8/9/2018 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

HEARINGS: 6:00 Christopher P. Habib and Mark Doran, LLC, 438 Quinaquisset Avenue. Proposed septic system upgrade and associated hardscaping and landscaping. At request of applicant, continued from 5/24, 6/14, 7/12. Request to Continue to 9/27. NOI Motion: Mr. Smith moved at the request of the applicant to continue the hearing to September 27, 2018 at 6:00 p.m., seconded by Mr. O’Neill. Vote unanimous 4-0 6:03 Mark and Cheryl Rogers, 87 Hooppole Road. After-the-fact NOI to permit stone retaining wall and beach area and to allow for buffer restoration permitted under DEP File #43-2399. NOI Resource Area: Coastal Bank, BVW, Salt Marsh, Land Under Ocean, LSCSF, John’s Pond Michael Borselli, Falmouth Engineering, represented the applicants. He explained the applicants are requesting approval “after the fact” for activities recently performed on the property as well as execution of a previously approved buffer restoration plan. The activities are within 100’ of wetland resources. The application is also being filed to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act. He reviewed the existing conditions. He explained the proposed project includes “after the fact” permission to allow a previously approved buffer restoration plan and allowance for beach nourishment to supplement the sand on the sandy beach areas adjacent to John’s Pond. He noted a small beach area was created for private recreational purposes and the applicant requests permission to maintain the beach and to nourish it on an occasional basis in perpetuity. He said the sand used would be clean. The applicant is also requesting permission to implement the previously approved buffer restoration plan which was approved previously along with the proposed house construction which was never executed and must be implemented in order to comply with the conditions of the previously issued Order of Conditions which has expired. Mr. Borselli reviewed the details of the plan on the map provided and stated the proposed work meets the performance standards. The Commissioners were looking at two different plans. One was the restoration plan dated 2006. Mr. Borselli reviewed the restoration areas and explained restoration two was approved to be meadow mix instead of lawn or grass and the other two areas are grassy areas but these plantings as specified are to be planted throughout those grassy areas. This is the restoration plan that should have been done under the original order. Basically, they want to keep the beach and wall and then incorporate the restoration plan and if the commission feels there should be some other restoration they would be agreeable to that. The Agent stated he recalls going out to the site in 2006 and there was a grassy area within 50 feet. He showed pictures of the site of what was done more recently. The beach and wall area and the area of grass that goes down to the shoreline which is part of the violation. He noted the lawn never existed going to the water which needs to be removed entirely and replaced with shrubs and in those areas of lawn within 100 feet, have to adhere to the lawn standards. We need to have someone go out and look at the lawn and if it doesn’t meet the lawn standards it has to be corrected with top dress and reseeding. The Agent recommended someone from the Conservation Department go out and examine the lawn and if it doesn’t meet the standards, we have a requirement under the bylaw and that a maintenance plan be submitted. The Agent stated when it comes to the sand, beach nourishment requires many conditions. There are two separate things going on. One is meeting the previous order of conditions and two is to keep what was done in violation without a permit which is the retaining wall and the beach. There was a lengthy discussion regarding the two plans and the Commissioners asked that the applicant come back with one newly updated plan. Mr. Borselli requested a continuance in order to prepare a new plan.