Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-02-13 Conservation Commission Minutes 1 North Andover Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes February 13, 2019 Members Present: Louis A Napoli, Chairman, Albert P. Manzi, Jr., Vice Chairman, Jr., Joseph W. Lynch, Deborah A. Feltovic, Douglas W. Saal and Sean F. McDonough Members Absent: John T. Mabon Staff Members Present: Jennifer A. Hughes, Conservation Administrator and Benjamin Curell, Field Inspector Meeting came to Order at: 7:04 pm Quorum Present. Pledge of Allegiance Acceptance of Minutes  A motion to accept the minutes of January 23, 2019 as reviewed and amended is made by Mrs. Feltovic, seconded by Mr. Lynch.  Vote 5-0 Unanimous. Small Project NACC #228, 534 Boston Street (Gutman)  The Administrator states the filing is for the removal of seven trees within the 100-Foot Buffer Zone. Additional tree removal is proposed but is outside of the 100-Foot Buffer Zone. Trees #1 & #2 are considered a hazard to the house and power lines. Trees #3 & #4 are large pines with insect damage at the base. Trees #5 & #6 have been recommended to be removed due to their age. Tree #7 is completely dead and she recommends be topped with the remainder to be left for habitat purposes. A site visit was made and the project description is accurate. Due to the amount of trees being removed the Administrator recommends replanting around the wetland.  The Commission discusses the trees to be removed outside the jurisdictional area.  Mr. McDonough enters the meeting room.  Daniel Gutman the homeowner states some replanting will be done near trees #4, #5 and #6 for privacy reasons. They are only looking to remove trees that are a dead, diseased or dying. He states no yard expansion is proposed.  A motion to accept this as a Small Project L is made by Mrs. Feltovic, seconded by Mr. Lynch.  Vote 5-0 Unanimous, Abstention; Mr. McDonough.  A motion to approve the Small Project Permit as proposed with conditions for no machinery in the wetland, no damage to surrounding trees and a requirement for replanting and a post construction inspection is made by Mrs. Feltovic and seconded by Mr. Lynch.  Vote 5-0 Unanimous, Abstention; Mr. McDonough. Documents  Small Project Application Checklist w/Supporting Documents Request for Determination of Applicability 492 Sutton Street (Lawrence Municipal Airport)  Mr. Napoli recuses himself from the discussion due to a conflict of interest, Mr. Manzi steps in as chair.  Randy Christensen, Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. presents on behalf of the applicant. He states this request is to continue vegetation management at the Lawrence Airport previously 2 approved under an OOC issued in 2006. A COC for the OOC was issued in 2008. The project was very large as it was the first time a whole scale clearing of the airport had been completed. This RDA only entails the management shown on the Year 1 Plan, funding for year 1 will come from MassDOT. All of the maintenance is within previously approved vegetation management areas. The layout will be provided by Stantec and full time resident inspection by Stantec of the selected contractor for the work. There will be 16 acres herbicide application, heavy mowing in the uplands and selective hand clearing of saplings in some wetland areas. The proposed work shown will be completed by June 30, 2019. A 5 year plan is presented showing all the maintenance proposed for the next 5 years.  The Administrator questions how the applicant will come back for the rest of the 5 year plan.  Mr. Christensen states funding will guide the remainder of the project and explains the new DEP guidelines of the vegetation management plan process. The revised plans reflect the recent runway 5/23 project.  The Administrator suggests notification prior to the start of any of the components, strict compliance with what was proposed and post cutting treatment inspections.  Mr. Lynch questions what type of herbicide will be used.  Mr. Christensen states they used to use a foliar application. They now either drill a small hole or open up a temporary wedge with a hatchet and fill the void with herbicide. He states a glyphosate will be used. He states the MSDS safety sheets have been provided.  Mr. Manzi asks for a progress update on the original project from 2006.  Mr. Christensen points out the green and purple areas shown on the plan. These were the vegetation management areas that were clear cut in 2006. The process was very successful, it has not grown back into a wooded swamp. The shrubs have created a dense vegetative cover. They were unable to eradicate buckthorn.  