Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutOCC Minutes 2024-03-19Orleans Conservation Commission Nauset Room or Via Zoom Hearing, Tuesday, March 19th, 2024 ORLEANS TOWN CLER PRESENT: Chair Drusilia Henson, Vice Chair Jerry Wander, Clerk Ginny Farber, Member Walter North (joined the meeting at 8:40 a.m.), Member Bob Rothberg, Member Judith Bruce, Associate Member Ken Johnson, Associate Member Tim Payson, Associate Member Dick Hilmer, & Conservation Agent John Jannell ABSENT: Member Maia Ward 8:30 a.m. Call to Order Notice of Intent Town of Orleans 192 End of Skaket Beach Rd By Woods Hole Group, Inc. Map 15, Parcel 6. The proposed replenishment of Skaket Beach using up to 2,000 cubic yards of clean compatible beach sand from an upland sand source. Work will occur on a Coastal Beach, within Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage, and within the Inner Cape Cod Bay ACEC. Leslie Fields, Woods Hole Group, was present via Zoom. Nate Sears, Town of Orleans, was present in the hearing room. Mr. Sears introduced the proposal and the history of the nourishment activity on the property. Ms. Fields stated they'd been contracted by the town for many years to maintain this permit. They had previously gotten extensions for the permit but now that they've reached the limits of that they are filing a new Notice of Intent. She reviewed the work protocol, are for nourishment, and time of year restrictions. Mr. Rothberg asked if the dredge material from Rock Harbor would be compatible sand for this project. Mr. Sears said the Army Corp is buckling down on reuse of dredge spoils. We would prefer to use it instead of dumping it offshore, we would be pursuing sorting and using it on the beach in the future. Ms. Henson asked about fencing for sand capture and the potential for additional fencing. Ms. Bruce asked about having additional rows of sand fencing for capture. Mr. Sears responded that they are open to additional fencing and how effective that may be. Ms. Farber pointed out that upland sand has iron in it so while the grain size is compatible the color is not going to be. I'm throwing that out there so that the public knows it will not match in color, at least in the near term. Mr. Sears says it oxidizes out; it does take a little while. Mr. Wander said there are a lot of rocks on the beach now, he asked, do you scrape any of that off? Mr. Sears responded that you lose the fine sediment to the wind and it doesn't look great. until we get to the point where we are retreating, our strategy should be to defend our infrastructure. I don't think it's beneficial to remove any of the base at this point. Mr. Jannell read a historical letter from Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) into the record. There were 3 special conditions associated with the previous Order about consistency with DEP's guide for beach nourishment, nourishment activities not be below the extreme MHW on spawning beaches for horseshoe crabs and avoid impacts to salt marsh by avoiding nourishment placement 25' from the salt marsh. He read those into the record. Mr. North asked if there were any indications of adverse impacts to the neighboring salt marsh historically. Mr. Jannell said there has been no indication of that. Mr. North asked what the retreat policy for this beach is. Mr. Sears responded that there was discussion about funding for Skaket Beach management plan similar to what's in place for Nauset Beach. We will be applying for a CZM resiliency grant and MVP grant. No public comment was heard. MOTION: A motion to dose the public hearing was made by Jerry Wander and seconded by Ginny Farber. VOTE: 7-0-0 Unanimous MOTION: A motion to approve the project at 192 End of Skaket Beach attaching the Conservation Commission findings and standard conditions and with the special conditions as read in the John Jannell was made by Jerry Wander and seconded by Ginny Farber. Discussion: Mr. Jannell clarified that Mr. Wander was referencing DMF's conditions. Mr. Wander said yes. References: Project Narrative by Woods Hole Group; Site Plan by Ryder & Wilcox dated 2/23/24; Working Plan by Ryder & Wilcox dated 2/23/24. VOTE: 7-0-0 Unanimous Continuations Town of Orleans Crystal Lake, access at 145 S. Orleans Rd and 120 Monument Rd By BSC Group, Inc. Map 55 & 48, parcel 25 & 40. The proposed implementation of an alum treatment within Crystal Lake. Work will occur in a Great Pond, within Land Under Waterbodies and Waterways, and within the Pleasant Bay ACEC. George Meservey, Town of Orleans, was present and gave a brief synopsis of the revisions made but directed the Commission to the Town's technical staff for any questions. Matt Creighton, BSC Group, was present via Zoom. Ed Eichner was also present