TOWN OF OTIS
10/17/2016 MEETING MINUTES
Location: Otis Town Hall, One North Main Road, Otis
Conservation Commission Members present: Dave Sarnacki, Roger Meyer, Bruce Wall and Domenic Battista.
Conservation Commission Members absent: Jeff Laramy
Staff and others present: Kristen Brown Secretary; Bob Mason with MA DCR; Chris Tryon (with Berkshire Geo-Technologies); Amer Raza (MASS DOT); Mark Paulson; Steve Payuk; Elayne LeBeau; Jill Peters-Gee; 3 more undistinguishable names.
Opening items/Introduction of Commission members and staff. Dave Sarnacki opened the meeting at 6:00 p.m. He noted that the meeting is being recorded. The deadline for applications for the November 21st meeting is November 1, 2016 @ 3:00 PM. The next office hours, for the November meeting, is November 1st from 6:00 – 9:00 PM. Dave introduced the members of the commission, as well as Bob Mason with MA DCR, and asked everyone to turn off/down their cell phones for the duration of the meeting.
Minutes: Dave made a motion to approve the minutes from our September meeting; RM 2nd the motion and the commission voted unanimously to approve the minutes from the September 2016 meeting.
- Public Hearing – RDA – Submitted by Francisca Heming, Dist. Hwy. Dir., on behalf of MASS DOT, rte. 23 from rte. 8 & 23 Intersection, to Otis/Monterey town line, regarding the milling & resurfacing of route 23 with hot mix asphalt. Dave opened the hearing and asked the commission if they have any questions or concerns regarding the additional area to be milled & resurfaced on route 23, no issues per site visit other than confirmation of where straw wattles are required next to the open water, applicant asked if they could use the EC that are tubes – as long as EC is installed in the areas marked on the map that has been retained and signed in this file. Dave made a motion for a -3 determination with the following conditions: EC to be installed where applicable; no work or heavy equipment in the resource area; alert OCC when work to commence; OCC can inspect for 3 years from date of approval. RM 2nd the motion and the commission voted unanimously to issue a -3 determination with the above conditions.
- Public Hearing – RDA – Submitted by Berkshire Geo-Technologies, on behalf of William & Nancy Riley, 189 Brookman Drive map 18C lot 56, regarding the demolition of an existing single family dwelling, the construction of a new dwelling, along with the installation of a jet-bat pre-treatment unit and pump chamber. A portion of this work is in the 100’ BZ of OR. Dave opened this hearing and asked representatives to address the commission; Chris Tryon (with Berkshire Geo-Technologies) was present on behalf of the applicant. Per RM, when doing the site inspection, the property pins could not be located; per Chris, he indicated on the maps where the pins are located. Per Chris, they have not had a chance to stake anything out on the project yet, and have not set any pins. Per BAW, were the pins definitely identified, and per Chris, yes, but they are likely buried. Per Bob Mason with DCR, flags need to be marked where the pins are located. Chris identified them on the plans and flagged them. Other than this, there were no other issues stemming from the site visit. Therefore, Chris will mark the pins with ribbons. The balance of the work is outside the BZ and not applicable here. Dave made a motion for a -3 determination with the following conditions: EC and flags pins must be installed and marked prior to work start, flags must be marked for the DCR pins on the N and S ends of the property; call OCC for inspection prior to work start; no heavy equipment in the resource area; all debris to be removed immediately from the resource, or covered to contain before removal; all equipment to be serviced and stored outside BZ and resource; OCC reserves the right to inspect property for 3 years from date of approval; Dave asked if any discussion, and Bruce indicated here that he would like the certified stamped copy of the plans for the file, so that we are all on the same page (as previous plans submit to our file did not have the stamp); Chris provided us with the stamped, certified copy of plans for the file, and OCC signed and stamped as acceptance to the file. RM 2nd the above motion and the commission voted unanimously to issue a -3 determination with the above conditions.
