1/24/2008 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mitchell property drainage issue Ir. Cross asked the agent where they stood on the Mitchell property drainage pipe issue.,The drainage pipe had becor�ne clogged and they wanted to change its orientation. The Agent explained that he had been on site and spoke with Brad Sweet of the New Seabur r Peninsula Council. The Peninsula council is responsible for the care and up keep of the storm drainage pipes. The Agent and Mr. Sweet agreed that the pipe will be placed back to bow it was originally and the retaining wall would not be compromised. The Agent did acknowledge that he has no authority to change past approvals but that Mr. Sweet will update him as necessary in regards to storm drain maintenance. Hearin endo 7:00 p.m.Jeep Place/Lauren Marino, RDA—24 Jeep Place(cont.from 12127/07) (Auer the fact planting of trees and installation of fence) (Jeff cross abstains due to past hearings regarding this matter) Atty, ,John Burke stood to represent the.applicant. He explained that the applicant had submitted new lot plans as requested at the fast hearing. He also explained that there are two major differences between, the previously submitted plans and the new. The first being the flood hazard lines, the previous plan did not reflect them accurately. The second major difference was the line of view running along Jeep Place and the fence. He asked that the Commission rule only on what is within their purview and that this matter is resolved this evening. The Agent noted that based on the newly certified flood hazard fines there are only a few of the Arborvitae trees within Conservation jurisdiction. Based on the location of these plantings}they do not present a safety hazard as originally contended by the abutters. The Agent recommended a negative determination, Mr. Ken Bates stood as an abater and agreed based on how. the new plan was explained to him by the Agent that it appears there are only a few trees within the purview of the conservation Commission. Mr. Bates also wanted to clarify his behavior at the last hearing. It appeared he was being argumentative with the Agent, but that was not his intent. He did provide a copy of the October 4, 2007 meeting minutes to the Commission to back up what he had contended at the last hearing. Motion made,,seconded and unanimously carried for a Negative Determination. 7:03 p.m. Louis and Louise Dimeo, NOI—76 Popponesset Island Fuad (Cont.from 12127/07) (Dredging, beach nourishment and transplanting of salt marsh) • Ilorran Hayes stood to represent the applicants. Mr. Hayes explained that at the last hearing on this, matter December 27, 2007) he was asked for four things to be completed. The first item to be completed was obtaining a letter from Mr. Perry Ellis the Harbormaster. He did submit a letter from Mr. Ellis to the Commission that shows Mr. Ellis does not feel this project will affect either navigational safety or general public safety in the area.-The second item Mr. Hares obtained per the Commission's request was the D.E.P file number and is on file. The third item obtained was the MESA approval and a copy was submitted to the Commission. The final item requested was a letter from the Bourne Landfill stating that the spoils from the dredging will be accepted and can be used for daily cover. The letter was submitted and given to the Commission for review. Commissioner cross requested that Mr. Hayes set aside a table size amount of the spoils to see if it can be used for the Town. Mr. Hayes agreed that there could b some spoils saved no bigger than table size due to the fact that anything larger would require a Beneficial Use Determination. Th 'Agent asked Mr. Hayes to explain the D.B.P concerns listed in the letter he received back. Mr. Hayes a cplained that he did-receive a letter from Christine Odiaga regarding this project and that he had resppnded to her letter with a detailed explanation letter of his own. She was primarily concerned with the salt marsh disturbance. Mr. Hayes again explained that there would only be a removal of 50 sq ft of S arrtfnar arf em fl ra and that they will be transplanted back per USDA transplant guidelines, The Agent referred to 310 C M R 10.32, 2. , not a ccluding 10.32 et al, states that any rehabilitation or creation of Salt Marsh is permittable. Therefore this filing would be in full compliance with D.E.P regulations. Len Pinaud questioned whether there had been any response bank from the D.E.P after Mr. Hayes 'initial response stating that the issues had been resolved.satisfactorily. Mr. Heyes stated that he had not heard back from there and because of this fact Mr. Pinaud recused himself from the vote on this hearing. 2