HINGHAM CONSERVATION COMMISSION
April 6, 2009 at 7:00 PM Central Meeting Room North
MEETING MINUTES
Present: Samuel Chapin, Chairman, Eugene Babin, Vice-Chairman, Bill Grafton, Carolyn Nielsen, Charles Berry and Cliff Prentiss, Conservation Officer
Absent: Doug Harvey
Old/New Business
1. Approve 3/9/09 and 3/23/09 draft minutes
Discussion: The Chairman will make the edits to the 3/23/09 minutes, as provided by other Commission members, and return the 3/23/09 minutes to the office once updated. Edits to the 3/9/09 minutes were provided to the Conservation Officer to be reviewed / approved at the next meeting.
Motion: Commissioner Grafton motioned to approve the 3/23/09 minutes as amended.
Second: Commissioner Nielsen In Favor: All Opposed: None
2. Acceptance – 15.37 Acres of State Owned Land – Southerly side of Lincoln Street
Discussion: The Conservation Commission has reviewed the document received and has signed the deed.
Motion: Commissioner Grafton motioned to accept the parcel of land along with the conservation restriction.
Second: Commissioner Nielsen In Favor: All Opposed: None
3. Open Space Acquisition Committee – Reappointment
Discussion: Mike Pollard has offered to be reappointed
Motion: Commissioner Berry motioned to reappoint Mike Pollard
Second: Commissioner Nielsen In Favor: All Opposed: None
General Discussion
1. Open Space and Recreation Draft for Public Comment
Discussion: Edits and comments will be given to the Conservation staff. The Chairman asked the Conservation staff to draft a letter for the Conservation Commission to review and sign.
2. Conservation Commission Meeting scheduled for Monday, April 27, 2009
Discussion: A town meeting is also scheduled for Monday 4/27/09 so the Conservation Committee will meet briefly at the High School but will not have any public hearings. The next meeting will be on May 4-th.
3. 269 – 271 North Street – DEP 34 0856 – Conservation Easement
Discussion: A Deed restriction indicating no further building will be done on that site. It will be held by the Conservation Commission as well as an abutter.
Motion: Commissioner Babin motioned to support the deed restriction. Signatures are pending.
Second: Commissioner Grafton In Favor: All Opposed: None
4. George Washington Town Forest Map – Eagle Scout Project
Discussion: Matthew Taylor Curby, an Eagle Scout, updated the map of the Town Forest. The Conservation staff will send a letter of appreciation and thanks.
Motion: Commissioner Grafton motioned to send a letter of appreciation and thanks.
Second: Commissioner Nielsen In Favor: All Opposed: None
5. Meeting with Town Administrator
Discussion: Commission Nielsen had a meeting with Kevin Paicos, Town Administrator, regarding the need for new members as well as a request to no longer limit the commission members to 2 terms.
Notice of Intent
1. 23 Bel Air Road – DEP SE 34 0996 – Applicants: Michael Shaughnessy / Representative: Paul Mirabito – Ross Engineering Company, Inc., Brad Homes
Presentation: James Donovan, PE, from Ross Engineering presented and discussed the plans for the proposed dredging on the site. The proposed footprint of the area, including dredging, is 21,600 sq ft. They intend to use a clamshell bucket and the maximum depth of the proposed dredge is at elevation of -5 with one foot of over dredge. They propose to excavate a maximum of 3’ in the area of existing float where they will meet existing grade at approximately 325 feet from the end of the float. The width of the dredge, closest to the float is approximate 90’ and at the end of the end of the channel is narrowed down to approximately 50 feet. The total proposed dredge volume cut of -5 feet is approximately 950 cubic yards; the one foot of over dredge will add approximately 800 cubic yards for a total of 1750 cubic yards of proposed dredge.
They have submitted applications with the DEP, Waterways Division, Water Quality Division and the Army Corps of Engineers which is for any work done below the mean low water line. The purpose of the proposal is to provide safer navigation to the float system in all tides. The float system now is impeded during low tides.
The proposal is to dredge by mechanical means. The material would be placed on a barge and trucked to an offloading site and used at a landfill for daily cover. However they have contacted the Army Corps of Engineers to see if there is the possibility of ocean disposal. They are awaiting their response. There are samples from 4 borings which have been analyzed for chemical and sieve analysis that have been determined free of contaminants as determined by the DEP waterways division. The material is unsuitable for beach nourishment because it contains more than 10% fine material, or silt. There has been a shellfish survey conducted and the results showed minor populations of blue mussels and scallops in the area. They have contacted the Department of Marine Fisheries but they have not received a response.
