HomeMy Public PortalAboutConservation Minutes 2012-03-06 Orleans Conservation Commission
Town Hall, Nauset Room
Hearinq Meetinq, Tuesdav, March 6, 2012 dr
PRESENT:; Judith Bruce, Chairwoman; Steve Phillips, Vice-Chairman; Bob Royce;
Adrienne Pfluger; Jamie Balliett; Jim O'Brien (Associate Member); John Jannell,
Conservation Administrator.
ABSENT; James Trainor
8:30 a.m. Call to Order
Continuations
Last Heard 1/3/12 (SP1, J132)
Charles Silbert, 40 Gesner Road. by East Cape Engineering, Inc., Assessor's Map
42, Parcel 91. The proposed removal of an existing dwelling, construction of a single
family dwelling, garage, and installation of a new water line and paved driveway. Work
will occur within 100' of the Edge of Wetland, Top of a Coastal Bank, Salt Marsh, Land
Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage, and the Pleasant Bay A.C.E.C. John Jannell
reported that a letter had been received asking the hearing be continued to March 20,
2012.
MOTION: A motion to continue the hearing to March 20, 2012, was made by Bob Royce
and seconded by Jamie Balliett.
VOTE: Unanimous
Notice of Intent
Peter A MacBride, 19 Gosnold Road. by Ryder &Wilcox, Inc, Assessors Map 45
Parcel 12. The proposed after the fact cutting in a view easement and proposed
restoration plantings. Work occurred and will occur within the Pleasant Bay ACEC, on
a Coastal Bank, and within 100' of the Top of a Coastal Bank. David Lyttle of Ryder &
Wilcox, Inc. and Peter MacBride, the applicant, were present. Steve Phillips asked
when the cutting of the view corridor had occurred, and asked if the applicant thought
that the view easement allowed the clearing of a view. Peter MacBride said that the
cutting had occurred in November of 2010, and he was unaware of the location of the
Coastal Bank in relation to the area that had been cleared. Judith Bruce clarified that
the applicant did not realize that the cutting area was within jurisdiction, and Peter
MacBride apologized that he was unaware of the buffer zone to the resource area.
Steve Phillips stated that when the Commission conducted the site visit, evidence of
previously cut cedar and pine trees were noted, as well as trimming of the bayberry
plants. Steve Phillips asked that the planting plan include canopy species to replace
what was cut in addition to the proposed bayberry bushes. Judith Bruce explained that
the Commission wanted to see the area restored, and Steve Phillips brought up a photo
provided to the Commission by an abutter asking for the area to be fully restored to its
original state. Peter MacBride explained that after a walk through with the Conservation
Administrator, 12 pitch pines, 4-6 small oaks, 2 small black cherry trees, and 1 cedar
stump were counted. David Lyttle asked if the area mowed annually could be
incorporated into an Order of Conditions allowing the applicant an annual mow and
trimming of the existing field. The Commission suggested that the applicant propose a
view corridor within the view easement so that they could have a defined area that the
applicant wished to maintain. Peter MacBride asked how a view corridor would impact
the view easement agreement which he had with his neighbor. Adrienne Pfluger asked
if the view easement was a legal document, and Peter MacBride said yes. Judith Bruce
explained that a view easement did not give permission to cut within the resource area,
but that a view corridor associated with an active Order of Conditions allowed the
applicant to maintain a specific view to the resource areas, and provide screening from
the resource areas to the house. Peter MacBride asked if the view easement and the
view corridor could be the same, and David Lyttle showed the applicant a sketch
depicting the present view easement versus the area which the Conservation
Commission had jurisdiction. Peter MacBride was concerned about planting trees
within his view easement and within 25 years these trees blocking his view. Steve
Phillips explained that the Commission wanted the area restored, and Judith Bruce
explained that planting only one species would not provide diversity. Jamie Balliett
suggested that if the applicant replaced trees on site, that the oak trees be planted
outside of a proposed view corridor. David Lyttle asked if a planting plan comprised of
bayberry, pitch pine, cedars, and another shrub or groundcover would be acceptable to
the Commission. Adrienne felt that the suggested plantings would be acceptable, and
David Lyttle asked how many trees should be proposed. Jamie Balliett suggested that
the applicant plant more cedar trees and pitch pines versus oak trees. Judith Bruce
stated that some trees would have to be within the corridor, and David Lyttle asked that
the hearing be continued for two weeks to March 20, 2012, to prepare a view corridor
plan and planting plan.
MOTION: A motion to continue the hearing to March 20, 2012, was made by Jamie
Balliett and seconded by Bob Royce.