via Zoom. Mr. Creighton reviewed the questions of the Commission and followed up on all of them. He discussed notification to abutters and the public pretreatment and also the revised map to avoid the mussels. Mr. Creighton reviewed the MESA findings. Mr. Jannell reviewed the draft Facts, Findings, and Special Conditions for the project. He stated it is very similar to the two previous Orders issued for alum treatments in ponds in Orleans. Ms. Bruce provided edits to #6 and #9. She said to add within 30 days to #9 and add "full sampling" to #6. The Commission discussed a time of year restriction. Mr. Eichner said the reason you shoot to apply before June 10th is that according to the historic record you run into situations where the bottom starts to go anoxic, and you want to get it done before complete stratification, Ms. Farber asked if we were to bookend it what would be a start date? Mr. Eichner while you can apply an alum treatment any time of year, the ideal one-time application should be between October 1St and June 10th of any calendar year. Mr. Johnson asked about how much time the alum treatment lasts. Mr. Meservey said 10-15 years, but this is a minimum application for water quality. Mr. Eichner said in this situation its different than others, the watershed is roughly 70% of what you see in the water column, it would have less longevity than a waterbody where sediment is your largest source in the water column. • Mr. Jannell asked about the proposed amount of alum treatment, specifically the bottom threshold. Mr. Eichner said the 6.0 is a reflection of what naturally occurs in this Lake. By embracing this you're allowing for what the natural conditions are. You don't want to go lower than that. The bottom threshold is more related to the pond you are treating in rather than a standard level. Public Comment: George Buckley, Orleans resident, said we want to protect what's left of these mussels so make sure the monitoring is done every 30 days on this thing. MOTION: A motion to close the public hearing was made by Jerry Wander and seconded by Ginny Farber. VOTE: 7-0-0 Unanimous MOTION: A motion to approve the project attaching the Conservation Commission findings and standard conditions, and with the draft Facts, Findings, and Special Conditions as submitted, discussed, and amended, was made by Jerry Wander and seconded by Ginny Farber. References: NOI by BSC Group dated February 2024, revised and submitted 3/7/24; NHESP letter; DMF letter dated 3/14/24' VOTE: 7-0-0 Unanimous Sue Sargent, 35 Crystal Lake Drive, president of Friends of Crystal Lake, came up to the podium and said thank you for your diligence and for saving the lake, Eastward MBT LLC Trustee 7 Lockwood Lane By Eastward Companies. Map 70 Parcel 64. The proposed construction of a single-family dwelling, swimming pool, and associated hardscape with restoration and vegetation work. Work will occur within the 100' buffer zone to the top of a Coastal Bank and within the Pleasant Bay ACEC. Susan Ladue, was present via Zoom, and gave a summary of revisions made since the previous hearing. John O'Reilly, was present via Zoom, he reviewed the Commission's request to remove the LOW out of the ACEC and they were able to do that so there will be no disturbance within the ACEC. He said they took a look at the grading and the grades are remaining relatively the same. Andrew Garulay, Yarmouth Design Group, reviewed the changes made to the Landscape Plan, They shifted the pool and patio north to have a thicker wildlife corridor and they pulled the fence in along the southern property line for wildlife movement. Mike Thanis, Blue Flax Design (BFD), was present and reviewed the concerns raised at the last hearing, They shared photos with the Commission that showed the view from across Paw Wah Pond. He reviewed the additional trees they are proposing. Ms. Bruce asked for clarification on whether there was anything other than naturalized area into the 75' buffer. Mr. North said we need to get an informed opinion on taking out this scale of invasives, I'm not sure the science supports the assertion. Mr. Thanis said currently there is minimal habitat value because there is no multilayered habitat. The Commission was concerned by the lack of canopy and about the wildlife corridor. Ms. Bruce thought it was an improved habitat, but she shared the same concern about the canopy. For screening she'd like to see more trees or trees moved so there is actual screening of the structure. She appreciated the hardscape and building outside of the ACEC and the 75' buffer zone. Ms. Farber thought there should be more screening with more trees. Bill Marsh, Eastward Companies, was present and he asked for a number of trees the Commission would be