Discussion: The Chairman advised that a letter from the Department of Marine Fisheries was received late today and that the applicant should review / address their comments. The Chairman asked how much silt was determined, per the Representative approximately 30%. The Chairman asked what the chemical parameters were during the testing. The representative advised that the DEP, Water Quality Division sets the standards for water testing with specific criteria TPH, VOC’s, RCRA metals, the results are in the NOI package. The Chairman asked if any were detected, some were found but below reporting limits.
The Conservation Officer advised that CLE Engineering was asked to review both 23 and 29 Bel Air Road, a report is pending.
Per the Chairman, a comment letter has been received from the Department of Marine Fisheries with a cover letter stating it addresses both 23 and 29 Bel Air Road – the letter itself however only makes reference to 29 Bel Air Road. Clarification will be requested.
The Assistant Conservation Officer submitted a report of shell fish found in that area. Per the Representative they have not received nor reviewed this report. Per the Chairman, Assistant Conservation Officer expresses concerns regarding the blue mussel habitat, sea scallops and the impact of land containing shel fish.
Commissioner Berry offered his concern regarding the impact on shellfish as well as the impact the removal of this amount of material would have on the coastline, possibly exposing it to erosion.
The Chairman indicated that this application is for work to be done in a public area that is not owned by the applicant. The Chairman advised that the commission may not have the authority to condition work to be done in a public area.
The representative advised that the results of the shell fish study that was conducted are provided in the NOI packet, and showed low amounts of shell fish present. He feels that receiving a permit through the DEP waterways regulations addresses the public area, such as docks and floats. The Chairman asked if the waterways regulations anticipate dredging as they do building docks, per the representative they do. The Chairman asked if the representative was aware of any precedent for dredging anywhere else in the commonwealth by a private party in public domain. The representative advised that he is aware of a project in Nantucket that was for private use in a public area.
The Chairman asked if they performed a bathymetric survey of the proposed dredge area, per the representative, they did and advised that it was included in the NOI packet.
Commissioner Nielsen advised that on the Division of Marine Fisheries website this area was a designated shellfish growing area which is conditionally restricted. Commissioner Nielsen advised that if any shellfish were detected during the study performed during the winter months that many more shellfish may be found at a different time as they are cyclical in nature. Commissioner Nielsen is also concerned about sediment removal and since a channel hasn’t been naturally created and questions if, over time, it will return to the current condition. With the 30% of sediment being silt the representative mentioned that moving around over the surface, there is a concern that shellfish habitat could be suffocated &/or buried. Per the representative, the area is not being filled and is not being lost. Shellfish can re-colonize in the area.
The Chairman asked if they have an estimate of how long this dredging will take. The representative advised that it could be 2 weeks but if it was an ocean disposal it could be a day or two.
The Chairman advised that the Commission has placed restrictions on docks being installed that construction barges were not allowed to rest on the bottom at low tide, and asked if the applicant would be prepared to handle such a condition. Per the representative they have addressed that in the NOI and they feel that such a condition would not be unreasonable.
Commissioner Babin asked if it could be conditioned that both applicants for 23 and 29 Bel Air do any work in unison to limit the amount of disruption. The Chairman feels that while it most likely could not be conditioned, it would be worthwhile to ask both owners to agree to do their work at the same time.
The Chairman asked how big a boat would be used; the applicant advised that he has a 38 foot boat. The intent of the project is for navigation improvement.
The Chairman opened the hearing to the public. Several members of the public were present and offered comments and questions. One abutter advised that it this area was dredged previously when the dock went in and the dredging took well over 2 weeks. The Chairman asked if the current owner put in the dock, per the Applicant it was done by the previous owner in the 1980’s. The Chairman asked if the applicant has researched if there was a previous dredging, per the representative they did research this and found no previous permit. The Chairman closed the hearing to the public and asked the applicants to review and comment on the following:
• Comment on the letter issued by the Department of Marine Fisheries
• Comment on letter provided by Assistant Conservation Officer
• Tidal Action
• Potential impact on shoreline
• Shellfish
• Precedence on dredging in public waters for private use
• Coordination of both 23 and 29 Bel Air
The representative asked to continue this hearing to the 5/4/09 meeting.
Motion: Commissioner Babin motioned to continue to hearing to 5/4/09
Second: Commissioner Nielsen In Favor: All Opposed: None
2. 29 Bel Air Road – DEP SE 34 0993 – Applicants: Robert Sullivan / Representative: Paul Mirabito – Ross Engineering Company, Inc.
