HomeMy Public PortalAboutConservation Commission -- 2023-08-22 MinutesC1� OF fcLDER Q9F 9 �%
Q a`%p� 3
'NOOF POfl xio
�'6B, 19, 1003
Conservation
Commission
Michael Tobin
Chair
Casey Chatelain
Vice Chair
Commissioners
Bruce Evans
Gary Kaser
Kimberley Crocker
Pearson
Ron Slowek
Steve McKenna
Staff
Chris Miller,
Natural Resources
Director
Bill Grafton,
Conservation
Administrator
Town of Brewster Conservation Commission
1657 Main St., Brewster, MA 02631
conservation@brewster-ma.gov
(508) 896-4546
MEETING MINUTES
August 22, 2023 6:00 PM
Approved 03/26/2024
7-0-0
Commissioners Present: Vice Chair Casey Chatelain (CC), Bruce Evans (BE), Gary Kaser
(GK), Kimberly Crocker Pearson (KP), Ron Slowek (RS)
Commissioners Absent: Michael Tobin (MT), Steve McKenna (SM)
Staff Present: Bill Grafton (BG), Chris Miller (CM)
1. Call to Order
2. Meeting Declaration of Participation Statement
3. Public Comment/ Citizens' Forum
4. Recording Statement
As required by the Open Meeting Law, we are informing you that the Town will be video
and audio taping as well as broadcasting this public meeting. In addition, if anyone else intends to either video or
audio tape this meeting they are required to inform the chair.
5. Public Announcements and Comment
Members of the public may address the Conservation Commission on matters not on the meeting's agenda for a
maximum of 3-5 minutes at the Chair's discretion. The Conservation Commission will not reply to statements
made or answer questions raised during public comment, but may add items presented to a future agenda.
6. Discussion
6a. Conservation Permit Forms and Submittal Documents Revisions — Bill Grafton.
Bill Grafton (BG) has been working with Town Counsel and Commissioners Chatelaine and Pearson
on updates to the permit forms which include referencing the Chapter 172 Brewster Wetland Bylaw
on the headers and updating the special conditions language with consolidation on the approved Site
Plan making greater use of and reference to it with streamlined Special Conditions modifying the
approved Site Plan as appropriate. These updates will hopefully be ready for approval by the
September 12, 2023 meeting.
7. Request for Determination of Applicability
7a. 0 Nickerson Park, 114-63 (43-2 & 31-1000). RDA# 23-09 — Massachusetts Division of Fish
and Game proposes parking lot improvements within the 100 -foot buffer zone to inland bank
and land under water bodies (Cliff Pond) and within bordering land subject to flooding.
Mike Count (MC) present for the Mass Dept of Fish and Game, who handles permitting for the
Department of Conservation and Recreation, regarding improvements to the Cliff Pond parking lot
and boat ramp. The parking lot is pervious with a paved apron leading to the ramp, which is
comprised of concrete panels. They would like to regrade the parking area, filling in ruts and
potholes, repair the apron, and add riprap to both edges of the lot. They also propose to remove a tree
that is outside the 100 -foot buffer and add updated signage to the area. Bill Grafton (BG) notes that
the work areas are previously disturbed, likely predating bordering land subject to flooding
compensatory storage requirements.
There was no public comment.
Page I of 9
Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes —August 22, 2023
Kim Pearson (KP) moves to approve a Positive Determination No. 5 for the Bylaw and a Negative No. 2 for work within
the bordering land subject to flooding and buffer zone to inland bank including standard special conditions. Gary Kaser
second. Approved 5-0-0.
7b. 208 Sheep Pond Drive, 74-5 (34-135). After -the -fact vegetative management & restoration plantings. RDA# 23-
10 — Paul Griswold proposes planting native vegetation and requests approval of after -the -fact vegetative
management within the buffer zone to inland bank and land under water bodies (Sheep Pond).
Applicant Paul Griswold (PG) present to request approval of after -the -fact tree and shrub cutting he recently did in the 75
to 100 foot buffer. He has prepared a planting plan, based on a list of native species provided by Bill Grafton (BG), that
will hopefully prevent erosion of the bank.
BG notes he was informed of the activity through a complaint to the Conservation Office. It appears that a previous
owner did some cutting further in the buffer. The submitted planting plan is extensively detailed; professional monitoring
is not required, but BG would like an update on how the plants are doing.