Mr. Lynch questions if they have noticed the introduction of any other invasive plant species. He would like the continuation of cooperative invasive control.  Mr. Christensen states they are now seeing Russian olive on this site as well as other sites in the region. The companies that might get the contract have done similar work on the invasive plant species before.  Mrs. Feltovic questions how many trees will be treated with the new application and once injected how long will it take for the tree to die.  Mr. Christensen states they have approximately 300-400 sapling targets at the 23 end and 100 at the 5 end. The injection takes place before leaf on. They typically see a sickly leaf generation the first growing season with no leaf generation the second season.  Kalens Herold, 25 Matthews Way questions the safety of the herbicide application for children and animals and how the communities around the area will be notified. He requests if trees are to be cut near the Matthews Way area to let the community know.  Mr. Christensen states there is no pre-spray notification because of the contained application. The application is completely safe the way it is proposed. The product being used is a recommended herbicide for use in wetlands and watersheds by the State of Massachusetts. The application will not occur near Matthews Way. The homeowners association will be contacted when the work is to take place to notify the residents.  Mr. Lynch states the people who will be performing the work will be certified for this type of work.  A motion to issue a Negative Determination #2 & #3 with conditions as discussed (preconstruction notification, strict compliance with the guidelines, invasives management and post treatment inspection) is made by Mrs. Feltovic, seconded by Mr. Lynch.  Vote 5-0 Unanimous, Recused: Mr. Napoli. Documents  Request for Determination of Applicability Letter, dated January 14, 2019 prepared by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. 3  WPA Form 1 - Request for Determination of Applicability w/Supporting Materials  Application Checklist for Request for Determination of Applicability  Notification to Abutters w/Abutters List  Vegetation Management Plan Yearly Operation Plan Update, dated September 2017 prepared by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.  WPA Form - Extension Permit for Orders of Conditions #242-1347, dated February 19, 2010  WPA Form - Order of Conditions #242-1347, dated March 8, 2006  Year 1 & 5 Year YOP Plans, dated January 15, 2019 prepared by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. Boxford State Forest, Boardwalk #5 (Friends of the North Andover Trails)  Glen Aspeslagh, Friends of the North Andover Trails states the filing is for the final boardwalk on the Bay Circuit Trail reroute. The trail has been relocated away from Sharpners Pond Road and the missile site area. The boardwalk is needed due to exceptional rain in 2018. They are working with DCR to grade part of the trail as a fire road. The pre-built boardwalk will be brought on-site, placed on sleepers and nailed together.  Mr. Lynch comments that the boardwalk will bring more people to see the value of the wetlands and the forest. He compliments FONAT on their good work.  A motion to issue a Negative Determination #2 as proposed by the Administrator is made by Mr. Manzi, seconded by Mrs. Feltovic.  Vote 6-0 Unanimous. Documents  Attachment A, Project Description – BSF Boardwalk #5, dated January 15, 2019  Bay Circuit Trail Committee Support Letter for BSF Boardwalk  DCR Support Letter for BSF Boardwalk, dated December 16, 2018  WPA Form 1 – Request for Determination of Applicability, dated January 27, 2019 2 Blueberry Hill Lane (Gehlot)  The Administrator states the filing came to the Conservation Department in the form of a gas/propane permit. Originally the owners wanted to put the tanks on the side of the house near the chimney. This location was in the No-Disturbance Zone and they were told they needed to consider alternatives. This filing is for the installation of an underground propane tank outside the 50 No-Build Zone. Dig Safe was consulted to ensure the locations of the utilities in the front yard.  Siddharth Gehlot, property owner is present for questions.  Mr. Lynch steps out of the meeting room.  A motion to issue a Negative Determination #3 as with requirements for erosion control and pre and post construction inspections is made by Mr. Manzi, seconded by Mrs. Feltovic.  