Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCONSERVATION 09162013_201311191510CONSERVATION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16, 2013 Present: Joseph Mulkern, Chairman; Michael Healey, Vice Chairman; Ryan Maxwell; Christopher Marcheselli; Carole Matthew; Katelyn Merrill, Conservation and Environmental Planner. 1. Meeting opened at 7:00 pm. 2. Request for Determination of Applicability: Charles Penney, 94 -96 Pratt Street, Map 22, Parcel 124. Mr. Penney, the homeowner, was present. The Request for Determination of Applicability was filed for the construction of an 8'x29', 2 -level deck with 5 footings. The footings will be approximately eight feet off the building. Ms. Merrill explained the previous deck was removed because of damage, making it a safety hazard. The footings will be within a previously developed parking area and will be approximately 65 feet from a Bordering Vegetated Wetland. Ms. Merrill said she does not have any issues with this project and recommended a Negative 3 Determination — work will not alter an area subject to protection — be issued. Mr. Healey made a motion to issue a Negative 3 Determination for 94 -96 Pratt Street, Map 22, Parcel 124 for the construction of an 8'x29', 2 -level deck with 5 footings, plan "Proposed Open Deck 94 -96 Pratt Street, A2 ", received 8/28/2013. Mr. Marcheselli seconded the motion. Motion passed 6 -0 -0. Hearing ended at 7:03 pm. 3. Notice of Intent: Steven and Marybeth Olsen, 16 Kybren Circle, Map 15, Parcel 283. DEP #211 -0908 Ralph Maloon, RIM Engineering Co., Inc. and Steven Olsen were present Mr. Maloon explained the Notice of Intent was filed for the installation of an 18'x36' in- ground pool with a 6- foot apron and fencing around the perimeter of the pool within 100 feet of Bordering Vegetated Wetlands. Mr. Maloon showed the 25 -Foot No Touch Area on the plan. The pool will be on the right side of the house on existing lawn. Mr. Maloon said the entire backyard is a wetland. Ms. Merrill walked the wetland line and agreed with the delineation. She said the edge of the wetland is located at the tree line in some areas. The existing deck is just inside the 25 -foot No Touch Area so siltation controls are proposed outside this area. She said during the site visit she noticed hardscaping, gravel and landscaping has been done to the right of the house, along the back of the property, which is not shown on the plan. Because in the past there have been discrepancies when As- Builts are submitted, she suggested before the pool is installed that the existing landscaping be shown on the proposed plan so there is a record of what actually exists and what will be approved under this filing. Ms. Merrill said this property was permitted under a sub - division Notice of Intent, #211 -631, in April 2000. The original Notice of Intent only showed an exclusive use area without specific house design. There are two areas of concern: on the northern part of the plan there is an existing shed; behind the shed is a small pathway where grass clippings and debris have been dumped in close proximity to the wetland line and it also appears clippings and debris have been dumped on the Kybren Circle Open Space Area to the edge of the 11 wetland. This will have to be addressed in the Order of Conditions. Because there are no patios or hardscaping proposed on the plan, Ms. Merrill said the applicant needs to be aware that if the application is approved, it is for the pool and fencing only, not for decks, patios, walkways, etc. Ms. Matthew asked if the pool filtration system would be self- contained or if backwashing would be necessary. Mr. Maloon said he believes it will be a salt water system. Mr. Olsen said it will be sand with salt -based chlorinator and will be self- contained. Ms. Merrill said the board could make this a special condition. Mr. Healey said the lawn area will be excavated for the pool as well as the re- location of the gas line. The topography shows this area slopes down towards the resource area and the siltation controls as proposed will not prevent erosion from the excavated area. Mr. Healey proposed that the siltation control be extended to return towards the street. Mr. Olsen said the ground where the pool will be located will be terraced down about 28 -30 inches to drop it down lower; he will not be raising the land to install the pool. He plans to be able to walk out onto a patio and then walk down a set of stairs to the pool area. Mr. Healey said if the existing grade is cut down by a couple of feet how will the banks be supported? Mr. Olsen said there will be a retaining wall. Mr. Healey said the retaining wall as well as the patio and re- grading is not shown on the plan. Ms. Merrill said any work like this would be within jurisdiction and any structures, decks, patios, retaining walls, steps and walkways would have to be shown on the plan. She stated that when the project is complete, an As -Built