Conservation Commission Minutes
Conservation Commission Minutes
December 7, 2005
Members Present: Rick Whaley
(7:40) Iora Alexander, Kevin Avery, Tom Hughes & Dave Holsher
Members Absent: I
Meeting called to order at 7:06
P.M. By Kevin Avery
A.
Minutes:
Minutes of November 2, 2005 &
November 16, 2005
Motion to continue by
TH.
Seconded by DH.
Vote Unanimous.
B.
Ray Pike Harbormaster -representing the
Harbor Commission
Request $150. for
each site to be tested. Six sites.
Need to do sampling in creek to test
to determine contamination source. Six samples. Sewer is
available to residents on
C.
Building Permits:
Sherry
Libby
Motion to sign by TH.
Seconded by DH.
Vote unanimous.
D. Public Hearings:
NOI,
Northpoint Builders LLC,
Motion to continue by TH.
Seconded by DH.
Vote unanimous.
DH
move to take #6 ANRAD out of order. Seconded by TH. Unanimous.
ANRAD,
Cardiillo Development,
Motion to continue to January 4, 2006 by TH.
Seconded by DH.
Unanimous.
DH
move to take #7 NOI out of order. Seconded by TH. Unanimous.
NOI,
Chris Auto Body,
Motion to continue to January 4, 2006 by TH.
Seconded by DH.
Unanimous.
2. Public Hearing, NOI, Thomas O’Hara,
Represented
by Eric Botterman of Millennium Engineering with applicants
present, T. O’Hara and sister.
Surrounded by marsh - have donated about 60 acres of
marshland to state. Proposed
construction of 2 houses - one on piles.
Now proposing plan to move houses away fro wetland. Outside 25 foot no build zone. Plan submitted has been improved from what
had been originally planned. Intent of
project is for Mr. O’Hara and his sister to build homes. Land has been in the family for years. KA - asked if he had donated 60 acres? Mr. O'Hara said t was voluntary taking - donated
all salt marsh. KA replicated as salt
marsh? EB said it would be replicated as
BVW. TH not really replicated but
restoration. KA
restoration in the area of 1.1?
Phragmities have over run area.
TH if you are putting one house - then there is room. TH said he would like to see site - generally
would not like to give anything on 25 no build.
IA asked how many sq. ft. in no build zone? EB said about 550 sq. ft. I A asked how large is the restoration
area? EB said 2650 sq. ft. TH did you make flagging changes that Mary
Rimmer recommended? EB said yes. EB - said there are no issues on the state
level.
TH
- DEP requires 401 applications? EB - based on original project.
TH
continue to January 4, 2006 and make site visit. Applicant is to send plan to DEP. TH accordingly send
plans to DEP.
TH
motion to continue to January 4, 2006, TH site visit and send plans to
DEP. KA - would like to add, before we
ask people to move houses out of 25 ft. zone and they have done so. EB said the whole idea about restoration was
Conservation Commissions. Seconded by KA. Vote
unanimous
3. Public Hearing, NOi Robert Jacobs,
Represented by Eric Botterman - requesting continuance.
Motion to continue to January 4, 2006 by TH. Seconded by IA. Vote unanimous.
4. Public hearing, NOI, Michael O'Neill
Motion to continue to January 4, 2006 by TH.
Seconded by DH, Vote unanimous.
5.
Public Hearing, NOI Peter Carbone, 2 Broadway
Represented by Eric Botterman, K. Young - present applicant
Peter Carbone.
Project
if for 24 Condominium Units - parking - 3400 sq. ft. of commercial use in front. Submitted to Joe Serwatka
for review. Would like to close
public hearing and move forward with project.
TH paving regulations? KY said paving to provide safety. Currently we are at 100% and paving proposing
will be 70% paved area. All run off will
be contained o site. Car
run off. Drainage features to
make storm water run off effective. Storm water run off and infiltration on site. TH asked what car run off are you talking about? KY said dirt form car in winter from road, wheels, etc.
KA
being in Beach Commercial - I see project as acceptable. KA move to approve as presented. Seconded by IA. Only
if Planning Board makes changes - if Planning Board changes
specs. Then you must come back to Conservation Commission. RW said has this already been reviewed by
Planning Board? Joe Serwatka said the Planning
Board is to review, so why rush to judgment?
Plantings - rogosa, beach grass, wither berry & bayberry - salt
tolerant plants. TH pavement not allowed
under our rules. But they are mitigating
enough. RW asked if applicants have
talked to DEP?
RW we have just had one of our decisions come back - paving under roof
line. RW no O of C until Planning Board
reviews. KA why can't we issue O of
C? Unnecessary caveat. TH plan date 11/22/2005? Plan October 2005? KA stamp date is 11/22/2005. 4 in favor of approval -
TH, IA, KA & DH. 1 abstained
- RW. Vote carried.
KA
approve with contingency that if Planning Board changes plans the have to come
back to conservation Commission.
Chairman
declares a 5 minute recess.
TH
- #4 Old Business
KA
move to take #4 Old Business out of order. Seconded by TH. Unanimous.
Old
Business:
8:20
P.M. Mr. Hughes excused.
TH
we are looking at whether we want o let someone remove all the trees to sell
property. Does not
make sense to clear cut lot.
Scott Mitchell - not trying to sell property, just market property. Trying to clean lot up -
not a lot of trees worth saving.
