Hingham Conservation Commission
Meeting Minutes
HINGHAM CONSERVATION COMMISSION
October 3, 2011 MEETING MINUTES
Hingham Town Hall – 2nd Floor Central North
Present: Carolyn Nielsen-Chairman, Charles Berry-Vice-Chair, Robert Perry, Nina Villanova, Daniel Coughlin,
and Cliff Prentiss, Conservation Officer
Absent: Scott McIsaac, Alan McKenna
Agenda
7:00 PM Old/New Business
Discussion - Penniman Hill Farm – John Sullivan, Attorney
Approve Draft Minutes – June 6, 2011, August 15, 2011, September 12, 2011
Deer Hunting Request
Reminders
Ethics Statement (yearly) Training Certificate (every 2 years)
10/24/11 Conservation Commission meeting will start at 6:00 p.m. at Hingham High School
MACC Fall Conference – October 15, 2011
7:15 PM Request For Determination of Applicability
61 Fearing Road
Applicants: John and Barbara Cook/ Representative: Sean Woods, Cavanaro Consulting, Inc.
Proposed removal of an existing swimming pool to be replaced with a new 38'X20' swimming pool
7:30 PM Notices of Intent
Del Prete Drive – No DEP number or comments as of 9/27/11
Applicant: Penny Kane, Verizon Services Operations/ Representative: Patrick Corcoran, EnviroTrac, Ltd.
Proposed digging for conduit & trench along edge of roadway in grassy shoulder to provide FIOS service
25 Eldridge Court - No DEP Number or comments as of 9/27/11
Applicant: James O'Brien/ Representative: Mark Manganello, LEC Environmental Consultants, Inc.
Proposed renovation/conversion of commercial building to single family home with landscaping
175 Otis Street – SE 34 1083 - Continuance
Applicants: John Ryan and Clair Mansur / Representative: Carmen Hudson, Cavanaro Consulting
Proposed stabilization of a Coastal Bank
Certificates of Compliance
44 Winter Street - SE 34 1062
Applicants: Brian Lenihan and Bonnie Hertberg
11 Crooked Meadow Lane – SE 34 0888
Applicant: Penny Collins Siridee
Executive Session-Potential Litigation
and other such matters that may be pending before the Conservation Commission.
Old/New Business
1. Penniman Hill Farm – John Sullivan, Attorney
Discussion: John Sullivan
• Presented a map regarding his presentation
• Representing the McCann's (292A Whiting St.) who are abutters to Penniman Hill Farm
• Two concerns:
1. Asserted that The Wetlands Protection Act has not been heeded respecting a perennial stream and wetlands which are being impacted by extensive earthmoving activities which have taken place within 200' of the stream
2. As abutters the McCann's did not receive notification of this project
Commissioner Nielsen
• The Conservation Officer visited the site after receiving your letter and issued an Enforcement Order
• Mr. Nesseralla, (property owner of Penniman Hill Farms), has cleaned up the site per the E/O
• Con. Officer and I have been out to the site. The clean up performed within 200' of the stream has met the requirements of the Wetlands Protection Act.
• Currently earth is being moved, however it is more than 200' from the stream, and this is not within the Conservation Commission's jurisdiction
Mr. Sullivan
• Mr. Nesseralla did receive permission to demolish and reconstruct greenhouses
• The concern is the extensive moving of earth, independent of the permission Mr. Nesseralla rec'd to build the greenhouses. Stated it is within the jurisdiction of the Commission and needs to be investigated. Asked why abutters were not notified.
Commissioner Nielsen
• Enforcement Order was issued on 8/24/11
• All matters under the E/O have been addressed
Mr. Sullivan
• Looking for documentation to note what was done wrong and what was done to clean up the site
• Is there and will there be any follow up done?