plan would be submitted with the request for a Certificate of Compliance and it would not match what was submitted with the application. Mr. Marcheselli said the patio is not shown on the plan. Mr. Olsen said there is currently no patio, the area is still lawn. Ms. Merrill said a complete plan needs to be submitted showing what exists at the property and the proposed scope of all work. Mr. Olsen said he is waiting for a final design until after this hearing because he was told the pool might have to be moved. Mr. Turnbull said he is mainly concerned with the siltation controls but he would like to see the proposed structural work of the retaining wall. Mr. Mulkern asked about the grass clippings and debris. Mr. Olsen said the debris has been cleared from these areas but the grass clippings remain. Ms. Merrill said the grass clippings can stay and be left to break down but Mr. Olsen should discontinue dumping at this point. Ms. Matthew asked about signage. Ms. Merrill said that signs could be included as a special condition. She explained that when work is done in close proximity to the resource areas, the board can require signage be placed to prevent any further disturbance. Ms. Matthew inquired about signage for the open space area. Mr. Maloon said when the sub - division, Patricia Marie Village, a residential compound, was built, signs were not a requirement. Mr. Olsen asked if any work proposed in the lawn area could be started. He said he would like to have the pool installed as soon as possible so it can settle over the winter and the pad done in the spring. He said if it snows in November the cement for the pool cannot be poured and all work will be delayed until spring. Ms. Merrill said he cannot start any work because the plan does not show exactly what work is planned; the proposed grade changes and additional structures are not detailed on the plan and without seeing the entire scope of work, an Order of Conditions cannot be issued. Ms. Merrill said she would work with Mr. Olsen and review any information he submits as quickly as possible. Mr. Healey made a motion to continue the hearing for 16 Kybren Circle, DEP #211 -0908, to October 21, 2013. Ms. Matthew seconded the motion. Motion passed 6 -0 -0. 2 4. Request for Certificate of Compliance: Nasiff Almeida, 4 Kell Lane, Map 40, Parcel 285. DEP 11211 -0891. At the September hearing, Ralph Maloon, RIM Engineering Co Inc., presented a Request for a Certificate of Compliance for the installation of a pool and associated appurtenances. After Ms. Merrill reviewed the As- Built Plan, it was apparent that there were deviations from the approved proposed plan and what existed: the elevations on the proposed plan did not correspond with the As Built plan; portions of the play area were still in the 25 -foot No Touch Zone; a chain link fence had been installed around the parameter of the property that was not shown on the plan and small portion of the pool apron was within the 25 -foot No Touch Zone. Mr. Almeida was asked to submit a request for an Amended Order with a revised plan showing the appropriate elevations and to relocate the signs to reflect the originally approved plan. RIM Engineering submitted the Request for an Amended Order with a revised plan showing the deviations from the originally approved plan, the corrected elevations, and the relocation of the sign near the shed. Ms. Merrill originally thought the lawn area had been expanded but concluded it had not, that it was pre - developed and existed prior to this application. The sign located behind the existing shed has been moved closer to the shed. The fence, play area and pool are located within a previously developed lawn and Ms. Merrill does not believe this is a major impact to a resource area. She said Mr. Almeida has submitted all the documents requested by the board and satisfied all the issues called out at the August meeting and she recommends the request for a Certificate of Compliance be approved. Mr. Healey made a motion to issue a Certificate of Compliance for 4 Kell Lane, DEP SE 4211 -0891, "As -Built Location Plan at HSE. No. 4 Kell Lane in Mansfield, MA, dated July 17, 2013, revised August 28, 2013. Mr. Marcheselli seconded the motion. Motion passed 5 -0 -1 (Ryan Maxwell abstained). Hearing ended at 7:31 pm. 5. Request for Certificate of Compliance: ion Cowell, 19 Mary Dee Lane, Map 39, Parcel 97. DEP #211- 0884. Mr. Cowell and Dave Hobiaca of Easton Pool and Spa were present. Mr. Cowell said the Order of Conditions was issued April 23, 2012 for the installation of an in- ground pool, patio, fence, and a pool mechanics area with related grading within the 100 ft. buffer zone. Ms. Merrill said she had contacted Jane Cote from Easton Pool and Spa to discuss the deviations from the original plan and what actually exists. When the request was submitted, there was no As Built included because in error, there was no special condition asking for one. The