3/6/2008 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

7:09 p.m. Patricia Bell Rev Tr and Paul Hanlon, Idol—46&51 P pp nessett Island lid (continued from 02/21/2008)(Cass costa steps down) Norman Hayes stood to represent the applicants. He explained that he was here to respond to the questions raised at the last hearing. The first item that was questioned was the beach located behind the salt march. He explained that the beach had been removed. The second item he explained was about the beach nourishment.After a discussion with the Agent and research of the performance standard it was determined it did not fit the performance standard and was also removed from the project. The third item was regarding the use of machinery to clip the Spartina AKemiflora and Mr. Hayes stated that they now would b clipped by hand. The fourth item was the acquisition of a D.E.P file number and that their comments be addressed. He informed'the Commission that a file number had been obtained and the comments.were addressed to their satisfaction. The Agent asked! Mr. Hayes to explain to the Commission about the Fisheries comments and about the access options. Mr. Hayes explained that he had spoken with Fisheries and that the float was mored in response to their concerns.As far as the access options, he explained that there were three options that were being considered and that he would still ince to have that written into the notice as to not limit the project. The Commissioners brought up that the plan still showed the beach area and that they would like the access options narrowed down. Mr. Hayes explained that the mess issue was still not resolved due to the inability to contact the abutter for permission to use the land for access. Mr. Hayes did agree to redo the plan to accurately reflect the charges as outlined and that all of the beach would be eliminated with the exception of one small 5 cubic yard beach area on the plan. He asked for a continuance until 03/20/2008 @ :30 p.m. Motion made,seconded and unanimously carried for a continuance 0312012008 @ 7:30 p.m. 7:12 p.m. George and Elizabeth stento Trs. rel --155 P pponessett Island Road (Demolish and rebuild new single family home: Title.V septic system, driveway, plantings and associated appurtenances) John Slavinsky of cape & Island Engineering stood to represent the applicants. He explained that the hearing had been continued so that the comments from Natural Heritage could be heard and the D.E.P number obtained. He did receive a number from the D.E.P but they also included a letter with a concern for the foundation. John and the Agents agreed that the comments were confusing. John stated that he would be contacting the agency to clarify. Mr. Slavinsky also stated that he had not heard from Natural, Heritage, The Asst. Agent read the letter from Natural Heritage that they were faxed in which they voiced i concerns for the habitat in the area of this project. They asked that an II.E.S.A study be conducted and results submitted to thea before they would sign off on the project. Mr. Slavinsky asked that in light of the new developments the applicant be granted a continuance until 04/17/2008 @ :00 p.m. Diction made, seconded and unanimously carried for a continuance until 04!17!2005 a@ 7:00 p.m. :15 p.m. Robert stow, RDA—8 Pine Fridge Road Maintain an after the fact black wall along the side.and rear lot line with no proposed grade changes) John Slavinsky of cape and Islands Engineering stood to represent the applicant. He described the applicant's wish to maintain an after the fact block retaining wall along the side and near lot lines. He explained that the Commission had requested a plan with the elevations of the wall on it at the last hearing and that had been supplied, The Agent informed the Commission that this was back in front of therm due to the fact that an RDA can not be ruled a positive determination based on procedural error. H also explained that the run off issue would be hard to prove and would be outside of the conservation jurisdiction. The Agent stated that there also exists no performance standard for such a wall. The Commission questioned Mr. Slavinsky about the drain pipe that was photographed under the applicant's garage. Mr. Slavinsky stated.that to his knowledge he does not know of any drain pipe and wondered if the drain pipe was actually a dry well. The Commission questioned whether the pipe had to be shown on the plan, The Agent explained that engineered plans are not required with an RDA and that the pipe would have not effect on performance standards or the wall itself. Diane Dinneen, an abutter stood to respond about the drain pipe and question the Commission. ibis. Dineen stated that she was very upset that Mr. Stow had been able to be an After the Fact man and get his way without following proper