence as a buffer to trap sand and further trap dune. Lot is 5400 sf and the sand tubes divide the lot in half. 1540 sf versus 1680 sf (880 house, 700 deck). The 1680 is a number zoning used from the assessors card. (The structure measured 2000-2100 sf according to GIS/Pictometry program). 3.5 X3.5 utility chase and a raised propane tank.
Respect the sand tubes as a line where one does not want pilings to go. Last round abutters were not happy with the gravel, thus the shift to clam shells which is more compatible with the sand.
Mr. Streeter – asked about Wave Action; the pilings and bottom floor were designed for V-zone (and building 4-feet above velocity zone)
Abutter (7 &11 Northern) – submitted letter with objections. Further added that the pilings are vibrated in place makes them extremely nervous. Parking Not Addressed - not a Wetlands Regulatory concern, Beach Sand – is happening now
Vegetation – proposed plan is a supporter of re-vegetation
Setback Considerations – state law passed in August allows decisions to be good for an additional two years.
Resident Jerard Whitten (one of the opposed neighbor not an abutter, last year). More than 130 feet lost and one of the greatest areas of erosion. They are seems to be re-vegetating itself. Why would a house be better than seeing this area stabilized
Bob Connors (Annapolis Way) stated that he felt is was a good presentation of a project to be replaced on private property. Tonight is our chance to allow her to rebuild
Steve Mangion (14th Street) – contention that the house will provide more stabilization than natural vegetation. Thru flow decking; are there any studies on this. Concern that she will park on the right of way if parking is not a consideration as part of the application. Zoning approved footprint; has the proposed or will it change in any way (the bldg inspector will ask for an as-built)
Russell Krausser (39 Southern Blvd.) – An RDA to replace raised bed gardens. Rep Verne Fisher, Visionary Landscapes cleanup raised bed and re-plant . This was discovered during another site visit on PI and they were ordered to cease and desist. Work continued, Verne showed up at the site and Chairman Packer again ordered the cease & desist.
This was a property owned by Ed Smith for which there was an NOI; it is our belief that there was a bed parallel to right side of driveway perpendicular to water – this was to be dune grass.
Chairman Packer stated that 2 years passed and Mr. Krausser must show proof that they were there and existing at the time of sale. They were not there at the time of COC, which was done shortly before the sale. COC was done May 7, 2010; applicant is going to have to show proof of its existence. Chairman Packer stated that the meeting will be Mr. Jones mad the motion to accept; all in favor.
Other Business:
1) Open Meeting Law Materials/Agreement
Meeting Adjourned at 10:00 pm
Respectfully submitted, Susan Noyes
| 