Presentation: Approximately 200 feet to the west of the project presented earlier at 23 Bel Air Road.
The dredge footprint proposed is 21,600 sq ft, depth of five feet, volume 1,100 cubic yards, plus 1 foot of overdredge would add another 800 cubic yards for a total of 1,900 cubic yards. At its widest the channel is proposed at 120 feet and would narrow down to approximately 55 feet. Four core samples were taken and sent for laboratory analysis; the material was found unsuitable for beach nourishment and they are proposing disposal in the same method as 23 Bel Air.
Discussion: The Chairman asked if the houses between 23 and 29 have docks. Per the representative they do. The Chairman asked if they have considered using an environmental bucket for dredging.
The Commission members advised that their comments from 23 Bel Air would be applicable to this proposal as well.
The Chairman opened the hearing to the public. None. The Chairman closed the hearing to the public.
The Chairman advised that having the hearings for both 23 and 29 Bel Air sequentially would be an advantage as they are so similar.
The applicant and representative request a continuance to 5/4/09.
Motion: Commissioner Nielsen motioned to continue the hearing to 5/4/09
Second: Commissioner Berry In Favor: All Opposed: None
3. 7 Howard Road – DEP SE 34 0997
Applicant: Michael Garrity / Representative: Charles Natale, ESS Group
Presentation: Private residential dock, pier and float. Pile supported pier, extended approximately 130 feet from mean high water, and an additional 45’ for the ramp and float. The ramp is proposed at 4’ wide and the float is proposed at 10 x 12 ft; both will come out on a seasonal basis and be stored off site. The pier, ramp and float is in an area of shellfish, mostly blue mussels. The pier meets all DEP Waterways and Army Corps of Engineers standards, and permit applications have been submitted to both agencies. Accommodations for public access to the beach area has been addressed by adding stairs.
Discussion: The Conservation Officer advised that unlike the previous NOI for a pier at this property, this proposal addresses
• Public access
• Sunlight through decking
• The mass of the pier
The Chairman asked if the platform at the end of the dock needs to be there. Per the applicant it is for convenience and safety. The Chairman asked if open grid plastic decking over the salt marsh, to let in more light, would be agreeable. The representative advised that they would rather increase the deck spacing in accordance with the DEP and Army Corps guidelines.
The Chairman opened the hearing to the public. Several abutters were present and offered their comments and questions. One abutter indicated that a small boat regatta was held off the adjacent North Beach every year and that this dock would make that regatta impossible. The Chairman asked the representative if he felt that was true and he did not feel that the regatta would be unable to continue. One abutter asked that it be noted that the applicant himself is not present. The Chairman closed the hearing to the public.
Motion: Commissioner Babin motioned to close the hearing
Second: Commissioner Nielsen In Favor: All Opposed: None
4. 1 Pine Crest Road – DEP SE 34 0998
Applicant: Lawrence Gilbert / Representative: John Cavanaro – Cavanaro Consulting
Presentation: The proposed site is a 14.3-acre parcel, the majority of which is wetland. There is approximately 1 acre of upland where they propose to build a single-family home, approximately 1900 sq ft. The septic system is sited at the front of the house. The house is sited 21’ back from the wastewater soil absorption system. The house and garage is sited to minimize the amount of grading. The wastewater system application was submitted to the Board of Health and is still pending.
Discussion: The Chairman asked what the setback from the road was and the representative advised that they pushed it as close to the road as possible. The Chairman asked if they are asking for any variances with the Board of Health; the response was they are. The distance from the wastewater soil absorption system to the wetlands is 80’ – 100’.
The Conservation Officer concurs with the delineation. Other than this knoll the property is wetlands.
Commissioner Nielsen noted on the plans that the entire driveway is situated within the 50’ buffer. They are proposing that the driveway be paved. Commissioner Nielsen is concerned about salt &/or sand that would be used due to the slope of the land where the driveway would be. Per the representative the proposal calls for a wall and vegetation between the wetland and the driveway to reduce impact.
The Chairman asked where the driveway runoff would end up, per the representative he said it would discharge onto the road/catch basin.
The Conservation Officer asked that it be remembered that the upland area is useful for wildlife habitat.
The Chairman opened the hearing to the public. Several abutters were present-not in support of the project. One abutter asked if any blasting or filling was part of the proposal. Per the representative there is some grading but no blasting or filling. A second abutter asked about the runoff off the site and asked if having a house on site would it increase the water level on the remaining 14+ acres. Per the representative it would not. The representative offered to look at the plans again and see if they could move the driveway to the other side of the house and flip the house so the garage would be on the other side. The Chairman indicated the Commission’s interest in seeing that. The Chairman closed the hearing to the public.