Vote 5-0 with 1 abstention (Mr. Lynch). Documents  WPA Form 1 – Request for Determination of Applicability, dated January 23, 2019  Application Checklist for RDA w/Supporting Documents  Final Tank Sketch  As-built Site Plan RDA Application 43 Scott Circle (Assefa)  Jack Sullivan, Sullivan Engineering Group presents on behalf of the applicant. This is an After the Fact filing to provide corrective work to stone fill brought in to the site for the expansion of the driveway. The work was within 50 feet of a wetland which is a potential Vernal Pool. The plan shows a 3:1 slope, loamed and seeded as well as plantings and wetland markers. Some of the stone outside of the 50-foot No-Build will be allowed to stay but will be regraded to a 3:1 slope. 4 A small fieldstone wall will be constructed at the 25-foot No-Disturbance Zone to the wetland to serve as a permanent line of delineation.  Mr. Manzi questions if a barrier is needed to protect the Vernal Pool.  The Administrator states the wall could be extended the length of the restoration area to protect the potential Vernal Pool. The wetland markers are to be attached to the wall or posts installed at the wall. Full size Ink Berry and Blueberry bushes are to be planted vs. the dwarf species that were proposed in the plan.  A motion to issue a Negative Determination #3 with conditions as recommended by the Administrator (full size plantings, wetland markers, stone wall barrier, trenched siltation fence erosion controls, pre and post construction inspections) is made by Mr. McDonough, seconded by Mrs. Feltovic.  Vote 6-0 Unanimous. Documents  RDA Project Summary prepared by Sullivan Engineering Group, LLC  WPA Form 1 – Request for Determination of Applicability, dated January 28, 2019  Application Checklist for Request for Determination of Applicability  Notification to Abutters w/Abutters Report  RDA Plan, dated January 25, 2019 prepared by Sullivan Engineering Group, LLC 0 Great Pond Road, Lot 3 (LRC Builders, LLC)  The Administrator states due to the frozen ground conditions she and the Field Inspector were unable to confirm the entire delineation.  Tony Capachietti, Hayes Engineering Inc., presents on behalf of the applicant. The parcel off of Great Pond Road was divided into 4 lots in approximately 1999 and a common driveway was created. The original plan with the proposed work is present to the Commission. He states that much of the work was completed. In 2002 they appeared before the Commission with an As-Built Plan showing the gravel driveway on Lot 3 going up to the approximately the 100-foot Buffer Zone line. They came back once again in 2004 for a Request for Determination of Applicability which was received but no work was done. They are coming before the Commission with a new buyer, LRC Builders. They are looking to construct a 1,700 square foot single family house. The application is for the construction of a crushed stone driveway in the same location that was previously disturbed. The area has started to grow back in with some saplings and brush. They are looking for utility construction in the driveway and water service up the front of the lot. The proposed driveway stays out of the 25-foot No-Disturbance Zone with a small encroachment in the 50-foot No-Build Zone.  The Administrator states the original Notice of Intent lacks a Certificate of Compliance. She states alternatives should be provided for the driveway since it is within the 50’ NBZ and that the Commission may want to consider a permanent barrier.  Mr. Capachietti states they are looking to file for COC for the work done on Lot 3. He states it would be difficult to file for COC’s for the other lots as they are under separate ownerships.  The Administrator states the initial lot has a PCOC but the last two lots do not. She states the Commission might entertain the idea of a PCOC but feels it would be good to close out the project.  Mr. Capachietti states they are willing to see if they can coordinate with Lot 4. This would require the signature of the owner of Lot 4 which is he is unsure if they will be able to obtain. If they are unable to obtain the signature of the owner of Lot 4 they will proceed with a PCOC.  Mr. Lynch expresses his concerns with the prior permit not being closed out and if the project is indeed an RDA. He states the Commission needs to hold the project to the new standards and regulations. 5  Mr. Manzi also states his concerns with the scope of work being classified as an RDA, he feels it falls under an NOI. After reviewing the photos provided the regrowth of the trees further indicates the scope of work does not fall under an RDA.  Mr. Napoli questions if this is the original developer, as a home cannot be built on another person’s permit.  Mr. Capachietti states it is a new developer to the project and a new filing.  