- Public Hearing – RDA – Submitted by Kelly, Granger & Parsons, on behalf of Jill M. Peters-Gee, 81 N. Gate Island Rd., map 17C lot 33, regarding the construction of an 8’ x 16’ shed in the 100’ BZ of OR. Dave invited the applicant to address the commission. Dave noted for the group, that the shed in question on this RDA, is already installed in the applicant’s yard, and part of the fence is on state property (below High Water Mark). The purpose of the RDA is to file and get into compliance, as shed was installed without permission. Dave asked Bob Mason with DCR, for his comments on the shed and he indicated that the state’s position on this RDA is that it needs to come down as it is on state property. Applicant asked the purpose of high water mark; Dave explained that the high water mark designates the property owned by MASS DCR. Dave added further, that the shed in question, is on state property, which is their jurisdiction. Otis ConCom’s jurisdiction is the BZ of OR, and implementation of the regulations set forth under the MASS WPA. Dave added further to Bob’s comments, that even if this commission approves the shed for the BZ, it is still up to the state to decide whether it can stay on their owned property r not, and their position remains that the shed will need to be moved. Applicant questioned the high water mark, and Bob explained that all land below a specific elevation, is state property, per statute in the late 1800s. Per Bob, the statute that states that no buildings nor structures are permitted on state property, is 302 CMR 12.04: No persons may maintain nor erect any structures on state property, other than camping equipment, erected in designated campsite areas, unless authorized by special use permit or boating and waterfront permit issued in accordance with CMR 12.172. Dave indicated again that this shed in high water mark area remains the decision of the state. Applicant then questioned her chapter 91 license which she believed gave her permission to have a shed, and Bob explained that Chapter 91 allows walkways, and docks, to be maintained, but not buildings and structures. Bob indicated that applicant can apply again, and ask the state for permission to have the shed on state property, by going online to the DCR website and applying for a permit for the shed, but no guarantees, and will most likely be told no, based on the statute just quoted above. Dave noted that again this is not before OCC, not our jurisdiction, we are only looking at the RDA paperwork for the existing shed in the BZ of OR. With all above being said and made clear to applicant, Dave indicated that even if he makes a motion for a -3 determination, and the commission unanimously votes for a -3 determination, applicant will still be required by the State jurisdiction on this matter, which requires her to remove from state property. Applicant indicated that there is a huge oak tree that will need to come down in order to move (or remove) the shed, as well as a row of hedges; applicant feels that environmentally, it will be worse if she has to move the shed. Dave stated that he understands what she is stating, but again, it is not the jurisdiction of this commission to decide, so it is not applicable to the impending vote, with relevance to the RDA, and the MASS WPA. That being said, Bruce asked a question: if the state demands that they take down the shed, or move it, then will applicant have to come before this commission again, with an RDA or NOI filing, to condition the work in the BZ to move or remove the shed? Per Dave, yes, they will have to file with this commission, as per usual, to do any work in the BZ of OR. Per Bruce, the applicant does not need to take trees and hedges down as the shed is a kit, as applicant admitted and explained, and can be taken apart just like it was put together. However, when applicant put together the shed, they poured concrete, so if applicant does end up having to move the shed, then they will definitely have to come before this commission, and file the correct paperwork, before doing any work, so that OCC can condition the scope of work, and make sure that the area is brought back to its natural state. Dave asked Bruce what his recommendation is and Bruce indicated that he was simply presenting the scenario to the commission and chair, to consider before making a decision on this RDA, as this is new ground since the new statue with regard to state property, which has presented a conflict, between OCC and MASS DCR. Bottom line Bruce made a motion for a -3 determination with the following conditions: if applicant has to move the shed, they will have to file and come before this commission before shed is moved; OCC reserves the right to inspect the property for 3 years from date of approval. RM 2nd the motion, and the commission voted unanimously to issue a -3 determination with the above conditions.
- Public Hearing – NOI – Submitted by Berkshire Engineering, on behalf of Thomas Gabriel, 199 Ray Hubbard, map 15A lot 81, regarding the removal of existing cottage & foundation, to allow construction of a new 3 bed., single family home on concrete foundation with basement; repair of piers on existing 1-bed. Cabin; a new well will be drilled, & decommission of the old septic, with install of a new septic; removal of outhouse; tree clearing & gravel access drive; and finally a stone retain wall will be constructed along the eastern boundary. Dave opened this public hearing and invited applicants to address the commission. Per Dave, the applicant has requested a continuance, to allow time for MESA/NHESP to make a determination of this filing, and provide all with a copy. Therefore, Dave made a motion to continue this hearing until the November 2016 ConCom meeting. BW 2nd the motion and the commission voted unanimously to approve the request for continuance until the November 2016 meeting.
- Public Hearing – NOI – Continuance – Submitted by Mark & Kirsten Paulson, 6 South Gate Island Road, map 17C lot 2, regarding the improvement of existing walkways & reconstruction of seawall in BZ and bank of OR. Dave opened this hearing and invited the applicants to address the commission. Dave opened this hearing and invited applicants to address the commission. Mark & Kirsten Paulson were in attendance for this meeting and approached the commission. Dave indicated that MESA/NHESP has reported back and that there is no issues on their end, and project will NOT present a “take” within any of their jurisdictions. Dave asked if there were any questions on the site visit, regarding equipment to be used. Per Mark, the equipment to be used will be a Bobcat E45 mini excavator, and a Bobcat T650 track loader. Mark indicated that the track loader will be used primarily to move the material down from the back area. Commission understood. The only other question was how vegetation would be handled down by the water’s edge, and the drainage on the side, which was not going to be done, original design redone to remove drainage. Mark indicated they are going to take out the current vegetation, and move them. For the ground cover, on top of the back hoe, with a mix of several indigent polyculture species. They will also have filter fabric installed for EC. Dave indicated he likes the vegetative plan, and to please make a copy of this document, and make it part of the official record for this project; Mark signed with his initials. Dave indicated that applicant is to continue with their chapter 91 license with DEP. Per the MA DEP comments on the file number sheet from Mark Stinson: if applicant does not have a chapter 91 for existing docks, seawall or headway’s, then they need to pursue with the department (MA DEP WERO). Per applicant, he believes he has a chapter 91, and if he does not, then he will pursue with DEP. Mark also indicated that he can make a copy of the chapter 91 and send to us when he locates. As for the work, will be done in draw-down, which will begin next week. Kristen confirmed that there is a chapter 91 license for the docks and sea headway and walkways for his father’s property but not his, so he will find his and send us a copy for the file, and if he does not have one, he will apply. Dave asked if any more comments on this project, none brought forward, so Dave made a motion to issue an order of conditions with the standard conditions, including submission of the planting plan for vegetation, and to follow up on chapter 91 license; RM 2nd the motion and the commission voted unanimously to approve and issue the order of conditions with the above conditions. Applicant was made aware of the 10 day appeals period, as well as requirement to file this OOC with the Berkshire Middle Registry of Deeds. Dave also reminded applicant that he would either need to send us a copy of the chapter 91 license, or file with MA DEP if he does not have a license. Mark also asked if he could pick-up the hard copy OOC when ready and Kristen agreed, and provided her phone number & email to arrange to meet with applicant to hand deliver the OOC.