following discrepancies from the approved Order were noted: 1) the pool fence was extended to the limit of the erosion controls on the southwest side of the pool; 2) The original approved plan shows the new fence ending at the corner of the addition. The existing fence is enlarged and extends to the corner of the existing house; 3) There is a gravel apron surrounding the pool patio area, and a retaining wall with steps was installed on the northeast portion; 4) signage was not placed in previously approved locations. While these changes from what was proposed and what exists would not increase the impacts, these changes need to be on record. Ms. Merrill said an As -Built plan needs to be submitted to reflect the existing changes and if the board does not have issues with what is existing, they can request that Mr. Cowell submit a Request for an Amended Order with an As -Built plan to show the existing conditions. 3 Ms. Matthew asked if there was an increase in pervious area. Ms. Merrill said it was existing lawn prior to the work, so she does not see any change in impervious versus pervious, this is gravel versus lawn. Ms. Matthew asked about the signs; three permanently installed metal signs were to be placed every 50 feet along the 25- foot No Touch line. Ms. Merrill said the signs are actually in the wetland. Mr. Marcheselli asked that it be made clear to Mr. Cowell what is required so he does not come back to the next hearing and is continued again because he needs something else. Ms. Merrill said everything stayed within the limit of work and there was no change between pervious and impervious surface so she does not have any concerns. This is just to have a correct plan of record. Mr. Turnbull made a motion to continue the hearing for Jon Cowell, 19 Mary Dee Lane, DEP SE 4211 -0884, to October 21, 2013. Ms. Matthew seconded the motion. Motion passed 5 -0 -1 (Ryan Maxwell abstained). 6. Notice of Intent: Sean McGuire, McGuire Landscape Company, 493 West Street, Map 8, Parcel 20. DEP #211 -0907 Mr. Marcheselli left the meeting at this time The Notice of Intent was filed for the construction of an addition on the existing house and to prepare an area for landscaping within 100 feet of Bordering Vegetated Wetlands and the 200 -foot Riverfront Area. The hearing was continued from the August 2013 meeting and a Stormwater Checklist and revised plan were submitted August 28, 2013. Mr. Maloon, RIM Engineering Co., Inc., and Sean McGuire of McGuire Landscaping and the potential buyer of the property at 493 West Street, were present. Mr. Maloon said when he originally submitted the Notice of Intent, the stream was designated as a perennial stream. Mr. Maloon has since observed and documented the stream to be dry for four consecutive days. He has submitted four photographs showing the stream to be dry and he believes the stream on site is intermittent and therefore is not subject to the Riverfront Area performance standards (310 CMR 10.58(2)(a)1.a. through c.). Mr. Maloon has provided the drainage calculations for the site. Because of the home occupation, changes to the plan are a row of planted shrubs along the driveway to provide a screen for the neighbors. Mr. Maloon provided a picture showing the concrete forms stored to the edge of the wetlands. He said the area impacted by the concrete forms needs to be re- graded and loamed and seeded. In the drainage calculations, Mr. Maloon considered the form area to be a "poorly draining lawn" for the hydrology calculations. It changed the calculations from under the 50% gravel and to over 70% from a poor lawn to a good lawn which easily made up the difference of run -off from the roof line from the site. Ms. Merrill said at the last meeting there were questions regarding the applicability of the Stormwater Management Standards at this site. She said this proposal is a little different because it is a residential property with an exceeding use of a single - family dwelling so some of the standards can apply and the Commission needs to decide if what Mr. Maloon has submitted addresses all the issues. She said she believes it does. She thinks Mr. Maloon is right that the increase in pervious surface from the roof will be recharged within the increased impervious area from the removal of the concrete forms. She asked if the stormwater from the roof will be directed to drywells. Mr. Maloon said drywells are not proposed. 