The Administrator states the work was permitted as an RDA back in 2004. If the driveway is to remain in this location the Administrator states there will need to be some stormwater management on the slope. Similar driveways have pitched to a swale with stone check dams to prevent water from running onto the common drive.  Mr. Capachietti states the proposed driveway will be a pervious driveway the entire way. Other crushed stone driveways they have worked on in the past are typically pitched to one side. They over dig one side by two feet to create an infiltration trench that will run along the side of the driveway that it’s been pitched to. The trench would be sized to handle the 100 year storm. He questions if the Commission would entertain this idea.  Mr. Lynch states they would want as much infiltration as they can and to be conscious of the steepness of the trench along with the possibility of check dams.  The Commission states that another permit cannot be considered with an open OOC.  Mr. McDonough questions if there's one OOC for all the lots or if each lot has a separate OOC.  The Administrator states there are only two lots left without COC’s. If they allow a PCOC for Lot 3 it leaves the burden of the COC on the owner of Lot 4.  The Commission states the applicant needs to apply for a Full Final COC and then file an NOI for Lot 3.  Oleksandr Stupnytskyi, 855 Great Pond Road (Lot 4) states his concerns with road access to his property during construction. He has concerns with a large rock where the common driveway opens to Great Pond Road. The rock creates a blind spot when entering the roadway.  Mr. Lynch explains the applicant needs to file for a Notice of Intent. Another meeting will be held to discuss the proposed work and abutters concerns.  Mr. Capachietti states there will be no excavating in the common driveway and that Mr. Stupnyskyi will be critical in helping to get the Final COC as the owner of Lot 4.  The Administrator explains the benefits of a Final COC to Mr. Stupnytskyi. She feels any concerns with the rock should be brought to the attention of the Planning Board.  A motion to issue a Positive Determination #2B, #4 and #5 as proposed is made Mr. Manzi, seconded by Mr. Lynch.  Vote 6-0 Unanimous. Documents  RDA Plan, dated January 16, 2019 prepared by Hayes Engineering, Inc.  Watershed Site Plan, dated May 17, 1999 prepared by Hayes Engineering, Inc.  Application Checklist for Request for Determination of Applicability  WPA Form 1 – Request for Determination of Applicability, dated January 25, 2019  Affidavit of Service, dated January 29, 2019  Notification to Abutters w/Abutters Listing  RDA Project Narrative, dated January 9, 2019  Planning Watershed SP Notice of Decision , dated May 7, 2004  Stormwater Management Forms, revised January 20, 2010, printed January 18, 2019 Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation 242-1741, ANRAD Request, 0 Turnpike Street (Map 9, Parcel 20) (Bay Development, LLC)  The Administrator states Mr. Hochmuth would like to know if the Commission would be interested in a site visit. A poll will be sent out to the Commission with the available dates. 6  A motion to continue until February 27, 2019 is made by Mr. McDonough, seconded by Mrs. Feltovic.  Vote 6-0 Unanimous. 242-1748, ANRAD Request, 326 Campbell Road (Welch) (Carolina Properties, LLC)  The Administrator states the project was waiting on a DEP file number. While reviewing the final plan the Field Inspector noticed old wetland flags still shown. These flags have been removed from the plan.  The Commission reviews the drafted ORAD and Special Conditions that were added at the Commission's request.  A motion to approve the delineation as shown on the plan dated February 12, 2019 as proposed is made by Mr. Manzi, seconded by Mrs. Feltovic.  Vote 6-0 Unanimous. Documents  Existing Conditions Plan, dated February 12, 2019 prepared by Andover Consultants Inc. Notice of Intent (NOI) 242-1749, 430 Osgood Street (Town of North Andover)  The Administrator states the filing has received a DEP file number. The proposal is to complete the Mills to Hills Trail with this portion of the path along the outside of the North Andover High School fields' fence. There was an Alternatives Analysis done for the project. The project has a Stormwater O&M Plan for any erosion or for anything that could possibly develop. The project requires waivers because the high school fields are within the Sub-Zones already approved.  A motion to approve the waivers is made by Mr. Manzi, seconded by Mrs. Feltovic.  Vote 6-0 Unanimous.  A motion to close and issue is made by Mr. Manzi, seconded by Mr. McDonough.  