There was no public comment.
Bruce Evans (BE) moves to approve a Positive Determination No. 5 for the Bylaw and a Negative No. 3 for work within
the buffer zone to inland bank and land under water bodies including standard special conditions and requiring the
optional plantings to be native plant species as detailed in the Cape Cod Cooperative Extension Plant List and The Natural
Heritage and Endangered Species Program Vascular Plants of Massachusetts, a County List. Gary Kaser (GK) second.
Approved 5-0-0.
7c. 149 Fiddlers Lane, 48-34 (18-38-1) (septic repair) RDA# 23-11— Joshua & Sara Brunelle propose septic system
repairs within the buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetlands.
Jason Ellis (JE), J.C. Ellis Design, present for applicants, who are buying the subject property. The current septic system
on the property dates back to 1972 and is located in groundwater. JE states that the new system will be outside
Commission jurisdiction except for the sewer line extending from the house and a corner of the overdig of the leach area.
The septic tank will be located beneath the gravel driveway.
Bruce Evans (BE) asks what the area will be planted with after the work is done? JE states that they will reseed with a
conservation mix; the work area is currently pre-existing lawn.
Bill Grafton (BG) has been in touch with the Brunelles and has no issue with the proposed septic repair. However, the
house, which was built in 1973, does not appear to have received a Conservation permit at the time of construction and
BG recommends that it be permitted with an after -the -fact Notice of Intent (NOI), as it is located entirely within the 100 -
foot buffer and partly in the 50 -foot buffer. There are two sheds in the 0 to 50 foot buffer which he suggests should be
moved out of the 50 -foot buffer as part of the NOI. He would also like to see conservation markers posted along the 50 -
foot buffer at the very least, as there is fill in the 0 to 50 foot setback. JE does not think this permitting "should be
necessary at all," but BG notes that the Wetland Protection Act was in effect when the house was built and disagrees with
JE that no permitting is needed and states - "we'll just have to agree to disagree."
Gary Kaser (GK) questions the need to permit or relocate the sheds, as they are pre-existing and other properties have
sheds in the buffer zones. BG suggests mitigation could be an alternative to relocation of the sheds, noting again that
these sheds are in the 0 to 50 and he could find no history of any kind of Conservation permitting for the property. The
Commission could make an exception but he would not recommend it. GK thinks, given how long the sheds have been
where they are, that requiring them to be tom down or relocated is more trouble than it's worth. Bruce Evans (BE) also
favors letting the sheds stay given how long they have been there; Ron Slowek (RS) concurs. Kim Pearson (KP) asks if
Page 2 of 9
Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes — August 22, 2023
there is some indication of when the sheds were built? Casey Chatelain (CC) advises there are no definitive records; BG
indicates he could research further but this is probably not worth the effort.
CC agrees that the house appears to have been built without the property conservation permitting but notes it "seems like
a lot of money to spend" to require a permit 50 years later. KP asks about applicant's plans for the house; JE states it will
be kept as is, possibly as employee housing.
CC polls the Commission on whether to require removal/relocation of the sheds: RS no; BE no; KP yes to be consistent
with what was asked of others, GK no, been there a while and probably not intentional.
CC polls the Commission on whether to require an after the fact NOI for the house: GK no, got a building permit, don't
want to punish new owner for previous owner's mistake; KP no, doesn't overlap much into the buffer, reasonable to let it
go at this point; BE no; RS no, been there 50 years.
Chris Miller (CM) points out that since neither the sheds nor the house have any Conservation permitting, any
maintenance to the sheds, or to the house within the 100 ft buffer or the fill in the buffer, will require permitting. KP
agrees that "they're going to end up doing it sooner or later."
KP would like to require Conservation markers at the 50 -foot buffer line as a reasonable request; RS concurs. However,
BG recommends issuing a Positive 2B determination not confirming the wetland line, as there is an 8-12 foot depression
upgradient of the line that has been filled in with branches, lumber, and green waste and should be reviewed by a qualified
wetland scientist. CC asks BG if there is anything else known about this fill area? BG indicates it is comprised of years'
worth of leaves and branches raked into the buffer. The area is wet but soil sampling will be required to determine
whether or not it is a wetland. KP notes the Commission has been aggressive about fill in the buffer and suggests a new
delineation would be reasonable to set the line; RS and CC concur, with CC noting this would not require engineering and
it is important to fix the wetland line. GK agrees that the material should be removed out of the buffer; BG notes this can
easily be done as part of the approved septic work.