0 Ms. Merrill said the bigger issue is the stockpile area and the resulting run -off and whether or not pre- treatment is needed. At this time, the board does not know exactly what materials will be stored on site so they can't determine if any pre- treatment is necessary. She said if stone materials were stockpiled on site, she would be concerned about stone dust and the size of the stone. Mr. McGuire said he will store mulch, loam and % -inch, washed stone. Ms. Merrill asked if the proposed fence would be dug in. Mr. Maloon said the fence was proposed because it would be permanent and will be installed down gradient from the stockpile area and flush with the ground to provide a barrier to prevent bulk material run -off to the wetlands. Mr. Mulkern suggested a concrete barrier be used. Mr. McGuire said concrete blocks could be used, the grade in the area built up and a berm with shrubs added to this area. Ms. Merrill said an earthen berm would be a better solution. Mr. McGuire said all materials to be stockpiled would be on the hill side of the property. Regarding the Riverfront, Ms. Merrill said it is at the Commission's discretion to review the credible evidence presented that within four consecutive days of the year, not during wet or extreme drought, the stream was found to be dry, therefore it is intermittent. She said a few days after Mr. Maloon took the photographs, the area was still dry so she feels this stream does have periods of not flowing. She said the stream is shown on the USGS Topography Maps as a perennial stream. Mr. Healey asked if the USGS shows the pond. Ms. Merrill said no because the pond is generated by drainage from many recent sources. Mr. Healey referenced the man -made platform located at the inlet to the pond and asked if it would be considered a dam; a lot of the interpretation of an intermittent or perennial stream is if a man -made control structure is involved.. Ms. Matthew said the following issues need to be addressed: Is it an intermittent or perennial stream; there is no Stormwater Management; the wooden fence. Ms. Merrill said Mr. Maloon submitted an abbreviated Stormwater Checklist, and after speaking with Christine O'Diaga at DEP, it was decided this was the proper way to address the Stormwater Management for this site. Mr. Turnbull said he was concerned about the fence because if there is a lot of run -off, it will eventually go underneath the fence. Mr. McGuire said a berm or a flowerbed could be used as a border instead of the wooden fence and asked if it should be extended towards the street. Mr. Turnbull commented that he wasn't too concerned since the stockpile area would be located in bins. Mr. McGuire said any run -off from this area would have to cross 20+ feet of gravel before it hit the berm. Ms. Merrill noted that Mr. Maloon had mentioned early in discussion that the lawn area is to be re- graded. She wanted to verify that the lawn area was only to be re- seeded not re- graded. Mr. Maloon replied that it was something he wanted to add. Mr. Maloon noted he referenced Stream Stats to determine if the stream was perennial or intermittent. He said the area of land that feeds that section of the brook is .15 square miles. He explained that if you have over a square mile, it is definitely an annual river but if it is between .50 and 1 square mile, you have to study it to see if it is a river because there is no definition for anything under .50 square miles. Mr. Healey said this information is from a national unaffected watershed, it does not have a dam on it or a pond behind it. He said he does not know how to interpret this information. When he looked at this site, along the driveway and over where the existing shed is, it was all standing water and he could not tell if it was moving or not. He said under CMR 310, 10.5(a) 2(a)(1), when surface water is not flowing within an intermittent stream, it shall be determined to be flowing. It may remain in isolated pools or it may be absent when surface water is present in 5 contiguous or connected pool /ripple systems, but it shall be determined to be flowing. This is clearly a high energy stream and there is not a lot of fine material left at the bottom. Mr. Maloon agreed; when he originally filed the Notice of Intent, he assumed it was a river because of the gravel bottom. Mr. Maloon said there are no boards in the dam to control the height of the water. Ms. Merrill said if you have a man -made restriction then the four days of consecutive drought do not apply. She said Mr. Maloon has determined the river is intermittent but if the Commission thinks it is a perennial stream, then a more thorough Alternatives Analysis will have to be done to show any alternatives the applicant could take that would be less of an impact. She said this could be easily met because there are actual benefits to the cleaning up process. She said this project could also be considered re- development; the applicant is not developing much of the Riverfront Area so it would fall under the criteria of 10 %. Ms. Merrill said the board can accept Mr. Maloon's assessment that the river is intermittent and go forward, addressing the other issues, but if they believe that the river is perennial, a more detailed Riverfront Alternative Analysis review would have to be done and this project would have to meet the design standards for the Riverfront Protection Act. She said the board needs to decide if the Riverfront Protection Act does apply and