TOWN OF PLYMOUTH
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
508-747-1620 x139
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
October 4, 2011
Administrative Meeting
The Plymouth Conservation Commission held its regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, October 4, 2011 at the Plymouth Town Hall, 11 Lincoln Street, Plymouth, MA 02360. Present were Evelyn Strawn, Chairperson, Gerre Hooker, Vice-Chairman and Commissioners James Aimone, David Foster, and Paul Withington. The secretary, Michelle Turner, was also present. Brooke Monroe and John Scagliarini were absent.
Disclosure: These minutes are not verbatim – they are the secretary’s interpretation of what took place at the meeting. – Open Meeting Law, G.L. c. 30A § 22.
All materials presented during this meeting are available in the Conservation Office.
Administrative Business – May include topics not reasonably anticipated by the Chair 48 hours in advance of the meeting.
7:00 P.M. DISCUSSION: Rules and Regulations of the Plymouth Wetlands Bylaw
Specifically SECTION 10, Part III For Buffer Zone Resource Area
Evelyn gave a brief history of how and why the changes to the regs occurred.
Present for discussion was Mark Flaherty of Flaherty & Stefani, Inc., J. Randolph Parker of LMSI (Land Mgmt Systems, Inc) and Don Bracken of Bracken Engineering.
Discussions ensued with various opinions. The main concern was the smaller lots that would like to build an addition. They questioned what types of conditions the board would feel worthy of giving a waiver..
Evelyn explained that granting waivers would not be the norm.
The Chairwoman explained how the Commission over several years has moved towards implementing no-touch and no-build zones, and reinforced that nothing should occur within 35 feet and very little should occur within 50 feet.
Mark Flaherty of Flaherty & Stefani, Inc. remembered the meetings held in 2010 with our Bylaw/Regs consultant Lenore White, and the discussion about how creating the no-build/no-touch zones would affect all of the small lots and their right to build and enlarge their homes. Mark continued that at the time, Ms. White said that a waiver process would be built in. Mr. Flaherty wanted to know if the Commission was likely to give waivers. Evelyn Strawn explained the unique situations when a waiver would be issued and it would not be the norm.
Discussion ensued over how a “net benefit” could be achieved with a proposal for an addition construction. Small lots will not have the conservation approval for larger additions.
Mr. Parker, supported the need for greater buffer zones, but felt that the requirement for a waiver were a double standard forcing the applicant to prove that there would be an enhancement to a wetland and also to show there was no alternatives. Mr. Parker hoped that the Commission considered a hardship. If proposals met zoning but not conservation, then equity values would be lost.
Paul Withington said our consultant, Lenore White, reviewed the regulations for surrounding towns and these setbacks/no-build buffer zones were not something new
Don Bracken hoped that the waiver procedure would be easier, as he stated is also the norm in other towns, by proving there is a benefit to the environment. His question is what can be done to get a waiver. James Aimone said that there would be give and take and case by case and Evelyn Strawn agreed.
Discussion ensued over the environmental affect on a proposal within these setback areas.
Discussion ensued over the waiver process.
.
The Commission’s final point was that the 35 and 50 ft. setbacks should be taken seriously and the point of the Bylaw and Rules and Regs is to be stricter than the state when it is necessary to protect wetlands.
No further action was taken.
7:30 PM The Conservation Commission will hold a Public Hearing to amend the Wetlands Rules and Regulations, in order to clarify Section 5: Definitions: Requiring abutter notification within a distance of 300’ of property lines where work is proposed.
Staff explained that a typographical error had been noticed in the most recently revised Rules & Regulations that changed our previous 300 ft. abutter notification to 100 ft. The reason for this hearing was to change the notification back to 100 ft., as stated in the legal notice.
Discussion ensued over notification at 300 feet as opposed to 100 feet (which is the state’s requirement)
As much deliberation, the Commission concluded that a 100 ft. abutter notification would be sufficient for conservation public hearings. Discussion also included that if staff could provide applicants with the date and time of the public hearings for new submissions, then this information could be provided in one mail notification to abutters, which would be completed by the applicant and/or representative.
James Aimone motioned to leave the Rules and Regs as written and confirmed that Conservation supports the 100 ft. abutter notification, and therefore there would be no change made. The motion was approved unanimously.
Other Business:
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE (COC):
SE57-2496, Sixty-Four Warren R.T., Susan Winokur Trustee, 64R Warren Avenue (demo and construct new single family house, repair seawall). James Aimone motioned to issue the COC. Approved unanimously.
EXTENSION PERMITS:
SE57-2225, William Pane, 186 Warren Avenue (new house construction – no work started). James Aimone motioned to issue a 3-year extension. Approved unanimously.
SE57-2226, William Pane, 188 Warren Avenue (new house construction – no work started). James Aimone motioned to issue a 3-year extension. Approved unanimously.
The upcoming calendar was reviewed:
October 11 – Meeting
October 25 – Cancelled
November 1 – Meeting
November 15 – Meeting
November 29 - Meeting
The meeting adjourned at 8:15 PM
Respectfully submitted,
Michelle A. Turner
Michelle A. Turner
Administrative Secretary
Approved on: November 1, 2011
| 