looking for, Ms. Henson responded that she'd like larger trees being planted. Ms. Henson said she'd look for about 10 trees. Ms. Farber asked if there was a timeline for construction and landscaping. Mr. Marsh responded, we would be finished in a year's time. Ms. Farber said we would not want trees coming down during bird nesting season which is approximately April -Sep 1. Caitlin Camilliere, BFD, came up to the podium and explained the benefits of a younger ecosystem for carbon sequestration. Public comment: George Buckley, 8 Lockwood Lane, said work in the buffer zone and directly adjacent to the ACEC will impact the resource areas. Without a pool the application would have less environmental impact. Say no to overdevelopment in the buffer zone, especially pools. Brian Wahl, an attorney representing the property owner, reviewed the history of the property transfer and previous interactions with abutters. My review pf this project is that it complies with all of your regulations and no waivers are being requested. Kathleen Tringale, 9 Lockwood Lane, said they did not make a claim of adverse possession. She understands that this is a buildable lot, she said she is concerned about the trees being proposed for planting near their lot. Theresa Sprague, BFD, was present via Zoom. She said the condition of the trees on this lot is almost 100% invaded. The trees that are coming down are invasive and preventing any other vegetation from growing on this lot. We are proposing to completely restore the ACEC. Mr. Garulay said the swimming pool is only a 25' incursion into your jurisdiction and without the pool there is no requirement to do any of the restoration work. Julie Barry, an attorney representing the Mackey's, was present via Zoom. She reviewed concerns of the project including cumulative adverse impact and a peer review. Bill Marsh said with regard to the peer review, I have engaged and hired the best consultants for this type of project. Ms. Henson thought that would be best to continue based on the fact that we want to circulate public comments and address the additional trees. The applicant requested a continuance to 4/2/24. MOTION: A motion to continue the public hearing to 4/2/24 was made by Jerry Wander and seconded by Ginny Farber, VOTE: 7-0-0 Unanimous David & Sonja Formato 12 Tides End Ln By Onsite Engineering, Inc. Map 43, Parcel 25. The proposed conversion of sections of asphalt driveway to pervious surface, rebuilding of an existing house with a section relocated further from the top of the Coastal Bank, restoration of the Coastal Bank by removal of existing lawn, conversion of all drainage to subsurface, and landscaping to decrease runoff. Work will occur within the 100' buffer zone to the Top of a Coastal Bank, on a Coastal Bank, within Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage, and within the Pleasant Bay ACEC. David and Sonja Formato, property owners, were present. Philip Cheney, landscape architect, was present. Mr. Formato reviewed the changes made since the previous hearing. He said they have committed to remain within the current footprint on one side and they've removed the lawn proposed on the easterly side. There is no increase in lawn in the 50' buffer. Throughout the entire lot, the area of lawn surface is being reduced. The hardscape in the rear of the property has been reduced so there is a net reduction in the 50' buffer from what is there currently. These changes were made in direct response to the comments made at the previous hearing. Phil Cheney summarized the changes made to the planting plan. Ms. Bruce was concerned about the increase. She was looking for significant naturalization of this lot with very much reduced landscaped space and increased naturalized area. Everything that isn't hardscape should be naturalized. Ms. Henson was concerned about the lawn, especially on the bank. We would allow a path, but not lawn on the bank. She was concerned about the increased uses due to the increased living space. Mr. Formato said there I no new bedroom or bathroom with that increase. Mr. Johnson asked him to elaborate on rain gardens. Mr. Cheney said he created a basin at the end of the driveway, and he's proposed plants that will absorb the water and help facilitate its absorption into the groundwater. Ms. Farber said she was satisfied with the plan if you can get the fescue lawn mitigated and planted. She thought the increase in footprint was small. Mr. Rothberg wondered about the large section of seasonal dock space that is required to come in and out each year. Ms. Farber said they need some space in their yard to live, the patio doesn't bother me. She was not concerned about the fescue clover. Ms. Bruce thought the backyard should be naturalized