JE objects to addressing the fill as part of the septic upgrade, as the issue was not raised when septic plans were done on
both sides of the property, and it was probably placed in the 70s and 80s. CC points out the Commission will permit the
septic upgrade and has been lenient on the unpermitted sheds and house, but it needs the fill removed and wetland line re-
established to start to bring the property into compliance. BG indicates this would be a Category 1 or 2 after -the -fact
restoration NOI, which would not require an engineered plan. GK notes there is a Court case that requires property
owners to remove fill in wetland buffers placed any time after passage of the WPA, regardless of who placed it. BG states
he confirmed this with two municipal attorneys - "fill is in perpetuity" and suggests the Commission is proposing a
reasonable solution to the issue. RS concurs - "I think what we've offered is very fair, period."
BG suggests that the Commission require the restoration NOI, which will involve removal of the fill and soil sampling of
the fill area, to be filed by December 31, 2023. BG is willing to work with JE on the new filing.
There was no public comment.
Bruce Evans (BE) moves to approve a Positive Determination No. 5 for the Bylaw, a Positive 2B denying the wetlands
with the requirement for a qualified wetland scientist to perform an acceptable wetland delineation with data sheets and
soil sampling and a Negative No. 3 for work within the buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetlands, including standard
special conditions and requiring the optional plantings to be native plant species as detailed in the Cape Cod Cooperative
Extension Plant List and The Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program Vascular Plants of Massachusetts, a
County List. Kim Pearson second. Approved 5-0-0.
7d. 53 Harwich Road 57-26 (17-56) & 40 Cottonwood Road & 67-96 (17-47115) (after the fact deck and tree
removal and fill restoration — Elizabeth Prescott requests approval for after -the -fact construction of a deck and
Page 3 of 9
Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes — August 22, 2023
storm damage tree removal at 53 Harwich Road and unpermitted fill removal and planting restoration at 40
Cottonwood Road within the buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetlands.
Keith Johnson (KJ), Billingsgate Land Management, present for applicant. The deck is over existing lawn and is
associated with an active Building permit but no Conservation permit to date, as they had used an old septic plan that did
not include an isolated vegetated wetland near the property. They are proposing to remove 6-8 yards of unpermitted fill
and make restoration plantings as outlined in the submittal. Bill Grafton (BG) notes the planting plan proposes three (3)
years of monitoring.
Ron Slowek (RS) suggests that conservation markers be placed to ensure there is no further activity in the buffer. Bill
Grafton (BG) thinks homeowner now understands when Conservation permitting may be required; he is open to the
placement of markers but they needn't be required in this case.
Bruce Evans (BE) moves to approve a Positive Determination No. 5 for the Bylaw, a Positive 2A approving the wetlands
delineation and a Negative No. 3 for work within the buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetlands including standard
special conditions, submittal of three (3) annual monitoring reports by December 1 st to the Conservation Administrator,
and requiring the optional plantings to be native plant species as detailed in the Cape Cod Cooperative Extension Plant
List and The Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program Vascular Plants of Massachusetts, a County List. Kim
Pearson (KP) second. Approved 5-0-0.
7e. 12 Ring Rock Road, 91-4 (7-5) (revetment repair) — George & Laura Godfrey propose revetment repair within
coastal beach.
Bob Perry (BP), Cape Cod Engineering, present for applicant. BP states that the work area is coastal bank and land
subject to coastal storm flowage (LSCSF). BP filed the project as an RDA because "there is no alteration to the land."
The work will involve removing two armor stones, placing them on the lawn, filling in the revetment with trap rock, and
replacing the armor stones. BP represents that the set-up will take longer than the work itself, and steel plating and mats
will be used to protect the septic system, lawn, and vegetation at the top of the bank. The work will not take place during
the growing season.
Kim Pearson (KP) asks for more information about the stones that will fill in the revetment? This will be several hundred
pounds of 6-8 inch diameter stones. Bill Grafton (BG) noted there was one part of the filing that referenced smaller
stones. BP will check the filing but states they don't intend to use loose small stones in this area. BG notes that KP and
he visited the site and had observed such stones in the area of the revetment; BP states that any such stones would be part
of an earlier revetment from the 70s to 90s.
