

Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
The minutes of a conservation commission meeting held on march 27, 2017. The meeting covered various topics including approval of minutes, request for determination of applicability, notices of intent, and other business. The main focus was on a proposal to rebuild a patio and landscaping at 5 melville walk, which involved discussions about the stability of the retaining wall, equipment access, and conditions for issuing a negative determination.
What you will learn
Typology: Lecture notes
1 / 3
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Present: Scott McIsaac- Chair, Bob Mosher, Bob Hidell, Laurie Freeman, Loni Fournier- Conservation Officer Absent: Adrienne DuBois, Paul Hall, John Morrissey
The meeting was called to order at 7:26 PM.
Approval of Minutes Motion: Commissioner Freeman motioned to approve the minutes from the March 13, 2017 Commission meeting. Second: Commissioner Hidell In Favor: All Opposed: None
Request for Determination of Applicability 5 Melville Walk Applicant: Dawn Martel Representative: John Cavanaro, Cavanaro Consulting, Inc. Proposed: Patio rebuild & landscaping
The applicant is proposing to remove the existing 827sf brick patio and replace it with a new 908sf stone patio containing an outdoor fireplace, kitchen, and island counter. The existing 140sf staircase will be replaced with a new, reconfigured 195sf staircase. Most of the work is located in the 100ft buffer zone. A portion of the patio and walkway improvements are located within the 50ft buffer zone. All of the hardscaping is located outside of the flood zone. New plantings are proposed between the coastal beach and the patio. The plantings will be placed on both sides of an existing retaining wall and along the northwestern property boundary, within the 50 and 100ft buffer zones. Those plantings located on the side of the existing retaining wall, closest to the coastal beach, will be located within the flood zone. The proposed plantings will be native coastal species.
Staff visited the site on 3/23/17. The proposed improvements will are located in an area that is maintained as patio and lawn. The raised portion of the yard, between the house and the retaining wall is flat. The area between the retaining wall and the coastal beach slopes towards the water. The retaining wall appears to be in good condition. The proposed improvements should not impact the resource areas.
John Cavanaro (Cavanaro Consulting) and Sean Papich (Landscape Architect) were present to discuss the application. Applicants Dawn, Tom and son, Spencer, Martel were present. Andrew Schlossberg and Hillary Plummer, of 2 Alice Walk, were there in support of the project. J. Cavanaro reviewed the project. One goal is to reconstruct the straight large stairway, bringing people down to the reconfigured patio area and terrace. A second goal is to remove portions of lawn and replant these areas with native seaside plants and shrubs. S. Papich described in further detail the proposed hardscaping (bluestone) and landscaping. Commissioner Hidell asked how stable the retaining wall was. The applicants and S.Papich concurred that it was built in 2005 and was stable.
The Conservation Officer asked if the applicants had a plan for how they would get equipment to the site. D.Martel replied that she had spoken to Frank Corrado, the contractor, who said that they would be able to bring in all the equipment from the front of the house down along the side of the house. The C.O. included a condition that no equipment, materials, or dumpsters are permitted on the lower part of the lawn, closest to the beach; that’s the most
fragile area of the property and it could be a tempting storage or setup area. The Commission agreed that the proposed project, with conditions, could be issued a negative determination. Motion: Commissioner Freeman motioned to issue a Negative Determination for the proposed work at 5 Melville Walk and adopt the findings of fact a and b, and conditions 1 through 5 of the staff report.
Findings: a. The project meets the requirements of Part 1, Section 7.1 of the Town of Hingham Wetland Regulations governing procedures for a Request for Determination of Applicability. b. The work described is within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act (M.G.L. c. 131, §
Notices of Intent 171 Otis Street – DEP 034-1282, continued from 1/9/ Applicant: Gary Jacobson Representative: David Ray Proposed: Reconfiguration of existing pier & floating docks
Since the last meeting, staff discussed the possibility of a peer review consultant with the Commission and the representative. The applicant decided not to pursue a peer review and will instead revise the plans. The applicant requested to continue to 4/24/17.
2 Planter’s Field Lane – DEP 034-1284, continued to 4/10/ Applicant: Feeley Realty Trust Representative: Mark Manganello Proposed: Subdivision
The Conservation Officer explained that the applicant was offering a site visit for the Commission and the public on 4/1/17. The applicant would like the Commission to see the site before they return with revised plans. The C.O. has plans that were submitted on March 17, 2017 which have been commented on by the Peer Reviewer, Paul Brogna. The C.O. reviewed and answered a few questions regarding the plans and the ‘cart path.’ Commissioner Freeman asked about the wetland values and the C.O. explained that they are fairly extensive and also have connectivity to the Hingham Harbor.
Other Business