VOTE: unanimous
Joseph Bouqhan, 4 Cole Place. by Schofield Brothers of Cape Cod, Assessor's Map
36, Parcel 21. The proposed construction of a pool. Work will occur within 100' of the
Edge of Wetland. Laura Schofield of Schofield Brothers of Cape Cod went over the
existing conditions on site, explaining that removal of invasive species would be
incorporated into mitigation proposed for the pool. Judith Bruce brought up the
presence of a vernal pool within the wetland, and John Jannell explained that there was
a certified vernal pool located behind the abutting property on Cole Place, and that the
buffer would be considered vernal pool habitat. Judith Bruce said that when the vernal
pool was located within the wetland, the buffer for the wetland is used as the vernal pool
boundary, and asked if the vernal pool had been delineated on site. Laura Schofield
said the vernal pool could be located on site per the Commission's request. Judith
Bruce asked about the pool fence, and was concerned that critters from the vernal pool
would fall into a chlorinated swimming pool. Laura Schofield explained that the pool
fence would allow for critter passage, and a cobblestone lip could be put around the
pool resulting in the vernal pool species hitting the wall instead of going into the pool,
making them turn away. Steve Phillips asked if the amount of fence could be reduced,
and Judith Bruce asked if the pool could be moved closer to the house. Judith Bruce
asked if on the plan the silt fence versus the proposed fence be better illustrated, and
Adrienne Pfluger suggested that the first two paragraphs of the narrative be eliminated.
Laura Schofield asked if the Conservation Department had a delineation on file for the
vernal pool, and John Jannell said the Department did not. Laura Schofield explained
that the pool could not be shifted too close to the house, as it would result in the loss of
a cedar tree. Laura Schofield went over potential changes to the plan, which included
the limit of work and pool fence be pulled in tighter, the vernal pool delineated along
2
with a distance from the vernal pool to the proposed work, and a cobblestone lip
installed to prevent critters from falling into the pool. Laura Schofield asked for the
hearing to be continued for two weeks to March 20, 2012, to make the necessary
changes.
MOTION: A motion to continue the hearing to March 20, 2012, was made by Jamie
Balliett and seconded by Adrienne Pfluger.
VOTE: Unanimous
Sarah Bartholomew, 6 Harvevs Lane. by JM O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. Assessor's
Map 43 Parcel 98. The proposed construction of an addition, patio, screened-in porch,
and deck onto an existing dwelling. Work will occur within 100' of the Edge of Wetland.
John O'Reilly, of JM O'Reilly &Associates, Inc., went over the proposed plan, stating
that the deck would be located within 68' of the Edge of Wetland and the sunken patio
within 55' of the Edge of Wetland. Judith Bruce was concerned that the 75' buffer was
not shown on the plan, and brought up her concern that the Commission did not
advocate construction within the 75' buffer. John O'Reilly explained that the area where
work was proposed was existing lawn, and drywells were proposed throughout to thwart
any runoff from going into the wetland. Judith Bruce asked if the addition could be
moved further back, and Steve Phillips asked if the addition could be altered or tucked
to move it outside of the 75' buffer. John O'Reilly brought up that the concerns were the
current locations of the existing house and the septic system. Judith Bruce asked if the
naturalized buffer could be restored, and Steve Phillips asked if the proposed patio
would be dry-laid. John Jannell asked if the proposed timber wall would be a rail road tie
wall or cast block. John O'Reilly asked Sarah Bartholomew, the applicant, if either the
patio design or the wall design had been decided, and she said no. Jamie Balliett
stated that the proposed addition was modest, but asked that the applicant consider a
no mow zone or providing plantings to protect the buffer to the resource area. John
O'Reilly asked that the hearing be continued for two weeks to March 20, 2012, to
discuss the Commissions suggestions with the applicant and prepare a revised plan.
MOTION: A motion to continue the hearing to March 20, 2012, was made by Jim
O'Brien and seconded by Jamie Balliett.
VOTE: Unanimous
Jim O'Brien left at 9:1 lam
Town of Orleans, Quanset Road. by GHD Inc.. The proposed repair of an existing
culvert. Work will occur within 100' of Meadow Bog Pond, Little Quanset Pond, Land
Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage, Edge of Salt Marsh, and the Pleasant Bay A.C.E.C.