BG notes that site plan does not set forth the 50 or 100 foot buffers to any of the resource areas, coastal bank/beach or
floodplain. BP thinks he submitted "a pretty good plot for a RDA for a spot revetment repair" and the buffer zone to the
flood plan is off the property, but he is willing to submit a revised plan showing the buffer zones. However, the narrative
makes several references to "coastal bank" and he is confident the work area lies in coastal bank. BG agrees the work
area is not coastal dune, and states that site plans are to have all the correct information for ease of reference by the
Commission, especially in coastal zones.
BG notes that he requested a Notice of Intent (NOI) when contacted about the project on January 23 of this year.
Although there are four (4) Orders of Conditions on file for the property, two (2) have Certificates of Compliance and
none are currently open, which would have opened a pathway to permitting through an amendment or minor change to
plan. BG recommends a NOI for the work based on the sensitivity of the environment and guidance from Coastal Zone
Management. A NOI would also provide an opportunity to incorporate ongoing maintenance/mitigation. An ongoing
study through the Center for Coastal Studies will hopefully provide updated standard special conditions and submittal
guidance for coastal stabilization projects.
Page 4 of 9
Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes — August 22, 2023
BP notes he has worked in the area for many years and states that filing a NOI and RDA and Brewster "are almost the
same" in terms of abutter notification and documentation requirements. BP states he has no memory of BG advising to
file a NOI and would have done so if so advised. BP adds he filed the project as an RDA because `we're not going to
alter the resource" and suggests requiring a NOI for this particular work is unnecessary, as the Commission will get the
beach nourishment BG is seeking when the revetment eventually needs to be rebuilt, but it is ultimately the Commission's
decision. BG reads an excerpt from the January 23, 2023 email to BP, which states "any work activity within the resource
area that will fill, dredge, remove or alter requires the submittal of a Notice of Intent." BG also suggested that BP is free
to file an RDA and the Commission may approve it, but MassDEP might disagree with such a determination. As such,
BG wrote "It is my suggestion that a Notice of Intent is needed including a request for periodic maintenance" as "you
would need to return for a conservation permit each time you want to maintain the permitted coastal structure." The RDA
expires in three (3) years with no extension pathway open.
Chris Miller (CM) suggests that the Commission focus on Section 2B of the project description in the submitted RDA,
where they state what provision of the WPA exempt them from having to file a NOI. This section states "Alteration is not
occurring to any buffer zone or wetland resource area listed," and the Commission should consider whether the proposed
work, particularly the proposed addition of trap rock, alters a resource area or buffer zone - "Is there an alteration going on
to the landform that's protected?" BP agrees that "we're on the feather edge" of the issue but maintains the work can be
reasonably permitted by RDA because "there's no alteration of resource" BG notes that even if the work qualifies for an
exemption under the State WPA, it may not under the Town Bylaw, Ch. 172 which prohibits exemptions.
Bruce Evans (BE) asks if there is any current beach nourishment requirement at the property? BG has researched the file
and was unable to locate any. BE suggests that the Commission consider whether the proposed change to the revetment
triggers a requirement for nourishment. BP agrees this is up to the Commission, acknowledging that "every revetment
that I've worked on in the last 10 years or more has had a nourishment requirement" but suggesting that requiring it here
could lead to a much larger project down the road if property owner declines to come back with a NOI "to fill this small
hole." BP also suggests that ongoing conditions are an ineffective way to secure beach nourishment because they are
difficult to enforce.
Casey Chatelain (CC) suggests that the Commission avoid any "he said, she said" issues and focus on whether to permit
the work as submitted or require a NOI. CC points out there is a chance that applicant doesn't come back with a NOI if
the RDA is denied, which could worsen conditions in the area. KP suggests requiring a NOI, as it is not unreasonable to
ask for nourishment with any revetment work because by its nature such work interferes with the normal flow of sand -
"That's what a revetment does." Gary Kaser (GK) suggests that since nourishment was not required in the past, the
Commission should approve the RDA and see what happens - "Let him get it done quick and revisit if he has more
problems." BE notes that the Commission has historically gone with the Conservation Administrator's suggestion as to
what needs to be filed, but is willing to permit this under an RDA based on the risk that applicant might not come back for
a NOI, but Ron Slowek (RS) states he was initially in favor of approving by RDA but now favors a NOI to ensure there is
beach nourishment.
