HINGHAM CONSERVATION COMMISSION
June 15, 2009 at 7:00 PM Central Meeting Room North
MEETING MINUTES
Present: Eugene Babin-Chair, Carolyn Nielsen-Vice Chair, Charles Berry, Doug Harvey, William Grafton, Scott McIsaac and Cliff Prentiss, Conservation Officer
Absent: None
CONSERVATION AGENDA
June 15, 2009
7:00 PM
Old/New Business
Approve Draft Minutes – 6/1/09
Discussion:
Regulations Project Update
Bare Cove Park
230 Ward Street Violation – Enforcement Order
Housekeeping – Contact listing, Meeting dates
7:15 PM
Determination of Applicability Request to renew/extend
175 Beal Street - Talbots
7:30 PM
Notices of Intent
29 Bel Air Road – DEP SE 34 0993 - Continuance
Applicant: Robert Sullivan / Representative: Paul Mirabito – Ross Engineering Company, Inc.
23 Bel Air Road – DEP SE 34 0996 - Continuance
Applicant: Michael Shaughnessy / Representative: Paul Mirabito – Ross Engineering Company, Inc.
1 Pine Crest Road – DEP SE 34 0998 - Continuance
Applicant: Lawrence Gilbert / Representative: Michael Joyce - Cavanaro Consulting
Note: Applicant’s representative requested via email on 6/02/09 continuance to 6/29/09.
Orders of Conditions
None
Certificate of Compliance
15 Park Circle – DEP 34 0946
Applicants: C. & J. Bradley / Representative John Cavanaro-Cavanaro Consulting
Old/New Business
1. Approve Draft Minutes – 6/1/09
Discussion of draft minutes
Motion: Commissioner Babin motioned to approve the draft minutes of 6/1/09 as amended.
Second: Commissioner Nielsen In Favor: All Opposed: None
2. TOH Wetlands Regulations Project Update
Commissioner Nielsen updated the Commission on the work being done with revising the current Regulations.
• Commissioners Nielsen, Berry and Grafton met last week to review the current Regulations
• Commissioner Grafton now has the current regulations in an electronic format that works
• Trying to understand and identify why some things were done and are examining other coastal town regulations for suggestions
• Goal is to make the regulations usable and clear
• Please address suggestions/revisions/additions to update/clarify, to Commissioner Nielsen.
3. Bare Cove Park
The Conservation Officer noted that some mowing was done sometime last week at Bare Cove Park and Hingham Mutual Fire Insurance. It does not involve the Conservation Commission.
4. 230 Ward Street Violation – Enforcement Order
Conservation Officer’s discussion:
• 230 Ward St. is a horse farm owned by Mr. Trifone, the applicant
• Doing work in the Riverfront and the edge of the wetlands without an Order of Conditions, E/O issued
• A Notice of Intent was submitted. NOI outlines additional work at the site (arena, additional, paddocks)
• Commission instructed the applicant that they were not going to accept additional site work without additional information
• Received an updated plan of current structures on the site
• Since under an E/O, Commission can review at their convenience.
• Conservation Officer’s recommendation is to let the applicant/engineer/representatives speak to the issues and have a third party selected by the Commission to go out and verify the line
• Property has been cleaned up, grading, fencing installed, rehabbed buildings, unfortuantley without an OOC
• Rivers Act does apply due to the perennial river – Plymouth River
• No work has been done since this Enforcement Order
Commission Questions – What has been grandfathered? Question still lies how much work has been done without permits within resource areas protected under the Wetlands Protection Act and under the TOH Bylaw.
Presentation:
Jim Burke–DeCelle Group–Civil Engineer-Representative for the Applicant - Mr. Trifone
• Matt Long-Wetland Scientist (cannot be present tonight) has identified some fill areas
• Concurs with most of the information that the Conservation Officer has presented
• Existing Enforcement Order for historic and current work that has gone on
• Here tonight to get closure on this Enforcement Order and get direction from the Commission to identify problem areas, and allow Applicant to move forward with the horse farm
• Recommends that the Commission visit the site
• Has no problem with another wetland scientist looking at the line
• Applicant has owned the property for 5 years
Conservation Officer:
• Need direction from the Commission to retain a third party at the applicant’s cost
• Does the Commission wish to see the property on a site visit? Yes.