- Public Hearing – RDA – Continuance – Submitted by Domenic Battista, 58 S. Lake Ave., map 18B lot 3, regarding the continuance of maintenance of 10’ x 19’ shed that was started in October of 2015. Includes cutting & nailing in the BZ of OR, and is all within existing footprint. Dave opened this hearing and confirmed that Domenic recused himself from the vote, and has moved to the applicant side of the table. Domenic immediately requested a continuance until the November meeting so that his legal counsel can review this hearing. Dave made a motion to continue this hearing until the November meeting per request of applicant; BW 2nd the motion and the commission voted unanimously to continue this hearing until the November 21, 2016 meeting.
- Public Hearing – NOI – Continuance – Submitted by Justin Hyland, on behalf of Steve Cloud, 257 Brookman Drive, map 18C lot 32, regarding the rebuilding of existing dock in the same footprint on OR; techno metal posts will be used for the footings/pilings. Dave opened this hearing and invited applicant to address the commission. Justin was not in attendance and requested a continuance until the next meeting. Dave made a motion to continue this hearing until the November meeting; Bruce asked what the holdup is on this hearing and Kristen responded that applicant is trying to compile the info that the commission requested for this NOI, such as better scope of work, maps, plans, pictures and more specifically, all details on the project. Bruce said thank you and RM 2nd the motion and the commission voted unanimously to continue this hearing until the November 21, 2016 meeting.
- Stephen R. Payuk, 21/23 Oak Lane, map16B lot 14, regarding the installation of 2 decks within the resource area without prior approval from Otis ConCom. On this agenda as applicant has 10 business days from 7/18/16 to provide OCC with issued paperwork for the work done in the BZ. On this October agenda as a reminder to follow up with Mr. Payuk. Dave opened this hearing and invited applicants to address the commission. Per email from Chris Tryon, with Berkshire Geo-Technologies, he has been contracted by Mr. Payuk, to resolve this matter, and has requested a continuance until the November 2016 meeting, to be able to get all the ducks in a row, with regard to the requirements of this commission, and Enforcement Order. Dave made a motion to continue this hearing until the November 2016 meeting; RM 2nd the motion and the commission voted unanimously to continue this hearing until the November 2016 meeting.
- Normand & Elayne LeBeau, 61/67 North Gate Island Road, map 17C lots 19 & 30, regarding the unapproved work and/or alteration of the BZ of the OR; work done in the area that which under OOC issued for DEP File 254-0280, special condition 28, was supposed to stay vegetative buffer. Continued from September agenda due to owners’ inability to attend last meeting; on October agenda for follow up. Applicant requested a continuance for this hearing, as she is out of state and unable to attend this meeting. Dave made a motion to continue this hearing until the November 2016 meeting; BW 2nd the motion and the commission voted unanimously to continue this hearing until the November 2016 meeting.
Forest Cutting Plans:
Extensions of Orders of Condition:
Certificate of Compliance Requests:
- Discuss the schedule for 2017 – Dave made a motion to continue this until next meeting since all members were not in attendance this evening; RM 2nd the motion and the commission voted unanimously to continue this until November.
- Discuss the Special Conditions for approval for both RDAs and NOIs – Dave made a motion to continue this until next meeting since all members were not in attendance this evening; DB 2nd the motion and the commission voted unanimously to continue this until November.
- Discuss the obtaining of an alternate member (or 2) for back-up – Dave made a motion to continue this until next meeting since all members were not in attendance this evening; DB 2nd the motion and the commission voted unanimously to continue this until November.
Next office hours: Tuesday, November 1, 2016 from 6-9 p.m. at Otis Town Hall.
Next meeting: Monday, November 21, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. at Otis Town Hall. Meeting adjourned at 7:19 PM.