Gary Kaser (GK) moves to issue a Positive 5 for the Bylaw and a Negative 2 determination, approving the RDA. Bruce
Evans (BE) second. Approved 3-2-0 by roll call: Evans yes, Slowek no, Pearson no, Kaser yes, Chatelain yes.
8. Notices of Intent, Requests for Amended Order of Conditions, and Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area
Delineation
8a. 104 Canoe Pond Drive, SE9-1952, 24-60 (36-230). New Public Hearing. Hongying Xie Revocable Trust -2012
proposes to install a seasonal aluminum dock, as well as After -the -Fact approval of an existing kayak rack within
inland bank, bordering vegetated wetland, land under waterbodies and waterways, and bordering land subject to
flooding and buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetlands.
Page 5 of 9
Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes — August 22, 2023
The applicant has requested a continuation to the September 26, 2023 BCC Public Meeting.
Kim Pearson (KP) moves to continue the hearing for 104 Canoe Pond Drive to the September 26, 2023 Commission Public
Meeting to allow the applicant's consultant additional time to address the Commission's request for additional information.
Gary Kaser (GK) second. Approved 5-0-0.
8b. 178 Bonnie Doone Cartway 102-13 (8-7) [and 102-12 (8-7)]. New public hearing. SE9-1893 Amended. 178
Bonnie Doone Cartway LLC requests a determination for after -the -fact and proposed minor deviations including
restoration plantings, changes to hardscape, improved drainage, beach stair details, vegetative management and
date for removal of "the eastern cottage" which is a portion of the mitigation to the approved Order of Conditions
SE9-1893 within the buffer zone to coastal dune and bordering vegetated wetlands.
The applicant has requested a continuation to the September 12, 2023 BCC Public Meeting.
Kim Pearson moves to continue the Request for Amended Order of Conditions under SE9-1893 to September 12, 2023.
Gary Kaser second. Approved 5-0-0.
8e. 110 Nancy May Path, 91-14-798 (7-11-1). New public hearing. SE9-1550 Amended. Nancy & Mina Kaddis
request a determination for the relocation of a beach access stair with seasonal base, removal of existing and
approved but not constructed hardscape as well as mitigation plantings within coastal beach, coastal bank, land
subject to coastal storm flowage and buffer zone to coastal bank.
The applicant has requested a continuation to the September 26, 2023 BCC Public Meeting.
Kim Pearson (KP) moves to continue the Request for Amended Order of Conditions under SE9-1550 Amended to
September 12, 2023. Gary Kaser (GK) second. Approved 5-0-0.
8C. 47 Governor Prence Road, 58-14 (4-33). New Public Hearing. SE9-1953.Anthony Saccone & Susan Dickstein
proposes deck expansion, new deck construction, new pond access stairways construction & plantings within the
100 -foot buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetlands, inland bank and land under water bodies (Cobbs Pond, a
great pond).
Paul Mancuso (PM), BSC Group, present for applicant along with Ian Peach (IP), Wilkinson Ecological. They are
proposing to rebuild and expand an existing deck in back of the house over existing lawn, add a deck to the southwest
corner of the house over existing lawn, and construct a stairway from the edge of the back lawn to Cobbs Pond, over an
existing dirt path. They also wish to relocate a bulkhead in back of the house to the side, outside the 100 foot buffer, and
add a new front entrance outside the buffer.
IP discusses the proposed restoration and land management plans. The buffer zone is currently degraded by invasives and
IP suggests the plan will improve the existing conditions. They are proposing 14,000 square feet of invasives
management, primarily by hand, followed by seeding with native seed mix, 82 native shrubs, and 12 native trees.
Ron Slowek (RS) visited the site and observed signs that machinery was already inside the 50 -foot setback, as well as a
lumber pile, dumpster, and portapotty inside the 100 -foot setback - "Has anybody approved any of this stuff?" PM states
he has no knowledge of what RS observed. Bill Grafton (BG) shows a picture of the property; the dumpster appears to be
just along the 100 -foot buffer, the lumber just inside, and there are tire tracks inside the 50 -foot setback. BG notes there is
also ongoing interior work at the property and the disturbance appears to be the work of the contractors handling that
piece. BG did sign off on this work administratively after confirming it was interior only. RS suggests what he observed
is far beyond the scope of interior demo and would like to issue a stop work order for what is going on - "somebody has to
take responsibility for this." BG only observed the disturbance when he made his site visit late last night and is willing to
reach out to the contractors. Casey Chatelain (CC) notes that the conditions for the exterior work will include a
Page 6 of 9
Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes — August 22, 2023
preconstruction meeting with BG, where he will convey Commission expectations to the contractors. BG will contact the
contractors and property owners regarding the current disturbance.