entirely., Ms. Henson said to add a condition to have a "no mow" area in the back and reduce the width of the path from 8' to 4'. The Commission wanted the fringe meadow herbaceous material to extend from the existing mitigation to the LOW, to limit the path to 4', and install low growing fescue up to the home. Mr. Jannell said they can approve subject to a revised plan and the applicant will have 21 days to submit those revisions to the office. Public comment: Mary Griffin, abutter, appreciated the thoughtful plans the neighbors have offered and the native plantings. Her one request to the Commission would be to ask that they condition the height of the building. The public view shed is within their purview. Some height restrictions would be much appreciated. MOTION: A motion to close the public hearing was made by Jerry Wander and seconded by Ginny Farber. VOTE: 7-0-0 Unanimous MOTION: A motion to approve the project at 12 Tides End Lane attaching the Conservation Commission findings and standard conditions and subject to receipt of a revised plan showing the pathway to the water being reduced to 4, the mitigation extend to the limit of work, and that fescue be installed around the home was made by Jerry Wander and seconded by Ginny Farber. References: Project narrative by Onsite Engineering dated 1/29/24; supplemental narrative and alternatives analysis as submitted; site plan of exiting conditions by Onsite Engineering dated 1/29/24, revised 3/11/24; Landscaping Plan by Philip Cheney dated 1/18/23, revised 3/5/24. VOTE: 7-0-0 Unanimous Mark H. & Elizabeth M. Burnett 24 The Lane By Coastal Engineering Company, Inc. Map 50, Parcel 116. The proposed raze and replacement of an existing boat house. Work will occur on a Coastal Bank, within Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage, and within the Pleasant Bay ACEC. Mr. Rothberg recused: Cole Bateman, Coastal Engineering, was present via Zoom. Mark Burnett, property owner, was present via Zoom. He reviewed the changes made since the previous hearing. They intend to respond to some of the Commission's questions and comments. A supplemental letter was provided which incorporates comments from DMF as well. A MESA letter was also received and it was a "no take". MOTION: A motion to close the public hearing was made by Jerry Wander and seconded by Ginny Farber. VOTE: 7-0-0 Unanimous MOTION: A motion to approve the project at 24 The Lane attaching the Conservation Commission findings and standard conditions and with the special condition that the work be restricted to occur between Nov. 1 and Apr. 1 during the dormant season for salt marsh was made by Jerry Wander and seconded by Ginny Farber. References: Site Plan 3/3/24; elevations 3/3/24; MA DMF letter 2/13/24 VOTE: 7-0-0 Unanimous Mr. Rothberg returned to the meeting. Robert & Maura Stein 13 Archer In By Ryder & Wilcox, Inc. Map 52, Parcel 6. The proposed installation of a swimming pool. Work will occur within the 100' Buffer Zone to the Top of a Coastal Bank. Mr. Lyttle requested a continuance to 4/16/24. MOTION: A motion to continue the public hearing was made by Jerry Wander and seconded by Ginny Farber. VOTE: 7-0-0 Unanimous Kirk & Jennifer Schell 77 Keziahs In By Ryder & Wilcox, Inc. Map 49, Parcel 63. The proposed reconstruction of an existing boathouse. Work will occur within the 100' buffer zone to a Coastal Bank, on a Coastal Bank, within a Salt Marsh, Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage, and the Pleasant Bay ACEC. David Lyttle, Ryder & Wilcox, was present. He reported that regarding the pile installation, they will be driven using the apparatus shown in the original submittal on a similar site on Arey's Pond. He addressed the lighting. We request they be allowed one downlit light adjacent to the door on the side of the boathouse only to have it for safety reasons. We are comfortable with the 1" plank spacing if you'd like to condition it. Regarding the cupola, all but aesthetics are not impacted by this cupola. It is purely an aesthetic component to the boathouse. He read the aesthetics portion of the bylaw. Mr. Payson asked, can is be reduced in size? Mr. Lyttle responded, yes. It could be conditioned that it can't be open to the floor below. Ms. Henson said it is a fact that it adds structure and height to an existing building. Ms. Bruce said the cupola makes the building more visible. She doesn't agree with the cupula and the downlit light. Mr. North said this is Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage (LSCSF) and there is evidence of erosion on the site. To me it will function as a CES but I heard what you said about the damage that would be caused by removing the concrete. Ms. Farber asked what the next step is. Mr. Lyttle