address the stormwater issues: Should the applicant build a berm or go further with stormwater devices or structures? Does a more extensive Stormwater Checklist need to be done? Does the Riverfront Analysis apply? She believes an Alternatives Analysis could be submitted within the parameters of the performance standards of the Riverfront Protection Act with this project. She said the Stormwater Check List that was submitted does not propose any pre- treatment because the applicant is saying the area that is being reclaimed from the removal of the concrete forms is enough of a recharge area to make up for the area that will be taken up by the stockpile area and the addition. The proposed wooden fence would basically be the pre- treatment for the run -off from the stockpiles before it enters the resource areas. Mr. Healey said this can also be accomplished by a berm but this will not help the water quality. He said he is concerned the water quality has been adversely impacted by the concrete forms and their metal components and putting a 1,600 square foot area of highly organic material will further impact the stream. Ms. Merrill said there are issues with the run -off and recharge and asked Mr. Healey if he was suggesting pre- treatment such as 80% TSS removal or will the applicant's proposal off -set or remediate the problem. She said the issue with the forms and the metal components has been addressed in the Enforcement Order issued to the property owner. She said there are many other systems that add to this water, so the quality of the water might not be directly related to this property. Mr. Mulkern asked how much bulk material will be stored on site. Mr. McGuire said he buys 80 yards at a time and the materials will be used for summer landscaping jobs within a week of delivery. He said the materials are not stored on site year round. Mr. Healey asked how the bulk storage area will fit in with the existing topography. Mr. McGuire said the designated stockpiled area could be a raised pad to prevent the ponding of water and Mr. Maloon suggested creating a swale around the raised area so the run -off would go into the swale and then into the ground. Mr. Mulkern said one of the special conditions of the Order of Conditions could be that the site be visited within a year to make sure there are no stormwater issues. Ms. Merrill said the board needs to decide whether the stream is intermittent or perennial. Mr. Mulkern polled the board; Ms. Matthew, Mr. Healey and Mr. Mulkern agreed it was perennial. Mr. Turnbull said he feels it is an intermittent stream but because of the dam, it is hard to tell. Mr. Mulkern said a more detailed plan needs to be submitted. 9 Mr. Healey made a motion to continue the hearing for the Notice of Intent for 493 West Street, Map 8, Parcel 20, DEP #211 -0907. Ms. Matthew seconded the motion. Motion passed 4 -0 -2. Mr. Marcheselli and Mr. Maxwell abstained. 7. Request for change in submitted plan: Brian Thibault, 557 Maple Street, Map 38, Parcel 112. DEP SE 211 -0842 Ms. Merrill told the board Mr. Thibault was present tonight but was called away on an emergency. Ms. Merrill explained this project was issued an Order of Conditions on June 14, 2010 for the construction of a common driveway over a Bordering Vegetated Wetland and an intermittent stream (limited project) to access two proposed single family dwellings. The original NO1 application included a box culvert and a restoration area along the proposed driveway. One house has already been constructed. Ms. Merrill has spoken with Mark Manganello, the Wetland Monitor from LEC Environmental. The monitoring reports have been submitted since this project was approved and a final report will be submitted in the fall. She stated that everything is in compliance but indicated some of the siltation controls need to be replaced and inspected before the project can move forward. Mr. Thibault is ready to construct a single- family house on the property but the footprint for this second house is different than what was originally approved. The original proposal was for a house approximately 2,176 square feet with 1,360 square feet within 100 feet of the buffer to Bordering Vegetated Wetlands. The proposed house will be 2,600 square feet with 1,424 square feet within the 100 ft. buffer, an increase of 64 feet. Ms. Merrill said the area has already been cleared. Ms. Merrill said after reviewing the By -law with the Building Inspector, it was decided this application would fall under a Change in a Submitted Plan. It is a modification to the plan, not an amendment to the Order because the scope of work is not changing. She said there is no increase in adverse impact. If there was an increase in the footprint or a significant change that could affect the buffer zone, she would suggest an Amended Order be filed with additional conditions. She does not see the proposed modification changing any potential impacts of the approved