Do not see anything in By-Laws that prevents us from doing what we
want. Do not see anything in your
By-Laws that we cannot cut trees - it is our land. TH - my point is until you really know what
is going in, why clean the lot? Scott
Mitchell -said I do not think it is out of character with what is up there - I
think you are being unreasonable and I never got notified until today that
someone was going out there. TH said he
did go out there. SM said that there was
someone out there today at 4:00P.M. TH
said we should not be approving clearing all trees until you know what is going
to come in there. SM said I feel that if
there are any bylaws saying we cannot cut trees or clear property you should
show us. IA - think it is a shame to cut
the trees. KA not our
jurisdiction. TH yes we have the
jurisdiction to look at this under the by-law.
TH there is a way to open up this property without cutting or clear
cutting. SM - six trees or seven trees -
calling it a forest is still quite a stretch.
SM is a shame that a property owner can not do what he wants with his property
because someone else does not want it.
DH in respect to the neighbors, what is the value? SM mainly meaning you Tom. SM we end up planting trees sometimes when we
develop the property. SM totally disagrees
with TH. DH that is
where I was going with my question. IA do you
understand that trees act as a buffer to abutter’s property? SM, yes, I understand. TH - plant trees on site. TH if you develop site commercially, if you
have to go to the Planning Board they like to save trees. TH twelve or eight hardwood trees there would
be a shame to cut. SM - typically have landscaper
come in and plant trees. There aren’t
any trees in there - trees worth saving.
TH it is senseless clear cutting everything even though it is a
commercial area. KA given the fact that
there is .... RW in respect to discussion - commercial
and given the neighborhood you should be able to cut your trees and we have
nothing to do with it.
Motion to allow - 3 in favor - RW, KA & DH.
2 - opposed - IA & TH. Motion carried.
D. #8
Public hearing, NOI, Toler, LLC,
Michelle Rowden request hearing be
continued to January 4, 2006. Not
properly noticed.
Motion to continue to January 4,
2006 by RW.
Seconded by KA.
Unanimous.
D. #9
Public Hearing, Joan Stevens, 14A-C
Friedenfels Road
Greg Boden representing applicant
for 14A-C Friedenfels Road
Cluster development
12 acres to Town. 59 acres to
Wildlife. 6 acres
to develop. Laurie Parker - said
elevation is 9. Coastal Bank
defined. 100 foot buffer zone and 200
foot river front buffer.
RW asked- just to let the
Conservation Commission member know - there are many comments on the project,
so maybe we should turn this over to Mary Rimmer.
KA - is this gravel? What is the distance from River to the
homes? LP showed KA river
and houses on plan. Motion
by KA to send plan to Mary Rimmer to review Wetland boundaries and to DEP for
comments. Seconded
by IA. IA - asked
sewerage? GB - some on
septic. KA - in
respect to storm water management detention basin - GB - using country drainage
with swales.
Fred Ford of Cammett Engineering
representing Mr. Renz abutter to north.
Mr. Ford - hired by Mr. Rebz to review
NOI - Seekamp Environmental does not accurately depict coastal bank and fall in
to your no build 40 zone. KA it is clear you’re disputing no
build! Mr. Ford - not disputing coastal
bank. In our opinion things need to be
reviewed in more detail. Alterations
analysis - should focus on area in more detail.
Lot $4 depression area subject to flooding - may not be altered without
causing flooding on Mr. Renz property.
Depression not properly modeled in their project.
RW assumption of run off? FF - General comments - need more information on storm water run off. FF -aside - where they
discharge - they are right up to wetland with discharge. Brian Mullen -
KA monition to have Mary Rimmer for
review of wetlands and comments, and to continue to January 18, 2006.
Seconded by IA. Unanimous.
KA
motion to take E1 & E2 out of order. Seconded by
IA. Unanimous.
RW – E1 & E2
DH move to continue
E1 & E2 to January 4, 2006. Seconded by KA. Unanimous.
E3 – Daniel Wilson,
KA
motion to grant Certificate of Compliance for
Unanimous.
F. New Business:
#2
RW asked if there were other trees to be cut?
Mr. Prichard said no more these. RW said you understand the reason we wanted you here- 6 or more trees to be cut and you need to draw up a plan and submit. Mr. Pritchard did have plan and just wanted to clean up property. KA asked if work was done? DP said yes – cleaning property up – it was an eye sore. KA is this Bayberry? DP said it was and first want previous owner to clear. KA asked if he was moving old campers and trailers out? DP – yes. KA continue to clear but if fill or digging & wetlands – you need to submit a plan. Seconded by IA. Unanimous.
F.
#4
Lynn McGoff,
RW –
Have Joe Serwatka and suggest Mary
Rimmer looked at this.
RW move to issue
Certificate of Compliance once MR reviews site.
Seconded by IA.
Unanimous.
KA clarification – O’Blenes
& Bassett
I may have been wrong
on assessment down there but we may have thrust into a neighborhood battle. KA
said it is not the first one but he thinks that DEP should look into it
all. Have DEP look at the whole thing –
not just one property. KA will call Mr.
Bassett and apologize.
H.
Site
Inspection:
#1.
Truppner,
F. New Business:
F1.Frank Gorman,
591-595 Request for Certificate of Compliance
TH
to visit site.
F3. 133, 135,
DH
to visit site.
F5. Trout Way
Beaver Dam Problem
KA motion to continue
all items not addressed to January 4, 2006.
Seconded by DH.
Unanimous.
KA
motion to adjourn.
Seconded
by DH. Unanimous. Meeting adjourned at 9:20 P.M.