The Chairman asked for a sense from the Commission if the property was buildable. The representative asked that they look at the plans to see if they could flip the house to have the garage on the other side and to come back at the next meeting with those results.
The representative asked for a continuance to 5/18/09.
Motion: Commissioner Babin motioned to continue the hearing to 5/18/09.
Second: Commissioner Nielsen In Favor: All Opposed: None
Abbreviated Notice of Intent
1. 5 Windsong Way – DEP SE 34 0999
Applicants: William & Lori Donnellan / Representative: Richard Benoit / South Shore Gunite Pools
Presentation: A proposed in-ground pool and patio within the 100’ buffer but outside of the 50’ buffer.
Discussion: The Chairman asked if the proposed area is flat; the representative and Conservation Officer concurred that it is. The area of the pool is 350 square feet. The Chairman asked if they were proposing a pool house, per the representative, the answer is no. The area is currently lawn.
The Chairman opened the hearing to the public. There were no comments. The Chairman closed the hearing to the public.
Motion: Commissioner Berry motioned to close the hearing and issue an Order of Conditions
Second: Commissioner Grafton In Favor: All Opposed: None
Notice of Intent - Continuance
1. 240, 242, 244, 246 Lazell St. and 120 South Pleasant Street – DEP SE 34 0986 Continuance
Applicant: James Robichaud, South Pleasant Street Realty Trust / Representative: Gary James, James Engineering
Presentation: A letter from Mr. Brogna dated 4/3 was received by the Commission indicating that progress is being made and that there is still some work to be done. Mr. James highlighted the changes.
Discussion: The Chairman asked about the impact to the abutters (Mr. Brogna’s item 15). Per Mr. James, detail was added relative to the retaining wall height reduced over existing conditions. Mr. Brogna mentioned a few minor details added regarding the infiltration systems 1, 2 and 3.
The Chairman opened the hearing to the public. One abutter asked that the hearing be held open for written comments as they haven’t had a chance to review the latest plans. The Chairman closed the hearing to the public.
The Conservation Officer advised that they could have an Order of Conditions ready for the 5/4/09 hearing.
The representative asked that the hearing be continued to 5/4/09
Motion: A Commissioner motioned to continue the hearing to 5/4/09
Second: Commissioner Grafton In Favor: All Opposed: None
Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation
1. 100 Beal Street – DEP 34 0991 – Continuance
Applicant: Hingham Housing Authority / Representative: Steve Ivas, Ivas Environmental
Presentation:
• Copy of the deed
• The property boundary was reviewed and corrected on the plans
• The changes made in the field to the wetlands delineation are now noted on the plans
• The 100’ foot flood plain is shown on the plans. There are two culverts that prevent water coming onto the site.
• There is a wetland off site that will be further investigated for buffer zone impacts if an NOI is submitted for work on the site.
• The limit of the area of critical environmental concern will need to be accurately mapped if an NOI is submitted for work on the site.
Discussion: The Chairman read part of the ACEC boundary for this property to illustrate its complexity and asked the Conservation Officer if he felt that due diligence was done to accurately define the boundaries of this property.
The Chairman opened the hearing to the public. Two members of the public were present and had questions and comments. The Chairman closed the hearing to the public.
Motion: Commissioner Grafton motioned to close the hearing and issue an Order of Resource Area Delineation
Second: Commissioner Nielsen In Favor: All Opposed: None
Request for Extension
1. 31 Bel Air Road– DEP 34 0848 Applicant: James and Helene Feeley
Discussion: The dock has not been started because of permitting & financial reasons. The applicant requested an extension for 3 years
Motion: Commissioner Babin motioned to extend the Order of Conditions for 3 years.
Second: Commissioner Berry In Favor: All Opposed: None
Certificates of Compliance
1. 226 Cushing Street – DEP SE 34 0873 – Applicants: Jeremy and Ruth Watson
Discussion: Single family home with an issued enforcement order. The planting plan is still pending. The Conservation Officer indicated that they are requesting the COC so that the house could be put on the market.
Motion: Commissioner Grafton motioned to issue the Certificate of Compliance pending the plantings.
Second: Commissioner Babin In Favor: All Opposed: None
Order of Conditions
None
Requests for Determination of Applicability
None
Order of Resource Area Delineation
None
Meeting Adjourned at 11:08 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________
Cliff Prentiss, Conservation Officer Approved as amended on May 18, 2009.