project. This is still an active Order of Conditions and all the existing conditions still apply. Mr. Healey said this request is similar to a hearing for School Street. The feeling at that time was the board would not be comfortable speaking for an applicant that is not present. Ms. Merrill said there is nothing in the By -law that says an applicant must be present for a motion to be made and she feels that if the board is comfortable with the application and the material submitted, the board can make a decision, but if the board feels the applicant /representative must be present to answer any questions, then they can request a continuation. Mr. Marcheselli feels the applicant went through the process to request a hearing and the board could continue this hearing if there are any questions, but he does not see a need to delay an applicant for a month if there are no issues; the information for a change in the submitted plan has been provided, the agent has reviewed all the documents and he feels the board can vote on this without the applicant present. He said Mr. Thibault was unable to stay for the hearing because of an emergency. Mr. Marcheselli said it is not in the Wetland Protection Act or the By -law that this is a requirement. He said the agent would review any application and if there are issues or a submitted As Built does not match what was originally proposed, the agent would contact the applicant or representative to make the changes or additions before the hearing. Ms. Merrill said if the board has issues with this hearing, they can request a continuation but all the information necessary has been provided. Mr. Turnbull said there is a difference between this hearing and the School Street project. VA Mr. Marcheselli made a motion to accept the request for a change in the submitted plan for Brian Thibault, 557 Maple Street, Map 38, Parcel 112, DEP SE #211 -0842, as per the plan, "Sewage Disposal System, 557 Maple Street, Lot 127, Mansfield ", dated January 23, 2012 and revised June 29, 2013. Mr. Healey seconded the motion. Motion passed 6 -0 -0. B. New Business Status of Order of Conditions at 57 Williams Street (DEP SE 211 -719). Mr. Mulkern left the meeting at this time. Mr. Healey chaired this hearing Ms. Merrill said this is a compliance issue. She has drafted a letter for Joseph Mulkern to address issues with an outstanding Order of Conditions issued in April 2005 to the property at 57 Williams Street. This is a parcel of land permitted through the town for development and certain Special Conditions were not met and the Order has since expired. The Order of Conditions and other required documents related to the project were never submitted to the Registry of Deeds. Only a portion of the approved work has been completed; two driveways crossing a Bordering Vegetated Wetland, a wetland restoration area and the development of Lot 1. Lot 1 has been sold and Lot 2 remains undeveloped; the proposed house for Lot 2 cannot be built because the Order has expired. As part of the Special Conditions, monitoring reports by a wetland scientist for the wetland restoration area were to be submitted monthly for two growing seasons. These reports have never been submitted. There is a question as to whether or not there was supposed to be a box culvert or pipes installed for the two crossings. One side was approved for two 12 -inch pipes, the other side was approved for a box culvert. There is correspondence in the file indicating that the proposed and approved box culvert and 24' pipe were changed in the field by Michele Grenier, the former Conservation Agent. In a letter dated December 2, 2005, Ms. Grenier approved the installation of two 12 -inch pipes instead of one 24 -inch pipe. Ms. Merrill explained the restoration area is on Lot 1 and she is unable to access this lot because she does not have the owner's permission to enter the property. To make sure this Order is in compliance, Ms. Merrill said Town Counsel advised her to draft a letter for the Commission's review, outlining the outstanding issues with the expired Order of Conditions. The Commission should then decide what needs to be done to rectify the issues so the Order can be brought into compliance. She said Town Counsel's recommendation is to get the Order recorded and is in contact with the Registry as to how to proceed. Ms. Merrill said if it is not possible to record the expired Order of Conditions, a new Notice of Intent would have to be filed for the work already done to bring everything into compliance. She asked that the following be submitted: 1) The Order of Conditions should be recorded at the Registry of Deeds even though it is expired. Ms. Merrill) said it does have to become an encumbrance on the deed in order for it to be a valid permit and then a Certificate of Compliance should then be requested to remove the Order of Conditions from the deed. 2) An As Built of the driveway crossings showing the details of the devices that were actually installed should be submitted. 