Conservation Officer
• An inspection is done and the property owner is notified if the Conservation Officer is satisfied or not
Mr. McCann
• Discussed this situation with FEMA, and they provided a map of the area with all the wetlands identified
• Several areas have been filled in, many areas which were previously open water
• Cutting of trees has been performed and they were trying to put in a road in a wet area, and I called the Army Corp of Engineers and the road has now been re-routed,
• This shows Mr. Nesseralla's intent
Mr. Sullivan
• If we feel something is still amiss, will the Commission revisit?
• Has the Commission been out since the work has been performed – (Yes – Commissioner Nielsen).
2. Approve Draft Minutes - June 6, 2011, August 15, 2011, September 12, 2011
Draft minutes discussion will be moved to the end of tonight's Conservation Commission meeting.
3. Deer Hunting Request
Discussion:
A hunting complaint received by the Conservation Office was discussed by the Commission. Resident was contacted.
Two more individuals have requested permission to bow hunt deer on designated Conservation lands. The Conservation Officer advised that 2 more hunters would not be excessive in regards to safe hunting practices.
Motion: Commissioner Villanova motioned to approve the applications of 2 more hunters to bow hunt Conservation land approved by the Commission.
Second: Commissioner Berry In Favor: All Opposed: None
4. Reminders
Ethics Statement (yearly) Training Certificate (every 2 years)
10/24/11 Conservation Commission meeting will start at 6:00 p.m. at Hingham High School
MACC Fall Conference – October 15, 2011
Request For Determination of Applicability
61 Fearing Road
Applicants: John and Barbara Cook/ Representative: Sean Woods, Cavanaro Consulting, Inc.
Proposed removal of an existing swimming pool to be replaced with a new 38' X 20' swimming pool
All plans presented are in the file.
Presentation: John Cavanaro
• Lot gently slopes toward the Harbor
• Home has been recently redone, and would like to rehabilitate the existing pool and landscaping
• Resource area is a BVW, and the 100 foot buffer clips the pool
• Will move the pool away from the resource area
Conservation Officer
• Concurs with wetland line, erosion controls will protect the area
Motion: Commissioner Coughlin motioned to approve a Negative Determination for 61 Fearing Road with erosion controls.
Second: Commissioner Berry In Favor: All Opposed: None
Commissioner Nielsen read the usual information about filings.
Commissioner Nielsen also noted that some filings have not received DEP numbers and DEP comments as of tonight's hearings.
Notices of Intent
Del Prete Drive – No DEP number or comments as of 9/27/11
Applicant: Penny Kane, Verizon Services Operations/ Representative: Patrick Corcoran, EnviroTrac, Ltd.
Proposed digging for conduit & trench along edge of roadway in grassy shoulder to provide FIOS service
All plans presented are in the file.
Presentation: Penny Kane-Verizon and Brian McMannis-EnviroTrac
• Similar to previous filings presented to the Commission
• Proposed excavating to install a 1 ¼"-2" diameter conduit 18"-24" deep in a 1' wide trench in the grassy shoulder
Conservation Officer
• Proposed work is right up against the wetlands and a culvert
• Standard erosion controls and dewatering procedures should be sufficient to protect the wetlands.
Motion: Commissioner Coughlin motioned to close the hearing for Del Prete Drive and issue and Order of Conditions with erosion controls pending issuance of a DEP number and comments.
Second: Commissioner Berry In Favor: All Opposed: None
25 Eldridge Court - No DEP Number or comments as of 9/27/11
Applicant: James O'Brien/ Representative: Mark Manganello, LEC Environmental Consultants, Inc.
Proposed renovation/conversion of commercial building to single family home with landscaping
All plans presented are in the file.
Presentation – Mark Manganello
• Proposed renovation of an existing commercial bldg. into a single family residence
• 1,028 square foot wooden bldg. is dilapidated, historically used inside as a shell fishing operation, currently abandoned
• Remainder of the property is used for storage of shell fishing equipment
• Property is manicured lawn with some vegetated areas
• Commission approved an ANRAD in June 2011
• Resources are: BVW, salt marsh, coastal bank, land subject to coastal storm flowage, flood plan, additional coastal areas associated with Mill Pond that are off site
• Existing conditions on the property and within the resource areas and buffer zone are substantially degraded from 2-3 feet of fill found in areas where hydric soils are present. Fill predates Wetlands Regulations, property has expansive phragmites and there is stormwater runoff from Eldridge Court including a swale which directs water into the wetlands, and there is an absence of natural plant communities
• Applicant has worked to achieve to redevelop property and at the same time protect and enhance the resource areas that exist on the property.