RS also references a photo of where the stairs are proposed and suggests there is no sign of a dirt path; BG agrees that the
existing path is very narrow. Kim Pearson (KP) notes that the stairs are proposed to be 5 foot wide, but the Commission
generally only approves 4 foot stairs; Bruce Evans (BE) concurs. PM notes that the stairs themselves are 4 foot wide,
with 6 inch supports on either side. BG agrees that a staircase is needed given the steepness of the bank, but the plan
needs additional construction details, including a cross-section; PM will provide.
Chris Miller (CM) hasn't visited the site but notes there is limited space on the site for construction staging and it would
be reasonable to use the gravel driveway for this purpose. There does not appear to be much damage to the lawn in back,
and it seems likely that PM and IP were unaware of the activity. The photos they provided of the path seem to have been
taken earlier in the year and vegetation has likely grown in since then. CM suggests that the Commission clarify what the
plan is for the actual resource area, i.e., whether it is going to be left as a beach or big, cleared area.
BG instructs applicants to add an impervious coverage table to the plans in order to clarify whether they will need a
stormwater permit. CM notes this should include the coverage for the bulkhead and new entrance, as the Stormwater
Management Permit is a Town and not just a Commission requirement.
KP asks whether the cleared area shown for the bottom of the stairs already exists or will be created by clearing existing
vegetation; IP states they will not be removing any vegetation from the pond. KP also asks if there will be a secondary
landing platform at the bottom of the stairs; PM is not aware of any platform proposed for the bottom of the stairs and
thinks they will end at the water's edge. BG notes that Cobbs Pond is a Great Pond and recommends that the stair posts
be kept out of the water to avoid triggering a Chapter 91 permit, and that they ensure the bottom of the stair area is setback
enough to be stable. CC suggests that PM clarify on the site plan that no landing is planned for the bottom.
BG recommends that a currently vegetated section proposed to be out remain as is, as well as additional plantings to
stabilize the bank, and requests that additional details regarding existing vegetation be added to the plan. He would also
like a cross-section of the vista corridor - CM suggests that photos of the view from the deck would be helpful, as well as
bounds to define the limits of the corridor. CC asks that these be incorporated into the plans; the bounds in particular are
essential to preventing piecemeal "expansion" of the corridor.
BG also notes that the land management plan references the use of foliar spray; this must be replaced with an alternative
treatment, as the Commission required the same for a recent project at Oceans Edge. BG and the Commission also
discuss the timing of treatment and planting implementation, as well as annual monitoring; BG will work with applicants'
consultants to refine these details.
Kim Pearson (KP) moves to continue the hearing for 47 Governor Prence Road, SE9-1953, to September 12, 2023. Gary
Kaser (GK) second. Approved 5-0-0.
8d. 70 Smith Lane, 90-203 (14-110). New public hearing. SE9-1955. Brian Daley proposes to construct two
additions and a deck as well as mitigation plantings within the buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetlands.
John O'Reilly (JO), J.M. O'Reilly & Associates, present for applicant along with Keith Johnson (KJ), Billingsgate Land
Management. The closest point of construction to a resource area (intermittent stream) is 62 feet. Wetlands on the site
were recently flagged by Paul Shea (PS), Independent Environmental Consultants. They have set the limit of work and
staging areas so as to avoid the recently installed septic system. The additions and deck will add 260 square feet of
impervious coverage in the buffer and 439 square feet to the lot, and the proposed planting plan provides 1800 square feet
of plantings which will include ground cover seed mix, 21 shrubs, and 4 trees; KJ expects the plantings can be
implemented this fall. Bill Grafton (BG) asks if the planting area will require maintenance? KJ indicates the plan calls
for two (2) years of biannual mowing so the seeds can establish themselves.
Page 7 of 9
Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes — August 22, 2023
Chris Miller (CM) notes there is an existing culvert and footbridge that the Commission should be aware of; BG adds
there is an existing footpath which should be added to the site plan.