said ZBA filing and then MEPA filing. MOTION: A motion to close the public hearing was made by Jerry Wander and seconded by Ginny Farber. VOTE: 7-0-0 Unanimous MOTION: A motion to approve the project attaching the Conservation Commission findings and standard conditions and with the special conditions that there be 1" spacing on the deck boards, there will be no exterior lighting with the exception of one downlit light on the side door, pile driving activity be restricted to Nov 1- Apr 1, and review of final construction plans by the Agent occurs was made by Jerry Wander and seconded by Ginny Farber. References: Ryder & Wilcox Project Narrative 2/26/24; Comment letter by Ryder & Wilcox 1/18/24; Ryder & Wilcox Site Plan 2/26/24; coverage calcs 2/26/24; demo and construction notes 2/26/24; letter MA DMF 2/26/24 VOTE: The Commission began voting (KJ, GF, JW — Yay, JB, DH, WN — Nay). Mr. Lyttle stopped the vote and asked the Commission to condition the project with no cupola instead of denying the project. Mr. Jannell interjected to say that there were a number of things considered to be an improvement to the resource area, if you are considering nay votes I suggest you consider that only under the local bylaw. This project needs to go on and get MEPA approval so I will need details on why you have voted nay. If you want to condition the project, we can also do that. Ms. Bruce said she would change her vote if the cupola was not on the project. Ms. Farber withdrew her second. Mr. Lyttle requested that the Commission move forward in a manner that allows them to approve the project. The Commission decided to move forward by doing an entirely new motion. MOTION: A motion to approve the project attaching the Conservation Commission findings and standard conditions and with the special conditions that there be 1" spacing on the deck boards, there will be no exterior lighting with the exception of one downlit light on the side door, pile driving activity be restricted to Nov 1- Apr 1, and review of final construction plans by the Agent occurs, the removal of the cupola from design plans was made by Jerry Wander and seconded by Ginny Farber. References: Ryder & Wilcox Project Narrative 2/26/24; Comment letter by Ryder & Wilcox 1/18/24; Ryder & Wilcox Site Plan 2/26/24; coverage calcs 2/26/24; demo and construction notes 2/26/24; letter MA DMF 2/26/24 Discussion: Mr. Rothberg said the applicant has plenty of time to come back with a revision to include the cupola somewhere along the process if they would like, VOTE: 6-1-0 WN voted nay. Eastward MBT LLC Trustee 21 Pleasant View Drive By Eastward Companies. Map 44 Parcel 151. The proposed construction of a single-family dwelling, pool, septic system, and associated hardscape. Work will occur within 100' buffer zone to the edge of Wetland. Applicant has requested a continuance to 4/2/24. MOTION: A motion to continue the public hearing was made by Jerry Wander and seconded by Ginny Farber. VOTE: 7-0-0 Unanimous Revised Plan Request Thomas & Kristy Cunningham 112 Areys Ln DEP #54-2592: The proposed revisions to the approved landscaping. Work will occur within the 100' buffer zone to the Top of a Coastal Bank, on a Coastal Bank, within Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage, and within the Pleasant Bay ACEC. David Lyttle, Ryder & Wilcox, was present and reviewed the revised plan request. The landscaping in your jurisdiction has changed. I consider this a very minor plan change, there are no planting, no grading changes, no changes to the accepted mitigation plan. MOTION: A motion to approve the revised plan was made by Jerry Wander and seconded by Ginny Farber. VOTE: 7-0-0 Unanimous Certificate of Compliance Elizabeth S. Bentley, Trustee 64 Tides End Ln DEP # 54-2394: The demolition of an existing dwelling destroyed by fire and the construction of a new dwelling and driveway, and replacement of existing septic system. Work occurred within the 100' buffer zone to the Top of a Coastal Bank and within the Pleasant Bay ACEC. Mr. Jannell reported the project is in compliance. MOTION: A motion to approve the Certificate of Compliance request was made by Jerry Wander and seconded by Ginny Farber. VOTE: 7-0-0 Unanimous Contractor Change Request Towhee Lane LLC 71 Towhee Ln DEP # 54-2533, Map 92, Parcel 60. The raze and replacement of the existing single-family dwelling, landscaping, and site restoration. Work will occur on a Coastal Bank, within the Pleasant Bay ACEC, and within the 100' buffer zone to the top of a Coastal Bank. Towhee Lane LLC 71 Towhee Ln DEP # 54-2614, Map 92, Parcel 60. The reconstruction of an existing licensed boathouse and deck in kind, increase in deck elevation of 1 foot, removal of existing walkway and replacement