Representative Discussion:
• Will there be 3 bids on the process and wants to reserve the right for his client to review the budget to approve
• Conservation Officer – if needed bids can be obtained, however process needs to be expedited
Motion: Commissioner Grafton motioned for the Conservation staff to obtain a consultant with at the applicant’s expense and consent to review the wetlands line. Applicant understands that there will not be a bidding process.
Second: Commissioner Berry In Favor: All Opposed: None
5. Housekeeping
• No errors on the contact listing
• Dates for the rest of 2009 Conservation Meetings posted
• Discussion of a summer schedule for July/August with only one meeting per month
Motion: Commissioner Berry motioned to amend the meeting dates in July and August and hold only one meeting per month. July 13th and August 10th shall be the meeting dates, and July 27th and August 24th will be cancelled.
Second: Commissioner Harvey In Favor: All Opposed: None
6. Conditional Approval has been granted with the Draft Open Space and Recreation Plan submitted
• Conservation Officer noted what edits will be needed.
Determination of Applicability Request to renew/extend
1. 175 Beal Street – Applicant - Talbots
Originally filed a NOI in 1997 for invasive aquatic species management program and an OOC was written.
Talbots is now requesting an extension to a Negative Determination issued in March 2006 for invasive weed control at their courtyard pond. Suggestion from the Conservation Officer is that the applicant should file a Notice of Intent instead. Commissioner Babin noted that he didn’t think that when the Order and Determination were permitted that they were to be open ended. Needs to be more formalized.
Motion: Commissioner Grafton motioned to direct the Conservation Staff to instruct Talbots that they should be file a Notice of Intent to continue their invasive aquatic species management program at 175 Beal Street.
Second: Commissioner Nielsen In Favor: All Opposed: None
Commissioner Babin read the usual information dealing with filings.
Notices of Intent
1. 29 Bel Air Road – DEP SE 34 0993 - Continuance
Applicant: Robert Sullivan / Representative: Paul Mirabito – Ross Engineering Company, Inc.
Discussion:
• Paul Mirabito introduced the applicant Mr. Sullivan (29 Bel Air)
• Mr. Shaughnessy; applicant for 23 Bel Air could not make the meeting as he is out of town on business.
• Steve Aubrey-Rogue Wave Field Services will discuss the impacts of the projects on the biological aspects (e.g. shellfish)
• Sean Kelley-Applied Coastal Research & Engineering will explain the impact of the coastal engineering aspects of dredging on the resource areas
• Responded in writing to the review comments from CLE Engineering–Carlos Pena on how the filings meet the performance standards
• Mr. Pena indicated that the projects could be conditioned with monitoring over a 3-5 year annual basis reviewing the sediment/future erosion or accretion (is it building up?) and if there has been any impact to the shellfish, etc.
• Responded in writing to the comments from Marine Fisheries and the Asst. Conservation Officer
• Mr. Aubrey and Mr. Kelley will explain their professional perspectives about the projects in detail
Steve Aubrey-Rogue Wave Field Services
• Performed resource research surveys last September on the area
• Looking for eel grass, and all the shell fish that are out there
• Found blue mussels and sea scallops off Hingham Bay
• Used Applied Coastal’s report to determine wave sizes, sediment suspension
• Wave of 2 feet with a wave period of 2.5–3 seconds would impact this area, the sediment will move through this area with this type of wave and won’t deposit in the dredge basin
• Any sediment that might be stirred up during any wave movement would settle through out the bay and not impact the shellfish
• Propose to remove all the shell fish with a scallop dredge; make a donation to the towns soft shell seeding program, to seed clams where they would best propagate for everyone’s benefit
• To broadcast seed after the dredging in the vicinity of the site would result in mortality rates approaching 90%
• Propose to distribute juvenile quahogs if conditions of sediment and water quality are good enough
o Commission questions to Mr. Aubrey
o How deep do you find marine organisms? If you get down to 5-6 feet are you beyond these living organisms?