Vote 6-0 Unanimous. Documents  Alternatives Analysis, dated November 29, 2018  NOI Proposed Multi-Use Trail, dated November 28, 2018 prepared by The Engineering Corp  Multi Use Trail Site Plan, dated November 28, 2018 prepared by The Engineering Corp 242-1746, 495 Main Street, Recreation Complex (Town of North Andover)  The applicant requested a continuance via email.  A motion to continue until February 27, 2019 is made by Mrs. Feltovic, seconded by Mr. Manzi.  Vote 6-0 Unanimous. Documents  Email from jmurray@wdgrp.com requesting a continuance until 2/27/2019 242-1747, 42 Vest Way (Wieners)  The Administrator states at the last meeting the plans were approved and the waivers were voted on. A revised plan was submitted showing increased plant density and more monumentation along the driveway and the back of the lot.  The Commission discusses the proposed Order of Conditions.  A motion to close and issue is made by Mr. Manzi, seconded by Mrs. Feltovic.  Vote 6-0 Unanimous. Documents  Final CC Plan, dated February 1, 2019 prepared by Vineyard Engineering & Environmental Services Inc. 242-1745, 350 Winthrop Avenue (RDM, Inc.) 7  The applicant requested a continuance via email.  A motion to continue until March 13, 2019 is made by Mrs. Feltovic, seconded by Mr. Manzi.  Vote 6-0 Unanimous. Documents  Email from PEllison@theengineeringcorp.com requesting a continuance until 3/13/2019 General Business 242-1639, OOC Extension Request, 351 Willow Street (Muffin Realty Trust)  The Administrator states the applicant has requested a one year extension.  A motion to grant a one year extension is made by Mr. Manzi, seconded by Mrs. Feltovic.  Vote 6-0 Unanimous. Documents  Extension Request Letter, dated January 15, 2019 prepared by The Morin-Cameron Group, Inc. 242-1672, Partial COC Request, 492 Sutton Street (Lawrence Municipal Airport)  The Partial COC was discussed with the Request for Determination of Applicability.  Mr. Napoli has recused himself from the discussion due to a conflict of interest, Mr. Manzi steps in as chair.  Randy Christensen, Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. presents on behalf of the applicant. The construction is complete and reseeding was completed last fall. Complete stabilization of the site was done by October of the past growing season. All of the created paved surfaces and safety areas are in use. The reason for the PCOC is due to the relocation of the stream channel. The full flow of water has not been allowed to enter the stream and the by-pass culvert is still functioning. They feel it’s best to allow for another full growing season before allowing the full flow of water to enter the stream. Only two of the five years of the wetland replication monitoring have been completed. Some of the patches that were hydro seeded late last year have not completely grown in. The erosion controls in these areas remain while trying to achieve stabilization.  The Administrator states her concerns that Lawrence Municipal Airport doesn’t submit full as- built plans. The OOC specifies the full As-Built of the property is required for a COC. They do have monitoring reports and an As-Built Plan of the replication area. She feels an as-built of the stream location including details that were added should be provided. The applicant has filed for a one year extension due to the monitoring required on the project.  The Commission discusses the request for Partial Certificate of Compliance and the outstanding work on site.  Mr. Lynch states an as-built will be required for the work done on either end of the runway due to changing state regulations.  Mr. McDonough questions if at this point an as-built can be done on the stream.  Mr. Christensen states an as-built can be done at this time and the flow could have been dumped in right away. He felt more comfortable allowing the area to stabilize for the project to be a success.  The Administrator states the amount of the bond being held is $46,800.  Mr. Manzi states the Commission always looks at every aspect of the project and quantify it to a percentage completed and a value.  Mr. Christensen states each part of the project was a separate component. Each component was signed off on and paid separately. The only part of the project not completed is the relocated stream channel. He feels the current As-Built does not show what the Commission would want to see. It will take some time to get the As-Built completed to the Commission standards.  Mr. Manzi states before issuing a COC the Commission wants to see As-Builts and the function and finality of the stream. He would like to know what other areas of the project are 100% stable. 