Mark Budnick, Manager for the Highway Department, went over the existing conditions
on site, stating that this repair was necessary due to the pipes deteriorated state and its
proximity to a water main. Judith Bruce asked if they would need to stop flow from
Meadow Bog Pond in Order to install the pipe, and if there would be a concern about
water backing into Sarah's Pond as a result. Mark Budnick felt that the work would be
able to be done during a drought period; they would wait until the water table dropped,
or they would use sandbags to stop the flow. Judith Bruce felt the proposed usage of
plastic as a replacement would be good given the increase in salinity in Meadow Bog
Pond. Judith Bruce asked why the culvert would not be replaced entirely, and Mark
Budnick explained that at this time the cost made the replacement prohibitive. Judith
Bruce brought up the proposed rip rap, and asked if there was a better option to avoid
3
damaging the salt marsh. Mark Budnick suggested that he could either use larger rip
rap or gabion blocks to build up the side. Steve Phillips asked if tidal flow in either
direction was a concern, and Mark Budnick did not believe that tidal flow occurred.
Judith Bruce asked if the Mark Budnick had looked at grant funding from the Salt Marsh
Charitable Foundation. Mark Budnick explained that this repair was to protect the water
main for now, and grants or additional funding would be sought the next step for the
culvert was determined. Jamie Balliett was concerned that during the repair of the
culvert it would be discovered that it would result in more degradation. Mark Budnick
asked the Commission if he would be able to remove a portion of the deteriorated pipe
to accurately get a view of the damage and see how much pipe would be needed to
repair it. Adrienne Pfluger asked if this was considered an emergency repair. Mark
Budnick explained the repair came about as a result of the drainage improvements
being made; the location of the water main was the biggest concern as it was within feet
of the culvert. John Jannell explained that the hearing could not be closed at this time
as the Conservation Department was not in receipt of a DEP number. Mark Budnick
asked if the plan should be revised if they chose to use gabion blocks instead of rip rap.
John Jannell asked a revised plan be provided to demonstrate this change, and Mark
Budnick asked to continue the hearing for two weeks to March 20, 2012, to prepare
these changes, and provide the Commission with the results of his preliminary look into
the pipe to determine the level of degradation. Steve Phillips felt the partial removal of
the section of pipe would answer questions the Commission had regarding the overall
condition of the pipe.
MOTION: A motion to continue the hearing to March 20, 2012, was made by Adrienne
Pfluger and seconded by Jamie Balliett.
VOTE: unanimous
Certificate of Compliance
Wharton & Kathi Whitaker (2002), 77,78479 Towhee Lane. The request for a
Certificate of Compliance for an Order of Conditions for the demolition and removal of
an existing house; construction of a new house with additions; upgrading of an existing
septic system serving a single family dwelling and two cottages; construction of a new
driveway, grading, alterations to landscaping features, installation of a walkway,
changes to the entranceway, and air conditioning units. John Jannell went over the file
history of the Order of Conditions for DEP# SE 54-1621, explaining that the property is
largely in compliance for the construction of the house and the subsequent planting
around the house. John Jannell passed photos around of the site, and Bob Royce felt
that the Commission could close the Order of Conditions. David Lyttle explained that
the restoration work done to the Coastal Bank was under a separate Order of
Conditions. David Lyttle stated that the property was currently under agreement, and
once the growing season was in full swing, Wilkinson Ecological Design would file for a
Certificate of Compliance for the bank restoration.
MOTION: A motion to issue the Certificate of Compliance was made by Jamie Balliett
and seconded by Bob Royce.
VOTE: Unanimous
Enforcement Order
Vivian Robinson, 7 Wildflower Lane. Discussion of the prepared Enforcement Order
for violations on 7 Wildflower Lane. Christine Mann of Classic Landscape and Masonry
represented the company that had done the work on the property and on the town road.
4
John Jannell reported that the work completed on the driveway and within the wetland
was not approved under the previously approved Notice of Intent. John Jannell went
over the outlined requirements within the Enforcement Order, which included a
statement that a restoration plan be provided and required returning the area to its
natural state. Christine Mann inquired if this plan should be done by a landscape
architect, and where she would be able to obtain a copy of the plan showing the
approved work on site. Judith Bruce said yes, and explained that a landscaping plan
outlining how the area would be restored would be required; a copy of the approved
plan for the deck was available either in the Orleans Conservation Department or from
Felco Engineering who had represented the applicant. The Commission looked over
the draft copy of the Enforcement Order, and agreed with the required filing date of
March 19, 2012, for the April 3`d hearing. Jamie Balliett was concerned that the amount
of time given to the applicant was limited, and Steve Phillips was concerned about the
lack of representation for the applicant outside of the Landscaping Company. John
Jannell explained that he had received e-mail correspondence from the applicant who
was aware of the hearing, and that a restoration plan requirement would be discussed.