Have observed soft shell clam beds in 60 feet of water in Boston Harbor. Razor clams and soft shell clams are the deep burrowing species - @ 13 inches down.
o Will the organisms in the footprint that have been taken out come back naturally?
Shellfish resources here are great. If the sediment and the wave climate is conducive, the soft shell clams will set and will come back, same with the sea scallops, they are mobile. The water quality in the Harbor is just starting to come back.
o Marine Fisheries had questions about this project and the impact on winter flounder.
Generally Marine Fisheries will restrict your dredging to a certain window to protect the spawning.
Sean Kelley-Applied Coastal Research & Engineering
• Asked to look at three topics that was brought up by Marine Fisheries
• Concerned that the excavation of 6 feet mean low water would effect the area to support shellfish since the hole would be lower than the sea bottom or cause the decaying of organic material.
• Wave conditions in the site – longest fetch distance over water –
• Annual maximum wind speed (looked at off shore buoy from Mass Bay – due south of Nahant – 8 nautical miles offshore) which is about 14.5 meters per second – will generate a wave that is less than 2 feet, over a period in 2.5 seconds – which is small, nothing like you would see in the open coast
• Site is large enough to mobilize fine grain material that may collect in the hole
• Strictly an excavated hole, very gradual slope from edge to side up north towards the bay, most of the excavation is under 3 feet
• Wave condition on an annual basis able to move sediment, it is my opinion the concerns about anoxic conditions forming at the bottom of this excavation is not something to consider at this specific site
• Proposed dredge projects may cause some amplifying effect, if you have two holes together what is the possibility that they may erode into the area between them. When you consider the distance of 160 feet to separate them, and looking at the maximum wave conditions in the area, the probability of moving considerable amounts of sediment inward is not possible at this location
• Proposed dredge projects will increase wave activity – taking away the bottom that exists will have larger waves reaching in – having an understanding of what the maximum waves are in the area, realizing that it is very shallow slope and the distance from the most landward point of the excavation at low tide, the impact is negligible, at high tide the wave height differences that would be passing over the hole would not cause any differences in the wave heights
• Commission questions to Mr. Kelley
• How often will you have to do maintenance re-dredging?
o Not asked to address that specific comment, however at some point you would have to, there is not alot of energy to move sediment. Depression should remain its shape. Tide range is 10 feet.
• Marine Fisheries comments–model of the 2 foot wave indicates the size would be large enough to mobilize sediment and re-circulate sea water in the dredge area; but also indicates that the same wave size will not impact the coast line. Can you address that?
o (answer from Mr. Kelley) Wave impact (can’t hear tape)
• Marine Fisheries comments - Post construction with different grain size sediments – would there be impact on the shellfish?
o Nothing should migrate in from the wave action, should be consistent in post construction
• 2 foot wave height seems low (s a boater in the area) – have encountered waves greater in Hingham – don’t feel the data is applicable here
o Looked at 100 year reoccurring wind speed which is 40 knots, that generated a wave 3 feet in this area, if there are larger waves propagating to a site than what the data suggests, that means the bottom sediments will be more mobile–can’t imagine anything larger than 3 foot waves in Hingham Bay, it is a quiet area
• The 2.6 mile fetch in storm conditions produces waves significantly higher than 2–3 feet, the size of the waves breaking on the coastal beach, this is the most exposed point in Hingham Harbor to a northerly fetch – it’s a coastal beach that has never been disturbed, value of coastal beach is to its ability to dissipate wave energy during storms–proposing to remove a volume that is equivalent between the two projects to almost an acre to a depth of several feet in an area previously undisturbed, most exposed to coastal storms. Concerned that coastal beach would be subject to major erosion. Presumption in the Wetlands Protection Act that volume and elevation of a coastal beach are important to the ability of the beach to dissipate wave action. Historically this type of dredging has never been permitted in the TOH for private docks. People use docks and floats at high tide, at low tide; they access boats on moorings by a dingy.