8  Mr. Christensen states the wetland replication area is stable and was approximately 10% of the project. The pavement is complete and was approximately 30-35% of the project. The slopes are complete but no as-built has been done.  Mr. Lynch states they place a value on areas that were proposed within the Commissions jurisdictional area. The areas in compliance are where the Commission would consider a bond reduction. He questions if there was a pay item to build the stream and if so how much was it.  Mr. Christensen states there was a pay item to build the stream but he’s not sure of the amount.  The Administrator states the amounts should be broken down to the cost of As-Built, stream and stabilization.  Mr. Christensen will file paperwork to withdraw his request for a Partial COC to a request for a Partial Bond Release.  A motion to continue to February 27, 2019 is made by Mr. McDonough, seconded by Mrs. Feltovic.  Vote 5-0 Unanimous, Recused: Mr. Napoli. Documents  Record Drawings, dated March 23, 2016 prepared by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.  As-Built Drawings, dated March 2018 prepared by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.  Partial COC Request Letter, dated January 14, 2019 242-1382, COC Request, 1820 Turnpike Street (GFM General Contracting)  The Administrator reviews the project with the Commission and states the fence is to be installed this weekend weather permitting.  A motion to continue until February 27, 2019 is made by Mrs. Feltovic, seconded by Mr. Manzi.  Vote 6-0 Unanimous. 242-1632, COC Request, Interstate 495 (MassDOT)  The applicant requested a continuance via email.  A motion to continue until February 27, 2019 is made by Mrs. Feltovic, seconded by Mr. Manzi.  Vote 6-0 Unanimous. Documents  Email from amy.lynch2@state.ma.us requesting a continuance until 2/27/2019 242-0639, COC Request, Osgood Street at Holt Road (MassDOT)  The applicant requested a continuance via email.  A motion to continue until February 27, 2019 is made by Mrs. Feltovic, seconded by Mr. Manzi.  Vote 6-0 Unanimous. Documents  Email from amy.lynch2@state.ma.us requesting a continuance until 2/27/2019 242-1655, COC Request, Wellington Way (Messina Development)  This discussion is tabled to the end of the meeting.  Mr. Manzi has recused himself from the discussion due to a conflict of interest.  Greg Hochmuth, Williams & Sparages presents on behalf of the applicant. He states that a COC request was submitted for the Wellington Woods subdivision project. The project has been completed but there are two outstanding issues. The Vernal Pools on the site were required to be investigated for certification. This was done but no evidence was found although Steve Eriksen, Norse Environmental, admitted it was a variable weather year. The applicant has an agreement with Williams Sparages to perform these services again in the spring. There is a small area that was loomed late in the season and is still not permanently stabilized. There was a change made to some of the drainage. Chambers were installed in lieu of the prior BMP, all are working well. The applicant has spoken with the Planning Board, Town Engineer and the DPW all of which are 9 satisfied. The applicant would like the Commission to issue the COC so he can pursue street acceptance. They typically instruct clients that they can't get a COC until the project is in compliance but feels this is a unique situation.  Mr. Lynch states that the project isn’t ready. He doesn't understand why the process of getting the project on the warrant and to the floor of Town Meeting can’t be done without the COC. He states prior to the date of Town Meeting the Conservation Commission can state that an OOC was issued on a specific date when the project is in compliance.  The Administrator states she would like the Vernal Pools to be looked at when it’s an appropriate time. She does not feel the process should be rushed. A conversation was held today with the Planning Director and she encouraged the applicant to keep moving forward with getting his street acceptance documents in. The Planning Board has a checklist for street acceptance and by regulation one of the required items is a COC. The Administrator has been in contact with the Town Engineer who has been monitoring the project. He believes it’s currently functioning but would like to see how it’s operating come the spring.  The Commission discusses prior street acceptance projects.  Mr. Napoli states he’s spoken with Mr. Borgesi and that he’s not comfortable until the project has gone through one season. He states there are a half dozen items to be done before the project will be ready for a COC.  