Judith Bruce inquired what part of the driveway was located on town property, and John
Jannell explained that it was a portion. Christine Mann asked if a driveway would have
been permissible if it was proposed, and Judith Bruce explained that the Conservation
Commission could not give permission to construct anything on town property. Bob
Royce asked why the landscaping company had taken a bobcat into the wetland across
the street, and John Jannell suggested that they were trying to create a swale. Jamie
Ballieft inquired about assigning fines, and John Jannell stated that failure to comply
with the Enforcement Order and the subsequent March 19th deadline would allow for
fines to be assessed at the Commission's discretion.
MOTION: A motion to issue the Enforcement Order was made by Jamie Balliett and
seconded by Adrienne Pfluger.
VOTE: Unanimous
Administrative Reviews
Elaine Downs, 58 Tonset Road. The after the fact construction of a chain link fence.
Work occurred within 100' of the Top of a Coastal Bank, Land Subject to Coastal Storm
Flowage, and the Pleasant Bay A.C.E.C. John Jannell reported that this fence was
discovered during a site visit for 64 Tonset Road, and the application was the result of a
letter sent asking Elaine Downs to file an After the Fact Administrative Review for work
within the buffer zone to the resource area. John Jannell also stated that the owner of
64 Tonset Road, Phillip Metzidakis, suggested during a hearing that he would replace
the chain link fence with split rail fence as mitigation for his unpermitted work. John
Jannell reported that he was unaware if Elaine Downs and Philip Metzidakis had spoken
about the proposed fence replacement suggested during the February 7, 2012 hearing
for 64 Tonset Road. Adrienne Pfluger asked if the proposed mitigation would be to
replace the entire chain link fence, and or just to the 50' buffer. John Jannell reported
that Philip Metzidakis proposed to replace the chain link fence up to the 50' buffer line.
Judith Bruce asked if the chain link fence could be fixed for critter passage by cutting 2'
off along the bottom of the fence, and thought that Elaine Downs may not want to
remove the fence for privacy concerns. Judith Bruce appreciated that the applicant
quickly filed the After the Fact Administrative Review, and asked if John Jannell could
hold the application until he spoke with the applicant. Adrienne Pfluger recalled that
5
someone had offered replacing the fence with shrubs. John Jannell stated that he
would speak with Elaine Downs and put the filing on a future agenda.
Betsv Furtnev, 71 Pochet Road. The proposed removal of one portion of a deck and
installation of another potion of deck and stair. Work will occur within 100' of the Edge
of Wetland and Uncle Harvey's Pond. Work to be done by Tom Hughes. Tom Hughes,
representative for the applicant, was present. John Jannell explained that this
application was for the removal of 128 square feet of deck, and construction of 120
square feet of deck and stairway in an area outside of the 50' buffer zone. John Jannell
asked if new sonotubes were proposed for the new deck area, and if so, could they be
hand dug. Tom Hughes explained that new sonotubes were proposed, and they would
be hand dug. Steve Phillips asked if the net change would be smaller than what
existed, and Tom Hughes said yes.
MOTION: A motion to approve this work was made by Bob Royce and seconded by
Jamie Balliett.
VOTE: Unanimous
Betsv Furtnev, 71 Pochet Road. The proposed removal of phragmites, one oak tree,
the cutting of privet, and the removal of invasives. Work will occur within 100' of the
Edge of Wetland and Uncle Harvey's Pond. Judith Bruce asked if the privet was to be
removed, and Steve Phillips asked why the oak tree was proposed to be removed.
John Jannell confirmed that the privet would be removed, the oak tree canopy hung
over the deck and house, and tupelo was proposed as a replacement. Judith Bruce
stated the site was well treed and screened from the resource area.
MOTION: A motion to approve this Administrative Review was made by Jamie Balliett
and seconded by Adrienne Pfluger.
VOTE: Unanimous
Chairman's Business
Approval of the Minutes from the Meeting on February 28, 2012
MOTION: A motion to approve the minutes was made by Adrienne Pfluger and
seconded by Bob Royce.
VOTE: 4-0-1; Judith Bruce abstained, minutes approved.
Other Member's Business
Steve Phillips asked the Commission when they would like to discuss changing the fee
structure, and Adrienne Pfluger stated that she wanted a full Commission for the
discussion. Judith Bruce asked when the next time would be that the Commission
would all be present. Erin Shupenis Clerk for the Conservation Department reported
that the next time all of the Commissioners would be present would be on March 27,
2012. The Commission decided to discuss the fee schedule on March 27, 2012.
Administrator's Business
John Jannell reported that he circulated correspondence from Bev Carney.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:08am
Respectfully submitted,
Erin C. Shupenis, Principal Clerk, Orleans Conservation Department.
6