Applicant Brian Daley (BD) asks if he will be able to maintain the culvert? CC advises that some form of Conservation
permitting is required for any work in a resource area; Cape Cod Mosquito Control is allowed to clear the culvert as
needed but a property owner would need a permit to do the same.
JO will add the footpath to the site plan as well as dimensions of the foot bridge and submit the revised plan by noon on
August 28, 2023. The standard conditions of approval will apply.
There was no public comment.
Kim Pearson (KP) moves to close the public hearing for 70 Smith Lane, SE9-1955 and instruct the Conservation
Administrator to issue Orders of Conditions with the standard special conditions, with revised site plan to be submitted by
12 noon on Monday, August 28. Gary Kaser (GK) second. Approved 5-0-0.
9. Request for Certificate of Compliance
9a. 336 Robbins Hill Road, SE9-1726 38-77 (2-3). Lee.
Bill Grafton (BG) visited the property; the coastal stabilization piece of the project was done well, but only about 35% of
the upper bluff plantings have survived. BG suggests denying the request to allow property owners time to re-establish
the bluff plantings.
Kim Pearson (KP) moves to deny the Request for Certificate of Compliance for SE9-1726 at 336 Robbins Hill Road and
require that the upper bluff plantings start in the Fall 2023 planting season and the annual monitoring report submittals
continue. Gary Kaser (GK) second. Approved 5-0-0.
11. Show Cause _
11a. Continued - Brown, 2628 Main Street, 89-14 (15-113-2) & 89-2 (27-4). Cutting and clearing of vegetation
within 25 feet of inland wetlands as well as the placement of fill on and within 100 feet of inland wetlands.
Attorney Chris Senie (CS) along with David Schlesinger (DS) of Great Cape Coop present for property owner Stephen
Brown. BSC Group is preparing the wetland delineation and restoration plan called for in the stipulation they have been
working on with Town Counsel Alex Weisheit (AW).
Bill Grafton (BG) has been in touch with Matt Creighton (MC) and Kieran Healy (KH) at BSC Group regarding the
parameters of the restoration and development areas as well as conservation marker placement - where to naturally
rejuvenate and where to allow plantings - and disposition of various culverts. BG reads a just -received follow-up email
from MC summarizing the meeting, in which they reviewed the revised plan and discussed additional edits. They will
work on revising the plan with the intent of having it ready for the "September hearing date" along with documentation
for their claim that the stream on the property is intermittent.
CS believes they are continuing to make progress and asks for a continuation to September 12, 2023.
There was no public comment.
Page 8 of 9
Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes — August 22, 2023
Kim Pearson (KP) moves to continue the enforcement discussion for Brown, at 2628 Main Street, to the September 12,
2023 Commission Public Meeting. Gary Kaser (GK) second. Approved 5-0-0.
12. Request for Minor Change to Plan
12a. 12a.106 Upland Circle, SE9-1741.127-18 (10 20-48). Champlin.
Homeowner Tom Champlin (TC) present, noting that he was advised by Bill Grafton (BG) to file the request due to a
discrepancy between the vista pruning authorized in an Order of Conditions issued for the property in 2017 and extended
in 2020 and the pruning BG observed on site. The proposed changes would bring the permit into conformance with the
actual pruning activity. BG shows pictures of the area in question, noting that the additional trimming is for small
branches, not trees, in an area 5-8 feet east of the easterly tree line; this will enhance the vista without adversely affecting
the health of the trees. TC has otherwise been managing the pruning area well; he is also working on resolving a
recording issue for an old Order of Conditions for the property.
Kim Pearson (KP) moves to approve the request for minor change to plan for 106 Upland Circle, SE9-1741. Gary Kaser
(GK) second. Approved 5-0-0.
17. Matters not reasonably anticipated by the Chair
Brewster Volunteer Day is Saturday, September 30t, 2023; this is an opportunity for residents to learn about volunteer
opportunities with the town. It will be followed by a volunteer appreciation lunch.
19. Next meeting
September 12, 2023
20. Adjourn
Kim Pearson (KP) moves to adjourn. Gary Kaser (GK) second. Approved 5-0-0. Meeting adjourned at 8:42 PM.
Respectfully , submitted,
Cassandra West, Senid epartment Assistant, Department of Natural Resources
Page 9 of 9
Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes — August 22, 2023