3) Since there was filling within the wetland for the crossings, a restoration area was proposed and the board was to receive monitoring reports monthly for two growing seasons. Monitoring reports by a wetland scientist should be submitted documenting the health of the wetland crossings and the restoration area to make sure there are no invasive species and the hydrology is functioning well. She said the applicant would have to work out legal rights to access the property with the current owner of Lot 1 so the restoration area can be examined. Ms. Merrill said she has been working with the owner of the property and he has contacted Outback Engineering, who did the original application, to help resolve these issues. She explained the building permit for Lot 1 was filed by the owner of that lot and the previous agent reviewed just the footprint of a house and determined it was outside jurisdiction. Ms. Merrill said it is questionable whether the lawn and retaining wall are within jurisdiction but this work probably would have fallen under a Request for Determination of Applicability because they are located 85+ feet away from the wetland. She said this filing dates too far back, the Commission only has a 3 -year window to be enforcing any retroactive actions. Joseph Mulkern, the owner of the property, said there were permits allowing for a house on both lots but he decided not to develop Lot 2. He said the previous agent walked the site and there is a letter in the file stating she approved the two pipes in place of the box culvert. He said the people that were hired to stay in compliance never followed up with the paperwork. The Notice of Intent was filed nine years ago and paperwork seems to have been lost in file. He stated that he will re- submit everything and re -file the necessary paperwork. Ms. Merrill said she went out with Mr. Mulkern to the property and everything looked fine, the connection was flowing, with no vegetation die back. She said because the work is done and there is no activity, filing for an entirely new Order to clear up the procedural portion of it does not make sense. She said if a Certificate of Compliance is issued, it will be a partial since some of the work was never completed. The proposed work cannot go forward but the board can bring the file up to date and make sure everything is functioning, and satisfy the expired Order. Ms. Merrill recommended the draft letter be issued to Mr. Mulkern. This would bring the work already completed into compliance, the Special Conditions would be met and then a Certificate of Compliance could be issued. Mr. Turnbull made a motion to issue the letter to Joseph Mulkern, 57 Williams Street, DEP SE H211 -719. Ms. Matthew seconded the motion. Motion passed 6 -0 -0. Discussion ended at 9:04 pm. 9. Old Business: Ratify the Enforcement Order for Gregory Abbott, 493 West Street Mr. Marcheselli left the meeting at this time. At the last hearing, the Commission moved to issue an Enforcement Order for the debris removal at 493 West Street. The Enforcement Order was issued to the owner, Gregory Abbott. The violations included unpermitted storage of concrete forms, trash, brush cuttings and debris within the 100 -foot Buffer Zone of a Bordering Vegetated Wetland and within the 200 -foot Riverfront Area of a Perennial Stream. The Enforcement Order requires Mr. Abbott to remove everything and once the areas have been cleared of the concrete forms and 2 debris, the void areas are to be seeded with a conservation erosion control seed mixture. Once re- established, these areas are not to be mowed. Ms. Merrill said the work has started. Mr. Healey made a motion to ratify the Enforcement Order for 493 West Street. Mr. Turnbull seconded the motion. Motion passed 4 -0 -2. Ms. Merrill asked that the Commissioners approve the allocation of funds to pay for anyone who wants to attend the MACC Workshop on November 22, 2013 and for the purchase of resources from MACC, including a copy of 310 CMR 10.00 and the MACC Handbook. This will be done at the October meeting. Mr. Healey made a motion to accept the minutes of July 2013. Ms. Mathew seconded the motion. 4 -0 -2 (Mr. Turnbull and Mr. Maxwell were not present at the July meeting). The August minutes were not signed. Ms. Matthew said paragraph 5 on page 9 is incorrect. Mr. Marcheselli asked if the property was in a Natural Heritage area. Ms. Merrill thought Mr. Marcheselli asked about stormwater management and said the project was exempt because it was a single - family home. There is no exemption for a single - family dwelling within a Natural Heritage area. The August minutes will be corrected and approved and signed at the October meeting. 30. Adjournment: Motion to adjourn at 9:10 pm: Healey /Marcheselli . Motion passed. Next meeting will be October 21, 2013. ftv. � S, n� X JOSetlh_Mulkerrl, Chairman Date to -2j-/3 IR