• Have other coastal towns done follow up studies to monitor – these concerns must come up, erosion, sea life
o Towns have set up monitoring plans
• If set up monitoring plans, need to determine what flags to put up if something becomes detrimental; how to resolve, if it requires maintenance, replace material, or do you preclude any further maintenance and deny any further activities
Commissioner Babin opened up the hearing to the public. None.
Commissioner Babin entertained a motion to close the hearing for 29 Bel Air Road.
Motion: Commissioner Berry motioned to close the hearing for 29 Bel Air Road.
Second: Commissioner Nielsen In Favor: All Opposed: None
Commissioner Babin entertained a motion to direct the Cons. Staff to write an Order of Conditions for 29 Bel Air Road.
Motion: Commissioner Harvey motioned to direct the Cons. Staff to write an Order of Conditions for 29 Bel Air Road for the proposed dredging.
Commissioner Babin clarified to the Commissioners that they are not at this point approving an Order, only directing the staff to write an Order.
Second: Commissioner McIsaac In Favor: All Opposed: None
2. 23 Bel Air Road – DEP SE 34 0996 - Continuance
Applicant: Michael Shaughnessy / Representative: Paul Mirabito – Ross Engineering Company, Inc
Commissioner Babin asked the Commission if there is any reason to rehash the same information presented. Commissioners stated no. Commissioner Babin asked the Representative for the benefit of the Shaughnessy family of 23 Bel Air Road if they wish to represent information similar to 29 Bel Air Rd or present any new information for 23 Bel Air Rd. Mr. Mirabito noted that they have nothing further to add. Commissioner Babin asked the public if anyone wished to make a comment specific to the dredging proposal of 23 Bel Air Road. None.
Commissioner Babin entertained a motion to close the hearing for 23 Bel Air Road.
Motion: Commissioner Grafton motioned to close the hearing for 23 Bel Air Road.
Second: Commissioner Nielsen In Favor: All Opposed: None
Commissioner Babin entertained a motion to direct the Conservation Staff to write an Order of Conditions for 23 Bel Air Road.
Motion: Commissioner McIsaac motioned to direct the Conservation Staff to write an Order of Conditions for 23 Bel Air Road for the proposed dredging.
Commissioner Babin clarified to the Commissioners that they are not at this point approving an Order, only directing the staff to write an Order.
Second: Commissioner Grafton In Favor: All Opposed: None
3. 1 Pine Crest Rd.–DEP SE34-0998–Continuance-Applicant: L. Gilbert/Rep. M. Joyce - Cavanaro Consulting
Commissioner Babin noted that the applicant’s representative requested continuance to 6/29/09. The Conservation Officer noted that this is the second request for a continuance.
Motion: Commissioner Nielson motioned to approve the continuance for 1 Pine Crest Road to 6/29/09.
Second: Commissioner Berry In Favor: All Opposed: None
Certificate of Compliance
15 Park Circle – DEP 34 0946 - Applicants: C. & J. Bradley / Representative John Cavanaro
The Conservation Officer reviewed the project and it has been built according to the Order.
Motion: Commissioner Nielson motioned to issue a COC for 15 Park Circle.
Second: Commissioner McIsaac In Favor: All Opposed: None
Other Business - 7 Howard Road
The Conservation Office noted that no permits issued for the new granite steps, expanded stairs and deck built going down to the water.
Motion: Commissioner Nielson motioned to issue an Enforcement Order for 7 Howard Road.
Second: Commissioner Berry In Favor: All Opposed: None
Meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________
Cliff Prentiss, Conservation Officer Approved as amended on 06/29/09.