• Construction activity will be to renovate existing structure; work will stay with same essential footprint. Proposed new construction of attached garage, driveway, deck , balcony, and stormwater management system, restoration plantings and other remediation
• Renovated dwelling will be elevated out of the flood plain
• Restoration will involve removing some existing lawn and re-establishing wetland conditions
• Area near swale will have lawn removed along with a restoration seed mix
• A phragmites control program will be done along the rear of the property
Tom Pozerski-Merrill Associates – Stormwater Management
• Presently there are no storm water management controls on the site
• Propose to install deep sump catch basins, trench systems, sediment traps, and a creative vegetative swale to reduce the nitrates and phosphates to the wetlands
• Will try to eliminate much grass area, 6 inch stone and recharge system
• Project is not subject to DEP Stormwater Regulations - System provides 692 cubic feet of stormwater management capacity, provides 85% TSS removal. Site is on municipal water and sewer
Conservation Officer
• Previously this property was before the Commission and the filing was denied with a larger home proposed, along with a 2 car garage with no remediation plans
• Stormwater treatment is not required with a single family dwelling and they are proposing to provide it
• Foot print is essentially the same
• Car port and deck which is a new addition, would they be above the flood stage? Concerned about petro chemicals dripping.
• Entire lot is within 50' buffer zone. It appears to be a much better approach from the filing that was denied
• Drainage from the street receives no treatment, except by the lawn on the property, so this an improvement, and would try to trap the sediment and return water to the marsh a little bit cleaner
• Still trying to review
Commission:
Commissioner Berry – is it a garage or a car port – please clarify
• Mr. O'Brien – Carport. It will be built with piles, frame over the areas for the correct mitigation, no dwelling space, distinction is the structure and the foundation, car port is a covered entry. Bldg. code has requirements in Massachusetts.
Commissioner Nielsen
• Does it have walls?
• Someone driving by with no construction knowledge, would they consider it a garage or carport? (Garage).
Commissioner Berry
• I don't think the property lends itself to a 3 bedroom home
• Activity affects the saltmarsh, no activity presently now, sediment is now carried onto the grass, but most of it doesn't make it through to the saltmarsh
• Benign site with respect to the protected wetlands areas
• Would like to see the Town purchased the property for conservation purposes
• I have number of concerns relative to the wetland values
• Presumption under the Bylaw is that wetlands will be impacted by any building within 100 foot of the resource areas. Burden of proof is on the project proponent to provide credible evidence that there will be no adverse impact or cumulative adverse impact to the protected wetlands
• I find it hard to imagine that there won't be some cumulative impact
• Lawn area is decreased, if it becomes a dwelling, someone will maintain remaining lawn, which usually involves chemicals to maintain it
• Better not to create the problem by approving the project
Commissioner Coughlin
• Are we better off today, or is there a net effect of improving those areas as proposed?
Commissioner Nielsen
• Hingham Wetland Regulations – 18.4 – Salt Marshes
• Garage floor run off unlikely to be going into the salt marsh
• Bordering Vegetative wetlands – 19.3 – Performance standards note projects shall not cause adverse effect on the wetland – concerned about runoff from cars
• Flooding – 20.1 – This is an A Zone – will have flooding from some storms, point 6 – protected values – new construction or the placement of new structures – in our regulations, we have the authority to deny any new structure
• If you have an existing structure and maintain the same footprint it is grandfathered
• Buffer Zones – 22.0 – entire lot is buffer zone….bldg. foot print is grandfathered
• Point 2 - Buffer disturbance during construction, you have made an effort to remove lawn and plant native species – this is a net improvement
• Point 3- in the buffer zone, the drainage and restoration clearly are enhancements
• Landscaping – 23.3 – no driveways or new lawns may be constructed, it would be helpful to know, concrete that has been degraded – is this being removed with vegetation? (Yes) – At the entrance to the proposed carport, it is proposed to be asphalt. Asphalt will handle the stormwater – gravel overtime compacts and becomes asphalt.