Mr. Hochmuth states it’s his understanding that the only outstanding issues are the Vernal Pool certifications and a small area that hasn’t grown in.  The Administrator states the entire entrance to the development is still not permanently stabilized.  Mr. Lynch states he’s not comfortable issuing a COC for a project that isn’t in compliance.  The Administrator states there will be a stop dead date which the applicant will need the COC. At that time the situation can be reevaluated to determine the best steps to move forward to allow for street acceptance. Street acceptance should not drive the Commission to issue a COC.  The Commission discusses the project and whether they feel a COC should be issued at this time.  A motion to continue until February 27, 2019 is made by Mrs. Feltovic, seconded by Mr. McDonough.  Vote 5-0 Unanimous, Recused Mr. Manzi. Documents  Request Letter for Certificate of Compliance, dated December 19, 2018  As-Built Plan, dated December 12, 2018, Revised February 11, 2019  Request Letter for Certificate of Compliance, dated February 6, 2019 Enforcement Order/Violation 116 Marbleridge Road (Holland)  The Administrator states the site was a renovation of an existing house with an addition permitted under DEP File #242-1638. A wall was built in the No-Disturbance Zone as required and there was a Buffer Zone restoration, there is no COC on file. The home was sold and the new owner has constructed a patio in the 50-foot No-Build Zone which was noticed while reviewing a generator permit. The existing As-Built Plan is presented to the Commission with hand drawn dimensions of the patio by the homeowner. She states the homeowner has been very cooperative in working towards a resolution.  Mr. Andrew Holland the homeowner is present for questions.  The Commission reviews side by side aerial imagery from 2014 and 2017.  Mr. Lynch questions if the Administrator knows how far off wetland flag A5 the patio area is and the age of the home.  The Administrator states she thinks it’s approximately 10 to 15 feet.  Mr. Holland states he thinks it’s approximately 6 to 7 feet. The house was built in approximately 1924. 10  Mr. Manzi confirms the 1 story garage already existed which is protruding into the No-Build Zone. He questions if there is any activity in the backyard where the wall is open.  The Administrator states that some of the asphalt from the driveway was removed and a planting area was added near the garage. There is no activity where the wall is open but there is a Vernal Pool. The wall is a physical barrier and the gap was allowed by the Commission. The area was restored as part of the OOC. The Administrator is unsure why the OOC was never closed out as there is very little that was not done.  Mr. Lynch states the patio is considered landscaping not a structure. The Commission would require a physical barrier. There is a barrier around the patio area as well as a barrier wall to the Resource Area.  The Administrator states that an Alternative Analysis would have been required and that not much of the parcel is available for a patio.  Mr. Holland states they didn’t have many options on the placement of the patio due to the driveway location. They were unaware of the process and would have taken proper measures if they had known.  Mr. Lynch questions what materials the patio is made of.  Mr. Holland states the retaining wall was continued with the same material which is loose fieldstone. The patio was constructed of flat concrete pavers which were pitched to prevent water from pooling.  The Commission discusses if an After the Fact RDA is the right vehicle for the work performed and if it will require an Alternative Analysis.  A motion to issue an Enforcement Order requiring an After the Fact Request for Determination of Applicability is made by Mr. Manzi, seconded by Mr. Lynch.  Vote 6-0 Unanimous. Documents  Aerial Imagery dated April 20, 2014 and May 3, 2017  Violation Letter, dated February 4, 2019 422 Waverly Road (Jensen) (Logue)  Mr. Manzi & Mr. Lynch were not present for the vote.  A motion to continue until February 27, 2019 is made by Mr. Saal, seconded by Mr. McDonough.  Vote 4-0 Unanimous, Not Present Mr. Manzi & Mr. Lynch. 43 Scott Circle (Assefa)  The Enforcement Order was discussed with the Request for Determination of Applicability.  A motion to issue an Enforcement Order requiring restoration of the 50-foot No-Build Zone, wall and planting as proposed is made by Mr. McDonough, seconded by Mrs. Feltovic.  Vote 6-0 Unanimous. Documents  Existing Conditions Plan of Land, dated October 3, 2018 prepared by Sullivan Engineering Group, LLC Adjournment  A motion to adjourn at 9:30pm is made by Mrs. Feltovic, seconded by Mr. Lynch.  Vote 6-0 Unanimous.