with elevated walkway, installation of aluminum walkway, installation of pile supported boat lifts, restoration of Coastal Bank, and increase in elevation of existing revetment. Work will occur on a Coastal Bank, within Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage, and Pleasant Bay ACEC. -Review the request by Crawford Land Management to be the approved contractor for the restoration of the Coastal Bank -Discussion of revised bank nourishment sketch by Crawford Land Management (CLM) Mr. Jannell reviewed the letter received from the applicant. He explained there was a special condition of both the OOCs to have a contractor change clause. He gave an update on the status of the project. Jen Crawford, Crawford Land Management (CLM), was present to qualify her company for the work at the subject property. She said we have been doing this work for over a decade now and have direct experience and applicable educational requirements that qualify them for this project. Ms. Bruce thought that they were certainly well qualified, but she was completely opposed to this change. She said it is a project that has not been moving forward without violations. The only reason we approved this work was because they were going to be under the direct supervision of the restoration contractor. This has nothing to do with CLM, I think it's extremely important that it be someone who has been present in all of the previous hearings and are aware of all of our concerns. She suggested they had to start from scratch if they want to switch contractors. The Commission and Mr. Jannell reviewed some of the accusations of noncompliance. The Commission and Ms. Crawford discussed the project and protocols. If CLM's plans will differ from the originally approved plans, we will need more detail on that. Mr. Jannell said we will also have to accept and update the methodology and that would have to come from the new contractor. Ms. Farber said we have an immediate need for a new contractor, and it seems as though no one has been in charge. If we were to ok the change of contractor, would it help you if we had a redacted contract, so we knew for sure that CLM was the boots on the ground person. Mr. Hilmer requested a site visit. We can schedule that for the next week. The Commission took no action and requested they be at the April 2nd hearing. CLM would like to meet them on -site. Chairman's Business Discuss Kent's Point Petition Mr. Jannell reported that he had not yet had a chance to meet with Town Counsel but that he will have an update for the 4/2 hearing. Richard Farley, property owner on Skaket Beach Rd, reported he was a user of Skaket and Nauset Beach. He thought that the work done at Nauset Beach was spectacular. Conversely, Skaket Beach has not been taken care of. He said there is decline and destruction of Skaket Beach. We have dumped construction grade sand with glass and asphalt onto Skaket Beach. The shack hasn't seen a coat of paint in 30 years, it leaks. He suggested they build sand dunes. What he intends to do is present his observations. Cynthia Benton spoke about Kent's Point. She wondered what the Kent's Point petition was and who it was turned in by. Ms. Henson responded that the petition has to do with overuse of the property and what can be done about it. It's a continuing discussion. The Commission was charged with discussing what can be done. She reviewed the steps they've taken so far. Devon, Orleans resident on Keziah's Lane, was present and came up to the podium. He said thank you for what you do as it relates to Kent's Point. He said there are people who don't respect the land, thank you for looking into this. Karl Oakes, was present via Zoom, Orleans resident. He found it difficult to hear that there are thousands of people who aren't respecting the land. There may be ignorant behaviors but that is a different thing. Education is an important aspect of managing anything. The level of understanding is very low. Discuss proposed regulations for Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage Mr. Jannell added a comment that he thought there were 4 significant storms, not just two. This edit should be made to paragraph 5. MOTION: A motion to sign and submit the letter to DEP during the open public comment period was made by Ginny Farber and seconded by Drusy Henson. VOTE: 6-0-1 Mr. Rothberg abstained. Meeting minutes of 2/20/24 & 3/5/24 MOTION: A motion to approve the minutes of 2/20/24 and 3/5/24 was made by Jerry Wander and seconded by Ginny Farber. VOTE: 7-0-0 Unanimous MOTION: A motion to adjourn was made by Jerry Wander and seconded by Ginny Farber. VOTE: 7-0-0 Unanimous The meeting adjourned at 1:16 pm Submitted by: Kristyna Smith, Principal Clerk, Orleans Conservation