• Tom Pozerski - Existing asphalt – 775 square feet/Proposed drive is 362 square feet
• 672 square feet is the car port – how will rain water be handled? Down spout thorough swale could handle the rainwater.
• Reading through the Regulations, the garage is problematic
• Decks and balconies are considered new structures that would be problematic under the Regulations
Mr. O'Brien: Is there a definition of structure in the Wetlands Regulations and Bylaw?
Conservation Officer noted that working definition has been historically any man made structure.
Mr. O'Brien noted - Structures -Page 23. 7 was noted – noted (b).
• I took time to develop and was being quite sensitive of the environment.
• The existing structure could be developed again an existing commercial structure, and commercial activity will be more detrimental to the neighborhood.
• Thought residential would be a better use than commercial.
Commissioner Nielsen opened the hearing to the public.
22 Eldridge Court Abutter
• Questions regarding the look of the new home, square footage, number of stories
• Questions regarding pesticide use dealing with phragmites and enforcement of it?
17 Andrews Isle - Tom Burbank
• Shell fish building is listed as a historic structure – is the applicant aware?
• Gave a verbal history of the area and what Home Meadows looked like in 1972
• MBTA must mitigate to restore 5.7 acres of the saltmarsh
• Proposed project will increase more water into the marsh – aren't we trying to reduce water flow into it since trees in the marsh are dying due to the salt and fresh water mix?
Commissioner Nielsen closed the hearing to the public.
Commissioner Berry
• Concerns with the proposal – increased human activity will have an effect on the wildlife environment that live in the marsh – ie. Waterfowl and their nesting habits.
Mr. O'Brien:
• The proposed project will enhance the marsh
• We are willing to look again and revise the plans.
Motion: Commissioner Perry motioned for a continuance for 25 Eldridge Court with the applicant's consent to November 7, 2011.
Second: Commissioner Berry In Favor: All Opposed: None
175 Otis Street – SE 34 1083 - Continuance
Applicants: John Ryan and Clair Mansur / Representative: Carmen Hudson, Cavanaro Consulting
Proposed stabilization of a Coastal Bank
Plans presented are in the file.
Conservation Officer
The revised engineering plan has come in and has been reviewed by me and is appropriate.
Motion: Commissioner Coughlin motioned to close the hearing for 175 Otis Street and issue and Order of Conditions with erosion controls.
Second: Commissioner Villanova In Favor: All Opposed: None
Certificates of Compliance
44 Winter Street - SE 34 1062 and 11 Crooked Meadow Lane – SE 34 0888
Conservation Officer noted that both projects have been built according to the Orders written.
Motion: Commissioner Berry motioned to issue COC's for the above files.
Second: Commissioner Perry In Favor: All Opposed: None
Approve Draft Minutes – June 6, 2011, August 15, 2011 (not completed) and September 12, 2011
Discussion of draft minutes.
Motion: Commissioner Berry motioned to approve the draft minutes for 6/6/11 and 9/12/11 as amended.
Second: Commissioner Coughlin In Favor: All Opposed: None
Conservation Officer requested the Commission to go into Executive Session.
A Commissioner motioned to go into Executive Session for a discussion on potential litigation and not to reconvene in open session.
Roll call vote:
Carolyn Nielsen-Chair Yes
Charles Berry-Vice Chair Yes
Daniel Coughlin Yes
Robert Perry Yes
Nina Villanova Yes
Meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________________
Cliff Prentiss, Conservation Officer
Approved as amended on 11/21/11.